Ground monitoring becomes more useful when aircraft state, communication condition, time, and location are interpreted together rather than as independent streams. This paper presents an integrated ground-monitoring workflow that combines historical flight-telemetry visualization with a causal multi-horizon machine-learning pipeline for predicting future wireless-link change. The main prediction target is future change in signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (ΔSINR) at horizons of 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 s. The quantitative study uses three physical flight records drawn from two public AERPAW measurement sources: two Ericsson 5G NSA traces at yaw orientations of 45° and 315°, and one Lake Wheeler Android-based 4G LTE/5G NR trace. The records contain LTE/NR radio indicators, throughput, position, altitude, cell information, and motion/orientation fields, with 2376 raw observations across the three physical flights. The processing uses a causal 1-s grid, flight-isolated temporal features, chronological evaluation with a horizon-sized purge, training only mutual-information feature selection, and a persistence baseline. Three classical regressors—HistGradientBoosting (HGB), Random Forest, and Extra Trees—are evaluated. An engineering link-quality index (LQI) in the range 0–100 summarizes 12 available cellular and throughput indicators. At the predeclared 30-s operating point, HGB obtains a ΔSINR MAE of 3.110 dB versus 3.669 dB for persistence, a 15.23% reduction. A separate NASA Tail-654 ground-monitoring implementation replays a historical MATLAB flight record, presents map-based trajectory and primary telemetry, and applies phase-aware statistical anomaly monitoring using robust envelopes, eight-second persistence, and recovery hysteresis. The NASA component is kept experimentally separate from the wireless-link prediction metrics. The resulting system connects telemetry observability with forward-looking communication-state information while preserving a strict separation between information available at prediction time and future observations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. Aswini and Prof. S. Varadarajan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: