Flight Safety Optimization Using ML and Digital Twin

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current flight safety operations rely heavily on human analysts, leading to subjective and inefficient identification of potential incidents and corrective actions, prone to errors and missing anomalies.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a system that uses unsupervised and reinforcement-based machine learning models to analyze aircraft operational parameters, identifying potential safety incidents and recommending corrective actions, which are then verified through an avionics digital twin to ensure effectiveness.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If human analysts are used to identify flight safety incidents, then expertise-based judgment is applied, but the process is subjective and prone to errors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of incident identificationVSAvoidmanual analysis dependency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSExtent of automation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces the mechanical system of human analysts with an automated machine learning-based system. The ML model analyzes flight data objectively without human subjectivity, eliminating errors associated with manual analysis while maintaining high accuracy in identifying flight safety incidents.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service by allowing the machine learning model to autonomously identify flight safety incidents and generate corrective actions without requiring continuous human intervention. The digital twin further autonomously simulates and validates corrective actions, creating a self-sufficient safety monitoring system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Productivity

If human analysts manually analyze flight data, then detailed examination is possible, but the process is inefficient and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespeed of incident detectionVSAvoidtime for data analysis
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual human analysis with automated machine learning algorithms that process flight data instantaneously. This substitution dramatically increases productivity by eliminating the time humans would spend manually examining flight parameters while maintaining comprehensive analysis coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary action by continuously monitoring and analyzing flight data in real-time, identifying potential safety incidents before they escalate. The digital twin pre-simulates corrective actions to determine their effectiveness, enabling proactive safety management rather than reactive response.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If traditional flight data monitoring is used, then basic safety protocols are followed, but novel incidents and anomalies may be missed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection of novel incidentsVSAvoidanomaly detection capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by using machine learning models that can detect anomalies based on deviations from normal flight parameter patterns. The system adapts to novel incidents by learning from historical data and identifying unusual parameter combinations that indicate emerging safety issues not covered by traditional protocols.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where the machine learning model continuously learns from identified incidents and improves its detection capabilities. The digital twin provides feedback by validating whether proposed corrective actions would be effective, creating a closed-loop system that reduces information loss about potential safety risks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Reliability

If corrective actions are implemented without verification, then rapid response is possible, but effectiveness cannot be ensured

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveeffectiveness of safety measuresVSAvoidverification system requirements
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses copying by creating a digital twin - a virtual copy of the aircraft system - to simulate and verify corrective actions before implementing them on the actual aircraft. This digital replica allows thorough validation of safety measures without adding physical complexity to the aircraft itself, ensuring reliability through virtual testing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary action by using the digital twin to pre-verify corrective actions before they are implemented on the actual aircraft. This advance validation ensures that safety measures will be effective when needed, eliminating the need for complex real-time verification systems during actual incident response.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentEP4528692A1Flight safety operations optimization
Publication Date: 2025.03.26 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
  • EP4528692A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4528692A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4528692A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Techniques for optimizing flight safety operations for an aircraft are described. In operation, aircraft operational parameters corresponding to a plurality of flight operations are retrieved. The aircraft operational parameters are then analyzed using a first machine learning model to identify a first flight operation, where the first flight operation comprises at least one aircraft operational parameter with deviation beyond a threshold. At least one potential flight safety incident corresponding to the first flight operation is then identified. The at least one potential flight safety incident is then analyzed using a second machine learning model to identify a corrective action for the potential flight safety incident. The corrective action is then subjected to an avionics digital twin to ascertain that the corrective action mitigates the at least one potential flight safety incident. The corrective action is then recommended for the at least one potential flight safety incident.