Article
citation information:
Augustyn, E., Kadziński, A.,
Smoczyński, P. Model of the Tactical Aircraft Operating System as an aggregated
analysis domain for hazard risk management processes. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2018, 101, 15-26.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2018.101.2.
Emil
AUGUSTYN[1], Adam KADZIŃSKI[2], Piotr SMOCZYŃSKI[3]
MODEL OF THE
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATING SYSTEM AS AN AGGREGATED ANALYSIS DOMAIN FOR HAZARD
RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
Summary. The Tactical Aircraft Operating System (a
system for tactical aircraft operational usage) constitutes the main research
area of this paper. The authors present this system via an innovative model for
an anthropotechnical system in the format of an aggregated analysis
domain. This model constitutes a detailed explication of a fragment of the
existing Tactical Air Force System metamodel at the level that concerns
tactical aircraft operation systems. The aggregated analysis domain for
tactical aircraft operations is built on seven single-analysis domain, each of
which includes a series of processes, operations and events, related to the
airman’s aviation activities cycle, what happens during an air mission
and when an aircraft operating cycle is carried out. The subsequent
individual analysis domains are connected to each other by an airman-aircraft
anthropotechnical pair. The introduced method of modelling the Tactical
Aircraft Operating System ensures the desired generality, comprehensiveness,
coherence and transparency of such a model, which allows for its
implementation in various types of tactical aircraft and tactical air force
bases. In principle, within the presented considerations, the model is
described in relation to a single aircraft operating cycle, which is carried
out by one airman during a single air mission. However, the authors have
taken care when creating this model structure, so that its implementation
in more complex aircraft operating cycles (more than one aircraft and one
airman) is possible. Apart from the analysis domains (“before
take-off”, “departure”, “air task”,
“arrival”, “after landing”), which are closely related
to the essential aircraft operations, the model also includes the analysis
domains associated with air mission preparations and summaries. The model for
the Tactical Aircraft Operating System is described by the authors in textual
form, as well as in tabular form. The presented concept constitutes
an attempt to formally notate the Tactical Aircraft Operating System
model, in which each of the individual analysis domains can be treated as an
area of interest for hazard risk management processes within the Tactical Air
Force System.
Keywords: tactical air force; Tactical Air
Force System; Tactical Aircraft Operating System model; aggregated analysis
domain; hazard risk management
1.
INTRODUCTION
The fast progressing
development of both civil and the military aviation [20] has meant that the issues concerning aircraft
operation [13,14] is becoming increasingly significant. This state of
affairs has prompted the evolution of the basic components of aircraft
operation systems, i.e., aircraft operating systems (aircraft operational
usage) and aircraft maintenance systems [13,14]. The systemic approach to the operation
of aircraft has attracted an increasing number of supporters in both
civil and military aviation. New challenges and constant developments in
science within the scope of aircraft operation systems, which is
considered as an interdisciplinary field of human activity, continuously
determine the need to implement new, clear, coherent and adaptive
perceptions about components of aircraft operation systems and the
relationships that exist between them. Therefore, it is justifiable to make an
attempt to formally describe these components, which are necessary for
various types of analyses. Such a description allows us to create
models that may be more or less developed. It may also describe the actual
components of aircraft operation systems more or less accurately. The main
purpose of these models is to capture the essence of aircraft operations
(operational usage) and maintenance systems. Whereas the modelling of these
systems should be considered as processes that allow us to examine the
relationships existing in and between these systems in terms of the entire
aircraft operation system model in a given organizational unit, such
as the Tactical Air Force Base (TAFB).
The main purpose of the following
paper is to present the innovative concept of creating a model of the
Tactical Aircraft Operating System (TAOS), which is one of the integral systems
in the overall systems for tactical aircraft operations. The following
considerations are based on the Polish Tactical Air Force [20], which is treated as an example of a tactical air
force. It is assumed that the TAOS is an anthropotechnical system, which
constitutes a detailed development of one part (Level 3) of the Tactical Air
Force System (TAFS) metamodel. Level 3 of the TAFS metamodel concerns all the
systems involved in tactical aircraft operations. The main assumption
of the following concept is to present the TAOS in an innovative
format of an aggregated analysis domain. The aggregated analysis
domain of the TAOS consists of seven disjointed, individual analysis
domains, which are ordered in time. Each of the analysis domains
constitutes a sequence of processes, which integrate specific operations and
events related to an airman’s aviation activities cycle (AAAC). The
subsequent individual analysis domains are connected to each other via an airman-aircraft
anthropotechnical pair. Afterwards, each of the analysis domains will
constitute a scientific area of research within the scope of processes that
concern hazard risk management [1,7,8,16] in the TAOS. The assessment of hazard risks in each
of the single analysis domains will finally lead to the comprehensive
assessment of hazard risk in the entire TAOS. In principle, within
the presented considerations, the TAOS model is described in relation to
the single aircraft operating cycle, which is carried out by one airman during
a single air mission (AM). However, the authors took care when
constructing the model so that it can be implemented in more complex aircraft
operating cycles, which often occur in practice. The model presents
the TAOS in general terms due to the operation of various types of
aircraft in a tactical air force and the diversity of tasks carried out by the
TAFB. In addition, the aforementioned generality of the TAOS model
opens up the possibility of its implementation in the tactical air force
in various different countries.
2.
BASIC DATA ON AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN
THE TACTICAL AIR FORCE
In a tactical air force,
military combat aircraft [4] are used, i.e., aircraft [10] of the tactical air force, e.g., multirole
fighters, fighters or fighter-bombers. The aircraft operating takes place
during the AM execution and as part of the aircraft operating cycle (cycle of
aircraft operational usage), which constitutes one of the main parts of an
AAAC.
The aircraft operating
in the TAOS is defined as an individualized relationship between
the airman and the aircraft, which consists of aircraft operation by the
airman as an operator (user), for the purposes of executing an AM. As a stage
in an AM, the airman makes a flight [15], whose most important phase is to perform the air
task (AT) or several ATs. Performing an AT is the main goal of the TAOS. ATs
are performed by airmen during AMs that constitute an essential part of a
single AAAC. The airmen who take part in aviation work shifts carry out single
AAACs, which make up the series of AAACs (SAAAC).
In the following
considerations, the authors refer to the “aircraft crew”, while
using the term “airman”, because, in the main, tactical
aircraft crew composition and the essential meaning of the term
“crew” involve one person. This state of affairs is also connected
with the specificity of the tactical air force, because, in most
cases (AMs), only a one-person crew (in some cases, there may be a
double-person aircraft crew, albeit rarely) operates an aircraft.
The TAOS is a part of
the TAFS metamodel. The authors, due to the character of the following
considerations, qualify the TAFS as a metamodel, because its individual
parts (systems, technical objects, components) at each of its levels can
be also outlined as a model in itself. An example of such a description
(in terms of the shape of a model) is the TAOS model presented below.
Level 3 of the TAFS
metamodel (Figure 1) concerns systems for tactical aircraft operations. This
level of TAFS decomposition presents a general and model scheme for tactical
aircraft operations on the basis of complex analyses of aircraft’s
operational state of affairs in the TAFB. Tactical aircraft
operations follow a complex operation process [13,14] in a predefined operation system [13,14], which mainly consists of two phases [13,14]: operating (usage) and maintenance. According to
the analysed literature [2], there is also a third phase: standby. This
means that an aircraft has readiness for duty or immediate deployment, but it
is still in the care of military aerospace engineering staff (AES) [5], who are responsible for maintenance. As such, the
standby phase is included by the authors in the maintenance phase. Both
aircraft operation phases have been comprehensively and extensively
described in [13,14].
Fig. 1. Level 3 of the TAFS metamodel
indicating the research area of this paper
(used abbreviations are explained in the text of this
paper)
Aircraft operations in the TAFB directly
involve the Tactical Flying Squadrons (TFSQs) (Figures 1-2), which operate as a
structural part of the Flying Operations Group (FOG) (see Figures 1-2).
Military flying staff [4]
(airmen) from the FOG/TFSQs with airworthy aircraft or airworthy aircraft with
restrictions (aircraft reliability states; see Figure 2) constitute the main
elements of the TAOS. The Tactical Aircraft Maintenance System (TAMS) (se
Figures 1-2) mainly consists of non-airworthy aircraft or aircraft that are
airworthy with restrictions, as well as military AES divided into maintenance
squadrons. The maintenance squadrons - the Aircraft Flightline Maintenance
Squadrons (AFMSQs) (see Figures 1-2) and the Aircraft Technical Repair
Squadrons (ATRSQs) (see Figures 1-2) - operate as a part of the
Maintenance Operations Group (MOG) (see Figures 1-2). The TAMS and other
systems in the TAFS environment are appointed to support the TAOS, which is
treated as the main system in the TAFS.
3.
MODEL OF THE TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
OPERATING SYSTEM
IN THE FORMAT OF AN AGGREGATED ANALYSIS DOMAIN
The TAFS, which is
presented in the shape of a metamodel with five levels of decomposition,
outlines a new vision, among others, for issues related to the overall state of
affairs in tactical aircraft operations. As such, in this article, the
TAOS has already been presented among the structures of systems for tactical
aircraft operations. Next, using this presentation, the TAOS will be outlined
via the format of an aggregated analysis domain. The number of objects,
components, processes or operations and events related to the TAOS is
significant and, for various scientific analyses, it is necessary
to organize them into a coherent and full set of disjointed and
individual analysis domains. In the case of outlining the TAOS in the
format of an aggregated analysis domain, seven analysis domains (Table 1) were
highlighted and emphasized. Within all analysis domains, certain processes take
place (Figure 2), integrating their subsequent operations and events, which are
described further in both textual and tabular form. Each of the analysis
domains is characterized by its multiform interaction with the TAOS environment
(domain-environment interaction line; Figure 2). Basically, only five (which
are included into the AM; see Table 1, Figure 2) of the seven analysis
domains are closely related to the essential (primary) aircraft operations (aircraft
operating cycle; Table 1). The remaining two analysis domains are associated
with AM preparations and summaries. They are added to the model due
to the intention to provide a full picture of issues
related to aircraft operating in a tactical air force. In
the analysis domains related to AM preparations and summaries,
different kinds of domain buffering zones (Figure 2) have been implemented,
where the elements of the airman-aircraft anthropotechnical pair are
connected or separated and included or excluded to/from the essential
operations of the aircraft during the AM (input and output of the
airman-aircraft anthropotechnical pair; Figure 2). Furthermore, there are
numerous lines that present the circulation of various types of information,
information feedback, airman presence (airman line; Figure 2), aircraft
presence (aircraft line; Figure 2) with their various reliability states,
the airman-aircraft anthropotechnical pair (the line of the airman-aircraft
anthropotechnical pair; Figure 2) and possible time breaks. In addition, names
of airspace elements have been indicated, which are related to the main part of
the TAOS environment. The above-mentioned elements altogether constitute the model
of the anthropotechnical TAOS.
Table 1
The general tabular notation of
the TAOS in the format of an aggregated analysis domain
|
AGGREGATED ANALYSIS DOMAIN |
TAOF |
||||||
|
ANALYSIS DOMAINS |
|||||||
|
DOMAIN I (PRE-)AM PREPARATIONS |
DOMAIN II BEFORE |
DOMAIN III DEPARTURE |
DOMAIN IV AIR TASK |
DOMAIN V ARRIVAL |
DOMAIN VI AFTER |
DOMAIN VII (POST-)AM SUMMARIES |
|
|
AIR MISSION |
|||||||
|
AIRCRAFT
OPERATING CYCLE |
|||||||
3.1. (Pre-)air mission preparations
Domain I
(Figure 2, Table 2) constitutes the area of interest that concerns
the (pre-)AM (mission) preparations, which are always initiated by the event of
a general airman’s introduction to the planned AM(s) (Table 2). The
aircraft’s participation in the processes and their operations and
events is not significant. This is mainly limited to the ground
training operations and the operation of a pre-flight aircraft exterior
inspection before the aircraft is taken over by an airman prior to the
commencement of the AM. However, the implementation of processes and operations
in Domain I determines the airman’s start of the aircraft operating
cycle.
The (pre-)AM
preparations in the TAOS first involve the main AAAC parts, which take place
within the two following processes (Figure 2): Process 1) initial AM
preparation (planning) (Figure 2); Process 2) direct AM preparation (informing
and updating) (Figure 2). Both processes are described in detail in [3]; therefore, the authors outline below the analyses of
Domain I only in tabular form (Table 2). Table 2 presents, in a
general and coherent way, the most important processes, operations and events
that take place in Domain I.
Table 2
Domain I: Pre-AM preparations
|
ANALYSIS |
PROCESSES OF |
OPERATIONS AND PROCESS EVENTS |
|
|
DOMAIN
I (PRE-)AM (AMS) |
1 |
Initial AM (planning) |
General
airman’s introduction to planned AM |
|
Detailed analysis of documentation, orders,
specialist publications etc. in the scope of the planned AMs |
|||
|
Familiarization with safety systems and emergency
procedures |
|||
|
Developing of an AM scenario |
|||
|
Preparation of mission data cards necessary for AM
execution |
|||
|
Ground trainings |
|||
|
2 |
Direct AM |
Mass briefing |
|
|
Briefing |
|||
|
Step briefing |
|||
|
Life support equipment inspection and its takeover
by airman |
|||
|
Pre-flight aircraft exterior inspection (walkaround
checklist) and aircraft takeover by
airman - aircraft transfer from the TAMS to the TAOS |
|||
3.2. Before
take-off
Domain II
(Figure 2) of the TAOS concerns the processes and their operations as
carried out by the airman after the aircraft is physically and formally
transferred from the TAMS to the TAOS (aircraft line; Figure 2)
at the time of the aircraft’s takeover by the airman (when the
airman signs the aircraft service card [5]). After the last event in Domain I, there begins a
series of processes and their operations in Domain II, which is directly
connected with the airman-aircraft relationship. It is assumed that the
airman-aircraft anthropotechnical pair is activated then. It should be noted
that the aircraft, which is transferred from the TAMS to the TAOS, is
characterized by a certain reliability state (level of airworthiness;
Figure 2), with the required amount of fuel (variant of refuelling), the
variant of weaponry, and various different parameters and variables also
determining the type of the WM and the type of the AT in which it can be used.
The aircraft transferred to the TAOS may be in one of the following
reliability states (Figure 2): airworthy (without restrictions) or airworthy
with restrictions [6]. The above-mentioned variables are always well
defined by the airman during the processes and operations in Domain I and
transferred in order to be implemented by the AES (aircraft set-up information
line; Figure 2).
The following two main
processes (Figure 2) take place in Domain II: start-up of the power unit
and systems, along with their checks (Process 1; Figure 2) and
pre-take-off taxiing (Process 2; Figure 2). During the two processes, many
different operations are performed by the airman. After the operation
of the radio check, the airman (proceeding according
to the appropriate checklists) conducts the following operations:
start-up of the power unit and on-board systems (avionics, hydraulics
etc.), checking and configuring the power unit and on-board systems,
receiving ATC (air traffic control) clearance [6] (which permits the airman to taxi before
take-off and could contain departure instructions), first phase of taxiing (the
last opportunity [5] where the
aircraft is checked prior to take-off by the special control group from
the AES), the last-possible check of the aircraft, second phase of taxiing (to
the runway holding position [10]).
3.3. Departure
Domain III
(Figure 2), in a general way, presents the transition of the
anthropotechnical pair between the two stages of the AM: from pre-flight ground
operations to the flight. It is assumed that the
“departure” is of a symbolic nature in Domain III, which is
associated with the main operation in the process of leaving, i.e., the
operation of executing the departure from the (Military) Air Traffic Zone
((M)ATZ) or the (Military) Control Zone ((M)CTR)/(Military) Terminal Control
Area ((M)TMA) (Process 3; Figure 2) [6]. However, before conducting this main operation, the
process involving line-up checks and pre-take-off [15] preparation (Process 1; Figure 2) must takes place
including with the following operations: lining up on the runway in use
(line-up checklist) and accomplishing the pre-take-off checklist items. After
these operations, the process of take-off (Process 2; Figure 2) begins.
There are two take-off options: static or rolling [18]. The main operations in the process of take-off are:
receiving take-off ATC clearance, take-off rolling with the event of the
take-off (aircraft detachment from the runway surface) and initial climbing [15], which is determined at the height of 15 m above
ground level. At the time of the event of the aircraft take-off from the runway
surface, the flight as a stage of the AM begins. The main objective
of the take-off process is to safely get the aircraft airborne.
When initial climbing is
completed and the aircraft is configured to fly (when the gears and flaps are
retracted and lights are switched off, the aircraft is airborne), the airman
conducts the operation of departure from the (M)ATZ or (M)CTR/(M)TMA. This
operation is conducted according to the departure instructions that were given
by an ATC officer (ATCO) [6] during ATC clearance (Domain II and Process 2). If
the departure instructions are published as a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) [11], then the ATCO only gives the airman the name of
the SID. On the other hand, they might directly result from the current traffic
situation in the (M)ATZ or (M)CTR/(M)TMA, in which case the ATCO gives complete
departure instructions by radio. It is important for the airman to accurately
follow the received departure instructions in order to avoid air collisions
with other aircraft or terrain obstacles, and without violating the
horizontal and vertical boundaries of the airspace. Process 3 within Domain III
ends with the event of reaching a significant point [11] in the (M)ATZ or (M)CTR/(M)TMA during the
departure. The ATCO in a given ATC clearance (in the part that refers to
the departure instructions) specifies this significant point towards which the
operation of leaving the (M)ATZ or (M)CTR/(M)TMA should be conducted or this
point is defined in a published SID.
3.4. Air
task
Domain IV
(Figure 2) is the essential part of the TAOS and even constitutes a kind
of core or purpose, which determines the legitimacy of establishing this
system. The AT is the main phase of the flight and constitutes a set of
specific and target actions on the part of the airman/airmen during the flight
within a set time and area, which are performed to achieve the AM’s
desired objectives such as: training, operational or combat objectives. It is
determined by the superior, instructor or formation leader [17,18] and performed by the airman as an operator
who operationally uses the aircraft in the TAOS. There are many different types
of ATs, and it is impossible to describe all of them. Each type of aircraft or
its equipment is predisposed to perform particular ATs. However, there are
processes, including operations and events, which usually take place within the
ATs performed during the AM.
Fig. 2. Model of the TAOS in the format of the aggregated
analysis domain
The first process (Process
1; Figure 2) in Domain IV is known as the flight to the MOA [19] and includes the following operations: en route
navigation flight towards the MOA (after the event of reaching the significant
point in the (M)ATZ or (M)CTR/(M)TMA), reporting on intentions that concern the
planned AT performance, and the FENCE check-in [17,18] (the in-flight check before the aircraft enters
the MOA, which involves checking and configuring the particular on-board
systems before the beginning of the AT performance). Due to the different
types of ATs and other variables, the airman can accomplish various additional
in-flight checks, which are also indicated by appropriate acronyms (e.g., OPS
check, BD check [17,18]).
The second process
(Process 2; Figure 2) concerns the AT performed in the MOA, i.e., achieving the
desired AM objective. ATs may take many different forms, but usually the
process of performing an AT in the MOA includes the following operations:
entering the MOA (other airspace), recognition of the tactical air situation,
performing the AT. The event of the completion of the AT closes Process 2
in Domain IV.
The last process in
Domain IV (Process 3; Figure 2) is known as the return to base (RTB)
from the MOA and takes place after the completion of the AT. This process
begins simultaneously with the operation of the FENCE checkout [17,18], i.e., the in-flight check before the aircraft is
exiting the MOA, which involves checking and configuring the particular
on-board systems after the completion of the AT. Next or even at the same time,
the airman reports from the air about the completion of the AT and
declares the readiness to RTB. The last operation in Process 3 concerns the
flight towards a base aerodrome or an alternate aerodrome [4,10] in the case of poor meteorological conditions or due
to other circumstances (variables), which preclude a landing on the base
aerodrome.
This above description
of Domain IV should be treated as general, because each type of air task
requires an individual approach.
3.5. Arrival
Domain V
(Figure 2) concerns the processes and related operations that take place
during the final phases of the flight. These processes and operations require
the airman’s special concentration and full situational awareness. The
main processes in Domain V are: approaching [11] the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or (M)ATZ (Process 1; Figure
2), landing approach [11] (Process 2; Figure 2) and landing [15] (Process 3; Figure 2).
The process of
approaching the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or (M)ATZ includes the operation of initial
descending and entering the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or (M)ATZ, the event of reaching
the significant point in the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or (M)ATZ during the
approach and also the operation of the further descent in the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or
(M)ATZ.
The landing approach
process includes three main operations, which are named
by the authors in a very general way. This is due to the fact that
this process can proceed according to different rules of flight (visual flight
rules/instrument flight rules [11]), procedures (visual approach/instrument approach [11]) or flights manoeuvres (standard pattern, closed
pattern etc. [9]), which depend on many different variables and
parameters. Process 2 includes the operation of executing the landing approach,
i.e., the aircraft air manoeuvre in the (M)TMA/(M)CTR or (M)ATZ, according to
the published pattern (approach chart), or with radar vectoring provided by ATC
(e.g., precision approach radar [6]). Next, there is the event of positive visual contact
with the runway (runway in sight) or negative visual contact with the runway,
which reinforces the necessity of executing the missed approach procedure.
The final event involves making the decision to continue the landing approach
operation (Process 3 will begin) or abort the landing approach operation
(Process 3 will be postponed).
3.6. After
landing
Domain VI
(Figure 2) includes two processes that contain the third AM stage
operations. The process of post-landing taxiing (Process 1; Figure 2) includes
the following operations: vacating the runway, configuring the aircraft for
taxiing (post-landing checklist: retracting the flaps, switching off the lights
etc.), and aircraft taxiing to the hangar, apron or aircraft stand [12]. When the aircraft stops on the apron, stands or
comes to a halt in the hangar, the process of power unit and on-board
system shutdown, along with the respective checks (Process 2; Figure 2), takes
place. In this process, the airman firstly operationalizes the power unit and
on-board system shutdown, which accomplishes the shutdown checklist. Next, the
power unit and on-board systems are checked and configured by the airman at the
time of standing, thus accomplishing the pre-exit aircraft checklist. The event
of the airman’s exit from the aircraft cockpit completes the third (and
last) stage of the AM.
3.7. (Post-)air
mission summaries
Domain VII
(Figure 2, Table 3) concerns the (post-)AM summaries, one or several that
are executed at a particular time. AM summaries include: current AM summary
(Process 1; Figure 2) conducted after every finished AM within a single AAAC,
daily organizational and technical summary of AMs (Process 2; Figure 2)
conducted at the end of an SAAAC and closing the aviation work shift, periodic
summary of flight organizations and air training effects (Process 3; Figure
2) conducted after several completed SAAACs in a particular period of time, but
not less than once a month.
Table 3
Domain VII: (Post-)AM summaries
|
ANALYSES DOMAIN |
PROCESSES OF
ANALYSES |
OPERATIONS AND
PROCESS EVENTS |
|
|
DOMAIN VII (POST-)AM SUMMARIES (AMS) |
1 |
Current |
Informing the maintenance staff about details that
concerns aircraft technical issues, which appeared during the flight |
|
Analysing the flight data recorders |
|||
|
Debriefing |
|||
|
Debriefing end - formulating
conclusions and recommendations that result from the performed AM (end of a
single AAAC) |
|||
|
2 |
Daily
organizational and technical |
Conducting the assessment of: the work
quality of flight organization services, the level of aircraft airworthiness,
the flight support measures, the AM training effects, etc. |
|
|
Formulating conclusions and
recommendations that concern entire aviation activities during the given
aviation work shift (during one series of AAACs) |
|||
|
Aviation
work shift end (end of a given SAAACs) |
|||
|
3 |
Periodic
summary of flights organization and air training |
Conducting analyses of a flight
organization and air training effects in an TAFB in a given period of time |
|
|
Formulating conclusions and
recommendations that concern entire aviation activities during a given period
of time (after several SAAACs) |
|||
|
Summary
note preparation |
|||
Processes 2 and 3 are
marked in grey (Figure 2, Table 3) due to the fact that they are not conducted
only after a single AM/single AAAC. All three types of summaries are described
in detail in [3].
4.
CONCLUSIONS
The above-presented concept of the TAOS,
in an innovative way, outlines one of the inner systems from the TAFS. The
adopted format of the model, in a general and coherent way, presents processes
including their operations and events, which are related to aircraft operations
(aircraft operational usage) in the tactical air force. This concept of
the model clearly explains the basic issues related to tactical aircraft
operations. Furthermore, the format of the TAOS model presented in this
paper can be successfully implemented in other types of military aviation. It
could also be used to outline other system objects or components found in the
metamodel of the TAFS, e.g., the TAMS.
Acknowledgements
The
research work was financed on account of the statutory activities of the
Faculty of Transport Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, No.
05/55/DSPB/0280.
References
1. Aven Terje, Enrico Zio. 2014. “Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management”. Risk Analysis 34(7): 1164-1172. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12132.
2. Borgoń Jan, Jerzy Jaźwinski. 1989. Niezawodnośc eksploatacyjna i bezpieczeństwo lotów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Komunikacji i Łączności. ISBN: 83-206-0736-1. [In Polish: Operational Reliability and Flight Safety. Warsaw: Transport and Communication Publishers.]
3. Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych (MON). 2016. Instrukcja organizacji lotów w lotnictwie Sił Zbrojnych Rzeczypozpolitej Polskiej (IOL-2016). Warszawa. [In Polish: General Command of the Polish Armed Forces. 2016. Polish Air Force Instruction of Flights Organization (IOL-2016). 2016. Warsaw.]
4. Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych (MON). 2016. Regulamin lotów lotnictwa Sił Zbrojnych Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (RL-2016). Warszawa. [In Polish: General Command of the Polish Armed Forces. 2016. Polish Air Force Flights Main Regulation (RL-2016). Warsaw.]
5. Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych (MON). 2017. Instrukcja służby inżynieryjno-lotniczej lotnictwa Sił Zbrojnych Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (ISIL-2017). Warszawa. [In Polish: General Command of the Polish Armed Forces. 2017. Polish Air Force Maintenance Instruction (ISIL-2017). Warsaw.]
6. Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych (MON). 2017. Instrukcja zarządzania ruchem lotniczym w Siłach Zbrojnych Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (IZRL-2017). Warszawa. [In Polish: General Command of the Polish Armed Forces. 2017. Polish Air Force Instruction of Air Traffic Management (IZRL-2017). Warsaw.]
7. Gill Adrian. 2018. Warstwowe modele systemów bezpieczeństwa do zastosowań w transporcie szynowym. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej. ISBN: 978-83-7775-517-4. [In Polish: Layered models of safety systems for rail transport applications. Poznań: Poznań University of Technology Publishing House.]
8. Hlusicka M., J. Kraus. 2017. „Increasing the usability of near-sea aerodromes”. Nase More 64(2): 45-49.
9. Inspektorat Sił Powietrznych (MON). 2016. Zasady wykonywania operacji nadlotniskowych przez lotnictwo Sił Zbrojnych RP. Warszawa. [In Polish: Polish Air Force Inspectorate. 2016. Polish Air Force Air Operations Rules in Airspace of Military Airfields. Warsaw.]
10. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2005. International Standards. Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Rules of the Air, 10th Edition.
11. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2006. Procedures of Air Navigation Services. Aircraft Operations (Doc 8168), Vol. 1. Flight Procedures, Fifth Edition.
12. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2009. International Standards and Recommended Practices. Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aerodromes, Vol. 1. Aerodrome Design and Operations, Fifth Edition.
13. Lewitowicz Jerzy. 2015. Eksploatacyjne własności i własciwości samolotów i śmigłowców. Warszawa: Instytut Techniczny Wojsk Lotniczych.ISBN: 978-83-61021-53-7. [In Polish: Operational Properties and properties of airplanes and helicopters. Warsaw: Air Force Institute of Technology.]
14. Lewitowicz Jerzy, Andrzej Żyluk. 2009. Podstawy eksploatacji statków powietrznych. Tom 5. Techniczna eksploatacja statków powietrznych. Warszawa: Instytut Techniczny Wojsk Lotniczych. ISBN 978-83-61021-20-9. [In Polish: The basics of aircraft operation. Volume 5. Technical operation of aircraft. Warsaw: Air Force Institute of Technology].
15. Milkiewicz Antoni. 2009. Praktyczna aerodynamika i mechanika lotu samolotu odrzutowego w tym wysokomanewrowego. Warszawa: Instytut Techniczny Wojsk Lotniczych. ISBN: 978-83-61021-00-1. [In Polish: Practical aerodynamics and mechanics of the jet aircraft flight, including high-mile aircraft. Warsaw: Air Force Institute of Technology].
16. Siergiejczyk M., J. Paś, A. Rosiński. 2018. „Reliability and operating properties of the electronic safety system used for unintended electromagnetic radiation sources”. Diagnostyka 19(4): 45-50. DOI: 10.29354/diag/95177.
17. United States of America - Air Education and Training Command. 2009. AETC Tactics Techniques and Procedures 11-1 (AETCTTP 11-1). Employment Fundamentals T-38C - Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF).
18. United States of America - Department of the Air Force. 2011. Air Force Manual 11-248, (AFMAN 11-248). Flying Operations - T6 Primary Flying.
19. United States of America - Department of the Air Force. 2010. Air Force Manual 11-217, vol. 2 (AFMAN 11-217V2). Flying Operations - Visual Flight Procedures.
20. Zabłocki Eugeniusz. 2007. Siły powietrzne. Warszawa: Akademia Obrony Narodowej. [In Polish: The Air Force. Warsaw: National Defence University].
Received 13.08.2018; accepted in revised form 10.11.2018
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License