Liquid Water Detection Algorithm for the Magnetostrictive Ice Detector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly a century, ice build-up on aircraft surfaces has presented a safety concern for the aviation industry. Pilot observations of visible moisture and temperature has been used a primary means to detect conditions conducive to ice accretion on aircraft critical surfaces. To help relieve flight crew workload and improve aircraft safety, various ice detection systems have been developed. Some ice detection systems have been successfully certified as the primary means of detecting ice, negating the need for the flight crew to actively monitor for icing conditions. To achieve certification as a Primary ice detection system requires detailed substantiation of ice detector performance over the full range of icing conditions and aircraft flight conditions. Some notable events in the aviation industry have highlighted certain areas of the icing envelope that require special attention. Following the CRJ accident in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, in December 1997, industry interest and scrutiny in the performance of ice detection systems at warmer temperatures has increased. [ 1 ] In particular, the concern lies in potential differences between ice accretion on the ice detector sensing surfaces and the critical aircraft surfaces (e.g. wing, nacelle). This has led both the FAA and EASA to update advisory material to ensure that ice detector performance at low freezing fractions is addressed. To minimize this concern and alleviate the risk, Collins Aerospace (Rosemount Aerospace, Inc.) has developed an enhanced ice detection algorithm for its magnetostrictive ice detector (MID). Traditionally the MID has only been used to detect ice accretion resulting from supercooled liquid water. This new algorithm enables the MID to sense the presence of non-freezing liquid water on its sensing surface and couple that with ambient temperature information to provide a signal when conditions may be conducive for ice accretion on critical aircraft surfaces. The discussion in this paper describes the development of this new algorithm for the MID and performance verification of the algorithm through icing wind tunnel testing and icing flight tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".