Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T09:51:59.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ground collision avoidance system with multi-trajectory risk assessment and decision function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2024

R. Chen Open the ORCID record for R. Chen [Opens in a new window]  and
L. Zhao
R. Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Automation, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100191, China
L. Zhao*
Affiliation:
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100191, China
*
Corresponding author: L. Zhao; Email: buaa_dnc@buaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional ground collision avoidance system (GCAS) makes avoidance decisions based on predicted collision time, without considering the impact of terrain environment and dynamic changes in load factor on avoidance decisions. This increases the risk of ground collisions for the aircraft. To solve the problem, a GCAS with multi-trajectory risk assessment and decision function is proposed. Firstly, a variety of predicted flight avoidance trajectories are established within the final manoeuvering capability of the aircraft. Secondly, for each predicted trajectory, the uncertain length between adjacent prediction points is used to construct a rectangular distance bin, and the terrain data below the avoided trajectory is extracted. Finally, the regret theory is used to establish a multi-attribute avoidance decision model to evaluate and prioritise the risk of collision avoidance trajectories, to provide effective collision avoidance decision for pilots. The algorithm is tested and verified with real digital elevation model and simulated flight data, and compared with traditional GCAS. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm can comprehensively consider manoeuvering performance and threatening terrain, and provide safe and effective avoidance decisions for pilots.

Keywords

Alarm systemAircraftDecision functionGround Collision Avoidance SystemRisk assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pranav, S.N., Tanishq, V.P. and Chetan, P.D. Recent advancements in Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) prevention. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res., 2023, 5, (2), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Maley, P.D., Hubbard, A.M. and Urban, J.M. Recovery autopilot analysis for a general aviation ground collision avoidance system. IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2023, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugnara, R.L., Andrade, D. and Fontes, R.S. Safety-II: building safety capacity and aeronautical decision-making skills to commit better mistakes. Aeronaut. J., 2023, 127, pp. 511–536. doi: 10.1017/aer.2022.74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, B.C. Controlled flight into terrain and the enhanced ground proximity warning system. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., 1999, 14, (1), pp. 19–24. doi: 10.1109/62.738350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellerman, N., Kaabouch, N. and Semke, W. A terrain avoidance algorithm based on the requirements of terrain awareness and warning systems. In IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 7–14, 2015, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/AERO.2015.7119160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBourne, R.C. A generic ground collision avoidance system for tactical aircraft. In Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, May 23–27, 1988, 1, pp. 184–190. doi: 10.1109/NAECON.1988.195012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, G., Sennes, U. and Dudek, H.L. Design and flight tests of a ground collision avoidance system. In Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 1999, pp. 154–159. doi: 10.2514/6.1999-4037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josel, S. Development of the Forward Looking Terrain Avoidance in a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS). Austria, Graz: Graz University of Technology, 2012.Google Scholar
Gang, X., Fang, H. and Wu, J. Research on an EGPWS/TAWS simulator with forward-looking alerting function. In IEEE/AIAA 33rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2014, pp. 7D4-1–7D4-11. doi: 10.1109/DASC.2014.6979523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. and Zhao, L. A resilient forward-looking terrain avoidance warning method for helicopters. Aerospace, 2022, 9, (11), p. 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, W.G. and Zhang, K. A forward-looking prediction alert system and method in ground proximity warning system. C. N. Patent 103903482A, December 26, 2012.Google Scholar
Kuchar, J.K. Methodology for alerting-system performance evaluation. J. Guid. Control Dyn., 1996, 19, (2), pp. 438–444. doi: 10.2514/3.21637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilkov, V.P., Ledet, J.H. and Li, X.R. Multiple model method for aircraft conflict detection and resolution in intent and weather uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2019, 55, (2), pp. 1004–1020. doi: 10.1109/TAES.2018.2867698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchar, J.K. and Yang, L.C. A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst., 2000, 1, (4), pp. 179–189. doi: 10.1109/6979.898217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchar, J.K. Markov model of terrain for evaluation of ground proximity warning system thresholds. J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2001, 24, (3), pp. 428–428. doi: 10.2514/2.4748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingras, D.R. and Ralston, J.N. Aerodynamics modelling for training on the edge of the flight envelope. Aeronaut. J., 2012, 116, pp. 67–86. doi: 10.1017/S000192400000662X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, Y.Y. Threshold Study of Terrain Awareness and Warning System. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2013.Google Scholar
Lu, X.J. Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) Envelope analysis and Safety Analysis. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2016.Google Scholar
Swihart, D.E. and Griffin, E. Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AUTO GCAS). In Proceedings of the 13th WSEAS International Conference on Systems, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2009, pp. 429–433.Google Scholar
Goerke, R. and Berger, W. Tactical ground collision avoidance system T-GCAS®. In IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2012, pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1109/DASC.2012.6382953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Gahan, K. and Cobb, R. Automatic-ground collision avoidance system (Auto-GCAS) for performance limited aircraft. In AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum. Flight Testing in the Educational Environment II, 2019, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.2514/6.2019-3657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, R.W. Collision avoidance within flight dynamics constraints for UAV applications. Aeronaut. J., 2005, 109, pp. 193–199. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000000695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angela, W.S. Optimal Recovery Trajectories for Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance Systems (Auto GCAS). USA, Dayton: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2015.Google Scholar
John, V.T. Multi-Trajectory Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System with Flight Tests (Project Have ESCAPE). USA, Dayton: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2016.Google Scholar
James, D.C. Simulation and Piloted Simulator Study of an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System for Performance Limited Aircraft. USA, Dayton: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2019.Google Scholar
Kenneth, C.G. Multi-Path Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System for Performance Limited Aircraft with Flight Tests. USA, Dayton: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2019.Google Scholar
Kirkendoll, Z. and Hook, L.R. Automatic ground collision avoidance system trajectory prediction and control for general aviation. In IEEE/AIAA 40th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2021, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1109/DASC52595.2021.9594506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghunathan, A.U., Gopal, V., Subramanian, D., Biegler, L.T. and Samad, T. Dynamic optimization strategies for three-dimensional conflict resolution of multiple aircraft. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2004, 27, (4), pp. 586–596. doi: 10.2514/1.11168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swihart, E.D., Arthur, F.B. and Edward, M.G. Automatic ground collision avoidance system design, integration, & flight test. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., 2011, 26, (5), pp. 4–11. doi: 10.1109/MAES.2011.5871385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, E.B. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res., 1982, 30, (5), pp. 961–981.Google Scholar
Liao, Z.R., Jiang, L.S. and Wang, Y. A quantitative measure of regret in decision-making for human-robot collaborative search tasks. In 2017 American Control Conference (ACC), 2017, pp. 1524–1529. doi: 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. and Zhao, L. Optimal selection and adaptability analysis of matching area for terrain aided navigation. IET Radar, Sonar Navigat., 2021, 15, (12), pp. 1702–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar