Three Dimensional Intruder Closest Point of Approach Estimation Based-on Monocular Image Parameters in Aircraft Sense and Avoid Motto: ’Almost Everything from Almost Nothing

The paper deals with monocular image-based sense and avoid assuming constant aircraft velocities and straight flight paths. From very limited two dimensional image information it finally characterizes the whole three dimensional collision situation by estimating the time to closest point of approach...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of intelligent & robotic systems Vol. 93; no. 1-2; pp. 261 - 276
Main Authors Bauer, Peter, Hiba, Antal, Bokor, Jozsef, Zarandy, Akos
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.02.2019
Springer
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0921-0296
1573-0409
DOI10.1007/s10846-018-0816-6

Cover

More Information
Summary:The paper deals with monocular image-based sense and avoid assuming constant aircraft velocities and straight flight paths. From very limited two dimensional image information it finally characterizes the whole three dimensional collision situation by estimating the time to closest point of approach, the horizontal relative distance and its direction and the vertical relative distance also. The distances are relative to the intruder aircraft horizontal and vertical sizes. The overall estimated relative distance is the closest between the two aircraft in three dimension. So finally, every important information can be extracted to be used in a collision decision. The applicability of the developed method is presented in software-in-the-loop simulation test runs. Several intruder size and speed values are considered together with trajectories covering the whole three dimensional space. The horizontal intruder flight directions relative to the own aircraft cover 360 ∘ and the intruder can come from below ar above also. Detailed evaluation and discussion of the results is also included. Finally, the missed detection rate results to be superior (below 3% in every test scenario) though the false alarm rate results a bit high between 7–14%.
ISSN:0921-0296
1573-0409
DOI:10.1007/s10846-018-0816-6