航空器自主运行下的平行航路碰撞风险研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.08.0813

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为有效评估航空器在空地协同的自主运行场景下的碰撞风险并保障运行安全,基于人为因素和通信、导航、监视(CNS)性能,开展航空器自主运行下的平行航路碰撞风险研究。首先,深入分析航空器自主运行场景特征,基于飞行员和管制员认知行为及其交互作用改进认知可靠性与失误分析方法(CREAM),评估自主运行过程中的人因可靠性;然后,结合CNS性能,构建基于人为因素和CNS性能的自主运行航空器碰撞风险模型,分别评估航空器在侧向、纵向、竖直方向和综合碰撞风险;其次,通过平行航路算例验证该方法的可行性,分析人因可靠性和CNS性能对平行航路碰撞风险的影响。结果表明:自主运行航空器在3个方向及综合碰撞风险值均低于目标安全水平(5×10^-9),且提高人的认知可靠性和CNS性能均有利于减小平行航路间距,从而提升自主运行的安全性。

关键词: 航空器自主运行, 平行航路, 碰撞风险, 通信、导航、监视(CNS)性能, 人为因素, 风险评估

Abstract:

In the scenario of air-ground collaborative autonomous operations, the collision risk of aircraft was assessed to ensure operational safety. The collision risk of parallel routes under autonomous flight was studied based on human factors and the performance of CNS systems. Firstly, an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of autonomous operation scenarios was performed. The Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method(CREAM) model was improved by incorporating cognitive behavior and interactions between pilots and air traffic controllers to assess human reliability in autonomous operations. Subsequently, combined with the CNS performance and human factors, a collision risk model for autonomous operation aircraft was established. The lateral, longitudinal, vertical, and overall collision risks of the aircraft were evaluated separately. The feasibility of this method was validated through a parallel route example, and the impact patterns of human reliability and CNS performance on the collision risk of parallel routes were analyzed. The results indicate that the collision risk values in all three directions and the overall risk remain below the target safety level (5×10^-9). Furthermore, it is demonstrated that improving human cognitive reliability and CNS performance contributes to reducing the spacing between parallel routes, thereby enhancing the safety of autonomous operations.

Key words: autonomous aircraft operation, parallel air routes, collision risk, communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) performance, human factors, risk assessment

中图分类号:

X949

张洪海, 唐思嘉, 万俊强. 航空器自主运行下的平行航路碰撞风险研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(8): 70-83.

ZHANG Honghai, TANG Sijia, WAN Junqiang. Research on collision risk of parallel air routes under autonomous aircraft operation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(8): 70-83.

图/表 19

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图2

图3

图4

图5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

表11

表12

图6

图7

参考文献 20

[1]	BROOKER P. Lateral collision risk in air traffic systems: a 'post-reich' event model[J]. Journal of Navigation, 2003, 56(3):399-409.
[2]	BROOKER P. Radar inaccuracies and mid-air collision risk: part 1 a dynamic methodology[J]. Journal of Navigation, 2004, 57(1):25-37.
[3]	BROOKER P. Longitudinal collision risk for ATC track systems: a hazardous event model[J]. Journal of Navigation, 2006, 59(1):55-70.
[4]	杨新湦, 任治. 多随机因素影响下飞行间隔评估及冲突解脱阈值研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2018, 18(1):1-4.
	YANG Xinsheng, REN Zhi. On the flight temporal separation assessment and the conflict resolution threshold in view of the influence of the random factors[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2018, 18(1):1-4.
[5]	张兆宁, 余晟. 自由飞行下基于航空器定位误差修正的碰撞风险研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2017, 17(5):1633-1636.
	ZHANG Zhaoning, YU Sheng. On the collision risk in rectification of the aircraft positioning error under the free flight condition[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2017, 17(5):1633-1636.
[6]	CAI Qing, ANG Haojie, ALAM S. Collision risk assessment of reduced aircraft separation minima in procedural airspace using advanced communication and navigation[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2023, 36(4):315-337.
[7]	TAMARA P, NETJASOV E, CRNOGORAC D. Analysis of relationship between air traffic demand, safety and complexity in FABEC airspace[C]. Proceeding in 9^th SESAR Innovation Days, 2019:1-8.
[8]	WANG Hongyong, SONG Ziqi, WEN Ruiying. Modeling air traffic situation complexity with a dynamic weighted network approach[J]. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018(1):1-15.
[9]	叶博嘉, 薛奥林, 伍小元, 等. 管型航路中航空器自主运行模式[J]. 西南交通大学学报, 2020, 55(4):873-881.
	YE Bojia, XUE Aolin, WU Xiaoyuan, et al. Autonomous operation mode of aircrafts in tube air corridor[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2020, 55(4):873-881.
[10]	XU Xiyang, PENG Wei. Scalable Multi-Agent computational guidance with separation assurance for autonomous urban air mobility[J]. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2020, 43(3):1-14.
[11]	QIN Huayang, TAN Panlong, CHEN Zengqiang, et al. Deep reinforcement learning based active disturbance rejection control for ship course control[J]. Neurocomputing, 2022, 484:99-108.
[12]	杨越, 张燕飞, 王建忠. 基于CREAM和贝叶斯网络的空管人误概率预测方法[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(3):37-43.
	YANG Yue, ZHANG Yanfei, WANG Jianzhong. Prediction method of human error probability in air traffic management based on CREAM and Bayesian network[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(3):37-43.
[13]	郭云东, 孙有朝. 基于FBCREAM方法的飞机驾驶人因可靠性评估模型[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2021, 21(27):11843-11 849.
	GUO Yundong, SUN Youchao. Human reliability assessment model for aircraft operating based on FBCREAM method[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2021, 21(27):11843-11 849.
[14]	吕宗平, 王松涛, 张兆宁. 基于CREAM和IDAC综合分析法的自由飞行下航空器碰撞风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2017, 24(1):111-114,120.
	LYU Zongping, WANG Songtao, ZHANG Zhaoning. Collision risk in free flight based on CREAM and IDAC[J]. Safety and Environment Engineering, 2017, 24(1):111-114, 120.
[15]	刘继新, 曾逍宇, 冯思旭, 等. 基于改进CREAM扩展法的管制人员人因可靠性分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2018, 18(6):2246-2251.
	LIU Jixin, ZENG Xiaoyu, FENG Sixu, et al. Human reliability analysis of the air traffic controllers based on the development method CREAM[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2018, 18(6):2246-2251.
[16]	AHN S, EMEK K R, OSMAN T. The hybrid method combined STPA and SLIM to assess the reliability of the human interaction system to the emergency shutdown system of LNG ship-to-ship bunkering[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2022, 265(4): DOI:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112643.
[17]	张兆宁, 张晓燕, 李冬宾. 基于VOR导航的平行航路侧向碰撞率计算模型[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2007, 7(3):21-24.
	ZHANG Zhaoning, ZHANG Xiaoyan, LI Dongbin. Computation model of lateral collision rate on parallel routes based on VOR navigation[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2007, 7(3):27-24.
[18]	张兆宁, 刘计民, 王莉莉. 基于CNS性能的平行航路纵向碰撞风险评估[J]. 西南交通大学学报, 2009, 44(6):918-925.
	ZHANG Zhaoning, LIU Jimin, WANG Lili. Assessment of longitudinal collision risk on parallel routes based on CNS performances[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2009, 44(6):918-925.
[19]	左谛, 许有臣, 金开研. 基于航空器高度保持性能的风险碰撞模型优化[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(8):31-36.
	ZUO Di, XU Youchen, JIN Kaiyan. Optimization of risk collision model based on altitude holding performance of aircraft[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(8):31-36.
[20]	万俊强, 赵嶷飞. 基于CNS性能及人为因素的纵向碰撞风险研究[J]. 航空计算技术, 2017, 47(4):34-37,42.
	WAN Junqiang, ZHAO Yifei. Study on longitudinal collision risk of parallel routes based on CNS performance and human factors[J]. Aeronautical Computing Technique, 2017, 47(4):34-37,42.

飞行员行为	认知活动	认知功能				主要失效模式	基本概率	失误概率
飞行员行为	认知活动	观察	解释	计划	执行	主要失效模式	基本概率	失误概率
观察飞行状况	观察	√	—	—	—	错误辨识	0.070 000 0	0.004 480 0
评估可执行操作	计划	—	*	√	—	不适当的计划	0.010 000 0	0.001 500 0
向管制报告获批	讨论	—	√	*	—	决策失误	0.010 000 0	0.001 500 0
执行操作	执行	*	—	*	√	动作方式错误	0.003 000 0	0.000 495 6

管制员行为	认知活动	认知功能				主要失效模式	基本概率	失误概率
管制员行为	认知活动	观察	解释	计划	执行	主要失效模式	基本概率	失误概率
监视飞行动态	观察	√	—	—	—	错误辨识	0.070 000 0	0.004 480 0
评估操作可行	诊断	—	—	√	—	决策失误	0.010 000 0	0.000 500 0
提供支持指导	讨论	—	*	√	—	决策失误	0.010 000 0	0.001 500 0
制定飞行计划	计划	*	—	√	—	不适当的计划	0.010 000 0	0.001 140 0
实时发布指令	执行	*	√	—	√	动作方式错误	0.003 000 0	0.000 648 3

参数	RNP类型
参数	RNP 0.3	RNP 1	RNP 4	RNP 10	RNP 12.6	RNP 20
精确性/n mile	±0.30	±1.00	±4.00	±10.00	±12.60	±20.00
精确性/km	±0.56	±1.85	±7.40	±18.50	±23.30	±37.00

参数	RSP类型
参数	RSP 180	RSP 240	RSP 400	RSP 760
刷新时间/s	180	240	300	760
反应时间/s	2	2	2	2

参数	RCP类型
参数	RCP 10	RCP 60	RCP 120	RCP 240	RCP 400
处理时间/s	10	60	120	240	400