navigation paradox造句

The "'navigation paradox "'states that increased navigational precision may result in increased collision risk.
The navigation paradox describes a midair collision safety system that by design cannot tolerate a single failure in human performance or electronic hardware.
The Namibian collision in 1997, the Amazon collision in 2006, are all examples where human or hardware errors doomed altitude-accurate pilots killed by the navigation paradox designed into the current cruising altitude rules.
In other words, Patlovany s ACCAR alternative and Paielli s linear cruising altitude rule would reduce cruising midair collisions between 10 and 33 times, compared to the currently recognized, and internationally required, hemispherical cruising altitude rules, which institutionalize the navigation paradox on a worldwide basis.
The ACCAR alternative to the hemispherical cruising altitude rules, if adopted in 1997, could have eliminated the navigation paradox at all altitudes, and could have saved 342 lives in over 30 midair collisions ( up to November 2006 ) since the Risk Analysis proof that the current regulations multiply midair collision risk in direct proportion to pilot accuracy in compliance.
It's difficult to find navigation paradox in a sentence. 用navigation paradox造句挺难的

However, this workaround for the particular case of a head-on collision threat on a common assigned airway fails to address the navigation paradox in general, and it fails to specifically address the inherent system safety fault intolerance inadvertently designed into international air traffic safety regulations . [ 4 ] To be specific, in the cases of intersecting flight paths where either aircraft is not on an airway ( for example, flying under a " direct " clearance, or a temporary diversion clearance for weather threats ), or where intersecting aircraft flights are on deliberately intersecting airways, these more general threats receive no protection from flying one or two miles to the right of the center of the airway.