MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983327649 · doi:10.2514/6.2005-7402

Evaluation of Airborne Precision Spacing in a Human-in-the-Loop Experiment

2005· article· en· W1983327649 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA 5th ATIO and16th Lighter-Than-Air Sys Tech. and Balloon Systems Conferences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman-in-the-loopLoop (graph theory)Remote sensingComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant bottleneck in the current air traffic system occurs at the runway. Expanding airports and adding new runways will help solve this problem; however, this comes with significant costs: financially, politically and environmentally. A complementary solution is to safely increase the capacity of current runways. This can be achieved by precisely spacing aircraft at the runway threshold, with a resulting reduction in the spacing bu er required under today s operations. At NASA's Langley Research Center, the Airspace Systems program has been investigating airborne technologies and procedures that will assist the flight crew in achieving precise spacing behind another aircraft. A new spacing clearance allows the pilot to follow speed cues from a new on-board guidance system called Airborne Merging and Spacing for Terminal Arrivals (AMSTAR). AMSTAR receives Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) reports from an assigned, leading aircraft and calculates the appropriate speed for the ownship to fly to achieve the desired spacing interval, time- or distance-based, at the runway threshold. Since the goal is overall system capacity, the speed guidance algorithm is designed to provide system-wide benefits and stability to a string of arriving aircraft. An experiment was recently performed at the NASA Langley Air Traffic Operations Laboratory (ATOL) to test the flexibility of Airborne Precision Spacing operations under a variety of operational conditions. These included several types of merge and approach geometries along with the complementary merging and in-trail operations. Twelve airline pilots and four controllers participated in this simulation. Performance and questionnaire data were collected from a total of eighty-four individual arrivals. The pilots were able to achieve precise spacing with a mean error of 0.5 seconds and a standard deviation of 4.7 seconds. No statistically significant di erences in spacing performance were found between in-trail and merging operations or among the three modeled airspaces. Questionnaire data showed general acceptance for both pilots and controllers. These results reinforce previous findings from full-mission simulation and flight evaluation of the in-trail operations. This paper reviews the results of this simulation in detail.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it