Characterized by the wide use of advanced automation and the introduction of new operation concepts, the future air transportation system will be more complex. Advanced pilot behavior models with improved capability are required to support the design and analysis of the midair encounter situations in the future air transportation system. This paper first filters midair encounter data from Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) observations. Based on the acquired midair encounter data, a comprehensive pilot behavior model is proposed based on a multi-layer Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network. The model is designed for the purpose of enhancing the predicting capability of pilot behaviors in both horizontal and vertical planes. Finally, the performance of the proposed model to predict pilot behavior in both horizontal and vertical planes is studied through evaluating against realistic midair encounter situations.
U S Department of Transportation. The future of the NAS, Washington, USA: Federal Aviation Administration2016.
2.
NetjasovF. Framework for airspace planning and design based on conflict risk assessment. Transport Res C Emerg Technol2012; 24: 190–212.
3.
TangJ. Conflict Detection and resolution for civil aviation: a literature survey. IEEE Aero Electron Syst Mag2019; 34(10): 20–35.
4.
RTCA. Minimum operational performance standards for traffic alert and collision avoidance system II (TCAS II). Washington, DC: Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics; 2009. RTCA-DO-185B.
5.
KucharJAndrewsJDrummA, et al.A safety analysis process for the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (tcas) and see-and-avoid systems on remotely piloted vehicles. In: AIAA 3rd ”Unmanned Unlimited” Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit. Chicago, Illinois: AIAA2004.
6.
IvanescuDPowellDShawC, et al.Effect of aircraft self-merging in sequence on an airborne collision avoidance system. In: Proceedings of AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit. Rhode Island,USA, 2004.
7.
KochenderferMJChryssanthacopoulosJPKaelblingLP, et al.Model-based optimization of airborne collision avoidance logic. Lexington, MA: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 2010. ATC-360.
8.
KochenderferMJChryssanthacopoulosJP. Collision avoidance using partially controlled markov decision processes. In: International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence. Berlin , Germany: Springer, 2011, pp. 86–100.
LygerosJLynchN. On the formal verification of the TCAS conflict resolution algorithms, Proceedings of the 36th IEEE conference on decision and control. San Diego, CA, USA, 12-12 December 1997.
11.
LivadasCLygerosJLynchNA. High-level modeling and analysis of the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). Proc IEEE2000; 88(7): 926–948.
12.
BillingsleyTB. Safety analysis of TCAS on Global Hawk using airspace encounter models. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.
13.
AveneauC. Specification of ATCO and pilot model. Brussels: Eurocontrol, 2010.
14.
JeanninJBGhorbalKKouskoulasY, et al.A formally verified hybrid system for the next-generation airborne collision avoidance system. In: BaierCTinelliC (eds). Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 21–36.
15.
LondnerEHMossRJ. Bayesian network model of pilot response to collision avoidance system resolution advisories. J Air Transport2018; 26(4): 171–182.
16.
ChryssanthacopoulosJPKochenderferMJ. Collision avoidance system optimization with probabilistic pilot response models. In: 2011 American Control Conference (ACC). New York, NY: IEEE, 2011, pp. 2765–2770.
17.
SheridanTBCorkerKMNadlerED. Final report and recommendations for research on human-automation interaction in the Next generation air transportation system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 2006. DOT-VNTSC-NASA-06-05.
18.
WickensCSebokAKellerJ, et al.Modeling and evaluating pilot performance in NextGen: review of and recommendations regarding pilot modeling efforts, architectures, and validation studies. Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013. NASA/TM-2013-216504.
19.
LeeRWolpertD. Game theoretic modeling of pilot behavior during mid-air encounters. In: Decision Making with Imperfect Decision Makers. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2012, pp. 75–111.
20.
HuYLiR. High density airspace analysis with comprehensive pilot modeling and improved aircraft dynamics. J Guid Control Dynam2019; 42(2): 432–439.
21.
YildizYAgoginoABratG. Predicting pilot behavior in medium-scale scenarios using game theory and reinforcement learning. J Guid Control Dynam2014; 37: 1335–1343.
22.
JaakkolaTSinghSPJordanMI. Reinforcement learning algorithm for partially observable markov decision problems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS’94. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1994, pp. 345–352.
23.
MusaviNOnuralDGunesK, et al.Unmanned aircraft systems airspace integration: a game theoretical framework for concept evaluations. J Guid Control Dynam2017; 40(1): 96–109.
24.
HuYLiRZhangY. Predicting pilot behavior during midair encounters using recognition primed decision model. Inf Sci2018; 422(C): 377–395.
25.
HuYWangX. Simplified approach for modeling conflict resolution behavior of human pilot. J Aero Inf Syst2019; 16(9): 385–389.
26.
PieraMAMunozJLMartinJL, et al.A socio-technical simulation model for the design of the future single pilot cockpit: an opportunity to improve pilot performance. IEEE Access2022; 10: 22330–22343
27.
LeeRMengshoelOSaksenaA, et al.Differential adaptive stress testing of airborne collision avoidance systems. AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference. Reston, USA: AIAA; 2018.
28.
KochenderferMJEspindleLPKucharJK. Correlated encounter model for cooperative aircraft in the national airspace system version 1.0. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Istitute of Technology, 2008.
29.
WeinertAUnderhillNWicksA. Developing a low altitude manned encounter model using ADS-B observations. In: 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Big Sky, MT, USA. 02-09 March 2019. IEEE; 2019. p. 1–8.
30.
BradleyS. Simulation test and evaluation of TCAS II logic version 6.04. Mclean, Virginia: MITRE Corporation, 1992. DOT/FAA/RD-92/22.
31.
MclaughlinMFZeitlinAD. Safety study of TCAS II for logic version 6.04. Mclean, Virginia: MITRE Corporation, 1992. DOT/FAA/RD-92/22.
32.
AbbasGNawazMKamranF. Performance comparison of NARX & RNN-LSTM neural networks for LiFePO4 battery state of charge estimation. In: 16th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST). Islamabad, Pakistan: IEEE, 2019, pp. 463–468.
