Visual Guidance

1. Visual Guidance Research and Development Presented to: IESALC Government Contacts Subcommittee’s Spring meeting By: Donald Gallagher, Visual Guidance Program Manager Date: May 29, 2009

2. Airport Safety Technology R&D Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program Hazards Management, Bird Detection Radar Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Program (ARFF) Agents, Vehicles New Large Aircraft Program (NLA) Airport Issues Concerning NLA Airport Design Program Airport Design Airport Planning Program Terminal Design Guidelines, Multimodal Access Airport Surface Operations Program Runway Friction, Soft Ground Arrestor System, Runway Deicing Visual Guidance Program Lighting, Marking, Signing

3. Visual Guidance • Lighting • Signs • Markings

4. Visual Guidance LED Implementation Issues

6. Lighting Technologies • FAA LED Working Group: • Consolidated into 8 Issues concerning the adoption of LED for use on Aerodromes.

7. Issues with Implementing LED Technology Consolidated to 8 issues: • How will this technology interact if interspersed with standard incandescent lights? • How will this technology interact with present airport systems? • What are the impacts of intensity changes with LEDs? • Does the “narrow spectral band” of LED impact pilots with certain types of color deficient vision? • What is the impact of the reduced heat signature on the lens of LED fixtures with respect to lens contamination due to environmental conditions? • Can LEDs be seen on an enhanced vision display? • Are current photometric tests for incandescent lights valid for LEDs? • How is the operational failure of LED fixtures identified?

8. 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 tocreate 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

9. 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.

10. Some Issues with Implementing LED Technology Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) utilize the wasted energy in the form ofIRgenerated 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) down to 100ft when these lights arenot visible tothehuman eye. • This can potentially increase capacity at some airports.

11. LED/IR Research Projects • 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

12. LED/IR Research Projects • Conclusions • No solid state IRsources can replicate the IR produced by an incandescent lamp. • EFVS camera sensitivity does not match theavailable solid state IR emitters. • Increasing IR output negates cost benefit of LED Lamps. • Decreases LED fixture reliability. • Increase power consumption.

13. 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 EFVSoperations. • EFVSConcept of Operations should include all of the Runway Environment. • Incorporate all Airport and Approach Lighting into the Systems Approach.

14. 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 emitterrequirements in a EFVS Advisory Circular. • Work with industry to develop other types of sensors not requiring IR.

15. May not need emitters at every light position Runway Lighting Possible Configuration IR Emitters only FAA MALSR Lighting System

16. 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.

17. Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT) Goals • A system that promotes interoperability. • Reduced life cycle costwithout dependence upon a single source. • A standards-based, robust architecture airfield lighting system.

18. Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT) • 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

19. Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT) • Currently developing the test criteria and metrics for testing these circuits

20. Elevated Runway Guard Lights

21. 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?

22. 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

23. 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

24. Solar powered LED ERGLs

25. Dupage Airport Installation

26. Provo Airport Installation

27. Elevated Runway Guard Light • Currently • Collecting pilot data (Surveys) • Monitoring systems at both airports • Evaluation ends June 2009

28. 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

29. Elevated Runway Guard Light Evaluation (ERGL) • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – Lighting Research Center Study • Laboratory study completed 6/08. • Scope: • Min. intensityfor Incandescent Lamps and LEDs • Recommendations forflash frequency for LEDsystem • Recommendations forduty cyclefor LEDsystem • Impact ofwaveform profile shapefor LEDsystem

30. 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 intensityfor eachpromising combination of variables at each ambient condition

31. Test Apparatus Subject view Foggy day setup

32. 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

33. Technology-neutral specification • Results indicate thatsquare waveformismore conspicuousthan triangle or incandescent waveform • Intensity requiredwill bebased oncombination of other factors(e.g., duty cycle and frequency combination) • LEDscan be“tuned” to offer these effective combinations(and energy savings) but other technologies may evolve to offer the sameeffectiveness

34. Findings • It isnot recommendedthat the currentincandescent-based ERGL specificationbe changed. • LEDERGL intensities could bereduced.

35. Recommendations • These values can be obtained by a combination of a selecting asquare wavesignal,flash rate, andon-timepercentage. • The best flash rates & on-time percentages were: 1.25 Hz@ 70%or2.50 Hz@30%

36. Moving Forward Field study will be conducted to validate results before final recommendations are made.

37. Vertical Flight

38. 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.

39. Vertical Flight • AC 150/5390-2B Heliport Design Guide

40. Vertical Flight • Deficiencies • Standard for Perimeter Lights • The Heliport Design Guide States • “Flush green lights should define the TLOF perimeter” • “Green lights should define theperimeter of the load bearing FATO” • Does not specify type of Fixture, Beam Spread or Intensity

41. 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

42. Final Approach & TakeOff (FATO) area Heliport Approach Path Indicator (CHAPI) Heliport Instrument Landing System (HILS) for IMC Touchdown & Lift Off (TLOF) area Heliport Approach Lighting System (HALS) for IMC Current Facility

46. Vertical Flight • First research project • Perimeter Lighting (Green) FATO and TLOF • Intensity • Photometrics • Beamspread • Other Technologies • LEDs

47. New Initiative • New Technology Research Test Bed • Our nation’s airport visual guidance infrastructure (signs, lighting, markings) has become very old, operates very inefficiently, and is based on operational data and technologies that are now decades old. • A significant amount of electrical energy is needed to power these systems costing airport operators a significant amount of money. • Compounded with the aging equipment, wiring, and connections, the cost to maintain the systems becomes very significant.

48. New Initiative • Perform research on technologies that may benefit NEXTGEN reliever airports. • Develop a state of the art new technology test bed that would enable visual guidance engineers an opportunity to design, install, test, monitornew technologies and a develop a new visual guidance infrastructure. • Take full advantage of state of the art technologies in Signs, Lighting and Markings to provide a more efficient Visual Guidance System and the best visual cues to the airport user.

49. New Initiative • Additional Research Areas: • Runway Friction • Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Detection • Airport Design (Runway Grooving) • New Materials Pavement Research • Wildlife Hazard Mitigation

50. New Initiative • Completion of research runway will be conducted in three phases funded over a three year period. • Objective is to find an airport with unused runway pavement that could be refurbished to serve as a “research runway”. • Have the ability to have a dedicated runway to conduct research including flight testing that would be large enough to accommodate the FAA’s research aircraft fleet.