Airspace Simulation for Capacity Assessment in a Free Flight Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth of air transportation demand over the last decade and the expected growth have led to airspace congestion and increased air traffic control workload. The free flight seems to be a solution to this challenge. With free flight, pilots can choose their trajectories without strict air traffic control interventions. This research develops a fast-time simulation algorithm to assess upper airspace capacity under free flight by detecting and resolving conflicts. The model develops an algorithm to simulate aircraft trajectory in a two-dimensional upper airspace sector, detecting conflicts when aircraft violate minimum separation distances, and resolving them through heading changes. The simulation results show that larger airspace sectors can handle lower densities, while smaller sectors are able to support higher densities to maintain safety standards. This paper also shows that the choice of the maneuvering aircraft has an impact on the upper airspace capacity. Overall, as density increases, the probability of resolving all conflicts decreases. The study highlights the trade-offs between airspace capacity and safety in free flight operations, contributing to the future of autonomous air traffic operations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".