Evaluation of PAPI

2~;>: DOT/FANCT-82/153
DOT/FAA/RD-82/85 Evaluation of Precision

153
Approach Path Indicator (PAPI)
•
t
• I
.~
Bret Castle
Prepared By
FAA Technical Center
Atlantic City Airport, N.J. 08405
April 1983
Final Report
This document is available to the U.S. public

.11 through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
4 It ;'
u.s. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
Systems Research & Development Service
Woshington, D.C. 20590
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER LIBRARY NJ
DOT/FAA/CT-82/153 c1 ..
United SI,rl,i,j'llit~e~ls~\lapp
00008055
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
The United States Government does not endorse products

or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear
herein solely because they are considered essential to
the object of this report.
..
Tech.ical tc.,art Docu.....tatiOll Po••
1. R.porl No. 2. Go...'n......1 Acc•••ion No. 3. R.cipi... t'. Col.lo. No.
DOT/FAA/CT-82/153
4. Till. ond Subli II. S. Repo,1 1).1.
April 1983
EVALUATION OF PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI)

6. P ...fo""',,. O'.... i.olion Cod.
ACT-410
1--:;.---~:__;--;--------------------------___l8. P."o,.i". O,••"'••lio,, R.po,1 No.
7. Aulho,'.)
Bret Castle DOT/FAA/CT-82/153
9. P.,'ormin. O,.oni.olion N_. end Add,••• 10. Worl& Unil No. (TRAIS)
Technical Center
11. Cont,.cl 0' G,onl No.
'" Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey 08405 081-502-510
r-:-::--::------~-"""":"'":-:-:---------------"""t
13. Typ. 0' R.po,1 .nel P.,ioel Cov.,.d
12. Spon.o,ino A....cy N_. onel Aelel,...
U.S. Department of Transportation Final

Jan. 1980 - Sept. 1982
Systems Research and Development Service !'. $ponso,in. A••ncy Cod.
Washington, D.C. 20590
15. Suppl.m.nla,y Nal..
16. Ab.lracl
This report describes the evaluation of the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI)
to determine whether the PAPI provides sufficient advantages over the current standard
red/white Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) to warrant recommending it as the
United States standard visual glidepath indicator. This process covered photometric
testing, environmental testing, and flight evaluation. Various flight evaluations
were accomplished at the FAA Technical Center (ACY), Newark Airport, New Jersey (EWR),
Teterboro Airport, New Jersey (TEB), and at Bader Field in Atlantic City, New Jersey
(AIY). The results indicate that PAPI was preferred over the standard red/white VASI
system. In general, United States pilots find very little fault with the standard
red/white VASI system, and the PAPI is preferred mainly because it gives more rate and
position information and because of its quick transitions from one color to the other.
It is a passive system (no moving parts to wear out), meeting all of the operational
requirements of a glide slope system, and requires less equipment and real estate than
'". the standard VASI.
17. K.y Wo,d. 1.. O.. erillvtlon St.t_ _t
PAP I Document is available to the U.S. public

Glide slope through the National Technical Information
Visual Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. S.cu,ily CI... i'. (0' thi. ,epo,t) 20. S.cu,lty CI...". (., Ihi. p...l 21. No•• f p.... 22. P,ic.
Unclassified 77
for'" DOT f 1700.7 18-72) Reproduction of c••plotocl pogo outhorl.ocl
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Approximlte Conve...ions to Metric MIlSures .., _:: Approximete Conversions from Metric Me..lr..
::: 5,..lIal Whla Yau Knaw Multi,l, II, Ta fiall 1,_1101

5,_lIal WhiR Yau bow Muhipl, II, Ta find 5,_1101 -_
.. - - .. LENGTH
~
LENGTH - non millimelers 0.04 inches in
~ em centimeter. 0.4 inches in
- m melers 3.3 feOl It
in inches ·2.5 centimeters em .. CIa m meters 1.1 yards yd
ft 'eet 30 centimeters em...a - km kilometers 0.6 miles mi
yd y.rds 0.9 meters m =-=-- _
mi miles 1.6 kilometers kin ~
- AREA
AREA ~
2 G' - - crrf square centimeters 0.16 square inches in2

in square inches 6.5 square centimet... crrf ~ m 2 square meters 1.2 square yards yd2
2 2
tt square feet 0.09 square meters.. m _ k,m2 &quare kilometers 2 0.4 aquar. miles mi 2
yd2 squ.re yerds 0.8 squ... melers m2 • he heeteres (10.000 m I 2.5 .eres
mi 2 square miles Z.& squere kilometers ~ _
acres 0.4 hectares ha - CO')
.. - MASS (weight)
MASS (weight) - ..
. _ - 9 grams 0.035 ounces or
oz ounces 28 grams g - _ kg kilogrems 2.2 pounds Ib
Ib pounds 0.45 kilogrems kg - I lannes (1000 kg) 1.1 ehortlans
short tons 0.9 lannes t _
(2000 Ibl . : : :
VOLUME - VOLUME
...
tIp teaspoons 5 milliliters ml - ml milliliters 0.03 fI.uid ounces flOJ:
Tbs tabl 15 millilile.. ml - .. I liters 2.1 pInts pl
fI 0: flU::: 30 milliliters ml Col _ I I~ters 1.06 quarts qt
C cups 0.24 liters I ~ I3 hlers 0.26 geUans ~I
pt pints 0.47 liters 1 m cubiC meters 3S cub~c feet ft 3
qt qlilarts 0.95 liters I - m3 cubic meters 1.3 cubiC yards yd
g~1 gellans 3.8 liters I3 _ _
It cubIC reel 0.03 cubIC melers m.. '" TEMPERATURE (elllct)
yd 3 cubiC yards 0.7& cubiC meters m3 •
TEMPERATURE (exICt) ..C Celsius 9/5 (then F....enheil ·F

_ _r.tu", odd 321 lemper.ture
OF Fahrenheit 5/9 lafter Celsius °c _
temperature subtracting te~rature ... _ OF
32) .. OF 3Z 98.6 l!IZ
_. - _ -4f", 'i~ I,' 114IOI",8,0I,ll,I~O, 1,II~O'I' 'IZ~,I

·1 In :. 2.54 (exactly). For other exact con\lers,olls and more detailed tables, see NBS MIsc. Pub!. 286. ~ __ - _ -20 0 20 f40 60 80 10'0
Un,ts or Weights and Measures, Price $2.25. SO CatalOQ No. C13.10:286. :, _ _ ~:g 37 0C
.; Of
.. .•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
INTRODUCTION
Purpose 1
Background 1
METHOD OF APPROACH 6
PhOTOMETRIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 6
Photometric Tests 6
Condensation Tests 11
Transition Zone Shifting Tests 13
Obstacle Clearance Tests 14
Beam Width Tests 15
Modification of VASI Units to Produce PAPI Signals 15
FLIGHT TESTING 18
Flight Testing at the Technical Center 18
Flight Testing at Newark Internatonal Airport 19
Flight Testing at Teterboro Airport 19
Flight Testing at Bader Field, Atlantic City 21
Flight Testing of a Two-Box PAPI at the Technical Center 24
PAPI Signal Resolution Testing at

the Technical Center 24
SU~1ARY OF RESULTS
28
CONCLUSIONS
29
REFERENCES
30
APPENDICES
A "Evaluation of PAPI by the U.S.A." (July 1, 1980)
B - "In-Service Testing of PAPI at Newark Airport (EWR)" (December 1981)
C - "PAPI Flight Test Results at Teterboro Airport (TEB)" (February 1982)
. D - "Flight Test Results of a TWO-BOX PAPI (ACY)" (November 1981)
Hi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 PAPI Approach Path (Side View) 2
2 Approach Path Illustration 3
3 Barrel PAPI System at Bader Field 4
4 Barrel Hlc MK 6 PAPI Unit 5
5 Crouse-Hinds PAPI Unit 7
6 Vertical Intensity Distribution Curve 8
7 Clear Signal Intensity Distribution Curve 9
8 Red Signal Intensity Distribution Curve 10
9 Environmental Testing of PAPI Units 12
10 VASI/PAPI Modifications 17
11 Typical PAPI Approach Path With 1LS 20
12 Bader Field PAPI Questionnaire (2 Sheets) 22
13 Graph of Nighttime Resolution Tests 26
14 Graph of Daytime Resolution Tests 27
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
.
1 Measured Flight Transition Angles Produced by PAPI Units 14
2 Measured Transition Angles Produced Over Threshold 15
3 A Percentage Comparison of PAPI With VASI at AIY 21
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The work described in this report has been performed in response to the Office of
Airport Programs request, number AAP-550-78-2 (dated May 22, 1978) "Evaluation of
the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI)." The purpose for testing PAPI was
to determine whether it provides sufficient advantages over the standard red/white
Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) to warrant recommending it as the United
States standard visual glidepath indicator.
The PAPI system was developed in the United Kingdom as an improvement to the VASI
system adopted as a standard 20 years ago. The VASI system, although a good
system, has certain shortcomings. Improvements claimed by proponents of the PAPI
system are:
1. ~etter guidance below 200 feet.

2. Quick, sharp (red/white) transition from one color to the other.
3. Multiple path guidance (incremental information).
4. Single bar touch-down aiming point.
Testing of the PAPI systems was performed in two parts. Part one consisted of
photometric, condensation, and transition zone shifting tests along with obstacle
clearance tests, beam width tests, and tests to try to produce sharp color tran
sition PAPI signals from modified VASI units. Part two consisted of flight
evaluations of the PAP I systems at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Technical Cent:er, Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey, and other operational air
ports, namely, Newark International Airport, New Jersey (EWR); Teterboro Airport,
New Jersey (TEB); and Bader Field, Atlantic City, New Jersey (AIY). These tests
were configured so that the PAPI was used in conjunction with an Instrument Landing
System (ILS) system where the PAPI was located (1) coincident with the ILS Glide
path Intercept (GPI) point, and (2) 300 feet beyond the ILS GPI with the PAPI
configured especially to operate with wide-bodied aircraft. Flight tests were also
accomplished on runways wi th no ILS and principally used by general aviation
aircraft. In addition, flight testing of a two-box PAPI was performed, as were
resolution test:s on the PAPI system at the Technical Center.
The result:s of the testing determined that the PAPI units met or exceeded the
existing requirements established for the standard red/white VASI system with
regard to intensity distribution, beam width, stability of the projected signal and
mechanical integrity of the units. It was found that during certain weather
conditions, condensation could form on the PAPI lenses and produce transient false
pink signals which must be eliminated by some means. A small amount of transition
zone shift:ing of the signal in the vertical plane was also found possible under
certain changes in temperature and humidity. It was found that modification of the
VASI box transition bar dimension alone was not a practical way to modify VASI
boxes to produce PAPI signals but, by the proper use of lenses, the conversion of a
VASI box to produce PAPI signals was possible. It was determined that an abbre
viated two-box PAPI system fulfills all of the visual glide slope requirements for
use on short runways where the five incremental paths provided by the four-box PAPI
system are not needed. It was also determined that four-box PAPI system signals
can be resolved and interpreted at a range of 4 nautical miles when the boxes are
separat:ed by at least 20 feet, and the signals can be resolved at a range of 2
nautical miles when the boxes are separated by a minimum of 10 feet.
v
The conclusions that were drawn from the testing were that the PAPI system does
provide significantly improved visual approach slope guidance over that obtained
from the standard red/white VASI system, and that the abbreviated two-box PAPI
system can be used as an economical alternative to the four-box PAPI system at
small airports. In addition, it was concluded that the separation of PAPI units in
a four-box system need not be more than 20 feet, and for small airports, where
typical approach distances are less than 2 nautical miles, the units need not be
separated by more than 10 feet. Condensation on the exterior of the PAPI lenses
must be prevented by either operational procedures or inclusion of heating devices
in the fixture design. It was also concluded that it is unlikely that any single
modification kit can be developed by the FAA to modify existing VASI units into
PAPI units, due to the variations in construction dimensions of VASI units, the
instability of VASI structural enclosures, and the expense of providing the
necessary lenses.
,"
vi
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE.
The work described in this report has been performed in response to the Office of
Airports Programs request number AAP-550-78-2 (dated May 22, 1978) "Evaluation of
the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI)." It was completed under the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Technical Center Program Document number 08-493,
Subprogram 0~1-502, Projects 510 "PAPI Evaluation" and 550 "Modification of VASI
Fixtures to Produce PAPI Signals."
The purpose for testing the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) was to deter
~. mine whether the PAPI provides sufficient advantages over the standard red/white
Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) to warrant recommending it as the United
States standard visual glidepath indicator.
BACKGROUND.
The PAPI system is the first red/white passive glide slope system that the Tech
nical Center has been asked to evaluate in detail since the VASI was accepted as
the United States standard. The PAPI system was developed in the United Kingdom as
an improvement to the VASI system adopted as a standard 20 years ago by the Inter
national Civil Aviation Organization (lCAO). The VASI system, although a good
system, has certain shortcomings. Improvements claimed by proponents of the PAPI
system are:
1. Better guidance below 200 feet.

2. A quick, sharp red/white transition from one color to the other.
3. Multiple path guidance (incremental information).
4. A single bar touch-down aiming point.
The PAPI system consists of a bar of four light units (three lamps per unit) facing
the approach end of the runway. Each unit is set at a slightly different angle (20
minutes apart) and emits a beam of high intensity light, the upper half showing
white and the lower half showing red. Figure 1 depicts a side view of the signal
sectors in the approach zone. As seen by the approaching pilot, it consists of a
bar oi four quick transition red/white light units whose on-glidepath signal
(usually 3°) is two red and two white lights (figure 2). When the aircraft is
,. slightly below glidepath (between 2 ° 50 minutes and 2° 30 minutes), the signal
changes to three red and one white light. When the aircraft is further below
glidepath (below 2° 30 minutes), a fly-up signal of four red lights is seen.
Conversely, deviations above the glidepath will cause the red light units to turn
successively white. In this configuration, the lights can be seen at about 5 miles
from the threshold of the runway (in unlimited visibility) and the on-glidepath
signal depth gradually reduces to approximately 6 feet at the threshold.
The physical configuration of the PAPI system (4 boxes) is shown in figure 3, each
box being similar in appearance to the standard red/white VASI box. They require
the same type and amount of power as required for a four-box VASI system and,
therefore, there is no change in the power requirements if a PAPI system is to be
substituted for a four-box VASI system. Most of the flight testing was accomplished
on a model BLC MK 6 PAPI system (figure 4) manufactured by the Barrel Lighting
Company, Limited of England. Some testing, however, was performed on early
.. _-----_. ---
600t 600
_~ i
FEET AGL
TIH +2000 +8000
PAPI R/W 13
3°30' 68.0 190.3 557.3 Atlantic City
3°10' 61.5 172.3 504.6 ./ ./'_ \\,..... 500
3° 58.2 163.0 477.5
(ACY)
2°50' 55.0 152.2 450.9
2°30' 48.5 135.8 397.8
_400~
D.
/'" ../ /'" d i S ~ 400

CJ
....
==
D:
W
N > I /'" ./'../ /'" ~ 300
0
m
ca:
I-
w
W
LL.
2001- /./~~ ~ 200
100
ii:
~~ T/H
1000 2000 4000 6000 8000
72' ELV'!-1111 ft.-l DISTANCE FROM T/ H (FEET) 82-153-1
FIGURE 1. PAPI APPROACH PATH (SIDE VIEW)
'It ,. ~
P.A.P.I.
0000 High
>3.5 deg.
r- ------.,
I I I '\ 000.
f \
!
i \,
! I \
!
/ ....
ilE II ~~. . \
\
• I •••• \
! \.
QO • • . · 00 • •
. .... ··.
eeee-----eeee
·On Slope'
0 •••
• RED
e GREEN
o WHITE
••••
82-153-2
FIGURE 2. APPROACH PATH ILLUSTRATION
3
•
-.
4
·
<.
\D
~
U
..J
=:l
..J
~
=:l
-::t
~
c.:l
H
~
versions of PAPI units built by ADB of Belgium and by Crouse-Hinds, Syracuse, New
York (figure 5).
METHOD OF APPROACH
Testing of the PAPI systems was performed in two parts. Part one consisted of
photometric, signal configuration, and environmental testing covering the
following:
1. Photometric tests.
2. Condensation tests.
3. Transition zone shifting tests.
4. Obstacle clearance tests.
5. Beam width tests.
6. Modification of VASI units to produce PAPI signals (sharp
color transition).
Part two consisted of flight evaluation of PAPI systems at the FAA Technical
Center, Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey and at other operational airports as
follows:
1. Flight testing with the PAPI located coincident with the ILS
Glidepath Intercept (GPI) point at the Technical Center (ACY).
2. Flight testing with the PAPI located 300 feet beyond the ILS
GPI at Newark International Airport, New Jersey (EWR).
3. Flight testing at Teterboro Airport, New Jersey (TEB) (no ILS).
4. Flight testing at Bader Field, New Jersey (AIY) (no ILS).
5. Flight testing of a Two~Box PAPI at ACY.
b. PAPI signal resolution testing at ACY.
PHOTOMETRIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING (PART I)
PHOTOMETRIC TESTS.
Photometric measurements were made on the Barrel Lighting Co. PAPI fixture. The
lamps are standard 30 volt, 200 watt, 200PAR locomotive lamps. Horizontal and
vertical intensity distribution measurements were obtained for the units. Figure 6
shows the vertical beam distribution of both the red and the white signals of one
PAPI unit when measured from minus 10 degrees to a plus 10-degree elevation. It
also displays the quick transition (approximately 3 minutes of arc) from one color
to the other. Figures 7 and 8 show the horizontal intensity distribution of the
white and red signals, respectively, taken at peak beam intensity. The peak
intensity of the white signal, occurring at 1.5 0 elevation, was 112,000 candelas
and the peak intensity of the red signal, occurring at 0 0 elevation, was 22,000
candelas. Transmittance tests were made on the red filters of the Barrel unit, and
~
';:)
t-4
~
p..
tf)
~
~
';:)
~
u
11'\
.
7
120K
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI)
BARRa. LIGHTING COMPANY. LTD. MODB. MK 6
100KI- VERTICAL SWEEP MECHANICAL CENTER
SOK
5
lU
o &OK
~
00 o
40K
20K
01 I I I I I I I I I I
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
VERTICAL ANGLES (DEGREES) 82-153-6
FIGURE 6. VERTICAL INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION CURVE
120K
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDiCATOR (PAPI)
BARRB.. LIGHTING COMPANY, LTD. MODB.. MK 6
100Ki HORIZONTAL SWEEP a.EAR SIGNAL
1.50 B..EVATION
BOK
c(
Ld
o 60K
1.0 ~
()
40K
oI I ! I I I I I I I
-10 -a -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 B 10
HORIZONTAL ANGLE (DEGREES) 82-153-7
FIGURE 7. CLEAR SIGNAL INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION CURVE
251<
BARRB. LIGHTING COMPANY. LTD. MODEl MK 6
HORIZONTAL SWEEP RED SIGNAL

20K
00 B.EVATION
16K
<
a:l
0
z
<
Co)
~
0
10K
o. , , I , • , I I I I
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 o 2 4 6 8 10
HORIZONTAL ANGLE (DEGREES) 82-153-8
FIGURE 8. RED SIGNAL INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION CURVE
this was found to be 21 1/4 percent in the cold condition which meets acceptable
standards.
CONDENSATION TESTS.
Because the PAPI systems use lenses to improve the signals, and since these lenses
are usually exposed to the weather, particular attention was paid to the possibil
ity of condensation forming to obscure the correct signal. The weather conditions
were monitored carefully for high humidity periods that would create this problem
and field observations made accordingly. During the early work on PAPI systems, it
was determined that the Belgian ADB PAPI units tended to form condensation upon the
exposed frontal surfaces of the lenses during high humidity condi tions while the
system was deenergized. Upon energization, diffusion and mixing of the projected
'. colors created a broad "pink" signal which could not be easily interpreted.
Correct color signals were restored within 15 minutes after turning the PAPI unit
on as the heat from the lamps dissipated the accumulated moisture.
In order to test this atmospheric moisture condition on the PAPI units, man-made
fog or condensation was created by soaking the units in a temperature chamber at
low temperatures (30° F) and then immediately subjecting them to normal room
temperatures that were at least 30° F higher and more humid. This created conden
sation on the units, similar to that observed when a bathroom mirror fogs up after
a shower. The following four condensation tests were performed to determine the
operational conditions under which condensation, with resultant signal deteriora
tion, would or would not occur.
For the initial test, both the British Barrel Lighting Company Limited MK 6 and the
Belgian ADB units were installed in the walk-in temperature/humidity chamber
(figure 9) in such a manner that their signals could be seen through the glass
viewing port. After the units were cold soaked at 30° F for 2 hours with the lamps
deenergized, the chamber door was opened and warm humid air was allowed to enter
the chamber. The exterior lens surfaces of both PAPI units were almost immediately
covered with condensation, resulting in a uniform distortion of the projected
signal that was perceived as a pink overall signal. The units were energized at
6.6 amperes intensity at this time. The ADB unit displayed a deeper pink hue since
its red filters are normally a deeper red hue than those of the Barrel unit. The
interiors of the boxes were then checked and virtually no internal condensation was
found. Within 1/2 hour, the lenses of both units were cleat of any condensation
and normal signal presentations were evident.
The second test was conducted in the same manner, except that the heaters in the
Barrel unit were energized during the cold soak preparation. No heaters were
.' provided with the ADB unit. After soaking the units at 30° F for 2 hours with the
lamps off, the chamber door was again opened to the warm air (72° F) and 61 percent
relative humidity. Condensation again immediately formed on the glass front of
both units and the same signal anomolies were observed for a period of approx
imately 1/2 hour. The Barrel unit heater did not appear to have any significant
remedial effect under these extreme temperature differential conditions.
For the third test, the units were again soaked for 2 hours at 30° F, with the
heaters energized in the Barrel unit and, this time, with the lamps of both units
operating on step 5 (6.6 amperes) intensity during the cold soak preparation.
After the door of the chamber was opened to the warm (74° F) temperature (61
percent relative humidity), it was observed that no condensation formed on the
frontal lens surfaces of either unit.
11
FIGURE 9. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING OF PAPI UNITS
12
For the fourth test» the above conditions were repeated with the only change being
that the intensity of the lamps was set at step 3 (4.1 amperes). After opening the
door to the room atmosphere» temperature 71° F and relative humidity of 56 percent»
small amounts of condensation formed on the center lens of the Barrel unit and on
the ADB plexiglas shield. Condensation cleared within 10 minutes and normal signal
presentations were restored.
From the above tests, it can be seen that» even under these extreme conditions»
leaving the units energized for 30 minutes before use will serve to dissipate any
formation of condensation due to temperature and humidity changes.
During the period of October through December 1981, freezing and near freezing
weather» with attendant fog and high humidity conditions» occurred at the Technical
Center. Observations as to the effects of such naturally occurring conditions upon
signal projections from field installed PAPI systems were made and recorded on both
the Barrel and Crouse-Hinds manufactured lighting fixtures. The PAPI units were
numbered consecutively so that number 1 was the inboard unit and number 4 was the
outboard unit.
Typically» the official weather report at 0800 hours was overcast» temperature 35°,
due point 35°» light drizzle and fog. Both Barrel and Crouse-Hinds units» in
stalled to serve runway 4» were monitored with units 1 and 2 continuously operating
and units 3 and 4 deenergized. Correct colors and signals were observed on units 1
and 2. Units 3 and 4 had droplets of water on the inside of the lenses and about
1/2 inch of snow on the lower portion of the outside of the lenses. Number 3 was
then energized to step 5 (6.6 amperes) and it was observed that the projected
signal color was a pinkish white through all vertical angles. This pink signal» as
viewed by a pilot, could have been interpreted to be white» giving a false 'fly
down' signal. A dangerous condition. Step 5 intensity operation for approximately
4 minutes with the Crouse-Hinds units and approximately 10 minutes with the
Barrel units (no heaters) dissipated the condensation from the lenses and restored
the proper signal presentation. Number 4 units were then energized to step 5
intensity and the same results were noted.
During many non-operational periods» ice was found on the sides of the PAPI units
with no ice formed on the lenses, or functional portion of PAPI. The design of the
units» with the lenses recessed under an overhang» served to keep the lenses
clear.
This freezing condensation problem is recognized by the manufacturers and the

'. Barrel units have heaters installed close to the lenses in an attempt to prevent
this condition. The Crouse-Hinds units are extremely compact and the heat from the
lamps develops quickly to eliminate this condition within a few minutes after
.' energization. Because this problem can be expected to occur with any PAPr unit,
specifications should be written to include means for preventing such an occurance.
TRANSITION ZONE SHIFTING TESTS.
In order to check for possible transition zone shifting in the vertical plane» due
to changes in temperature and/or humidity, tests under varying environmental
conditions were performed.
One of each of the Barrel and the ADB PAPI units were placed in the temperature/
humidity chamber (figure 9) in such a manner that their light signals were pro
jected through the viewing port with the red/white transition zone clearly
13
displayed 24 feet from the units. Lines were marked on a wall at the precise
location of the transition zone for each unit. Both units, with lamps deenergized,
were then heat soaked for 24 hours at 131 0 F and 95 percent humidity. After the
soaking, the units were energized and the position of the transition zone noted.
The ADB unit transition zone had not shifted at all, although the zone was slightly
less well defined. The Barrel unit transition zone had shifted upward 3/16 of an
inch with the zone just as distinct as before the soaking. The lamps were left ON
for 1/2 hour and then turned OFF for 1/2 hour. They were then turned back ON and
it was found that the transition zones had not shifted. The units were then
deenergized and left OFF for 24 hours at a normal room temperature and humidity.
After this 24-hour period, the light transition zones were again checked and it was
found that the Barrel unit transition zone had returned to its original position.
The ADB unit transition zone displayed no evident shifting during the entire test
procedure.
From the above test, it can be seen that the Barrel system, under high temperature
and humidity conditions, may exhibit a transition zone shift of approximately 2 1/4
minutes of arc upward. This is equivalent to 7.81 inches upward at a distance of
1000 feet from the unit, or 6.51 feet upward at a range of 2 miles. This transi
tion zone shifting, even with such extreme temperature and humidity changes, is
not of sufficient magnitude to be considered an operational problem.
OBSTACLE CLEARANCE TESTS.
The transition angles of each Barrel PAPI unit were flight checked to insure
that the red/white color transition path projected was exactly the aiming angle set
into the unit using the aiming clinometer provided with the system. Each PAPI box
was energized indiVidually and its transition angle flown as closely as possible
with a Convair 580 aircraft (N-49) (figure 1). A portable theodolite was set up at
the PAPI boxes and the average approach angle flown by the pilot was noted. The
theodolite was set 19 feet in front of the PAPI boxes in order to have the eye
piece in the actual line-of-sight between the aircraft and the PAPI units. As the
pilot was continually trying to fly the thin transition line in the sky, the result
was a continual cycling above and below that line. An observer aboard the aircraft
was in constant communications with the portable theodolite operator on the ground
reporting whether above, on, or below the transition line (red or white signal).
This allowed the operator to get a fix on the transition angle created by the PAPI
signal. Three approaches were made to each unit. At the same time, the photo
theodolite system tracked the aircraft and recorded the flight path flown. These
results are shown in table 1.
TABLE 1. MEASURED FLIGHT TRANSITION ANGLES PRODUCED BY PAPI UNITS
PAPI Box Average Angle Average Angle

Aiming With Portable With Photo
PAPI Box Angle Theololite Theololite
Number Deg - Min Deg - Min Deg - Min
1 3 30 3 37 (no recording obtained)

2 3 10 3 11 3 05
3 2 40 2 46 2 37
4 2 20 2 28 2 22
14
As shown above, the differences in the recorded angles and the clinometer set
aiming angles was never more than 8 minutes of arc.
As a part of the Obstacle Clearance Tests, a High Ranger Lifting Device (maximum
height - 75 feet) was used to measure the exact height of the transition signals
over the threshold. The PAPI units were located 1,411 feet down runway 13 and to
the side. At ACY, the threshold is 3 feet above the elevation where the PAPI units
were located. Table 2 shows the results.
TABLE 2. MEASURED TRANSITION ANGLES PRODUCED OVER THRESHOLD
Theoretical Measured
PAPI Box Transition Transition
Aimimg Height Height
PAPI Box Angle Above Threshold Above Threshold
L'l'umber Deg - Min (Feet) (Feet)
1 3 30 83.3 (no measurement)

2 3 10 75.06 73.5
3 2 40 62.72 60.5
4 2 20 54.5 54.5
The measured heights agree within acceptable tolerances with the theoretical values
computed for the threshold crossing heights. It is noted that measurements of
transition points to better than one foot are very difficult.
BEAM WIDTH TESTS.
On two occasions, the beam width of the Barrel PAPI system was measured by use of a
Bell 206 helicopter (N-I0) and a portable theodolite. The portable theodolite was
placed on the ground adjacent to the PAPI units and communications maintained
between the theodolite unit operator and the helicopter observer. Four flights
across the PAPI path, perpendicular to the runway centerline, were made at night at
a range of 4 nautical miles from the PAPI units. Widths recorded were 33°, 34°,
35°, and 35° (average beam width at night of 34 1/4°). Four passes were made
during the daytime at a range of 3 miles from the PAPI units. The average of these
runs was 28°. This exceeds the minimum beam width specified (20°) for the standard
red/White VASI during daytime or nighttime.
MODIFICATION OF VASI UNITS TO PRODUCE PAPI SIGNALS.
Both VASI and PAPI lighting fixtures are similar in that they generate a solid red
.' signal below the fixture aiming line and a solid white signal above the line. They
differ, however, in that the PAPI fixture utilizes an additional lens arrangement
to minimize the vertical height of the transition (pink) zone to less than three
minutes of arc. VASI fixtures typically display a wider transition zone of approx
imately fifteen to twenty minutes of arc, and have been determined to be unsuitable
for use in the PAPI configuration.
Efforts undertaken in the past at the FAA Technical Center, in an attempt to reduce
the VASI transition zone height by varying the vertical width of the transition bar
were successful to a limited extent. Increasing the vertical width of the bar from
1/2 inch to 1 inch reduced the transition zone to approximately 8 minutes of arc,
15
with an attendent but yet acceptable reduction of signal intensity within the
transition zone. Attempts under this project effort to further increase the width
of the transition bar beyond 1 inch t however t resulted in much greater transition
zone signal attenuation t to the extent that a resultant weak signal was perceived t
from a distance t to be no signal at all. Substitution of unfluted clear and red
filters t to narrow the emitted beam spread and increase signal intensitYt did not
provide sufficient enhancement of the weak transition zone display to render it
useable t and narrowed the system horizontal coverage to the point of being insuffi
cient for operational use. These results demonstrated that the VASI fixtures
cannot t through modification of the transition bar width alone t be rendered suit
able for uS'e in the PAPI configuration.
Considerable work was then performed in an attempt to modify standard red/white

VASI boxes with installed lenses to produce the quick transition of signals. Two
manufacturer's types of VASI units t General Electric and Sylvania t were available
for experimentation t and the first modification attempts were performed on the
General Electric VASI boxes.
Three types of projection lenses were considered for use. They were:
Type I: Glass plano-convex spherical lenses

Type II: Plastic flat circular-zoned lenses
Type III: Glass or plastic cylindrical lenses
Among the three types of lenses t type III lenses were considered because they would
have been compatible with the spread lenses usually found in existing VASI boxes
and would have given the same width to height ratio with the required intensity
pattern. However t costs of such lenses (approximately $500 each) was considered
not cost beneficial for a VASI to PAPI modification and therefore were eliminated
from further consideration.
Several diameters and focal lengths of both types I and II lenses were used. Each
has its own advantages and disadvantages which can be ascertained by a study of
each manufacturer's lenses. The type I 6-inch diameter lens was chosen as the best
compromise between cost and weight versus maximum utilization of the light coming
from the 8-inch diameter lamps and filters used in VASI boxes.
Twelve type I lenses, with nominal 6-inch diameter and 17-inch focal lengths t were
mounted securely in split-ring holders with hose clamps around the rings to assure
stability when mounted in the VASI boxes.
Two types of modifications were then devised t each suited to a unique lens mounting
position (figure 10). Sylvania VASI boxes were used in these experiments t with
each modification designated as either the "open slot" model or the "narrow slot"
model.
The open slot" model mounting arrangement of the optical components included
unfluted red filters in their normal mounting positions, with the 6-inch lenses
mounted at the focal length, 17 inches forward of the red filters. The normal
2-inch slotted front face of the VASI box was completely removed, leaving the front
of the box open.
The "narrow slot" model design required that the 6-inch lenses be moved forward so
that the focal length plane was coincident with the normal 2-inch slot on the front
of the box to insure maximum signal emission through the 2-inch slot. The lens t
16
. FILTER
1----'7 INCHES-.j
OPEN SLOT MODB.
FI'LTER
..
.'
j . - - 1 7 INCHES ---."""'~ . - - 1 7 INCHES--.j
NARROW SLOT MODB.

82-153-10 '
FIGURE 10. VASI/PAPI MODIFICATIONS
17
therefore, was located 17 inches in back of the 2-inch slot with the red filter 17
inches to the rear of the lens, as shown in figure 10.
Prototypes of the above two models were then installed on runway 13 at the Tech
nical Center, side by side, and flight checked for proper signals. Pilot opinion'
indicated that both modified units displayed a signal closely approximating that of
commercially available PAPI systems, and it was decided to fabricate a full four
box PAPI system from the design that was easiest to make and least costly. The
"open slot" model was chosen as the most practical design.
Four Sylvania boxes were modified with the addition of 17-inch focal length, 6-inch
diameter, fire-polished glass lenses (type I) in each box located at the focal
length distance from the flat glass red filters. The red filters were left in
their original positions. The front face material at the slot end of the boxes was
removed allowing the signal to be properly beamed through the open end of the VASI
box. The added lenses were mounted in a metal frame which blocked any stray light
and added considerable strength to the VASI boxes.
The modified units were mounted in a PAPI configuration on the left side of runway
13, with the Crouse-Hinds PAPI units mounted on the right side for comparison. No
standard means of setting the angles of the VASI/PAPI boxes was provided for in
these experiments and the aiming angles of the units were set by use of a portable
theodolite. It should be noted that this modification kit was installed in
Sylvania VASI units, and that VASI units of different manufacture would probably
require unique modification techniques.
Subsequent flight testing verified that the modified units functioned as well
as the Crouse-Hinds PAPI units by providing the typical PAPI quick transition
characteristics. Mathematical calculations indicated that the horizontal beam
width of the modified VASI units would be, in theory, only slightly narrower than
that of a standard PAPI system; flight tests confirmed this calculation.
FLIGHT TESTING (PART II)
FLIGHT TESTING AT THE TECHNICAL CENTER.
An informal interim report entitled "Evaluation of PAPI by the U.S.A." sent to Air
ports Standards (AAS-200) on 7-1-80 (appendix A), describes in detail the PAPI ..
system flight testing conducted at the Technical Center before 7-1-80.
To summarize this report, the PAPI system was installed on the right hand side of
runway 13, adjacent to the Glidepath Intercept (GPI) point, 1,111 feet down from
the runway threshold, and 108 tracked approaches were made by FAA test pilots while
using the PAPI system. The usable height, accuracy, compatibility with the ILS,
pilot acceptance and other related issues are discussed in appendix A. The con
clusions of 12 test pilots flying an Aero-Commander, a Gulfstream G-159, a Convair
580 and a Convair 880 were that 58 percent preferred PAPI, 42 percent thought PAPI
and VASI were about the same and none preferred VASI over PAPI. Tracking of the
aircraft was accomplished by a phototheodolite system.
18
During the flight testing at the Technical Center. pilots were instructed to dis
regard ILS glide slope indications and to derive vertical approach slope guidance
from the PAPI visual presentation only. In fact. during October 1980. 32 special
flights were made with the ILS system in the aircraft turned off during the
approach phase of flight. No significant differences were noted in the results
of this portion of the flight testing as compared to tests where the ILS avionics
was operated.
FLIGHT TESTING AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. NJ (EWR).
An interim report. DOT/FAA/RD-81/95. dated December 1981 (appendix B) details the

evaluation of PAPI when located to take into account the large eye to ILS antenna
separation associated with wide-bodied aircraft. Four months of inservice testing
was accomplished at Newark (EWR) (runway 4R) where pilots of wide-bodied aircraft
compared the PAPI to the standard red/white VASI system.
Special attention was given to the use of a PAPI system with large aircraft with an
operating ILS system (figure 11). The on-course PAPI signal (two red and two
white) was compatible with the ILS glide slope indications for all aircraft (large
and small) from as far out as the lights could be seen (about 5 miles) to a
point approximately 1300 feet from the threshold. At this point. pilots of wide
bodied aircraft. following the ILS. saw three white and one red light due to the
large eye-to-antenna separation. Pilots of small aircraft saw three red and one
white at this point. due to small eye-to-antenna separation. All aircraft there
fore could use the PAPI without special interpretation to a point 1300 feet from
the threshold. still on the ILS glide slope. with an "on-course" indication. This
is diagrammed in figure 11. The United States presently does not recommend that a
visual glide slope be used in conjunction with an ILS system (Handbook 6850.2).
Under these conditions at EWR. 61 percent of the pilots flying wide-bodied aircraft
(with large eye-to-antenna separation. and landing with an ILS system) preferred
PAPI over the VASI system. An additional 28 percent of the pilots felt that the
PAPI and VASI systems were equally effective. The rest of the pilots (11 percent)
preferred the VASI system.
FLIGHT TESTING AT TETERBORO AIRPORT. NJ (TEB).
In order to obtain opinions from the General Aviation segment of the aviation
community. a 3-month inservice test of PAPI was conducted at Teterboro Airport.
A data report was issued in February 1982 detailing the test results at Teterboro
Airport and is included as appendix C to this report.
Although a great deal of interest in the PAPI was evidenced. only 17 completed
questionnaires (out of approximately 300 distributed) were returned for analysis.
Because of this. additional inservice testing. to obtain General Aviation user
input. was later conducted at another airport (see Flight Testing at Bader Airport.
Atlantic City. New Jersey. in this report). In order to maintain conformity the
same questionnaire format was used for all flight testing of the PAPI system.
At least 75 percent of the pilots that completed questionnaires were corporate or

business pilots. and responses covered both daytime and nighttime approaches.
The results. summarized. indicated that 88 percent of the pilots felt the PAPI
system to be superior to the VASI in overall effectiveness. The remaining 12
percent of the pilots felt that the PAPI was at least equal to the VASI in overall
effectiveness. and superior in some respects.
19
'S~O
200
PAPI SET TO ACCOMODATE
BOTH LARGE AND SMALL AIRCRAFT
AIR CRAFT ILS ANTENNA TRACK

PILOT'S EVE TRACK FOR LARGE AIRCRAFT WHEN
FLVING ILS SIGNAL
N
o
I
W100
W
u.
-'
CJ
<
M
u)
...
C'oI
(1411 ) (1111 ) 2000

FEET 82-153-11
FIGURE 11. TYPICAL PAPI APPROACH PATH WITH ILS

FLIGHT TESTING AT BADER FIELD, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ (AIY).
In order to expand the input from General Aviation pilots, 3 months of inservice
flight testing was performed at Bader Field (AIY). The PAPI system was installed
375 feet from the threshold; on the left hand side of runway 11. The Barrel
Lighting Co. Ltd. PAPI units used at AIY were the same as those used in the
previous flight testing at other airports. The inboard unit was located 50 feet
from the edge of the runway with a lateral separation of 33 feet between adjacent
units (figure 3). The Questionnaires (same ones used at EWR, TEB, and AIY), and
Approach Path Illustrations (figure 2) were furnished by the Atlantic City Airport
Administrator.
During the testing period, construction work on the airport required that, at
times, the 2950-foot runway be shortened to 2350 feet. The PAPI system was not in
operation whenever the runway threshold was so displaced. As requested by many of
the local pilots, and concurred with by Eastern Region personnel, the PAPI on
. course signal was set at 4 degrees, due to the existance of a relatively short
runway, predominantly small aircraft landing at steep angles, and obstacles in the
approach zone. The unit aiming angles were separated by 20 minutes of arc starting
at 4° 30 minutes for the high angle. Thus, the low transitions were set at 4° 10
minutes, 3° 50 minutes, and 3° 30 minutes.
Forty-six questionnaires were returned by pilots who had flown the PAPI system. As
had been done at EWR and TEB, the PAPI was compared with the standard red/white
VASI system. Pilots from many diversified backgrounds flew the system involving
20 different aircraft types, most of which were not regularly based at Bader
Field. The largest aircraft was the de Havilland DHC-7 (DASH-7) along with many
small Piper and Cessna aircraft. Seventeen questionnaires were received from the
de Havilland DHC-6 (OTTER) pilots who regularly fly into and out of Bader on
scheduled commuter flights. All of the landings were made during VFR weather.
Eighty percent of the landings were made during the daylight hours from 0700 to
1930. Twenty percent landed at night between the hours from 2000 to 2400. Table 3
shows the questionnaire results of the comparison of the PAPI system with the
standard red/ white VASI system at AIY.
TABLE 3. A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF PAPI WITH VASI AT AIY
Response (Percentage)
Rating Factors Better Same Worse
Rate Information 70 28 2
Ease of Maintaining Approach Angle 58 38 4
Correcting Vertical Excursions 67 26 7
Usefulness of Touchdown Aiming Point 39 57 4
Initial Contact Range 71 27 2
Overall Value Compared with VASI 70 26 4
As shown above, 70 percent of the pilot responses indicated that, overall, PAPI was
preferred to the VASI system, 26 percent thought they were about the same, and 4
percent thought the VASI system was better than PAPI. All of the rating factors
indicated that PAPI was preferred for that particular rating factor except for the
"Usefulness of the Touchdown Aiming Point" which indicated that more pilots thought
that the usefulness of the aiming point was about the same for both the PAPI and
VASI systems.
21
The numerical values of responses are included on the Summary Questionnaire
(figure 12).
BjDER FIELD AIRPORT
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
PAPr TESTING AT BADER
. .
An operational evaluation ot the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPl)

is being conducted at Bader Field in cooperation with the FAA Technical
-
Center. PAPl is a possible replacement for the standard redfwhite VASI
(Visual. Approach Slope Indicator) and is installed on the lett hand side o£
runway 11 at Bader, 375 feet down the runway from. the threshold. The attached
pictorial diagram bas been prepared. for your assistance in evaluating the
system. Atter you have flown the system, please f111 out the questionnaire
below aDd return it to the operations desk. Your views are considered vital
to the tests. Thank you.
6:-18-82
- - GLIDE SLOPE Nal AT 4 DEGREES -
ua.
1'\-te 9-18-82 _ T1me _ VARIOUS
Aircraft Type _
VFR _ IFR _ Ra1n (yes or no) _
In comparison \lith VASIS, please assess PAPlon the f'ollOW'ing points1
Better Same Worse
1. Rate Information 32 13 . 1
2. Ease of' Maintaining Approach Angle 26 17 2
3. Correcting Vertical Excursions 31 12 3

4. Usefulness on Touchdown Ajm1ng Point 18 26 2
5. Initial Contact Range 31 12 1

6. Overall value compared vitb V!SIS 32 12 2
Additional Comments& 82-153-12

FIGURE 12. BADER FIELD PAPI QUESTIONNAIRE (Sheet 1 of 2)
22
Listed below are the written comments that were provided on the Questionnaire.
1. Excellent glide slope information - Easy to transition degree of glide slope.
2. At this airport it should be closer to the end of the runway. I think lights
change too fast for non-professional pilots. Would chase lights for proper indica
tion rather than paying attention to runway environment for landing.
3. It provides better vertical resolution. I like it!
4. This is first time use and without any prior knowledge of system I had a
little confusion on initial contact and was high all the way down.
5. First time I've used it - might get better with familiarity.
6. Seems much brighter and appears to give more information quicker.
7. Approach seems to be set too high. Frequently the system is inoperative or

off.
H. Glide slope was better at 3 degrees.
9. Four degrees for Bader is too high.
10. Great - please leave on runway 11 and install one on runway 29.
11. The on-glidepath indication seems to be a little low for the obstacles at
Bader. The 3.2 degree path seems to be better. For an Otter anyway.
12. Glide slope angle too steep.
13. Runway 29 should have PAPI, not runway 11. Both would be nice.
14. Touchdown aiming point a waste for DHC-6; needed runway.

~
15. Gives much more (better) rate and intercept data than VASI.
16. Like the way system changes, instant change - no pink in the middle.
'. 17. PAPI lights can be seen easier at wider angles from runway centerline. There
are more increments in the glidepath which helps accuracy. These increments are
also easier to identify •
.'
FIGURE 12. BADER FIELD PAPI QUESTIONNAIRE (Sheet 2 of 2)
23
FLIGHT TESTING OF A TWO-BOX PAPI AT THE TECHNICAL CENTER (ACY).
A discussion concerning the testing of a two-box PAPI system is given in a data

report entitled "Flight Test Results of a Two-Box PAPI Tested at the FAA Technical
Center" dated November 1981; reference Appendix D. The purpose of these tests was
to determine whether a two-box PAPI system could be use4 where the five incremental
paths provided by the full four-box PAPI system may not be necessary. Such usage
would be at smaller airports where smaller general aviation aircraft constitute the
greater proportion of traffic.
In summary, a Crouse-Hinds PAPI system was set up in a two-box configuration on

runway 4 at the Technical Center and forty-five approaches were made while using
the system by Technical Center test pilots. Flights were tracked with the EAIR
Radar Tracking System. The EAIR Radar Tracking system is located in an area such
that it is impossible to track flights below 50 feet during the approach to runway
4. Therefore, portions of the radar track below 50 feet were disregarded.
Generally, the test pilots that flew the system were quite enthusiastic about the
two-box PAPI for general aviation use and thought that it served the purpose
adequately without the need for the five paths that are provided with the four-box
system. Most of the responses to the questionnaire were favorable with regard to
the two-box PAPI except for the question comparing the two-box PAPI with the two
box VASI wherein the pilots thought they were about equal. Some pilots remarked
that, aside from the range of the two-box PAPI system, all of the glide path
information that was necessary for all airports is provided by the two-box PAPI
system.
Subsequently, the two-box system was temporarily put in service on runway 31

and pilots from the Air National Guard, flying F-106 fighter/interceptor aircraft,
were asked to provide comments. These pilots completed eleven questionnaires and
expressed the added opinions that, for them, the approach path should be at 2.5°,
and that the present red/white VASI system, with its shades of colors, was useful
for their purposes. They generally felt that the PAPI system gave the minimum
guidance required but not much more. At least half of the military pilots
indicated that the two-box VASI system should be continued in service.
It should be noted that the optimum glidepath of approach angle for high perform
ance fighter aircraft, such as the F-106 mentioned above, is well below the three
degree angle normally used by commercial and general aviation aircraft. Several of
the Air National Guard pilots participating in the two-box PAPI evaluation com
mented that they felt "uncomfortable" with the higher approach. path angle used for
the evaluation, and would have preferred a system adjusted for a 2- or 2 1/2 degree
approach path.
PAPI SIGNAL RESOLUTION TESTING AT THE TECHNICAL CENTER.
Additional flight testing was conducted to determine whether PAPI signals could be
readily seen and resolved with individual PAPI units installed closer together than
specified by the British (minimum spacing of 33 feet). Four Barrel PAPI units were
installed at the Technical Center in the configuration shown below.
24
" ' - - - 1 0 FEET---......_ - - - - - 1 5 FEET------t......~-5 FEET--.-\
The spacing of the experimental arrangement was so constituted that individual

pairs of units could be energized, in turn, to provide lateral spacings of S, 10,
IS, 20, 2S, and 30 feet as desired. Approaches were flown, from extreme range,
with an Aero Commander 680 aircraft, a.Bell 206L helicopter, and a Sikorski S-76
helicopter to determine the maximum distances (range) at which signals from two
PAPI light units could be resolved and identified as two distinct light sources.
Known landmarks on the ground and distance measurement equipment (DME) in the
aircraft were used to observe and record maximum resolution ranges for pairs of
PAPI units with lateral spacings as indicated above. A conservative approach was
taken in this test and resolution ranges were not established until the lights
were judged to be sufficiently distinct so as to insure that an unfamiliar pilot
could clearly determine that individual lights from the PAPI system could be seen
separately. The flight tests were conducted in VFR weather conditions, in daylight
and at night, with at least 4 1/2 nautical miles of visibility.
NIGHTTIME TEST RESULTS. (Figure 13). Power supply current, at night, was set at
3.8 amperes, midway between the current values for intensity steps 2 and 3 on the
standard five-step regulator. It had been determined, during the previous night
flight testing of the PAPI system, that this intensity was preferred by the major
ity of pilots who flew the PAPI at the Technical Center. In each test session, it
was determined that the pilots, at night, were able to resolve individual PAPI red
and white light signals with spacing as close as 20 feet at ranges of 4 nautical
miles. FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5340-25, "Visual Approach Slope Indicator
(VASI) Systems," specifies 4 nautical miles as the minimum useable range for a
standard four-box VASI. Lateral spacing of less than 20 feet resulted in deter
mined resolution ranges of less than the required 4 nautical miles and were judged
to be inadequate.
DAYTIME TEST RESULTS. (Figure 14). Power supply current, during daytime, was set
at 6.6 amperes which is the current value for intensity step 5 on the standard
five-step regulator. Pilots were barely able to resolve the PAPI red light signal
at 4-nautical mile range with the greatest lateral spacing of 30 feet. In fact,
resolution ranges for the red signals were relatively constant at slightly greater
than 3 nautical miles, regardless of lateral spacings less than 30 feet. This
should not be construed to mean that a full four-box PAPI system could not be used
at a 4-nautical mile range, in daylight, since a pilot familiar with the system
could easily determine his long range relationship to glide path by counting the
discernible white lights of the system.
The average resolution range of the PAPI white lights, during daytime, exceeded 4
nautical miles even when the lateral spacing of PAPI units was as c lose as 10
feet.
25
..•_---"_._..~"..~_._-----------------
: APPROACH STARTED OR
7~
SUMMATION OF I LIGHTS COULD FIRST BE SEEN
NIGHT ONLY
EiP
mil
RED LIGHTS
.-
61 r ~
•
I r
II
D WHITE LIGHTS
,..
I I ~
I I :::::::r
f!l!!!.;
I I
I I ~~~~;~~:
6~
r.
I I
I
I
.
I
I
......
I
I II II II ::::::;
::::::.
:::::::1
-
:i
II I 1 I 1Il'
~
_ _ -I I II 1 ~:t
~~:~:;:i
~
(I)
ILl I _ _ _ _ _ _I I
X
41 I I 1- - - - ::::::::
i I I ':::::~
I I I :::::::
=
~
A.
I I m
:li:
II I -
N ~
II. 1 I
0\
ILl
U
3~ I I
I I
~ I I
Iii
5
~ i~:
2~
~1 ~
1~;1
11
.1 IJ 10
IU 15
IJ 211
~lJ 26
IJL.-.30
OOX SEPARATION (FEET) 82-153-13
FIGURE 13. GRAPH OF NIGHTTIME RESOLUTION TESTS
'.
7r
SUMMATION OF
DAY ONLY r- APPROACH STARTED OR
: LIGHTS COULD FIRST BE SEEN
u- I· · ·
::::::::
::::::::
RED LIGHTS
D WHITE LIGHTS
,...
,
I , ..
61 I
I
I
I
,..
I
I .....
I
i- I
I
~ 11
>< 4'----1 1 - - . . - - - - - - ------ I-- - - --I t-- - -
i I I
- I r- I
~ I I I r-
II. I r I I
~
a:
I
I
~.
~:.:. II l.
r.:":":'
_:.~:.
•••••:'
N ~ w ~ ~
"-.J IoU 3 ' I ::1:1: _ :~:1:1; ~:::~
~
et Im ~1111 :~~
.:.:=:. r:1111i
•••••,
~ 21 I
~
I~
I ~
I
H
10 16 20 25 30
BOX SEPARATION (FEEn 82-153-14
FIGURE 14. GRAPH OF DAYTIME RESOLUTION TESTS

It follows from the above determinations, with regard to both night and day
conditions, that lateral spacing of PAPI units installed at smaller General
Aviation airports could be reduced to as little as 10 feet and still provide
adequate guidance within ranges of 2 to 3 miles from the runway threshold.
Spacing of at least 20 feet between PAPI units should be maintained for systems
installed at larger airports where a minimum visual approach guidance range of 4
nautical miles is required.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Extensive testing was performed on the PAPI glide slope system at the Technical
Center and at a number of operational airports, both large and small. During the
testing the following results were observed:
1. Photometric and environmental testing determined that the PAPI units

met or exceeded the existing requirements established for the standard red/white
VASI system with regard to intensity distribution, beam width, stability of the
projected signal and mechanical integrity of units. No major maintenance problems
were encountered during the 3 years of testing.
2. It was found that during certain critical weather conditions, condensation

forming on the PAPI lenses could produce transient false pink signals. Methods
found that would eliminate this problem are:
a. Energize system continuously.

b. Energize system at least 30 minutes before flight operation.
c. Install heaters in close proximity to the lenses.
3. Vertical shifting of the transition zone signal due to changes in tempera

ture and humidity was observed. However, the magnitude of these signal changes was
slight and should not create operational problems.
4. It was found that Sylvania and General Electric VASI boxes can be modified
to project the sharp transition PAPI signal through retrofitting of projector
lenses in the units. Modification of the VASI box transition bar dimension alone
does not provide the required sharp transition signal.
5. It was determined that an abbreviated two-box PAPI system fulfills all of

the requirements for use on short runways where the five incremental paths prOVided
by the four-box PAPI system are not needed. ~
6. It was determined that four-box PAPI system signals can be resolved and
interpreted at a range of 4 nautical miles when the boxes are separated by at
least 20 feet or more. At a range of 2 nautical miles the signals can be resolved
when the boxes are separated by at least 10 feet.
7. A summary of questionnaire results from testing of the 4-box PAPI system
at Newark, Teterboro, and Atlantic City Airports is shown below.
28
RESPONSE (PERCENTAGE)
Compared to a VASI system, the items below are: BETTER SAME WORSE
1. Rate Information 63 32 5
2. Ease of Maintaining Approach Angle 72 20 8
4. Usefulness of Touchdown Aiming Point 41 53 6
6. Overall Value Compared with VASIS 63 32 5
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded from the testing that:
1. The PAPI system provides significantly improved visual approach slope

guidance over that obtained from the standard red/white VASI system.
2. The abbreviated two-box PAPI system can be used as an economical alter

native to the four-box PAPI system at small airports.
3. The separation of PAPI units in a four-box system need not be more

than 20 feet; and for small airports, where typical approach distances are less
than 2 nautical miles, the units need not be separated by more than 10 feet.
4. Condensation on the exterior of the PAPI lenses must be prevented by

either operational procedures or inclusion of heating devices in the fixture
design.
5. It seems unlikely that any single modification kit can be developed by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to modify existing VASI units into PAPI
units, due to the variations in construction dimensions of VASI units, the
instability of VASI structural enclosures, and the expense of providing the neces
.' sary lenses.
29
REFERENCES
1. Jones, P. H., Precision Ap roach Path Indicator (PAPI) Environmental Tests,

Report Number NA-78-67-LR, DOT FAA, NAFEC, October 1978.
2. Paprocki, T. H., uick Response Evaluation of Precision A proach Path Indica

tor (PAPI), Report Number NA-77-36-LR, DOT FAA, NAFEC, July 1977.
3. Gates, R. F., Paprocki, T. H., VASIS Si nal Transition Zone and Color Modifi
cations, Report Number FAA-ARD-72-91, DOT FAA, NAFEC, September 1972.
4. Advisory Circular Number 150/5340-25, Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI)

Systems, DOT/FAA dated September 24, 1916.
5. Advisory Circular Number 150/5345-28C, Specification For L-851 Visual Approach
Slope Indicator and Accessories, DOT/FAA dated March 23, 1977.
6. Handbook 6850.2, Visual Guidance Lighting Systems, DOT/FAA Change 7, dated

Marcn 18, 1974.
30
".
APPENDIX A
"EVALUATION OF PAPI BY THE U.S.A"
(July 1, 1980)
,
EVALUATION OF PAPI BY THE U.S.A.
Evaluation of the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI)

System in the United States is being conducted by the Federal
Aviation Administration at the FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City,
New Jersey. The evaluation effort includes experimental tests
at the Technical Center (Phase I) and, possibly, IIIn-Service ll
testing at some Air Carrier Airport within the continental
United States.
Flight testing of the standard United Kingdom proposed PAPI
configuration has been completed using Aero-Commander, Gulfstream
G-159, Convair 580 and Convair 880 type aircraft. FAA Test Pilots
accomplished a total of 108 approaches to the PAPI installed as
a single bar right-side only system at a point adjacent to the
main instrument runway touchdown point and at a distance of
1111 feet (339 meters) from the runway threshold. The inboard
lighting fixture was situated 50 feet (15 meters) outboard of
the right edge of the 300 foot (91 meter) wide runway, with the
remaining three lighting fixtures located on 33 foot (10 meter)
centers outboard of the innermost fixture. Lighting fixtures
used were the BLC Mk 6 P.A.P.I. units as manufactured by
Barrel Lighting Company Limited, of England. Standard FAA
specification constant current regulators provided 6.6 Ampere
(Intensity step 5) circuit current for daylight operation of
the PAPI and 4.1 Ampere (Intensity step 3) circuit current for
night operations. The PAPI fixtures are adjusted to provide. an
1I0n-coursell signal (RED/RED/WHITE/WHITE) at 3.0 0 , with a
standard 20 minute difference between fixture aiming angles.
A-I
Fixture spacing and location was kept constant during all

test flights. Previously accomplished testing, using Belgian
made two-lamp PAPl fixtures, had established the 33 foot (10 meter)
spacing between fixtures as optimum for visual separation of the
individual fixture light sources. Additional tests, using a
300 foot (91 meter) system displacement further down from runway
threshold and widening of the angle between center fixtures to
30 minutes, will be conducted in time to have results available
for the next· leAD Visual Aids Panel meeting. This modification
has been suggested by the United. Kingdom representative as approp
riate for better suiting the system to wide-bodied jet use.
Usable H€ i ght
Pilot responses to the post-flight questionnaire indicated
that they were able to obtain useful gUidance from the PAPl
system to the point at which the aircraft passed over the runway
threshold, or to a height of approximately 54 feet (16 meters).
Accuracy of PAPl System
The accuracy of the PAPl System was determined by 72 Photo
theodolite tracked approaches. Data was computer reduced and
analyzed to give a composite plot of raw data and a statistical
plot. The statistical analysis was made of the segments of the
approaches when the pilots were flying "on-course.'1 At each
200 foot segment of range, the mean, + 1~(standard deviation)
and ~ 3~~values were calculated for all approaches and plotted.
A linear regression line was drawn through each set'of points.
Lines representing the + 1~ deviation indica~e that 68.26 percent
of all aircraft flying the PAPl would remain within this
A-2
3
corridor. The + 36Vlines indicate the corridor in which

99.74 percent, or all aircraft, can be expected to remain.
The statistical values for the PAPI were:
30'- = 3.39 0 = 3 0 23 1
1e- = 3.14 0 = 30 08 1
mean = 3.01 0 = 30 0 1
-10'- = 2.89 0 = 20 53.
- 36"- = 2.64 0 = 2 0 38 1
The composite and statistical plots are included.

Use of Conventional VASI's Fixtures in the PAPI Configuration
Tests previously conducted at the FAA Technical Center using
standard United States VASI lighting fixtures in the PAPI configura
tion revealed that system performance is seriously degraded by the
wide "Pink" transition zone displayed by the standard VASI fixtures.
It appears essential that fixtures having a transition zone vertical
width of not more than 3 minutes of arc be used in the PAPI system.
Attempts by the FAA to modify standard VASI fixtures to
obtain the necessary narrow transition zone have, thus far, been
unsuccessful. Further efforts are presently being undertaken,
using additional lenses within the unit, and it is hoped that
more information about this modiflcation effort will be available
~ for presentation at the next ICAO Visual Aids Panel Meeting.
Winter Operations
No experience with Winter operation of PAPI Lens Type equip
ment has been obtained during FAA testing of the system. It is
hoped that such testing can be accomplished during the "In-Service"
phase of the evaluation effort.
A-3
4
Previous testing at the FAA Technical Center, using Belgian
made PAPI units, revealed a tendency for moisture to condense upon
the exposed frontal surfaces of the lenses during periods of
rain or high humidity while the system was deenergized. Upon
energization of the system, the water droplets caused diffusion
of the projected light signals, with the result that a pure II pink li
signal was perceived for a short period of time subsequent to

startup. The heat generated within the lenses was sufficient to
restore proper signal appearance after approximately 15 minutes
of on-time. This projection of an improper signal, although of
only short duration, must be considered as a problem area for the
PAP I.
Single Side Acceptability
The United States has, for a number of years, specified a
II s ingle-side onlyll 4 unit VASI system as the National Standard.
Arguments based on the benefit of roll guidance that may be
proyided by a double-sided VASI system have not been substantiated
by user pilot opinion in the United States, since numerous other
visual cues available to the pilot appear sufficient for providing
such information. .
It seems reasonable that the single-sided
PAPI system would provide adequate visual approach path guidance
without the additional cost and siting difficulties attendant
to installation'of the double-sided system.
Compatibility with Instrument Landing System (ILS)
While the two-bar PAPI system'will provide compatibility with

the ILS for both conventional and wide-bodi~d aircraft, the
A-4
multiplicity of signals attendant to use of such a system appears

to introduce a distinct potential for pilot confusion. For this
reason the two-bar system has not been tested by the FAA, and it
is hoped that further evaluation of configuration modifications,
as proposed by the United Kingdom, will result in a solution to
this problem without the necessity of providing more than one
PAPI bar. We hope that further information concerning this
aspect of the PAPI testing will be available in time for presenta
tion at the next ICAD Visual Aids Panel meeting.
PILOT ACCEPTANCE AND PREFERENCE
The following results are based on over 100 approaches con
ducted by 12 Test Pilots at the Federal Aviation Technical Center,
Atlantic City, New Jersey. The overall acceptance of the PAPI
system was favorable. Pi lots were able to obtain continual guidance
throughout the approach and were able to acquire the PAPI at a
range of 6.5 nmi (10.5 km.) daytime and 10+ nmi (16 km.) nighttime.
Course dimensions were sufficient to permit comfortable conformance
to the desired flight path. With minimum pilot briefing, there
was no difficulty interpreting the PAPI signals. When pilots were
asked to rate PAPI in comparison to VASI, 58 percent favored PAPI,
42 percent said they were about the same, and no one favored the
VASI. Of the 42 percent who thought PAPI and VASI were about the
same, many gave favorable comments.
Typical Pilot comments were: (1) "Easy to flY;1I (2) "However,
this system does seem to give a more precise path;" (3) "I m 1
imp res sed and 1ike i t ve r y muc h; II (4) II Ve r y .e asy t 0 fly; II (5) II Bot h
excellent. 1I
A summary of the questionnaire is included.
A-5
·Precision Approach Path Indicator
PAP!
pilot Briefing
The.PA~J··System was developed by the British and is currently

under consideration by lCAO for adoption as an International
Standard. The tests now being conducted will provide data
for support of the United states representative's position
at the next ICAO meeting.
The PAPI System consists of a bar of four. sharp transition

red/white li.ght units. The units are spaced laterally, on
the right side of runway 13, 1000 feet from the threshold
adjacent to the ILS glideslope intercept point. The
angular settings of the light units are graded at 20 minutes
of arc between adjacent units. The glideslope (3 0 ) is mid
way between the ~ngular settings 01 the center pair of light
units. Therefore, the on-course signal is two red and two
white lights in the bar. Nhen aircraft deviate be 1m..' the
desired glideslope, the remaining white light units turn
successively red. And conversely, deviations above the de
sired glideslope cause the red light units to turn success
ively white. See figure for further information.
l~ 0 0-0· HIGH 3 0 30'
• DO 0 D 0 SLIGHTLY HIGH 3 0 10'
•• ON-COURSE 3°
••• D SLIGHT LOW 2 0 50'
•••• LOvl 2 0 30'
Once you have accomplished a sufficient nt~mber of approaches

to this system, please fill out the postflight questionnaire
provided.
A-6
DA Y FLIGHT SUMM AR Y SHEET
POSTFLIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE
PREClSION APPROACH PATH I~DICATOR (PAPI)
.
PIT..OT •S NA:·1E DATE: (DAY) X
----------- (NIGH!},' r----.;~~-
WEATHER 0' _ - - - - - - - AIRC~iFT _
1.. At what ranges (DI-1E) \17Cre ~'ou able to acquire and derive,
uscfulquidance from the PAPI? '
Day time NIGHTTIME

--- - - - -NM.
6 1/2 ~NM.
2., 'Were you able to obtain continual guidance f~on\ the PAPI
throughout the approach?
Yes 12
------- No o
-------- Not Always o
- - -
---
...
Comments:
3. Were the course dimensions (vertical height of "On-Course,·

II Fly-Dot-m " and "Fly-Up" signals) sufficient to permit
comfortable conformance to the desircd flight path
throughout the approach?'
•
Yes 12 l:iIo o Not Always o
-----::------ ----------- ---------
Comments:
4. Did you feel that the system allowed you to pick Ybur
own desired approach path (slightly high, slightly low,
etc.) and follow it precisely?
•
Yes 12
------- Not Always o·
-_._---
Comments:
A-]
2 SUM).ItARY (CO~IT)
s. Wns there a point during the final portion of the

npproc1ch at :...hich the usefulness of the PAPI became
m:lloginal?
-
yes_ _.....;7~ _ No 5 Minimum Range 100 ft.
. ------
.'Com.'":lents: over threshold
6. If you h3ve had previous experience with the Three-Bar

Stanuard "Red/White" VA~I System, h~~ do you rate this
PAPI Sy£tem in comparison?
Better·than 3-Dar 7
_ - - - t ._ _ Not as Good as 3-Bar o
---=-
Both about the 'S arne 5
----
_-Comments:
7. With the m1n1mum pilot briefing provided, did you

experience any difficulty in first interpreting the PAPI
signals?
o
No Problem 11 Slight Confusions 1
-- - Trouble
----
Comments:
•
8. Is the·PAPI System signal sufficiently distinctive that
it cannot be readily confused with other li.ghts on the
airport and in the near vicinity?
z-
Yes 8
----- -----
No no anawers
•
Comments:
9. Have you any other remarks or comments concer~ing this

system, or woul~ you like to bring up any considera~ .
tions that may not have been covered in this questionnaire?
Thank you.
A-8
NIGHT FLIGHT SUlvIMAR Y SHEET
POSTFLIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE
PILOTlS NN-1E DATE: (DAY) _ _~-

------------ (NIGHT) _ _..;;.X~_
-------- AI RCR1\FT----------
tlEA'l'JiER
l~· At what ranges' (Dr~) were you able to acquire and derive
useful guidance from the PAPI?
Daytime NIGHTTIME 11 + NM,

-------NM. --------
2. Were you able to obtain continual guidance from the PAPI
Yes 12 No o Not Always o

------ ------ -----
Comments:
3. Were the course dimensions (vertiGal height of "On-Course,"

-Fly-Down" and "Fly-Up" signals) sufficient to permit
comfortable conformance to the desired flight path
•
Yes--......;;;..;:.-_-- 0', Not Always o
• 12 'No
------ -----
Comm~nts:
.. Did you feel that the system allowed you to pick your
4.
own desired approach path (slightly high, slightly low,
etc.) and follow it precisely?
Yes 12 No o Not Always· o'

------ ------ ------
Comments':
A-9
NIGHT SUMMARY (CON'T)
2 ,.
5. Was there a point during the final portion of the

approach at which the usefulness of the ~API became
marginul? .
Yes 3 No 9 Minimum Range
------- ----- ----
Comments:
6.' If you have had previous experience with the Three-Bar

Standard "Red/White" VASI System, how do you rate this
PAPI System in compari~on?
Better than 3-Bar Not as Good as 3-Bar o

- -7- - ---
Both about the Same 5
----
Comments:
7. With the ~n1mum pilot briefing provided, did you

experience any difficulty in first interpreting the PAPI
signals?
No Problem 12 Slight confusions__O__ Trouble o

---
Comments:
8. Is the 'PAP I System signal sufficiently distinctive that

it cannot be readily confused with other lights on the
airpo.rt and in the near vicinity?
Yes 11 No 1·
----- ---- - .
Comments:
•
9. Have you any other remarks or comments concerning this
-system, or would you like to bring up any considera-.
tions that may not have been covered in this questionnaire?
Thank you.
A-IO
2000 .
1800
PAPI TEST (APRIL80)
1600
1400
1200
t:i
LIJ
U.
LIJ
c 1000
:J
I
;:
;;J.
800
600
400
200
0+-1,;;.---+----+-.....:....--+----+----+1 ----+-----+,----+0
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
RANGE (FEET)
COMPOSITE PLOT
A-ll
PAPI TEST (APRIL 80)
160
+ 35= 3.39 DEG.
+ 5= 3 · 14 DEG.
MEAN= 3.01 DEG.
5= 2.89 DEG.
140 35= 2.64 DEG.
ti= 25
120
100
....c
....
*
i=
w 80
u.
0
::l
~
~
~
<I:
60
40
20
o-fL'---"""'"T"-----,.---~~---..,...-----.........------;
o 50 100 150 200 250 300

RANGE (FEET) *102
STATISTICAL PLOT
A-12
APPENDIX B
"IN-SERVICE TESTING OF PAPI AT NEWARK AIRPORT (EWR) "
(December I, 1980)
Repert NI. DOT/FAA/RD-81/95
DOT/FAA/CT-81/79
IN-SERVICE TESTING OF THE
AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
Bret B. Castle
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER

Atlantic City Airport, New Jer.ey 08405
~.
.
.
INTERIM REPORT
DECEMBER 1981
Document is available to the U.S. public through

the National Technical Information Service.
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
Prepared lor
u. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISIRATION
Systems Researcb & Development Senice
Wasbinlton, D. C. 20590
B-1
Technical kepart Dacumentatian Page
1. Report No. 2 Governmen' Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catolog No.
OOr/FAA/RD-81/95
1
4. Title and Subtitle S. Report nat.
N-SERVICE TESTING OF THE PRECISION APPROACH PATH December 1981
NDICATOR (PAPI) AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 6. Performing Organization Codlt
~EW JERSEY
8. Performing Organization Report No.
1 Author's)
Bret B. Castle DOT/FAA/CT-81/79
9. P.rforming Organization Nome and Add,ess 10. Work Unit No. (TRAtS)
echnical Center II. Con,ract or GrG"' No.
.... tlantic ci ty Ai rport, New Jersey 08405 081-502-510
13. T )'p. of Report and Period Coyer.d
12. Sponsoring Agenc)' No"'e and Add, •• s
U.S. Department of Transportation Interim Report
Federal Aviation Administration Dec. 8, 1980 to April 8, 1981
Systems Research and Development Service 14. Sponsori ng Agenc y Code
Washington, D.C. 20590
15. Supplementory Hot.s
'NAFEC" referenced in th is report is now known as the FAA Technical Center.
16. A.bstract
frh is report covers that portion of the Precision Approach Path Indicatar (PAPI) tests
involving 4 months of in-service testing at Newark International Airport, New Jersey.
~as ica lly,
the PAPI was compared against the standard red/white Visual Approach Slope
Indicator (VASI) system at a large airport and on a runway wi th an Instrument Landing
~ystem (ILS) .
trhe PAPI system was ins talled in a manner to take care of aircraft of all sizes; that
is, d i He rent wheel-to-eye dis tances. The information was obtained from pilots of
large commerc ial aircraft. Questionnaires from general aviat ion aircraft pilots
Ioiere not used for this particular report.
Results showed that under these conditions about 60 percent of the pilots (a total of
117 quest ionnaires) preferred the PAPI over the VASI system.
17. Key Word, 18. Di.tribution S'ot.ment

PAP I Visual Aids Document is available to the U.S. publ ic
ASI through the National Technical Information
LS Service, Springfield, Vi rg in ia 22161
Wheel-to-Eye Distance
In-Service Testing
19. Security Classif. (of thiS report)
\20.
Security Claui', <of this page)
121. NO~ of P 09..\22. Price
Un class if ied Unclass if ied

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8_72) ReprGduetian of completed page authori zed
B-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
DISCUSSION
General
Equipment
RESULTS
Test 1
Summary 3
APPENDIX
B-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Percentage of Types of Aircraft 2
2 A Percentage Comparison of PAPI with VASI 2
B-4
INTRODUCTION Newark International Airport was selec

ted to obtain data from large commercial
aircraft and no general aviation testing
PURPOSE. was performed. Testing at a general
aviation airport utilizing small air
The Precision Approach Path Indicator craft and general aviation pilots is
(PAPI) system is a visual glidepath scheduled for a later date.
indicator similar to the standard Visual
Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) system. EQUIPMENT.
Previous testing of PAPI at the Tech
nical Center has shown that the The PAPI equipment used during the EWR
differences in PAPI over the standard tests was the standard four-box model Mk
VASI may be advantageous to the pilots 6 PAPI system manufactured by the Barrel
who use the PAPI system. The purpose of Lighting Company Limited, of Stansted,
this Interim Report is to document the England. It was installed on the
in-service test ing of the system at right-hand side of runway 4R with the
Newark International Airport (EWR). intensity controlled by a photo cell
(bright during the daylight hours and
dim during the hours of darkness). The
DISCUSSION system was Ie ft in the ON cond i t ion
except when requested to be turned off
by pilots and during low visibility
GENERAL. conditions.
Four months (December 8, 1980 to April
8, 1981) of in-service testing was RESULTS
accomplished at EWR on runway 4R.
Questionnaires (appendix) were provided
to the pilots by the Air Line Pilots TEST.
Association and collected by it and the
Air Transport Association. The results During the 4 months of f1 igh t test ing,
are shown in this report. a total of 117 questionnaires were
returned. Bas ica lly, they compared the
In order to allow for the large PAP I system to the standard red/white
difference in wheel-to-eye height VASI system generally used throughout
between some small aircraft and some the United States. Table 1 shows the
large aircraft, the scheme used at EWR mix of aircraft used to obtain informa
was to move the PAPI units down the tion for the tests.
runway 300 feet beyond the Inst rwnent
Landing System (ILS) glide slope inter Questionnaires were received from pilots
cept point (a total of 1350 feet down of seven different aircraft types, all
from the displaced threshold at EWR), of which are considered transport
and open up the on-course signal to 30 aircraft, giving a good sampling of
minutes of a degree instead of the today's commercial aircraft. No
regular 20-minute segment. This allows questionnaires were received from
the wheels of the small aircraft to general aviation pilots.
cross the threshold at 62 feet and the
wheels of the largest aircraft (B-747)
to cross the threshold at 21 feet when
folowing the bottom of the visual
on-course signal.
B-5
More than 90 percent of the flights were hours of 1600 to 2400, 34 percent during
made with the visibility greater than 3 the hours of 0800 to 1600, and 3 percent
miles, the ceiling higher than 2000 during the hours of 0000 to 0800.
feet, and with no precipitation. A few
flights reported rain, snow, fog, Table 2 shows the results of the com
cloud iness , and smog. Some 63 percent parison of the PAPI system with the
of the approaches were made during the standard red/white VASI system, in
percentage form.
TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF TYPES OF AIRCRAFT
Aircraft Type % of Total
B-727 42
DC-lO 22
B-737 13
DC-8 9
B-747 8
L-1011 5
B-707 1
TABLE 2. A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF PAPI WITH VASI
BETTER SAME WORSE
Rate Information 57 37 6
Ease of Maintaining Approach Angle 50 43 7
Correcting Vertical Excursions 57 33 10
Usefulness of Touchdown Aiming Point 40 53 7
Coincidence with ILS 40 57 3
Initial Contact Range 60 29 11
Overall Value Compared with VASI's 61 28 11
B-6
SUMMARY. PAP!. In the "Overall Value Compared

wi th VASI' s," 61 percent favored PAPI,
Analysis of these data show that the 27 percent thought they were about the
United States pilots were not quite as same and 11 percent thought the VASI was
enthusiastic about PAPI as testing better than the PAP!. This clearly
results have shown in England, Canada, indicates that, overall, the pilots who
or France. PAPI, however, was rated. evaluated the PAPI at Newark considered
better than VASI in all rating factors the PAPI to be an improvevent over the
at Newark except in the "Usefulness of VAS!. It must be remembered that these
Touchdown Aiming Point" and the in-service tests include only informa
"Coincidence with ILS." In these two tion derived from commercial pilots of
cases, most pilots thought that both large aircraft and do not include the
PAPI and VASI rated about the same. general aviation segment of the flying
public. Further testing of this type is
No overall test ratings by the pilots presently in process.
indicated that the VASI was better than
B-7
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE AND SAMPLE COMMENTS
Figure A-l is a summation of the results of the
questionnaires received from the 117 pilots who
flew the system at Newark. It also contains
samples of the majority of comments received from
the pilots.
B-a
(After completion of the approach.

please check the appropriate boxes)
EWR TEST RESULTS
Date: 12-8-80 Time: 0000-0800=3% \AirCraft Type:

to 0800-1600=34%
r 4-8-81 1600-2400=63%
RVR or Visibility 1200 1800 2400

on Approseh to to to t-3 miles > 3 miles X
1800 2400 4000 I
Lowest 100 200 300 500

Clouds to to to to > 2000 ft.xl
1 200 ft. 300 ft. 500 ft. 2000 ft.
Precipitation/Visibility Restriction I Type:
Comparison with VASIS. Please assess PAPI on the following points:

(NU}ffiER OF PILOT RESPONSES)
Better Same
-Worse
1. Rate Informstion 64 42 7
2. Ease of Maintaining Approach Angle 56 48 8
4. Usefulness on Touchdown Aiming Point 44 59 8
5. Coincidence with ILS 42 61 3
7. Overall value compared with VASIS 70 31 13
FIGURE A-I. QUESTIONNAIRE WITH NEWARK TEST RESULTS (Sheet 1 of 2)
B-9
SAMPLE COMMENTS TAKEN FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES
1. By far the vast majority of comments (at least 20) concerned the control of
the brilliance of the lights. Most indicated that the white lights were too
bright compared to the red lights; or the red ones were not bright enough
compared to the white. Some thought both colors (red and white) were over
powering and should be dimmed.
2. At leas t eigh t comment s stated that overall, the Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPO system is better than the Visual Approach Slope Indicator
(VASO system. Samples - "PAPI gives more precise information," and "An
excellent system."
3. At least six comments concerned the rapid change in colors. Most thought this
was beneficial but two preferred the subtle pink transitional area of the VASI.
QUOTED COMMENTS
1. "Since interpretation is not based on pink/red shading, the pOSltlve change of

one light from white to red shows very positive trend allowing faster recogni-'
tion and thus correction. I purposely went to 3 red/I white, then 3 white/I
red, then to 2 red/2 white. I feel the system is a vast improvement from
VASI."
2. "The visibility, intensity of PAPI is much greater than VASI. I particularly

like knowing its location, touchdown aiming point, extremely useful. PAPI is
a highly acceptable, flyable, visual landing aid. However, I would rather
have a VASI on all non-ILS runways than PAPI on the runways that now have a
VASI." -
3. "One light low and high corresponded to exactly one dot low and high on
ILS glide slope."
4. "Appears to be more definitive in close; Le., inside the outer marker. Cannot
be seen as far out as VASI."
5. "Biggest factors were ease of acquisition even at 10 nmi and rapid transition
from red to white and back. I like it much better than conventional VASI."
6. "Easier to determine small excursions early in approach."
7. "Informat ion is not as obvious as VAS I. "
8. "Requires horizontal plane scanning which is not normal during approach."
FIGURE A-I. QUESTIONNAIRE WITH NEWARK TEST RESULTS (Sheet 2 of 2)
B-10
APPENDIX C
"PAPI FLIGHT TEST RESULTS AT TETERBORO AIRPORT (TEB)"
(February 1982)
DATA REPORT

FLIGHT TEST RESULTS AT TETERBORO, N.J. (TEB) AIRPORT
'.
FEBRUARY 1982
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Adreinistration
FAA Technical Center
Airport Technology Division
Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405
C-l
FLIGHT TEST RESULTS AT TETERBORO, N.J. (TEB) AIRPORT
PURPOSE.
As a part of the qverall evaluation of the Precision Approach

Path Indicator (PAPI) system, 3 months of inservice testing was
accomplished at Teterboro during October, November, and December
of 1931. This was done specifica~ly to obtain the assessment of
general aviation pilots concerning the PAPI system~
DISCUSSION.
Previous evaluation of the PAPI system has been performed at the

Federal Aviation Adrnini~tration (FAA) Technical Center. and at
Newark International Aiiport where an evaluation by user pilots
was obtained. At Newark, the PAPI system was installed to allow
for different eye-to-wheel distances of all aircraft including
large wide-bodied aircraft such as the B-747. It was installed
on an Instrument Landing,System (ILS) runway (runway 4R) where it
could be checked against the ILS system. As it turned out, no
questionnaires were obtained (at Newark) from general aviation
pilots, and it was decided to make a concerted effort to get the
reaction of general aviation pilots by moving the PAPI system to
TEB where almost all of the air traffic is either business or
private aircraft. The "FAA Air Traffic Activity" report for 1979
documents the fact that TEB has more general aviation traffic than
any airport in the local States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and Maryland; and runway 19 is one of the busiest on
that airport. It was therefore decided to install the PAPI system
on the non-ILS runway 19 at TEB.
TEST PROCEDURES.
The same Barrel Lighting Co. Ltd. units used at Newark were installed
at TEB on runway 19 in place of the standard red/white Visual'
Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) system at that location.
The PAPI system was located on the left-hand side of the runway,
813 feet down from the threshold in the same'configuration as used
at Newark. The inboard unit was located 50 feet from the edge of
the runway, and each of the other three were located 33 feet out
ward from the previous unit as shown in figure 1. Eastern Region
personnel helped install the system on cement pads at the proper
locations. The angles of the units were set so that each path was
20 minutes of an arc deep starting at a high angle of 3 0 30'. The
three transitions to the next lower paths were set at 3°10', 2 0 50',
and 2 0 30' on the low side. This provided the on-course signal
(two red and two white) at 3 degrees; with the above-course (three
white and one red) signal at 3 1/3 degrees, and the fly-down
(four white) signal at any approach angle above 3~ degrees.
Conversely, the below-course (three red and one white) signal was
at 2 2/3 degrees and the fly-up (four red) signal was any approach
angle below 2~ degrees.
C-2
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) furnished the
questionnaires for the pilots along with a letter of explanation
(see figures 2 arid 3). They also collected the questionnaires as
they were received. TEB has six Fixed Base Operators (FBO's) on
the airport, and a display (see figure 4) concerning PAPI was set
up at each FBO for distribution of the questionnaires. AOPA also
distributed questionnaires to their local members via the u.s.
mail.
TEST RESULTS.
Three months of inservice testing was accomplished between

September 21 and December 21, 1981. Over 3ao questionnaires were
distributed and picked up at TEB, which gave us an indication that
a lot of interest was being shown in the PAPI. However, we received
a total of only 17 questionnaires from pilots who flew the PAPI at
TEB. The reasons for this must include ·the fact that the prevail
ing winds at that time of ~he year turned.out to be in the wrong
direction for use of runway 19. Normally, runway 19 is used about
30 percent of the time; however, the record shows that during
October, runway 19 was used 17 percent of the time; during
November it was used 8 percent of the time; and during December it
was used 8 percent of the time. Other reasons could include a
lack of pilot interest, and the fact that the PATCO Controllers
strike was on and the Controllers were extremely busy and could
not spend time telling pilots about PAPI.
A summary of the data results is included as appendix A to this

report. No conclusions are included in this data report, and
further testing is planned for more general aviation pilot comments.
C-3
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ /
\
\
\
/
\
(
)
U. ....I.
U
~
G
H
~
C-4
PILOTS
..
PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicat~r) was developed

and introduced by the United Kingdom and is under consideration
as an International Standard. An operational evaluation of
this system is being conducted at Teterboro Airport on Runway
19 by the FAA. Aircraft Owners and pilots Association is
very interested in obtaining pilot evaluation input on the
flyability and acceptability of the PAPI system.
The attached questionnaire and brief description was

prepared in assisting your evaluation of this system. Your
reply and return of the questionnaire will be extremely , ,
helpful. Please return this questionnaire to the collection
box in the PBO or send to:
AOPA
Airspace Technology Department, #650W
P. O. Box 5800
Washington, DC 20014
Thank you for your help.
Remember: Two red and two white means on glide slope

increased white means above glide slope,
increased red means below glide slope.
FIGURE C-2... LETTER OF EXPLANATON
C-5
I
,
P.A. P.I.
0000 High
I >3.5 deg.,
r-------~ Slightly
I, I '\ 000. High
! \ 3.2 deg.
! \
!:::: :: \
./ .M.
:::: ::-::'\
.. ..
..
00 • • .
....----- .... . 00 • •
'On Slope'
0 •••
• RED
• GREEN
o WHITE
••••
82-153-2
FIGURE C-3. DESCRIPTIVE DIAGRAM
C-6
'"I < ".
EVER HEARD
OF
o
TRY IT ON
OOillJ~W~Yr ll® at lJ~ill3
And Answer
Our Questionnaire
FIGURE C-4. PAPI DISPLAY
C-7
A PPENO/)( !\
(Ai:ar cccplcticn Ot t~e ~?prOaCh9
?lease c!1eck i:~e appropr~ata boxes) .
Date: <f-2J-81
.,..
Ti:ne: VA R~' ct v.s .lirc:=aic Type:
'A'V~r. 't 'UIINCS~

.
1'--tJ~.'
~VR or Visibility
on Approach
1200
1800
to
1300
to
2400
2400
to.
4000
~ 1-3 illiles< ;::. 3 miles
J3
Lowesc loa
::- 20)tr~
200 300 500

Clouds
200
to
f~.
to
300 f~.
to
500 fl:.
to S
2000 f-c •
0 fe·.
1'}pe: HJ4 ~C ~one:
Lr. /fAIN I~
C=mparison ~:h VAS!3. ?lease assess ?_~! on ~he :ollo~g po~ts:
j
3e!::ar Same I t;'orse
IS- 2 0
., !ase or ~intaining Approach ~~gle
q I 8 I 0
J:t ,
I
3. C~r=@ct~~g 7er~~cal EXcursions S I O

D'serulness on touchdown A..i::l.i..ng ?oint ~
-9 I
8 0
5. Co~cidence ~:h r:s
6. Ini~iAl Contact ~ge CJ 8 0
i. IS .t 0
';-8
APPENDIX D
"FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF A TWO-BOX PAPI (ACY)"
(November 1981)
DATA REPORT
FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF A TWO-BOX PAPI
TESJED AT THE FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NOVEMBER 1981
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Avtation Administration
FAA Tec~nical Center
Airport Technology Division
Atlantic City, NJ 08201
D-l
FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF A TWO-BOX PAPI
TESTED AT THE TECHNICAL CENTER
PURPOSE
The purpose of this phase of the overall PAPI testing program
was to compile some pilot reactions to the possible use of a
two-box PAPI system where the five incremental paths provided
by the full blown PAPI system may not be necessary. This data
report provides those results.
DISCUSSION
During the process of testing the PAPI system for use in the
United States as an alternate to the standard red/white VASI
system, it came to our attention that a two-box PAPI would

give an on-course signal, an above-course signal and a below
course signal quite similar to the standard VASI equipment.
It was thought that although it would not cover as many vertical
angles nor be visible for as many miles out as the regular PAPI,
it could very well be used for general aviation airports on
relatively short runways at a reduced cost of the system.
Testing of such a system seemed to be in order.
TEST PROCEDURES
A PAPI system was furnished by the Crouse-Hinds Company (figures
1 and 2) for testing and was set up in a two-box configuration
on the Technical Center runway 4; 1000 feet down the runway on
the right-hand side. It was set up so that the 30 glideslope
was midway between the angular settings of the pair of light
units. The on-course si9hal then, was one red and one white
light, the above course tgreater than 3015~} was two white
lights and the below course (less than 2045~) was two red lights.
A questionnaire was prepared and tne system was flown by our
test pilots and tracked by the EAIR Radar system here at the
Technical Center. Each test pilot flew about three runs during
the day and again during the nighttime. The aircraft, for the
most part, was a two engine Aero-Commander belonging to the
Technical Center. Forty-five runs were made during August to
the two-box system and twelve different pilots completed ques
tionnaires on the system and provided us with comments.
TEST RESULTS
Attached as Appendix I is a compilation and summary of the data
results of the questionnaires obtained from the test pilots
during these tests. Also included are composite graphs, sep
arated into daytime runs (ftgure 31 and nighttime runs lfigure 4),
showing the accuracy of the system as obtained by Radar tracking
and reduced by our computer system. A statistical plot in figure 5
D-2
2
provides a graph that is broken down into 200 foot segments
of range. Each range segment, when drawn together, provides
a linear regression line. Lines representing the ± 3 ~
deviation indicate that 99.74 percent of all aircraft flying
the PAPI would remain within this corridor. The data obtained
is offered without comment for this data report. Further
testing of this type is planned and will be included in the
final report of PAPI.
82-153-D-1
FIGURE 0-1. CROUSE-HINDS PAPI UNIT
FIGURE 0-2. CROUSE-HINDS PAPI UNIT SHOWING INTERNAL PARTS
~4
,
1900
PAPI TEST (DAY) PAX
1500
1200
;:
!:!:
I.LI
0 900
:::l
)' ~
V1 ~
..../
oct
600
300 '-~-
,••"c,
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

RANGE (FEET)
FIGURE D-3. PAPI TWO-BOX DAY TESTS

1800
PAPITESTINIGHT) PAX
1500
1200-'
m
-
w
c 900
;:)
to
~
?
0\
....
C
600
300
o '~- + + + + + + + +
o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
RANGE (FEET)
FIGURE D-4. PAPI TWO-BOX NIGHT TESTS

"
180 ,
+ 35= 3.47 DEG. PAPI TEST (DAY) pAR
+ 5= 3.22 DEG.
MERN:: 3.09 DEG.
5= 2.97 DEG.
150 -I - 35= 2· 72 DE G.
N= 7
120
....
0
....
I ~+3°
*
~
l'
'l
w
LL. 90
W
C
....::::l
i::
...l
«
60
30
1-- --,
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
RANGE (FEET) *10 2
FIGURE 0-5. PAPI STATISTICAL DAY PLOT

£PPENDIX I
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATO~
"Two Box" PAPI

Pilot Briefinar
The tests now being conducted will provide data to determine whether a "Two
Box" PAP I system can be successfully used on small 1 airports with runways
of 5,000 feet or less. The intended purpose of the "Two Box" PAP I is for use
-
where it may not be necessary to have the five incremental paths provided by
the full blown PAP I system. The arrangement of the units is similar to the
full blown PAPI system except that only two boxes are used. The 30 glide
slope is midway between the angular setting of the pair of light units. The
on-course signal is one red and one white light, the above course (greater
than 30 151) is two white lights, and the below.course (less than 20 45 1)
is two red lights. These are depicted in the diagram below.
o ABOVE COURSE (3° 15' or more)
D ON COURSE. (30)
~ BELOW COURSE (20 45 1 or less)
For this test, the units are located 1,000 feet down runway 4 on the right
hand side. Once you have accompl ished a sufficient numb~r of approaches to
this system, please fill out the postflight questionnaire provided.
D-8
POS~IGHT OUES~ION~AIRE
•
"TWO BOX' PAPI
.
P1LOT'S NAf.1E DATE: (DAY) Aclf.. "81
(Optional) * (NIGHT)--------
WEA'l'HER. AI.RCRAFT _
1. At what ranges (DME) were you able to acquire and derive

useful g~idance from the "'niO BOX" PAPI?
.
•
Daytime 4; 4- A~ NM. NIGHTIl-1E 7.7 A....V...._ _NM.
2. Were you able to obtain continual guidance from the "TWO
BOX" PAPI throughout ehe approach?
Yes_-=.2,=--o;:'3:..-_
Comments:
No 0 Not Always
----------
0
3. Were the course dimensions. (vertical height of "On-Course,"

"Fly-Down" and "Fly~Up" signals) sufficient to permit
comfortable conformance to the desired flight path
Yes --_.-:_- No '0 Not Alway~--l __
Comments:
.4. Do you feel that the "TWO BOX" PAPI gives at least the
minimum necessary' signal for successful 3° glide path
apprOaches?
Yes
----- _-
Comments:
.......
Not Always
---------
'0
* Names will not be used when results and comments are compiled.
D-9
2'
s. Was there a point du~ing the final portion of the approach

at which the usefulness of the "TWO BOX" PAPI became
marginal?
8__ IS-
Yes
Comments:
No Minimum Range
-------
6. If you have had previous experience with the Standard "'lW) OOX"
"Red/White" VASI System, how do you rate this PAPI System
in comparison?
Better than__~/~O 'NOT AS Good as ~~' __
Both-about the sarne q _

Comments:
7. With the minimum pilot briefing provided, did you experience

any difficulty in first interpreting the "TWO BOX" PAPI
signals?
•
NO Problem
Comments:
~ .2. Slight Confusion (
--------
Trouble 0
-------
8. Is the system signal sufficiently distinctive that it cannot

be readily confused with other lights on the airport and in
the near vicinity?
Yes _--&0/8
Comments:
_
NO
------
9. Have you any other remarks or comments concerning this
il
system, or would you like to bring up any considerations
that may not have been covered in this questionnaire?
TarAt OF ELEVEN COMMENTS.
ELEVEN FAVOR.4.BIE COMMENTS.
EIGHT SAID "VERY GOOD SYSTEM".
Thank you. TWO SAlD'(IT COtJIJ) BE USED FOR BOTH LARGE AND
SMALL. AIRPORTS."
ONE SAID "1000' down the l"UaI&y seems to be a. little

far tor "'small" airplane operations".
D-IO

Evaluation of PAPI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of PAPI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of PAPI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2~;>: DOT/FANCT-82/153

DOT/FAA/RD-82/85 Evaluation of Precision

This document is available to the U.S. public

u.s. Department of Transportation

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

The United States Government does not endorse products

EVALUATION OF PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI)

Federal Aviation Administration

17. K.y Wo,d. 1.. O.. erillvtlon St.t_ _t

PAP I Document is available to the U.S. public

::: 5,..lIal Whla Yau Knaw Multi,l, II, Ta fiall 1,_1101

mi miles 1.6 kilometers kin ~

2 G' - - crrf square centimeters 0.16 square inches in2

g~1 gellans 3.8 liters I3 _ _

It cubIC reel 0.03 cubIC melers m.. '" TEMPERATURE (elllct)

yd 3 cubiC yards 0.7& cubiC meters m3 •

TEMPERATURE (exICt) ..C Celsius 9/5 (then F....enheil ·F

_. - _ -4f", 'i~ I,' 114IOI",8,0I,ll,I~O, 1,II~O'I' 'IZ~,I

PhOTOMETRIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 6

Transition Zone Shifting Tests 13

Obstacle Clearance Tests 14

Beam Width Tests 15

Modification of VASI Units to Produce PAPI Signals 15

Flight Testing at the Technical Center 18

Flight Testing at Newark Internatonal Airport 19

Flight Testing at Teterboro Airport 19

Flight Testing at Bader Field, Atlantic City 21

Flight Testing of a Two-Box PAPI at the Technical Center 24

PAPI Signal Resolution Testing at

A "Evaluation of PAPI by the U.S.A." (July 1, 1980)

B - "In-Service Testing of PAPI at Newark Airport (EWR)" (December 1981)

C - "PAPI Flight Test Results at Teterboro Airport (TEB)" (February 1982)

.­ D - "Flight Test Results of a TWO-BOX PAPI (ACY)" (November 1981)

1 PAPI Approach Path (Side View) 2

2 Approach Path Illustration 3

3 Barrel PAPI System at Bader Field 4

4 Barrel Hlc MK 6 PAPI Unit 5

5 Crouse-Hinds PAPI Unit 7

6 Vertical Intensity Distribution Curve 8

7 Clear Signal Intensity Distribution Curve 9

8 Red Signal Intensity Distribution Curve 10

9 Environmental Testing of PAPI Units 12

11 Typical PAPI Approach Path With 1LS 20

12 Bader Field PAPI Questionnaire (2 Sheets) 22

13 Graph of Nighttime Resolution Tests 26

14 Graph of Daytime Resolution Tests 27

2 Measured Transition Angles Produced Over Threshold 15

3 A Percentage Comparison of PAPI With VASI at AIY 21

1. ~etter guidance below 200 feet.

1. Better guidance below 200 feet.

2°30' 48.5 135.8 397.8

/'" ../ /'" d i S ~ 400

2001- /./~~ ~ 200

FIGURE 1. PAPI APPROACH PATH (SIDE VIEW)

FIGURE 2. APPROACH PATH ILLUSTRATION

Glidepath Intercept (GPI) point at the Technical Center (ACY).

GPI at Newark International Airport, New Jersey (EWR).

3. Flight testing at Teterboro Airport, New Jersey (TEB) (no ILS).

4. Flight testing at Bader Field, New Jersey (AIY) (no ILS).

5. Flight testing of a Two~Box PAPI at ACY.

. D - "Flight Test Results of a TWO-BOX PAPI (ACY)" (November 1981)