IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,591,600
Granted Patent B2
US 12,591,600 · App. 18/066,539 · Granted Mar 31, 2026

Apparatus and method for interactive analysis of aviation data

Inventors: Seth Young (Upper Arlington, OH); Arnab Nandi (Columbus, OH); Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani (Saint Martin d'Heres, FR)
Assignee: Ohio State Innovation Foundation
G06F16/29G06F3/04815G06F3/04883G06F16/248G06F2203/04808
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,591,600
App. No.
18/066,539
Granted
Mar 31, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Apparatus and method for receiving, processing and interactively displaying real-time air traffic data representative of the movement of aircraft throughout an airspace. The apparatus is an interactive data visualization framework which provides an immediately visualized aviation-oriented insights, with a focus on evaluating the deviations among flights by route, type, airport, and aircraft performance. The apparatus includes utilities for such as capacity planning, flight route prediction, and fuel consumption analysis.

Claims (212)

1 . An apparatus, comprising:

a processor;

a memory that stores computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations to determine a volatility of a route flown by an aircraft moving through three-dimensional airspace, comprising:

determining planned flight path of the aircraft as a polyline P that consists of n+1 segments {L 1 , L 2 . . . L n+1 }, wherein n is a number of waypoints in a planned flight track between a departure location and a destination location;

determining an actual flight path of the aircraft between the departure location and the destination location;

determining a deviation between the actual flight path and the planned flight path for each of the n+1 segments of the polyline P;

aggregating the deviation for each of the n+1 segments of the polyline P into a volatility index that is representative of an efficiency of the actual flight path; and

using the volatility index to determine optimal flight routes to reduce fuel consumption or reduce flight delays.

2 . A method for determining a volatility of a route flown by an aircraft moving through three-dimensional airspace, comprising:

determining planned flight path of the aircraft as a polyline P that consists of n+1 segments {L 1 , L 2 . . . L n+1 }, wherein n is a number of waypoints in a planned flight track between a departure location and a destination location;

determining an actual flight path of the aircraft between the departure location and the destination location;

determining a deviation between the actual flight path and the planned flight path for each of the n+1 segments of the polyline P;

aggregating the deviation for each of the n+1 segments of the polyline P into a volatility index that is representative of an efficiency of the actual flight path; and

using the volatility index to determine optimal flight routes to reduce fuel consumption or reduce flight delays.

3 . The method of claim 2 , further comprising for each flight track record in the actual flight path, comparing a location of the aircraft to the planned flight path by latitude, longitude and altitude at a particular time.

4 . The method of claim 2 , further comprising comparing, based on great circle distance, the distance between a point on the actual flight path and the planned flight path using 3D spherical geometries.

5 . The method of claim 2 , wherein given a point p=(x, y) on the actual flight path and a line L associate with the planned flight path is defined as follows:

dist

⁡

(

p

,

L

)

=

❘

"\[LeftBracketingBar]"

(

x

e

-

x

s

)

·

(

y

s

-

y

)

-

(

x

s

-

x

)

·

(

y

e

-

y

s

)

❘

"\[RightBracketingBar]"

(

x

e

-

x

s

)

2

+

(

y

e

-

y

s

)

2

,

wherein a start-point is L s =(x s , y s ), an end-point is L e =(x e , y e ), and a distance between p and L is dist(p, L).

6 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the distance between a point p on the actual flight path and P in the planned flight path is determined by:

dist( p, P )=min L i ∈P (dist( p, L i )).

7 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the volatility index (VOLX) is determined by:

VOLX( f )=aggr P∈f pt (dist( p, P )),

wherein, aggr( ) is an aggregation function comprising at least one of average, sum, min, and standard deviation.

8 . The method of claim 7 , further comprising factoring the VLX by an average higher altitude of the actual flight path, wherein VOLX is further determined by:

VOLAX

⁡

(

f

)

=

VOLX

⁡

(

f

)

×

avg

p

∈

f

pt

(

p

.

alt

)

999

wherein p.alt is the altitude of the point p, and wherein the altitude coefficient is normalized between 0 and 1.

9 . The method of claim 2 , further comprising determining different types of distances of the actual flight path that consist of:

an actual distance that the aircraft actually traverses, an As-the-Crow-Flies (ACF) distance that is a length of a straight line between the departure location and the destination location, and a route distance that is a length of the polyline P.

10 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the distance between a given pair of geographical points s and e is defined as follows:

dist( s, e )=[ a cos(cos( s lat )·cos( e lat )·cos( s lng )·cos( e lng )+cos( s lat )·sin( e lat )·cos( s lng )·sin( e lng )+sin( s lat )·sin( e lat ))]× r,

wherein the lat and lng subscripts indicate the latitude and longitude components of points, respectively, and wherein r is the earth radius.

11 . The method of claim 2 , further comprising determining fuel burn and delays caused by the deviations in accordance with the aggregating of the deviation for each of the n+1 segments.

12 . The apparatus of claim 1 , the processor executing instructions further comprising determining fuel burn and delays caused by the deviations in accordance with the aggregating of the deviation for each of the n+1 segments.

13 . The apparatus of claim 1 , the processor executing instructions further comprising for each flight track record in the actual flight path, comparing a location of the aircraft to the planned flight path by latitude, longitude and altitude at a particular time.

14 . The apparatus of claim 1 the processor executing instructions, further comprising comparing, based on great circle distance, the distance between a point on the actual flight path and the planned flight path using 3D spherical geometries.

15 . The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein given a point p=(x, y) on the actual flight path and a line L associated with the planned flight path is defined as follows:

dist

⁡

(

p

,

L

)

=

❘

"\[LeftBracketingBar]"

(

x

e

-

x

s

)

·

(

y

s

-

y

)

-

(

x

s

-

x

)

·

(

y

e

-

y

s

)

❘

"\[RightBracketingBar]"

(

x

e

-

x

s

)

2

+

(

y

e

-

y

s

)

2

,

wherein a start-point is L s =(x s , y s ), an end-point is L e =(x e , y e ), and a distance between p and L is dist(p, L).

16 . The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the distance between a point p on the actual flight path and P in the planned flight path is determined by:

dist( p, P )=min L i ∈P (dist( p, L i )).

17 . The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the volatility index (VOLX) is determined by:

VOLX( f )=aggr P∈f pt (dist( p, P )),

wherein, aggr( ) is an aggregation function comprising at least one of average, sum, min, and standard deviation.

18 . The apparatus of claim 17 , the processor executing instructions further comprising factoring the VLX by an average higher altitude of the actual flight path, wherein VOLX is further determined by:

VOLAX

⁡

(

f

)

=

VOLX

⁡

(

f

)

×

avg

p

∈

f

pt

(

p

.

alt

)

999

wherein p.alt is the altitude of the point p, and wherein the altitude coefficient is normalized between 0 and 1.

19 . The apparatus of claim 1 , the processor executing instructions further comprising determining different types of distances of the actual flight path that consist of:

an actual distance that the aircraft actually traverses, an As-the-Crow-Flies (ACF) distance that is a length of a straight line between the departure location and the destination location, and a route distance that is a length of the polyline P.

20 . The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the distance between a given pair of geographical points s and e is defined as follows:

dist( s, e )=[ a cos(cos( s lat )·cos( e lat )·cos( s lng )·cos( e lng )+cos( s lat )·sin( e lat )·cos( s lng )·sin( e lng )+sin( s lat )·sin( e lat ))]× r,

wherein the lat and lng subscripts indicate the latitude and longitude components of points, respectively, and wherein r is the earth radius.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 20, 2023
From: YOUNG, SETH; NANDI, ARNAB; OMIDVAR-TEHRANI, BEHROOZ
To: OHIO STATE INNOVATION FOUNDATION
Reel/Frame 064963/0273 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 16149363 · Oct 2, 2018
Provisional Application 62567380 · Oct 3, 2017
Related Publication 20230185832A1 · Jun 15, 2023
References Cited (34)
US 8447520B2 · Gine I Cortiella · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 9561860B2 · Knapp · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 11562006B2 · Young · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20030223638A1 · Jackson · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20060129437A1 · Lee · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20090172511A1 · Decherd · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090260022A1 · Louch · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100060739A1 · Salazar · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110153591A1 · Heller · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20130055294A1 · Diebner · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130304725A1 · Nee · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140032517A1 · Henderson · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150358425A1 · Vennelakanti · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160232793A1 · Morishita · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160290817A1 · Hoogland · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160358021A1 · Hong · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160378861A1 · Eledath · 2016 [cited by applicant]
CN 101692315A · 2010 [cited by examiner]
CN 103324993B · 2016 [cited by examiner]
CN 111650932A · 2020 [cited by examiner]
EP 2000777A2 · 2008 [cited by examiner]
WO WO0040929A1 · 2000 [cited by examiner]
Airbus Operations SAS Device for Aiding Navigation and Guidance of an Aircraft, and System Comprising Such a Device (Year:2013 U.S. Pat. No. 8,447,520). [cited by examiner]
A translation version of CN101692315A—Galink Aviation Technology Co Ltd (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Şerban, A. “Time optimal trajectory generation from polyline with velocity, acceleration and spatial deviation constraints.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. vol. 147. No. 1. IOP Publishing, (Ye… [cited by examiner]
Henrie, Joshua, and Doran Wilde. “Planning continuous curvature paths using constructive polylines.” Experience from the DARPA Urban Challenge. Springer London, 2012. 157-193.(Year: 2012). [cited by examiner]
An English-translated version of FR2930987A1 by Air Bus Operation SAS France (Year: 2009). [cited by examiner]
An English-translated version of CN101692315A (Year: 2009)A by Galink Aviation Technology Co Ltd. (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani, Sihem Amer-Yahia, and Alexandre Termier. Interactive user group analysis. In CIKM, 2015, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Arnab Nandi and HV Jagadish. Guided interaction: Rethinking the query-result paradigm. VLDB, 4(12):1466-1469, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Daniel A Keim. Designing pixel-oriented visualization techniques: Theory and applications. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 6(1):59-78, 2000. [cited by applicant]
Lauro Lins, James T Klosowski, and Carlos Scheidegger. Nanocubes for real-time exploration of spatiotemporal datasets. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 19(12):2456-2465, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Vivek Kumar and Lance Sherry. Airport troughput capacity limits for demand management planning. In ICNS, pp. 1-10. IEEE, 2009. [cited by applicant]
Sumit Thakur, “20 Advantages of Database Management System”, Jul. 19, 2015, pp. 1-10. [cited by applicant]