Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 33rd Annual...

Federal AviationAdministrationVisual Guidance

Research and Development

Presented to: 33rd Annual Eastern Region Airport Conference

By: Donald Gallagher, Program Manager

Date: March 2010

Federal AviationAdministration

2

Airport Safety Technology R&D

Wildlife Hazard Mitigation ProgramHazards Management, Bird Detection Radar

Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Program (ARFF)Agents, Vehicles

New Large Aircraft Program (NLA)Airport Issues Concerning NLA

Airport Design ProgramAirport Design

Airport Planning ProgramTerminal Design Guidelines, Multimodal Access

Airport Surface Operations ProgramRunway Friction, Soft Ground Arrestor System, Runway Deicing

Visual Guidance ProgramLighting, Marking, Signing


3

Phasing out Incandescent Lamps

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

– Begins to phases out incandescent and halogen incandescent lamps in 2012

– Department of Energy (DOE) within five years is mandated to create an LED replacement for the PAR Type 38 halogen light

– Probably will not be compatible with MALSR voltage levels

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is available at: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf


4

FAALED Working Group

Lighting Systems Group, AJW-46

Approach Lighting Systems

Airport EngineeringDivision, AAS-100

Airport Lighting

Airport SafetyTechnology, AJP-6311

Visual Guidance, R&D


5

Issues with Implementing LED Technology

Claim: LEDs can not be seen as well as Incandescent lights in low visibility?

True or False?

FALSE!Any source with the same Candela value can

be seen the same in a given visibility.

Except…


6

Perceived Brightness

There is a quantifiable “Brightness/Luminance” (B/L) conversion factor with LEDs.

• Conversion to Incandescent:– Blue B/L = 1.4– White B/L = 1.6– Green B/L = 1.4

• However, light scattered by Fog can desaturate LED signal colors reducing or eliminating the brightness advantage.


7


Incandescent & LED Lights at same intensity observed from 100 feet.

Observers noted that the Incandescent lost the GREEN appearance early.


8


Incandescent & LED Lights at same intensity observed from 100 feet.

LED light still has GREEN appearance.


9

LED Applications IssuesLED Applications Issues Chromaticity Boundary for Aviation White

– Preliminary results for Aviation White Chromaticity Boundary Changes:

• Yellow boundary could be moved from x=.540 to .440 which will help limit confusion between white and yellow signal colors.

• Blue boundary could be moved from x=.350 to .320 which will allow a more bluish white (CCT up to 6000 Kelvin) while not contributing to confusion between white and blue signal colors.

• To match CIE S004 for LED binning:

• Green boundary y=0.150 + .640x to 0.150 + .643x.

• Purple boundary y=0.150 + .750x to 0.150 + .757x.

.


10

Shift

Shift

Shift


11

LED Applications IssuesLED Applications Issues

Does the “narrow spectral band” of LED impact pilots with certain types of color deficient vision?

• CIVIL AEROSPACE MEDICAL INSTITUTE (CAMI) and Airport Safety Technology R&D (AJP-6311) are currently conducting an evaluation on this issue sponsored by the Lighting Systems Office, AJW-46 and Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1


12

Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT)

A team of FAA and Industry experts formed to design an Airport Lighting Infrastructure to take full advantage of new lighting technologies.


13


Goals • A system that promotes interoperability.

• Reduced life cycle cost without dependence upon a single source.

• A standards-based, robust architecture airfield lighting system.


14


Held 4TH meeting in Atlantic City Nov. 2008.

• Circuits considered so far:

– 450 V, AC Parallel Circuit

– 1.4 Amp, DC Series Circuit

– 2.8 Amp, AC Series Circuit

– PWM, DC Series Circuit


Elevated Runway Guard Lights


16

Minimum intensity for Incandescent Runway Guard Lights (RGL)

• Prior to 1996, the minimum luminous intensity requirement was 600 cd– Increased to 3000 cd based on results from 1996 study

• Flash rate was also increased from 30 cycles per minute to 45-50 cycles per minute– Study looked at 30, 48 & 60 flashes per minute


17

Elevated Runway Guard Light Evaluation (ERGL)

Laboratory study completed 6/08.– Scope:

• Min. intensity for Incandescent Lamps and LEDs

• Recommendations for flash frequency for LED system

• Recommendations for duty cycle for LED system

• Impact of waveform profile shape for LED system


18

FindingsFindings

It is not recommended that the current incandescent-based ERGL specification be changed.

LED ERGL intensities could be reduced.


19

RecommendationsRecommendations

These values can be obtained by a combination of a selecting a square wave signal, flash rate, and on-time percentage.

The best flash rates & on-time percentages were:1.25 Hz @ 70% or 2.50 Hz @ 30%

LED ERGL

Step

Current Standard

Recommended Value

Step 3 (100%) 3000 cd 451-1128 cd

Step 1 (10%) 300 cd 68-113 cd


20

Moving Forward

Prototype units are be built for field testing with the following features:

1. A square wave signal.

2. Selectable flash rates & on-time percentages of 1.25 Hz @ 70% and 2.50 Hz @ 30%.

3. 1,000 candela.

Field testing to begin Spring 2010.


Markings


22

Retro-reflective Media for Marking MaterialsRetro-reflective Media for Marking Materials

3 Tasks

1. Ground based testing of Type I, III, IV approved beads and 2 new beads:A. Bead with dry-performing (1.7 IOR) and wet

performing (2.3 IOR) microcrystalline ceramic beads embedded on a center core.

B. Bead with Premium (1.9 IOR) glass beads and a solid glass bead core.

2. Completed 12/09.


23


3 Tasks (con’t)

2. Airborne test to determine the relative conspicuity of Type I and Type III retro-reflective beads. - Completed 12/09.

3. Airborne test of Type I and Type III beads installed side by side for direct comparison of conspicuity. Completed 12/09.


24

Retro-reflective Media for Marking MaterialsRetro-reflective Media for Marking Materials Findings – Ground Based

1. All retro reflective beads tested proved suitable for use on aged Hot Mix Asphalt and aged Portland Cement Concrete.

2. Proposed new beads A and B proved suitable on aged Hot Mix Asphalt and aged Portland Cement Concrete.

3. Paint marking materials and included beads do not perform well on new Hot Mix Asphalt as airports typically can not afford to wait the appropriate curing time.


25


Findings – Airborne

1. The majority of subjects involved in the tests at both ACY and SAV stated they do not use runway markings as a visual cue on approach to the runway at night.

2. The predominate visual cues they focus on during the approach to a runway are the runway lights.

3. All but one of the subjects reported no difference in ease of detection between Type I and Type III beaded markings.


26

Automatic Switching technologies for Rwy Automatic Switching technologies for Rwy Centerline Lights in a Displaced ThresholdCenterline Lights in a Displaced Threshold

• The FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5340-30D “Design and Installation details for Airport Visual Aids” states:

– “For displaced threshold areas over 700 feet (100m) in length and used for takeoffs, the centerline lights in the displaced area are circuited separately from the centerline lights in the non-displaced runway area to permit turning “off” the centerline lights in the displaced area during landing operations.”

• Teterboro Airport has this issue on both ends of runway 1/19.

• Air Traffic Control are indisposed to operating the interlock switch that manually controls the centerline lights.


27

Project ObjectivesProject Objectives

• Evaluate and determine the feasibility of using varied surveillance technologies and safety logic to automate the activation/deactivation of Runway Centerline Lighting in a displaced threshold to support takeoff/landing operations.

• Install and optimize the preferred technology at Teterboro Airport (TEB)


28

Proposed Solution ArchitectureProposed Solution Architecture

StateMachine

StateMachine

Light Activation Logic

Light Activation Logic

SurveillanceDevice

SurveillanceDevice

Evaluation

Display

Field Lighting System

Field Lighting System

Surveillance of the area of interest is derived from a surveillance device.

Operational state of the traffic is estimated by the state machine.

Light activation logic determines if centerline lights should be activated.

Traffic and light states are shown on evaluation display.

Light commands are sent to field lighting system.


29

General AviationGeneral Aviation

For non-part 139 airports Lighting small airports that do not qualify

for AIP funds.

– “COMMUNITY SERVICE AIRPORT LIGHTING HANDBOOK” posted on Illuminating Engineering Societies Aviation Lighting Committee's (IESALC) web site.

http://iesalc.org/subcommittees_genaviation.html


Signs


31

Holding Position Signs for Runway Approach Areas

ATO is in the process of revising their current procedure, which does not require pilots to obtain a specific clearance to cross these holding positions.

In the revised procedures Pilots will now be required to obtain specific clearance to pass any holding position.


32


The RSO has identified a potential risk of runway incursions due to pilot confusion at the holding position marking and signs for a runway approach.

ATO would like to retain their current practice -therefore a different signage and/or marking may be required.


33



34

15 - APCH

Standard Mandatory Sign

When Hold is Required


35

15 - APCH

Sign changes Color

When Hold is Not Required


36

Non-Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Non-Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Components on Performance of Certified OEM Components on Performance of Certified OEM Lighting SystemsLighting Systems

Scope of Work:

• Purchase certified OEM lighting devices and non-OEM replacement components and subject the devices to certification tests.

• Phase I: Individual components replaced. – Completion 3/10.

• Phase II: Components replaced in combination. – Completion 7/10.


37

Low-Cost Ground Surveillance Low-Cost Ground Surveillance Specification DevelopmentSpecification Development


38

The LCGS Project Scope

• Develop FAA functional and operational standards for LCGS implementation that would support AIP eligibility for this system.

• Provide the foundational capability to support other runway safety improvements (e.g. RWSL, dynamic stop bar automation, …).

• Develop a cost-benefits case for the use of Low Cost Ground Surveillance Systems for airport operations.

MissionTo enhance airport operations by improving safety, shared situational awareness &

environmental impact, reducing airport operating costs and improving capacity and resource utilization


39

LCGS Challenge

• Of over 460 towered airports in the NAS only 35 of the larger airports have or are slated to receive comprehensive surface surveillance systems (i.e. ASDE-X).

• Many of the excluded small to mid-sized airports have considerable surveillance needs that are not being met.

– Surveillance capacity is limited to voice reporting and field of view

• Many of today’s airports struggle with the challenge of improving operational efficiency and maximizing revenue growth opportunities.


40

LCGS High Level Concept

• The currently developed LCGS solution is centered on the use of a Surface Movement Radar (SMR) to monitor ground traffic movements.

• SMR inherently presents some deficiencies (loss of target due to masking, plot clutter due to rain or grass reflection, flight label overlap, etc.) which renders the surveillance function less effective and could result in a lack of confidence in the system.

• SMR technology is characterized by high maintenance and lifecycle costs.


41

LCGS High Level Concept• Researching existing technology the framework

recommended for an LCGS system is the coupling of a network of non-cooperative (i.e. optical and thermal devices) sensors and a Mode S multilateration system.

• This will provide the most flexible and modular framework for the smaller airports as multilateration systems can be easily adapted to smaller coverage areas with complex layouts and no vertical extension.

• This network design would provide several levels of redundancy which would translate into continuous operational availability and coverage.


42

Status• Concluded final preliminary study on strengths, limitations and

cost effectiveness of prospective systems.

• Conducting site visits to deployment locations of prospective systems.

• Work in concert with the Advanced Technologies Development & Prototyping Group (AJP-67) at the three approved test sites of San Jose Airport (SJC), Long Beach Airport (LGB) and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT).

- Test candidate systems against predefined functional

requirements. - Evaluate operational feasibility of candidate systems.


43

Ground Vehicle Navigation Ground Vehicle Navigation System System

Specification DevelopmentSpecification Development


44

Background

Scope– Evaluate current technology, including by not

necessarily limited to, GPS navigation devices for use in preventing runway incursions.


45

Objectives

• Provide recommendations for criteria for the design and operation of airport vehicle navigation systems defining both mandatory and optional features.

• Provide cost estimates for the procurement of equipment.


46


47

Visual Display – “Brick”


48

Visual Display - Laptop


49

Group Brainstorm Session

System CAN NOT… Give directions• ATC • Personal Airport Familiarization

Situational Awareness Tool


50

Vertical Flight Vertical Flight

Touchdown & Lift Off (TLOF) area

Final Approach & TakeOff (FATO) area

Heliport Approach Lighting System (HALS) for IMC

Heliport Instrument Landing System (HILS) for IMC

Heliport Approach Path Indicator (CHAPI)

Current FacilityCurrent Facility


51

Vertical FlightVertical Flight

• Conducting photometric tests on products being sold as heliport perimeter lights.– Intensity– Beam spread– Chromaticity

• Currently conducting flight test• To determine if a suitable candidate exists.


52

Site SelectedSite Selected

Cape May County Airport( KWWD)

Cape May County Airport

Delaware River Bay Authority


53

Site Selected



Runway 10/28 - 4,998 x 150 ft.

Runway 1/19 - 4,998 x 150 ft.


54

New Visual Guidance Technology Test Bed Will be conducted in three phases funded

over a three year period.

• Phase 1:– To be Completed:

• Layout plan.• Schedule of installation.• Begin refurbishment of unused runway pavement.• Begin electrical infrastructure installation.

– Currently developing an MOA with the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) for the use of Cape May Airport.


55

Questions or Comments?

[email protected] - Program Manager

[email protected] - Project Manager



FAA Technical Center

Airport Safety Technology R&D Section

AJP-6311, AAR-411, Building 296

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405

www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov

Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 33rd Annual...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 33rd Annual...