Visual guidance
Download
1 / 55

Visual Guidance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 197 Views
  • Uploaded on

Visual 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. Airport Safety Technology R&D. Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Visual Guidance' - sari


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Visual guidance

Visual 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


Airport safety technology r d
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


Visual guidance1
Visual Guidance

  • Lighting

  • Signs

  • Markings


Visual guidance2
Visual Guidance

LED Implementation Issues


Lighting technologies
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!


Issues with implementing led technology
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.


Lighting technologies1
Lighting Technologies

  • FAA LED Working Group:

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


Issues with implementing led technology1
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?


Phasing out incandescent lamps
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


Issues with implementing led technology2
Issues with Implementing LED Technology

Today’s Topic

  • 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?


Some issues with implementing led technology
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.


Some issues with implementing led technology1
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 incandescentsignal 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 arenot visible tothehuman eye down to 100ft.

  • This can potentially increase capacity at some airports.


Led ir research projects
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


Infrared devices
Infrared Devices

  • 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.


Led ir research projects1
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.


Efvs systems approach
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.


Recommended action
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.


May not need emitters at every light position

Runway Lighting

Possible

Configuration

IR Emitters only

FAA MALSR

Lighting System


E lectrical i nfrastructure r esearch t eam eirt
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.


E lectrical i nfrastructure r esearch t eam eirt1
Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT)

Goals

  • A system that promotes interoperability.

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

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


E lectrical i nfrastructure r esearch t eam eirt2
Electrical Infrastructure Research Team (EIRT)

  • 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 light
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?


Elevated runway guard lights1
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


Elevated runway guard light1
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






Elevated runway guard light2
Elevated Runway Guard Light

  • NEXT STEP

    • Collect pilot data (Surveys)

    • Monitor systems at both airports

    • Evaluation completed June 2009


Minimum intensity for incandescent runway guard lights rgl
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


Elevated runway guard light evaluation ergl
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 cycle for LEDsystem

      • Impact ofwaveform profile shape for LEDsystem


Incandescent specifications
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) quartz

halogen lamps

AC 150/5345-46C (2006)


Experimental protocol

Duty Cycle

More Conspicuous

Area of Interest

Intensity

Flash Rate

Reference

Incandescent RGL

Waveform Shape

Experimental protocol

Identifiable as an RGL


Experimental outline
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


Experimental set up
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


Test apparatus
Test Apparatus

Subject view

Foggy day setup


Subject characterization
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


Technology neutral specification
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


Findings
Findings

  • It isnot recommendedthat the currentincandescent-based ERGL specificationbe changed.

  • LEDERGL intensities could bereduced.


Recommendations
Recommendations

  • These values can be obtained by a combination of a selecting asquare wavesignal,flash rate, andon-time percentage.

  • The best flash rates & on-time percentages were:

    1.25 Hz@ 70%or2.50 [email protected]%


Moving forward
Moving Forward

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


Vertical flight

Vertical Flight

Renee Williams


Vertical flight1
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.


Vertical flight2
Vertical Flight

  • AC 150/5390-2B Heliport Design Guide


Vertical flight3
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


Vertical flight4
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


Vertical flight5
Vertical Flight

  • First research project

    • Perimeter Lighting (Green) FATO and TLOF

      • Intensity

      • Photometrics

      • Beamspread

  • Other Technologies

    • LEDs


Questions or comments
Questions or Comments?

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

[email protected], Visual Guidance Program Mgr.

[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 Center

Airport Safety Technology R&D

AJP-6311, Building 296

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405


ad