Advertisement

Classifying Aircraft Approach Type in the National General Aviation Flight Information Database

  • Kelton Karboviak
  • Sophine Clachar
  • Travis Desell
  • Mark Dusenbury
  • Wyatt Hedrick
  • James Higgins
  • John Walberg
  • Brandon Wild
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10860)

Abstract

This work details the development of the “Go-Around Detection Tool”, a tool for classification of aircraft approach types for the National General Aviation Flight Information Database (NGAFID). The NGAFID currently houses over 700,000 h of per-second time series flight data recorder readings generated by over 400,000 flights from 8 fleet of aircraft and over 190 participating private individuals. The approach phase of flight is one of the most dangerous, and classifying types of approaches as stable or unstable, and if they were a go-around, touch-and-go, or stop-and-go is an especially important issue for flight safety monitoring programs. As General Aviation typically lacks the Weight on Wheels (WoW) technology and many others that exist within Commercial Aviation, there is difficulty in detecting landings and go-arounds as these need to be inferred somehow from the raw flight data. The developed application uses several airplane parameters reported by a flight data recorder and successfully detects go-arounds, touch-and-go landings, and stop-and-go landings as either stable or unstable with an accuracy of 98.14%. The application was tested using 100 student flights from the NGAFID, which generated 377 total approaches. Out of those approaches, 25.73% were classified as unstable. It was found that only 20.62% of all unstable approaches resulted with a go-around, which is far from the ideal 100% goal. Lastly, the application was parallelized and found to have a 9.75x speedup in doing so. The Go-Around Detection Tool can be used to provide post-flight statistics and user-friendly graphs on both an organizational- and individual-level for educational purposes. It is capable of assisting both new and experienced pilots for the safety of themselves, their organization, and General Aviation as a whole.

References

  1. 1.
    Clachar, S., Higgins, J., Wild, B., Desell, T.: Large-scale data analysis for proactive anomaly detection in heterogeneous aircraft data (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National General Aviation Flight Information Database: Welcome to the national general aviation flight information database (ngafid)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MITRE: Gaard-general aviation airborne recording deviceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clachar, S.A.: Identifying and analyzing atypical flights using supervised and unsupervised approaches. J. Transp. Res. Board (2014). (Published as part of an ACRP: Graduate Research Award)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clachar, S.: Novelty detection and cluster analysis in time series data using variational autoencoder feature maps. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Dakota, December 2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desell, T., Clachar, S., Higgins, J., Wild, B.: Evolving deep recurrent neural networks using ant colony optimization. In: Ochoa, G., Chicano, F. (eds.) EvoCOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9026, pp. 86–98. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16468-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ElSaid, A., Wild, B., Higgins, J., Desell, T.: Using LSTM recurrent neural networks to predict excess vibration events in aircraft engines. In: The IEEE 12th International Conference on eScience (eScience 2016), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, October 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ElSaid, A.: Using long-short-term-memory recurrent neural networks to predict aviation engine vibrations. Master’s thesis, University of North Dakota, December 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desell, T., Clachar, S., Higgins, J., Wild, B.: Evolving neural network weights for time-series prediction of general aviation flight data. In: Bartz-Beielstein, T., Branke, J., Filipič, B., Smith, J. (eds.) PPSN 2014. LNCS, vol. 8672, pp. 771–781. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10762-2_76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    X-Plane: X-plane. More powerful. Made usableGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Analytical Graphics Inc., Bentley Systems: CesiumGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    AOPA: What is general aviation (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allen, W.B., Blond, D.L., Gellman, A.J., General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, MergeGlobal, Inc.: General aviation’s contribution to the U.S. economy, General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association, May 2006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Federal Aviation Administration: The economic impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy, November 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kenny, D.J.: 25th Joseph T. Nall Report: general aviation accidents in 2013. Technical report, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Frederick (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shetty, K.I., Hansman, R.J.: Current and historical trends in general aviation in the united states. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    AOPA Air Safety Institute: 2014–2015 GA accident scorecard. Technical report, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Frederick (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    UND Aerospace Foundation: Cessna 172S Standardization Manual, August 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris Jr., E., Bloedorn, E., Rothleder, N.J.: Recent experiences with data mining in aviation safety. In: SIGMOD Record, Seattle, WA, June 1998Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Federal Aviation Administration: Runway safety: Runway incursionsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthews, B., Das, S., Bhaduri, K., Das, K., Martin, R., Oza, N.: Discovering anomalous aviation safety events using scalable data mining algorithms. J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst. 10(10), 467–475 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wischmeyer, E.: The myth of the unstable approach. Int. Soc. Air Saf. Investig. (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nazeri, Z., Donohue, G., Sherry, L.: Analyzing relationships between aircraft accidents and incidents. In: International Conference on Research in Air Transportation, February 2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    CloudAhoy: Cloudahoy: debriefing for pilotsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nazeri, Z., Bloedorn, E., Ostwald, P.: Experiences in mining aviation safety data. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2001, New York, pp. 562–566. ACM (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gallo, D.E.: Data mining applied to aviation data. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, June 2012Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pagels, D.A.: Aviation data mining. Sch. Horiz.: Univ. Minn. Morris Undergrad. J. 2(1), 3 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cessna Aircraft Company: Pilot’s Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual: Cessna Model 172S. 2nd edn, November 2010Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Federal Aviation Administration: Airplane Flying Handbook 2nd edn: FAA-H-8083-3A. Skyhorse Publishing Inc. (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beazley, D.: Understanding the python gil. In: PyCON Python Conference, Atlanta, Georgia (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nolan, D., Lang, D.T.: Keyhole markup language. In: Nolan, D., Lang, D.T. (eds.) XML and Web Technologies for Data Sciences with R. Use R!, pp. 581–618. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7900-0_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelton Karboviak
    • 1
  • Sophine Clachar
    • 1
  • Travis Desell
    • 1
  • Mark Dusenbury
    • 2
  • Wyatt Hedrick
    • 1
  • James Higgins
    • 2
  • John Walberg
    • 2
  • Brandon Wild
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Department of AviationUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations