Air traffic control instruction evaluation device, air traffic control instruction evaluation method, and air traffic control instruction evaluation program

Abstract

The system will be designed to allow trainees to conduct air traffic control training independently using simulators. [Solution] The aircraft state evaluation unit 23 evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to one or more defined events, treating each of them as a target defined event. The event analysis unit 24 treats one or more event patterns corresponding to the defined events evaluated as corresponding as target event patterns, and applies one or more control instructions from a plurality of control instructions given to the aircraft before the occurrence of the relevant event to the target event pattern to determine whether the target event pattern is satisfied. The control instruction evaluation unit 25 identifies the control instructions applied to the event pattern that was determined to be satisfied.

Description

Technical Field

[0004]

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a technology for assisting the simulation of air traffic control.

Background Art

[0002] There is a technology for simulating air traffic control (see Patent Document 1). Training for improving control technology may be carried out using a simulator that utilizes such technology. When training is carried out only by trainees using a simulator, it is difficult to notice that an aircraft has entered an unexpected state due to an incorrect control instruction. Therefore, it is necessary for a control officer in the role of an instructor to be present and feedback to the trainees the timing or cause of the control instruction that has put the aircraft in an unexpected state, as well as appropriate control instructions.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] In order to appropriately evaluate the control instructions of trainees, knowledge and experience are required for control officers in the role of instructors. Therefore, not every control officer can take on the role of an instructor. Thus, currently, the training time and timing when conducting training depend on the availability of control officers who can serve as instructors. An object of the present disclosure is to enable training to be carried out only by trainees using a simulator.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0005] The control instruction evaluation device according to the present disclosure is An aircraft state evaluation unit evaluates whether the state of the aircraft corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined event. An event analysis unit determines whether or not the target event pattern is satisfied by applying one or more control instructions given to the aircraft before the occurrence of the relevant event to each of the one or more event patterns corresponding to the relevant event which has been evaluated as applicable by the aircraft status evaluation unit, and The control instruction evaluation unit identifies control instructions that match the event patterns determined to be satisfied by the event analysis unit. It is equipped with. [Effects of the Invention]

[0006] This disclosure identifies control instructions that satisfy the defined events assessed as applicable by applying them to event patterns. This makes it possible to identify the control instructions that caused the defined events assessed as applicable. By using this, it becomes possible to identify the control instructions that caused the aircraft to be in an unexpected state. Therefore, it becomes possible to conduct effective training using a simulator with only trainees, even without an air traffic controller acting as an instructor. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0007] [Figure 1] Configuration diagram of the control instruction evaluation system 100 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 2] Hardware configuration diagram of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 3] A functional configuration diagram of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 4] An explanatory diagram of the control instruction information 31 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 5] An explanatory diagram of the video information 32 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 6] An explanatory diagram of the aircraft status information 33 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 7]Explanatory drawing of flight definition information 34 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 8] Explanatory drawing of environment information 35 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 9] Explanatory drawing of aircraft state evaluation criteria 41 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 10] Explanatory drawing of event analysis criteria 42 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 11] Explanatory drawing of aircraft state evaluation information 51 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 12] Explanatory drawing of event analysis information 52 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 13] Explanatory drawing of air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 14] Explanatory drawing of display information 54 according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 15] Flowchart of data reception processing (F-1) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 16] Flowchart of aircraft state evaluation processing (F-2) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 17] Flowchart of event analysis processing (F-3) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 18] Flowchart of air traffic control instruction evaluation processing (F-4) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 19] Flowchart of display processing (F-5) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 20] Explanatory drawing of the situation assumed in the specific example according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 21] Explanatory drawing of data reception processing (F-1) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 22] Explanatory drawing of aircraft state evaluation processing (F-2) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 23] Explanatory drawing of aircraft state evaluation processing (F-2) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 24] Explanatory drawing of aircraft state evaluation processing (F-2) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 25] Explanatory drawing of event analysis processing (F-3) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 26]An explanatory diagram of the event analysis process (F-3) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 27] An explanatory diagram of the event analysis process (F-3) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 28] An explanatory diagram of the control instruction evaluation process (F-4) according to Embodiment 1. [Figure 29] An explanatory diagram of the display process (F-5) according to Embodiment 1. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0008] Embodiment 1. ***Explanation of the structure*** Referring to Figure 1, the configuration of the control instruction evaluation system 100 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. The air traffic control instruction evaluation system 100 comprises an air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10, a training simulator 101, and a recording system 102. The air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 is a computer that performs evaluation of air traffic control instructions. The training simulator 101 is a simulator that utilizes air traffic control simulation technology. The recording system 102 is a device that records the voice of air traffic controllers using the training simulator 101. The air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 receives training data obtained from the training simulator 101 and audio recorded by the recording system 102 as input (F-1: data reception processing). Based on the training data and audio, the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 evaluates the aircraft's status (F-2: aircraft status evaluation processing), analyzes the events occurring (F-3: event analysis processing), and evaluates the air traffic controller's control instructions (F-4: air traffic control instruction evaluation processing). Finally, the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 displays the evaluation results (F-5: display processing).

[0009] Referring to Figure 2, the hardware configuration of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. The control instruction evaluation device 10 comprises hardware including a processor 11, memory 12, storage 13, and a communication interface 14. The processor 11 is connected to the other hardware via signal lines and controls this other hardware.

[0010] Processor 11 is an IC that performs processing. IC stands for Integrated Circuit. Specific examples of processor 11 include CPU, DSP, and GPU. CPU stands for Central Processing Unit. DSP stands for Digital Signal Processor. GPU stands for Graphics Processing Unit.

[0011] Memory 12 is a storage device that temporarily stores data. Specific examples of memory 12 include SRAM and DRAM. SRAM stands for Static Random Access Memory. DRAM stands for Dynamic Random Access Memory.

[0012] Storage 13 is a storage device for storing data. A concrete example of storage 13 is an HDD. HDD stands for Hard Disk Drive. Alternatively, storage 13 may be a portable recording medium such as an SD® memory card, CompactFlash®, NAND flash, flexible disk, optical disk, compact disk, Blu-ray® disc, or DVD. SD stands for Secure Digital. DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disk.

[0013] Communication interface 14 is an interface for communicating with external devices. Specific examples of communication interface 14 include Ethernet®, USB, and HDMI® ports. USB stands for Universal Serial Bus. HDMI stands for High-Definition Multimedia Interface.

[0014] Referring to Figure 3, the functional configuration of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. The air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 comprises, as functional components, a training data receiving unit 21, an audio data receiving unit 22, an aircraft status evaluation unit 23, an event analysis unit 24, an air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25, a display information creation unit 26, and a display unit 27. The functions of each functional component of the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 are implemented by software. Storage 13 stores programs that implement the functions of each functional component of the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10. These programs are loaded into memory 12 by the processor 11 and executed by the processor 11. This enables the implementation of the functions of each functional component of the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10.

[0015] Storage 13 stores the following as input information: air traffic control instruction information 31, video information 32, aircraft status information 33, flight definition information 34, and environmental information 35. Storage 13 also stores the following as setting information: aircraft status evaluation criteria 41 and event analysis criteria 42. Furthermore, storage 13 stores the following as internal information: aircraft status evaluation information 51, event analysis information 52, air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53, and display information 54.

[0016] ***Explanation of operation*** Referring to Figures 4 to 29, the operation of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 will be explained. The operation procedure of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 corresponds to the control instruction evaluation method according to Embodiment 1. Furthermore, the program that realizes the operation of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 corresponds to the control instruction evaluation program according to Embodiment 1.

[0017] Referring to Figure 4, the control instruction information 31 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. The air traffic control instruction information 31 includes, for each target aircraft ID, the position, altitude, speed, heading, location, time of passing the location, instruction start time, and instruction end time. The aircraft ID is identification information that uniquely identifies the aircraft in the airspace and airport area subject to air traffic control instructions. The position is the position of the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The position indicates, for example, latitude and longitude. The altitude indicates the altitude instructed by the air traffic controller for the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The speed indicates the speed instructed by the air traffic controller for the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The heading indicates the heading instructed by the air traffic controller for the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The point indicates the point that the air traffic controller instructed the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID to pass through. The point passage time indicates the time that the air traffic controller instructed the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID to pass through the point. The instruction start time indicates the time that the air traffic controller started giving instructions to the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The instruction end time indicates the time that the air traffic controller ended giving instructions to the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID.

[0018] Referring to Figure 5, the video information 32 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. Video information 32 includes airspace footage and airport surface footage. Airspace video footage consists of recorded screen data from the start to the end of the training exercise. Airport surface video footage consists of recorded screen data from the start to the end of the training exercise.

[0019] The aircraft status information 33 according to Embodiment 1 will be described with reference to Figure 6. The aircraft status information 33 includes the aircraft ID and, for each time period, the position, altitude, speed, and heading. The aircraft ID is unique identification information that identifies an aircraft in the airspace and airport area. The time is the time the information was identified. The position is the position of the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The position indicates, for example, latitude and longitude. The altitude is the altitude of the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The speed is the speed of the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID. The heading is the heading of the aircraft indicated by the aircraft ID.

[0020] Referring to Figure 7, the flight definition information 34 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. Flight definition information 34 includes airspace definition information and airport area definition information. Airspace definition information is definition information related to airspace. Airspace definition information is defined in training simulator 101 and obtained from training simulator 101. Airspace definition information indicates, for example, the location of standard instrument departure procedure (SID) passage points and the location of U.S. military airspace. Airport surface definition information is definition information related to airport surfaces. Airport surface definition information is defined in training simulator 101 and obtained from training simulator 101. Airport surface definition information indicates, for example, the location of parking areas.

[0021] Referring to Figure 8, the environmental information 35 related to Embodiment 1 will be described. Environmental information 35 includes airspace weather information and airport surface weather information. Airspace weather information refers to weather information for the airspace during training. Airport surface weather information refers to weather information for the airport surface during training. Weather information includes, for example, the wind components in the east-west direction and the wind components in the north-south direction.

[0022] Referring to Figure 9, the aircraft condition evaluation criteria 41 according to Embodiment 1 will be explained. The aircraft condition evaluation criteria 41 includes an evaluation function for each defined event. A defined event is information that defines an undesirable aircraft condition. An undesirable aircraft condition is a condition that could potentially cause an accident, such as the longitudinal distance between a preceding aircraft and a following aircraft falling below the minimum standard. A defined event is, for example, that the longitudinal distance between a preceding aircraft and a following aircraft falls below the minimum standard. The evaluation function is a function used to evaluate the aircraft condition from the aircraft condition information. Here, the evaluation function is subject to the following constraints (1) and (2): (1) The only variables that can be used are aircraft status information and flight definition information. (2) If the return value is less than 0, it is evaluated as a low rating (problem), and if it is 0 or greater, it is evaluated as a high rating (no problem). The evaluation function for evaluating whether aircraft A and B satisfy the minimum horizontal spacing α is as shown in Equation 1. Here, x1 and x2 are the latitude and longitude of aircraft A, and y1 and y2 are the latitude and longitude of aircraft B. α is a value set according to the regulations for air traffic control operations.

number

[0023] Referring to Figure 10, the event analysis criteria 42 according to Embodiment 1 will be explained. Criteria 42 for event analysis includes FTA and countermeasures for each defined event. The defined events are the same as the defined events in the Aircraft Condition Evaluation Criteria 41. The FTA is a tree for analyzing the causes of events that result in an aircraft being in an undesirable state. FTA stands for Fault Tree Analysis. In the FTA, the top layer elements represent problem events, the middle layer elements represent the causes of higher-level events, and the bottom layer elements relate to preconditions and the content or timing of air traffic control instructions. Problem events are defined events that were found to be problematic in the evaluation function of the Aircraft Condition Evaluation Criteria 41. The inputs to the FTA are air traffic control instruction information 31, aircraft condition information 33, and environmental information 35. The countermeasures include countermeasure information for each matching element. Matching elements are patterns of matching elements in the FTA. Matching elements in the FTA are elements that have been evaluated as True. In other words, the patterns of matching elements in the FTA are connections of elements that have been evaluated as True in the FTA. Countermeasure information is information that defines countermeasures to prevent the occurrence of defined events.

[0024] Referring to Figure 11, the aircraft condition evaluation information 51 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. The aircraft status evaluation information 51 includes a defined event, the target aircraft ID, an evaluation value, and an evaluation time. The defined events are those defined events included in the aircraft condition evaluation criteria 41 that were used to evaluate the aircraft condition. The target aircraft ID is the target aircraft ID of the aircraft whose condition was evaluated. If evaluation is performed on two or more aircraft conditions, or if evaluation is performed using two or more aircraft conditions, the target aircraft ID may be a combination of two or more target aircraft IDs. For example, if the condition of one aircraft, DEP001, is evaluated, the target aircraft ID will be set to DEP001. If the conditions of two aircraft, DEP001 and DEP002, are evaluated, the target aircraft ID will be set to [DEP001,DEP002]. The evaluation value is the value obtained by binarizing the return value of the evaluation function included in the aircraft condition evaluation information 51 using evaluation criterion 0. Here, if the return value is less than 0, the evaluation value is set to 0. In other words, an evaluation value of 0 means a low evaluation, indicating a problem. On the other hand, if the return value is 0 or greater, the evaluation value is set to 1. In other words, an evaluation value of 1 means a high evaluation, indicating no problem. The evaluation time is the time when the evaluation value was calculated.

[0025] Referring to Figure 12, the event analysis information 52 according to Embodiment 1 will be explained. Event analysis information 52 includes matching results and countermeasure information. The match result is a pattern of elements in the FTA that match the aircraft status, etc., among the elements of the FTA corresponding to the defined events used to evaluate the aircraft status. In other words, the match result is a tree composed only of elements that match the aircraft status, etc. The countermeasure information is the countermeasure information corresponding to the matched elements in event analysis criterion 42.

[0026] Referring to Figure 13, the control instruction evaluation information 53 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. Air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 includes the target air traffic control instruction. The relevant air traffic control instruction indicates the instruction that caused the aircraft to experience an unintended condition.

[0027] Referring to Figure 14, the display information 54 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. Display information 54 includes video footage of the event and the evaluation results. The event video is the video information 32 before and after the time when the evaluation value in the aircraft status evaluation information 51 became 0. The evaluation result is information about the defined event for which the evaluation value in the aircraft status evaluation information 51 became 0. The evaluation result includes the time the event occurred, the details of the event, the cause of the event, the air traffic control instructions for the cause of the event, and the countermeasures.

[0028] Referring to Figure 3 and Figures 15 to 19, an overview of the processing of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 will be described. (F-1: Data reception processing) As shown in Figure 15, the training data receiving unit 21 receives training data from the training simulator 101 (F-11). The training data receiving unit 21 extracts video information 32, aircraft status information 33, flight definition information 34, and environmental information 35 from the training data and writes them to the storage 13 (F-12). The audio data receiving unit 22 receives audio data of air traffic control instructions during training from the recording system 102 (F-13). The audio data receiving unit 22 extracts information on air traffic control instructions 31 (instruction content, start time, and end time) for each air traffic control instruction from the audio data and writes it to the storage 13 (F-14). By using existing speech recognition technology and text extraction technology, it is possible to extract information on air traffic control instructions 31 for each air traffic control instruction from the audio data.

[0029] (F-2: Aircraft condition assessment process) As shown in Figure 16, the aircraft status evaluation unit 23 takes the aircraft status information 33 and flight definition information 34 received by the F-1 as input and evaluates the status of each aircraft based on the aircraft status evaluation criteria 41. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 then generates aircraft status evaluation information 51.

[0030] (F-3: Event Analysis Processing) As shown in Figure 17, the event analysis unit 24 takes the control instruction information 31, aircraft status information 33, and environmental information 35 received by F-1, and the aircraft status evaluation information 51 generated by F-2 as input, and analyzes the events that occurred based on the event analysis criteria 42. The event analysis unit 24 then generates event analysis information 52.

[0031] (F-4: Air traffic control instruction evaluation process) As shown in Figure 18, the air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 takes the air traffic control instruction information 31 received at F-1 and the event analysis information 52 generated at F-3 as input to identify the air traffic control instruction that caused the problem event. The air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 then generates air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53.

[0032] (F-5: Display processing) As shown in Figure 19, the display information creation unit 26 takes the video information 32 received by F-1, the aircraft status evaluation information 51 generated by F-2, the event analysis information 52 generated by F-3, and the air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 generated by F-4 as input to generate display information 54 (F-51). The display unit 27 then displays the display information 54 on a display device used by the air traffic controller during training (F-52).

[0033] Referring to Figures 20 to 29, the processing of the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 will be described in detail using a specific example. Refer to Figure 20 to explain the assumed scenario. Here, we will use the example of an event (referred to as Pattern 1) in which the horizontal distance between the preceding aircraft and the following aircraft falls below the minimum standard. (A) Based on the air traffic control instructions given by the trainee air traffic controller up to 8:59, the leading aircraft (target aircraft ID: DEP001) and the following aircraft (target aircraft ID: DEP002) are flying the same route at the same speed of 150 knots. At this time, the longitudinal distance between the two aircraft is above the minimum standard (a safe distance is maintained). (B) In order to reduce the distance between the two aircraft, the trainee instructs the following aircraft to accelerate to 180 knots at 9:00. (C) Believing that the distance between the two aircraft has been sufficiently reduced, the trainee instructs the following aircraft to decelerate to 150 knots at 9:05. (D) However, at 9:04, before issuing the deceleration instruction, the longitudinal distance between the leading and following aircraft fell below the minimum standard (a safe distance was not maintained).

[0034] (F-1: Data reception processing) The training data receiving unit 21 receives training data from the training simulator 101, extracts video information 32, aircraft status information 33, flight definition information 34, and environmental information 35, and writes them to the storage 13. This process can be achieved by pre-identifying which data in the training data corresponds to video information 32, aircraft status information 33, flight definition information 34, and environmental information 35, and setting this information in the training data receiving unit 21.

[0035] The audio data receiving unit 22 receives audio data from the recording system 102, extracts the information of the control instruction information 31, and writes it to the storage 13. In this process, as shown in Figure 21, the voice data receiving unit 22 uses speech recognition technology to convert the voice data into text to generate text data, and also identifies the instruction start time and instruction end time. Existing speech recognition technology can be used. The voice data receiving unit 22 considers the time from when the speaker starts speaking until when they finish speaking as one instruction, setting the time when the speaker starts as the instruction start time and the time when the speaker finishes as the instruction end time. The voice data receiving unit 22 also performs text analysis on the text data to extract information such as the target aircraft ID, position, speed, altitude, and heading. Existing text analysis technology can be used. The voice data receiving unit 22 then writes the information such as the target aircraft ID, position, speed, altitude, and heading, along with the instruction start time and instruction end time, to the storage 13 as control instruction information 31. Not only the content of air traffic control instructions, but also their timing can affect aircraft operations. Here, by specifying the start and end times of the instructions, it becomes possible to analyze the appropriateness of the timing of air traffic control instructions.

[0036] (F-2: Aircraft condition assessment process) The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 receives the aircraft status information 33 and flight definition information 34 received by the F-1 as input. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 sets each of the one or more definition events of the aircraft status evaluation criteria 41 as the target definition event. Here, as shown in Figure 22, the definition event of pattern 1 is set as the target definition event.

[0037] The aircraft condition evaluation unit 23 identifies the aircraft to be evaluated for the defined event. Here, the aircraft to be evaluated may be a single aircraft or a combination of multiple aircraft, depending on the defined event. The defined event for Pattern 1 is when the longitudinal distance between a preceding aircraft and a following aircraft falls below a minimum standard. Therefore, as shown in Figure 23, the aircraft to be evaluated here are pairs of two adjacent aircraft flying the same route. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 can identify pairs of two adjacent aircraft flying the same route from the heading and position of the aircraft status information 33 of each aircraft.

[0038] The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 sets each time to the target time. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 substitutes the information of the aircraft status information 33, which is a parameter indicating the state of the aircraft to be evaluated at the target time, into the evaluation function of the aircraft status evaluation criterion 41 corresponding to the target defined event. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 then evaluates whether the state of the aircraft at the target time corresponds to the target defined event based on whether the value of the evaluation function satisfies the evaluation criterion. Specifically, the aircraft status evaluation unit 23 obtains an evaluation value by binarizing the return value from the evaluation function with evaluation criterion 0. This gives an evaluation value for the target time for the aircraft to be evaluated. The evaluation value indicates either 1 (no problem), which indicates that it does not correspond to the defined event, or 0 (problem), which indicates that it corresponds to the defined event. The aircraft status evaluation unit 23 sets the target defined event, the target aircraft ID of the aircraft to be evaluated, the obtained evaluation value, and the target time into the aircraft status evaluation information 51. As shown in Figure 24, the position of the leading aircraft (DEP001) (latitude X1, longitude Y1) and the position of the following aircraft (DEP002) (latitude X1', longitude Y1') at time 9:03 are substituted into the evaluation function shown in Equation 1. The evaluation value is then obtained from the return value of the evaluation function. Here, an evaluation value of 1 (no problem) is obtained. Similarly, the position of the leading aircraft (DEP001) (latitude X2, longitude Y2) and the position of the following aircraft (DEP002) (latitude X2', longitude Y2') at time 9:04 are substituted into the evaluation function shown in Equation 1. The evaluation value is then obtained from the return value of the evaluation function. Here, an evaluation value of 0 (problem) is obtained. Note that in Figure 24, altitude, speed, and heading are not used in the evaluation function for Pattern 1, so they are shown in shaded form.

[0039] In the example in Figure 24, the information from flight definition information 34 was not used. The information from flight definition information 34 is used to determine whether a defined event occurs, such as failing to turn where a turn should be made, using the location of the waypoints in the standard instrument departure procedure (SID) included in the airspace definition information. In addition, flight definition information 34 is used to determine whether a defined event occurs, such as failing to park in a designated location, using the location of the parking area included in the rear airspace definition information.

[0040] By taking one or more defined events of the aircraft condition evaluation criteria 41 as the target defined event, obtaining evaluation values ​​for each time point, and setting them in the aircraft condition evaluation information 51, the aircraft condition evaluation information 51 is generated.

[0041] (F-3: Event Analysis Processing) The event analysis unit 24 receives the air traffic control instruction information 31, aircraft status information 33, and environmental information 35 received by F-1, and the aircraft status evaluation information 51 generated by F-2 as input. Specifically, the event analysis unit 24 uses the time when the evaluation value became 0 in F-3 as the reference time. In other words, the event analysis unit 24 uses the time of occurrence of the defined event as the reference time. The event analysis unit 24 then receives the air traffic control instruction information 31 for the aircraft under evaluation for a certain period prior to the reference time, and the aircraft status information 33 at the reference time as input. Here, for the air traffic control instruction information 31, the instruction end time is used to determine whether or not it is prior to the reference time. If there are multiple times when the evaluation value is 0, the event analysis unit 24 uses each time when the evaluation value is 0 as a reference time and receives the above-mentioned information as input for each reference time. However, if the times when the evaluation value is 0 are consecutive, the event analysis unit 24 uses only the first time (the earliest time) as the reference time. Furthermore, even if the times when the evaluation value is 0 are not strictly consecutive, if the evaluation value of 0 appears at intervals shorter than the lower limit time, the times when the evaluation value is 0 may be considered consecutive.

[0042] Next, the event analysis unit 24 performs the following processing. If there are multiple times when the evaluation value is 0, the event analysis unit 24 performs the following processing A and processing B for each time when the evaluation value is 0, and generates event analysis information 52 corresponding to each time when the evaluation value is 0.

[0043] (Process A) The event analysis unit 24 obtains an FTA, which is an event pattern corresponding to a defined event whose evaluation value is 0, based on the event analysis criteria 42. Here, as shown in Figure 25, an FTA corresponding to a defined event of pattern 1 is obtained. The event analysis unit 24 applies one or more of the acquired air traffic control instruction information 31 from the acquired aircraft status information 33 to the lowest layer element of the acquired event pattern, which is the FTA. In other words, the event analysis unit 24 applies the aircraft's state at the time of the defined event and one or more of the air traffic control instructions given to the aircraft before the defined event occurred to the lowest layer element of the FTA. The event analysis unit 24 then determines that the event pattern, which is the FTA, is satisfied if it can reach the highest layer element.

[0044] The event analysis unit 24 pre-sets conditions for each lowest-level element, indicating what information will be used to determine if it is a match when fitting it to the lowest-level element. For example, for "same speed," it compares the speed of the control instruction information for the preceding aircraft with the speed of the control instruction information for the following aircraft. If the speed difference is within a pre-set threshold, it returns True; otherwise, it returns False. Similarly, for example, for "acceleration instruction for the preceding aircraft," if the speed instruction from the control instruction information for the preceding aircraft immediately before the event occurs is greater than the previous speed instruction, it returns True; otherwise, it returns False. The event analysis unit 24 then determines whether it can trace up to the highest-level element by determining that the aircraft status information 33 and the control instruction information 31 match the elements that satisfy the conditions.

[0045] Alternatively, the event analysis unit 24 may use a learning model to determine which of the lowest-level elements the acquired aircraft status information 33 and acquired air traffic control instruction information 31 correspond to. Specifically, the event analysis unit 24 inputs each of the lowest-level elements, the acquired aircraft status information 33, and the acquired air traffic control instruction information 31 into the learning model to identify the element to which the aircraft status information 33 and air traffic control instruction information 31 correspond. Then, the event analysis unit 24 determines whether it can reach the uppermost-level element based on whether the aircraft status information 33 and air traffic control instruction information 31 correspond to the element identified by the learning model. Here, the learning model is what is known as AI or generative AI. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence. The learning model may be constructed using algorithms such as BERT and GPT. BERT stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. GPT stands for Generative Pretrained Transformer. The learning model may be constructed by combining multiple algorithms, including these algorithms. The learning model may also be a trainable model. If the learning model is trainable, learning is performed using the operator's responses. If the learning model is generative AI, it is assumed that the learning model is stored in an external storage device of the control instruction evaluation device 10. Here, the intermediate layer is configured with logical operators such as the AND operator and the OR operator. Therefore, the status of the intermediate layer is determined by whether the lower layer is True or False. In Figure 25, solid arrows indicate True, and dashed arrows indicate False. In Figure 25, the aircraft status information 33 is set to the same route and the same speed. In addition, the air traffic control instruction information 31 is set to acceleration instructions for following aircraft and deceleration instructions for following aircraft. In this case, the solid arrow indicating True is followed and reaches the top layer element. Therefore, it is determined that the FTA is satisfied when this fitting is performed.

[0046] Although not used here, weather information may be used as the lowest-level element of the FTA. In this case, the event analysis unit 24 applies the environmental information 35 at the time of the defined event to the lowest-level element in which weather information is used.

[0047] (Process B) The event analysis unit 24 identifies the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions applied when it reached the top layer element, as well as the intermediate layer elements it passed through when reaching the top layer element, as matching results. In Figure 25, the same route and speed, acceleration instructions and deceleration instructions for following aircraft, and the solid arrows are identified as matching results. In other words, the information shown in Figure 26 is identified as a matching result. Then, as shown in Figure 27, the event analysis unit 24 obtains countermeasure information in the event analysis criteria 42 corresponding to the identified match result. In other words, the event analysis unit 24 obtains countermeasure information corresponding to the identified match result from the countermeasures corresponding to the defined event that occurred in the event analysis criteria 42. The event analysis unit 24 generates event analysis information 52, which includes the identified match results and the acquired countermeasure information.

[0048] (F-4: Air traffic control instruction evaluation process) The air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 receives the air traffic control instruction information 31 received at F-1 and the event analysis information 52 generated at F-3 as input. The air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 identifies the air traffic control instruction indicated by the match result of the event analysis information 52 in the air traffic control instruction information 31 as the air traffic control instruction that caused the defined event that occurred. In other words, as shown in Figure 28, the air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 identifies the air traffic control instruction that was applied when it was determined to be satisfied as the air traffic control instruction that caused the defined event that occurred. The air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 generates air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 in which the identified air traffic control instruction is set.

[0049] If multiple event analysis information 52s are generated in F-3, the air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 identifies each event analysis information 52 as the air traffic control instruction that caused the defined event. The air traffic control instruction evaluation unit 25 then generates air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 corresponding to each event analysis information 52.

[0050] (F-5: Display processing) The display information creation unit 26 receives video information 32 received by F-1, aircraft status evaluation information 51 generated by F-2, event analysis information 52 generated by F-3, and air traffic control instruction evaluation information 53 generated by F-4 as input. The display information creation unit 26 then generates display information 54 from the received information. Specifically, the display information creation unit 26 sets the video footage of the reference time before and after the evaluation time of evaluation value 0 indicated by the aircraft status evaluation information 51, from among the video information 32, as the event occurrence video for the display information 54. In other words, the display information creation unit 26 sets the video footage of the reference time before and after the occurrence of the defined event as the event occurrence video. The reference time is pre-set to allow sufficient time for the aircraft's actions in response to air traffic control instructions to be confirmed. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 29, the display information creation unit 26 sets information regarding the evaluation results of the display information 54. The display information creation unit 26 sets the video footage for the reference time before and after the evaluation time of evaluation value 0 indicated by the aircraft status evaluation information 51 as the event occurrence time of the evaluation result. The display information creation unit 26 sets the defined event of evaluation value 0 indicated by the aircraft status evaluation information 51 as the event occurrence content of the evaluation result. The display information creation unit 26 sets the match result of the event analysis information 52 as the cause of the event occurrence of the evaluation result. The display information creation unit 26 sets the control instruction of the control instruction evaluation information 53 as the control instruction for the cause of the event occurrence of the evaluation result. The display information creation unit 26 sets the countermeasure information of the event analysis information 52 as the countermeasure for the evaluation result. Furthermore, when setting the countermeasure information for the event analysis information 52, the display information creation unit 26 replaces the replaceable parts included in the countermeasure information with specific content as needed. It is assumed that the replaceable parts in the countermeasure information are enclosed in <>. For example, in Figure 27, "control instruction ID", "speed", and "instruction start time" are shown as replaceable parts. The display information creation unit 26 identifies and replaces the replaceable parts from the received information. For example, it replaces "instruction start time" with the instruction start time of the control instruction in the control instruction evaluation information 53.

[0051] If multiple event analysis information 52s are generated in F-3, the display information creation unit 26 generates display information 54 corresponding to each event analysis information 52, using the target event analysis information 52 and the control instruction evaluation information 53 corresponding to the target event analysis information 52.

[0052] The display unit 27 displays the generated display information 54 on a display device used by the air traffic controller during training. If multiple event analysis information 52 is generated by F-3, the display unit 27 displays the display information 54 corresponding to each event analysis information 52.

[0053] ***Effects of Embodiment 1*** As described above, the air traffic control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 applies air traffic control instructions to the defined events that have been evaluated as applicable and identifies the air traffic control instructions that satisfy those events. This makes it possible to identify the air traffic control instructions that caused the defined events that have been evaluated as applicable. By using this, it becomes possible to identify the air traffic control instructions that caused the aircraft to enter an unexpected state. Therefore, it becomes possible to conduct effective training using the simulator with only trainees, even without an air traffic controller acting as an instructor.

[0054] Furthermore, the control instruction evaluation device 10 according to Embodiment 1 acquires countermeasure information corresponding to the match result when it identifies the control instruction that caused the defined event. This allows the trainee controller to know what control instruction should have been given, even without an instructor controller present. Therefore, it becomes possible to conduct effective training using the simulator with only trainees present, even without an instructor controller.

[0055] ***Other configurations*** <Example 1> In Embodiment 1, each functional component was implemented in software. However, in Modification 1, each functional component may be implemented in hardware. The differences between this Modification 1 and Embodiment 1 will be explained below.

[0056] When each functional component is implemented in hardware, the control instruction evaluation device 10 includes an electronic circuit 15 instead of the processor 11, memory 12, and storage 13. The electronic circuit 15 is a dedicated circuit that implements the functions of each functional component, as well as the functions of the memory 12 and storage 13.

[0057] Electronic circuits 15 can include single circuits, complex circuits, programmed processors, parallel programmed processors, logic ICs, GAs, ASICs, and FPGAs. GA stands for Gate Array. ASIC stands for Application Specific Integrated Circuit. FPGA stands for Field-Programmable Gate Array. Each functional component may be implemented in a single electronic circuit 15, or each functional component may be implemented by distributing them across multiple electronic circuits 15.

[0058] <Modification 2> As a second variation, some of the functional components may be implemented in hardware, while others may be implemented in software.

[0059] The processor 11, memory 12, storage 13, and electronic circuit 15 are collectively referred to as the processing circuit. In other words, the function of each functional component is realized by the processing circuit.

[0060] Furthermore, the term "part" in the above explanation may be replaced with "circuit," "process," "procedure," "processing," or "processing circuit."

[0061] The various aspects of this disclosure are summarized below as an appendix. (Note 1) An aircraft state evaluation unit evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined event. An event analysis unit determines whether or not the event pattern is satisfied by applying one or more control instructions to the aircraft prior to the occurrence of the event to the event pattern corresponding to the event which is a defined event evaluated as applicable by the aircraft status evaluation unit, The control instruction evaluation unit identifies the control instruction to be applied when the event analysis unit determines that the conditions are met. A control instruction and evaluation device equipped with the following features. (Note 2) The aircraft state evaluation unit substitutes parameters indicating the aircraft's state into an evaluation function corresponding to the defined event of the target, and evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to the defined event of the target based on whether the value of the evaluation function satisfies the evaluation criteria. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 1. (Note 3) The event analysis unit applies the aircraft's state at the time of the event and one or more air traffic control instructions given to the aircraft before the event to the event pattern, and determines whether the event pattern is satisfied. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 1 or 2. (Note 4) The aforementioned event pattern is a failure analysis tree in which the relevant event is the topmost element, The event analysis unit applies the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions to the lowest-level element of the failure analysis tree, which is the event pattern, and determines that the event pattern is satisfied if it can reach the uppermost element. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 3. (Note 5) The event analysis unit identifies a match result that shows the state of the aircraft and one or more control instructions applied when the aircraft reaches the uppermost layer element, and the intermediate layer elements that were traversed when reaching the uppermost layer element. The control instruction evaluation unit retrieves the countermeasure information stored for the element pattern corresponding to the match result from a storage device that stores countermeasure information for each element pattern of the failure analysis tree. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 4. (Note 6) Conditions are set for each of the lowest-level elements mentioned above. The event analysis unit determines, for each of the lowest-level elements, whether it can reach the uppermost-level element if the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions satisfy the conditions for the element in question. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 4. (Note 7) The event analysis unit inputs each of the lowest-level elements, the aircraft's state, and one or more control instructions into a learning model to identify the elements to which the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions apply, and determines whether it is possible to reach the top-level elements based on the elements identified by the learning model. The control instruction evaluation device described in Appendix 4. (Note 8) The aforementioned control instruction evaluation device, further, A display unit that displays the evaluation result including the relevant event and the control instruction identified by the control instruction evaluation unit. A control instruction evaluation device as described in any one of the appendices 1 to 7, comprising: (Note 9) The computer evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of those being the target defined event. The computer applies one or more control instructions given to the aircraft before the occurrence of the event to the event pattern corresponding to the defined event which has been evaluated as applicable, and determines whether or not the event pattern is satisfied. A control instruction evaluation method that identifies the control instruction applied by the computer when it determined that it was satisfactory. (Note 10) An aircraft state evaluation process that evaluates whether the aircraft state corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined event, An event analysis process that applies one or more control instructions to the aircraft before the occurrence of the relevant event to the event pattern corresponding to the relevant event, which is a defined event evaluated as applicable by the aircraft state evaluation process, and determines whether or not the event pattern is satisfied. A control instruction evaluation process that identifies the control instruction to be applied when it is determined that the above event analysis process satisfies the conditions, and An air traffic control instruction evaluation program that makes a computer function as an air traffic control instruction evaluation device.

[0062] The embodiments and variations of this disclosure have been described above. Some of these embodiments and variations may be implemented in combination. Alternatively, some or all of them may be implemented in part. However, this disclosure is not limited to the embodiments and variations described above, and various modifications are possible as needed. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0063] 100 Air traffic control instruction evaluation system, 101 Training simulator, 102 Recording system, 10 Air traffic control instruction evaluation device, 11 Processor, 12 Memory, 13 Storage, 14 Communication interface, 21 Training data receiver, 22 Audio data receiver, 23 Aircraft status evaluation unit, 24 Event analysis unit, 25 Air traffic control instruction evaluation unit, 26 Display information creation unit, 27 Display unit, 31 Air traffic control instruction information, 32 Video information, 33 Aircraft status information, 34 Flight definition information, 35 Environmental information, 41 Aircraft status evaluation criteria, 42 Event analysis criteria, 51 Aircraft status evaluation information, 52 Event analysis information, 53 Air traffic control instruction evaluation information, 54 Display information.

Claims

1. An aircraft state evaluation unit evaluates whether the state of the aircraft corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined events. An event analysis unit determines whether the failure analysis tree is satisfied by applying the aircraft's state at the time the relevant event occurred and one or more control instructions given to the aircraft before the relevant event occurred to the lowest element of a failure analysis tree whose uppermost element is the relevant event, and the event analysis unit determines that the failure analysis tree is satisfied if it can reach the uppermost element, The control instruction evaluation unit identifies the control instruction to be applied when the event analysis unit determines that the conditions are met. A control instruction and evaluation device equipped with the following features.

2. The aircraft state evaluation unit substitutes parameters indicating the aircraft's state into an evaluation function corresponding to the defined event of the target, and evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to the defined event of the target based on whether the value of the evaluation function satisfies the evaluation criteria. The control instruction evaluation device according to claim 1.

3. The event analysis unit identifies a match result that shows the applied state of the aircraft and one or more control instructions when it reaches the uppermost layer element, and the intermediate layer elements that were passed through when reaching the uppermost layer element. The control instruction evaluation unit retrieves the countermeasure information stored for the element pattern corresponding to the match result from a storage device that stores countermeasure information for each element pattern of the failure analysis tree. The control instruction evaluation device according to claim 1.

4. Conditions are set for each of the lowest-level elements mentioned above. The event analysis unit determines, for each of the lowest-level elements, whether it can reach the uppermost-level element if the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions satisfy the conditions for the element in question. The control instruction evaluation device according to claim 1.

5. The event analysis unit inputs each of the lowest-level elements, the aircraft's state, and one or more control instructions into a learning model to identify the elements to which the aircraft's state and one or more control instructions apply, and determines whether it is possible to reach the top-level elements based on the elements identified by the learning model. The control instruction evaluation device according to claim 1.

6. The aforementioned control instruction evaluation device, further, A display unit that displays the evaluation result including the relevant event and the control instruction identified by the control instruction evaluation unit. The control instruction evaluation device according to claim 1, comprising:

7. The computer evaluates whether the state of the aircraft corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined event. The computer determines whether the failure analysis tree is satisfied by applying the state of the aircraft at the time the relevant event occurred and one or more control instructions given to the aircraft before the relevant event occurred to the lowest element of the failure analysis tree, which has the relevant event as the top element of the failure analysis tree. The computer determines that the failure analysis tree is satisfied when it can reach the topmost element. A control instruction evaluation method that identifies the control instruction applied by the computer when it determined that it was satisfactory.

8. An aircraft state evaluation process that evaluates whether the aircraft's state corresponds to one or more defined events, with each of these being the target defined event, An event analysis process that determines whether the failure analysis tree is satisfied by applying the aircraft's state at the time the relevant event occurred and one or more control instructions given to the aircraft before the relevant event occurred to the lowest element of a failure analysis tree whose top element is the relevant event, and which determines that the failure analysis tree is satisfied if it can be traced up to the top element. A control instruction evaluation process that identifies the control instruction to be applied when it is determined that the above event analysis process satisfies the conditions, and An air traffic control instruction evaluation program that makes a computer function as an air traffic control instruction evaluation device.

Images