# A Fuzzy Path Selection Strategy for Aircraft Landing on a Carrier
## 4 Experimental Study on Landing Path Selection in Different Environments
### Results with the Experience-based Method by the LCO  
The landing path under four different environments is determined by the experience of the LCO in this section. Ten experts working on the control center of the carrier are invited to give their answers of the best landing paths under the four different environments. After a brief visit with the ten experts, their experience in determining the optimal landing path can be summarized as shown in Figure 8.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Contributing Factors** & \(\mathbf{f_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{f_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{f_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{f_{4}}\) & \(\mathbf{f_{5}}\) \\ \hline Simulation & Pilot & VG & VG & VG & NO & NO \\ i & LCO & GO & GO & GO & GO & GO \\ \hline Simulation & Pilot & GO & GO & GO & GO & GO \\ ii & LCO & SP & SP & NO & GO & VG \\ \hline Simulation & Pilot & TP & TP & TP & GO & GO \\ iii & LCO & TP & TP & TP & GO & VG \\ \hline Simulation & Pilot & SP & SP & NO & NO & TP \\ iv & LCO & TP & NO & SP & NO & TP \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Weight of decision maker} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Pilot \(\lambda_{1}=[0.4,0.5,0.6]\)} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{LCO \(\lambda_{2}=[0.8,0.9,1]\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Environment evaluations of the LCO and the pilot.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Linguistic Variables and Expressions**} \\ \hline Performance ratings & NO & LO & ME & HI & VH \\ Environment evaluations & TP & SP & NO & GO & VG \\ Triangular membership function & [0, 0, 0.1] & [0.1, 0.3, 0.5] & [0.3, 0.5, 0.7] & [0.5, 0.7, 0.9] & [0.9, 1, 1] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Expressions of performance ratings and environment evaluations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Serial Number of Simulation** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Environments**} \\ \hline i & The weather, height of clouds and visibility are good while the performance of aircraft and air traffic condition are normal. \\ \hline ii & The weather, height of clouds and visibility are not so good while the performance of aircraft and air traffic condition are good. \\ \hline iii & The weather, height of clouds and visibility are bad while the performance of aircraft and air traffic condition are good. \\ \hline iv & The weather, height of clouds and visibility are normal while the performance of aircraft and air traffic condition are bad. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Environment settings.  
Based on the experience of the LCO, the results of the landing path selection are shown in Table 7. Note that the numbers in Table 7 denote the number of LCOs choosing the corresponding landing path as the best.  
The numbers in bold mean that most LCOs regard the corresponding landing path as the best choice. In general, the results of the landing path selection by LCOs conform to their experience listed in Figure 8. More discussion and comparison will be conducted after the same problem is solved by the proposed method in the next section.