ves UMWAY visual Advancements in the capabilities of aircraft to take off and land in severe weather mean airports face the chal- lenge of supplying more accurate Runway Visual Range information to flight crews. Approaching pilots have to know that when they reach the runway they will be able to see it, [AIR TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY ITESNATIONAL [ange inpore authorities and airlines rust cope with the high cost of delays and diversions when Runway Visual Range (RVR) readings are below limits, forcing runways to close, Assurance that the RVR syste will not give faulty readings leading to unnecessary closure, i imperative The eost of elosing a runway is formid able, and the effect of such action at one airport can ripple through the entire air traffic system. In the USA, the FAA ana- lyzed the effect ofa single hour of delay ata major arpore on the overall airway system. The cost was estimated to be over USSI million an hour. RVR isan assessment used by tower controllers to report the horizontal dis- tance at which a pilots able to see run- way markers or runway lights from the approach end of a runway. RVR, which the FAA measures in hundreds of feet, is a mech more precise measurement than previling visibility, which is measured in statute miles. RVR is determined by instrumentation; prevailing wsbilty by human observation. RVR is determined by combining the measurements of three types of instru ‘sibility sensors, ambient light sensors and runway light-intensty moni- tors. During daytime, either runway markings or runway lights might be the more visible; at night, runway fights wil alwas he the more visible. The computer system that combines input measurements and ealculates RVR, uses equations for either day or nights conditions dictate. Research, development and testing of new technology has focused on the best ‘way to obtain visibility data for RVR sys- tems When the FAA intially decided to[AIR TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY IWTEANATIONAL, usu PROJECTION uci RECEIVER, RECEIVER There va considerable it procure a new generation of RVR system, ieiitially assumed thatthe new system ‘would employ the same sensor technology ‘that had been in use for nearly 50 years. ‘This old type of system uses transmis~ someters. A heam of light s shone across a measured distance (in practic, usually 25042) to a photo sensor that measures the intensity ofthe beam. Partick in the ar, such as fog, rain, smoke, snow and sleet, reduee the amount of light that arrives at the photo sensor. It isthe sensor that measures the strength of cis light and this information is then input into the RVR calculation systern Ie isa straightforward and logical ‘method, and has long been the standard for mexsuring RVR. However, in the reil- ‘world environment of an operational air ‘port, this approach has several drawbacks I's very costly and has proved to be notoriously unreliable, In addition, for several reasons, it may not measure actual RVR at the runway. “The transmissometer sensor system must rely on perfectly aligned sets of lights and photo sensors loeated substantial dis- tances apart. Alignment tolerances require eeareine precision as any misalignment introduces errors or causes complete fail- ure ofthe system, Aligning the lights and sensors is tedious and requires long hours ‘of work by skilled technicians. The struc- tures thatthe sensor sets are mounted on must be absolutely rigid, unaffected by ‘wind, temperatare variations and earth ‘movement. In practice, n areas of extreme weather (jst the areas where accurate RVR is most necessary) maintaining align- ‘ment is very dificult and realigning very ‘expensive. And when the RVR system is not working in bad weather the runway Atself cannot be used. “The structures on which the transmis someter sensors are mounted introduce & safety hazard into the aisport. Because they nmust be rigid, they are composed of substantial stel towers mounted into a cconerete base. And because ICAO speci- fies that measurements must be made at the average eye level of pilot in his air- craft on the runvsay, they must be at least Sm high. For Category Ill operations, three sets of sensors, one each at the approach, mid-point and rollout ends, must be used. Should an aireraft icone ofthe struc- tures, iteould seriously dam- age the aircraft and lead to casualties. In response 10 safety concerns, the struc tures are usually placed sub- stantial distances from the senual eunway. This practice can lead 0 serious inaceura~ cies in measuring runway visual ringe because they are actualy measuring visual range away from the runway itself In many areas of locale ined weather (again, areas in whieh accurate RVR infor- ‘mation is most necessary) such as in coastal or mountainous regions, the visual range on the actual rumway may vary critically from the visual range being measured. ‘The dynamic range of transmisso- smecersis limited, which in turn requires thata douile baseline configuration be used. The resulting configuration uses a projector and ewo receivers for a single noe betwoen the cost of installing Vansmissometes (lt) ad forward scatter (ght) unway visual ange instruments input, which again increases the complex- ity of installation and maintenance ch lenges, and inereases the number of rigid seruceures on the airport. Another drawback to the transmis: someter sensor system is that to work, the light projector and the photo sensor must face each other directly in a clear line of sight. The resulting geometry leaves the sensor windows vulnerable 10 being clogged with blowing snow or ice, or con taminaced by other forms of precipitation cr particles inthe air, False readings or ‘complete failures ofthe system can result ~ again, just when the RVR system is most needed. This ean often result in eunways being close for RVR reasons when the actual RVR is within the acceptable range Because of the potential for better per- formance and reliability than transmis- someters, there has long been interest ‘within the aviation community for using forward seatter meter sensor technology ‘to measure RVR. After decades of trying to work with and around the operational limitations of transmissometers, the FAA contracted Teledyme Contras Ainport Systems to develop a new RVE system that exploited this technology.Transmissometer (ft) which projet a narow beam of light ove a wide distance, suo tram alignment prolons, ar often not operational, and ao difiult and ‘costly to mntan. The nouly ntrosuced FAA sjtem right) manufactured hy Telede Contos, ha fixed alignment Forward scatter meter methodology fers fandamenally from transmisso- _metes in that it measures the actual den sity of particles in dhe atmosphere, rather than the amount of light passing through it, Teledyne’s WeatherEye™ RVR sys- tem, which is now commissioned in more than 45. CAT Ito CAT Ill airports, s being installed in 265 airports around the world. The technology has improved reliability and system performance, and takes a ‘ery different form from thacused in transmis Most significantly, a complete sensor $s both projector and photo sensor— is mounted ona gle, angible pole. TThe pole itself is fber- «glass, and will break away readily if struck by an airerft, minimizing risk to passengers and damage to the air- craft. This enables the safe installation of the sensors at the Sm, pilot-eye-level height specified by ICAO, while remain= ing close to the eunways ‘The projector and photo sensor are mounted opposite each other, about in apart, ona rigid Y-shaped structure, The routs are aligned using a precision, computer-controlled machine during ‘manufacture and require no further alignment during installation or later use, Because forward scatter technology has an inherencly wide dynamic range, a single sensor measures the fall RVR range ~ the transmissometers require a dal system, ‘The basic principle of the Weatherye forwand scater technology is that an infra red beam is shone into the atmosphere at anangle to the photo sensor. The photo sensor measures the amount of infared energy that is reflected by (scattered by) the precipitation or other particles of ‘material inthe ar. This is called the extinction coefficient Of course, as with any new technology, technical challenges abounded. In this case they had co do with manufacturing tolerances, variations in the nature of dif ferent forms of precipitation, sensor win- dow contamination, and refining the algo rithms for computation of RVR Finding the optimum forward scatter angle required theoretical study of the optical characteristics of the atmosphere, and practical experimentation. Light chat is lffracted from particles in the atmos- phere varies with the size of the particles, A forward scatter angle forthe sensors that made readings independent of the size of particles had to be found. For ‘example, when the seatter angle was set at 35°, snow and fog calibrations varied from one another by as much as 30 per cent. When the scatter angle was increased to 42°, snow and fog calibra tions were equal A characteristic of forward seattertech- nology, which requires the projector and sensor to be at an angle to one another, i ‘one ofits major ackantages. Both compo- nents ean be angled downward, so that sensor windows are not as susceptible to boeing clogged by blown precipitation. ‘Hoods around the windows and computer controlled heating add greatly to the relia- bility ofthe sensors in bad weather. In addition, both the visibility and ambient light sensors of Teledyne’s system are given the ability to measure the amount of light back-scattered from win- dow contaminants. The system then com- pensates for the window loss. Again, this results in amore accurate RVR reading. “The forward seatter technology had to be validated by a thorough and challeng- ing FAA operational test and evaluation program, ata cost of USS10 million. Test sites were Otis Air Force Base, Massa- chusetts using the FAA test bed: St. John’s, Newiound- land with Transport Canada; Boulder, Colorado for blowing «and Mount Washington, New Hampshire for CAT LUlb operations. Tests were initiated inthe ‘winter of 1991-1992 and continue even until today. They have led to a number of refinements in scater angle, hood config- uration, and heating technology. At the same time as the physical characteristics of the system have been improved, computer processing algorithms have been modified and refined to reach the optimum. “The system was put into first opera- tional use at Seattle-Tacoma airport and progressed to eight others. Ir was validated ‘while operating in parallel with the older transmissometer systems, andl eventually replaced them. The testing program has determined a 29,000-hour mean time between failure for the system, and a 20- ‘minute mean time to repair. ‘The result is ‘more than 99.9 per ent availability “The system has an engineering data pore that ourpurs data from the sensors and the RVR derived. This datas then evalu- ated to identify what further improve- ‘ments can enhance performance. Data is collected daily, and this procedure will be followed for several years to refine the systerm fully Ie will continue to get beter. “The use of forward scatter meter tech-