Bound
Figure 14. RNP Lateral Conformance Monitoring For Intent Validation
In the vertical plane, RNP integrity is specified as the allowable vertical containment at specified waypoints (ref. RNP MASPS), using either “window” altitude constraints or an “At” constraint at each vertical TCP. This is shown for a descent example in Figure 15. The airplane would be expected to stay within the vertical bounds better than 99% of the time (using thrust or drag energy management if necessary), and to broadcast an alert message if unable to comply with the specified vertical tolerances. The vertical RNP concept is more restrictive than existing altitude constraints and will need operational validation before implementing in future ADS-B MASPS. It is expected that two quantities would need to be added to TC reports for implementation, i.e. the delta height between upper and lower constraints, and a vertical conformance flag (element 8f of Table 4).

Upper and Lower
Height
τ
Altitude Constraints
Nominal Path
Lower Path Bound:
Upper Path Bound: Headwind Constraint
Tailwind Constraint

Along Track Distance ->
Figure 15. Vertical Path Conformance Region for Descent Example

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank our colleagues within RTCA SC-186 Working Group 6 and our co-workers within the AATT program at NASA Langley and the Boeing Air Traffic Management Group. They have provided valuable insight and suggestions that have helped establish a foundation for ADS-B intent broadcast and identify areas for future work and validation.

References
1“Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B),” RTCA, DO-242, Washington, 1998.
2“Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3 Free Flight Implementation,” RTCA, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1995.
3“Concept Definition for Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM),” NASA, v1.0, Sept. 1999, on website: http://www.asc.nasa.gov:80/aatt/dagconop.pdf
4Palmer, E. et. al., “An Operational Concept for Flying FMS Trajectories in Center and TRACON Airspace,” Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Vol. 1, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH, 1999, pp. 633-639.
5Warren, A.W. and Ebrahimi, Y.S., “Vertical Path Trajectory Prediction for Next Generation ATM,” Proceedings of the 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Vol. 2, Inst. of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1998, pp. F11-1-F11-8.
6“Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation,” RTCA, DO-236A, Washington, 2000.
7Ballin, M.G., Wing, D.J., Hughes, M.F., and Conway, S.R., “Airborne Separation Assurance and Traffic Management: Research of Concepts and Technology,” AIAA Paper 99-3989, 1999.
8 “Automatic Dependent Surveillance Requirements,” Eurocontrol, SUR/ET3/ST06.3220/001 Ed. 0.9, June 2001.
9“Advanced Flight Management Computer System,” ARINC, 702A-1, Annapolis, MD, Jan. 2000.
10Roca, J., “Report of the Focus Area 2: Requirements of Decision Support Tool Developers,”
FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent Information and Aircraft Intent Data, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
11“Downlink of Airborne Parameters, Study on ‘Selected Altitude’ Parameter,” Airbus, NT 555.1172/00, 2000.
12Barber, S. and Ponnau, M., “Review of Register 4,0,” Surveillance and Conflict Resolution Systems Panel (SCRSP) Surveillance Systems WG/B, Rio de Janeiro, Apr. 2001.
13Casaux, F., “Report of the Focus Area 3,” FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent Information and Aircraft Intent Data, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Automatic Dependent Surveillance(26)