This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
The Cloud Detectability Conundrum
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published June 10, 2019 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
Since the beginning of aviation, aircraft designers, researchers, and pilots have monitored the skies looking for clouds to determine when and where to fly as well as when to deice aircraft surfaces. Seeing a cloud has generally consisted of looking for a white / grey puffy orb floating in the sky, indicating the presence of moisture. A simple monitoring of a temperature gauge or dew point sensor was used to help determine if precipitation was likely or accumulation of ice / snow on the airframe could occur.
Various instruments have been introduced over the years to identify the presence of clouds and characterize them for the purposes of air traffic control weather awareness, icing flight test measurements, and production aircraft ice detection. These instruments have included oil slides, illuminated rods, vibrating probes, hot wires, LIDAR, RADAR, and several other measurement techniques. Each technology has its own strength and weakness including the particle size range and water content that can be measured and its ability (or lack thereof) to discriminate different types of icing conditions.
The FAA release of 14 CFR Part 25 Appendix O and 14 CFR Part 33 Appendix D regulations for SLD and ice crystals has spawned an increased need for detecting and differentiating these icing conditions from the traditional Appendix C clouds. In order to perform these functions, changes to the measurement technologies and flight crew identification methods are needed. To assist ice detector and aircraft manufacturers in the design and certification of systems with these expanded functionalities, an update to ED-103 (AS5498) was recently released. Revision A of this document now provides requirements for the detection and differentiation of Appendix C, O, and D clouds.
In 2009, the FAA released Amendment 25-129 which added paragraphs (e) through (h) to § 25.1419 adding focus to the operation of ice protection systems. Amendment 25-140 was released a few years ago adding the Appendix D and O icing environments. While the use of primary and advisory ice detection systems to meet the requirements of § 25.1419 (e) and (g) have steadily increased, the addition of the new icing envelopes has substantially increased the performance demonstrations required. Performance verification is typically performed through icing wind tunnel tests, icing flight tests and comparison to reference instrumentation to show compliance with FAA requirements via the methods described in AS5498A.
Demonstrating compliance to these new detection and differentiation requirements over the wide variety of icing conditions presents a significant challenge - particularly as particle sizes increase and water content decreases. The capabilities of facilities and instrumentation used in demonstrating performance have limitations that complicate the evaluation. Some have assumed that an ice detection system failing to meet all expectations would be certified as advisory, giving the flight crew the primary responsibility for detecting icing conditions. This strategy, however, is not clear cut and has its own issues. The discussion herein is intended to shed some light on the certification challenges that exist for verifying the means to detect / differentiate all types of clouds and offers some suggestions on how to resolve this conundrum.
|Technical Paper||Certification Flight Tests in Natural Icing of the PZL Mielec M28 Commuter Turboprop Airplane|
|Journal Article||Korean Utility Helicopter KUH-1 Icing Certification Program|
|Technical Paper||T-Tail Aerodynamics of the Super King Air|
CitationJackson, D., "The Cloud Detectability Conundrum," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-1932, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1932.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|[Unnamed Dataset 1]|
- Jackson, D.G. and Goldberg, J.I. , “Ice Detection Systems: A Historical Perspective,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-3325, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-3325.
- “Minimum Operational Performance Specification for in-Flight Icing Detection Systems,” EUROCAE ED-103A and SAE AS5498A.
- Jackson, D.G. , “Primary Ice Detection Certification under the New FAA and EASA Regulations,” SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2105 , 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-2105.
- “Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes”, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25.
- “Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes”, EASA CS-25.
- “General Operating and Flight Rules”, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation Part 91.
- FAA “Aeronautical Information Manual - Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures”, Oct. 12, 2017.
- Jeck, R.K. , “Terminology for Droplet Size Measurements”, FAA Technical Center Icing Information Note, Aug. 1994.
- “Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines”, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 33.
- “Task 2 Working Group Report on Supercooled Large Droplet Rulemaking” Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group, Rev A, Dec. 2005.
- “Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations”, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation Part 121.
- Jackson, D.G., Cronin, D.J., Severson, J.A., Owens, D.G. , “Ludlam Limit Considerations on Cylinder Ice Accretion: Aerodynamics and Thermodynamics,” AIAA-2001-0679.
- Jackson, D.G., Owens, D.G., Cronin, D.J., Severson, J.A. , “Certification and Integration Aspects of a Primary Ice Detection System,” AIAA-2001-0398.
- Koschmieder, H. , “Theorie der Horizontalen Sichweite,” Beitr Phys., Freien Atm., 12, 1924, 33-53, 171-81.
- “Droplet Sizing Instrumentation Used in Icing Facilities,” SAE AIR4906.
- “Airborne Measurements for Environmental Research,” Brenguier, J.L. and Wendisch, M. , Wiley 2013.
- Cober, S.G., Korolev, A.V., Isaac, G.A. , “Assessing Characteristics of the Rosemount Icing Detector under Natural Icing Conditions,” AIAA-2001-0397.
- Biter, C.J., Dye, J.E., Huffman, D., King, W.D. , “The Drop-Size Response of the CSIRO Liquid Water Probe,” J. Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 4, Sept.1987, 359-367.
- Strapp, J.W., Korolev, et.al. , “Wind Tunnel Measurements of the Response of Hot Wire Liquid Water Content Instruments to Large Droplets,” J. Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 20, June 2003, 791-805.
- Korolev, A.V., Emery, E.F., Strapp, J.W., Cober, S.G., and Isaac, G.A. , “Quantification of the Effects of Shattering on Airborne Ice Particle Measurements,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 30:2527-2553, 2013a.
- Boutanios, Z., Bourgault, Y., et.al , “3-D Droplets Impingement Analysis around an Aircraft's Nose and Cockpit Using FENSAP-ICE”, AIAA-98-0200.
- Heymsfield, A.J. and Miloshevich, L.M. , “Evaluation of Liquid Water Measuring Instruments in Cold Clouds Sampled during FIRE,” J. of Atmos. and Oceanic Tech., 6, June 1989, 378-388.
- Strapp, J.W., et.al. , “Cloud Microphysical Measurements in Thunderstorm Outflow Regions during Allied/BAE 1997 Flight Trials,” AIAA 99-0498.