Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 32nd Annual...

Federal AviationAdministrationVisual Guidance

Research and Development

Presented to: 32nd Annual Eastern Region Airport Conference

By: Donald Gallagher, Program Manager & Renee Williams, Project Manager

Date: March 4, 2009

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

Visual Guidance

Lighting

Signs

Markings


4

Visual Guidance

LED Implementation Issues


5

Lighting Technologies

Light Emitting Diodes (LED)

• Standard Incandescent lights have been around for over 60 years.

• LEDs while not new, have finally achieved intensity levels to be considered for use on airports.

• NOT just another “light bulb” that can plug and play!


6

Issues with Implementing LED Technology

ICAO Visual Aids Working Group formed a Sub-Group on LED implementation on Aerodromes

– Rapporteur: Alvin Logan

Airport Safety Technology R&D hosted first meeting at the FAA Technical Center in April 2006.

Sub-Group identified 11 issues to be resolved.


7

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


8

Lighting Technologies

FAA LED Working Group:

• Consolidated into 8 Issues concerning the adoption of LED for use on Aerodromes.


9


Consolidated to 8 issues:

1. How will this technology interact if interspersed with standard incandescent lights?

2. How will this technology interact with present airport systems?

3. What are the impacts of intensity changes with LEDs?

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

5. What is the impact of the reduced heat signature on the lens of LED fixtures with respect to lens contamination due to environmental conditions?

6. Can LEDs be seen on an enhanced vision display?

7. Are current photometric tests for incandescent lights valid for LEDs?

8. How is the operational failure of LED fixtures identified?


10

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


11


Today’s Topic

1. How will this technology interact if interspersed with standard incandescent lights?

2. How will this technology interact with present airport systems?

3. What are the impacts of intensity changes with LEDs?

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

5. What is the impact of the reduced heat signature on the lens of LED fixtures with respect to lens contamination due to environmental conditions?

6. Can LEDs be seen on an enhanced vision display?7. Are current photometric tests for incandescent lights valid for LEDs?

8. How is the operational failure of LED fixtures identified?


12

Some Issues with Implementing LED Technology

Incandescent lamps generally produce energy as a small amount of light and a large amount of heat (IR).

LEDs being a more efficient light source, produce more light compared to very little IR and not nearly enough to be detected by the EFVS systems currently certified.


13

Some Issues with Implementing LED Technology

Enhanced Flight Vision systems (EFVS) utilize the wasted energy in the form of IR generated by current incandescent lamps.

Enables incandescent signal lights to be detected at further distances than is possible by the unaided eye under certain weather conditions such as fog and snow.

Utilizing these systems, aircraft so equipped, may see the required cues (Approach Lights) to continue their approach at CAT I DH (200ft) when these lights are not visible to the human eye down to 100ft.

• This can potentially increase capacity at some airports.


14

• Airport Safety Technology R&D (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Lighting Research Center (LRC))

• Lighting Systems Group (Lighting Innovations Corp. (LIC))

• Asked them to Consider:

– IR Spectral Ranges

– Atmospheric Effects (1.3 - 1.8 Microns and 3.4 - 4.2 Microns)

– Sensor Sensitivity

– Incandescent vs. LED Signal Lights

– Solid state and low power IR Emitters

• Laser Diodes

• Photonic Crystals

• Kanthal Filaments

LED/IR Research Projects


15

• Laser Diodes ~$45 per device, minimum 5 per fixture– 1.3 – 1.5 Microns

• Monochromatic – May need several different wavelengths to provide adequate energy.

• Available in milliwatts to tens of watts.• Higher wattage devices may need cooling.• Narrow beam.• Need several in an array.• Lensing and diffusing is needed.

• Photonic Crystals ~$120 per device, minimum 8 per fixture– 3 – 5 Microns and 8 – 12 Microns

• Available in milliwatts.• Need an array to provide necessary output.• Lensing is needed.

• Kanthal Filaments ~$90 per device, minimum 5 per fixture– Broadband sources centered near 2.4 Microns

• Available in milliwatts.• Need several in an array.• Lensing is needed.

Infrared Devices


16

• Conclusions

– No solid state IR sources can replicate the IR produced by an incandescent lamp.

– EFVS camera sensitivity does not match the available solid state IR emitters.

– Increasing IR output negates cost benefit of LED Lamps.

– Decreases LED fixture reliability.

– Increase power consumption.

LED/IR Research Projects


17

EFVS Systems Approach

• IR has never been a requirement for the lighting systems used to provide visual cues during for approach and maneuvering on the airport surface after landing.

• IR is currently a requirement for the EFVS operations.

• EFVS Concept of Operations should include all of the Runway Environment.

• Incorporate all Airport and Approach Lighting into the Systems Approach.


18

Recommended Action

• Determine the minimum performance for EFVS with respect to IR requirements.

• Work with the EFVS manufacturers to flight test an IR based

system that is independent of the visual system at the William J. Hughes Technical Center.

• Include Aircraft equipment, as well as, ground based IR emitter requirements in a EFVS Advisory Circular.

• Work with industry to develop other types of sensors not requiring IR.


19

May not need emitters at every light position

FAA MALSR

Lighting System

Runway Lighting

Possible

Configuration

IR Emitters only


20

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.


21


Goals

• A system that promotes interoperability.

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

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


22


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

Renee Williams


24

ELEVATED RUNWAY GUARD LIGHT

• Most major airports implement Runway Guard Lights.– As a supplemental device used in conjunction with

hold position markings and signs.– Due to operations under low visibility conditions– Hard-wired Runway Guard Lights

• Require Infrastructure

– What about General Aviation (GA) airports?


25

Elevated Runway Guard Lights

• General Aviation Airports– “Hot Spots”

• Pilots and drivers crossing the active runway unauthorized creating a runway incursion.

– Problem with implementing Runway Guard lights is cost

– New Technology


26

Elevated Runway Guard Light

– A prototype Solar-powered light emitting diode (LED) runway guard light unit was developed.

• FAA’s L-804 Lamp Housing • Solar Panel

– Initial evaluations were implemented at the Tech Center

• 24/7 Testing• Different climate conditions

– Field Testing• Dupage Airport, Chicago Installed May 2008• Provo Airport, Provo, UT Installed May 2008


27

Dupage Airport Installation


28



29



30

Provo Airport Installation


31

Elevated Runway Guard Light

• NEXT STEP– Collect pilot data (Surveys)– Monitor systems at both airports– Evaluation completed June 2009


32

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


33

Elevated Runway Guard Light Evaluation (ERGL)

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – Lighting Research Center Study•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


34

Incandescent specifications• Constant-current

– 6.6 A (100%)– 5.5 A (30%)– 4.8 A (10%)

• Weather– Clear day– Clear night

• Fog– Cat I: 2400 RVR to

1800 RVR – Cat II: 1800 RVR to

1200 RVR – Cat IIIa: 1200 RVR to

700 RVR – Cat IIIb: 700 RVR to

300 RVR

100 W (PK30D) 100 W (PK30D) quartzquartz

halogen lampshalogen lampsAC 150/5345-46C (2006)AC 150/5345-46C (2006)


35

Duty Cycle

Waveform Shape

Flash RateIntensity

Reference Incandescent RGL

More Conspicuous

Identifiable as an RGL

Area of Interest

Experimental protocol


36

Experimental outline

• Phase 1 – Identify minimum luminous intensity for incandescent RGL across all ambient conditions

• Phase 2 – Determine the optimum level for each variable (frequency, duty cycle, waveform, ambient condition)

• Phase 3 – Apply decreasing levels of intensity for each promising combination of variables at each ambient condition


37

Experimental set-up

40:1 scaled apparatus– Based on using single 5mm LED to be equivalent

to an 8-inch signal

– Pilot eye height: 28 ft → 8.4 in– Viewing distance: 158 ft → 47.5 in– Taxiway width: 100 ft → 30 in– RGL from taxiway edge: 17 ft → 5.1 in


38

Test Apparatus

Foggy day setupFoggy day setup

Subject viewSubject view


39

Subject characterization

• Ten subjects for each trial

• Subject pool was fairly consistent across all trials

• Age range: 22 – 62

• Visual acuity (binocular)Avg: 20/25 Minimum: 20/50

• All subjects demonstrated normal color vision

n=8

n=2


40

Technology-neutral specification

Results indicate that square waveform is more conspicuous than triangle or incandescent waveform

Intensity required will be based on combination of other factors (e.g., duty cycle and frequency combination)

LEDs can be “tuned” to offer these effective combinations (and energy savings) but other technologies may evolve to offer the same effectiveness


41

FindingsFindings

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

LED ERGL intensities could be reduced.


42

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


43

Moving Forward

Field study is needed to validate results before final recommendations are made.


Vertical Flight

Renee Williams


45

Vertical Flight

• BACKGROUND– Operations at heliports have increased substantially

with the increase in Point-in-Space approaches to heliports.

– The full benefits of operations to heliports can only be achieved if definitive guidance is provided on the issue of heliport visual cues.

– Currently the Advisory Circular for Heliport is deficient in defining visual cues.


46

Vertical Flight

• AC 150/5390-2B Heliport Design Guide


47

Vertical Flight

• Deficiencies• Standard for Perimeter Lights

– The Heliport Design Guide States

» “Flush green lights should define the TLOF perimeter”

» “Green lights should define the perimeter of the load bearing FATO”

– Doesn’t specify type of Fixture


48

Vertical Flight

Develop improved specifications for Heliport Visual Aids to incorporate into the Heliport Design Guide

Refurbish current facility • Replace “Vertiport” with two “Heliports”

– STANDARD “Heliport” Completed– Experimental “Heliport” Completed


49


50


51


52


53


54

Vertical Flight

• First research project – Perimeter Lighting (Green) FATO and TLOF

• Intensity• Photometrics• Beamspread

• Other Technologies– LEDs


55

Questions or [email protected], Visual Guidance Sub-Team Mgr.

[email protected], Visual Guidance Program [email protected], Visual Guidance Engineer

[email protected], Visual Guidance Engineer

[email protected], Visual Guidance Engineer

www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov

FAA William J. Hughes Technical CenterAirport Safety Technology R&D

AJP-6311, Building 296Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405

Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 32nd Annual...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Aviation Administration Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: 32nd Annual...