Advertisement

Complex Risk and Uncertainty Modeling for Emergent Aviation Systems: An Application

  • Ahmet Oztekin
  • James T. Luxhøj
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

Modeling complex systems is a very broad area of research where, more often than not, a multi-disciplinary approach is needed to achieve a meaningful representation of the subject matter. The analytical methods employed along the process remain as much an art as science, especially, if the subject matter is safety and risk analysis of a real-world system. One aspect that particularly increases the complexity of modeling is the fact that many real-world systems naturally include both discrete and continuous variables.

Keywords

Causal Factor Bayesian Network Subject Matter Expert Unman Aircraft System Conditional Dependency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by Federal Aviation Administration grant number 08-G-002. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors who are solely responsible for the accuracy of the facts, analyses, conclusions, and recommendations represented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official view or policy of the Federal Aviation Administration.

References

  1. 1.
    Oztekin A (2009) A generalized hybrid Fuzzy-Bayesian methodology for modeling complex uncertainty. Dissertation, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers University, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lauritzen SL, Spiegelhalter DJ (1988) Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their applications to expert systems. J Roy Stat Soc B 50(2):157–224MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shenoy PP, Shafer GR (1990) Axioms for probability and belief-function propagation. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on uncertainty in AI (UAI), pp 169–198Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang C, Darwiche A (1996) Inference in belief networks: a procedural guide. Int J Approx Reason 15:225–263MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lauritzen SL (1992) Propagation of probabilities, means, and variances in mixed graphical association models. JASA 87(420):1089–1108MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lauritzen SL, Jensen F (2001) Stable local computation with conditional Gaussian distributions. Stat Comput 11:113–203MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lerner UN (2002) Hybrid Bayesian networks for reasoning about complex systems. Stanford University, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klir GL (1989) Is there more to uncertainty than some probability theorist might have us believe? Int J Gen Syst 15:347–378MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zadeh LA (1995) Discussion: probability theory and fuzzy logic are complementary rather than competitive. Technometrics 37(3), AugustGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Di Tomaso E, Baldwin JF (2008) An approach to hybrid probabilistic models. Int J Approx Reason 47:202–218MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korb KB, Nicholson AE (2004) Bayesian artificial intelligence. Chapmen & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baldwin JF, Di Tomaso E (2003) Inference and learning in fuzzy-Bayesian network, fuzzy system, FUZZ’03. The IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, vol 1, pp 630–635, 25–28Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leveson NG (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luxhoj JT (2008) Safety risk analysis of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration into the national airspace system (NAS): phase 1 final report. Department of transportation. Federal aviation administration, January 31Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luxhoj JT (2009) Safety risk analysis of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration into the national airspace system (NAS): phase 2 final report, Department of transportation. Federal aviation administration, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FAA (2001) Air carrier operations system model, Final Report. DOT/FAA/AR-00/45, Office of Aviation Research, Washington, D.C., MarchGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    FAA (2007) 14 CFR Part 137 Oversight Model, Final Report. DOT/FAA/AR-06/51, Office of Aviation Research, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clemens PL (2002) Making component failure probability estimates. www.sverdrup.com/safety/failprob.pdf, December
  22. 22.
    Oztekin A (2005) A case-based reasoning (CBR) approach for accident scenario knowledge management, M.S. Thesis, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers University, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luxhoj JT (2005) Aviation safety in practice: applying principles and tools to measure risk reduction, Safety across high-consequence industries, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Sep 20–22Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luxhoj JT (2005) Model-based reasoning for aviation safety risk assessments, SAE world aerospace congress, Dallas/Fort Worth, Oct 3–6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oztekin A, Luxhoj JT (2009) A regulatory-based approach to safety analysis of unmanned aircraft systems. HCI international conference proceedings (lecture notes in computer science (LNCS) series). Springer, San Diego, pp 19–24, JulyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oztekin A, Luxhoj JT, Allocco M (2007) A general framework for risk-based system safety analysis of the introduction of emergent aeronautical operations into the national airspace system. Proceedings of the 25th international system safety conference, Baltimore, August 13–17Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oztekin A, Luxhoj JT (2008) Hazard, safety risk, and uncertainty modeling of the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace. 26th congress of international council of the aeronautical sciences. Anchorage, Sep 14–19Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anoll R (2006) Safety checklist, federal aviation administration, unmanned aircraft system (UAS) program office. Washington, DC, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oztekin A, Luxhoj JT (2009) A hybrid framework for modeling complex risk and uncertainty, IERC. Institute of industrial engineering, Miami, May 30–June 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations