Modelling of unmanned aircraft visibility for see-and-avoid operations
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
With more unmanned aircraft (UA) becoming airborne each day, an already high manned aircraft to UA exposure rate continues to grow. Pilots and rulemaking authorities realize that UA visibility is a real, but unquantified, threat to operations under the see-and-avoid concept. To finally quantify the threat, a novel contrast-based UA visibility model is constructed here using collected empirical data as well as previous work on the factors affecting visibility. This work showed that UA visibility <1300 m makes a midair collision a serious threat if a manned aircraft and a UA are on a collision course while operating under the see-and-avoid concept. Similarly, this work also showed that a midair collision may be unavoidable when UA visibility is <400 m. Validating pilot and rulemaking authority concerns, this work demonstrated that UA visibility distances <1300 and <400 m occur often in the real world. Finally, the model produced UA visibility lookup tables that may prove useful to rulemaking authorities such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization for future work in the proof of equivalency of detect and avoid operations. Until then, pilots flying at slower airspeeds in the vicinity of UA may improve safety margins.
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 | 0.000 | 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