1998 - Draper Laboratory

More documents

Recommendations

Info

approach at 145 kn. The alerting logic used in this baseline is atime/range-based threshold logic that invokes an evasivemaneuver on the part of ownship if the othership is predicted tocome within 500 ft of ownship within 11 s. The longitudinalinitial condition spacing was incremented at 100-ft intervals,thereby producing the 183 runs for each pair of flight tracks.Table 5 shows the results of evaluating the three safetyprobabilities from the simulation outcome categories.Combining Model Outputs: System-Level StatisticsWe now complete the example by multiplying the conditionalsafety statistics by the probability of flying the approach with agiven pair of flight tracks. This information is shown in Table 6.Notice that the probability of the flight track pair is given forboth 4 and 10 hours of flight time prior to the start of theparallel landing approach. These probabilities were derived fromevaluating the Markov vectors given in Figure 8 for the ImpactModel.Finally, a comparison of the system-level safety statistics at 1700-ft, 2500-ft, and 3400-ft runway spacings is given in Table 7. Asthe time in flight increases prior to runway approach (4 h vs 10h), the overall hazard increases and reliable operation decreases.As the runway spacing between aircraft increases, theprobabilities of collision and false alarm decrease while reliableoperation increases. However, it is not until the runway spacingreaches 3400 ft that the probability of collision finally falls belowthe probability of false alarm. Although false alarms areundesirable, the prospect of a collision is even less tolerable.This suggests that the alerting system under test in thisevaluation could be inherently faulty, requiring furtherinvestigation.Ongoing WorkDraper continues to support initiatives jointly sponsored byNASA and the FAA through a current task order agreement withLogistics Management Institute. The focus of this work is in theTable 5. Conditional safety statistics.Table 6. Combined results at 1700-ft runway spacing.An Integrated Safety Analysis Methodology for Emerging Air Transport Technologies9
Table 7. Safety statistics at 1700-ft, 2500-ft, and 3400-ft runway spacing.analysis of flight safety issues as well as safe air traffic controlpractices. Of particular note is a recently completed project (Ref.[14]) in which the safety analysis methodology described in thispaper was used to evaluate whether a proposed automatedsystem for scheduling landings did significantly improve theperformance of air traffic controllers. Notable features of thisstudy included the use of actual flight data and landing siteconfigurations from the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport andthe introduction of ground-based flight control using groundbasedradar tracking systems for surveillance. Current work isunderway to examine the safety and other operational effectsfrom the use of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) forCategory I landings of equipped aircraft. The WAAS isenvisioned as a configuration of 35 known reference stations toaugment and enhance the accuracy of the GPS system.AcknowledgmentWe are pleased to thank Milton Adams, Andrew Parsons, andStephan Kolitz of Draper Laboratory and Peter Kostiuk ofLogistics Management Institute for their ongoing support andcritical review of this project.References[1] Federal Aviation Administration, “Airman’s InformationManual-Official Guide to Basic Information and Procedures,”U.S. Department of Transportation, 4 April 1991.[2] FAA Precision Runway Monitor Program Office, “PrecisionRunway Monitor Demonstration Report,” Report#DOT/FAA/RD-91/5, February 1991.[3] Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, “Parallel RunwayRequirement Analysis Study,” NASA Contractor Report191549, NASA Langley Research Center; Hampton, Virginia;Volume 1, December 1993.[4] Shank, E. and K. Hollister, “A Statistical Risk AssessmentModel for the Precision Runway Monitor System,” ATCAConference Proceedings, 1992.[5] Kuchar, J., “Methodology for Alerting-System PerformanceEvaluation,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, andDynamics, Vol. 19, No. 2, March-April 1996, pp. 438-444.[6] Koczo, S., “Coordinated Parallel Runway Approaches,” NASAContractor Report 201611, NASA Langley Research Center,Hampton, Virginia, October 1996.[7] Waller, C.W. and C.H. Scanlon, eds., Proceedings of theNASA Workshop on Flight Deck Centered Parallel RunwayApproaches in Instrument Meteorological Conditions, NASAConference Publication 10191, NASA Langley ResearchCenter, Hampton, Virginia, December 1996.[8] Carpenter, B. and J. Kuchar, “A Probability-Based AlertingLogic for Aircraft on Parallel Approach,” NASA ContractorReport 201685, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,Virginia, April 1997.[9] Allinger, D., G. Rosch, M. Adams, P. Kostiuk, “An IntegratedSafety Analysis Methodology for Emerging Air TransportTechnologies,” Final Report, LMI-NS605S1, http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/1998/cr/NASA-98-cr207660.pdf[10] “Final Draft (Draft 7) of Minimum Aviation SystemPerformance Standards: Required Navigation Performance forArea Navigation,” RTCA Paper No. 097-96/SC181-060, 4March 1996.[11] “Draft 3.1 of Minimum Aviation System PerformanceSpecification (MASPS) for ADS-B,” December 16, 1996.[12] Babcock, P., A. Schor, G. Rosch, Reliability ModelingMethodology for IAPR Safety Analysis, The Charles StarkDraper Laboratory, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, June1997.[13] Butler, R.W. and A.L. White, “Sure Reliability Analysis,Program and Mathematics,” NASA Technical Paper 2764,NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, March1988.[14] Kolitz, S., M. Adams, P. Kostiuk, G. Shapiro, “An IntegratedSafety Analysis of CTAS at DFW,” 25 September 1997.An Integrated Safety Analysis Methodology for Emerging Air Transport Technologies10
Page 2 and 3:
Letter from thePresident and CEO,Vi
Page 4 and 5:
Information TechnologyMilton AdamsE
Page 6 and 7:
BiographyMilton Adams has been at D
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 1 represents a functional de
Page 11 and 12:
Programs. In effect, these controll
Page 13 and 14:
Although the terminal area traffic
Page 15 and 16:
Table 2. ATFM performance evaluatio
Page 17 and 18:
In the experiments, a nominal capac
Page 19 and 20:
[3] Wambsganss, Michael C. “Colla
Page 21 and 22:
Guidance, Navigation, and Control A
Page 23 and 24:
A Control Lyapunov FunctionApproach
Page 25 and 26:
x( 0) ∈ X and w(t) ∈Wfor all t
Page 27 and 28:
(b) Select a quadratic RCLF V i (x)
Page 29 and 30:
at each grid point. In the case w 1
Page 31 and 32:
References[1] Ball, J.A. and A.J. v
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Relative and Differential GPSData T
Page 37 and 38:
The first term on the right in the
Page 39 and 40:
H R# δρ R,GPS -H A# δρ A,GPSThi
Page 41 and 42:
selection; and (3) shown that the a
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Segmentation of MR ImagesUsing Curv
Page 47 and 48:
(3)where ν now represents a contin
Page 49 and 50:
Experimental ResultsThe results of
Page 51 and 52:
Table 1. A summary of segmentation
Page 53 and 54:
Guidance, Navigation,and ControlJim
Page 55 and 56:
BiographyGeorge SchmidtGeorge Schmi
Page 57 and 58:
clock and ephemeris errors, as well
Page 59 and 60:
maintained in a rigid structure, wh
Page 61 and 62:
Table 5. “Typical” absolute GPS
Page 63 and 64:
performed, then the target location
Page 65 and 66:
tightly-coupled system, however, ca
Page 67 and 68:
Concluding RemarksRecent progress i
Page 69 and 70:
As real-time systems evolve into th
Page 71 and 72:
Advanced Fault-TolerantComputing fo
Page 73 and 74:
The Viking and Voyager were both in
Page 75 and 76:
Containment Regions (FCRs). There a
Page 77 and 78:
well as reversing the whole process
Page 79 and 80:
As real-time systems evolve into th
Page 81 and 82:
Automated Station-Keepingfor Satell
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 2. Minimum elevation angles
Page 85 and 86:
anomaly M and/or the ascending node
Page 87 and 88:
However, since optimization and rec
Page 89 and 90:
is maintained in the Northern Hemis
Page 91 and 92:
autonomy. It must have the ability
Page 93 and 94:
[31] Neelon, Joseph G., Jr., Paul J
Page 95 and 96:
Draper’s primary goal is to Drape
Page 97 and 98:
)Rotordynamic Modelingof an Activel
Page 99 and 100: Eq. (9) becomes:λ[ R ] { Φ } = [
Page 101 and 102: chosen to be 24, for a total of 48
Page 103 and 104: InertialInstruments/MechanicalDesig
Page 105 and 106: BiographyJeffrey Borenstein is curr
Page 107 and 108: process step. Process information i
Page 109 and 110: Figure 4. Control chart for boron d
Page 111 and 112: References[1] Barbour, N., J. Conne
Page 113 and 114: Draper Laboratory continues to engi
Page 115 and 116: Validating the Validating Tool:Defi
Page 117 and 118: calculates miscellaneous terms, suc
Page 119 and 120: Table 1. Suggested specification sh
Page 121 and 122: User Accuracy as aFunction of Simul
Page 123 and 124: 20-min averaging, this clock lockin
Page 125 and 126: Table 2. Sample high-level summary
Page 127 and 128: AcknowledgmentR.L. Greenspan, J.A.
Page 129 and 130: Systems IntegrationRich MartoranaPe
Page 131 and 132: BiographyAnthony Kourepenis is an A
Page 133 and 134: control is employed to maintain the
Page 135 and 136: Table 1. Summary of automotive yaw
Page 137 and 138: Resolution (60 Hz) deg/h10000000100
Page 139 and 140: References[1] Greiff, P., B. Boxenh
Page 141 and 142: Guidance, Navigation, and Control A
Page 143 and 144: An Integrated Safety AnalysisMethod
Page 145 and 146: Infrastructure ModelsSystemRequirem
Page 147 and 148: Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the bloc
Page 149: Notice that each flight track descr
Page 153 and 154: Guidance, Navigation, and Control A
Page 155 and 156: An Optimal Guidance Law forPlanetar
Page 157 and 158: Note that the states in the three d
Page 159 and 160: Crossrange (Kft)10090807060504030Cl
Page 161 and 162: The 1997 Charles StarkDraper PrizeT
Page 163 and 164: The 1997 Charles StarkDraper Prize1
Page 165 and 166: “Draper encourages its personnel
Page 167 and 168: Gimballed Vibrating GyroscopeHaving
Page 171 and 172: Optical Source Isolator withPolariz
Page 175 and 176: Hunting Suppressor forPolyphase Ele
Page 179 and 180: Sensor Having an Off-Frequency Driv
Page 181 and 182: proof mass from transients and enha
Page 183 and 184: 1997 Published PapersThe following
Page 185 and 186: monitoring of space structures and
Page 187 and 188: measured by kinematic degrees of fr
Page 189 and 190: i.e., what percent of the earth’s
Page 191 and 192: McConley, M. W.; Dahleh, M. A.; Fer
Page 193 and 194: unaffordable, or even misguided. Bu
Page 195 and 196: The Draper DistinguishedPerformance
Page 197: Educational Activitiesat Draper Lab
show all

1998 - Draper Laboratory

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?