You are on page 1of 28

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252910210

Automated conflict resolution for air traffic control

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

81 463

1 author:

Heinz Erzberger
NASA
112 PUBLICATIONS   2,343 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Autonomy/Automation for air traffic control in the terminal area View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heinz Erzberger on 12 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


25TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES

AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION FOR AIR


TRAFFIC CONTROL
Heinz Erzberger
Senior Scientist (retired), NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035
Professor (Adjunct) of Electrical Engineering
University of California, Santa Cruz

Keywords: Air traffic management, separation assurance, conflict resolution

Abstract 1 Introduction
This paper describes a conflict resolution A reliable and efficient system for resolving
algorithm that can provide automated conflicts automatically is believed to be an
separation assurance for the next generation air essential component of the next generation air
traffic control system. The algorithm generates traffic control system. While systems for
resolution trajectories that can be sent to the conflict detection, such as Conflict Alert, have
aircraft from a ground-based system via data been used operationally by controllers for more
link. The algorithm can also be installed on than 20 years, systems for automated resolution
board aircraft. It handles the complete spectrum have not been successfully developed for
of conflict types encountered in en route operational use. Past research on automated
airspace, including ascents and descents to resolution often assumed predefined resolution
arrival fixes. The resolution trajectories consist types, primarily horizontal maneuvers [1]-[6].
of amendments and changes to flight plans Controllers, on the other hand, choose
(route changes), altitude clearances, and horizontal, altitude, or speed maneuvers to
descent speed profiles. The trajectories are resolve conflicts, and adapt their choice based
similar to those that controllers customarily on the characteristics of the conflict encounter
issue to pilots in resolving conflicts. The and on other factors. Furthermore, resolution
algorithm generates 4D resolution trajectories algorithms have been derived on the assumption
by evaluating successive alternative trial that both aircraft in conflict are flying at
resolution maneuvers. Each conflict type constant altitude and speed along straight-line
determines a set of acceptable trial resolution paths. Analysis of actual operations shows,
maneuvers and what the preferred aircraft is to however, that such conflicts constitute less than
perform the maneuver. A trajectory engine half of all conflicts encountered in complex en
generates a 4D trajectory for each trial route airspace. Another limitation of previously
maneuver, and an associated conflict detector developed resolution methods is that they are
checks it to ensure it is conflict free. If it is not, based on simplified aircraft dynamics and
the algorithm selects an alternative maneuver. trajectory models, making the resulting
This iterative process continues until a resolution trajectories difficult or impossible for
successful resolution is found. The resolution aircraft to fly accurately. None of the techniques
algorithm has been implemented and evaluated developed to date have been evaluated in
in a non-real time simulation, and its realistic simulations to determine whether they
performance in resolving conflicts for a range can effectively resolve the full range of conflict
of traffic levels is presented in this paper. that controllers handle routinely.
Results indicate that the algorithm has the The resolution algorithm described in this
potential to resolve conflicts efficiently at paper was designed for use in the Automated
significantly higher than current traffic levels. Airspace Concept (AAC) [7]. The AAC is

1
HEINZ ERZBERGER

intended to increase safety and airspace capacity


and to accommodate user preferences in flight
operations to the greatest extent possible. In this
concept, a system on the ground generates
resolution trajectories that it then sends to the
aircraft via a data link. The ground-based
system verifies that the resolution trajectories
are safe before they are sent to the aircraft.
Because controllers are not required to approve
the trajectories, the workload for controllers is
reduced, permitting traffic density to be
increased substantially. The algorithm that
generates the trajectories must take into account
the performance characteristics of the aircraft
and must be capable of resolving all types of
conflicts without requiring a controller’s
supervision and approval. Therefore, the
algorithm must be capable of producing
resolutions for the complete spectrum of
conflict encounters that controllers are able to Fig. 1. Flow chart of resolution algorithm
handle manually. Furthermore, in order to be
separation will be lost between them. The time
acceptable to pilots, the resolution trajectories
to first loss must also be provided. This time is a
should be similar to the clearances, vectors, and
parameter of great importance to the resolution
flight plan amendments that controllers
process. The time to first loss (TFL) is a relative
customarily issue to pilots in resolving conflicts.
time defined as the difference between the time
The algorithm described herein provides a
when separation is predicted to be lost and the
general method for resolving conflicts of all
current time. TFL plays a crucial role in
types in en route airspace, including conflicts
determining the priority of a conflict relative to
between descending aircraft converging at an
other conflicts. It can also influence the
arrival fix. Thus, it can be used to support any
resolution strategy.
concept or system that requires automated
The detection system must also provide
resolution, including concepts for autonomous
similarly detailed information for other conflicts
air to air resolution.
(referred to as secondary conflicts) that are
predicted to occur downstream of the primary
2 Overview of Algorithm conflict. These secondary conflicts must also be
The algorithm generates resolution trajectories resolved if they will involve either of the two
in several steps that include iteration loops, as primary conflict aircraft and if they occur within
seen in Fig. 1. The input to the algorithm is data a specified TFL. Secondary conflicts, which
for a pair of aircraft that a conflict detection occur with increased frequency in dense traffic,
system predicts will lose separation within a add complexity to the resolution process.
time interval of interest. Besides the identity of Other inputs to the algorithm are maneuver
the two aircraft in conflict, the detection system constraints. These constraints, if they are active,
also details the characteristics of the conflict. specify the types of maneuvers that should not
This information includes the flight plans, be used for resolution. Avoidance of nearby
coordinates, altitudes, and speeds for the airspace boundaries, weather cells, and
conflict aircraft at the current time and for the turbulence may necessitate such constraints.
predicted time that minimum required Another type of constraint can exclude one of
the aircraft from being chosen as the maneuver

2
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

aircraft such as a descending aircraft close to an corresponds to input data provided by RMG.
arrival fix. This function is performed by a complex
The Resolution Aircraft and Maneuver algorithm referred to as a 4D trajectory
Selector (RAMS) orchestrates the resolution synthesizer (TS). It uses detailed models of
process. As the first step, RAMS identifies the aircraft performance, operational procedures,
type of the conflict by matching its and the atmosphere, including winds aloft, to
characteristics against a master set of all conflict generate the 4D trajectories that the resolution
types. (The types included in the set will be aircraft can actually fly. This process is
described in the next section.) Once the conflict computationally and logically complex, because
type has been established, RAMS has sufficient it involves integrating point mass aircraft
information to select both the preferred equations of motion that use models of drag and
maneuver aircraft and the preferred resolution thrust adapted for each aircraft type.
maneuver. In addition to these preferred A software implementation of TS has been
solutions, RAMS determines a set of alternative developed by earlier projects primarily as a tool
resolution maneuvers and associated maneuver to support the decisions of air traffic controllers.
aircraft. Finally, RAMS prioritizes these Software implementations of TS have also been
alternative sequences by assigning preference used extensively to simulate and analyze
rankings to the alternative maneuvers and to the advanced aircraft guidance concepts. NASA has
associated maneuver aircraft. Higher priority is available two implementations of TS suitable
given to those maneuvers that are generally for this application. One TS is designed for real-
known to create less delay, and that deviate less time use in a key software process within the
from the nominal flight plan trajectory or, if Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS),
delay is not a significant factor, to those which comprises a set of automation tools for
maneuvers that follow rules controllers would air traffic controllers [8]. A different kind of TS
typically use to resolve a similar type of is also incorporated in the Advanced Concepts
conflict. The set of prioritized maneuvers serves Evaluations System (ACES), which is a non-
as a reservoir for choosing alternative real time system designed specifically for
resolutions when a particular preferred simulating advanced air traffic control concepts
resolution fails to resolve a conflict, or when it and traffic flows [9].
is found to be deficient for any of several Because of its comprehensive simulation
reasons described below. capabilities, ACES and its embedded TS were
The prioritized set of resolution maneuver chosen as the implementation and evaluation
types and associated resolution aircraft provide platform for the resolution algorithm. It should
the input to the Resolution Maneuver Generator be mentioned that work is also in progress to
(RMG) shown in Fig. 1. RMG contains a insert the automated resolution algorithm into
collection of analytical formulae and heuristics CTAS, where it will be used to simulate real-
for calculating the parameters of a simplified time interactions between the automated
resolution trajectory for any maneuver type resolution algorithm and the pilots and
specified by RAMS. RMG also contains rules controllers.
and procedures for choosing the coordinates of The RMG thus sends the parameters it
T

the return waypoint, which is defined as the calculates for the initially selected maneuver,
point where the resolution trajectory merges also called trial resolution, to the TS in ACES or
back onto the original flight plan trajectory. The CTAS. The TS then attempts to synthesize a 4D
simplified trajectories serve as templates that trajectory from these parameters. Occasionally,
provide essential input data from which the the TS may fail to produce a trajectory. One
complete 4D resolution trajectories can be example of such failure is when the RMG inputs
calculated. a request for the resolution aircraft to climb to a
The next step in the resolution process is to flight level above its ceiling. Other TS failures
generate the complete 4D trajectory that include speed changes and descents with
3
HEINZ ERZBERGER

Fig. 2. Resolution trajectory must resolve both primary and two types of secondary conflicts
constraints on range and altitude that may also 2. Second, to rule out the possible presence
cause the performance envelope to be exceeded. of secondary conflicts (which are illustrated in
In the event a failure occurs, however, the TS Fig. 2). A conflict caused by a third aircraft
sends an appropriate diagnostic message back to whose trajectory intersects the trajectory of the
the RMG. The RMG responds by selecting the primary conflict downstream is referred to as a
next-in-priority resolution maneuver and sends downstream secondary conflict. Downstream
new trial resolution parameters to the TS for secondary conflicts are encountered more
another attempt to synthesize a trajectory. frequently as the time horizon for conflict
When TS succeeds in generating a 4D detection or the density of traffic is increased. A
trajectory, it sends the trajectory to the Conflict conflict involving a fourth aircraft found along
Detector (CD) to check for conflicts. Both the trial resolution trajectory is referred to as a
ACES and CTAS contain software processes trial resolution secondary conflict. Trial
that detect conflicts by comparing the trial 4D resolution secondary conflicts can arise along
resolution trajectory against the 4D trajectories any trial trajectory, since each resolution is
of all other aircraft in the airspace of interest. designed to resolve only the primary conflict.
A conflict check of the trial resolution If the trial resolution trajectory is free of
trajectory is necessary for two reasons: conflicts for the specified resolution time
1. First, to verify that the trial resolution horizon, the algorithm promotes the trial
trajectory has successfully resolved the original resolution trajectory to the status of acceptable
(primary) conflict. Verification is necessary resolution trajectory. The ground system can
because the simplifications, approximations and now uplink this trajectory to the conflict aircraft
rules of thumb used by the RMG can introduce and, after receiving a “will comply” message
significant differences between the trial back from the aircraft, update the data base of
resolution maneuver and the accurately currently approved 4D trajectories for aircraft in
computed 4D trajectory produced by TS. These the resolution airspace.
differences can result in the primary conflict If the trial resolution trajectory is found to
remaining unresolved in the trial resolution have conflicts within the specified resolution
trajectory. time horizon, a fault message along with

4
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

appropriate diagnostic information is sent back to depend on the conflict type and other factors.
to the RMG, which will pick the next-in-priority Thus, for conflicts between arrivals converging
trial resolution maneuver and send it to the TS to the same arrival fix, RIH and CFH are set to
for synthesizing another trial trajectory. This the same time, which is determined by the time
iterative process continues until either an the earliest aircraft is predicted to cross the
acceptable resolution trajectory is found or the arrival fix, but not exceeding a maximum of 20
reservoir of available trial resolution maneuvers min. This choice of time horizon allows arrival
is exhausted. If no resolutions are found, the conflicts to be solved efficiently.
RMG has additional methods to extend the If the RMG fails to resolve a conflict when
search for resolutions as described below. the time to first loss falls below the RIH for the
Two parameters in the RMG are used to first time, the RMG will attempt another
exercise control over the resolution process and resolution when the time to first loss decreases a
to search for additional resolutions. The first specified amount, typically 2 min. This process,
parameter is the resolution initiation time referred to as deferral of resolution, is repeated
horizon (RIH) and the second is the conflict free in 2 min decrements until a resolution is found
time horizon (CFH). or until the time to first loss has decreased to
The RIH is defined as the time before the between 1 and 2 min. If still no resolution is
loss of separation is predicted to occur. It is the found, a final attempt to find a resolution is
moment a conflict first becomes eligible for made by reducing the CFH to 5 min. In the rare
resolution. For conflicts predicted by the CD, circumstance that the algorithm fails to resolve a
the time to first loss of separation can range conflict at this final opportunity, the algorithm
from immediately to a maximum of about 20 passes the conflict to a separate resolution
min. However, the further into the future the process called TSAFE (as described in the
prediction is for first loss to occur, the more references on the design of AAC [7]). TSAFE
likely it is that the conflict will be a false alarm. serves as a backup and safety net in case the
Performance studies of conflict prediction primary resolution algorithm described here
algorithms have shown that if the predicted time fails.
to first loss is 8 min or less, the prediction
accuracy is sufficient for the conflict to be 3 Resolution Aircraft and Maneuver
considered for resolution [10]. Therefore, it is Selector (RAMS)
reasonable to set the value of RIH to 8 min , and
thus defer resolutions for conflicts with a The resolution aircraft and maneuver selector
predicted time to first loss greater than 8 min. (RAMS) is an element within the algorithm that
The CFH parameter specifies the time gives strategic, top-level direction to the
interval required to free the resolution trajectory resolution process. Based on the characteristics
of conflict and will be larger than the RIH. The of a particular conflict and on the application of
larger the CFH that is chosen, however, the rules and procedures coded into it, RAMS
more difficult it becomes for the algorithm to selects the preferred aircraft to perform the
find a resolution trajectory, because of the resolution and the initial preferred maneuver to
increased likelihood that multiple conflicts will be used to construct a trial resolution trajectory.
have to be resolved. Conversely, the smaller the Although RAMS is conceptually reminiscent of
CFH that is chosen, the less likely it is that an expert system, its rules and procedures are
secondary conflicts are encountered, thus derived not only from human experts such as
making it easier to find an acceptable resolution. controllers, but also from operational insights
In simulations of the resolution algorithm and analytical studies that have revealed the
described later, a CFH value of 12 min resulted general characteristics of efficient resolution
in acceptable performance. techniques.
The software implementation of the Rules and procedures used by controllers
algorithm allows the RIH and CFH parameters to resolve various types of conflicts provided an
5
HEINZ ERZBERGER

important starting point for the development of resolutions can be more efficient than single
RAMS. However, as the development and aircraft resolutions, cooperative resolutions are
evaluation of the algorithm evolved to include more difficult to implement and, therefore, are
more complex traffic scenarios, conflict not used here. However, nothing in the structure
problems were encountered that could not be of the algorithm prevents them from being
matched easily with the types of problems added at a later time.
controllers typically solve. Complex problems As described in the algorithm overview
arose primarily when traffic densities and section, the first trial resolution strategy set
resolution time horizons were substantially specifies both the preferred aircraft and the
greater than those controllers had experience preferred resolution maneuver for the given
handling. Thus, it became necessary in the conflict. It is the aircraft and the maneuver that
development of RAMS to augment the rules and will be tried first to determine if the strategy
procedures that controllers use with rules solves the conflict. Resolution maneuvers
designed to handle these new classes of farther down the preference option list are
problems. generally less desirable and will be tried only if
The software was designed to allow for, the earlier and more desirable trial resolutions
and to simplify as much as possible, the process are rejected. The number of maneuvers in the
of modifying the RAMS rule base. The ability set depends strongly on the particular
to easily modify and augment the rule base was characteristics of a conflict.
an important design attribute for this system. It Three types of maneuvers—changes in
is likely that changing conditions in the airspace altitude, horizontal route, and speed—are used
and different applications will require the to construct resolution trajectories. In general,
software to be modified over time. each resolution aircraft is eligible to perform
From an input-output perspective, RAMS any one of the three types of maneuvers.
can be viewed as transforming the parameters However, compound maneuvers—consisting of
and other attributes of a given conflict into a two or three types of maneuvers in the same
resolution strategy. However, the resolution resolution trajectory—are generally excluded in
strategy is not a single resolution procedure but the current implementation of the algorithm.
rather a set of procedures that have been ordered This exclusion notwithstanding, the algorithm
into a preferred sequence of trial resolutions. does permit the use of horizontal maneuvers
The order of the sequence is determined by a while an aircraft is climbing or descending at
combination of relevant controller preferences the time the maneuver is initiated. Although
and by trajectory efficiency and operational compound maneuvers could contribute
considerations. Airspace user preferences are flexibility and efficiency to the resolution
incorporated in the strategy by giving process, they increase the operation’s
preference to maneuvers that minimize complexity and are not justified at this time. If
deviations from the original trajectory. Each an operational need for compound maneuvers
procedure in the set specifies both the aircraft in should arise in the future, the algorithm could
the conflict pair that shall perform the trial easily be modified to accommodate them.
resolution and the type of the resolution The resolution process starts with RAMS
maneuver to be tried. Generally, each aircraft in matching a given conflict with one of the types
the conflict pair is eligible to be selected, but in listed in the first column of Table 1. It is
the current algorithm design, only one aircraft at noteworthy to observe that 8 of the 12 conflict
a time is selected to perform the resolution types listed in the table involve at least one
maneuver. This rule excludes using cooperative arrival aircraft. An aircraft is classified as an
resolution maneuvers where both aircraft arrival in this analysis if it is either within 200
maneuver and execute their maneuvers nmi or less than 20 min from its arrival fix. An
synchronously. Although in resolving certain
types of conflicts, it is known that cooperative
6
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Table 1: List of conflict types and corresponding preferred A/C and maneuver types
Conflict Type Preferred A/C and Maneuver Sequence
Cruise vs. cruise, A/C farthest from airspace boundary or TOD: Step alt.;
crossing angle large other A/C: Step alt., min sep. turn if eligible, path stretch, speed
Cruise vs. cruise; converging, Faster A/C at First Loss: Step alt., path stretch, speed;
crossing angle small or in trail Slower A/C at first loss: Same maneuver sequence as above
Cruise vs. climb Climbing A/C: Temp alt.;
Cruise A/C: Step alt., path stretch
Cruise/Cruising arrival more than Arrival A/C: Temp alt.;
5 min from top of descent Cruise A/C: Step alt., path stretch
Cruise/Descending arrival Cruise A/C: Step alt., path stretch;
Arrival A/C: Path stretch
Climb/Climb Lower A/C: Temp. alt.;
Higher A/C: Temp. alt.;
Lower A/C: Path stretch
Climb/Cruising Arrival Climbing A/C: Temp. alt.;
Arrival A/C: Temp. alt.;
Climbing A/C: Path stretch
Climb/Descending Arrival Climbing A/C: Temp. alt., path stretch;
Arrival A/C: Path stretch
Cruising Arrival / Cruising Arrival Leading A/C at Arrival Fix: Speed increase in cruise,
(same arrival fix) faster descent speed profile;
Trailing A/C at Arrival Fix: Speed Reduction in cruise,
slower descent speed profile
Cruising Arrival /Descending Arrival Cruising Arrival: Speed, speed profile, temp. alt., path stretch;
(same arrival fix) Descending Arrival: Path stretch
Descending Arrival / Descending Trailing A/C at Arrival Fix: Path stretch;
Arrival (same arrival fix) Leading A/C at Arrival Fix: Path stretch
Arrival vs. arrival (different arrival A/C farthest from arrival fix or in cruise: Temp. alt., path stretch
fixes)

arrival fix is defined as the entry point into the table is a simplified representation of the logic
terminal area and is typically located about 30 coded into RAMS.
nmi from the airport. Any conflict pair that An examination of the preferences listed in
includes an arrival requires special resolution the second column of Table 1 reveals that for
strategies. The subclass of arrival vs. arrival non-arrival conflicts, altitude changes are
conflicts converging to the same arrival fix are favored over horizontal and speed changes as
generally the most difficult to resolve. The types the preferred initial choice for resolution
that are coded in RAMS also include types that maneuvers. This strategy is referred to as an
have been left out of the table because they are altitude-first resolver as distinguished from a
encountered infrequently. horizontal-first resolver. A comparison of
The second column shows the preferred average delays obtained for these two strategies
initial choice for the maneuver aircraft (in bold in fast-time simulations revealed a significant
type) and corresponding resolution maneuver. advantage in delay reduction for the altitude-
The second and third preferences for the first resolver. Thus, whenever circumstances
resolution maneuvers, if applicable, are also permit, all feasible altitude maneuvers will by
given in the table for some cases. The transition tried first for the preferred aircraft and then for
to the non-preferred aircraft and the the non-preferred aircraft before horizontal
corresponding sequence of trial maneuvers are maneuvers are tried for either aircraft.
given for a few important conflict types. This Resolution strategies vary considerably among
controllers, with some favoring horizontal and
7
HEINZ ERZBERGER

some favoring vertical resolutions. An altitude, horizontal position, or speed, generally


advantage of an automated algorithm is the starts with a trial maneuver that deviates the
ability to implement a strategy that provides least from the original trajectory. For each
consistent efficiency benefits. An exception to additional trial that is required to resolve the
the altitude-first rule is made for encounters conflict, the deviation from the previously tried
where one of the conflict aircraft is a maneuver is increased by the smallest usable
descending arrival. For such encounters, a increment. This principle contributes to the
horizontal maneuver referred to as a path stretch overall efficiency and operational acceptability
is used (this is explained in the next section). of the resolutions by ensuring that the
Finally, it should be mentioned that the software maneuvers will not introduce unnecessarily high
gives users the option of specifying either of the delays or large deviations from the original
two strategies. flight path unless they are required to solve the
The preferred resolution maneuvers used to conflict. (Additional details for choosing the
resolve arrival vs. arrival conflicts converging trajectories that incorporate this principle will
onto a common fix were chosen to be similar to be given in the next section.)
the proposed trajectories used to control arrival In order to provide insight into the logic in
traffic onto a metering fix. The table RAMS, the entire set of trial maneuvers, as well
distinguishes between several types of arrival as all transitions from one maneuver aircraft to
vs. arrival conflicts. If both arrivals are in the alternate aircraft, are shown in Tables 2 and
cruise, then speed changes in cruise and/or in 3 for two conflict types. They are cruise vs.
descent are the preferred maneuvers. For these cruise (not in trail) corresponding to the first
cases, the sequence order at the arrival fix helps conflict type listed in Table 1 and cruising
determine the preferred maneuver aircraft. If arrival vs. cruising arrival corresponding to the
only one aircraft is in cruise at the time ninth type. The maneuver aircraft preference
resolution is initiated, only the cruising aircraft orders and associated trial maneuvers for these
is eligible for speed changes. For an aircraft in two types were chosen because they illustrate
descent, horizontal maneuvers are the preferred, the widest difference in the resolution strategy
and only, choice. Since large speed changes among any of the conflict types.
may be difficult or impossible for an aircraft to The search for an acceptable resolution
perform while descending to an arrival fix, the trajectory begins by evaluating each of the trial
algorithm excludes the use of speed changes for altitude maneuvers for A/C A in the order
an aircraft in descent. However, the option of shown. If an acceptable resolution trajectory is
permitting small speed changes during descent not found, then the search is repeated for A/C B.
could easily be added to the logic if necessary. This process continues by moving down the
An automated method for controlling rows of Table 2, concluding with the set of
arrival traffic converging to a metering fix will speed changes for A/C B. The search is
eventually require a system that integrates terminated for the first trial maneuver
arrival scheduling, descent profile management, encountered that meets the requirements for an
and conflict resolution. The method for acceptable resolution trajectory. In the worst
resolving arrival conflicts implemented here is case, this process could require the generation
thus limited in scope and performance, but it of up to 86 trial trajectories by the 4D trajectory
provides a necessary building block for a future synthesizer. For cruise vs. cruise conflicts or
integrated design. any other type that includes at least one non-
Another important characteristic built into arrival aircraft the iteration process generally
the strategy for generating the sequence of trial succeeds in fewer than 5 trials. As will be seen
maneuvers is the principle of minimizing in a later section where performance results are
deviation from the original trajectory. This discussed, the average number of trials begins to
means that the sequence of preferred trial increase when secondary conflicts are
maneuvers, whether they involve changes in encountered more
8
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Table 3. Resolution aircraft and trial


Table 2. Total maneuver sequences for
maneuver sequence for cruising arrival vs.
cruise vs. cruise conflicts (not in trail)
cruising arrival conflicts
Maneuver Type of trial maneuver # of
A/C options Maneuver Type of trial maneuver # of
A/C A Increase altitude up to two 5 A/C options
flight levels above cruise level A/C A Increase cruise speed in up to 3
3 increments
Decrease altitude up to 3 flight
A/C B Decrease cruise speed in up to 4
levels below cruise level
4 decrements
A/C B Increase altitude up to two 5
A/C A Increase cruise/descent speed 3
flight levels
profile in up to 3 increments
Decrease altitude up to 3 flight A/C B Decrease cruise/descent speed 4
levels profile in up to 4 decrements
A/C A Horizontal maneuvers (path Up to 32 A/C B Decrease cruise altitude in up 10
stretch): 4 levels of delays, 2 to 10 flight level decrements
turn directions, 4 vector angles, A/C A Decrease cruise altitude in up 10
tried in sequence to 10 flight level decrements
A/C B Horizontal maneuvers (path Up to 32 A/C B Horizontal maneuvers (path Up to 32
stretch): 3 time delay options, 2 stretch): 4 increments of delay,
turn directions, 4 vector angles 2 turn directions, 4 vector
tried in sequence angles, tried in sequence
A/C A Speed increase, up to 3 6 A/C A Horizontal maneuvers (path Up to 32
increments; speed decrease, up stretch): 4 increments of delay,
to 3 decrements 2 turn directions, 4 vector
Speed increase, up to 3 6 angles tried in sequence
A/C B increments; speed decrease, up
to 3 decrements
of cruise flight does not solve the conflict, a
frequently. That occurs only at the highest coordinated increase in both the cruise speed
traffic densities tested in simulation. and descent speed profile is tried for the lead
For the arrival vs. arrival conflict shown in aircraft. If these speed-up maneuvers for the
Table 3, the initial (preferred) maneuver lead aircraft do not succeed, the next set of
aircraft, designated A/C A, is the one predicted chosen maneuvers is a series of speed
to first cross the arrival fix. Conflicts near an reductions for the trailing aircraft, A/C B.
arrival fix are often caused by a phenomenon These speed-change maneuvers are followed
referred to as compression, which occurs when by altitude reductions and finally by horizontal
a faster trailing aircraft is decelerating to maneuvers for each conflict aircraft in turn. For
specified crossing speed at the arrival fix. A arrival vs. arrival conflicts the number of trials
series of speed increases are tried for this that are evaluated before finding a successful
leading aircraft. A desirable solution for this resolution can approach the maximum number
type of conflict is to increase cruise speed for of available trial maneuvers. A large number of
the lead aircraft briefly during cruise flight trials can occur when the algorithm is exposed
prior to the top of descent because such a to traffic rates that overload an arrival fix.
maneuver will avoid the need to delay the In order to reduce the number of trial
trailing aircraft. It is well known from the study resolution trajectories generated by TS, the
of arrival traffic management that speeding up algorithm includes logic that analyzes the
a lead aircraft during an arrival rush often has a causes of failure of a trial resolution trajectory
beneficial domino effect in reducing delays for and then bypasses or eliminates certain types of
all trailing aircraft converging on the same untested trial maneuvers. For example, if a
arrival fix. If a speed up during the last phase conflict is detected during the climb segment of
an altitude change resolution maneuver, the
logic eliminates all trial flight levels above the
9
HEINZ ERZBERGER

flight level where the trial maneuver conflict Earlier discussions referred to changes in
was detected, as will be explained further in the altitude, horizontal route, and speed profile as
next section. the three types of maneuvers used in the
The RAMS software has been designed to construction of resolution trajectories. The next
make enhancing the resolution algorithm as step is to give a precise definition of these
simple as possible. For example, instead of resolution maneuvers and to describe how they
accepting the first successful resolution, as is are calculated.
done in the current implementation, the trial
resolution process could be continued to find 4.1 Step altitude trial maneuvers for
additional successful resolutions for specified maneuvering aircraft in cruise flight
maneuver types. From these, the most efficient
resolution could be implemented. Such an A step altitude resolution maneuver for an
enhancement is under consideration. aircraft in cruise flight is defined by two
parameters. The first specifies the flight
level, hstep , at which the aircraft performing the
4 Resolution Maneuver Generator (RMG)
resolution maneuver is assigned to fly for a
The RMG transforms any trial maneuver period of time. The flight level hstep may be a
provided by RAMS into a specification that
defines a unique 4D trajectory. The step up or a step down of one or more flight
specifications can also be interpreted as levels relative to the current cruise flight level,
representing a highly simplified trajectory, hc . The second parameter specifies the time,
which often lacks the detailed structure and tr , at which the aircraft initiates its return to
aircraft performance model adaptation required the assigned cruise flight level, hc . The
for a pilot or on-board flight management
initiation time includes a short delay, typically
system to be able to fly it. The precise content
0.5 min, to allow for pilot reaction time.
of the specifications is determined by the set of
parameters, logical states, and coordinates that Altitude changes from hc to hstep and back to
a 4D trajectory synthesis algorithm requires in hc are calculated to be performed at altitude
order to compute a 4D trajectory, which is rates that are nominally used for such
adapted to a specified aircraft and atmospheric maneuvers by the resolution aircraft.
model. The specifications generated by the Figure 3a shows plots of these step
RMG conform to the input parameters required altitude maneuvers as a function of time. The
by the Trajectory Synthesizer (TS) in the order in which they are tried is also shown in
Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS) the figure. The altitude steps are changed in
as well as by ACES. The TS in CTAS is a 1,000 ft. increments or decrements, equaling
software component in the Traffic Management the required altitude separation between
Advisor, a subset of the suite of automation adjacent flight levels. If, however, the non-
tools in CTAS. This fact is relevant here, since maneuvering aircraft is in a state of climb or
the Traffic Management Advisor, including the descent at the point of first loss of separation,
TS, is deployed and in operational use by FAA the minimum step change in altitude is
at many en route centers. TS may therefore increased to 2 flight levels or 2,000 ft. The
offer an opportunity for reuse in the future by increased separation margin provides a buffer
an automated conflict resolver deployed at en to help immunize the resolution maneuver
route centers. The specifications generated by against uncertainties in the execution of
RMG are also sufficient to serve as input to trajectories that include altitude changes. The
advanced onboard flight management systems, trial resolutions proceed from 2 step ups to 3
as well as 4D trajectory planning systems step downs in altitude. Step ups are preferred
developed elsewhere. because of fuel efficiency considerations.

10
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Fig. 3. Trial altitude resolutions for maneuvering aircraft in (a) cruise and in (b) climbing flight
Before the trial resolution is accepted and sent minimum separation is first reestablished in the
to TS, RMG checks its ability to reach the original conflict encounter, and a buffer time
higher flight level. RMG also checks for other increment, typically chosen as 1 min. This
constraint violations, including those due to method of calculating tr provides only a rough
high levels of turbulence and airspace estimate, which may need to be revised as
boundaries. If a constraint violation is detected, described below. It should be noted here that
RMG selects the next step altitude in order and the interval of time during which loss of
repeats the constraint violation check. This separation is predicted to occur is the difference
process is repeated until an acceptable step between tcl and t fl , where the latter quantity
altitude is found. If the choices for step altitude
maneuvers become exhausted, RMG switches to denotes the time where separation is first lost.
the next type of resolution maneuver specified Both tcl and t fl are provided to RMG by the
by RAMS. Conflict Detector.
To complete the specification of a step The parameter calculated above for a step
altitude trial maneuver, a method for assigning a altitude maneuver together with the parameters
value to tr must be provided. The method describing the current state of the maneuver
implemented in RMG sets tr equal to the sum of aircraft (position coordinates, speed, and course)
and its horizontal route are sufficient for TS to
tcl , which is defined as the time where
11
HEINZ ERZBERGER

calculate a trial 4D resolution trajectory. If the important differences from the cruise case
conflict check of the trial trajectory generated described above.
by TS indicates that the primary conflict was A temporary altitude maneuver for an
not cleared, RMG uses the diagnostic aircraft in climb is defined by two parameters.
information provided by the Conflict Detector Similar to the previous case, the first specifies
to determine if an increase in tr could clear the the flight level, htemp , at which the maneuvering
conflict using the same step altitude maneuver. aircraft must level out (also referred to as the
An increase in tr is called for if the first loss temporary altitude level). Only flight levels
time with the primary conflict aircraft occurs above the current altitude of the climbing
after tr .Such a condition indicates that the aircraft and below the flight level of the altitude
where first loss occurs are eligible to be chosen
maneuver aircraft returned too early to its
for htemp . If the non-maneuvering conflict
original cruise altitude to clear the conflict. In
that case, tr is recomputed using the value of tcl aircraft is in cruise at the point of conflict, the
first and preferred temporary altitude flight level
obtained for the trial maneuver. This procedure
is chosen to be the first flight level below the
for revising tr may be repeated a second time if altitude where first loss of separation is
necessary, but it is subject to a maximum time predicted to occur. If the non-maneuvering
the aircraft can stay at the step altitude flight conflict aircraft is either climbing or descending
level. If the primary or a secondary conflict is at the first loss altitude, as shown in Fig. 3b, the
detected in the initial altitude change segment of first trial step altitude flight level chosen must
a step altitude maneuver, then all other step be a minimum of one flight level below the
altitude maneuvers in the same direction of flight level immediately above the level at
altitude change greater than the step change in which the loss of separation occurs. An
the current trial step maneuver will also contain additional flight level of separation would
these conflicts. Therefore, RMG will select the provide an even higher altitude margin to insure
next trial step maneuver from available step against adverse unpredictable variations in
altitudes in the opposite altitude change altitude rate changes of either aircraft. The need
direction. Thus, the information obtained from for the additional level will depend on the
trial resolution failures are used by RMG to accuracy of climb/descent profile prediction. As
bypass some step altitude maneuvers, thereby shown in Fig. 3b, the lowest trial step altitude
expediting the process of finding a successful level (4th trial) is separated from the current
step altitude resolution trajectory. altitude of the maneuvering aircraft by an extra
flight level. This altitude margin gives the pilot
4.2 Temporary altitude resolutions during of the maneuvering aircraft sufficient lead time
climb to cruise altitude to perform the level-out maneuver.
In an attempt to avoid having the
In this case the aircraft assigned by RAMS to
maneuvering aircraft level out at a temporary
perform the altitude resolution maneuver is
altitude, if at all possible, a reduced climb rate
currently climbing toward its assigned cruise
option is tried under the following condition.
altitude. The time of first loss with the conflict
After a successful resolution trajectory at a
aircraft may occur during the climb segment or
temporary altitude has already been found for a
after the aircraft has leveled out at its cruise
conflict in climb, a trial maneuver specifying a
altitude. The specification of the parameters for
reduced climb rate ( for example at 50% of
the trial resolution trajectory is the same for
standard climb rate) to fly to the cruise altitude
both situations. However, a conflict occurring
is sent to TS/conflict detector for evaluation.
during climb was selected to represent this class
This option is tried only if the conflict occurs at
of maneuvers, because this type shows
an altitude within about 3 flight levels of the
maneuvering aircraft’s final cruise altitude.
12
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Controllers occasionally use the reduced climb during the resume climb to cruise segment or in
rate technique because it lessens the workload cruise, the same temporary altitude can be
for both controllers and pilots. retried after replacing tc1 with a larger value,
The second parameter that defines the which is simply the new value of tc1 plus a
temporary altitude maneuver is the time, tc1 , at
buffer interval. However, retrial of the same
which the maneuvering aircraft begins its climb temporary altitude is subject to the updated
to capture the assigned flight level from the 1st tc1 being less than a specified maximum value,
trial temporary altitude level. The time to
resume climb is shown in Fig. 3b by the dashed typically 10 min.
vertical line. The resume climb segments for the If any type of conflict is detected at the
four trial maneuvers are slightly separated for previously tried temporary altitude flight level,
clarity. Analogous to the step altitude maneuver then the next available temporary altitude level
must be selected for trial resolution.
case, tc1 for the 1st temporary altitude maneuver
RMG also generates temporary altitude
is determined to be the sum of tcl and a buffer resolution maneuvers for conflicts in cruise or
time interval, typically chosen as 1 min. For descent between certain qualifying arrival and
trial temporary altitude levels lower than the 1st, non-arrival aircraft as specified by RAMS. The
a simple relation is used to calculate tcn , defined approach used to determine the trial maneuver
parameters for this case is somewhat simpler
as the time to resume climb from the nth trial than the climb case and is therefore not
temporary altitude level. By using an estimate described here.
of the climb rate, hdot , together with the altitude
difference between the 1st and nth trial 4.3 Horizontal trial resolution maneuvers
temporary altitude levels, this time is calculated
as tcn = tc1 − ( htemp1 − htempn ) / hdot , where The template for the construction of all
horizontal resolution maneuvers generated in
htemp1 and htempn are the altitudes at the 1st and nth this algorithm is illustrated by the example
trial temporary altitude flight levels. resolution maneuvers shown in Fig. 2. It
Determining tcn by this procedure maintains the consists of a resolution segment and a return
length of time the maneuvering aircraft spends segment, both of which are fixed in plan view
at the different temporary altitude level for climbing, descending or level flight aircraft
relatively constant. The effect of this procedure by the specification of two pairs of coordinates.
can be seen in Fig. 3b for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th trial The first coordinate pair establishes the location
temporary altitude. The specification of the of the auxiliary waypoint that defines the end of
temporary flight level and time to resume climb, the resolution vector segment, and the second
together with the current state of the defines the location of the waypoint where the
maneuvering aircraft, provide sufficient return segment connects to the original flight
information for TS to generate the trial plan route. This section will outline the
temporary altitude resolution trajectory. procedures and analytical techniques
Analogous to the step altitude maneuver implemented in the RMG software for
case, the conflict information obtained from calculating these coordinate pairs to resolve a
analysis of the trajectory generated by TS for given conflict.
the 1st trial temporary altitude maneuver There are two distinct ways to conceptualize the
provides guidance on how to choose the next problem of resolving conflicts by horizontal
trial maneuver. If a conflict, which may be maneuvers: one in the spatial, and one in the
either the original or a secondary, is detected time domain. Each leads to fundamentally
different analytical formulations and algorithms
for calculating resolution maneuvers.

13
HEINZ ERZBERGER

Fig. 4. Resolutions for specified separation distance (in A/C A relative velocity coordinates);
example shown is drawn approximately to scale for the given parameters

Initially, only the spatial domain


4.3.1 Spatial Domain: Specified separation
algorithm was implemented in RMG because it
resolution algorithm
theoretically produces resolution maneuvers
The key to the spatial domain formulation is to
that minimize delay for a specified separation,
transform the conflict encounter into relative
if the conditions assumed in the derivation of
position and velocity coordinates for one of the
the algorithm are met. However, after
two conflict aircraft. Let A and B designate the
simulation tests revealed that the required
conflict aircraft and let their velocities be
conditions were often violated by the type of
conflicts encountered, thus resulting in a high Va and Vb . The crossing angle of the encounter
rate of failed trial resolutions, it became in a fixed earth coordinate system is θ . The
necessary to also implement the time domain location of A is chosen as the origin of the
algorithm. Simulations have shown that the relative coordinate system with the y axis
time domain algorithm is generally more aligned in the direction of Va . The two velocity
successful in producing resolutions for the type vectors and the relative position coordinates
of conflict scenarios encountered in en route ( xb , yb ) of B define the parameters of the
airspace, although this algorithm cannot claim
to produce optimal resolutions. Each algorithm conflict. Figure 4 illustrates the geometric
is now used for specific types of conflicts, as relationships of an encounter between two
will be explained later. aircraft in the relative coordinate system.

14
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

The figure also gives the solution for an of B and that are tangent to the required
example encounter, which will be discussed separation circle, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
shortly. In the relative coordinate system, A is However, only the two course directions—one
stationary and, therefore, observes B moving to the left and one to the right of the current
along the direction of the relative velocity of B course of B—that require the smaller angular
with respect to A, defined as Vr . The flight path changes in course relative to the current course
for B in this coordinate system lies along the of B are potentially usable resolutions. The two
extension of its relative velocity vector, starting usable resolution course changes of B are
at the location of B. designed as φbf and φbb , which, respectively,
After choosing convenient scales for produce front side and back side resolution
distance and speed, any conflict encounter can maneuvers relative to A, as shown in Fig. 4.
be accurately constructed to scale by using only Because the relative velocities corresponding to
a compass, a protractor, and marked ruler. This the two course changes are generally different,
construction is carried out for the example the times to fly to the tangency points of the
conflict parameters given in Fig. 4. The required separation circle will also differ,
construction involves adding and subtracting the resulting in different amounts of delay. The
vector velocities of A and B by well-known faster aircraft (assumed to be A) has exactly two
graphical procedures. The construction shows course change directions—one producing a
the point of minimum separation as the point of front side and the other a back side resolution
tangency of a circle with center at A and the relative to B—that will become tangent to the
extension of the line along the relative velocity separation circle of B (not shown in the Fig. 4 to
vector, Vr , emanating from the position of B. reduce clutter). The graphical construction
The length of the radius of the separation circle procedure outlined above gives an insightful
gives the miss distance, which is 2.2 nmi for the geometric representation of the spatial
example in Fig. 4. This distance is less than the resolution method. A closed-form analytical
required minimum separation distance, thus solution that is the algebraic analog of the
indicating that a loss of separation will occur. graphical solution has been implemented in
The time to first loss can also be determined RMG software. It generates the four usable
from this construction by measuring the course changes for the two aircraft (as well as
distance from B to the interception point with the two non-usable ones, which are discarded),
the separation circle and dividing it by the and generates the coordinates and times of
absolute value of the relative velocity tangency to the required separation circle. The
vector Vr . Its length can be measured with a approach used here formed the basis for a
parametric study of strategic horizontal and
marked ruler calibrated in units of the chosen speed resolution techniques [11]. Variations of
speed scale. For the example parameters in fig. this closed-form solution have been derived in
4 the time to first loss is 2 min, which is near the papers published by several authors [4]-[6].
lower limit of usability of this resolution After the maneuvering aircraft, A or B,
method. passes the tangency point to the separation
An extension of the graphical method circle, it is necessary to determine the earliest
described above can be used to construct time it can change course to intercept the
resolution trajectories with required minimum original flight path at a specified waypoint,
separation. It can be shown graphically that the referred to as the return waypoint. The time to
slower of the two aircraft, assumed here to be B, turn and the course change must be chosen so
can have up to 4 different directions of flight that the return segment does not intercept the
(resolution course changes) that will cause the separation circle. The earliest time to turn for a
aircraft to fly along one or the other of the two given course change is the time that results in a
directed line segments that start at the position path that also becomes tangent to the separation

15
HEINZ ERZBERGER

circle, as shown in Fig. 4 by the line labeled maneuver” in the sense that it minimizes the
“return path.” The position along the resolution delay. Note that the solution is optimal with
path that achieves the tangency condition respect to both the selection of the maneuver
determines the coordinates of the auxiliary and the choice of the maneuver aircraft.
waypoint and establishes the turn back time. An Considering the significance of an optimal
analytical expression for the coordinates of the solution for the critical problem of conflict
auxiliary waypoint that produces the double resolution, it is important that the required
tangency condition was derived in an earlier assumptions are stated precisely for the solution
study [11] and a variation of that approach is to be considered optimum. First, both aircraft
used in the algorithm here. are assumed to be flying along straight lines at
The algorithm implemented in RMG constant speeds and heading relative to an earth-
calculates the auxiliary waypoint coordinates for fixed coordinate system. They must maintain
the four usable resolutions and estimates the these flight conditions from their current
total time to fly each trajectory to the turn back positions to points well past the region where
waypoint. The set of up to four feasible loss of separation occurs. This implies that they
resolutions is then ordered by time delay. If the are tracking straight flight segments before and
return waypoint is sufficiently far away from the after the encounter. The assumption of constant
auxiliary (turn-back) waypoint, the delay, δ ti , of ground speed implies both aircraft are
the resolution trajectory can be approximated by maintaining constant altitude during the same
the relation δ ti = ttbi (1 − cos φi ) , where ttbi period. Second, the resolution course changes
are assumed to be made instantaneously (no turn
denotes the turn back time corresponding to the dynamics are included) with the speeds of both
course change angle φi of the i th resolution aircraft remaining constant during the
maneuver. A more general expression for the maneuver. This assumption also implies that the
delay can be found in [11]. The resolution wind field is zero everywhere, since the
trajectory that gives the shortest delay is ranked presence of winds would cause the ground
first in the set. The four resolution course speeds to change as the aircraft changes course
change angles and corresponding delays are in executing a resolution course change. Any
given in Fig. 4 for an example encounter. A violation of these assumptions not only
right turn by aircraft A is ranked first because it invalidates the claim of optimality for the
gives the shortest delay. The next best resolution trajectory but also may cause loss of
resolution is a right turn by aircraft B. The last separation. The algorithm attempts to
two solutions switch aircraft and have much compensate for a failure to obey these
larger and nearly equal delays. RMG initially assumptions by adding a buffer distance of 2
sends the first-in-order maneuver and nmi to the required minimum separation
corresponding maneuver aircraft to TS for distance of 5 nmi While this buffer does reduce
generating the trial resolution trajectory. If this the brittleness of the resolution trajectories, it
trajectory is not conflict free, RMG will send does so at the cost of additional delay.
the next-in-order maneuver to TS. This process In order to provide additional resolution
continues either until an acceptable resolution is options for this method, another set of up to four
found or until the available maneuver choices trial maneuvers is generated by choosing an
are exhausted. even larger required separation distance of 10
If the first trajectory in the resolution nmi. All the solutions for this separation
maneuver set produces a successful resolution, distance will have significantly more delay.
and if the assumptions made in the development These solutions are tried only if secondary
of the algorithm describe above were to be conflicts are encountered for all of the available
exactly satisfied, then the resulting trajectory solutions computed for the smaller separation
qualifies to be called an “optimum resolution distance.

16
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

4.3.2 Time Domain: Specified delay path stretch distance or altitude will be achieved between the
resolution algorithm conflict aircraft. Thus, this indirect approach
This method of constructing horizontal cannot guarantee that any specified time shift
resolution maneuvers is rooted in the concept of will resolve the conflict. Moreover, when a time
time shifting. In this concept, a conflict occurs shift does solve the conflict, the separation
in the event that two aircraft have 4D achieved may be greater than is needed or
coordinates that fall within a specified 4D desired. Second, even a time-shifted trajectory
conflict volume at some future time. The time that resolves the primary conflict at the original
shift method hypothesizes that for either aircraft location of the conflict may put the same pair of
any trajectory change that produces a sufficient aircraft back into conflict at a downstream
time shift in the neighborhood of the conflict location. This can occur in trajectories
point may potentially prevent this event from containing dogleg segments with multiple
occurring. Because there are infinite ways to crossing points. Such situations are rare but
have been observed in actual flight plans. To
mitigate these disadvantages and to correct for
resolution failures, the time shift method
depends critically on the iteration loop between
the trial time shift maneuver generator in RMG
and TS and its associated conflict detector.
The time shift method has been found to be
essential for resolving conflicts between
descending arrivals on converging routes when
the conflicts are predicted to occur close to the
arrival fix. Such a scenario is illustrated in
Fig. 5, which will be used to derive the basic
analytical relations for the method. In the
example shown, RAMS has selected A to be the
maneuver aircraft, because it is predicted to trail
Fig. 5. Path stretch vector resolutions for aircraft B at the time B crosses the arrival fix.
specified delay Let Tr denote the time for the chosen
construct trajectories that achieve a specified maneuver aircraft to fly from Ps to the return
time shift at a specified spatial position, the waypoint at Pr along its current arrival route.
designer of an algorithm for time shifting has
wide flexibility to define a set of trajectories The location of the return waypoint along the
that are operationally acceptable. The defined original flight path is not critical for the time
set needs only to generate time shifts with shift method. It is nominally located at a point
sufficient range. Unlike the spatial domain two to three times as far as the conflict point is
method, the time shift method does not impose from the maneuvering aircraft. However, it is
special conditions on the characteristics of the also acceptable to locate Pr close to the conflict
original trajectories responsible for the conflict. point, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Locating Pr near
The time shift method can also be used to the conflict point is necessary when the conflict
generate trajectories that cross arrival fixes at a occurs close to the arrival fix, as illustrated in
specified time. This capability is needed for Fig. 5. Pr can also be located a short distance in
arrival metering.
front of the conflict point.
These benefits are balanced by some
disadvantages. First, while the trajectories Ps denotes the start of the time shift
achieve a specified time shift, they do not maneuver, henceforth referred to as a path
guarantee that a specified amount of separation stretch. Let ΔT denote the delay to be provided

17
HEINZ ERZBERGER

by the path stretch maneuver. For this type of δ ps = Rv + Rr − R1


arrival conflict, ΔT would initially be set to (1)
about 1 min. Then the delayed arrival time of A From the geometry of the maneuver shown
at Pr is simply Tps = Tr + ΔT . Let Dsr be the in Fig. 5, the variables defining the maneuver
are related by the law of cosines for triangles as
length of the path from Ps to Pr , measured along
follows:
the current arrival route. The average ground
Rr 2 = Rv 2 + R12 − 2 Rv R1 cosψ v
speed along this path, Vag , is given by (2)
Vag = Dsr / Tr . Let R1 denote the direct route where ψ v is defined as the vector angle for the
from Ps to Pr . An estimate of the time, TR1 , for A maneuver, measured relative to the direction of
to fly from Ps to Pr via R1 is given by R1 / Vag . the R1 route. The current course of the
maneuvering aircraft, measured relative to the
This estimate is based on the assumption that if
direction of R1 , is defined as ψ A . Thus, ψ v
A were to follow R1 it would fly essentially the
must be corrected by an amount ψ A in order to
same speed profile as it planned to fly along its
longer original route. The length of the R1 route obtain the change in course required for A to fly
along the direction of the resolution vector.
and the time to fly it are needed as a reference
These relationships are illustrated in Fig. 5. By
for computing the path stretch maneuver.
using eq. (1) to eliminate Rr by substitution in
Using R1 instead of the original arrival
eq. (2), the length of Rv can be expressed as a
route as the reference route has the advantage of
making the calculation of the path stretch function of the variables defining the maneuver:
maneuver independent of the often complex R1 + δ ps / 2
Rv = (3)
geometry of the original route. In some R
1 + 1 (1 − cosψ v )
circumstances the direct route R1 is also δ ps
selected as a trial maneuver for resolving a Since R1 is fixed by the location of the
conflict. This maneuver gives a negative delay
that is interpreted as a time saving. The return waypoint and δ ps is known from an
difference in time between flying the original earlier expression, Rv becomes a function only
longer route and the R1 route must be added to of the path stretch vector angleψ v . When
the specified delay to determine a corrected path plotted in polar coordinates, Rv as a function of
stretch delay measured relative to the time to fly
the shorter R1 route. The corrected delay, ΔTc , ψ v sweeps out an ellipse, with Ps and Pr at the
foci. The locus of points on the ellipse defines
is given by the relation ΔTc = ΔT + Tr − TR1 .
all possible path stretch maneuvers for a
The corrected delay can now be converted specified delay. By changing δ ps in increments,
into an equivalent increment in path length, δ ps ,
a set of nested ellipses is generated.
relative to the length of R1 as follows: Figure 6 shows two example ellipses and
δ ps = ΔTc ⋅ Vag . several example path stretch vectors and their
Any placement of Paux that increases the return paths. The area within each ellipse is seen
to be flooded with a continuum of maneuvers
path length between Ps and Pr along the two- ranging from small turns to large turns. This
path stretch segments by an amount δ ps is a dense maneuver set gives the algorithm many
candidate for an acceptable solution. An alternative maneuver choices that are useful in
expression for δ ps can be written in terms of helping to resolve secondary conflicts detected
in trial maneuvers. However, not all vector
variables defined in Fig. 5: angles provide usable path stretch maneuvers.
To increase the acceptability of the maneuvers,
18
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Fig. 6. Envelope of path stretch vectors for two values of delay, drawn approximately to
scale for R1 = 150 nmi and Vg = 300 kn

the vector angles must be limited to about 60 attempts to increase R1 by moving the return
degrees relative to the course of R1 . waypoint further downstream. Equation 3
Furthermore, in the tradeoff between allows a specified value of delay to be achieved
course changes at the start and end of the with a continuum of vector angles, as long as
maneuver, it is operationally preferred for the the angles fall within the prescribed range. This
course change angle at the return waypoint, Pr , freedom can be used to pre-select an
operationally acceptable set of vector angles.
to be the smaller of the two. The smaller angle
The set consisting of 15, 30, 45, and 60 degrees
helps to ensue a smooth merge-back maneuver
has been found to be adequate. For each
to the original path at Pr . Implementation of this
specified time delay, the first trial path stretch
preference requires the vector angle to be no maneuver always starts with the smallest vector
less than the value that produces a symmetric angle from this set that is larger than the
path stretch for any given value of R1 and δ ps . symmetric vector angle obtained from eq. 4.
A symmetric path stretch is defined as The higher angles in the set are used in
having the aux. waypoint lie on the bisecting subsequent trials if needed to solve the conflict.
symmetry line of the ellipse, as illustrated in It should be noted that for each choice of vector
Fig. 6. By setting Rr = Rv in eq. 1 and using the angle, both left and right turn directions are tried
before the next higher angle is chosen.
resulting equation to eliminate Rv from eq. 3, an
Since path stretch maneuvers generated by
expression for the symmetric path stretch angle, this method are designed to achieve a time shift
ψ vs , is obtained: at a specified point, but not a specified
separation in distance or altitude at the conflict
R1 (4)
ψ vs = cos −1 point, the calculation of a 4D trajectory
R1 + δ ps corresponding to the trial maneuver is an
indispensable step in determining whether the
If ψ vs is larger than the maximum allowed trial maneuver has solved the conflict. Analysis
angle for given R1 and δ ps , no path stretch of the trial 4D trajectory to the conflict detector
solution exists. In that case, the algorithm provides diagnostic information back to RMG,
which uses it to select the next trial maneuver
19
HEINZ ERZBERGER

Fig. 7. Horizontal resolution order selection

when necessary. If conflict detection predicts of the conflict to be resolved, both methods
that loss of separation with the primary conflict have been incorporated in the resolution
aircraft will occur in the vector segment, Rv , algorithm. In order to make best use of the two
then RMG selects the next higher vector angle methods, the algorithm first analyzes the flight
for the next trial maneuver. If the primary or a plans and associated trajectories of the conflict
secondary conflict is detected in the return aircraft to determine which of the two methods
segment, Rr then the time shift may be should be given first opportunity in solving the
conflict. The flow chart for this analysis is
insufficient and a larger time delay will be summarized in Fig. 7. The selection decision is
selected. Additional rules, not described here, based on an analysis of the current flight plans
decide when the direction of the vector turn and their associated trajectories. If all the
should be switched. conditions given in the top decision diamond are
4.3.3 Integration of spatial and time domain true, then the spatial separation vector method
horizontal resolutions of resolution is tried first. This method has up to
Because each resolution method has strengths 8 maneuver options to find a successful
and weakness that depend on the characteristics resolution. If none are found, the conflict is

20
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

handed over to the path stretch method, which • third, what the speed changes should be
has over 30 maneuver options to try. The great for each feasible solution.
majority of conflicts presented to the top For not-in-trail conflicts, up to four speed
decision diamond for analysis are directed to the change solutions that achieve a specified
delay vector method. This includes all conflicts separation distance are feasible. These consist of
between arrivals that have flying times of less speed increases and decreases for each of the
than 20 min from crossing the arrival fix. conflict aircraft, respectively. Furthermore, the
time to return to the pre-resolution speed is
4.4 Speed Profile Resolutions estimated by setting it equal to the known time
where separation is regained plus a buffer time.
Speed profile changes generally play a limited For straight-line flight paths, the four solutions
role in the resolution of non-arrival conflicts. can also be constructed graphically using the
These changes become increasingly ineffective same geometric representation of a conflict in
for resolving conflicts when the time to first loss relative coordinates shown in Fig. 4. The
falls below 6 min, except for specific types of in graphical procedure for constructing speed
trail conflicts. However, special kinds of speed resolutions is a variation of the method outlined
profiles do play an important role in the for constructing horizontal resolutions for
resolution of arrival conflicts that are detected specified separation.
prior to the top of descent, as was described in The analytically estimated feasibility of a
the discussion of RAMS. This section speed resolution determines whether to proceed
summarizes two types of speed resolutions: with the next step, which is to submit trial speed
first, temporary cruise speed changes used change maneuvers to TS in order to generate
primarily for non-arrival conflicts, and second, actual trajectories. This step is taken only if at
descent speed profile changes used exclusively least one speed resolution is feasible. If no
for arrival conflicts. resolutions are estimated to be feasible, then
A temporary cruise speed change increases or RMG abandons speed resolutions attempts and
decreases the current cruise speed of the proceeds with the next-in-order resolution type.
maneuver aircraft. The aircraft maintains the Because of the limited accuracy of the closed-
changed speed for a specific period of time, and form equations, RMG requests TS to first
then returns to its pre-resolution cruise speed. If generate trajectories at the limits of the speed
plotted as a function of time, the set of range corresponding to the speed maneuvers
resolution speed profiles appear similar to the and maneuvering aircraft for which resolutions
set of step altitude plots in Fig. 3a. Analysis were estimated to be feasible. Next, the conflict
suggests that speed changes made in increments detector determines the separation achieved by
of the smaller of 10 kn CAS (calibrated airspeed these extremum trajectories. If the achieved
in knots) or 0.025 Mach, strike an acceptable separation for an extremum trajectory is
compromise between accuracy of control and significantly larger than the specified minimum,
pilot acceptability. The number of usable RMG uses a simple procedure to estimate a
increments depends on the range between the speed change increment /decrement that will
minimum and maximum operating speeds for a move the separation closer to the specified
given altitude and aircraft type. Simple closed value. The revised speed change is sent back to
form equations have been derived and are used TS for it to recalculate the trajectory, which is
for estimating: passed on to the conflict detector. The conflict
• first, whether the available speed range detector will then determine the achieved
is sufficient to resolve a conflict given separation and will check for secondary
the time and path distance to first loss conflicts. This process is repeated for each
and the predicted minimum separation, feasible extremum trajectory. Analogous to the
• second, how many feasible solutions spatial domain horizontal resolution method, the
exist, and feasible speed change resolutions are ranked in
21
HEINZ ERZBERGER

the order of least delay. Thus, a speed as the altitude where the specified descent CAS
increasing resolution with the most negative is first reached while the aircraft is flying the
delay will be chosen as the preferred resolution, constant Mach segment. As before, speed
assuming it is also free of secondary conflicts. It changes are made in increments or decrements
should be noted that the method outlined results of 10 kn CAS. If the current cruise CAS is less
in the selection of both the preferred speed than the nominal descent CAS, then initially
maneuver and the preferred maneuver aircraft. only the descent CAS is reduced in steps of 10
The determination of speed resolutions for knots CAS, with no change in the current cruise
in-trail conflicts can be considered a degenerate CAS. When the decremented descent CAS
case of the above method. For this case only becomes equal to or less than the cruise CAS,
two solutions are possible, a decrease in speed then further decrements in speed produce a
of the overtaking aircraft to equal the speed of single CAS speed used during both cruise and
the leading aircraft and an equivalent decrease descent. A constant Mach segment no longer
in speed of the leading aircraft. The operational occurs in that case. An analogous procedure is
acceptability of such speed resolutions is a used to define speed profiles for a set of
separate issue that lies outside the realm of this increments in CAS and Mach.
paper. All trial descent speed maneuvers are sent
A complete development of the descent directly to the TS/conflict detector processes for
speed profile method for arrival conflict evaluation. The simple closed-form equations
resolutions would exceed the allowed length of used to estimate the feasibility and the amount
this paper and must, therefore, be deferred to a of speed change for the cruise speed maneuver
future publication. Although the descent speed case cannot easily be adapted to the descent
profiles used in the automated resolution speed profile case. For each conflict to be
algorithm are similar to the type of profiles resolved by descent speed profile maneuver,
investigated in previous NASA research RMG first sends two sets of CAS/Mach values
projects, their use here has a different objective to TS for use in calculating two extremum
than before. In previous research, the primary descent trajectories. The first set specifies the
objective has been to cross the arrival fix at a combination of maximum cruise Mach and
required time. Here, the objective is to resolve maximum descent CAS that define the fastest
any and all conflicts, including arrival vs. non- descent speed profile for the conflict aircraft
arrival conflicts as well as secondary conflicts. that is predicted be in the lead when crossing the
These are more stringent conditions to achieve arrival fix. The second set specifies the CAS
than meeting a specified time over the arrival value that defines the slowest descent speed
fix. profile for the conflict aircraft that is last to
The descent speed profiles used for cross the arrival fix. The conflict detector then
resolution begin when the maneuvering arrival determines the maximum separations
aircraft is still in cruise and within about 5 min corresponding to these extremum trajectories.
of the top of descent. A resolution speed profile A feasible resolution exists if at least one
generally involves a coordinated change in both of the achievable maximum separations is larger
cruise speed and descent speed profile, but may than the specified separation. If the fastest
also consist of only a speed change during the descent profile was found to give a feasible
descent. A nominal (pre-resolution) descent solution, then the lead aircraft is selected to
speed profile typically consists of an initial execute the resolution maneuver. If only the
descent segment flown at a constant Mach slowest profile is feasible, then the trailing
number, followed by a segment flown at aircraft is selected to execute the resolution. If
constant CAS. The Mach number flown in the neither trajectory provides at least the specified
initial descent segment is usually chosen to be separation, then no descent speed profiles are
identical to the cruise Mach. The constant CAS feasible and RMG will select the next-in-
segment starts at the transition altitude, defined sequence resolution option. If the separations
22
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

achieved flying the extremum trajectories together with guidance and navigation models,
significantly exceed the required separations, the ACES trajectory engine can accurately
then RMG will estimate the parameters of an replicate the trajectories actually flown by any
intermediate descent speed profile and will send aircraft. The dynamic and performance models
these parameters back to the TS and conflict incorporated in the ACES trajectory engine
detection processes for a final separation check. were also found to be well suited for simulating
The method outlined above is similar to the resolution algorithm.
methods that have been developed for the En The Cleveland Center airspace was chosen
Route Descent Advisor [12]. as the evaluation environment for the algorithm
While this procedure will succeed in because of its reputation as having one of the
determining a feasible and minimally changed busiest and most complex air traffic
speed profile that resolves the primary conflict, environments in the National Airspace System
it does nothing to prevent the appearance of (NAS). The set of departure times and flight
secondary conflicts. If a faster profile should plans recorded over a 24-hour period in the
result in an overtaking secondary conflict, the NAS on April 21, 2005, was used as input
faster profile for the lead aircraft is discarded traffic to drive the ACES simulation. This
and replaced by a slower profile, if one is traffic level, referred to as the 1x level, was
feasible, for the trailing aircraft. If the slower increased to 2x and 3x levels by a traffic scaling
profile creates an overtake secondary conflict process. In this process the 2x and 3x traffic
with an aircraft trailing the primary conflict levels are created by cloning an original flight
aircraft, the descent speed profile is nevertheless plan once and twice for city pairs, respectively,
accepted. The newly created and unresolved and then time shifting the departure times of the
secondary conflict will become a primary cloned aircraft appropriately. The traffic scaling
overtaking conflict and will be resolved in a process was carried out for traffic in the NAS as
subsequent resolution trial. a whole, not just for flights in and out of the
The approach described above for Cleveland Center.
resolving arrival conflicts with multiple in-trail The simulation results for the three traffic
secondary conflicts is an abbreviated levels are tabulated in Table 4. The first column
explanation of an integrated arrival sequencing entry in the traffic count row—7,000—gives the
and conflict resolution process currently under number of flight plans corresponding to the
development. aircraft that actually operated in the Cleveland
Center airspace on that day. The count includes
5 Simulation of Algorithm in ACES all en route flights and all the transitioning
departures and arrivals from and to major
The resolution algorithm described above has airports that lie within the boundaries of the
been implemented as a software process coded Center. The flight plan counts shown in the 2x
in the Java programming language and and 3x columns are greater than the factors of 2
integrated into the Advanced Concepts and 3 that were intended to be achieved. This
Evaluation System (ACES). ACES was indicates that traffic in the Cleveland Center
developed specifically to provide a general airspace is predicted to grow proportionally
purpose simulation environment for evaluating faster than in other areas.
future air traffic management and control The second row gives the number of
concepts, including automated resolution conflicts (also given as percentage of flight
algorithms. The ability to generate 4D plans) that were detected while the flight plan
trajectories in ACES is essential to the aircraft were physically within the Cleveland
simulation of the resolution algorithm. ACES Center airspace. The growth rate in the number
generates 4D trajectories that start at the of conflicts at the higher traffic levels is
departure airports and end at the arrival airports. somewhat less than that which the square-of-
By using aircraft type-specific performance data the-traffic-ratio law predicts. The reduced rate is
23
HEINZ ERZBERGER

Table 4. Summary of simulation results for three traffic levels; vertical priority resolutions
• Cleveland Center Airspace; includes en route and within-Center arrival and departure
traffic
• Resolution initiation horizon: 8 min for non arrivals, 20 min for arrivals
• Conflict free resolution horizon: Non arrivals: 12 min; arrivals: 20 min

Traffic level relative to sample day of 4/21/05 1X ~2X ~3X


Traffic count, 24 hours 7000 17800 26000
Total # of conflicts detected /% of flights 830/12% 3574/20% 5963/23%
% non arrivals resolved, 100% 100% 100%
seconds delay 22 25 31
% arrivals resolved, 99% 90% 94%
seconds delay 76 86 113
Ratio of failed trial maneuvers to # non-arrival conflicts 0.8 2 2.1
Ratio of failed trial maneuvers to # arrival conflicts 3.5 8 6.2
Percentage of Vertical resolutions 58% 56% 48%
Percentage of Horizontal resolutions 25% 28% 31%

thought to be due to the effect of airway route currently less than 20 min of flying time to the
structures and flight level stratification of traffic. arrival fix are counted as arrival conflicts.
Only about 30-36% of the detected conflicts Table 4 shows that the resolution rate for
were between aircraft in steady cruise flight. the non-arrival conflicts is 100% at all three
ACES was configured to probe for conflicts and traffic levels. Arrival conflicts are resolved at
make them available to the resolution algorithm rates that range from 99% for the 1x level to
only after the aircraft first passed the boundary between 90 and 94% for the 2x and 3x levels,
into the Center’s airspace. Thus, the handoff respectively. A less that 100% resolution rate for
process was not simulated, which produced many arrival conflicts is a consequence of the inherent
conflicts with very short times to first loss. capacity limits of an arrival fix and the delay
Resolutions were also attempted for such limit of 5 min for the resolution trajectories.
conflicts as long as their time to first loss was Since metering was not being used here to ensure
greater than 1 min. These short-range conflicts that the capacity of an arrival fix would not be
provided an opportunity to explore the exceeded, the resolution algorithm encountered
performance of the algorithm at the extreme limit arrival conflicts at a rate that were physically
of its operational envelope. impossible to resolve without exceeding the
The next two rows give the rate of resolution delay limit of 5 min. Examination of
successful resolutions and associated average failed arrival resolutions confirmed they were not
delays separately for non-arrival and arrival attributable to an inherent limitation of the
conflicts. A conflict is counted as a non-arrival if algorithm but rather to the consequence of the 5
at least one of the two conflict aircraft is a non- min delay limit, which is a selectable parameter.
arrival. Conflicts between aircraft that are Although this result was expected, it clearly
converging to the same arrival fix and are demonstrates the need for integrating arrival

24
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

metering and traffic flow management functions of the algorithm. The generally rising ratio
for applications of this algorithm to arrival indicates the need at 2x and higher traffic levels
conflicts. to test trial maneuvers further down the options
The average delays for non-arrival list where delays tend to be higher. This result is
resolutions start at a value of only 22 sec. for the another indicator of the difficulty of finding
1x traffic level and rise to 31 sec. for the 3x resolutions for arrival conflicts at traffic levels
level. This low rate of increase in delay with a close to or in excess of the capacity of an arrival
trebling of traffic contrasts sharply with the large fix.
rise in the conflict count for the same growth in The percentages given in the last two rows
traffic. It provides an indirect measure that, even of Table 4 show the changing distribution
at the highest traffic level, free airspace remains between vertical and horizontal resolutions as a
for finding resolutions. function of traffic level. Since vertical
The average delay for arrival resolutions are resolutions are tried first when possible, they are
about three times those for non-arrival resolution the dominant resolution type at the 1x level,
across all three traffic levels. This relatively providing 58% of all successful resolutions.
linear rise in delay as a function of traffic levels Their success rate drops below 50% at the 3x
underestimates the actual delay rise somewhat, level, because of exhaustion of the vertical
because the potentially higher delays for the resolution maneuver options resulting from the
failed resolutions are not included. To resolve secondary conflicts encountered in trial
these by holding or metering decisions would resolution trajectories. The drop in vertical
produce equivalent delays. However, the resolution rate is compensated by a
proportional delay rise with proportional corresponding rise in the rate of horizontal
increases in traffic levels suggests that even for resolutions at increasing traffic levels. Speed
arrival conflicts sufficient airspace for generating resolutions, which are not included in the table,
resolution maneuvers remains available. make up the unaccounted fraction of resolutions.
The next two rows of Table 4 give ratios of An up-to-date collection of simulation
the total number of failed trial resolution results for the automated resolution algorithm
maneuvers resulting from secondary conflicts to can be accessed at a web site [13]. The site
the total number of resolved conflicts. These provides access to plots of 4D resolution
ratios give insight into changes in the difficulty trajectories for all types of conflicts as well as a
of finding resolutions as a function of increasing trial maneuver summaries and run statistics. Each
traffic levels. The ratio is a sensitive indicator of run posted contains results for a 24-hour
difficulty since it includes only those conflicts simulation at a specified traffic level. The site
that encountered failed trial maneuvers due to includes brief explanations of features and
secondaries. The ratio starts at less than one and symbols.
rises to around 2 at the 3x traffic level for the
non-arrivals. The relatively low ratio at even the 6 Concluding Remarks
highest traffic level indicates resolutions are not
yet difficult to find for non-arrival conflicts. The It is likely that future air traffic control systems
situation is not as favorable for the arrival will require a broadly applicable and reliable
conflicts, which start at a ratio of 3.5 for the 1x algorithm for resolving conflicts automatically.
traffic and then increase to 8 for 2x traffic. The Such an algorithm must resolve conflicts
reversal of this trend from 2x to 3x is not fully efficiently and safely over the same range of
understood. It is most likely an artifact of the operational conditions and conflict scenarios that
traffic generation process and not a characteristic a controller is capable of handling. The algorithm

25
HEINZ ERZBERGER

must also include the ability to resolve conflicts Acknowledgment


that are predicted to occur as long as 20 min and
The author gratefully acknowledges the
as short as 1 min from the time aircraft would contributions of Dr. Ralph Bach and Mr.
lose separation. The algorithm must handle
Christopher Farrell of AerospaceComputing, Inc.
conflict scenarios ranging from pairs of aircraft Dr. Bach transformed the author’s concepts into
in cruise to multiple descending and decelerating
logical and analytical specifications, and Mr.
aircraft converging onto an arrival fix, which
Farrell designed and developed the software for
both aircraft must cross at a specified altitude
the algorithm. This work could not have
and speed. The algorithm described in this paper
succeeded without them.
is based on an approach that integrates in its
design controller rules and procedures,
analytically derived approximations for References
resolutions and 4D trajectory computations. [1] Durand, N; Alliot, J.; and Chansou, O.: Optimal
Candidate resolution trajectories are accepted Resolution of En Route Conflicts; Air Traffic Control
only if they resolve both the primary conflict and Quarterly, vol. 3, no.3, 1995.
avoid introducing new conflicts as an unintended [2] Krozel, J.; Mueller, T.; and Hunter, G.: Free Flight
Conflict Detection and Resolution Analysis. AIAA
byproduct of the resolution. Furthermore, when Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, San
provided with the positions, altitudes, and flight Diego, Calif., July 1996.
plans of all traffic in neighboring airspace, the [3] Bilimoria, K.; Sridhar, B.; and Chatterji, G.: Effects of
resolutions are constructed to be conflict free for Conflict Resolution Maneuvers and Traffic Density on
a specified time interval that can be specified by Free Flight. AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control
the user. The algorithm has been incorporated in Conference, San Diego, Calif., July 1996.
an air traffic simulation that operates in non-real [4] Bilimoria, Karl: “A Geometric Optimization Approach
to Aircraft Conflict Resolution”, AIAA paper 2000-
time. Initial evaluation of the algorithm using 4625, Aug. 2000
this simulation has demonstrated its potential to [5] Russell A. Paielli: "Modeling Maneuver Dynamics in
handle high levels of traffic and a wide range of Air Traffic Conflict Resolution", Journal of
conflict types. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 26, no. 3,
However, much work remains to be done May-June 2003, pp 407-415.
before an algorithm for automated resolution [6] Jardin, M. R.: “Analytical Relationships between
Conflict Counts and Air Traffic Density”, AIAA
such as described in this paper can be considered Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28,
ready for implementation in the NAS. The No.6, Nov.-Dec.2005, pp. 1150-1156
algorithm must be integrated with other essential [7] Erzberger, Heinz; Transforming the NAS: The Next
automation functions, such as traffic flow Generation Air Traffic Control System; Proceedings
management, arrival metering, severe weather of the International Congress of the Aeronautical
avoidance, and, most importantly, systems for Sciences (ICAS), August 30, 2004, Yokohama, Japan.
fault detection and failure recovery. Decision [8] Center–TRACON Automated System. Welcome to
CTAS. Gregory L. Wong, webmaster. Last updated
support tools must be developed to assist May 16, 2006. Accessed May 29, 2006.
controllers in handling unequipped aircraft while <http://www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov/> Describes CTAS and
the algorithm provides automated resolutions for lists papers on TS and conflict prediction
equipped aircraft operating in the same airspace. [9] Virtual Airspace Modeling Project. Airspace Concept
Perhaps the biggest challenge will not be Evaluation System (ACES). Responsible NASA
technical but cultural. Will airspace users, Official: Harry N. Swenson. Last modified March 24,
2005. Accessed May 29, 2006.
operators and the public trust and accept <http://vams.arc.nasa.gov/activities/aces.html>.
automated separation assurance as a replacement Describes ACES.
for separation assurance provided by controllers?

26
AUTOMATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION
FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

[10] Erzberger, Heinz; Paielli, Russell; Isaacson, D. R.; and Adviser (EDA) for Conflict-Free Arrival Metering,
Eshow, M. M.: ”Conflict Detection and Resolution in Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
the Presence of Prediction Errors,” 1st USA/Europe Control Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, Aug.
Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Eurocontrol 16-19, 2004.
and Federal Aviation Administration,, Saclay, France, [13] http://vams.arc.nasa.gov/aacconflictresolutions
June 1997. Performance statistics and resolution trajectories for
[11] Fukuda, Yutaka; Erzberger, Heinz: “Strategic Conflict simulations of resolution algorithm described in this
Resolution Methods of Aircraft”, Electronic paper.
Navigation Research Institute (ENRI), Japan, Paper
No. 90, January 1998
[12] Coppenbarger R A, Lanier R, Sweet D, Dorsky S.
Design and Development of the En Route Descent

27

View publication stats

You might also like