曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

As a result of these simplifying assumptions, a set of operational routes were defined as being valid for the baseline simulation traffic as shown in Figure III-3 and Table III-1 below.  Data defining the coordinates of the sector vertices and navaids defining the routes are included in Appendix A for completeness.  Traffic activity (Table III-2) was recorded by operational route and altitude throughout the observation period.  Speed data was also recorded:  large variations of speed were observed in the high altitude sector, as some amount of traffic penetrated the high-altitude sector while still in the cruise climb regime and were therefore not at their (faster) level cruise speeds.  A simplifying assumption was therefore also made by defining a single aircraft speed distribution for all traffic entering the sector consistent with the observed speed of the overflight traffic.  This was modeled as a normal distribution with a mean of 470 knots and standard deviation of 10 knots.  Since the demonstration version of the model lacks a full conflict resolution capability for the controllers, the actual simulation runs executed further assumed a zero standard deviation for the speed distribution, meaning all aircraft fly at a speed of 470 knots unless changed by the simulated flight crew in response to turbulence.
Baseline Flight Crew/Aircraft Behavior
The baseline behavior of the traffic used in the simulation was for aircraft to enter the sector with the intention of flying specific operational routes, at speeds and inter-arrival times as outlined in the preceding section.  It was assumed that the pilots of these aircraft behaved in a manner consistent with this prescribed behavior.  The pilot actions necessary to fly these intended routes at the assigned times and speeds were not explicitly modeled within the simulation.  Rather the baseline flight crew/aircraft model used was a relatively low fidelity "waypoint following aircraft" model within RFS.  Under this model, without any disturbances (i.e., due to CAT response behaviors), aircraft flew their assigned operational routes along straight-line segments from one waypoint to the next at their assigned altitude and speed.  An aircraft could deviate from this baseline waypoint-following behavior if CAT was experienced or a CAT sensor alert was issued.  At this point, the flight crew model switched to the higher fidelity MIDAS model to simulate appropriate response procedures, including possible deviations from the baseline behavior to respond to or avoid CAT exposure.  Detailed specifications for the MIDAS-modeled pilot behavior under this scenario are presented in Chapter V of this report.
Baseline Controller Behavior
In the absence of CAT, the aircraft flew with the baseline behaviors as described above.  Since the routes, altitude, and inter-arrival distributions were all based on operational data (organized and assigned by real controllers), no explicit controller functions were modeled for the baseline case.  Rather, it was assumed that many of the strategic and tactical control functions required of the sector controller were embedded in the operational data.  Hence, the baseline controller model within RFS was a pure pass-through for the baseline aircraft behavior with a simple handoff sequence modeled for the sector entry and exit scenarios from/to upstream/downstream sector controllers.  A more sophisticated MIDAS controller model was used when CAT was experienced or sensed by flight crew or aircraft within the sector (Figure III-4).  The detailed specifications for controller behavior when deviations from the baseline situation were requested by flight crews are presented in Chapter V of this report.
 

 
Figure III-3  Operational Routes through ZBW46 during Observation Period
 
 
Table III-1  Operational Route Definitions
Route A
 ENE..PVD..HTO
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：DEVELOPMENT OF FAST-TIME SIMULATION TECHNIQUES IN THE NATION(20)