--- title: Weather & Aviation Mission Feasibility Analysis task_categories: - tabular-classification language: - en tags: - weather - aviation - EDA - mission-feasibility - helicopter size_categories: - 10K A decade of atmospheric data analyzed to determine the environmental thresholds that dictate helicopter mission suitability β€” bridging meteorology and aviation safety. ## 🎬 Video Presentation | Dataset | Period | Rows | Features | Questions | |---|---|---|---|---| | Szeged Weather Β· Kaggle | 2006–2016 | 96,453 | 12 | 5 | --- ## 🎯 Main Objective **To analyze to what extent atmospheric variables β€” humidity, altimeter pressure, and wind speed β€” can evaluate the suitability of environmental conditions for helicopter flight.** This project focuses exclusively on hours with active weather conditions. There are no clear or sunny baseline days in the dataset β€” every row represents a moment where weather played a role. The engineered `Mission_Status` variable defines, based on standard aviation thresholds, whether conditions on any given hour were safe enough to fly. The personal motivation: as a helicopter operator serving in the reserves, multiple missions have been cancelled mid-flight due to weather. A data-driven pre-flight weather assessment framework could save time, manpower, and allow missions to be replanned rather than abandoned. ### Mission Status Thresholds | Status | Condition | |---|---| | βœ… **Operational** | Visibility > 4 km **AND** Wind Speed < 45 km/h | | ❌ **Non-Operational** | Any breach of the above thresholds | --- ## πŸ“¦ Dataset Description **Source:** [Weather in Szeged 2006–2016](https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/muthuj7/weather-dataset) β€” Kaggle **Size:** 96,453 rows Β· 12 features ### Features **Numeric:** Wind Speed (km/h), Visibility (km), Temperature (C), Apparent Temperature (C), Humidity, Pressure (millibars), Wind Bearing (degrees) **Categorical:** Summary, Precip Type, Formatted Date **Engineered:** `Mission_Status` β€” Operational / Non-Operational --- ## 🧹 Data Cleaning | Step | Action | Result | |---|---|---| | 1 | Date parsing | Converted to UTC datetime | | 2 | Duplicate removal | 24 rows removed β†’ 96,429 remaining | | 3 | Pressure sensor failures | 1,288 zeros (1.34%) replaced with column median | | 4 | Missing Precipitation Type | 517 rows (0.54%) dropped | | 5 | Redundant columns | `Loud Cover` (zero variance) and `Daily Summary` dropped | | 6 | Humidity validity | All values confirmed in [0, 1] β€” no action needed | | 7 | Visibility ceiling | All values ≀ 16.1 km confirmed β€” no action needed | | 8 | Fog/Visibility contradiction | 1,939 rows relabeled from "Foggy" β†’ "Partly Cloudy" where visibility > 2.5 km | > **Note:** All numeric columns had zero NaN values (confirmed via `df.info()`). No general median-fill was required β€” only the targeted pressure zero replacement above. --- ## πŸ“Š Outlier Detection & Handling Distribution shape was checked before selecting any outlier method β€” IQR assumes symmetry and fails on skewed variables. ![Distribution Shape Check](distribution_check.png) | Column Group | Method | Decision | |---|---|---| | Temperature, Apparent Temp, Pressure | IQR (symmetric) | **Keep** β€” real weather extremes | | Wind Speed, Visibility, Humidity | 1st–99th percentile (skewed) | **Keep** β€” operationally critical events | | Wind Bearing | None (circular variable) | **Keep** β€” 0Β° and 360Β° are the same direction; IQR/percentiles fail on circular data | **Overall decision: Keep all outliers.** In aviation weather analysis, extreme readings are not errors β€” they are the most operationally significant events in the dataset. --- ## βš–οΈ Class Balance | Class | Count | Percentage | |---|---|---| | βœ… Operational | 8,998 | 90.0% | | ❌ Non-Operational | 1,002 | 10.0% | **Imbalance ratio: 8.98:1** β€” A naive model predicting "Operational" every time would score 90% accuracy while being completely useless. Future models should use **F1-score or precision-recall**, not raw accuracy. --- ## πŸ”₯ Correlation Analysis ![Correlation Heatmap](correlation_heatmap.png) **Key correlations:** - Humidity ↔ Visibility: **–0.37** (negative β€” high humidity predicts low visibility) - Wind Speed ↔ Visibility: **+0.10** (near-zero β€” they are **independent** risk factors) - Temperature ↔ Apparent Temperature: **+0.99** (expected β€” nearly identical variables) --- ## πŸ”¬ Research Questions & Findings --- ### Q1 Β· The Fog Trap **Research Question:** To what extent does humidity serve as an indicator for non-operational mission status based on visibility? ![Humidity vs Visibility](q1_humidity_visibility.png) *Left: Scatter plot of Humidity vs. Visibility with 4 km safety threshold Β· Right: KDE density of humidity by Mission Status* **Finding:** A "Fog Trap" was identified at **90% humidity**. As humidity approaches 100%, visibility consistently crashes below the 4 km safety threshold β€” making humidity a primary **leading indicator** of mission grounding before conditions become critical. --- ### Q2 Β· Atmospheric Pressure Stability **Research Question:** Does atmospheric pressure stability vary between operational and non-operational mission statuses? ![Pressure Stability](q2_pressure_stability.png) *Left: Box plot β€” pressure spread by mission status Β· Right: Overlaid pressure distributions by mission status* **Finding:** Non-operational missions show **higher pressure volatility** (std: 9.78 vs 7.29 for operational). Rapid pressure drops correspond to storm systems; high-pressure outliers indicate anticyclonic conditions. Pressure instability is a meaningful β€” if subtle β€” indicator of unsafe conditions. --- ### Q3 Β· The Wind Speed Ceiling **Research Question:** To what extent can extreme wind speed variations predict a transition from operational to non-operational mission status? ![Wind Speed Violin](q3_wind_violin.png) ![Wind Speed Histogram](q3_wind_histogram.png) *Left: Violin plot β€” wind speed by mission status Β· Right: Full dataset wind speed distribution* **Finding:** A hard ceiling exists at **45 km/h** β€” beyond this, 100% of missions are Non-Operational. However, most non-operational events occur below 20 km/h, confirming **visibility is the dominant grounding factor**, not wind. Wind and visibility are independent (correlation: +0.10) β€” both must be monitored separately. --- ### Q4 Β· Categorical Weather Hazards **Research Question:** To what extent does categorical weather data (Precipitation Type) serve as a reliable indicator for non-operational mission status? ![Precipitation Risk](q4_precipitation.png) *Left: Mission count by precipitation type Β· Right: Proportional grounding risk (%) per type* **Finding:** While **Rain** is the most frequent hazard in absolute numbers, **Snow** carries a ~40% higher proportional grounding risk. Most common Non-Operational weather: Foggy. Most common Operational weather: Partly Cloudy. Snow is a disproportionate predictor despite lower frequency. --- ### Q5 Β· Seasonal Risk Patterns **Research Question:** Does the risk of mission grounding follow a predictable seasonal pattern throughout the year? ![Seasonal Risk](q5_seasonal.png) *Left: Monthly grounding risk % (line chart) Β· Right: Normalized stacked bar β€” Operational vs. Non-Operational ratio by month* **Finding:** The data reveals a dramatic **U-shaped seasonal curve**. January grounding rate: ~27%. December: highest risk. July: lowest risk. Winter missions are roughly **30Γ— more likely** to be Non-Operational than summer missions β€” enabling data-driven strategic fleet planning. --- ## πŸ’‘ Key Insights | Insight | Detail | |---|---| | πŸ’¨ **Wind & Visibility are independent** | Near-zero correlation β€” either alone can ground a mission. Monitor both separately. | | πŸ’§ **Humidity is an early warning signal** | Above 90%, visibility reliably drops below 4 km. Predict groundings before they happen. | | ❄️ **Snow is disproportionately dangerous** | ~40% higher grounding risk than rain despite lower frequency. | | πŸ“… **Seasonality is predictable** | December/January are ~30Γ— riskier than July. Plan resources accordingly. | --- ## ⚠️ Limitations - `Mission_Status` is **rule-based**, not naturally observed β€” engineered from predefined thresholds that may not capture all real-world operational nuance. - Results reflect **associations**, not causal relationships. - The **90/10 class imbalance** means future classifiers need careful metric selection (F1, precision-recall) and should consider resampling techniques. - Some variables may be **indirectly related** through confounders β€” seasonality drives both temperature and humidity, which in turn influence visibility. --- ## πŸ“ Conclusion This analysis demonstrates that aviation mission feasibility is strongly governed by environmental conditions. Through systematic data cleaning, distribution-aware outlier analysis, feature engineering, and five focused research questions, meaningful and actionable insights were derived from raw weather data. Wind speed and visibility define hard safety boundaries; humidity serves as an early warning signal; pressure instability flags turbulent conditions; snow is a disproportionate categorical risk; and seasonality enables proactive operational planning. Together, these findings form a robust data-driven foundation for aviation safety decision-making. --- *Weather in Szeged 2006–2016 Β· Kaggle Dataset Β· Python Β· Pandas Β· Matplotlib Β· Seaborn*