Pareto Meta-heuristics for Generating Safe Flight Trajectories Under Weather Hazards
This paper compares ant colony optimization (ACO) and evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) for the weather avoidance in a free flight environment. The problem involves a number of potentially conflicting objectives such as minimizing deviations, weather avoidance, minimizing distance traveled and hard constraints like aircraft performance. Therefore, we modeled the problem as a multi-objective problem with the aim of finding a set of non dominated solutions. This approach is expected to provide pilots the additional degree of freedom necessary for self optimized route planning in Free Flight. Experiments were conducted on a high fidelity air traffic simulator and results indicate that the ACO approach is better suited for this problem, due to its ability to generate solutions in early iterations as well as building better quality non dominated solutions over time.
KeywordsExit Point Monotone Path Thunderstorm Cell Aviation Accident Aviation Weather
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.NTSB (Aviation accidents statistical report: -2000) Washington D.C(2001) (1991)Google Scholar
- 2.RTCA: Report of the RTCA board of director’s select committee on Free Flight. Technical report, RTCA Inc., Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
- 7.Alam, S., Abbass, H., Barlow, M., Lindsay, P.: Mapping lessons from ants to free flight: An ant-based weather avoidance algorithm in free flight airspace. In: Bender, A. (ed.) Proc. of of SPIE (Complex Systems), Brisbane, Qld, vol. 6039 (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Alam, S., Abbass, H., Barlow, M.: Multi-objective ant colony optimization for weather avoidance in a free flight environment. Technical Report TR-ALAR-200603004, School of ITEE, UNSW@ADFA, Canberra, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Peter, F.L.: Aviation Weather. Jepesson Sanderson, Inc. (1995)Google Scholar
- 10.Krozel, J.: Free Flight Research Issues and Literature Search. Technical Report NAS2-98005, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Krozel, J., Penny, S., Prete, J., Mitchell, J.: Comparison of algorithms for synthesizing weather avoidance routes in transition airspace. In: Proc. of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2004, Providence, RI (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Mata, C., Mitchell, J.: A new algorithm for computing shortest paths in weighted planar subdivisions. In: Proc. of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry, Nice, France, pp. 264–273. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
- 13.Bokadia, S., Valasek, J.: Severe weather avoidance using informed heuristic search. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit. Number AIAA-2001-4232, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.Sugihara, K., Smith, J.: A genetic algorithm for 3-d path planning of a mobile robot. Technical Report 96-09-01, Software Engineering Research Laboratory, Department of Information and Computer Sciences, Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa (1996)Google Scholar