Quantitative Risk Evaluation of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Final Approaches at Airports
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) are the main safeguard against objects that can pose a hazard to aircraft operations at and around airports. The standard dimensions of the most of those surfaces were estimated using the pilot’s experience at the time when they were included in the standard documents. As a result, some of these standards may have been overestimated, while others may not provide an adequate level of safety. With airports moving to the Safety Management System (SMS) approach to design and operations safety, proper evaluation of the level of safety provided by OLS at specific sites becomes important to airport operators. Therefore, this study attempts to collect actual flight path data using information provided by air traffic control radars and to construct a methodology to assess the probability of aircraft deviating from their approach path. This will be helpful to estimate safe and efficient standard dimensions of the OLS and assess the risk level of objects to the aircraft operations around airports. The methodology is presented using the aircraft trajectories of approaches at Ottawa International Airport (CYOW). Estimated dimensions of Code 3 approach surfaces also are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it