Operators and manufacturers
aircraft may require processing through a ground
1. Reliability, cost, size, power, and weight estimates
station. This would be more difficult for military
for remote-sensing systems can be estimated,
aircraft, which may not be able to benefit from
though poorly, from existing onboard systems.
such services.
2. Room, power available, and weight allowable for
Experimental test beds
remote-sensing systems are unknown for most
aircraft, except when newly delivered from manu-
1. Experimental test beds for training and develop-
facturers. After aircraft delivery, operators may
ment of avoid/exit procedures could be developed
provide information.
using flight simulators.
2. Test beds for air traffic control and pilot training
remote-sensing systems are currently unknown
are needed.
weather-avoidance sensors.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE
Regulatory issues, weather forecasting,
Strengths
and traffic management
1. General operational concept of icing remote-
1. Operating limits of aircraft in icing conditions out-
sensing system.
side of FAR 25, Appendix C, are not known.
2. General ideas of pilot information needs.
2. Information needed to create a standardized icing
3. Use of current onboard radar and wind shear alert
potential scale is available.
as analogs.
3. An operational concept of a remote-sensing icing-
4. Use of remote-sensing systems in regulated air
space.
4. Functional requirements of remote-sensing icing-
5. Information display problems from radar and
wind shear alert systems.
5. Regulations currently do not address icing condi-
6. Weather information needed by meteorologists.
tions beyond conditions defined in FAR 25,
Weaknesses
Appendix C.
6. There is little incentive for operators to place an
1. Lack of standardized, objective icing rating ter-
icing remote-sensing system on aircraft.
minology.
7. There are no ground-based icing remote-sensing
2. Unknown limits of aircraft capabilities in icing
systems, though they are under development.
conditions outside Appendix C.
8. There is no regulatory policy with regard to
3. Poor knowledge of how to avoid and escape icing.
remote-sensing icing-avoidance systems. How-
4. Lack of incentives for manufacturers and opera-
ever, onboard weather radar and wind shear alert
tors to use remote-sensing systems.
systems are analogs for aircraft-based systems,
5. Definition of beyond FAR 25, Appendix C, con-
and ground-based wind shear alert systems are
ditions.
analogs for ground-based icing-avoidance sys-
6. Undeveloped functional requirements (specifica-
tems.
tions) of a remote-sensing icing detection system.
9. Remote-sensing icing-avoidance systems may
7. Use of remote-sensing systems in Free Flight.
complicate Free Flight and ATC operations in ter-
8. Development of effective display for icing con-
minal areas.
ditions.
10. Weather forecasters do not have reliable indica-
9. Effects of aircraft performance on avoid/exit strat-
tions of icing conditions. Only pireps provide
egies and information needs.
information, which is often inaccurate as to posi-
10. Location of effective experimental test beds for
tion, time, and intensity.
pilots, air traffic controllers, and meteorologists.
11. Weather forecasters know the information they
want to improve icing forecasts.
airframe.
12. Integrating aircraft and ground information is not
12. Quality and type of information that will be pro-
well understood, though some work is being done
vided to meteorologists and ATC from remote-
in the AGATE program.
sensing systems.
13. Regulatory hurdles.
information may be difficult because of spatial
14. Integration of ground, in-situ, and remotely
and temporal inconsistencies.
sensed information.
14. Reporting remotely sensed information to other
15. Training standards.
60
To Contents