presented at: ncar by: paul pellicano date: november, 2013 federal aviation administration micro...
TRANSCRIPT
Presented at: NCAR
By: Paul Pellicano
Date: November, 2013
Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
2Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
DST
• Aircraft index based on certification basis– Certified for icing
• Transport category airplanes over 60,000 lb. wing anti-ice, wing leading edge devices, no negative service history
• 25.1420• Other transport• Small and commuter, Amendment 23-43 or higher• Small and commuter, Amendment 23-14 or higher with no
negative service history• Earlier than 23-14 or 23-14 with icing events
– Light icing, limited time in moderate icing
– Not certified for icing
3Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Agenda
•Ice accretion rate•MVD•PIREPS•GA
6Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
DST
• FAA cannot require airplane specific data from manufacturers– No plan to require it for new airplanes
• Could ask– FAA not likely to get positive response– Data doesn’t exist for older airplanes
7Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
MVD
• Accretion rate• MVD<40 and MVD>40 Appendix O
Certification
11Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Indirect
•Surface observations are needed at smaller airports to also increase safety of transport category airplanes
Event Phase Altitude, ft Airport Distance, nm
American Eagle 4184 Hold 10,000 ORD 60
Comair 3272 Descent 7,000 DTW 19
Comair 5054 Cruise 17,000 PBI 47
Continental Express 2733 Climb 11,500 – 17,400LIT 37
MEM 125
American Eagle 3008 Climb 7,000 – 11,700SPB 25
LAX 130
12Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Indirect
•Surface observations are needed at smaller airports to also increase safety of all airplanes
Event Phase Altitude, ft Airport Distance, nm
PUB 17DEN 115
Circuit City Approach 7,000
13Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
General Aviation
• Comment 82 - Part 25 is NOT GA! GA has the most to gain but is it properly addressed?
• Disposition - Paul stated Part 23 certification is the same as Part 25. It appears for now GA is address adequately in ConOps– For new part 23 airplanes – assume AFM language
will be similar
13
14Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
General Aviation• Existing fleet
– Much bigger than projected new airplanes• Most “detect and exit”• Market impact• First may be business jets
– No explicit prohibition in SLD– Must exit severe icing
• Cockpit display– Include SLD and PIREPS– Training/AIM
• Ice accretion location versus accretion rate
14
15Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
General Aviation
•SIGMETs– Two levels, one that would only impact airplanes with SLD or
severe icing AFM language?
•Smaller airports•Unmanned Aerial Systems
– Certification standards will require system or ground operator to know if aircraft in Appendix C and/or Appendix O
– Must be able to report FZDZ and FZRA
15
16Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
General Aviation
•Part 23 rulemaking– Congressional mandate– NPRM 2015
•Rules high level and not prescriptive– “Must be able to safely operate in the icing conditions for which
certification is requested”
•ASTM Standards– Will define the icing conditions– AFM language expected to be similar to part 25
16
18Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Current ASOS Deficiencies
•ASOS does not report FZDZ– Belief that LEWDI cannot detect drizzle size drops– Drizzle precipitation rates below ASOS specification
•ASOS does not report FZRA when snow is being reported
– Wet snow can adhere to ice detector
•FZRA Reporting May Be Inaccurate for short periods of time
– Ice detector has to be heated to deice
•ASOS does not detect PL
19Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Current ASOS Deficiencies
•Sources– Current Capabilities for Icing Nowcasting and Forecasting
in the Terminal Area, Marcia K. Politovich and Scott Landolt, Terminal Area Icing Weather Information System, Product Development Team, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• A Multisensor Approach to Detecting Drizzle on ASOS, Charles G. Wade, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Published in Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Technology, Volume 20, 2003
20Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Why we need ASOS
•Ground Operations •In-Flight
•Efficiency•Safety•Cost
22Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Ground Operations
Outside Air Temperature
Type IV Fluid Concentration
Neat-Fluid/Water (Volume %/Volume %)
Approximate Holdover Times Under Various Weather Conditions (hours: minutes)
Degrees Celsius
Degrees Fahrenheit
Freezing Fog
Snow, Snow
Grains or Snow
Pellets†
Freezing Drizzle*
Light Freezing
Rain
Rain on Cold Soaked Wing**
Other‡
-3 and above
27 and above
100/0 1:45-3:10 0:40-1:20 0:50-1:30 0:35-0:55 0:10-1:15
75/25 1:00-1:45 0:30-0:55 0:40-1:05 0:25-0:40 0:09-0:50
50/50 0:20-0:35 0:07-0:15 0:10-0:20 0:07-0:10 CAUTION:
No holdover time guidelines exist
below -3 to -14
below 27 to 7
100/0 0:20-1:20 0:30-0:55 ***0:20-1:00 ***0:10-0:25
75/25♦ 0:25-0:50 0:20-0:40 ***0:15-1:00 ***0:10-0:25
below -14 to -25 or LOUT
below 7 to -13 or
LOUT
100/0♦♦ 0:15-0:40 0:15-0:30
* Use light freezing rain holdover times if positive identification of freezing drizzle is not possible
23Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Ground Operations
• Aircraft are currently not certificated for operations in
freezing precipitation.
• However, they are not prohibited from take-off in
freezing precipitation provided:
–the PIC follows the ground guidance
–there are no AFM limitations
24Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Airplane Limitations
•Airplanes certified for flight in icing– Cloud icing conditions defined in CFR part 25, Appendix C
•After the 1994 Roselawn accident– Airworthiness Directives require immediate exit from severe
icing in AFM Limitations section– “Freezing drizzle and freezing rain may be conducive to severe
icing”
•New airplanes– Part 25 rulemaking– Part 23 rulemaking
• In interim, most new part 23 airplanes insert prohibition in AFM Limitations section
25Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Proposed Part 25 Rule
•Airplanes certified for flight in icing must show– Safely operate in SLD;– Detect SLD and safely exit all icing; or– Safely operate in a portion of SLD, detect unapproved SLD
conditions and safely exit all icing
26Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Direct
•Approach and landing– A part 23 icing Aviation Rulemaking Committee (Reference 4)
identified 48 events (23 fatal) on part 23 airplanes from 1979 to 2009 in which there was evidence of supercooled large drop (SLD) conditions.
– The majority of these (75%) was on approach and landing, and in 20% of these events snow was present.
– The prevalence of “wet snow” is indicated by the fact the mean the average mean ambient temperature was 29.2°F, and the median was 32.0°F
27Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Direct
•Fatal accident of an air ambulance on approach to Rawlins, WY, in 2005
•Light snow and mist were the only precipitation reported, temperature of 32°F.
•Witnesses in the vicinity of RWL reported surface weather conditions varying from freezing rain to heavy snow
28Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Indirect
•The lead scientist in the development of the NCAR Integrated Icing Diagnostic Algorithm has stated (Bernstein, 1999) that “surface observations are the most powerful forecasting tool we have for finding SLD [Supercooled Large Droplet] conditions aloft, and FZDZ observations are our best indicator of the simultaneous occurrence of FZDZ aloft.” Final Report: Freezing Drizzle Algorithm Development,” September 21, 1999, Prepared for the National Weather Service by Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services (RITSS)
29Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
In-Flight - Indirect
•Surface observations of freezing drizzle (FZDZ) were an excellent indicator of FZDZ aloft when near the observation (70% occurrence within 25 km) and at altitudes up to 5,000 ft., NASA CR-2001/210954 “Evaluation of NCAR Icing/SLD Forecasts, Tools, and Techniques Used During the 1998 NASA SLD Flight Season,” August 2001, Ben Bernstein, National Center for Atmospheric Research
30Federal AviationAdministration
MICRO ConOps
November , 2013
Cost•On Oct. 31, 2002, twelve United Airlines 737 aircraft incurred jet engine damage after experiencing a winter storm at Denver, Colorado.
– The damage was primarily bent fan blade tips, and was consistent with ice being ingested into the engines.
– Total damage was reported by United Airlines as being over $2 million dollars, with one engine requiring replacement.
– The damage was noted after the aircraft landed at their destination airports.
•The METAR and weather observer
at Denver reported mist and light snow – Ground personnel reported the
presence of freezing drizzle.