Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Trajectory-Based Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Operations Simulator (TUS)

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Trajectory-Based UAM Operations Simulator (TUS) is a discrete-event environment that tests whether planned eVTOL trajectories respect minimum separation and measures how long they take.

desk verdict A clear but unvalidated UAM simulator whose central safety rule contradicts itself, making the safe/unsafe output ill-defined. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08651 v1 pith:LTVPLTLV submitted 2019-08-23 cs.CY

Euclides C. Pinto Neto , Derick M. Baum , Jorge Rady de Almeida Junior , João Batista Camargo Junior , Paulo Sérgio Cugnasca This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords UrbanAirMobilityeVTOLTrajectory-BasedOperationsDiscreteEventSimulationConflictdetectionSeparationstandardsUnmannedAircraftSystemSafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents TUS, a discrete-event simulation tool for Urban Air Mobility operations in which electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles follow pre-planned trajectories. The simulator takes as input a set of vehicles, their origins and destinations, and their trajectories, and returns whether those trajectories are conflict-free under minimum-separation rules and how long the whole operation takes. The authors' stated goal is to give trajectory planners a testbed for measuring safety and effectiveness, especially flight duration, before a trajectory plan is used in flight. Early UAM operations are expected to be dense and to use reduced separation standards, so a tool that can compare candidate trajectories on both safety and duration is a step toward practical trajectory planning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of classes UAM_manager and eVTOL. UAM_manager holds the set of vehicles, advances the simulation in one-second ticks, and decides safety with a conflict check that computes Euclidean distance between pairs of vehicles and subtracts the largest applicable minimum separation. The trajectory of each vehicle is a tuple $t = [(x_1,y_1,z_1,s_1),\ldots,(x_n,y_n,z_n,s_n)]$ of longitudinal coordinates, altitude, and speed. The separation design is a cylinder: horizontal separation of $0.25$ NM for piloted and $0.5$ NM for autonomous aircraft, vertical separation of $200$ ft, and four flight levels tied to heading. TUS also includes a VideoMaker class that renders each second of movement as scatter-plot frames, giving a visual check of the trajectories.

What would settle it

Build a scenario with two eVTOL vehicles crossing the same $(x,y)$ point at the same tick on different flight levels, say $1000$ ft and $1200$ ft. Principle 3 of Section 4.2 says no conflict should be reported because vertical separation holds; the rule stated in Section 4.5.2 says the horizontal separation applies regardless of altitude and a conflict should be reported. Running this scenario in TUS, or reading the conflict-check code directly, settles which rule the safety output actually implements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's contribution is the Trajectory-Based UAM Operations Simulator (TUS): a Discrete Event Simulation environment that models multiple eVTOL vehicles, piloted, remotely piloted, and self-piloted, moving one second at a time along fixed trajectories through a $30\ \mathrm{NM} \times 30\ \mathrm{NM}$ urban airspace with cruise flight levels at $1000$, $1200$, $1400$, and $1600$ ft. Each simulation tick moves a vehicle by $0.0417$ NM and logs its position; a conflict check compares pairwise distances against each vehicle's minimum horizontal separation ($0.25$ NM for piloted, $0.5$ NM otherwise) and vertical separation ($200$ ft). When a conflict is found the simulation halts and reports the conflicting vehicles; otherwise it returns the total time needed to deliver all flights. The main claimed value is an environment for testing and measuring the effectiveness, e.g., flight duration, of trajectories planned for eVTOL vehicles, in a way complementary to existing air traffic simulation tools.

Load-bearing premise

The safety verdict rests entirely on a single, consistently implemented separation rule, but the paper gives two conflicting statements of that rule: one says vertical separation alone can let two eVTOL vehicles share the same horizontal position, while another says the horizontal separation requirement applies regardless of altitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TUS gives a trajectory planner a go/no-go verdict: if any pair of vehicles violates separation, the simulation stops and names the conflicting vehicles.
  • Because the output includes the elapsed time to deliver all flights, planners can compare candidate trajectories on duration, not just safety.
  • The tool is scoped to early UAM maturity levels (UML 1-4) and a single urban area, with hundreds or thousands of simultaneous vehicles out of scope.
  • The same simulator can be used to test the impact of different separation standards, which the authors list as a future direction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the implementation follows the statement in Section 4.5.2 that longitudinal separation applies regardless of altitude, then altitude and flight levels never influence conflict detection, which would make Experiment II's altitude-based fix (an extra point at 1200 ft) ineffective as described; a corrected model would compare vertical separation before applying horizontal separation.
  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to report the severity or duration of separation violations rather than a binary conflict flag, which would help rank unsafe trajectories.
  • The one-second tick with a fixed step length implies position updates without an explicit acceleration or climb model inside a tick, so the simulator's fidelity is kinematic; testing trajectories near the maximum turn rate of $7.2$ degrees per second could expose whether that simplification matters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TUS, a discrete-event simulator for Trajectory-Based Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. The simulator takes as input a set of eVTOL vehicles with predefined trajectories and outputs a binary safety verdict (conflict-free or not) and the total flight duration. The authors describe the assumptions on airspace, mission, and vehicle performance, present a class-level implementation (UAM_manager, eVTOL, VideoMaker), and illustrate the tool with two experiments: a five-vehicle scenario with direct flights (Experiment I) and a two-vehicle crossing scenario where an altitude-based waypoint is proposed as a conflict-resolution measure (Experiment II). The stated main contribution is to provide a simulated environment for testing and measuring the effectiveness (e.g., flight duration) of trajectories planned for eVTOL vehicles.

Significance. If the separation semantics are made consistent and the simulator is validated against known conflict geometries, TUS could serve as a useful lightweight testbed for early UAM trajectory-planning research. The paper is explicit about its assumptions, the movement model is simple and transparent, and the two experiments demonstrate that the code executes as described. However, the central safety predicate is currently ill-defined because of a direct contradiction between the horizontal/vertical separation rule stated in Section 4.2 and the rule stated in Section 4.5.2, and this contradiction affects the interpretation of Experiment II. No validation against analytic results, real data, or a reference simulator is provided, which limits confidence in the safety outputs even after the contradiction is resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 vs §4.5.2] The conflict-detection rule is internally contradictory. Section 4.2, Principle 3, states that two eVTOL vehicles are allowed to fly into the same horizontal position if a proper vertical separation (z) is applied, and Section 4.3.3 states that the longitudinal separation requirement applies 'when the minimum vertical separation is not followed.' In contrast, Section 4.5.2 states that the longitudinal separation requirement 'is applied regardless of the altitude.' The described implementation of `euclidian_distance_sep` and `check_conflict` uses only horizontal positions and `hsep`, with no `vsep` or `z` entering the Euclidean-distance calculation. Under the Section 4.5.2 reading, vertical separation and the four flight levels have no effect on safety; under the Section 4.2 reading, they do. Because the safety verdict is the central output, this contradiction must be resolved and the implemented rule stated unambiguously.
  2. [§7 (Experiment II)] The reported conflict-resolution result depends directly on the unresolved separation rule. The alternative trajectory assigns eVTOL vehicle 1 an additional waypoint at [4, 2, 1200], and the paper states that 'TUS did not detect any conflict once the vertical and horizontal separation standards were respected.' If the implementation actually follows Section 4.5.2 (longitudinal separation regardless of altitude), then the altitude component of the waypoint cannot affect the horizontal separation check, and the original conflict would persist. The experiment therefore does not demonstrate a valid conflict-resolution solution until the separation semantics are fixed and the implementation is shown to be consistent with them.
  3. [§4.3.3 and §4.5.2] The speed used for stepping the simulation is inconsistent with the stated cruise speed. Section 4.3.3 gives a speed interval of 130–170 kts, while Section 4.5.2 first states a constant en-route airspeed of 170 mph and then computes the per-second step as 0.0417 NM, which corresponds to 150 kts (170 mph is approximately 147.7 kts, not 150 kts). Since the flight-duration output is presented as a measure of trajectory effectiveness, the actual speed used to convert ticks into distance must be stated consistently and used in the `step` method; otherwise reported durations such as 1084 s in Experiment I are not reproducible.
  4. [§5–§7] The paper does not validate the simulator's outputs against any reference, such as real traffic data, analytically known conflict geometries, or an established simulator. The two experiments are demonstrations of the code paths rather than correctness tests. Because the tool is intended to decide whether trajectories are safe and to measure their efficiency, at least one experiment with a conflict geometry whose outcome is known analytically (e.g., two aircraft with exactly the minimum separation) is needed to support the claim that the output actually describes the safety of the supplied trajectories.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Listings 2 and 3] Listing 2 contains `u a m.add_ev_list` (with spaces) instead of `uam.add_ev_list`, and Listing 3 has a missing closing parenthesis in `uam.add_ev_list([ev1, ev2)`. These typos should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states 'One import outcome' instead of 'One important outcome.'
  3. [§4.1] The sentence 'The main contribution of this simulation tool is to provide a simulated environment for testing and measuring the effectiveness (e.g., flight duration) of trajectories planned for eVTOL vehicles' appears twice in Section 4.1.
  4. [Figure 4] Figure 4 is referenced as a 'Table of Cruising Levels'; the caption should say 'Figure' rather than 'Table.'
  5. [§4.5.2] The sentence 'Finally, the eVTOL vehicles that reach the final point of its trajectory' has a subject–verb agreement error ('vehicles ... its').
  6. [§4.5.1] The description of `euclidian_distance_sep` says the returned distance is 4.5 NM for a Euclidean distance of 5 NM and minimum separations 0.25 and 0.5; however, the text subtracts the maximum separation, which is consistent with the rule, but this should be clarified as a deliberate conservative choice rather than a formula for the physical distance.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the only near-circular element is that the reported flight-duration metric is arithmetic on the input trajectory and assumed speed.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 4.1 (Definition) and Section 4.5.1 (UAM_manager.simulate)]
    "The main contribution of this simulation tool is to provide a simulated environment for testing and measuring the effectiveness (e.g., flight duration) of trajectories planned for eVTOL vehicles. ... The return of this method is composed of (i) the time spent to deliver all flights ... As 1 second is considered at a speed of 150kts, the vehicles fly 0.0417NM ... in each second."

    The output flight duration is accumulated by moving each aircraft along its supplied trajectory at the fixed assumed speed (0.0417 NM per tick), so the 'effectiveness' metric is effectively the input path length divided by the assumed speed. No independent dynamics, fitted parameter, or external benchmark enters the computation; the tool measures its own movement assumptions. This is a mild self-definitional element, not a load-bearing derivation, because the paper presents TUS as a simulator rather than as an empirical predictor.

full rationale

TUS is an explicit discrete-event simulator: inputs are vehicles, origins/destinations, trajectories, and separation thresholds; outputs are a conflict verdict from check_conflict/euclidian_distance_sep and an elapsed time accumulated by stepping along the input trajectories at the assumed speed. The only near-circular aspect is the flight-duration metric described above, and it is presented as a simulated measurement rather than as an empirical prediction. The only self-citation ([63]) appears in a generic capacity-estimation background sentence and is not load-bearing. Separately, the safety predicate is internally inconsistent: Sections 4.2 and 4.3.3 allow vertical separation to substitute for horizontal separation, while Section 4.5.2 applies longitudinal separation 'regardless of the altitude', and the described conflict computation uses only horizontal positions and hsep. That is a correctness and consistency risk that could make the safety output ill-defined, but it is not circularity. Overall circularity score: 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of hand-chosen numeric parameters (separation distances, speed, turn rate, flight levels) and domain assumptions (precise trajectory adherence, reduced IFR separation viability, large skyport capacity). These are not derived or validated in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Horizontal separation for piloted eVTOL = 0.25 NM
    Chosen based on specialist opinion and values in Bosson and Lauderdale [67]; not derived from collision risk analysis.
  • Horizontal separation for RPAS/self-piloted eVTOL = 0.5 NM
    Set higher than piloted separation to provide more decision time; no quantitative safety analysis.
  • Vertical separation = 200 ft
    Assumed based on aircraft characteristics and short airspace slice; not justified by a safety case.
  • Cruise speed = 150 kts (constant in simulation)
    Taken from the middle of the 130 to 170 kt range; used in distance-per-tick calculation.
  • Rate of turn = 7.2 deg/s
    Cited from a flight instruction source for helicopters at 150 kts; applied to all eVTOL types without model-specific validation.
  • Climb/descent rate = 500 ft/min
    Taken from Uber's eVTOL requirements [39].
  • Acceleration/deceleration = 1 kts/s, 2 kts/s
    Reasonable values chosen with ATM specialists; adjustable in future works.
  • Flight levels = 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600 ft
    Chosen to assign levels by heading similar to ICAO cruising levels; not based on capacity analysis.
  • Simulation area = 30 NM x 30 NM
    Assumed to represent a large city's urban area; not tied to a specific city or demand model.
  • Skyport altitude = 100 ft AGL
    Assumed for takeoff and landing; the basis is unclear.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Euclidean geometry and trigonometry are valid for position updates.
    Used in applyMovementBasedOnHeading and distance calculations (Section 4.5.2, Listing 1).
  • domain assumption eVTOL vehicles follow their assigned trajectories precisely.
    Principle 4 in Section 4.2 states conflicts are not solved tactically and trajectories are precisely followed; this avoids modeling navigation error or pilot behavior.
  • domain assumption Reduced IFR-like separation (0.25/0.5 NM horizontal) is safe for UAM operations.
    Section 4.2 Principle 6 and Section 4.3.1 assume future CNS technologies enable reduced separation; the simulator does not validate this safety case.
  • domain assumption Conflict detection applies the stated separation rules consistently.
    This is the paper's assumption about the implementation; it is violated textually because Section 4.2 Principle 3 and Section 4.5.2 state contradictory rules.
  • domain assumption Skyport capacity and scheduling do not constrain operations.
    Section 4.3.2 assumes skyports have considerably large capacity; this removes queueing effects from the simulation.
  • domain assumption Vehicle performance specifications from Uber Elevate are representative.
    Section 4.3.3 adopts speed, climb, and size limits from [39]; other manufacturers may differ.
  • domain assumption The simulation area of 30 NM x 30 NM reasonably represents an urban environment.
    Section 4.3.1 assumes this boundary for a large city; no specific city topology is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trajectory-Based Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Operations Simulator (TUS)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTVPLTLV

@misc{pith2026190808651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trajectory-Based Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Operations Simulator (TUS)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTVPLTLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08651}
}
read the original abstract

Nowadays, the demand for optimized services in urban environments to provide better society wellness is increasing. In this sense, ground transportation in dense urban environments has been facing challenges for many years (e.g., congestion and resilience). One import outcome of the effort made toward the creation of new concepts for enhancing urban transportation is the Urban Air Mobility (UAM) concept. UAM aims at enhancing city transportation services using manned and unmanned vehicles. However, these operations bring many challenges to be faced, e.g., the interaction between the controller agent and autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, trajectory planning is not a simple task due to several factors. Firstly, the trajectories must consider a reduced minimum separation as eVTOL vehicle are expected to operate in complex urban environments. This leads the trajectory planning process to observe safety primitives more restrictively once the airspace is expected to comport many vehicles that follow small minimum separation standards. Thereupon, the main goal of the Trajectory-Based UAM Operations Simulator (TUS) is to simulate the Trajectory-Based UAM operations in urban environments considering the presence of both manned and unmanned eVTOL vehicles. For this, a Discrete Event Simulation (DES) approach is adopted, which considers an input (i.e., the eVTOL vehicles, their origin and destination, and their respective trajectories) and produces an output (which describes if the trajectories are safe and the elapsed operation time). The main contribution of this simulation tool is to provide a simulated environment for testing and measuring the effectiveness (e.g., flight duration) of trajectories planned for eVTOL vehicles.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Simulation evaluations of an autonomous urban air mobility network management and separation service

    Christabelle Bosson and Todd A Lauderdale. Simulation evaluations of an autonomous urban air mobility network management and separation service. In 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3365, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework

    Hafedh Chourabi, Taewoo Nam, Shawn Walker, J Ramon Gil-Garcia, Sehl Mellouli, Karine Nahon, Theresa A Pardo, and Hans Jochen Scholl. Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pages 2289–2297. IEEE, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Foundations for smarter cities

    Colin Harrison, Barbara Eckman, Rick Hamilton, Perry Hartswick, Jayant Kalagnanam, Jurij Paraszczak, and Peter Williams. Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of research and development, 54(4):1–16, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60:234–245, 2017

    Hannele Ahvenniemi, Aapo Huovila, Isabel Pinto-Seppä, and Miimu Airaksinen. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60:234–245, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Advances on sensing technologies for smart cities and power grids: A review

    Rosario Morello, Subhas C Mukhopadhyay, Zheng Liu, Daniel Slomovitz, and Subhransu Ranjan Samantaray. Advances on sensing technologies for smart cities and power grids: A review. IEEE Sensors Journal, 17(23):7596– 7610, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    D. J. Cook, G. Duncan, G. Sprint, and R. L. Fritz. Using smart city technology to make healthcare smarter. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(4):708–722, April 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Zanella, N

    A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi. Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1):22–32, Feb 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Urban Air Mobility Airspace Integration Concepts and Considerations

    David P Thipphavong, Rafael D Apaza, Bryan E Barmore, Vernol Battiste, Barbara K Burian, Quang V Dao, Michael S Feary, Susie Go, Kenneth H Goodrich, Jeffrey R Homola, Husni R Idris, Parimal H Kopardekar, B Lachter, Natasha A Neogi, Hok K Ng, Rosa M Oseguera-lohr, Michael D Patterson, and Savita A Verma. Urban Air Mobility Airspace Integration Concepts and...

    work page 2019

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Urbanairmobilitynetworkandvehicletype -modeling and assessment

    LeeWKohlman, MichaelDPatterson, andBrookeERaabe. Urbanairmobilitynetworkandvehicletype -modeling and assessment. 2019

    2019

  2. [9]

    Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation

    Uber. Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation. Available in: https://www.uber. com/pt -BR/elevate.pdf/ , 2016. Accessed: March 2019

    2016

  3. [10]

    Amazon PrimeAir

    Amazon. Amazon PrimeAir. Available in: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon -Prime -Air/b?ie=UTF8& node=8037720011 , 2016. Accessed: April 2019

    2016

  4. [11]

    Unmanned aircraft system traffic management (utm) concept of operations

    ParimalKopardekar, JosephRios, ThomasPrevot, MarcusJohnson, JaewooJung, andJohnERobinson. Unmanned aircraft system traffic management (utm) concept of operations. 2016. 29 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 23, 2019

    2016

  5. [12]

    Anderson, K

    J.M. Anderson, K. Nidhi, K.D. Stanley, P. Sorensen, C. Samaras, and O.A. Oluwatola. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers . RAND Corporation research report series ; RR-443-1-RC. RAND Corporation, 2014

    2014

  6. [13]

    Future development of contrail cover, optical depth, and radiative forcing: Impacts of increasing air traffic and climate change

    S Marquart, M Ponater, F Mager, and R Sausen. Future development of contrail cover, optical depth, and radiative forcing: Impacts of increasing air traffic and climate change. Journal of Climate, 16(17):2890–2904, 2003

    2003

  7. [14]

    Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development and deployment., volume 54

    Reg Austin. Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development and deployment., volume 54. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2011

    2011

  8. [15]

    Air traffic control tools assessment

    Tomáš Noskieviˇc and Jakub Kraus. Air traffic control tools assessment. MAD-Magazine of Aviation Development, 5(2):6–10, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    Evaluating how interfaces influence the user interaction with fully autonomous vehicles

    Luis Oliveira, Jacob Luton, Sumeet Iyer, Chris Burns, Alexandros Mouzakitis, Paul Jennings, and Stewart Birrell. Evaluating how interfaces influence the user interaction with fully autonomous vehicles. pages 320–331, 09 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Biondi, Monika Lohani, Rachel Hopman, Sydney Mills, Joel M

    Francesco N. Biondi, Monika Lohani, Rachel Hopman, Sydney Mills, Joel M. Cooper, and David L. Strayer. 80 mph and out-of-the-loop: Effects of real-world semi-automated driving on driver workload and arousal. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meetin...

    2018

  11. [18]

    Kester, and Mark Neerincx

    Peter Werkhoven, L.J.H.M. Kester, and Mark Neerincx. Telling autonomous systems what to do. pages 1–8, 09 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Silicon valley as an early adopter for on-demand civil vtol operations

    Kevin R Antcliff, Mark D Moore, and Kenneth H Goodrich. Silicon valley as an early adopter for on-demand civil vtol operations. In 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3466, 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    Helicopter theory

    Wayne Johnson. Helicopter theory. Courier Corporation, 2012

    2012

  14. [21]

    Traffic congestion control for aw–rascle–zhang model

    Huan Yu and Miroslav Krstic. Traffic congestion control for aw–rascle–zhang model. Automatica, 100:38–51, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    The Future of Vertical Mobility

    Porsche. The Future of Vertical Mobility. Available in: https://fedotov.co/wp -content/uploads/2018/ 03/Future -of -Vertical -Mobility.pdf , 2018. Accessed: March 2019

    2018

  16. [23]

    Agent-based simulation of urban air mobility

    Raoul Rothfeld, Milos Balac, Kay O Ploetner, and Constantinos Antoniou. Agent-based simulation of urban air mobility. In 2018 Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, page 3891, 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    Urban air mobility airspace integration concepts and considerations

    David P Thipphavong, Rafael Apaza, Bryan Barmore, Vernol Battiste, Barbara Burian, Quang Dao, Michael Feary, Susie Go, Kenneth H Goodrich, Jeffrey Homola, et al. Urban air mobility airspace integration concepts and considerations. In 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and ...

    2018

  18. [25]

    Strategies for posing a well-defined problem for urban air mobility vehicles

    Matthew Clarke, Jordan Smart, Emilio M Botero, Walter Maier, and Juan J Alonso. Strategies for posing a well-defined problem for urban air mobility vehicles. In AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, page 0818, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    Enabling airspace integration for high-density on-demand mobility operations

    Eric R Mueller, Parmial H Kopardekar, and Kenneth H Goodrich. Enabling airspace integration for high-density on-demand mobility operations. In 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3086, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    Grand challenge overview

    Davis Hackenberg. Grand challenge overview. 2018. Accessed: March 2019

    2018

  21. [28]

    A study in reducing the cost of vertical flight with electric propulsion

    Michael J Duffy, Sean R Wakayama, and Ryan Hupp. A study in reducing the cost of vertical flight with electric propulsion. In 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3442, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Urban air mobility landscape report

    MITRE. Urban air mobility landscape report. 2018. Accessed: March 2019

    2018

  23. [30]

    Bluesky ATC simulator project: an open data and open source approach

    Jacco M Hoekstra and Joost Ellerbroek. Bluesky ATC simulator project: an open data and open source approach. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH IN AIR TRANSPORTATION, 7. Proceedings..., 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    Modeling the intrinsic safety of unstruc- tured and layered airspace designs

    Martijn Tra, Emmanuel Sunil, Joost Ellerbroek, and Jacco Hoekstra. Modeling the intrinsic safety of unstruc- tured and layered airspace designs. In USA/EUROPE AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR (ATM2017), 2017, 12. Proceedings..., 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Conflict management considering a smooth transition of aircraft into adjacent airspace

    Youkyung Hong, Byunghun Choi, Keumjin Lee, and Youdan Kim. Conflict management considering a smooth transition of aircraft into adjacent airspace. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(9):2490– 2501, 2016

    2016

  26. [33]

    Modeling emergent risks in complex airspace: UAS operations in a metroplex environment

    Sherry S Borener, Derek Hufty, Vitaly S Guzhva, Kenny Martin, and Rafael Fraga. Modeling emergent risks in complex airspace: UAS operations in a metroplex environment. In DIGITAL AVIONICS SYSTEMS CONFER- ENCE (DASC), 2015 IEEE/AIAA, 34. Proceedings..., pages 5B3–1. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  27. [34]

    Air traffic controllers’ practical part of basic training on computer based simulation device

    Mira Pavlinovi´c, Mira Pavlinovi´c, Biljana Juriˇci´c, and Bruno Antulov-Fantulin. Air traffic controllers’ practical part of basic training on computer based simulation device. In JUBILARNI MEÐUNARODNI SKUP ZA INFORMACIJSKU I KOMUNIKACIJSKU TEHNOLOGIJU, ELEKTRONIKU I MIKROELE...

    2017

  28. [35]

    Cora press

    Cora. Cora press. 2019. Accessed: March 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    Pav – passenger air vehicle

    Aurora. Pav – passenger air vehicle. 2019. Accessed: March 2019

    2019

  30. [37]

    Airbus. Vahana. 2019. Accessed: March 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Our high flier: The volocopter 2x

    Volocopter. Our high flier: The volocopter 2x. 2019. Accessed: March 2019

    2019

  32. [39]

    eVTOL Vehicle Requirements and Missions

    Uber. eVTOL Vehicle Requirements and Missions. Available in: https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber -static/ elevate/Summary+Mission+and+Requirements.pdf , 2018. Accessed: March 2019

    2018

  33. [40]

    Drag reduction through distributed electric propulsion

    Alex M Stoll, JoeBen Bevirt, Mark D Moore, William J Fredericks, and Nicholas K Borer. Drag reduction through distributed electric propulsion. In 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 2851, 2014

    2014

  34. [41]

    Using lte networks for uav command and control link: A rural-area coverage analysis

    Huan Cong Nguyen, Rafhael Amorim, Jeroen Wigard, Istvan Z Kovacs, and Preben Mogensen. Using lte networks for uav command and control link: A rural-area coverage analysis. In 2017 IEEE 86th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  35. [42]

    A simulation framework for fast design space exploration of unmanned air system traffic management policies

    Ziyi Zhao, Chen Luo, Jin Zhao, Qinru Qiu, M Cenk Gursoy, Carlos Caicedo, and Franco Basti. A simulation framework for fast design space exploration of unmanned air system traffic management policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04035, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Trajectory based operations (tbo): Central to the latest atm concepts., 2017

    EUROCONTROL. Trajectory based operations (tbo): Central to the latest atm concepts., 2017. Available in: https://publish.eurocontrol.int/news/trajectory-based-operations-tbo-central-latest-atm-concepts. Accessed in: May 2019

    2017

  37. [44]

    The effect of trajectory -based operations on air traffic complexity

    Tomislav Radiši´c. The effect of trajectory -based operations on air traffic complexity . PhD thesis, Fakultet prometnih znanosti, Sveuˇcilište u Zagrebu, 2014

    2014

  38. [45]

    Trajectory based operations (tbo)., 2016

    SESAR. Trajectory based operations (tbo)., 2016. Available in: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/events/presentation/2-david-batchelor-tbo-emerging-technologies- atc-global-2016.pdf. Accessed in: May 2019

    2016

  39. [46]

    Nextgen101, 2019

    Mitre. Nextgen101, 2019. Availablein: https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk3916/files/inline- files/NextGen%20101%20Training.pdf. Accessed in: May 2019

    2019

  40. [47]

    Trajectorybasedoperations(tbo)., 2019

    GE. Trajectorybasedoperations(tbo)., 2019. Availablein: https://www.geaviation.com/systems/avionics/navigation- guidance/trajectory-based-operations-tbo. Accessed in: May 2019

    2019

  41. [48]

    Zografos

    Veronica Dal Sasso, Franklin Djeumou Fomeni, Guglielmo Lulli, and Konstantinos G. Zografos. Planning efficient 4d trajectories in air traffic flow management. European Journal of Operational Research, 276(2):676 – 687, 2019

    2019

  42. [49]

    Aircraft 4d trajectories planning under uncertain- ties

    Supatcha Chaimatanan, Daniel Delahaye, and Marcel Mongeau. Aircraft 4d trajectories planning under uncertain- ties. In 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, pages 51–58. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  43. [50]

    A methodology for 4d trajectory optimization of arrival aircraft in trajectory based operation

    Yang Zhang and Feifei Chen. A methodology for 4d trajectory optimization of arrival aircraft in trajectory based operation. In 2018 13th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA) , pages 1284–1289. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  44. [51]

    Strategic guidance in support of the execution of the european atm master plan., 2011

    EUROCONTROL. Strategic guidance in support of the execution of the european atm master plan., 2011. Available in: https://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/strategic -guidance-support-execution-european-master- plan. Accessed in: May 2019

    2011

  45. [52]

    Sesar master plan d5., 2008

    EUROCONTROL. Sesar master plan d5., 2008. Available in: https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/DLM - 0710-001-02-00-D5.pdf. Accessed in: May 2019

    2008

  46. [53]

    Swim concept of operations., 2013

    EUROCONTROL. Swim concept of operations., 2013. Available in: https://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/sesar-swim-concept-operations. Accessed in: May 2019

    2013

  47. [54]

    Assessment of air traffic control for urban air mobility and unmanned systems

    Parker D Vascik, Hamsa Balakrishnan, and R John Hansman. Assessment of air traffic control for urban air mobility and unmanned systems. 2018

    2018

  48. [55]

    Scaling constraints for urban air mobility operations: Air traffic control, ground infrastructure, and noise

    Parker D Vascik and R John Hansman. Scaling constraints for urban air mobility operations: Air traffic control, ground infrastructure, and noise. In 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3849, 2018

    2018

  49. [56]

    Air traffic management - doc 4444, 2016

    ICAO. Air traffic management - doc 4444, 2016. Available in: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/ICAO-Doc-4444-EN.pdf. Accessed in: February 2018

    2016

  50. [57]

    Performance based navigation: Pbn nas navigation strategy 2016., 2016

    FAA. Performance based navigation: Pbn nas navigation strategy 2016., 2016. Available in: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/PBN_NAS_NAV.pdf. Accessed in: April 2019. 31 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 23, 2019

    2016

  51. [58]

    Total Airspace and Airport Modeller (TAAM) Product Profile

    Jeppesen. Total Airspace and Airport Modeller (TAAM) Product Profile. Available in: http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/aviation/government/TAAM-product-profile.pdf. Accessed: Febru- ary 2018, 2015

    2018

  52. [59]

    Next generation flight manage- ment system for real-time trajectory based operations

    Subramanian Ramasamy, Roberto Sabatini, Alessandro Gardi, and Trevor Kistan. Next generation flight manage- ment system for real-time trajectory based operations. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, volume 629, pages 344–349. Trans Tech Publ, 2014

    2014

  53. [60]

    Estimating capacity of europe’s airspace using a simulation model of air traffic controller workload

    Arnab Majumdar and John Polak. Estimating capacity of europe’s airspace using a simulation model of air traffic controller workload. Transportation research record, 1744(1):30–43, 2001

    2001

  54. [61]

    Airspace capacity estimation using flows and weather-impacted traffic index

    Alexander Klein, Lara Cook, Bryan Wood, and David Simenauer. Airspace capacity estimation using flows and weather-impacted traffic index. In 2008 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference, pages 1–12. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  55. [62]

    Controller workload, airspace capacity and future systems

    Peter Brooker. Controller workload, airspace capacity and future systems. 2003

    2003

  56. [63]

    An airspace capacity-based safety assessment model considering uas integration

    EuclidesPintoNeto, DerickMBaum, CarlosE Hernandez-Simões, JorgeR Almeida, JoãoBCamargo, andPauloS Cugnasca. An airspace capacity-based safety assessment model considering uas integration. In INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (ICUAS), 2017. Proceedings..., p...

    2017

  57. [64]

    Manual on remotely piloted aircraft systems (rpas) - doc 10019 an/507, 2015

    ICAO. Manual on remotely piloted aircraft systems (rpas) - doc 10019 an/507, 2015. Available in: http://servicos.decea.gov.br/arquivos/drone/Doc_10019_Manual_on_RPAS__English_.pdf. Accessed in: February 2018

    2015

  58. [65]

    Aircraftoperations-doc8168, 2006

    ICAO. Aircraftoperations-doc8168, 2006. Availablein:http://www.chcheli.com/sites/default/files/icao_doc_8168_vol_1.pdf. Accessed in: February 2018

    2006

  59. [66]

    Turn performance., 2018

    CFI. Turn performance., 2018. Available in: https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aerodynamics -and- performance/turn-performance. Accessed in: April 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Applications for navy unmanned aircraft systems

    Brien Alkire, James G Kallimani, Peter A Wilson, and Louis R Moore. Applications for navy unmanned aircraft systems. 2010

    2010

  61. [69]

    Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations

    Daniel J Fagnant and Kara Kockelman. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77:167–181, 2015

    2015

  62. [70]

    Unmanned aerial vehicles in the navy: Its benefits

    Gonçalo Castanheira Rosa, Mario Monteiro Marques, and Victor Lobo. Unmanned aerial vehicles in the navy: Its benefits. Sci. Bull. Nav. Acad, 19(1):39–43, 2016

    2016

  63. [71]

    Towards autonomous aviation operations: What can we learn from other areas of automation? In 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3148, 2016

    Banavar Sridhar and Parimal Kopardekar. Towards autonomous aviation operations: What can we learn from other areas of automation? In 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, page 3148, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    A quantitative analysis of possible futures of autonomous transport

    Christopher Benson, Pranav Sumanth, and Alina Colling. A quantitative analysis of possible futures of autonomous transport. 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    Impacts and potential benefits of autonomous vehicles

    Apur. Impacts and potential benefits of autonomous vehicles. 2018. Accessed: March 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    Public perception of autonomous aircraft

    Matthew Wollert. Public perception of autonomous aircraft. Order, (10810632), 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    Rules of air - annex 2, 2005

    ICAO. Rules of air - annex 2, 2005. Available in: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/ Document%20Archive/an02_cons%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed in: February 2018

    2005

  68. [76]

    College algebra with trigonometry

    Raymond A Barnett. College algebra with trigonometry. McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2010

    2010

  69. [77]

    Find angle in degrees from one point to another in 2d space?, 2019

    Stackoverflow. Find angle in degrees from one point to another in 2d space?, 2019. Available in: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/707673/find -angle-in-degrees-from-one-point-to-another-in-2d- space. Accessed in: April 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Seaborn: statistical data visualization., 2019

    Seaborn. Seaborn: statistical data visualization., 2019. Available in: https://seaborn.pydata.org. Accessed in: April 2019. 32

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.