Aircraft Collision Risk Mapping Across Probabilistic Candidate Positions

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing aircraft collision avoidance systems only consider a narrow window along the planned flight path, neglecting lateral maneuvering capabilities and dynamic hazards, providing limited information for pilots or autopilots, and using binary risk indicators.

Innovation Solution

A method and apparatus that determine an aircraft's risk of collision by evaluating candidate positions based on its maneuverability, initial trajectory, and presence of hazards, using probability distributions to assess the likelihood of occupying these positions and accounting for static and dynamic obstacles.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of information

If existing collision avoidance systems only consider a narrow window along the planned flight path, then the system complexity is reduced, but the information available to pilots for making decisions is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinformation available to pilotVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the flight path into multiple candidate trajectories (left, center, right) with different deviation levels. Each trajectory is evaluated separately for collision risk, allowing the system to provide comprehensive information without overwhelming complexity by breaking down the continuous decision space into discrete, manageable segments

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent extends the evaluation from a single narrow flight path window to multiple dimensional trajectories by considering lateral deviations (left/center/right) and vertical maneuvers. This multi-dimensional approach provides pilots with comprehensive spatial information about safe alternatives while maintaining systematic evaluation through structured trajectory categories

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Adaptability or versatility

If existing systems only consider vertical maneuvering capability, then the calculation complexity is reduced, but the range of useful avoidance information provided to pilots is limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemaneuvering options informationVSAvoidcalculation complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments maneuvering options into distinct categories: lateral deviations (left/center/right trajectories) and vertical maneuvers (climb/dive). This segmentation allows the system to evaluate multiple types of avoidance maneuvers systematically, providing pilots with versatile information about both lateral and vertical escape options without creating computational chaos

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent dynamically evaluates multiple candidate trajectories by adjusting for aircraft-specific maneuvering capabilities (minimum turning radius, maximum climb/dive rates). This dynamic adaptation to individual aircraft performance characteristics provides versatile, customized maneuvering information to pilots while managing calculation complexity through standardized evaluation frameworks

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Measurement precision

If existing systems do not account for dynamic hazards, then the processing requirements are reduced, but the accuracy of collision risk assessment is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision risk assessment accuracyVSAvoidprocessing requirements
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary identification and classification of hazards as either static (terrain, obstacles) or dynamic (other aircraft, vehicles) before detailed risk assessment. This preliminary action allows the system to apply appropriate evaluation methods to each hazard type, improving assessment accuracy for moving targets while managing processing requirements through预先 categorization

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent dynamically tracks and evaluates moving hazards by incorporating their motion characteristics and predicting future positions. This dynamic evaluation approach improves collision risk assessment accuracy for moving targets by accounting for their changing positions and velocities, while managing computational load through efficient prediction algorithms

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Ease of operation

If existing systems provide only binary risk indicators, then the system simplicity is maintained, but the decision-making support quality for pilots is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedecision-making support qualityVSAvoidrisk indicator complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent provides differentiated risk assessment results for each candidate trajectory (left/center/right) and maneuver type, rather than a single binary indicator. This local quality approach gives pilots specific, actionable information about the relative safety of different escape options, improving decision-making support while maintaining clear, trajectory-specific risk indicators that are easy to interpret

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentEP4625390A1Aircraft collision risk determination
Publication Date: 2025.10.01 ROCKWELL COLLINS FRANCE SAS
  • EP4625390A1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4625390A1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP4625390A1 patent drawingFigure 5~6

AI summary

A method of determining an aircraft's risk of collision at a candidate position. The method includes determining (610') the candidate position which the aircraft is capable of traversing to within a time period, based on the aircraft's: i) initial position; ii) initial trajectory; and iii) manoeuvrability. The method also includes determining a probability (620') that the aircraft will traverse to the candidate position; and determining a presence of any collision hazards (630') at the candidate position. A risk of collision is determined (640') based on the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy the candidate position; and the determined presence of any collision hazards.