Design of a Low-Cost General Aviation Flight Data ...catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST490/490_2014_FDR/FDR_FinalPresentation.pdfFlight Data Recording and Analysis System ... GPS Data logger

Design of a Low-Cost General Aviation Flight Data Recording and Analysis System

Team Members: Chad Bonadonna, Don Brody, & Alejandro Lopez

Sponsor:

Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 571

Faculty Advisor:

Dr. George Donohue

Department of Systems Engineering and Operations Research ©2014

Context and Gap

Department of Systems Engineering and Operations Research – Senior Design - 2015 Design of a Low-Cost General Aviation Flight Data Recording and Analysis System

[1] “NTSB/SS-12/01: The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft.” National Transportation Safety Board, 22-May-2012. [2] “AIR-2030 - Light-Sport Aircraft Airworthiness Certification.” Federal Aviation Administration, 08-Jul-2013.

Kit-Built Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA)

Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) Aircraft

Constructed by an amateur builder, from an amateur builder’s original design, purchased plans, or pre-fabricated kit. The amateur builder must assemble over one-half of the aircraft. [2]

Constructed by an amateur builder, from a kit manufactured by a licensed Light Sport Aircraft manufacturer. The amateur builder must assemble over one-half of the aircraft. [3]

Kit-built experimental aircraft

70% of experimental aircraft are classified as E-AB (2012)

Experimental Aircraft

17% of experimental aircraft are classified as ELSA (2012)


Cumulative Accidents by Airframe Hours

[2] “NTSB/SS-12/01: The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft.” National Transportation Safety Board, 22-May-2012.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

<5 <10 <40 <100 <500 <1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve A

ccid

en

ts

Airframe Hours

Non-E-AB E-AB

Data Compiled: 2001-2010

224 > Accidents 350% > Accident Rate

567 > Accidents 59% > Accident Rate

E-AB aircraft are 350% more likely to be involved in an accident than all other GA aircraft during their first 40 hours of flight


21.17

9.49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1.56

5.27

0

2

4

6

8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Time (years)

Non-Experimental Amateur-Built Experimental Amateur-Built

Accident Rate Gap A

ccid

en

ts p

er

10

0,0

00

Flig

ht

Ho

urs

E-AB aircraft are 123% more likely to be involved in an accident than all other General Aviation (GA) aircraft

E-AB aircraft are 238% more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than all other GA aircraft

11.68 accidents

3.71 accidents



Pre-Flight: Pilot determines flight-plan necessary to parameterize aircraft

Post-Flight: After landing, pilot manually parameterizes aircraft

Pilot must manually record in-flight data from cockpit gauges

Pilot must compile manual

data for submission to the

FAA

Current Phase I Testing Process


E-AB FATAL Accidents by Category

44% 15%

14%

9%

6%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Loss of Control in Flight

System/Component (Powerplant)

Collision With Objects or Terrain

System/Component (Non-Powerplant)

Fuel Related

Weather Related

Midair Collision

Loss of Control on Ground

Unknown

Low Altitude Operation Data compiled from 2001 - 2010

Loss of control in flight: “…insufficient takeoff speed, early rotation, or too steep a climb on

takeoff led to aerodynamic stalls and loss of control. Inadequate

airspeed…also led to aerodynamic stall and loss of control…[2]”



Project Scope

FAA Governed E-AB and ELSA Experimental

Aircraft:

- 11.2 ± 0.1% of all GA aircraft (2012)

- 23,474 total aircraft (2012)

E-AB Loss of Control in Flight Accidents:

- 44% of all fatal E-AB accidents (2001-2010)

In-Scope Out-of-Scope FAA Governed non Amateur Built Experimental

Aircraft and non Experimental Light Sport Aircraft:

- 1.5 ± 0.1% of all GA aircraft (2012)

- 3,240 total aircraft (2012)

E-AB Powerplant Accidents:

- 15% of all fatal E-AB accidents (2001-2010)

11%

89%

General Aviation Aircraft

E-AB and ELSA

Non E-AB and ELSA

[2] “NTSB/SS-12/01: The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft.” National Transportation Safety Board, 22-May-2012. [5] “2013 General Aviation Statistical Databook & 2014 Industry Outlook.” General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Jan-2014.

Problem and Need


Closing the Gap

“[D]ata obtained from…recording devices can significantly

enhance…the monitoring of parameters important to the

continuing airworthiness of the E-AB aircraft, provided that they are

demonstrated to be precise and reliable, record at sufficiently high

sampling rates, and are easily downloaded by the aircraft owner. [2]”

(2012)

NTSB recommended instrument Dynon EFIS-D100: $2,600 + installation

NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board

Lack of Aircraft

Parameterization

Loss of Control

in Flight

E-AB Aircraft vs. GA Fleet

350% > Phase I Accidents

238% > Fatalities

High E-AB

Fatality Rate

High Recording and

Analysis Cost

Need for a Low-Cost Flight Data

Recording and Analysis System

Problem

Need +



Proposed Phase I Testing Procedure

Pre-Flight: Pilot puts device in plane and executes pre-determined flight plan

Post-Flight: After landing, pilot connects device to computer for post-flight analysis

Device

Pilot activates device prior to entering maneuvers while in flight

Raw data is run through analysis software and

outputs flight characteristics

Post-Simulation: Pilot uses simulation data to generate training record and handbook

Device

Flight Plan


Prototype

Pre-Flight: Pilot puts device in plane and executes pre-determined flight plan

Post-Flight: After landing, pilot connects device to computer for post-flight analysis

Device




Post-Simulation: Pilot uses simulation data to generate training record and handbook

Device

Flight Plan

Pilot’s Operating Handbook


Rate of Climb for Quicksilver GT500

Mitigating loss of control in flight risk

“To steep a climb on takeoff [2]”

Obtaining the data Climb 1,000 ft at 100% engine power with 0° and 10° flaps

Measurements required 3-axis velocity derived from 3-axis position


400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

VER

TIC

AL

VEL

OC

ITY

(FP

M)

ALTITUDE (FT)

Rate of Climb

10° Flaps 0° Flaps


Sink Rate for GT500

[2] “NTSB/SS-12/01: The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft.” National Transportation Safety Board, 22-May-2012. [7] John Lowry, Performance of Light Aircraft. AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast, 1999.


“Inadequate airspeed [2]”

Obtaining the data Descend 1,000 ft at set velocities


600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

50 55 60 65 70 75 80

VER

TIC

AL

VEL

OC

ITY

(FP

M)

INDICATED AIRSPEED (MPH)

Rate of Sink


Stall Speed for GT500




Obtaining the data Enter bank turn with flaps set, and reduce velocity until stall

Measurements required 3-axis velocity derived from 3-axis position Bank angle of aircraft, and force applied to pilot

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

IND

ICA

TED

AIR

SPEE

D (

MP

H)

BANK ANGLE (DEGREES)

Stall Speed

0° Flaps 10° Flaps 20° Flaps 30° Flaps

Device


Flight Monitoring Device Value Hierarchy

Monitoring

Portability .250

Usability .500

Suitability .250

Accelerometer .087

Range .500

Sensitivity .500

Gyroscopic .087

Barometric .435

Global Positioning .304

Accelerometer .250

Gyroscopic .250

Barometric .500

Variability .087

Data Analysis .333

Device Interaction .250

Device Placement .417

Battery Life .400

Data Storage .500

Weight .100


Low-Cost Monitoring Device Alternatives

Arduino Microcontroller

iPhone 6 Smartphone App

Raspberry Pi Microprocessor

Capable of reading and writing real-time IMU sensor data for

post-flight analysis Makes use of the iPhone 6’s

integrated IMU’s, GPS, and barometer for both in-flight and

post-flight analysis

On-board processing enables in-flight reading, writing, and calculation of

data for post-flight analysis

Configured with: Arduino Mega

Adafruit 10 DOF IMU board GPS Data logger

Stock configuration Hardware Cost - $650

Configured with: Raspberry Pi

Adafruit 10 DOF IMU board 5” Touch-screen display

Adafruit GPS

IMU: Inertial Measurement Unit

Hardware Cost - $105

Hardware Cost - $175


0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00

Uti

lity

Cost ($)

Ranking of Monitoring Alternatives

Arduino w/ GPS

Arduino

Raspberry Pi w/ GPS

Raspberry Pi

iPhone 6

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Raspberry Pi

iPhone 6

Raspberry Pi w/ GPS

Arduino

Arduino w/ GPS

Utility

Portability Usability Suitability

Simulation and Requirements


Suitability

3-Axis Accelerometer --- 3-Axis Gyroscope --- GPS (for latitude and longitude) --- Barometer --- Data Recorder ---

Maintainability Device Reliability --- Device Availability ---

Portability

Battery Life ---

Data Storage ---

Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) ---

Weight ---

Interface

File Format ---

Design of Experiment (Simulation)


Design of Simulation

Inputs

Device Parameters:

GPS (x,y) Accuracy GPS(z) Accuracy Accelerometer Sensitivity Gyroscopic Sensitivity Barometer Sensitivity

RNG Seed:

GPS Accelerometer Gyroscope Barometer

Configuration:

Iterations Sample Rate Flight Plan

Outputs

Raw Data Computation

Analyze Raw Data and

Reduce Noise

Navigation and Sensor Model

Device Error:

Position Linear Acceleration Rotational Acceleration

Graphs:

Uncorrected Position, Acceleration, Gyro

Corrected Position, Acceleration, Gyro

Actual Position, Acceleration, Gyro

Statistical Data:

Histograms of Error Confidence Intervals

Files:

Original XML Condensed XML

XML Flight Plan


Analyze Raw Data and Reduce Noise



Reduce Noise

XML Flight Plan

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

3 5 8 9 10 12 14 15 18 21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (s):

Array Index:

Position (m):

1.0 2.0

7 16

0 1

(3+5+8+9+10) / 5 = 7 (12+14+15+18+21) / 5 = 16

Line Smoothing Algorithm:


y = 2.9x + 0.0268

y = 6.7672x + 0.0144

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19

Erro

r (m

/s^2

)

Accelerometer Sensitivity (% of actual acceleration)

Condensed

Raw

Sensitivity Analysis

y = 108.18x + 0.2857

y = 245.3x + 0.1642

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19

Erro

r (d

egr

ee

s/se

con

d)

Gyroscopic Sensitivity (% of actual rotational velocity)

Condensed

Raw

Smoothed

Smoothed


Device Subsystem Requirements

Suitability

3-Axis Accelerometer Minimum range 20 m/s2 with max. 0.16% sensitivity

3-Axis Gyroscope Minimum range 360° with max. 0.08% sensitivity

GPS (for latitude and longitude) Maximum 6 meters sensitivity

Barometer Minimum .25 m operable range -30° to 50°C [2]

Data Recorder Minimum 5 readings per second [3]

Maintainability

Device Reliability Minimum 96% with 5-year lifespan

Device Availability Minimum 50,000 hours (MTBF)

Portability

Battery Life Minimum 140 mAh (2 hours of battery life)

Data Storage Minimum 76 MB (2 hours of raw data capacity)

Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Minimum 8 kB

Weight Maximum 1 lb.

Interface

File Format Extensible Markup Language (XML)

[3] “AC 90-101A: Approval and Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR.” Federal Aviation Administration, 23-Feb-2011. [4] “TSO-C4C: Bank and Pitch Instruments.” Federal Aviation Agency, 01-Apr-1959.

Cost-Modeling and Results


Cost Model

Software Modules Platform SLOC Cost / Line Total Cost

Real-Time Device C++ 250 $92 $23,000

Flight Plan Generator Java 3000 $92 $276,000

Raw Data Analyzer Java 3000 $92 $276,000

POH Generator Java 5000 $92 $460,000

Training Records Java 2000 $92 $184,000

$1,219,000

$1.6 Million

TOTAL COST:

Prototyping and Production Cost

Order Prototype Components $1,500

Assemble Prototype Components $1,000

Bench Test Prototype $9,500

Flight Testing $5,000

Production Kit Assembly $270,000

Marketing $100,000

$387,000

*SLOC: source lines of code


Units Until Return on Investment (ROI)

-$2,000,000.00

-$1,000,000.00

$0.00

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Pro

fit

($)

Units Sold

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Break-Even: 800 Units Sold

Break-Even: 1,067 Units Sold




Pro

vid

es

pro

du

ct

info

rmat

ion

Experimental Aircraft

Association (EAA)

National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB)

Requests membership

Request for certification

Evaluates & provides certification

Acc

epts

or

dec

lines

rec

om

men

dat

ion

s

Other Aircraft Associations

Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)

Requests for membership

Provides support & information R

equ

ests

mem

ber

ship

Provides support & Information

Pro

vid

es s

up

po

rt &

info

rmat

ion

Inve

stig

ates

acc

iden

ts &

re

com

men

ds

solu

tio

ns

Requests for inspection & certification

Provides advocacy for the EAA community

Evaluates, inspects, approves aircraft & builder

Provides support & information

Provides advocacy for the general aviation community

Req

ues

ts m

emb

ersh

ip

E-AB / ELSA Builders

Certified Pilots

Provides avionics kit

Set regulations for measurement requirements

Purchases avionics kit

Provide product information

Avionics Manufacturers

In-Scope

Out-of-Scope

Stakeholder Interaction


Dynon EFIS-D100 SBG Ellipse-N Appareo Stratus 2 Garmin VIRB Elite

AHRS fits directly into instrument panel for

in-flight analysis

MEMS driven device connects to computer for in-flight analysis

AHRS connects to iPad or iPhone via Wi-Fi for

in-flight analysis

Records aircraft instruments for manual

post-flight analysis

Data recording not available Data recording not available

Currently Available Monitoring Systems

$2,600 + installation $4,000 $900 $280

AHRS: Attitude Heading and Reference System MEMS: Microelectromechanical System


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

$- $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00

Uti

lity

Retail Price ($)

Ranking of SYSTEM Alternatives

Arduino Based System

Garmin VIRB Elite 270

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N


Stratus 2


Utility


Stratus 2

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

$- $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00

Uti

lity

Retail Price ($)

Ranking of SYSTEM Alternatives



0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N


Stratus 2


Utility


Stratus 2

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N


easyPOH Pre-Flight: Pilot mounts Garmin in plane and executes flight plan generated by easyPOH

Post-Flight: Pilot manually enters data from Garmin recording into easyPOH




Post-Simulation: Pilot uses easyPOH to manually compile training record and handbook

Flight Plan


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

$- $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00

Uti

lity

Cost ($)

Conclusion and Recommendation



Stratus 2

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Dynon EFIS-D100

SBG Ellipse-N


Stratus 2

Garmin w/ easyPOH


Utility


Garmin w/ easyPOH


References

[1] “NTSB/SS-12/01: The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft.” National Transportation Safety Board, 22-May-2012. [2] “AIR-2030 - Light-Sport Aircraft Airworthiness Certification.” Federal Aviation Administration, 08-Jul-2013. [3] “AC 90-101A: Approval and Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR.” Federal Aviation Administration, 23-Feb-2011. [4] “TSO-C4C: Bank and Pitch Instruments.” Federal Aviation Agency, 01-Apr-1959. [5] “Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator,” MIDE. [Online]. Available: http://www.mide.com/products/slamstick/air-pressure-altitude-calculator.php. [6] Accident Database. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 2015. [7] John Lowry, Performance of Light Aircraft. AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast, 1999.


Agenda

Backup Slides


Experimental Aircraft Association

Established EAA Flight Advisor Program:

- “Designed to increase sport aviation safety… [for] EAA members who may be

preparing to fly unfamiliar aircraft [1]”

Founded in 1953

180,000 members worldwide

The EAA serves the community by:

- “Encouraging affordable flying in a local environment.”

[1] “EAA Mission & Vision,” Experimental Aircraft Association. [Online]


E-AB and ELSA Certification Process

[4] “AC 20-27G: Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft.” Federal Aviation Administration, 30-Sep-2009.

Continued airworthiness

Annual condition inspection

First 40 hours of flight

Develop pilot’s operating handbook

Build Aircraft

Register the aircraft with the FAA

Identify and mark the aircraft

Apply for Airworthiness Certificate

Phase I Testing:

Flight test the aircraft

Phase II Testing:

Operate and maintain the aircraft


E-AB Accidents by Phase of Flight (2011)




0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Takeoff

Initial Climb

En Route

Maneuvering

Approach

Other Fatal

Number of Accidents

Fatal Total

24% of fatalities

22% of fatalities

15% of fatalities

9% of fatalities

8% of fatalities

22% of fatalities



23%

12%

11%

10%

9%

6%

2%

1%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Loss of Control in Flight

System/Component (Powerplant)

Collision With Objects or Terrain

Loss of Control on Ground

Fuel Related

System/Component (Non-Powerplant)

Runway Contact

Weather Related

Runway Excursion

Midair Collision

23%

E-AB Accidents by Category

Data compiled from 2001 - 2010






0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ge

ne

ral

A

viat

ion

(G

A)

Fle

et

Time (years)

Annual Increase of E-AB Aircraft

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Ce

rtif

ied

E-A

B A

ircr

aft

E-AB aircraft are increasing at a rate of .25% annually vs. the General Aviation (GA) Fleet

E-AB aircraft are increasing at a rate of 671 aircraft per year

[4] “2013 General Aviation Statistical Databook & 2014 Industry Outlook.” General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Jan-2014.


Cruise Performance for GT500




Obtaining the data Maintain level flight at a fixed rpm and altitude


4500

4700

4900

5100

5300

5500

5700

70 75 80 85 90 95

Engi

ne

RP

M

Airspeed (mph)

1000 ft. 2000 ft. 3000 ft. 4000 ft.


Lift Coefficient

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Co

effi

cie

nt

of

Lift

Velocity (mph)

Wind speed: 20 mph

V = 110 mph

V = 70 mph

V = 90 mph V = 90 mph

5/12/2015



Controller GPS

XML Writer Utility

event request

event

Each sensor executes independently and concurrently

event

raw data

Microcontroller

Model

Accelerometer

Gyroscope

Barometer



Reduce Noise

XML Flight Plan

Arc Length Formula:


Analyze Raw Data and Reduce Noise



Reduce Noise

XML Flight Plan

Controller Model

raw data

compressed data

data request

compressed data

XML Reader Utility

Simulation Controller

Noise Reduction Algorithm

raw data raw data

XML Reader Utility

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

3 5 8 9 10 12 14 15 18 21

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (s):

Array Index:

Position (m):

1.0 2.0

7 16

0 1

(3+5+8+9+10) / 5 = 7 (12+14+15+18+21) / 5 = 16

Line Smoothing Algorithm:


Output Analysis

Uncorrected Data

Velocity Error (m/s):


Position Error (m):

Compressed Data

Position Error (m):


Output Analysis

Uncorrected Data



Position Error (m):

Compressed Data

Position Error (m):

(105%) (322%)

(980%)


Portability Goal Values

Battery Life Data Storage Capacity Weight

Mid Value: 120 min

Range of Variation: 0 to 1400 min

Mid Value: 2 GB

Range of Variation: 0 to 64 GB

Mid Value: 655 grams

Range of Variation: 47 to 1360 grams


Suitability Goal Values: Measurement Range

Accelerometer Range Barometer Range Gyroscopic Range

Mid Value: ± 2 g

Range of Variation: ± 0 to ± 16 g

Mid Value: 3000 m

Range of Variation: 0 to 9144 m

Mid Value: 360 degrees/sec

Range of Variation: 0 to 2000 degrees/sec


Accelerometer Sensitivity Barometer Sensitivity Mid Value: 0.1 % error

Range of Variation: 0 to 0.35 % error

Suitability Goal Values: Measurement Sensitivity

GPS Accuracy Gyroscopic Sensitivity

Mid Value: 15 m error

Range of Variation: 0 to 30 m error

Mid Value: 6 m error

Range of Variation: 0 to 8 m error

Variable Sensitivity

Mid Value: 2 additional settings

Range of Variation: 0 to 3 additional settings

.500

.766

.766

.500

.500

.766

.766

.715

.766

Appareo Stratus 2: Arduino:

Arduino w/ GPS: Dynon EFIS-D100:

Garmin Virb: Raspberry Pi:

Raspberry Pi w/ GPS: SBG Ellipse-N:

iPhone 6:


Discrete Value Function Descriptions

Data Analysis 0 None

1 Manual: calculations must be done manually from device recording

2 External Software: calculations completed by external software

3 On-Board Processor: calculations performed on device processor

Device Interaction 0 None

1 Screen: touch-screen display

2 Button: device mounted push-button

3 Extended Button: push-button attached to extended cord

Device Placement

0 Panel-Mounted: device must be mounted in dash

1 Position Mounted: device must be mounted in a specified position

2 Level Mounted: device must be mounted level with the aircraft

3 Free Mounted: device may be mounted in any position within aircraft


Data Analysis

Device Interaction

Device Placement

Usability Goal Values

1.000 0.857 0.286 0.000

On-Board Processing: External Software:

Manual: None:

1.000 0.714 0.143 0.000

Extendable Push Button: Non-Extendable Push Button:

Touch Screen Display: None:

1.000 0.714 0.143 0.000

Free Mounted: Level Mounted:

Position Mounted: Panel Mounted:


Project Cost Analysis

0.0

10000.0

20000.0

30000.0

40000.0

50000.0

60000.0

70000.0

80000.0

90000.0

100000.0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Co

st (

USD

)

Time (weeks)

Planned Value (PV) Actual Cost (AC) Earned Value (EV)


Performance Index

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Pe

rfo

rman

ce In

dex

Time (weeks)

Cost Performance Index (CPI) Schedule Performance Index (SPI)


Flight Recording System

1.0

Project Management

1.1

Project Plan

1.1.1

Project Schedule

1.1.2

Budget

1.1.3

EVM

1.1.4

CONOPS

1.2

Context Analysis 1.2.1

Problem Statement

1.2.2

Stake Holder Analysis

1.2.3

Need Statement

1.2.4

Requirements

1.3

Fundamental Requirements

1.3.1

Means Requirements

1.3.2

Data Analysis

1.4

Gap Analysis

1.4.1

Risk Analysis

1.4.2

Simulation

1.5

Aircraft Model

1.5.1

Develop

1.5.1.1

Test

1.5.1.2

Gather Results

1.5.1.3

Design Alternatives

1.6

Sensitivity Analysis

1.6.1

Trade-off Analysis

1.6.2

Cost/Utility

1.6.3

Research/Development

1.7

Software

1.7.1

Hardware

1.7.2

Background

1.7.3

Deliverables

1.8

Briefings

1.8.1

Faculty

1.8.2

Conferences

1.8.3

Final

1.8.4

Work Breakdown Structure


Budget

Rates and Estimates

Estimated Hours 2,000

Equipment Cost $500.00

Direct Labor $20.00/hr

Overhead $20.00/hr

G&A $4.00/hr + $100.00

Fringe $2.00/hr

Fee $2.00/hr

Fully Burdened $48.00/hr + $600.00

Planned Cost $96,600.00

Documents

Design of a Low-Cost General Aviation Flight Data ...catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST490/490_2014_FDR/FDR_FinalPresentation.pdfFlight Data Recording and Analysis System ... GPS Data logger