Software Aircraft Part Metadata Compatibility Verification

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current systems for loading software aircraft parts onto aircraft require tedious checks to ensure compatibility, leading to potential errors and inefficiencies in selecting the correct software for specific aircraft models or versions.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method and apparatus that uses metadata to identify and verify the compatibility of software aircraft parts with target aircraft, ensuring that only compatible software is loaded by including metadata that specifies usability across different aircraft models and versions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual checking of software aircraft part compatibility is performed, then operator control and verification are maintained, but the process becomes cumbersome and error-prone

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesoftware loading accuracyVSAvoidsoftware loading process
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The software aircraft part automatically performs compatibility verification by comparing its embedded metadata (aircraft type, model, version information) with the target aircraft's characteristics. This self-service approach eliminates the need for manual operator checking while maintaining high accuracy in compatibility determination.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The manual mechanical process of checking compatibility documents and verifying software-aircraft matches is replaced with an automated electronic system. The data processing system electronically compares metadata fields between the software aircraft part and aircraft database, substituting human operator actions with automated digital verification.

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

2Reliability

If manual verification of software aircraft part compatibility is performed, then careful checking can be done, but the process requires significant time and effort

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompatibility verificationVSAvoidsoftware loading time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Compatibility verification data (metadata including aircraft type, model, version, and software requirements) is prepared in advance and embedded within the software aircraft part during creation. This preliminary action allows the compatibility check to be performed rapidly by simply comparing pre-prepared metadata fields rather than conducting lengthy manual verification procedures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The time-consuming manual verification process is replaced with rapid automated electronic comparison of metadata fields. The data processing system instantly matches software characteristics with aircraft specifications using electronic database queries and comparison algorithms, reducing verification time from minutes or hours to seconds.

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

3Productivity

If automated compatibility checking is implemented, then efficiency is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesoftware loading efficiencyVSAvoidloading system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The metadata structure and verification process are designed to be universal across different aircraft types and software aircraft parts. A single automated loading system can handle multiple aircraft models and software variants by comparing standardized metadata fields, eliminating the need for separate verification procedures for each aircraft type and reducing overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Extent of automation

If metadata is embedded in software aircraft parts, then compatibility verification is automated, but data structure complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompatibility check automationVSAvoiddata structure complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The metadata structure uses homogeneous, standardized data fields (aircraft type, model, version, software requirements) that follow consistent formats and data types. This homogeneity simplifies the automated verification process by allowing uniform comparison operations across all software aircraft parts, reducing the complexity of handling diverse data structures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #33Homogeneity

Data Source

PatentUS8055393B2Method and apparatus for loading software aircraft parts
Publication Date: 2011.11.08 THE BOEING CO
  • US8055393B2 patent drawing
  • US8055393B2 patent drawing
  • US8055393B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program code for managing a software aircraft part. A computer implemented method identifies an aircraft from a set of target aircraft to form a target aircraft. Software for use in the aircraft is identified. A determination is made as to whether compatibility exists between the software and the target aircraft. The software aircraft part is created comprising the software and metadata relating usability of the software aircraft part in the target aircraft in response to a determination that compatibility exists between the software and the target aircraft.