First, based on the interview data, each goal was associated with a stakeholder (or multiple stakeholders, where appropriate) The stakeholders were categorized as fleet, area, and individual aircraft in order to determine the scope or level of concern for each. For example, an AOC would be a fleet level stakeholder because their objectives have to do with optimizing the schedule across their fleet. ATC would be an area level stakeholder because their primary objectives concern traffic flow and conflict avoidance within a geographic area. Individual aircraft level concerns are generally those of the flight crew, but also relate to passenger goals.
Each goal was then associated with constraints, functions, and information. The ultimate purpose of this step was to determine how information requirements should be allocated to stakeholders; in order to do this, the constraints were identified to ensure completeness of any associated functions and information. Functions were then allocated to stakeholders based on the association between goals and stakeholders, and primary, secondary, and tertiary responsibility for each function was assigned. Finally, these results were used to allocate information requirements to the stakeholders. It should be noted that the distinction between constraints, functions, and information can be fuzzy at times; this is acceptable for the present purpose, to ensure comprehensive identification of the information requirements. The complete analysis is shown in Appendix C.
5.0 Design Implications
5.1 Function reallocation
In the above analysis, we identified the information used in flight planning and replanning and the functions associated with the goals and constraints of each stakeholder. Based on the interests and responsibilities of the various stakeholders, we then allocated functions and their associated information requirements to stakeholders. This resulted in what we believe is a more rational assignment of responsibilities to stakeholders than exists in the current system.
Three stakeholders, the air traffic service provider (controller), the dispatcher, and the flight crew, have an interest in determining the future flight path. In today’s environment, the controller generally has the greatest control over what route is eventually flown by an aircraft in most replanning scenarios. In the program plan for this effort we made the distinction between global constraints (affect many aircraft) and local constraints (affect one or a few aircraft). Air traffic services has global constraints in terms of separation assurance, sector congestion, arrival sequencing, and overall traffic flow. Airlines have global constraints in terms of fleet considerations and maintaining schedule integrity. The controller’s interest in the safety of aircraft within a region or meeting traffic flow demands isn’t any more “global” than the fleet operator’s interests in the overall efficiency of their fleet. However, controller route decisions may end up usurping the interests of the fleet operator in arrival sequences within the fleet (to make crew, equipment, and passenger connections as efficient as possible) or fuel use and time en route tradeoffs. In some cases, collaborative re-routing may allow the broad interests of air traffic services and the fleet operator, as well as local interests of an individual aircraft, to be satisfied simultaneously without significant compromise by any party; collaboration simply allows identification of a solution that satisfies all constraints which would have otherwise been missed. In other cases, where constraints must be prioritized and compromises made, collaboration allows all stakeholders to communicate their interests and priorities and perhaps help develop solutions that more fairly distribute the “costs” of compromise solutions across stakeholders. It should be made clear that when we suggest compromised or collaborative decisions that provide more economic benefit to the airlines, we of course do not mean that safety be compromised; we mean, rather, that solutions that are developed primarily for the convenience or convention of one stakeholder be compromised, assuring no negative impact on safety.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Airborne-Based Conflict Probe(43)
