Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:12:25.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Runway conflict alerting: advisory or directive?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

A. Sammut and
D. Zammit Mangion
A. Sammut*
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
D. Zammit Mangion*
Affiliation:
University of Malta, MaltaCranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
*
andrew.sammut@um.edu.mt
d.zammit-mangion@cranfield.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Runway conflicts pose a significant threat to continued safety in commercial aviation. In recent years, stakeholders have initiated a number of programmes dealing with the issue of runway incursions, with the majority adopting traditional advisory alerting techniques. In contrast, this work proposes the use of directive cockpit alerting, which provides both an alert of the conflict as well as guidance on which manoeuvre to conduct to clear the conflict. This article reports the findings of simulator trials that have been conducted to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of a directive alerting strategy within the context of runway incursions. Statistical analysis performed on the quantitative measures taken from the evaluations have shown that the directive mode of alerting leads to a higher probability of the crew performing the correct action when faced with an alert. This, together with overall participant acceptance of the directive alerting concept, is a strong indicator that the technique has the potential of providing a complete solution to the problem of runway incursions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1205 , July 2014, pp. 713 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

References

1. United States Federal Aviation Administration. Runway Safety Report – Published Yearly. Statistical report, United States Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, USA, 2001-2010.Google Scholar
2. NTSB. Most Wanted Safety Transportation Safety Improvements. United States National Transportation Safety Board, Washington DC, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
3. Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe. Strategic Research Agenda SRA – Volume 1. Technical report, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003.Google Scholar
4. International Civil Aviation Organization. Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions. Technical Report DOC9870, 2007.Google Scholar
5. International Civil Aviation Organization. Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems Manual (A-SMGCS). Technical Report DOC9830, 2004.Google Scholar
6. Jain, A. Airport Surface Monitoring and Runway Incursion Warning System. United States Patent 5,629,691, 1997.Google Scholar
7. Smithley, D.L. Runway Incursion Detection and Warning System. United States Patent 6,486,825, 2002.Google Scholar
8. Mallet, R. and Calzetta, R. Surface Traffic Movement System and Method. United States Patent 6,920,390, 2005.Google Scholar
9. Cassell, R., Evers, C., Esche, J. and Sleep, B. NASA Runway Incursion Prevention System (RIPS) Dallas-Fort Worth Demonstration Performance Analysis. Technical Report NASA/CR-2002-211677, Rannoch Corporation, 2002.Google Scholar
10. Green, D. Jr Runway Safety Monitor Algorithm for Runway Incursion Detection and Alerting. Technical Report NASA/CR-2002-211416, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2002.Google Scholar
11. Cassell, R., Evers, C., Esche, J. and Sleep, B. PATHPROX – A Runway Incursion Alerting System. In The IEEE 19th Annual Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2, pp 7D3/1 – 7D3/6, 2000.Google Scholar
12. Cassell, R., Evers, C., Esche, J. and Sleep, B. Initial Test Results of PathProx – A Runway Incursion Alerting System. In The IEEE 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 1, pp 2D3/1–2D3/7, Oct 2001.Google Scholar
13. Cassell, R., Evers, C. and Esche, J. Safety Benefits of PathProx – A Runway Incursion Alerting System. In The IEEE 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2, pp 9.B.4-91-10, October 2003.Google Scholar
14. Timmerman, J. Runway Incursion Prevention System ADS-B and DGPS Data Link Analysis Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. Technical Report NASA/CR-2001-211242, Rockwell Collins, 2001.Google Scholar
15. Jones, D.R. Runway Incursion Prevention System Simulation Evaluation. In IEEE 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2, pp 11B4-1-12, 2002.Google Scholar
16. Vernaleken, C., Urvoy, C. and Klingauf, U. Simulator Evaluation of a Novel Surface Movement Awareness and Alerting System (SMAAS) for Runway Incursion Avoidance. In The 26th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2008.Google Scholar
17. Woodell, D.L. Runway Obstacle Detection System and Method. United States Patent 6,850,185 B1, 2005.Google Scholar
18. Corcoran, J.J. III Incursion Alerting System. United States Patent 6,606,563 B2, 2003.Google Scholar
19. Khatwa, R., Johnson, M.A., Poe, J.J., Conner, K.J. and Corcoran, J.J. III Ground Runway Awareness and Advisory System. United States Patent 7,117,089 B2, 2006.Google Scholar
20. Honeywell Runway Awareness and Alerting System Added to Airbus Catalog – (Online Press Release). http://honeywell.com/News/Pages/07.14.08RAASAddedtoAirbusCatalog.aspx, 2008. (Cited July 2010).Google Scholar
21. Conner, K.J., Gremmert, R., Ishihara, Y., Khatwa, R., Poe, J.J. and Corcoran, J.J. III Ground Operations and Imminent Landing Runway Selection. United States Patent 7,206,698 B2, 2007.Google Scholar
22. Campbell, R.D. and Bagshaw, M. Human Performance and Limitations in Aviation, Third Edition, pp 99–114. Blackwell Science Ltd, 2002. ISBN 0-632-05965-6.Google Scholar
23. Foxworth, T.G. and Marthinsen, H.F. Another Look at Accelerate-Stop Criteria. Technical report, Air Line Pilots Association, 1969.Google Scholar
24. Edworthy, J. Warning Design: A Research Perspective, 1996, pp 129–139. CRC Press. ISBN 0-748-40090-7.Google Scholar
25. Peryer, G., Noyes, J. and Pleydell-Pearce, K. Auditory alert characteristics: A survey of pilot views, The Int J Aviation Psychology, 2005, 15, pp 233–250.Google Scholar