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
4.3.4.2 Solution (ATSP focus)
User and ATSP collaboratively plan a user-preferred departure trajectory.
The user (AOC and/or FD) selects the key parameters of their user-preferred departure trajectory (desired routes, fixes and speeds), and transmits them to the ATSP via datalink. Using a departure planning DST, the ATSP computes a nominal conflict-free departure trajectory that accommodate user preferences; this trajectory is then uplinked to the FD for execution. ATSP monitors the execution of the nominal trajectory for conflicts and transmits trajectory deviations as necessary for conflict avoidance.
4.3.4.3 Potential Benefits
. Increased departure efficiency, due to user’s ability to influence their departure trajectories.
4.3.5 En route: Free Maneuvering for User-preferred Separation Assurance and Local TFM Conformance
It is noted that this concept element applies to all flight phases (Departure, Cruise and Arrival) in the operational domain of En route Airspace.
4.3.5.1 Problem
(a) ATSP often responds to potential traffic separation conflicts by issuing trajectory deviations that are excessive or not preferred by users.
In the current ATC system, trajectory prediction uncertainty leads to excessive ATC deviations for separation assurance. Due to workload limitations, controllers often compensate for this uncertainty (which may be equivalent to or greater than the minimum separation standard) by adding large separation buffers for conflict detection and resolution (CD&R). Although these buffers reduce the rate of missed alerts, some aircraft experience unnecessary deviations from their preferred trajectories due to the unnecessary “resolution” of false alarms (i.e., predicted “conflicts” that would not have materialized had the aircraft continued along their original trajectories). In those cases where a potential conflict really does exist, the buffers lead to conservative resolution maneuvers that result in excessive deviations from the original trajectory. Moreover, the nature of the resolution (change in route, altitude or speed) may not be user-preferred. Due to a lack of adequate traffic, weather, and airspace restriction information (and displays), and also to a lack of conflict resolution tools on the flight deck, current procedures generally do not permit the user to effectively influence controller decisions on conflict resolution.
(b) ATSP often cannot accommodate the user’s (FD or AOC) trajectory preferences for conformance with local traffic flow management (TFM) constraints.
The dynamic nature of both aircraft operations and NAS operational constraints often result in a need to change a 4-D trajectory plan while the aircraft is en route. Currently, the user (FD or AOC) is required to submit their request for a trajectory change to the ATSP for approval. During flow-rate constrained operations, the ATSP is rarely able to consider user preferences for conformance. Additionally, a lack of accurate information on local traffic and/or active local TFM constraints (bad weather, SUA, airspace congestion, arrival metering/spacing) can result in the FD or AOC requesting an unacceptable trajectory. The ATSP is forced to plan and implement clearances that meet separation and local TFM constraints, but may not meet user preferences. Further negotiation between the ATSP and FD can adversely impact voice-communication channels and increase ATSP and FD workload.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Concept Definition for Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM)(22)
