2000IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsRequires access

A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods

James K. Kuchar, Yang Lh

Open publisher page 1,058 citations

Abstract

A number of methods have been proposed to automate air traffic conflict detection and resolution (CDR), but there has been little cohesive discussion or comparative evaluation of approaches. The paper presents a survey of 68 CDR modeling methods, several of which are currently in use or under operational evaluation. A framework that articulates the basic functions of CDR is used to categorize the models. The taxonomy includes: dimensions of state information (vertical, horizontal, or three-dimensional, 3-D); method of dynamic state propagation (nominal, worst case, or probabilistic); conflict detection threshold; conflict resolution method (prescribed, optimized, force field, or manual); maneuvering dimensions (speed change, lateral, vertical, or combined manoeuvres); and management of multiple aircraft conflicts (pairwise or global). An overview of important considerations for these and other CDR functions is provided, and the current system design process is critiqued.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A number of methods have been proposed to automate air traffic conflict detection and resolution (CDR), but there has been little cohesive discussion or comparative evaluation of approaches. The paper presents a survey of 68 CDR modeling methods, several of which are currently in use or under operational evaluation. A framework that articulates the basic functions of CDR is used to categorize the models. The taxonomy includes: dimensions of state information (vertical, horizontal, or three-dimensional, 3-D); method of dynamic state propagation (nominal, worst case, or probabilistic); conflict detection threshold; conflict resolution method (prescribed, optimized, force field, or manual); maneuvering dimensions (speed change, lateral, vertical, or combined manoeuvres); and management of multiple aircraft conflicts (pairwise or global). An overview of important considerations for these and other CDR functions is provided, and the current system design process is critiqued.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1058 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A number of methods have been proposed to automate air traffic conflict detection and resolution (CDR), but there has been little cohesive discussion or comparative evaluation of approaches. The paper presents a survey of 68 CDR modeling methods, several of which are currently in use or under operational evaluation. A framework that articulates the basic functions of CDR is used to categorize the models. The taxonomy includes: dimensions of state information (vertical, horizontal, or three-dimensional, 3-D); method of dynamic state propagation (nominal, worst case, or probabilistic); conflict detection threshold; conflict resolution method (prescribed, optimized, force field, or manual); maneuvering dimensions (speed change, lateral, vertical, or combined manoeuvres); and management of multiple aircraft conflicts (pairwise or global). An overview of important considerations for these and other CDR functions is provided, and the current system design process is critiqued.

Key concepts: Pairwise comparison, Conflict resolution, Computer science, Probabilistic logic, Categorization, Field (mathematics), Data mining, Operations research

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens