曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
ESTABLISHING SEPARATION STANDARDS
2-7
Runway Guard Lights. In certain instances, a Select Committee and Task Force may be
formed to provide guidance on a major issue. The most recent example is the RTCA Free
Flight Steering Committee and Task Force 3 on Free Flight Implementation.
The RTCA makes recommendations to the FAA, which then makes a decision on whether
and how to proceed on the issue. The FAA then normally issues a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) and holds hearings, allowing the aviation community and others an
opportunity for final comments. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(ANPRM) may be published and an operational demonstration may be undertaken before
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is advanced. Changes in airspace and operational
rules are implemented on a specific date and time. Regulations requiring new or modified
equipment carriage, special inspections of aircraft, additional training, etc. normally allow
for a period of time before full compliance is mandatory.
2.2.2 The European Separation Standard Establishment Process
European airspace design and procedures are based on ICAO standards and guidelines
defined in various documents including ICAO Doc. 8168-OPS/611 “Procedures for Air
Navigation Services, Aircraft Operations.” Supplementary procedures promulgated
specifically for the European region of ICAO are contained in ICAO Doc. 7030.
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) are contained in ICAO Doc. 4444. New
procedures are published in each State's Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).
When a new procedure is proposed it is circulated to each member State for review and
potential adoption. Each State may adopt the procedure or prohibit the use of the new
procedure within its boundaries and/or by its operators (airlines). The process of review
by all States prior to adoption is designed to assure the safety and effectiveness of all new
procedures.
SEPARATION SAFETY MODELING
2-8
List of References
R2.1 Rockman, Mark J., “A Review of the Current Radar Separation Minima and Some
Thoughts on Reducing Them,” McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation, Working Note
94W000099, FAA Contract DTFA01-93-C-00001, July 1994.
R2.2 Applied Techno-Management Systems, Inc. (ATMS), “Potential Operational
Impacts of GPS with Advanced CNS and ATC Automation Technologies,” Falls Church,
VA: FAA Contract #DTA01-94-Y-00039, February 9, 1996.
R2.3 Machol, Robert E., “Thirty Years of Modeling Midair Collisions,” Institute for
Operations Research and the Management Sciences, Interfaces, 25:5 September-October
1995 (151-172).
R2.4 Komons, Nick A., Bonfires to Beacons, Federal Policy Under the Air Commerce
Act 1926-1938, Washington: DOT, FAA, 1978.
R2.5 Briddon, A.E., E.A. Champie, and P.A. Marraine, FAA Historical Fact Book A
Chronology 1926-1971, Washington: Federal Aviation Administration, 1974.
R2.6 King, M. L., Radar Separation in the Terminal Area, informal internal
memorandum, ARD-104, Washington: Federal Aviation Administration, November 14,
1974.
R2.7 Conversation between M.L. King and Chester Wintermoyer, as reported in [R2.6].
R2.8 Conversation between M.L. King and Russell Bierman (the author of a paper
prepared for the FAA for litigation following an aircraft collision over Staten Island, New
York), as reported in [R2.6].
R2.9 United States Manual of Radar Air Traffic Control Procedures, Revised First
Edition, Washington: Federal Aviation Agency, May 1, 1958.
R2.10 Wolf, Ian G., Beacon Radar Separation Minima for Jacksonville ARTCC
Utilizing Digitized Radar, Washington: Federal Aviation Administration, Unpublished.
COLLISION MODELING DEFINITIONS AND RISK METRICS
3-1
3.0 COLLISION MODELING DEFINITIONS AND RISK METRICS
This section addresses how an aircraft might be represented in a collision risk model and
what metrics might be appropriate for measuring collision risk.
3.1 DEFINITIONS
For practical purposes, a collision occurs when two objects attempt to occupy the same
volume of air at the same time. It is usually quite difficult to incorporate the exact shape
of the objects involved into a collision risk model. One would like to consider these
objects as point objects, but the probability that a point object coincides with a given point
in space is zero. Thus, when modeling the probability of collision of two objects, one
cannot treat both objects as points. While it is possible to treat both objects as shapes in
space, it is usually much easier to treat one object as a point and the other as a symmetric
volume, and then work with the probability that the point lies within the volume. It is not
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
a concept paper for separation safety modeling(10)
