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
Another related distinction that should be mentioned concerning different approaches to reducing routing inefficiencies is that between the functions of Tactical Hazard Avoidance and Strategic Route Planning. The latter, which is focused on here, directly impacts operating efficiency. The former, which is often the focus of Free Flight, is a safety-related function which is assumed to be required to enable the more flexible routing envisioned by Free Flight. We view two distinctions here -- tactical vs. strategic situations and hazard avoidance vs. route planning. These distinctions generally coincide, that is, hazard avoidance is a tactical function and flight planning is a strategic function. When the aircraft is in a situation where there is imminent actual or potential danger from an encounter with a hazard, there is a time-pressured, safety-driven flight control goal to maneuver the aircraft to avoid the hazard. Efficiency of operation is moot. The maneuver serves immediate goals. The time scale may vary from seconds to minutes, but it is tactical in the sense that it has perceived immediacy, requires the full attention of the flight crew on short term objectives, and the primary high level function is flight control.
Conversely, when the aircraft is in a situation where new information or circumstances require or suggest a change in the flight plan or a deviation in the current route, be it from weather, ATC constraints, wind changes, traffic, etc., there is a time-relaxed (usually), economy/operational constraint-driven planning goal to develop and execute a new route. Efficiency of the operation may be key. The change serves long-term goals. The time-scale for completion of the task may vary from minutes to tens of minutes, requires a broad horizon of awareness (i.e., the big picture of mission management), and the primary high level function is navigation/flight planning. Entities such as traffic, turbulence, convective weather, icing conditions, and terrain can be hazards to be tactically avoided or constraints to be accounted for in strategic flight planning. The difference in how they are viewed by the flight crew depends on the goals, functions, and time-scale that comprise the situation.
This effort focuses on strategic route planning, and directly addresses tactical hazard avoidance and Free Flight only in the sense that strategic planning for avoidance of other individual aircraft may need to be accommodated in combination with planning for avoidance of other constraints to enable more efficient and safe routing in a more flexible, unstructured air traffic environment.
2.0 Problem Definition Study
Our approach in this effort, then, is to step back from both Free Flight as a solution and self-separation as an operational assumption for Free Flight. We began by conducting operator and stakeholder interviews to allow us to describe flight planning and replanning in today’s environment, including the routing problems and inefficiencies that helped motivate the Free Flight concept in the first place. We also describe flight deck equipment (Appendix A) related to flight planning to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how planning/replanning is performed today. The first question to be asked then, both of any overall Free Flight operational concept, and of the airborne component, is, “does it have the potential to reduce delays and/or increase path and speed efficiency?” We take a building-block approach to understanding current operational inefficiencies and flight planning processes, and then develop assumptions about Free Flight and reasonable airborne concepts based on that understanding. We attempt to apply “out-of-the-box” thinking, but solutions and approaches must be tempered by their tenability in real world operations. Only two assumptions about potential solutions are made:
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(8)
