Information gathering system, method, and computer readable storage medium for aircraft maintenance

Abstract

The present disclosure relates to information gathering systems, methods, and computer readable storage media for aircraft maintenance. An information gathering system for aircraft maintenance according to some embodiments of the present disclosure includes a user interface configured to allow a user to input configuration data associated with the aircraft maintenance, a memory configured to store the configuration data input by the user via the user interface and preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance, and a processor in communication with the user interface and the memory, the processor configured to perform online validation of the configuration data input by the user based on the preset conditions and the configuration data input by the user.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This disclosure relates to the field of aircraft, and more specifically, to information gathering systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media for aircraft maintenance. Background Technology

[0002] Aircraft systems typically consist of multiple component systems or subsystems, such as fuel, engines, doors, and navigation. Safety is paramount in aircraft systems, such as those in airplanes. Aircraft maintenance systems can be used to monitor the status of equipment or components within component systems, for software updates, and to monitor user-defined parameters.

[0003] Information or data collected from various member systems typically needs to be verified to ensure the continued proper functioning of the maintenance system. Currently, verification is primarily done manually. For example, existing methods for collecting information from member system vendors include the following steps: distributing offline tools to each vendor; each vendor using these tools to generate configuration files for their specific member system and ensuring the accuracy and reasonableness of the input information; the OEM collecting these configuration files from each vendor; integrating them into a format recognizable by the maintenance system; and finally, running the configuration files on the system. Because data verification is done manually, various errors may occur, leading to deviations in the maintenance system's operation. This necessitates analysis, rework, and repeating the above steps until the maintenance system functions correctly.

[0004] The sheer volume of data to be collected, coupled with the strong interrelationships between different data types, makes verifying the validity and rationality of this data a highly tedious and complex task. Furthermore, the accuracy of manual verification cannot be guaranteed, potentially requiring multiple rework attempts to obtain a valid configuration file. Therefore, an efficient technology is needed to help users complete this task more efficiently and accurately.

[0005] This disclosure proposes an information collection system and method for aircraft maintenance, which can verify user-input data more efficiently, timely, and accurately compared to existing technologies. Summary of the Invention

[0006] Some embodiments of this disclosure provide an information collection system for aircraft maintenance, comprising: a user interface configured to allow a user to input configuration data associated with the aircraft maintenance; a memory configured to store the configuration data input by the user via the user interface and preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance; and a processor communicating with the user interface and the memory, the processor being configured to perform online verification of the configuration data input by the user based on the configuration data input by the user and the preset conditions.

[0007] Some embodiments of this disclosure provide an information collection method for aircraft maintenance, comprising: receiving configuration data associated with aircraft maintenance input by a user via a user interface; storing the configuration data input by the user via the user interface into a memory, the memory further comprising preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance; and performing online verification of the configuration data input by the user via a processor based on the configuration data input by the user and the preset conditions, the processor communicating with the user interface and the memory.

[0008] Some embodiments of this disclosure also provide a computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method according to any embodiment of this disclosure. Attached Figure Description

[0009] To further illustrate the features and advantages of the various embodiments of the present invention, a more detailed description of preferred embodiments of the invention will be presented with reference to the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that these drawings may depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are therefore not intended to limit the scope of protection claimed by the invention.

[0010] Figure 1 This is an information gathering system for aircraft maintenance according to some embodiments of the present disclosure.

[0011] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of information gathering for aircraft maintenance according to some embodiments of this disclosure.

[0012] Figures 3A-3E This is an exemplary example of determining correlations during the information gathering process for aircraft maintenance, according to some embodiments of this disclosure.

[0013] Figures 4A-4C This is an exemplary example of a user interface for an information gathering system for aircraft maintenance, according to some embodiments of this disclosure. Detailed Implementation

[0014] The following detailed description is given with reference to the accompanying drawings. The drawings illustrate specific embodiments in which the claimed subject matter can be practiced by way of example. It should be understood that the following specific embodiments are intended to describe typical examples for illustrative purposes, but should not be construed as limiting the invention; those skilled in the art can make appropriate modifications and adjustments to the disclosed embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed subject matter, provided they fully understand the spirit and intent of the invention.

[0015] Numerous specific details are set forth in the following detailed description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the various described embodiments. However, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the various described embodiments can be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments. Unless otherwise defined, the terminology used herein should have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure belongs.

[0016] The terms “first,” “second,” etc., used in the specification and claims of this application do not imply any order, quantity, or importance, but are merely used to distinguish different elements or features.

[0017] To ensure the proper functioning of the maintenance system, the aircraft manufacturer needs to collect necessary configuration information or data from each member system supplier. This includes, for example, basic information, communication port parameters and their uses, fault reporting attributes and associated logic, test triggers, and how to interpret test results. After collecting this configuration information or data, configuration files can be generated for the maintenance system to run, enabling it to monitor the ports, parameters, and status of the relevant aircraft equipment, or to update data.

[0018] This disclosure provides an information collection system or tool for collecting information or data required for aircraft maintenance from member system suppliers (also referred to herein as member system users) or OEMs (also referred to herein as OEM users). This information or data can be configured into a configuration file for use or operation by the airborne maintenance system. The airborne maintenance system can perform aircraft maintenance based on the configuration data from member system suppliers and / or OEMs. For example, the airborne maintenance system may include three main aspects: a CMS (Central Maintenance System), an integrated airborne maintenance system used to monitor the aircraft's health status in real time, quickly locate faults, and provide maintenance guidance; it is a core maintenance support system for some aircraft systems; an ACMS (Aircraft Condition Monitoring System), which focuses on long-term performance monitoring and data analysis, optimizing maintenance plans, predicting potential faults, and improving operational efficiency by collecting flight data; and data loading, which can be used to update the fixed programs or configurations of one or more member systems, or to update the data used by the member systems through the maintenance system.

[0019] Figure 1 This is an information gathering system 10 for aircraft maintenance according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the information gathering system 10 may include: a user interface 102, a memory 104, and a processor 106. The user interface 102 may be configured to allow a user to input configuration data associated with aircraft maintenance. For example, in some embodiments, the user may be a member system supplier and / or OEM user of the aircraft. The memory 104 may be configured to store the configuration data input by the user via the user interface 102 and preset conditions associated with aircraft maintenance. The processor 106 may communicate with the user interface 102 and the memory 104. The processor 106 may be configured to perform online verification of the configuration data input by the user based on the configuration data and preset conditions.

[0020] The information collection system 10 according to some embodiments of this disclosure can operate online, and the configuration data input by the user can be uniformly stored in a memory (e.g., a server), thus enabling online verification of the user-input configuration data. Compared to manual verification, the information collection system 10 of this disclosure greatly improves the speed and accuracy of data verification.

[0021] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the processor 106 may be further configured to issue a prompt to the user through the user interface 102 when the user input is found to be inconsistent with preset conditions. Therefore, online verification also helps to promptly identify whether the configuration data entered by the user meets the requirements, allowing the user to modify the entered data online in a timely manner based on the verification results, further improving the efficiency of information collection.

[0022] Figure 2 This is a flowchart 20 illustrating an information collection process for aircraft maintenance according to some embodiments of this disclosure. The information collection system according to this disclosure may include a member system supplier configuration process 21 and an OEM configuration process 22. Generally, the member system supplier or OEM needs to configure functions with one or more parameters defined based on an ICD (Interface Control Document, which defines interface specifications between different subsystems, components, or devices). For example, by way of example and not limitation, some parameters may be used for fault reporting of a device or component of the aircraft, some parameters may be used for data loading or updating of the member system, or some parameters may be used for testing functions. The OEM can perform integrated configuration of data across member systems. Subsequently, an OMS (Onboard Maintenance System) configuration file can be generated based on these configuration data from the member systems and the OEM. When the OMS configuration file is subsequently run by the aircraft maintenance system, it can monitor messages or parameters defined by the member system supplier or OEM, and based on the monitoring of these messages or parameters, know the status or required operation of the corresponding device or component. Generally, each member system supplier and OEM needs to perform the above configuration data collection process.

[0023] The member system supplier configuration process 21 may include one or more of the following operations: editing 211, saving 212, manual review 213, and submission 214.

[0024] In the editing 211 stage of the member system configuration process 21, the information collection system of this disclosure can check the current input content of the member system user in real time. In some embodiments, validating the current input content (e.g., configuration data) of the user in the editing 211 stage may include checking in real time whether the current input content of the user meets preset conditions. For example, as an example, the check in the editing 211 stage may include one or more of the following: type check or range check of the input configuration data. In some embodiments, it may be checked whether the type of configuration data entered into an input box or edit box matches the preset data type corresponding to or required by the input box or edit box, such as numeric type, enumeration type, string type. In other embodiments, it may be checked whether the range of configuration data entered into an input box matches the preset data range corresponding to or required by the input box, such as whether it exceeds the maximum value, minimum value, has special characters, mandatory items, or exceeds the length limit, etc. If it does not meet the preset conditions, it may prompt the user, for example, through the user interface that the input data does not meet the requirements. In some embodiments, it may also inform the user of the specific places where the data does not meet the requirements, such as the type of input data is incorrect, exceeds the maximum value, or the character length is less than the minimum value, etc. In some embodiments, if the input of a member system user in the editing stage 211 does not meet the preset conditions, the member system user may need to re-edit the input content.

[0025] In the saving 212 stage of the member system configuration process 21, the information collection system of this disclosure can examine all content on the current page. In some embodiments, in the saving 212 stage, it can check whether the content of the current page meets preset conditions. The saving 212 stage may include data type checks and / or data range checks as described above. In some embodiments, the saving 212 stage may also include performing relationship checks. Relationship checks may include checking whether the relationships between various items on the current page meet preset conditions or preset requirements. For example, relationship checks may include one or more of the following: uniqueness checks, dependency relationship checks, mutual exclusion relationship checks, logical contradiction checks, circular relationship checks, and hierarchical relationship checks. The following will combine Figures 3A-3E These relationship checks are described in detail. If the preset conditions are not met, the user can be prompted, for example, via a user interface, that the entered data does not meet the requirements. In some embodiments, the user can also be informed of the specific location where the data does not meet the requirements, such as which relationship requirement is not met and / or which specific input does not meet that relationship requirement. In some embodiments, if the member system user input does not meet the preset conditions during the save 212 stage, the member system user may be required to return to the edit 211 operation and re-save 212.

[0026] In the review 213 stage of the member system configuration process 21, configuration data can be checked or reviewed. In some embodiments, compared to the checks described in the editing 211 and saving 212 stages, the review 213 stage can focus on checking whether the configuration data entered by the user is reasonable. For example, even if the data entered by the user meets preset requirements, such as being within a preset range, it is still necessary to check whether the data conforms to the general conditions of the specific equipment of the aircraft, or whether it conforms to the design, etc. In some embodiments, the review 213 stage can be completed manually. In some embodiments, if the review 213 fails, the member system user may need to return to the editing 211 operation, re-save 212, and then undergo review 213 again.

[0027] In the submission 214 stage of the member system configuration process 21, the information collection system of this disclosure can check all submitted configuration data. In some embodiments, in the submission 214 stage, it can check whether all submitted content meets preset conditions. The submission 214 stage may include data type checks and / or data range checks as described above. In some embodiments, the submission 214 stage may also include relationship checks. Relationship checks may include checking whether the relationships between all submitted items meet preset conditions or preset requirements. For example, relationship checks may include one or more of the following: uniqueness checks, dependency relationship checks, mutual exclusion relationship checks, logical contradiction checks, circular relationship checks, and hierarchical relationship checks. The following will combine Figures 3A-3E These relationship checks are described in detail. Similarly, in some embodiments, if preset conditions are not met, the user may be prompted, for example, via a user interface, that the entered data does not meet the requirements. In some embodiments, if the submission check 214 fails, the member system user may be required to return to the edit operation 211, save again 212, undergo review again 213, and then submit again 214 after review 213.

[0028] The OEM can perform cross-system operations based on the information or data collected from various member system suppliers. This includes integrating the configuration data or information provided by each member system supplier to ensure the validity and rationality of the integrated information or data. The OEM configuration process 22 may include one or more of the following operations: editing 221, saving 222, reviewing 223, and submitting 224. The editing 221, saving 222, reviewing 223, and submitting 224 operations in the OEM configuration process 22 are generally similar to the operations described above in conjunction with member system configuration process 21. The main difference is that the operations included in the OEM configuration process 22 focus on cross-system configuration to comprehensively consider the configuration data of each member system. For example, the OEM can edit, check, and review the correlation between the configuration model data of a member system and the model data of other member systems to ensure that the correlation between the models of each member system meets the requirements of aircraft safety and other aspects. As another example, the OEM can also configure model data to determine the relationships between the data provided by each member system. For instance, the OEM can configure the generation or triggering of an alarm operation only when two or more fault messages from member systems are present simultaneously.

[0029] like Figure 2 As shown, the OMS configuration generation workflow 20 may further include integration 205, verification 206, and completion 207.

[0030] In integration phase 205, data from member system configurations and OEM configurations can be integrated, and the relationships between the overall system configurations can be checked. In some embodiments, integration phase 205 can check whether the relationships between the overall system configurations of the aircraft meet preset conditions. Relationship checks may include one or more of the following: uniqueness checks, dependency relationship checks, mutual exclusion relationship checks, logical contradiction checks, circular relationship checks, and hierarchical relationship checks. In some embodiments, in integration phase 205, files conforming to the specified format can be generated based on the data from member system configurations and OEM configurations for use in subsequent verification phase 206.

[0031] In the verification phase 206, the files generated in the integration phase 205 that meet the format requirements can be placed into a simulation environment or laboratory environment for simulation to test whether the configured data model can run correctly. For example, whether it can perform various functions such as correctly reporting faults, generating alarms, or performing various necessary maintenance or updates for aircraft operation.

[0032] After verification phase 206, the collection of configuration data for aircraft maintenance is completed (207). The configuration data model verified in phase 206 can then be submitted for use on the aircraft.

[0033] In some embodiments, the system of this disclosure (e.g., processor 106) can be configured to perform one or more of the above-mentioned online validations on user-input configuration data in response to triggering conditions. For example, in some embodiments, the processor can be configured to perform online validation on user-input configuration data in response to one or more of the following triggering conditions: the current page of the user interface loses focus, the current page of the user interface is switched, configuration data is saved, configuration data is submitted, and configuration data is integrated. As an example, when a user moves an input tool (including but not limited to a mouse) outside an edit box while inputting into it, validation of the content entered in that edit box can be initiated. As another example, when a user saves the current page or the current page is switched, the processor can be triggered to validate the content of the entire page. This timely validation allows for early inspection of the user's edited content, enabling more efficient and timely detection of potential problems and greatly improving the efficiency of information collection.

[0034] Figures 3A-3E This is an exemplary example of association determination during the information gathering process for aircraft maintenance, according to some embodiments of this disclosure. As mentioned above, association determination may include one or more of the following: uniqueness check, dependency association check, mutual exclusion association check, logical contradiction check, circular association check, and hierarchical association check.

[0035] Uniqueness verification includes checking whether the IDs created by users (e.g., member system users, OEM users) are unique.

[0036] In some embodiments of this disclosure, users can define faults, such as anomalies in one or more sensor data of the aircraft, engine failure to start, fuel depletion, or impending fuel depletion. In some embodiments, users can also define relationships between two or more faults, such as fault A being the cause of fault B (A→B, also known as Adownstream to B), etc. In other embodiments, users can also define relationships between faults and failures. Users can define a failure through the logical association of one or more faults, based on their own member system design.

[0037] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the dependency-based verification may include: collecting all exceptions created by the user and generating a first list based on all exceptions, the exceptions including information associated with exceptions of one or more devices of the aircraft; collecting all exceptions referenced in the user's fault modeling and generating a second list based on all referenced exceptions; comparing the first list and the second list to check if there are any exceptions in the first list that are not referenced by fault modeling; and in response to the presence of exceptions not referenced by fault modeling in the first list, prompting the user via a user interface which exceptions were created but not referenced, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0038] Figure 3A The diagram illustrates a scenario where dependency association checks may not be met. For example, an exception Fault 311 may be created or defined, but Fault 311 may not be referenced or associated. In this case, it is possible that the user forgot to associate Fault 311 with other Faults or failures. Therefore, when the system of this disclosure detects such a situation, it can inform or remind the user, for example, through a user interface, that Fault 311 is not referenced or associated.

[0039] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the verification of mutual exclusion association may include: collecting all exceptions referenced in the fault modeling created by the user; traversing all exceptions to check whether the number of exceptions exceeds one and whether any exception has a locked attribute; in response to the existence of an exception with a locked attribute, prompting the user through the user interface that an exception with a locked attribute can only exist alone, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0040] Figure 3B This diagram illustrates a scenario that might not comply with mutual exclusion checks. For example, exceptions Fault 321 and Fault 322 are created, where the Fault 321 attribute is defined as latched. Fault(latched) 321 and Fault 322 are associated, together resulting in Failure 323. However, Fault 321 with the latched attribute can only exist alone. Figure 3B In the relationships shown, Fault(latched) 321 and Fault 322 are related to each other and together cause Failure 323. Therefore, when the system of this disclosure detects such a situation, it can inform or remind the user, for example, through a user interface, that Fault(latched) 321 can only exist alone.

[0041] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the logical contradiction check may include: collecting all exceptions referenced in the fault model created by the user; analyzing the logical relationships composed of all exceptions to check for any logical contradictions; and, in response to the existence of a logical contradiction, prompting the user through the user interface to confirm whether to continue.

[0042] Figure 3C A diagram is shown that may not comply with the logical contradiction check. For example, such as... Figure 3C As shown, the AND relationship between Fault A, Not Fault B, and Not Fault A is defined as the cause of or triggering Failure 331. However, the attributes Fault A and Not Fault A are logically contradictory. It is unreasonable for Fault A and Not Fault A to occur simultaneously and cause Failure 331. Therefore, when the system of this disclosure detects such a situation, it can inform or remind the user, for example, through a user interface, that the configured logical relationship is logically contradictory.

[0043] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the circular association check may include: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing each abnormal downstream relationship; checking whether a downstream relationship cycle exists; in response to the existence of a downstream relationship cycle, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream relationship cycle, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0044] Figure 3D A schematic diagram is shown that may not meet the circular correlation check. For example, such as... Figure 3D As shown, after the OEM user completes the Fault downstream association, they are saving the current page. At this time, the system can start from the Faultdownstream relationship defined by the OEM and traverse the downstream relationship of each Fault throughout the entire machine to check for the existence of downstream loops. For example... Figure 3D The sequence is Fault A → Fault B → Fault C → Fault D → Fault E → Fault B. Here, after Fault E in member system (MS) C, the sequence returns to Fault B in member system MS B, creating a downstream loop that can lead to an infinite loop. Therefore, when the system of this disclosure detects such a situation, it can inform or alert the user, for example, via a user interface, which faults are involved in this circular loop.

[0045] In some embodiments of this disclosure, the hierarchical association check includes: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing all downstream relationships; checking whether there are abnormal downstream associations without a flight deck effect (FDE) to abnormalities with an FDE; in response to the existence of abnormal downstream associations without a flight deck effect (FDE) to abnormalities with an FDE, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream association, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0046] Figure 3E This diagram illustrates what might not meet the hierarchical association check. For example, such as... Figure 3D As shown, after a member system user completes the fault downstream association, they are saving the current page. At this time, the system traverses all downstream relationships and checks whether there are faults without FDE (Fault Dependency Detection) downstream to faults with FDE. Faults with FDE can be the highest-level or highest-priority faults. Faults without FDE can be the second-highest-level or lower-priority faults. In the aircraft maintenance system, only a few non-highest-level faults are allowed to trigger the highest-level fault, while the highest-level fault is not allowed to trigger non-highest-level faults, because the highest-level fault is the most serious and should not trigger a second-highest-level fault. If a highest-level fault triggers a second-highest-level fault and resolves the second-highest-level fault, the possible result is that although the highest-level fault does not appear, it is not fundamentally resolved, leaving a safety hazard. Therefore, when the system of this disclosure detects such a situation, it can inform or remind the user, for example, through a user interface, which faults do not meet the level association check.

[0047] Figures 4A-4C These are exemplary examples of user interfaces for an information gathering system for aircraft maintenance, according to some embodiments of this disclosure. From a user's perspective, the user interface according to embodiments of this disclosure may include a user interface for member system users and a user interface for OEM users. In terms of input content, the user interface according to embodiments of this disclosure may include a fault editing user interface and a failure editing user interface. It should be understood that... Figures 4A-4C This is an exemplary instance of a user interface for an information gathering system for aircraft maintenance, and not a limitation thereof. The techniques disclosed herein may include any other suitable user interface.

[0048] Figure 4AA user interface 41 is shown for member system users to edit faults. The user interface 41 may include a fault naming area 411 for users to manually enter fault names. In some embodiments, the user interface 41 may include a visible parameter list 412 for member system users to select parameters associated with the entered fault. In some embodiments, a tree-like parameter list may be used for user selection. In some embodiments, the user interface 41 may also include a fault attribute editing area 413. The fault attribute editing area 413 allows users to edit attributes of a specific fault, such as whether the fault is latched (box 414) or whether the fault belongs to an FDE (box 415). In some embodiments, the fault attribute editing area 413 may also include a list of other faults 416, which can be used to display other faults that the current member system user has saved, from which the user can select downstream faults, i.e., determine the causal relationship between two or more faults. In some embodiments, the fault attribute editing area 413 may also include other attribute editing areas 417. As an example, the other attribute editing area 417 may include one or more of the following: report delay duration, detect delay duration, clear delay duration, flight phase save selection, or any other suitable attribute.

[0049] Figure 4B The user interface 42 for OEM users to edit faults is shown. The user interface 42 for OEM users to edit faults may include a fault list 421 and other fault lists 422. Fault list 421 may include all faults of the entire aircraft, and the user can select one or more faults from this fault list 421. Other fault lists 422 may display other faults from the left-hand fault list besides the selected fault, allowing the user to perform subsequent downstream associations with the selected fault.

[0050] Figure 4CA user interface 43 is shown for member system users or OEM users to edit failures. The user interface 43 may include a failure naming area 431 for users to manually enter failure names. In some embodiments, the user interface 43 may include other attribute editing areas 432 for users to edit attribute data associated with the entered failure, such as frequency, level, error message content, maintenance message content, maintenance time required, or one or more other attributes. In some embodiments, the user interface 43 may also include a fault association editing area 433. The fault association editing area 433 may include a visible fault list 434 from which users can select faults. If the user is a member system user, the list 434 may only display faults saved by the current member system user. If the user is an OEM user, the list 434 may display faults saved by all member system users. Users can select one or more faults in the list, and the selected faults can be added to the logical expression display area 436. The Fault relation editing area 433 may also include a logical expression operator area 435 and a logical expression display area 436 as described above. The logical expression operator area 435 may list various logical operators and / or symbols, including but not limited to "AND", "OR", "NOT", "parentheses", etc., for the user to select, and may be added to the logical expression display area 436. The logical expression display area 436 may display the result of the edited expression to the user, for example, (Fault A or Fault B) and not Fault C.

[0051] Any method or operation of this disclosure can be implemented by the execution of instructions stored on a machine-readable storage medium, which may include, but is not limited to, a non-transitory tangible arrangement of articles made or formed by a machine or device, including storage media such as: hard disks; any other type of disk, including floppy disks, optical disks, compact disk read-only memories, compact disk rewritable memories, and magneto-optical disks; semiconductor devices such as read-only memories, random access memories such as dynamic random access memories and static random access memories, erasable programmable read-only memories, flash memory, electrically erasable programmable read-only memories; phase-change memories; magnetic cards or optical cards; or any other type of storage medium suitable for storing electronic instructions.

[0052] Compared with existing technologies, the technology disclosed herein offers advantages in at least the following aspects:

[0053] Traditional workflows require a large number of professionals, and data invalidity and logical inconsistencies can only be detected through manual review and verification. Using the method or system designed in this disclosure, validation is tool-based and automated, allowing verification of input data compliance at one or more stages, such as editing, saving, submitting, and integrating. This significantly reduces the number of required professionals and their workload, greatly increasing work efficiency.

[0054] In addition, real-time verification can help users discover problems as early as possible and make timely corrections, avoiding or reducing unnecessary waste of resources caused by discovering data errors only after going through a complicated process.

[0055] The technology disclosed herein can free users from the tedious checks of data types, data ranges, and the legality of relationships during the manual review process, allowing them to focus more on the correctness or reasonableness of the data itself, thereby improving work efficiency and reducing the probability of missed checks.

[0056] The technology disclosed herein adds cross-member system and whole-machine model correlation checks, which can discover unreasonable global configurations, reduce false alarms, and reduce the workload of the verification process.

[0057] The following are some examples of this disclosure:

[0058] Example 1. An information gathering system for aircraft maintenance, comprising: a user interface configured to allow a user to input configuration data associated with the aircraft maintenance; a memory configured to store the configuration data input by the user via the user interface and preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance; and a processor communicating with the user interface and the memory, the processor being configured to perform online verification of the configuration data input by the user based on the configuration data input by the user and the preset conditions.

[0059] Example 2. An information gathering system as described in Example 1, wherein the configuration data input by the user includes one or more of the following: information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft, a relationship between two or more of the anomalies, and a relationship between anomalies and malfunctions.

[0060] Example 3. An information gathering system as described in any of the examples above, wherein the user interface includes a member system user interface and an OEM user interface, each of the member system user interface and the OEM user interface including an anomaly editing interface and a fault editing interface to define or edit anomalies and faults associated with the aircraft.

[0061] Example 4. An information gathering system as described in any of the examples above, wherein the processor is configured to perform online validation of configuration data input by the user in response to a triggering condition.

[0062] Example 5. An information collection system as described in any of the above examples, wherein the processor is configured to perform online validation of configuration data input by the user in response to one or more of the following triggering conditions: the current page of the user interface loses focus, the current page of the user interface is switched, the configuration data is saved, the configuration data is submitted, and the configuration data is integrated.

[0063] Example 6. A system as described in any of the examples above, wherein the processor is further configured to issue a prompt to the user through the user interface when it is determined that the configuration data input by the user does not meet the preset conditions.

[0064] Example 7. An information collection system as described in any of the above examples, wherein the processor is configured to validate the configuration data in one or more of the editing, saving, submitting, and integrating stages of information collection, wherein validating the configuration data in the editing stage includes checking in real time whether the configuration data currently input by the user meets preset conditions; validating the configuration data in the saving stage includes checking whether the configuration data on the current page meets preset conditions; validating the configuration data in the submitting stage includes checking whether all submitted configuration data meets preset conditions; and validating the configuration data in the integrating stage includes checking whether the association relationship of the overall configuration of the aircraft meets preset conditions.

[0065] Example 8. An information gathering system as described in any of the above examples, wherein the processor is configured to: perform one or more of data type validation and data range validation during the editing phase of information gathering; and perform one or more of data type validation, data range validation, and correlation validation during the saving, submission, and integration phases of information gathering.

[0066] Example 9. An information collection system as described in any of the above examples, wherein the data type verification includes: verifying whether the data type of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the user interface matches the data type required by the edit box; the data range verification includes: verifying whether the range of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the information collection interface matches the data range required by the edit box; the association verification includes one or more of the following: uniqueness check, dependency association check, mutual exclusion association check, logical contradiction check, circular association check, and hierarchical association check.

[0067] Example 10. An information gathering system as described in any of the examples above, wherein,

[0068] The uniqueness check includes checking whether the user-created ID is unique.

[0069] The dependency association check includes: collecting all exceptions created by the user and generating a first list based on all exceptions, the exceptions including information associated with exceptions of one or more devices of the aircraft; collecting all exceptions referenced in the user's fault modeling and generating a second list based on all referenced exceptions; comparing the first list and the second list to check if there are any exceptions in the first list that are not referenced by the fault modeling; in response to the presence of exceptions not referenced by the fault modeling in the first list, prompting the user through the user interface which exceptions were created but not referenced, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0070] The mutual exclusion check includes: collecting all exceptions referenced in the user-created fault model; traversing all exceptions to check if the number of exceptions exceeds one and if any exception has a locked attribute; in response to the existence of an exception with a locked attribute, prompting the user through the user interface that an exception with a locked attribute can only exist alone, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0071] The logical contradiction check includes: collecting all exceptions referenced in the user-created fault model; analyzing the logical relationships among all exceptions to check for logical contradictions; and, in response to a logical contradiction, prompting the user through the user interface to confirm whether to continue.

[0072] The circular association check includes: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing each traversed abnormal downstream relationship; checking for the existence of a downstream relationship cycle; and in response to the existence of a downstream relationship cycle, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream relationship cycle and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0073] The hierarchical association check includes: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing all downstream relationships; checking whether there is an abnormal downstream association without cockpit effect (FDE) to an abnormal with FDE; in response to the existence of an abnormal downstream association without cockpit effect (FDE) to an abnormal with FDE, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream association, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0074] Example 11. An information collection method for aircraft maintenance, comprising: receiving configuration data associated with the aircraft maintenance input by a user via a user interface; storing the configuration data input by the user via the user interface into a memory, the memory further comprising preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance; and performing online verification of the configuration data input by the user via a processor based on the configuration data input by the user and the preset conditions, the processor communicating with the user interface and the memory.

[0075] Example 12. The information collection method as described in Example 11, wherein the configuration data input by the user includes one or more of the following: information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft, a relationship between two or more of the anomalies, and a relationship between anomalies and faults.

[0076] Example 13. An information gathering method as described in any of the examples above, wherein the user interface includes a member system user interface and an OEM user interface, each of the member system user interface and the OEM user interface including an anomaly editing interface and a fault editing interface to define or edit anomalies and faults associated with the aircraft.

[0077] Example 14. An information collection method as described in any of the examples above, wherein the method further includes performing online validation of the configuration data input by the user via the processor in response to a triggering condition.

[0078] Example 15. An information collection method as described in any of the above examples, wherein the method further includes online validation of the configuration data input by the user via the processor in response to one or more of the following triggering conditions: the current page of the user interface loses focus, the current page of the user interface is switched, the configuration data is saved, the configuration data is submitted, and the configuration data is integrated.

[0079] Example 16. The method as described in any of the examples above, wherein the method further includes issuing a prompt to the user through the user interface when it is determined that the configuration data input by the user does not meet the preset conditions.

[0080] Example 17. An information collection method as described in any of the above examples, wherein the method further includes verifying the configuration data via the processor in one or more of the editing, saving, submitting, and integrating stages of information collection, wherein verifying the configuration data in the editing stage includes checking in real time whether the configuration data currently input by the user meets preset conditions; verifying the configuration data in the saving stage includes checking whether the configuration data of the current page meets preset conditions; verifying the configuration data in the submitting stage includes checking whether all submitted configuration data meets preset conditions; and verifying the configuration data in the integrating stage includes checking whether the association relationship of the overall configuration of the aircraft meets preset conditions.

[0081] Example 18. An information collection method as described in any of the above examples, wherein the method further includes: performing one or more of data type verification and data range verification during the editing phase of the information collection; and performing one or more of data type verification, data range verification, and correlation verification during the saving, submission, and integration phases of the information collection.

[0082] Example 19. An information collection method as described in any of the above examples, wherein the data type verification includes: verifying whether the data type of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the user interface matches the data type required by the edit box; the data range verification includes: verifying whether the range of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the information collection interface matches the data range required by the edit box; the association verification includes one or more of the following: uniqueness check, dependency association check, mutual exclusion association check, logical contradiction check, circular association check, and hierarchical association check.

[0083] Example 20. An information gathering method as described in any of the examples above, wherein,

[0084] The uniqueness check includes checking whether the user-created ID is unique.

[0085] The dependency association check includes: collecting all exceptions created by the user and generating a first list based on all exceptions, the exceptions including information associated with exceptions of one or more devices of the aircraft; collecting all exceptions referenced in the user's fault modeling and generating a second list based on all referenced exceptions; comparing the first list and the second list to check if there are any exceptions in the first list that are not referenced by the fault modeling; in response to the presence of exceptions not referenced by the fault modeling in the first list, prompting the user through the user interface which exceptions were created but not referenced, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0086] The mutual exclusion check includes: collecting all exceptions referenced in the user-created fault model; traversing all exceptions to check if the number of exceptions exceeds one and if any exception has a locked attribute; in response to the existence of an exception with a locked attribute, prompting the user through the user interface that an exception with a locked attribute can only exist alone, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0087] The logical contradiction check includes: collecting all exceptions referenced in the user-created fault model; analyzing the logical relationships among all exceptions to check for logical contradictions; and, in response to a logical contradiction, prompting the user through the user interface to confirm whether to continue.

[0088] The circular association check includes: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing each traversed abnormal downstream relationship; checking for the existence of a downstream relationship cycle; and in response to the existence of a downstream relationship cycle, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream relationship cycle and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0089] The hierarchical association check includes: in response to the user completing an abnormal downstream association, traversing all downstream relationships; checking whether there is an abnormal downstream association without cockpit effect (FDE) to an abnormal with FDE; in response to the existence of an abnormal downstream association without cockpit effect (FDE) to an abnormal with FDE, prompting the user through the user interface which abnormalities are involved in the downstream association, and prompting the user to confirm whether to continue.

[0090] Example 21. A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method as described in any one of Examples 11-20.

[0091] Without departing from the spirit and intent of the invention, those skilled in the art can make appropriate modifications and adjustments to the embodiments specifically described above. Therefore, it is intended that the claimed subject matter not be limited to the specific examples disclosed, but also include all implementations falling within the scope of the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. An information gathering system for aircraft maintenance, comprising: A user interface configured to allow users to input configuration data associated with the maintenance of the aircraft; A memory configured to store configuration data input by the user via the user interface and preset conditions associated with aircraft maintenance; as well as A processor that communicates with the user interface and the memory, the processor being configured to perform online verification of the configuration data input by the user based on the configuration data input by the user and the preset conditions.

2. The information collection system as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The configuration data input by the user includes one or more of the following: information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft, the relationship between two or more of the anomalies, and the relationship between anomalies and malfunctions.

3. The information collection system as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The user interface includes a member system user interface and an OEM user interface, each of which includes an anomaly editing interface and a fault editing interface to define or edit anomalies and faults associated with the aircraft.

4. The information collection system as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The processor is configured to perform online validation of the configuration data input by the user in response to a triggering condition.

5. The information collection system as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The processor is configured to perform online validation of the user-input configuration data in response to one or more of the following triggering conditions: The current page of the user interface loses focus, the current page of the user interface is switched, the configuration data is saved, the configuration data is submitted, and the configuration data is integrated.

6. The system as described in any one of claims 1-5, characterized in that, The processor is further configured to issue a prompt to the user through the user interface when it is found that the configuration data input by the user does not meet the preset conditions.

7. The information collection system as described in any one of claims 1-5, characterized in that, The processor is configured to verify the configuration data during one or more of the editing, saving, submitting, and integrating stages of information gathering, wherein... The validation of the configuration data during the editing phase includes real-time checking of whether the configuration data currently entered by the user meets preset conditions; The configuration data is validated during the saving phase, including checking whether the configuration data of the current page meets preset conditions. The verification of the configuration data during the submission phase includes checking whether all submitted configuration data meets preset conditions; The verification of the configuration data during the integration phase includes checking whether the correlation of the overall configuration of the aircraft meets preset conditions.

8. The information collection system as described in any one of claims 1-5, characterized in that, The processor is configured as follows: During the information gathering and editing phase, perform one or more of the following: data type validation and data range validation. In the information collection, storage, submission, and integration stages, perform one or more of the following: data type validation, data range validation, and correlation validation.

9. The information collection system as described in claim 8, characterized in that, The data type validation includes: validating whether the data type of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the user interface matches the data type required by the edit box; The data range verification includes: verifying whether the range of the configuration data entered by the user in the edit box of the information collection interface matches the data range required by the edit box; The association verification includes one or more of the following: uniqueness check, dependency association check, mutual exclusion association check, logical contradiction check, circular association check, and hierarchical association check.

10. The information collection system as described in claim 9, characterized in that, The uniqueness check includes checking whether the user-created ID is unique. The dependency association check includes: Collect all user-created anomalies and generate a first list based on all anomalies, the anomalies including information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft; Collect all exceptions referenced in the user's fault modeling, and generate a second list based on all the referenced exceptions; The first list and the second list are compared to check if there are any exceptions in the first list that are not referenced by the fault modeling; In response to an exception not referenced in the fault modeling within the first list, the user is prompted via the user interface to identify which exceptions were created but not referenced, and the user is asked to confirm whether to continue. The mutual exclusion correlation check includes: Collect all exceptions referenced in the fault modeling created by the user; Iterate through all the exceptions to check if the number of exceptions exceeds one. And whether there are any abnormal attributes that are locked; In response to an exception with the attribute set to "locked", the user interface will prompt the user that exceptions with the attribute set to "locked" can only exist alone, and the user will be prompted to confirm whether to continue. The logical contradiction check includes: Collect all exceptions referenced in the fault modeling created by the user; Analyze the logical relationships among all anomalies to check for any logical contradictions. In response to a logical contradiction, the user is prompted about the contradiction via the user interface and asked to confirm whether to continue. The ring correlation check includes: In response to a user completing an abnormal downstream association, iterate through each downstream relationship that has passed through an abnormality; Check for the existence of downstream relationship loops; In response to the existence of a downstream relationship cycle, the user interface is used to prompt the user about which exceptions are involved in the downstream relationship cycle, and the user is prompted to confirm whether to continue. The hierarchical association check includes: In response to a user completing an abnormal downstream association, traverse all downstream relationships; Check for anomalies downstream of non-cockpit effect FDE that are associated with anomalies containing FDE; In response to an anomaly downstream of a non-cockpit effect FDE being associated with an anomaly having an FDE, the user interface prompts the user which anomalies are involved in the downstream association and asks the user to confirm whether to continue.

11. An information collection method for aircraft maintenance, comprising: Receive configuration data related to the maintenance of the aircraft from user input via a user interface; The configuration data input by the user via the user interface is stored in a memory, which also includes preset conditions associated with the aircraft maintenance; as well as The processor performs online verification of the configuration data input by the user based on the preset conditions, and the processor communicates with the user interface and the memory.

12. The information collection method as described in claim 11, characterized in that, The configuration data input by the user includes one or more of the following: information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft, the relationship between two or more of the anomalies, and the relationship between anomalies and malfunctions.

13. The information collection method as described in claim 12, characterized in that, The user interface includes a member system user interface and an OEM user interface, each of which includes an anomaly editing interface and a fault editing interface to define or edit anomalies and faults associated with the aircraft.

14. The information collection method as described in claim 11, characterized in that, The method further includes performing online validation of the configuration data input by the user via the processor in response to a triggering condition.

15. The information collection method as described in claim 14, characterized in that, The method further includes performing online validation of the user-input configuration data via the processor in response to one or more of the following triggering conditions: The current page of the user interface loses focus, the current page of the user interface is switched, the configuration data is saved, the configuration data is submitted, and the configuration data is integrated.

16. The method according to any one of claims 11-15, characterized in that, The method further includes prompting the user through the user interface when it is found that the configuration data input by the user does not meet the preset conditions.

17. The information collection method as described in any one of claims 11-15, characterized in that, The method further includes verifying the configuration data via the processor during one or more of the editing, saving, submitting, and integrating stages of information collection, wherein... The validation of the configuration data during the editing phase includes real-time checking of whether the configuration data currently entered by the user meets preset conditions; The configuration data is validated during the saving phase, including checking whether the configuration data of the current page meets preset conditions. The verification of the configuration data during the submission phase includes checking whether all submitted configuration data meets preset conditions; The verification of the configuration data during the integration phase includes checking whether the correlation of the overall configuration of the aircraft meets preset conditions.

18. The information collection method as described in any one of claims 11-15, characterized in that, The method further includes: During the editing phase of the information collection, one or more of the following are performed: data type validation and data range validation. During the information collection, storage, submission, and integration phases, one or more of the following checks are performed: data type verification, data range verification, and correlation verification.

19. The information collection method as described in claim 18, characterized in that, The data type validation includes: validating whether the data type of the configuration data input by the user in the edit box of the user interface matches the data type required by the edit box; The data range verification includes: verifying whether the range of the configuration data entered by the user in the edit box of the information collection interface matches the data range required by the edit box; The association verification includes one or more of the following: uniqueness check, dependency association check, mutual exclusion association check, logical contradiction check, circular association check, and hierarchical association check.

20. The information collection method as described in claim 19, characterized in that, The uniqueness check includes checking whether the user-created ID is unique. The dependency association check includes: Collect all user-created anomalies and generate a first list based on all anomalies, the anomalies including information associated with anomalies of one or more devices of the aircraft; Collect all exceptions referenced in the user's fault modeling, and generate a second list based on all the referenced exceptions; The first list and the second list are compared to check if there are any exceptions in the first list that are not referenced by the fault modeling; In response to an exception not referenced in the fault modeling within the first list, the user is prompted via the user interface to identify which exceptions were created but not referenced, and the user is asked to confirm whether to continue. The mutual exclusion correlation check includes: Collect all exceptions referenced in the fault modeling created by the user; Iterate through all the exceptions to check if the number of exceptions exceeds one. And whether there are any abnormal attributes that are locked; In response to an exception with the attribute set to "locked", the user interface will prompt the user that exceptions with the attribute set to "locked" can only exist alone, and the user will be prompted to confirm whether to continue. The logical contradiction check includes: Collect all exceptions referenced in the fault modeling created by the user; Analyze the logical relationships among all anomalies to check for any logical contradictions. In response to a logical contradiction, the user is prompted about the contradiction via the user interface and asked to confirm whether to continue. The ring correlation check includes: In response to a user completing an abnormal downstream association, iterate through each downstream relationship that has passed through an abnormality; Check for the existence of downstream relationship loops; In response to the existence of a downstream relationship cycle, the user interface is used to prompt the user about which exceptions are involved in the downstream relationship cycle, and the user is prompted to confirm whether to continue. The hierarchical association check includes: In response to a user completing an abnormal downstream association, traverse all downstream relationships; Check for anomalies downstream of non-cockpit effect FDE that are associated with anomalies containing FDE; In response to an anomaly downstream of a non-cockpit effect FDE being associated with an anomaly having an FDE, the user interface prompts the user which anomalies are involved in the downstream association and asks the user to confirm whether to continue.

21. A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method as described in any one of claims 11-20.

Images