Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Air Traffic Safety: continued evolution or a new Paradigm.

By Peter Brooker

Abstract

The context here is Transport Risk Management. Is the philosophy of Air Traffic Safety different from other modes of transport? – yes, in many ways, it is. The focus is on Air Traffic Management (ATM), covering (eg) air traffic control and airspace structures, which is the part of the aviation system that is most likely to be developed through new paradigms. The primary goal of the ATM system is to control accident risk. ATM safety has improved over the decades for many reasons, from better equipment to additional safety defences. But ATM safety targets, improving on current performance, are now extremely demanding. What are the past and current methodologies for ATM risk assessment; and will they work effectively for the kinds of future systems that people are now imagining and planning? The title contrasts ‘Continued Evolution’ and a ‘New Paradigm’. How will system designers/operators assure safety with traffic growth and operational/technical changes that are more than continued evolution from the current system? What are the design implications for ‘new paradigms’, such as the USA’s ‘Next Generation Air Transportation System’ (NextGen) and Europe’s Single European Sky ATM Research Programme (SESAR)? Achieving and proving safety for NextGen and SESAR is an enormously tough challenge. For example, it will need to cover system resilience, human/automation issues, software/hardware performance/ground/air protection systems. There will be a need for confidence building programmes regarding system design/resilience, eg Human-in-the-Loop simulations with ‘seeded errors’

Publisher: Royal Aeronautical Society
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/1967
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2004). ACAS Safety Study Summary. Qinetiq Report for Eurocontrol. Available from: http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/gallery/content/public/documents/Safety/ACAS%20Sa fety%20Studies.pdf
  2. (2006). Air Traffic Management Accident Risk Part 1: The Limits of Realistic Modelling. doi
  3. (2007). Air Traffic Management Innovation: The Risks of Stasis. Air Traffic Technology International
  4. (2007). Air Traffic Management Safety Challenges. doi
  5. (2005). Airborne collision avoidance systems and Air Traffic Management safety. doi
  6. (2004). Airborne separation assurance systems: towards a work programme to prove safety. doi
  7. Airproxes and Collision Risk. doi
  8. (2007). Annual Safety Performance Report
  9. (2004). Beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: The need for an alternative approach to safety in complex systems. In: Engineering Systems Division Symposium. MIT, doi
  10. (2004). Consistent and up-to-date aviation safety targets.
  11. (2003). Control Workload, Airspace Capacity and Future Systems. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety,
  12. (1989). Development and Operation of the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) doi
  13. (2006). Encouraging and Ensuring Successful Technology Transition in Civil Aviation. MIT ESD-WP-2006-07. http://esd.mit.edu/wps/esd-wp-2006-07.pdf MIT
  14. (2003). FAA Wright Brothers Curriculum material. http://www.faa.gov/education_research/education/educator_resources/curriculum/wri ght_brothers/media/wbtext.pdf FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]
  15. (2002). Future Air Traffic Management: Quantitative En Route Safety Assessment Part 1 – Review of Present Methods. doi
  16. (2002). Future Air Traffic Management: Quantitative En Route Safety Assessment Part 2 – New Approaches. doi
  17. (2003). Future Air Traffic Management: Strategy and Control Philosophy.
  18. (1984). LectureImperial College / Lloyd's Register Educational Trust Transport Risk Management Lecture Imperial College /
  19. (2007). Next Generation Air Transportation System: HumanAutomation Interaction and Organizational Risks. Resilience Engineering Symposium, Juan les Pins,
  20. (2007). NGATS: Strategy and Challenges.
  21. (2005). Reducing mid-air collision risk in controlled airspace: Lessons from hazardous incidents. doi
  22. (2005). Safety Analysis for Advanced Separation Concepts. 6 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Baltimore. http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/all-seminars/6th-usa-europeatm-2005-r-d-seminar/paper_120/attachment_download/file Boeing Commercial Airplanes
  23. (2005). SESAME CBA and Governance. Assessment of options, benefits and associated costs of the SESAME Programme for the definition of the future air traffic management system: Final Report.
  24. (2008). SESAR and NextGen: Investing in New Paradigms. doi
  25. (2007). Software for Dependable Systems: Sufficient Evidence? National Academies Press. (Eds
  26. (2007). State of progress with the project to implement the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) 2 nd
  27. (2007). Tennis-Match statistics for Federer v Nadal.
  28. (1991). The Fangs of the VIPER. doi
  29. (2004). The Flyers: In Search of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Three doi
  30. (1943). The Glass Bead Game: (Magister Ludi). English Translation. doi
  31. (1996). The Role of Formal Techniques: Past, Current and Future or How Did Software Get so Reliable without doi
  32. (2008). The Überlingen Accident: Macro-Level Safety Lessons. doi
  33. (2006). What are Emergent Properties and How do They Affect the Engineering of Complex Systems? Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(12), 1475-1481. http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/emergence.pdf JPDO [Joint Planning and Development Office]
  34. (2004). Why the Eurocontrol safety regulation commission policy on safety nets and risk assessment is wrong. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.