Comparative Analysis of Human Operators and Advanced Technologies in the Visual Inspection of Aero Engine Blades
Source abstract
Abstract
Background—Aircraft inspection is crucial for safe flight operations and is predominantly performed by human operators, who are unreliable, inconsistent, subjective, and prone to err. Thus, advanced technologies offer the potential to overcome those limitations and improve inspection quality. Method—This paper compares the performance of human operators with image processing, artificial intelligence software and 3D scanning for different types of inspection. The results were statistically analysed in terms of inspection accuracy, consistency and time. Additionally, other factors relevant to operations were assessed using a SWOT and weighted factor analysis. Results—The results show that operators’ performance in screen-based inspection tasks was superior to inspection software due to their strong cognitive abilities, decision-making capabilities, versatility and adaptability to changing conditions. In part-based inspection however, 3D scanning outperformed the operator while being significantly slower. Overall, the strength of technological systems lies in their consistency, availability and unbiasedness. Conclusions—The performance of inspection software should improve to be reliably used in blade inspection. While 3D scanning showed the best results, it is not always technically feasible (e.g., in a borescope inspection) nor economically viable. This work provides a list of evaluation criteria beyond solely inspection performance that could be considered when comparing different inspection systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
Funding
Christchurch Engine Centre
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Allen, J., and Marx, D. (1993, January 16–17). Maintenance Error Decision Aid Project (MEDA). Proceedings of the Eighth Federal Aviation Administration Meeting on Human Factors Issues in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection, Washington, DC, USA.
2. Analysis of trends in aviation maintenance risk: An empirical approach10.1016/j.ress.2012.06.003 ↗
3. Rankin, W.L., Shappell, S., and Wiegmann, D. (2003). Error and error reporting systems. Hum. Factors Guide Aviat. Maint. Insp., Available online: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/training_tools/media/hf_guide.pdf.
4. Reason, J., and Hobbs, A. (2017). Managing Maintenance Error: A Practical Guide, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315249926 ↗
5. Campbell, R.D., and Bagshaw, M. (2002). Human Performance and Limitations in Aviation.10.1002/9780470774472 ↗
6. Drury, C.G., and Watson, J. (2021, June 14). Good Practices in Visual Inspection, Available online: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/#HumanFactorsMaintenance.
7. Judgemental errors in aviation maintenance10.1007/s10111-019-00609-9 ↗
8. Shen, Z., Wan, X., Ye, F., Guan, X., and Liu, S. (2019, January 18–21). Deep Learning based Framework for Automatic Damage Detection in Aircraft Engine Borescope Inspection. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1109/ICCNC.2019.8685593 ↗
9. Aust, J., Mitrovic, A., and Pons, D. (2021). Assessment of the Effect of Cleanliness on the Visual Inspection of Aircraft Engine Blades: An Eye Tracking Study. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21186135 ↗
10. Aust, J., Pons, D., and Mitrovic, A. (2022). Evaluation of Influence Factors on the Visual Inspection Performance of Aircraft Engine Blades. Aerospace, 9.10.3390/aerospace9010018 ↗
11. Aust, J., and Pons, D. (2022). Assessment of Human Performance in Aircraft Engine Blade Inspection using Attribute Agreement Analysis. Safety.10.3390/safety8020023 ↗
12. Nickles, G., Him, H., Koenig, S., Gramopadhye, A., and Melloy, B. (2021, September 20). A Descriptive Model of Aircraft Inspection Activities, Available online: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/a_descriptive_model_of_aircraft_inspection_activities.pdf.
13. Aust, J., and Pons, D. (2019). Bowtie Methodology for Risk Analysis of Visual Borescope Inspection during Aircraft Engine Maintenance. Aerospace, 6.10.3390/aerospace6100110 ↗
14. Aust, J., and Pons, D. (2020). A Systematic Methodology for Developing Bowtie in Risk Assessment: Application to Borescope Inspection. Aerospace, 7.10.3390/aerospace7070086 ↗
15. Technik, L. (2019, November 02). Mobile Robot for Fuselage Inspection (MORFI) at MRO Europe. Available online: http://www.lufthansa-leos.com/press-releases-content/-/asset_publisher/8kbR/content/press-release-morfi-media/10165.
16. Development of a slender continuum robotic system for on-wing inspection/repair of gas turbine engines10.1016/j.rcim.2016.09.004 ↗
17. Teleoperated, In Situ Repair of an Aeroengine: Overcoming the Internet Latency Hurdle
18. Design, modelling and validation of a novel extra slender continuum robot for in-situ inspection and repair in aeroengine10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102054 ↗
19. Dong, X., Wang, M., Ahmad-Mohammad, A.-E.-K., Ba, W., Russo, M., Norton, A., Kell, J., and Axinte, D. (2021). Continuum robots collaborate for safe manipulation of high-temperature flame to enable repairs in extreme environments. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.10.1109/TMECH.2021.3138222 ↗
20. Warwick, G. (2019, November 02). Aircraft Inspection Drones Entering Service with Airline MROs. Available online: https://www.mro-network.com/technology/aircraft-inspection-drones-entering-service-airline-mros.
21. (2019, November 02). Donecle Automated Aicraft Inspections. Available online: https://www.donecle.com/.
22. Rapid thermal non-destructive testing of aircraft components10.1016/S1359-8368(00)00005-6 ↗
23. A Machine Vision Based Automatic Optical Inspection System for Measuring Drilling Quality of Printed Circuit Boards10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2631658 ↗
24. Rice, M., Li, L., Gu, Y., Wan, M., Lim, E., Feng, G., Ng, J., Jin-Li, M., and Babu, V. (2018, January 7). Automating the Visual Inspection of Aircraft. Proceedings of the Singapore Aerospace Technology and Engineering Conference (SATEC), Singapore.
25. Malekzadeh, T., Abdollahzadeh, M., Nejati, H., and Cheung, N.-M. (2017). Aircraft Fuselage Defect Detection using Deep Neural Networks. arXiv.
26. Jovančević, I., Orteu, J.-J., Sentenac, T., and Gilblas, R. (2015, January 3–5). Automated visual inspection of an airplane exterior. Proceedings of the Quality Control by Artificial Vision (QCAV), Le Creusot, France.10.1117/12.2182811 ↗
27. Parton, B. (2019, November 02). The Robots Helping Air New Zealand Keep Its Aircraft Safe. Available online: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-robots-helping-air-new-zealand-keep-its-aircraft-safe/W2XLB4UENXM3ENGR3ROV6LVBBI/.
28. Dogru, A., Bouarfa, S., Arizar, R., and Aydogan, R. (2020). Using Convolutional Neural Networks to Automate Aircraft Maintenance Visual Inspection. Aerospace, 7.10.20944/preprints202011.0527.v1 ↗
29. Heilemann, F., Dadashi, A., and Wicke, K. (2021). Eeloscope—Towards a Novel Endoscopic System Enabling Digital Aircraft Fuel Tank Maintenance. Aerospace, 8.10.3390/aerospace8050136 ↗
30. Jovančević, I., Arafat, A., Orteu, J., and Sentenac, T. (2016, January 12–16). Airplane tire inspection by image processing techniques. Proceedings of the 2016 5th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Bar, Montenegro.10.1109/MECO.2016.7525733 ↗
31. Baaran, J. (2009). Visual Inspection of Composite Structures, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
32. Roginski, A. (2018, December 09). Plane Safety Climbs with Smart Inspection System. Available online: https://www.sciencealert.com/plane-safety-climbs-with-smart-inspection-system.
33. Automatic detection of impact damage in carbon fiber composites using active thermography10.1016/j.infrared.2013.01.004 ↗
34. Andoga, R., Fozo, L., Schrötter, M., Češkovič, M., Szabo, S., Breda, R., and Schreiner, M. (2019). Intelligent Thermal Imaging-Based Diagnostics of Turbojet Engines. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9112253 ↗
35. A thermographic visual inspection system for crack detection in metal parts exploiting a robotic workcell10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.020 ↗
36. Automated Ultrasonic Testing of Billets for Gas-Turbine Engine Shafts10.1007/s11181-005-0142-5 ↗
37. Detecting cracks in aircraft engine fan blades using vibrothermography nondestructive evaluation10.1016/j.ress.2014.05.009 ↗
38. Damage detection and reconstruction algorithm in repairing compressor blade by direct metal deposition10.1007/s00170-017-1413-8 ↗
39. Tian, W., Pan, M., Luo, F., and Chen, D. (2008, January 17–21). Borescope Detection of Blade in Aeroengine Based on Image Recognition Technology. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Test Automation and Instrumentation (ISTAI), Beijing, China.
40. Assessment of Technical Condition Demonstrated by Gas Turbine Blades by Processing of Images for Their Surfaces/Oceny Stanu Łopatek Turbiny Gazowej Metodą Przetwarzania Obrazów Ich Powierzchni10.2478/jok-2013-0004 ↗
41. Blade Inspection System10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.423-426.2386 ↗
42. Ciampa, F., Mahmoodi, P., Pinto, F., and Meo, M. (2018). Recent Advances in Active Infrared Thermography for Non-Destructive Testing of Aerospace Components. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18020609 ↗
43. A robust and accurate automated registration method for turbine blade precision metrology10.1007/s00170-018-2173-9 ↗
44. Triangulating laser system for measurements and inspection of turbine blades10.1007/s11018-009-9347-7 ↗
45. Challenges Faced in Applying 3D Noncontact Metrology to Turbine Engine Blade Inspection
46. Common failures in gas turbine blades10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.07.004 ↗
47. Human and Machine Performance in an Inspection Task10.1177/001872088302500404 ↗
48. Performance vs. competence in human–machine comparisons10.1073/pnas.1905334117 ↗
49. Zieliński, S.K., Lee, H., Antoniuk, P., and Dadan, O. (2020). A Comparison of Human against Machine-Classification of Spatial Audio Scenes in Binaural Recordings of Music. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10175956 ↗
50. Lasocha, B., Pulyk, R., Brzegowy, P., Latacz, P., Slowik, A., and Popiela, T.J. (2020). Real-World Comparison of Human and Software Image Assessment in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients’ Qualification for Reperfusion Treatment. J. Clin. Med., 9.10.3390/jcm9113383 ↗
51. Whitworth, B., and Ryu, H. (2009). A comparison of human and computer information processing. Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking, IGI Global. [2nd ed.].10.4018/978-1-60566-014-1.ch032 ↗
52. Banerjee, S., Singh, P., and Bajpai, J. (2018). A Comparative Study on Decision-Making Capability between Human and Artificial Intelligence. Nature Inspired Computing, Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-6747-1_23 ↗
53. Human- versus Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2021.622364 ↗
54. Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D.L., España-Cubillo, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M.V., and Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011). Comparing Humans and AI Agents. Artificial General Intelligence, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-22887-2_13 ↗
55. Geirhos, R., Janssen, D., Schütt, H., Rauber, J., Bethge, M., and Wichmann, F. (2017). Comparing deep neural networks against humans: Object recognition when the signal gets weaker. arXiv.
56. CNN-Peaks: ChIP-Seq peak detection pipeline using convolutional neural networks that imitate human visual inspection10.1038/s41598-020-64655-4 ↗
57. Dodge, S., and Karam, L. (August, January 31). A Study and Comparison of Human and Deep Learning Recognition Performance Under Visual Distortions. Proceedings of the 2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/ICCCN.2017.8038465 ↗
58. A review of medical artificial intelligence10.1016/j.glohj.2020.04.002 ↗
59. Comparison of deep learning and human observer performance for detection and characterization of simulated lesions
60. Comparing humans and deep learning performance for grading AMD: A study in using universal deep features and transfer learning for automated AMD analysis10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.01.018 ↗
61. Kühl, N., Goutier, M., Baier, L., Wolff, C., and Martin, D. (2020). Human vs. supervised machine learning: Who learns patterns faster?. arXiv.
62. A Comparison of Machine Learning with Human Judgment10.1080/07421222.1993.11517977 ↗
63. A Comparison between Image-processing Approaches to Textile Inspection10.1080/00405000008659509 ↗
64. Comparison of human versus technological support to reduce domestic electricity consumption in France10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119780 ↗
65. Human and automatic face recognition: A comparison across image formats10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00186-9 ↗
66. Comparison of human and computer performance across face recognition experiments10.1016/j.imavis.2013.12.002 ↗
67. Comparing human and automatic face recognition performance10.1109/TSMCB.2007.907036 ↗
68. Comparing Human and Computational Models of Music Prediction10.2307/3680523 ↗
69. Comparison of Human and Machine Scoring of Essays: Differences by Gender, Ethnicity, and Country10.1080/08957347.2012.635502 ↗
70. Nooriafshar, M. (2010, January 2–5). A comparative study of human teacher and computer teacher. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Conference on Education: Internationalization or Globalization?, Osaka, Japan.
71. Remonda, A., Veas, E., and Luzhnica, G. (2021). Comparing driving behavior of humans and autonomous driving in a professional racing simulator. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0245320 ↗
72. Safer than the average human driver (who is less safe than me)? Examining a popular safety benchmark for self-driving cars10.1016/j.jsr.2019.02.002 ↗
73. The promise of artificial intelligence: A review of the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in healthcare10.1093/bmb/ldab016 ↗
74. Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., Secinaro, A., Muthurangu, V., and Biancone, P. (2021). The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A structured literature review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 21.10.1186/s12911-021-01488-9 ↗
75. Role of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Real-Life Clinical Practice: Systematic Review10.2196/25759 ↗
76. Young, K., Cook, J., Oduko, J., and Bosmans, H. (2006). Comparison of Software and Human Observers in Reading Images of the CDMAM Test Object to Assess Digital Mammography Systems, SPIE.10.1117/12.653296 ↗
77. Manual, Hybrid and Automated Inspection Literature and Current Research10.1108/09576069310023838 ↗
78. Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data—Evolution, challenges and research agenda10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021 ↗
79. Artificial intelligence: A survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends
80. Wound Measurement Techniques: Comparing the Use of Ruler Method, 2D Imaging and 3D Scanner
81. Comparison of 3D scanning versus traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for the fabrication of orthoses: A systematic review10.1186/s13047-020-00442-8 ↗
82. Rumbo-Rodríguez, L., Sánchez-SanSegundo, M., Ferrer-Cascales, R., García-D’Urso, N., Hurtado-Sánchez, J.A., and Zaragoza-Martí, A. (2021). Comparison of Body Scanner and Manual Anthropometric Measurements of Body Shape: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18126213 ↗
83. Repeatability of the human eye compared to an intraoral scanner in dental shade matching10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02100 ↗
84. Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review10.1155/2020/8854204 ↗
85. A comparison between manual and hybrid methods in parts inspection10.1108/09576069810238709 ↗
86. Khasawneh, M., Bowling, S., Kaewkuekool, S., and Melloy, B. (2002). Measurement of Trust in Hybrid Inspection Systems: Review and Evaluation of Current Methodologies and Future Approach. IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings, Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).
87. Aust, J., Mitrovic, A., and Pons, D. (2021). Comparison of Visual and Visual–Tactile Inspection of Aircraft Engine Blades. Aerospace, 8.10.3390/aerospace8110313 ↗
88. Aust, J., Shankland, S., Pons, D., Mukundan, R., and Mitrovic, A. (2021). Automated Defect Detection and Decision-Support in Gas Turbine Blade Inspection. Aerospace, 8.10.3390/aerospace8020030 ↗
89. GOM (2021, December 11). Quality starts with a Q. Available online: https://www.gom.com/en/products/3d-scanning/atos-q.
90. Mitsa, T. (2021, January 10). How Do You Know You Have Enough Training Data?. Available online: https://towardsdatascience.com/how-do-you-know-you-have-enough-training-data-ad9b1fd679ee.
91. Sample-Size Determination Methodologies for Machine Learning in Medical Imaging Research: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.carj.2019.06.002 ↗
92. Evaluating the Effect of Dataset Size on Predictive Model Using Supervised Learning Technique
93. Warden, P. (2021, January 10). How Many Images Do You Need to Train a Neural Network?. Available online: https://petewarden.com/2017/12/14/how-many-images-do-you-need-to-train-a-neural-network/.
94. Application of Wavelet Transform in Image Processing in Aviation Engine Damage10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.347-350.3576 ↗
95. A Comparison of the Outputs of 3D Scanners10.1016/j.proeng.2014.03.004 ↗
96. GOM (2021, December 11). Airfoil Inspection. Available online: https://www.gom-inspect.com/en/overview.php.
97. Saaty, T.L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process?. Mathematical Models for Decision Support, Springer.10.13033/isahp.y1988.042 ↗
98. Evaluation of best system performance: Human, automated, and hybrid inspection systems10.1002/hfm.10031 ↗
99. Mital, D.P., and Teoh, E.K. (November, January 28). Computer based wafer inspection system. Proceedings of the Proceedings IECON ‘91: 1991 International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control and Instrumentation, Kobe, Japan.
100. Artificial intelligence and human decision making10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00378-5 ↗