广西师范大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2015, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 27-31.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6600.2015.01.005

• • 上一篇    下一篇

飞行冲突调配概率安全评估方法研究

袁乐平1,2, 孙瑞山1,2   

  1. 1. 国家空管运行安全技术重点实验室,天津300300;
    2. 中国民航大学民航安全科学研究所,天津300300
  • 收稿日期:2014-10-28 出版日期:2015-03-15 发布日期:2018-09-17
  • 通讯作者: 袁乐平(1978—),男,云南泸西人,中国民航大学助理研究员。E-mail: lpyuan@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助项目(U1333122);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(3122014D048)

Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Air Traffic Conflict Resolution

YUAN Le-ping1,2, SUN Rui-shan1,2   

  1. 1. National Key Laboratory of Air Traffic Operation Safety Technology, Tianjin 300300, China;
    2. Research Institute of Civil Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
  • Received:2014-10-28 Online:2015-03-15 Published:2018-09-17

PDF (PC)

330

摘要： 现行技术条件和运行模式下,通过地面监控与引导、地空协同、调配和化解飞行冲突是保障空中交通安全的关键,因此以飞行冲突调配为对象,开展量化的安全性分析是一项重要的基础性工作。结合空中航行的运行实际,对飞行冲突检测与解脱的过程进行了分析,并利用事件树分析(ETA)方法对飞行冲突调配的逻辑顺序进行了解析。针对评估中人失效的问题,采用了人误评估与减少技术(HEART)分析飞行冲突调配过程中空中交通管制员、飞行员的人因失误概率。最后在综合考虑防相撞设备可靠性因素后,得到飞行冲突调配的整体失效概率。研究结果表明:利用ETA和HEART组合的概率安全评估模型对空中航行系统进行安全评估是可行的,为空中航行安全性分析提供了量化参考,同时为防范空中飞行冲突风险提供了指引。

关键词: 交通运输工程, 概率安全评估, 事件树, 人的可靠性, 飞行冲突

Abstract: In the present technology condition and operation mode, potential air traffic conflicts are resolved by ground monitoring, radar vectoring and air ground collaboration. Therefore it is extremely important to ensure the seamless and reliable operation of the loop. Obviously, quantitative safety analysis is undoubtedly necessary for such a safety-critical operation, and Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) seems to be the best way address the issue. The entire process of air traffic conflict resolution is analyzed herein based on the operation practice of air navigation system, and the Event Tree Analysis (ETA) technique is adopted to depict the logic consequence of air traffic conflict resolution process. It takes into account of the failures of not only man (generally air traffic controllers and pilots) but also machine involved (collision avoidance equipment) both on the ground and airborne. Under the ETA analysis frame, the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART) which is a typical human reliability analysis model widely used in many industries is applied here for the estimation of human reliability of air traffic controllers and pilots. The overall failure probability of air traffic conflict resolution is obtained through the ETA calculation principal by counting both human and machine factors. The research shows the ETA and HEART combined probabilistic safety assessment model discussed in the paper is feasible for the air navigation system, and it provides a view and method for safety analysis of the system as well as a clue for the risk prevention.

Key words: traffic engineering, probabilistic safety assessment, event tree analysis, human reliability, air traffic conflict

中图分类号: 

  • V328
[1] 周经伦,龚时雨,颜兆林.系统安全性分析[M].长沙:中南大学出版社,2003:186-204.
[2] REICH P G. Analysis of long-range air traffic sistems: separation standards Ⅰ[J]. Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 1966, 19(1):88-98.
[3] REICH P G. Analysis of long-range air traffic systems: separation standards Ⅱ[J]. Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 1966, 19(2): 169-186.
[4] REICH P G. Analysis of long-range air traffic systems: separation standards Ⅲ[J]. Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 1966, 19(3): 331-347.
[5] DAVIES E H, SHARPE A G. Review of the target level of safety for NAT MNPS airspace: NATS CS Report 9301[R]. London: NATS, 1993.
[6] MOEK G, LUTZ E, MOSBORG W. Risk assessment of RNP 10 and RVSM in the South At lantic flight identification regions [R]. Annapolis: Aeronautical Radio Incorporated, 2001.
[7] EUROCONTROL. Air navigation system safety assessment methodology [Z]. Brussels: EUROCONTROL, 2004.
[8] LEZAUD P, KRYSTUL J, BLOM H. Accident risk assessment and Monte-Carlo simulation methods[EB/OL]. Amsterdam: NLR, 2003 [2014-10-24] http://www2.nlr.nl/public/hosted-sites/hybridge/documents/R2.920ECC2003-670_final.pdf.
[9] 韩松臣,裴成功,隋东等.平行区域导航航路安全性分析[J].航空学报,2006,27(6):1023-1027.
[10] SUI Dong. New method for safety assessment of parallel routes[J]. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 2009, 26(1): 36-43.
[11] SUN Rui-shan, CHEN Yun-fei, LIU Xin-yi, et al. A Method of analysis integrating HCR and ETA modeling for determining risks associated with inadequate flight separation events[J]. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 2011,1(1):19-27.
[12] 黎峰.空中交通警戒和防撞系统的发展历程[J].中国民用航空,2004,10:81-83.
[13] WILLIAMS J C. A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance[C] //Proceedings of IEEE 4th Conference on Human Factors in Power Plants, California: IEEE press, 1988:436-450.
[14] 蔡明,张兆宁,王莉莉.基于模糊事故树分析法的飞行碰撞风险研究[J].航空计算技术,2011,41(3):22-30.
[15] 中国民用航空总局. MH/T 4022-2006 空中交通管制自动化系统最低安全高度告警及短期飞行冲突告警功能[S].北京: 中国科学技术出版社,2007.
[16] BERT B, BART K O. Advance safe separation technologies and algorithms [R]. Vienna: The European Commission Directorate General RTD the 6th Framework Program, 2006.
[17] KUCHAR J K. Methodology for alerting-system performance evaluation[J]. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,1996,19(2):438-444.
[1] 周建, 王莉莉, Ahmed Rahmani, 刘昕. 分布式多agent系统在飞行冲突解脱中的应用[J]. 广西师范大学学报（自然科学版）, 2015, 33(3): 16-22.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报（自然科学版）编辑部
地址：广西桂林市三里店育才路15号　邮编：541004
电话：0773-5857325　E-mail: gxsdzkb@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发