Reflective Runway markers issues (threads merged)

[Carrier]

World Airnews Magazine ?EInfomercials or serious inaccuracies damaging SA Aviation credibility?

I have received World Airnews over the past year or so and am disappointed at its lack of accuracy and the general ignorance of aviation advances and activities outside of Africa. It seems the editor and his contributors make little effort to find out what is happening in aviation world-wide or to check the truth and accuracy of their articles. Indeed, it is so bad that it is sometimes impossible to be certain if an article is a news or editorial item or is actually an infomercial that is paid for and written by a commercial entity with a particular slant. Regarding spelling and grammar, proof reading does not seem to exist.
The August issue contains yet another of these dubious efforts starting on page 72. After reading it and shaking my head I picked up my copy of A.I.P. Canada and turned to AGA 7.20 Retroreflective Markers! How can editor Tom Chalmers in good conscience allow the subject to be described as unique or present it as a new development? Retroreflective Markers have been in use in Canada for some years, complete with all required regulations and standards of approval from Transport Canada, the government aviation department for what is by far the world’s second largest aviation country, not just geographically but in terms of numbers of aircraft, numbers of pilots (both professional and private), aviation activity, etc, etc. Are South Africans really that ignorant and out of touch with world aviation?
How can Gavin Brown and his assistants have wasted so much time, effort and money on reinventing the wheel? Is this a severe case of “not thought of here?Ementality? How can someone claim to have a patent on something that has been in use for some years, and for which someone else probably already has a patent anyway? When Gavin Brown realised there was a problem in South Africa then the sensible action would have been to check around and see if a solution already exists somewhere else. If he had done this properly then he would have found out that there was indeed a solution and all he had to do was become an importer and/or obtain the SA rights for it! Interestingly he prefers a permanent fixture. This would be normal in Canada as that country does not suffer from the theft that is endemic throughout Africa but if required it should be a quick and easy action to alter off-the-shelf Canadian components to make the system as portable as Mr. Brown wants for African conditions. For the record and the sake of international conformity, when using Retroreflective Markers AGA 7.20 states: “A fixed white light or strobe light shall be installed at each end of the runway to assist pilots in locating the aerodrome and aligning the aircraft with the runway.?EThese could use a car battery or mains power. AGA 7.20 and associated verbiage even covers the use of Retroreflective Markers at heliports. It could all have been in use in South Africa years ago!
What can one say about the involvement of the particular aircraft operators, professional pilots and administrators in this big waste of time, effort and money? Does SA Red Cross Air Mercy Service for one not bother to keep up to date with developments that might facilitate its operations? Does it never communicate with its counterparts overseas? Most if not all Canadian provinces and territories operate their own medevac aircraft, in addition to a fair number of privately owned dedicated medevac aircraft. Did no one think of sending out a few emails outlining the problem and asking these operators how they deal with it? Did no one think of posting a query on PPRuNe? I am sure a suitable post on the Canada or North America forums would have produced a prompt reply pointing them in the right direction. Most aid operations and charities are full of woe about the lack of funds. Apparently this does not apply to this operation, which has money to burn on unnecessary flights! Is this good stewardship of donor funds?
Similarly, why was the SA CAA not aware of the use of Retroreflective Markers overseas? What is there for the SA CAA to now study? All they have to do is adopt the TC standards and regulations verbatim, inserting South Africa instead of Canada. This would have been done some years ago if they were on the ball! Indeed, in the interests of world conformity, why not do the job properly and adopt all of the Canadian Aviation Regulations? SA would then conform to the same standards as the world’s two major aviation countries, the USA and Canada, as well as numerous others. There is very little difference between the CARs and the FARs as TC and the FAA worked closely together when both countries completely overhauled their aviation laws and regulations in the mid 1980s. Canada seems to be fully co-operative regarding other countries adopting the CARs. Other countries have already taken this logical step. An example is Jamaica, which adopted the CARs a few years ago, inserting Jamaica instead of Canada, and hired a couple of Canadians, Greg Fox and Peter Bachinski, to work in its CAA Head Office in Kingston to help with the change over. Persuade a few more African countries to get on board with this and we would soon have modern, functional and consistent aviation laws and regulations throughout Africa instead of the plethora of outdated junk that dates from when Nigel used to land his 1940’s flying boat on Lake Victoria!
A recent World Airnews issue contained an article about altimeter corrections, particularly in cold weather. It had an erroneous statement indicating that errors up to 2,000 ft can occur. The correct information from A.I.P. Canada AIR 1.5.8 Pressure Drop reads: “Of main importance is that the combination of mountain waves and non-standard temperature may result IN AN ALTIMETER OVERREADING BY AS MUCH AS 3,000 FT.?EBased on the error in World Airnews a pilot might think he is well in the clear if his altimeter indicates he is say 2,500 ft agl, whereas he might be in serious danger and just about to hit something! The author mentioned that Canada has included cold weather altimeter corrections in A.I.P. Canada for years, whereas the USA has only just started to include them. World Airnews should have checked with A.I.P. Canada to see what the country with most experience of these problems requires instead of presumably just accepting second-hand information that the author submitted.
I could continue with other examples but I think I have made my point. There is an accuracy and credibility problem at World Airnews Magazine that in turn reflects unfavourably on South African aviation.
It is perhaps appropriate that the article on Retroreflective Markers referred to above appears in the same issue as the interview with Peter Piggot. Mr. Piggot mentions that the SA aviation industry’s reputation in international circles has been damaged. This is sadly true, particularly since post-1994 SA licences became tainted by the bribery scandal. It is difficult to see how the many inaccuracies in World Airnews are going to contribute to repairing the damage. There is much that could be of value and of use in World Airnews if it could be identified as credible and the continent needs a good and reliable aviation magazine. I hope that the editor and staff will make efforts to substantially improve its accuracy, which in turn will improve its credibility.
To keep current with world aviation, particularly in the two major aviation countries, my advice to all the parties concerned in this unfortunate caper is:
1. Obtain a current copy of A.I.P. Canada and subscribe to its updates. This will also ensure receipt of Transport Canada’s Aviation Safety Letter.
2. Subscribe to Wings Magazine and Aviation Canada Magazine. They will probably send complimentary copies to World Airnews.
3. Subscribe to the twice weekly free email newsletter AVflash and the free business aviation email newsletter from AVweb ?Ewww.avweb.com
4. Check through the PPRuNe forums from time to time. It is amazing what can be learnt from the various posts! Indeed, don’t hesitate to make your own posts to try and find answers to various issues and problems.
5. I know it is expensive but if you are making an overseas trip try to include a visit to a major aviation event at somewhere such as Oshkosh or Sun ‘n?EFun in Florida.
6. Subscribe to Business & Commercial Aviation Magazine and to Professional Pilot Magazine. They will probably send complimentary copies to World Airnews.
This has been a most unfortunate exercise that reflects badly on SA’s aviation credibility. SA can do better than this. SA aviation used to have an excellent reputation and SA licences were highly regarded. Let’s see everyone, including World Airnews and the SA CAA, get behind the likes of Peter Piggot and pull together to restore this. It can be done and I hope it will be!

PS: Before anyone accuses me of being biased or in favour of all things North American, let me say that North Americans can at times also be inaccurate and ignorant of conditions elsewhere. An almost laughable example is the article “Africa, the Last Frontier?Ein the January issue of Professional Pilot Magazine. Many thanks to the Barloworld pilot who took the trouble to compose and send in a suitable response.

[B Sousa]

Carrier writes: " Mr. Piggot mentions that the SA aviation industry’s reputation in international circles has been damaged. "

For whatever reason, my two cents says "You aint seen nothing yet."
Wait till the CAA continues its downward trend. Appears its on the road to self destruct. Another example via the phone today and I need not get into it other than, a friend went through massive confusion there just trying to get something simple done.
So typical with Archaic paperwork and idiots who have trouble wiping their own :mad:
You all know what Im talking about, so I need not push the Moderator button to explain.
Your on the way SA, keep up the good work.............

[Carrier]

These have been in use in Canada for some years, complete with all necessary approvals, standards and references from Transport Canada. They would seem to be ideal for the many aerodromes in Africa that are not on mains electricity, for back-up, or as a portable system for emergency use or where theft is a problem.

According to A.I.P. Canada AGA 7.3 Minimum Night Lighting Requirements at Aerodromes, retroreflective markers may be substituted for lights to mark the landing and take-off areas at aerodromes provided alignment lights are installed. This alternative for night marking of landing areas, however, is not approved for certified sites.

AGA 7.20 Retroreflective Markers is the main section dealing with this topic. It states that they are approved for use on runways at registered aerodromes only; however they may be used as a substitute for edge lighting on taxiways and apron areas at some certified airports. Retroreflective markers are to be positioned in the same manner as runway lighting described in earlier paragraphs of this chapter. Therefore, when the aircraft is lined up on final approach, retroreflective markers will provide the pilot with the same visual presentation as normal runway lighting. A fixed white light or strobe light shall be installed at each end of the runway to assist pilots in locating the aerodrome and aligning the aircraft with the runway. Similarly, retroreflective markers at heliports are to be positioned in the same pattern as prescribed for helipad edge lighting. It mentions amongst other items, that the approved standard for retroreflective markers requires that they be capable of reflecting the aircraft landing lights so that they are visible from a distance of two nautical miles.

The only part requiring any power, which could be from a couple of car or other suitable batteries, would be the two alignment lights. Canada does not suffer from the theft problem that is endemic in Africa so it is normal in Canada for the installation to be permanent, including the alignment lights. However, there seems to be no reason why the system components should not be easily adapted to provide a portable installation, one that could easily be carried in a medevac plane for emergency use.

As mentioned, this has all been in place and in use in Canada for some years. The relevant A.I.P Canada pages date from 2001 or earlier. I am not even sure that it was invented in or first implemented in Canada. There is no way to know how many installations are in use. Transport Canada relies on the operators of registered aerodromes to provide information on their facilities for inclusion in the Canada Flight Supplement. There could be many aerodromes mentioned in the CFS for which no lighting details are provided but which actually have retroreflective markers available. On the other hand, most aerodromes in Canada requiring night lighting, including farm strips and hunting and fishing lodges, have for years had full electric systems, often with ARCAL, so the scope for retroreflective markers would be limited to new aerodromes over the past few years and those which over the same time frame have decided to upgrade their aerodrome for night use.

Let’s look at a few installations. These are from a two year old copy of the CFS. They were probably in use for some time before this:

CPT2 Killarney ON, operated by the Township of Rutherford & George Island. This has retroreflective markers for the runway, taxiway and apron. ARCAL activates the runway alignment strobes (5 clicks on, 7 clicks off). I wondered why the OFF facility as most ARCAL installations turn off automatically after 15 minutes. Surely it would not save that much electricity? After some thought it occurred to me that this would permit very bright strobes, which could identify the airport from a considerable distance, amongst a lot of other lights or in poor visibility, but which the pilot could turn off as soon as he was properly aligned with the runway to avoid being dazzled by the strobes on short final. Good thinking by someone! An ARCAL receiver/switch could be incorporated with a strobe and battery in a portable version if required.

CKG2 Riverton MB, operated by the Town of Riverton. This has retroreflective markers for rwys 17 and 35. The note advises that it has ARCAL Type J to operate strobe guide for rwy 35. This is rather odd, perhaps a misprint. Both strobes should operate and there seems to be no reason why the runway should not be used in both directions, especially as it specifies that the markers are for both directions!

CPE9 Armstrong ON (Heli), operated by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources/Ontario Ministry of Health. This heliport relies solely on retroreflective markers.

CYSQ Atlin BC and CEJ4 Claresholm Indus AB both have electric lights for their runways with ARCAL Type K but use retroreflective markers for the taxiways and aprons. Similarly CAT6 Campbell River (Campbell River & Dist Gen Hosp) BC (Heli) uses retroreflective markers to outline the helipad but also has high level flood lights. Interestingly, a large certified airport with a 10,000’ main runway, CYYB North Bay ON, uses retroreflective markers for Apron 3 and Apron 4.

It is preferable to have someone on the ground when a plane is arriving or departing to ensure that there is no danger to the aircraft from animals, and in Africa also from pedestrians, cyclists or other vehicles. This person could turn the alignment lights or and off as required and help with setting out or collecting a portable system if that is also needed. According to the CFS, Riverton has unicom for limited hours but Killarney is unattended. The latter surprises me. I have never been there but presume that it is either near to or is the aerodrome for Killarney Provincial Park, in which case there is a good chance of deer and other wildlife being on the airfield. Colliding with a moose would be a sad way to end one’s flight! This peril exists even at major airports. I well remember a light twin being severely damaged some years ago in a collision with a deer at CYYZ Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl ON.

The runway alignment lights should remain on for a minimum of five minutes after a plane departs in case it has to return for an emergency landing. Statistically, the most likely time for an engine problem is at the first change of power after take-off. If a problem develops soon after take-off the pilot may need to immediately be able to identify and return to his departure airfield if possible. If after five minutes the ground helper can no longer hear the aircraft or see its lights then it should be safe to turn off the alignment lights and if needed start packing up a portable system.

I am sure anyone interested can obtain further information about retroreflective markers for runway lighting from Transport Canada, the nearest Canadian Embassy, High Commission or Consulate (ask for the Commercial Officer), or the operators of the above-mentioned aerodromes.

As mentioned, retroreflective markers have been used for runway lighting in Canada for some years. It therefore came as a shock to see a prominent article in the August 2004 issue of World Airnews Magazine now proclaiming this as a unique and new invention of a Durban civil engineer. See my post under the heading: World Airnews Magazine – Infomercials or serious inaccuracies damaging SA Aviation credibility? I trust in the next issue Gavin Brown and Tom Chalmers will have the grace to withdraw these claims and acknowledge those who developed and implemented the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting. One has to feel sympathy for Gavin Brown and his assistants. I am sure they did this in good faith and now must be devastated to find that it was all a waste of time and effort. They must feel like Capt Scott when he reached the South Pole and found a Norwegian flag there! However, they could and should have known what was out there in the public realm, in use not in a minor place but in the world’s second largest aviation country, so they must accept responsibility for the situation. To do otherwise would be unfair to those who some years ago developed and implemented the use of this valuable aviation safety aid.

Let’s look forwards. How can and should this be resolved? Let’s look first at Gavin Brown and his assistants. They deserve credit for recognising a problem and making an effort to solve it. In any area of endeavour there are those who make things happen, those who watch what happens and those who wonder what happened! This applies in aviation and regarding this particular problem of runway lighting most people fall into one of the latter two categories, whereas Mr. Brown and assistants belong in the first. It is just unfortunate how things worked out in this instance. It seems to me that it would be a fair and just solution for Mr. Brown to contact the makers overseas and obtain the import or manufacturing rights for this part of the world. I hope the makers will give him this opportunity, even if they are approached by others, as Mr. Brown deserves first crack at it. Indeed, if this happens and costs are cheaper here, he might find his plant sending retroreflective marker systems on behalf of the original makers to overseas markets. Stranger things have happened!

Now let’s look at the situation regarding the civil aviation department in every African country. The South African CAA is partly responsible for the situation involving Gavin Brown and World Airnews magazine and it too should have the grace to acknowledge it. It should long ago have been aware of the use of retroreflective markers overseas and advised Gavin Brown accordingly. In fact, the SA CAA should years ago have implemented the necessary approvals for the use of this aviation safety aid in South Africa. It failed in its duty! The least it can do to make amends is to fast track the appropriate approval for the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting in South Africa. All it has to do is adopt the Canadian standards verbatim, merely inserting South Africa instead of Canada. As mentioned elsewhere, Canada seems amenable to other countries using the Canadian Aviation Regulations so with the use of fax and email the SA CAA should be able to receive the necessary documents from Transport Canada within a matter of days. A few more days to change the name of the issuing country, rubber stamp it, and the whole approval issue, standards and regulations should be implemented in a matter of weeks, probably not by the end of this month but certainly by the end of September - this year!

In other African countries, pilots, owners, operators and industry associations who might benefit from the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting should check that their country’s civil aviation department has the necessary approvals and standards in place. They all should have had this in place some years ago! If they do not, then they can justifiably be asked why they have done nothing for the past few years and what are they going to do to promptly remedy their omission! Again, they can take the same action as suggested for the SA CAA above to get this all in place without further delay and in conformance with the standards and installations of other countries which have had this in place for some years.

[Was that for us?]

Who makes such reflective strips that are suitable?

[Carrier]

It was most disappointing to note that in the latest issue of World Airnews Magazine there was no retraction of the false claims of retroreflective markers for runway lighting being a new and unique product recently developed in South Africa. Indeed, on page 16 in the September issue the magazine again refers to “the unique reflective system”!

Anyone involved in aviation in a professional capacity would be checking PPRuNe from time to time and receiving the free email newsletters from AVweb in order to keep current with developments in world aviation. I assume the individuals involved consider themselves to be aviation professionals and so I have to assume that they have read the posts regarding this issue and have chosen to ignore them. This is most regrettable for the damage that these false claims do to the credibility of South African aviation as a whole and to World Airnews Magazine.

I hope that the individuals concerned will eventually get their act together and publish a remedial statement in the magazine and on this forum. Readers attending Africa Aerospace & Defence will be able to question the individuals concerned regarding their claims. Is it too much to hope that they will pre-empt this by having a suitable remedial letter or statement on public view at their stands?

[Carrier]

Sorry this has taken a while to be posted. I contacted Paul Marquis, Editor of Transport Canada’s Aviation Safety Letter, with a list of questions regarding retroreflective markers. He forwarded my email to the relevant TC department. I received a reply from Eduard Alf. I have reproduced this in full below as it is so detailed. Anyone remotely interested in using retroreflective markers should be able to find out all they need from the sources and links given by Eduard. Many thanks to Paul Marquis, and particularly to Eduard Alf for such a detailed and helpful response.



I'm Eduard Alf. Paul Marguis passed on your 9 August 2004 email to him.

This email is coming from my home computer, as I am in the process of getting ready to go on travel to Vancouver.

With respect to your questions ...

I don't know specifically who first developed retroreflective runway markers, as there have been a variety of different types. In Canada, retroreflective markers came out of a project to develop self-illuminated markers whose source of light was Tritium [an isotope produced as a by product of nuclear reactors] gas, perhaps 15 years ago. That project failed, due to the high cost of the product and exceptional rules for security. However, it was noticed that the retroreflective material which was used for edging on the markers actually outperformed the Tritium. I believe the company involved was Reginald Bennett International. You can find them at:
http://www.rbi-inc.com/index.htm

I forget exactly when the retroreflective runway markers, as we know them now, were developed. Certainly it was prior to 1996. There is mention of runway markers in the CIE publication #72, dated 1987.

A number of sites in Canada were used for trial installations, particularly in Quebec. All of these sites have since been modified to replace the markers with conventional lighting. A number of problems had been encountered with use of the runway markers.

There is within the ICAO Visual Aids Panel [VAP] a working group which has a task item for retroreflective markers. This task arose from a proposal, by Russia, for development of standards in Annex 14. Apparently Russia has used retroreflective runway markers for a number of years now. The VAP, however, has decided to not proceed with standards development since it is felt that the markers cannot be considered as a valid replacement for conventional lighting. My involvement was to prepare a paper on the markers, pointing out both the benefits and the problems. You will find the paper at:
http://aviationmanual.homestead.com/manual_index.html

Please note that the above website is not an official Transport Canada site and serves primarily as a means to unload my knowledge before I retire [I have been with Transport Canada for perhaps 33 years now].

I also run an airport lighting discussion group which may be of advantage to you. Members of this discussion group are mostly in Canada, but also international.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airportlighting/


Retroreflective markers are referenced in Transport Canada documents for limited taxiway application. We do not accept them as a replacement for conventional runway lighting. For taxiway application, there are a number of suppliers. For example ... Siemens-ADB and Crouse Hinds. The markers tend to be a specialty item, since there really isn't much of a market.
http://adb-air.erlm.siemens.de/
http://www.chalp.com/

There are also a number of small suppliers such as:
http://www.manairco.com/

As to specifications, Transport Canada has yet to produce a specification ... in large part because we do not have an approval process, as does the FAA. The FAA specification is as good as any.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, you can get me at my home email or work email. However, I'm on travel for the next two weeks.

eduard

Eduard Alf p. eng
Visual Aids Technical Unit

Transport Canada - AARNB
Place de Ville - Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N8
telephone: 613-990-2100
facsimile: 613-998-7416
work email: [email protected]


What an excellent and most helpful response! It is particularly gratifying to see that Eduard Alf has taken the trouble to ensure that all his career knowledge will still be available after he retires. Many thanks for this helpful action.

I should clarify the comment regarding the acceptability of retroreflective markers as a replacement for conventional runway lighting. I presume this is intended to apply to certified aerodromes. As mentioned in my initial post, my copy of AIP Canada, which is current with the latest amendments, states in AGA 7.20 and AGA 7.3 that retroreflective markers are acceptable for use as runway markers at registered aerodromes provided alignment lights are installed. For those without access to AIP Canada, a certified aerodrome as per AGA 2.3 is basically one that is located within the built-up area of a city or town or is used by an air carrier as a main base or for a scheduled passenger-carrying service. Certified aerodromes are inspected by Transport Canada from time to time to ensure that they meet certain minimum standards. Registered aerodromes are not inspected and the CFS relies upon the operators for the provision of aerodrome information. The CFS, at least to January last year, contains information on registered aerodromes that use retroreflective markers for runway lighting. As mentioned, there is no way to know exactly how many registered, let alone unregistered, aerodromes use them.

It is interesting to note that TC uses the FAA specification for retroreflective markers instead of reinventing the wheel. This makes sense. There should be no excuse for African aviation administrations to avoid doing the same!

Presumably the USA has used retroreflective markers for runway lighting for some years as the FAA specification is used by Canada. Russia is also mentioned prominently as having them in service for some years. That means the three biggest countries in world aviation have been using them for some years. It is difficult to see how some South Africans can now claim the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting to be their new and unique invention!

Anyone considering the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting should obtain them from the legitimate developers and suppliers, such as those mentioned in Eduard Alf’s letter, rather than from a possible pirate source.

[wheels up]

B.Sousa

I presume that at some stage you would have dealt with the CAA in the 'old days' when we were still behind the boerewors curtain. Now THAT was frustrating. I would take the present CAA anyday. In my experience they are helpfull and friendly, and generally pretty efficient.

Please don't think things are better in other countries - they're not - a PPL issue in the UK will take over a month and will cost you shedloads of money. My latest validation in an African country took me over 2 weeks - the response from SA CAA for confirmation of my licence details was pretty immediate, and they phoned me back!

That is not to say that I have not had my run in's with them- I have, they're not perfect by any stretch of imagination. One thing I find annoying is that it is a lack of consistency and clarity on some issues - it depends who you talk to.

But generally they're not that bad in my opinion.

[B Sousa]

Wheels
Cant speak of days gone by. I can speak of the last few years. When going to the CAA Office, I have to put on my best smile as I know somewhere in the process Im going to get screwed. Were it not for a few faces I know, these problems would become costly and time consuming.
I have to agree from postings I have seen that the U.K. may even be worse. If nothing more, expensive as hell.
Understand that its the same round the world, but so far in dealing with the FAA (35 years) I have had no problems.
The one incident within the last month at CAA was from a friend going in cold to get a validation. The tale was a real nightmare......Again a few known faces cleaned things up.

[Carrier]

Following my own advice, I contacted the four legitimate makers mentioned by Eduard Alf in order to get product information and prices. Below is the reply I received from Reginald Bennett International. I reproduce it in full, not as an endorsement, but firstly to show that retroreflective markers have been in service for a while in various African countries and secondly to show what the legitimate developers and makers think of the South Africans involved!


I appreciate your update and concern regarding our false inventor in
S.Africa, I was informed about a month ago. I acknowledge and
sympathise
with you of the problems you face and must overcome.
RBI's technology has reached this point from years and years of
development
through research, design, test trials etc.
RBI has approximately 360 systems world wide including numerous systems
in
Africa ( Tanzania, Kenya, Nigeria & Morocco ), not to mention many
systems
delivered to the United Nations destined for operations in Africa. I
have a
couple of representatives in Kenya, representing parts of West Africa.
With reference to your requirements of portability, I would recommend
our
model 336-2 white for the runway and 336-2 red/green for the threshold.
We
can supply 8 units per case ( these units fold up and store in the
carrying
case). As for the strobe light approach, we will offer single high
intensity LED solar powered lights. Again, we would supply a carrying
case
for these. We would be more than happy to provide a price quote once
you
provide runway length, including any taxiway markings you wish. The LED
approach lights we recommend 3 units per end.
FYI - we have recently received a contract to supply our medium
intensity
reflective markers for Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The markers will be
permanently installed and be used as back-up lighting. This was
strongly
recommended and ordered by Virgin Atlantic Airline.
Please do not hesitate requesting any further information.

Regards,
Gary Hretsina, President

[Carrier]

Paul Marquis bypassed the normal channels at TC in order to quickly obtain the extremely helpful response from Eduard Alf. The normal procedures have now come through with a response. I reproduce most of it as it adds a little more info on the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting.


"We ......................... are pleased to offer the following comments in response to your request.

The use of retro-reflective markers for runway lighting was introduced
with the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) in 1996. The A.I.P.
Canada AGA section was updated at the same time.

CARs, Part III, Subpart 1 regulate the use of retro-reflective markers
for runway, taxiway and apron lighting at uncertified aerodromes. CARs,
Part III, Subpart 2 and TP312, 4th edition regulate the use of retro-reflective
markers for private use taxiways and aprons at certified sites. Please
note that the use of retro-reflective markers is not allowed for runway
lighting at certified aerodromes in Canada.

Interestingly, concerns pertaining to the performance and durability of
retro-reflective markers have been raised and some studies conducted.

I have no information with respect to other countries using retro-reflective
markers and this would require some research.

....................the CARs are available at the following URL:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/A/aa/menu.htm

We are aware of one manufacturer / supplier of this type of marker and
his URL is:

http://www.rbi-inc.com/pages/civilrun.htm

TP 312, 4th edition is not being printed anymore. A request to Mr. Guy
Héneault would be required should you want to obtain a copy of TP312 or
additional information pertaining to the performance of retro-reflective
markers. Mr. Héneault can be reached at (613) 991-9939 or via email at
[email protected]."


You will note from the above that the CARS and AIP Canada were updated to include the use of retroreflective markers in 1996. The articles on the RBI web site indicate that retroreflective markers were actually in use a few years before that, even as a portable system used by the Canadian Forces. It is almost beyond belief that a decade later some South Africans can claim to have invented them as a new and unique product! They must have known about them. Apart from what they should have known through aviation circles, publications and contacts a simple Google or similar search would have turned up references to the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting. It is most disturbing that they have still not retracted their false claims, even after they were sent the following email:


Tom Chalmers, World Airnews Magazine
Gavin Brown, Landing Eyes
John Stone, SA Red Cross AMS
[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

18 September 2004

Re: Retroreflective markers for runway lighting

It was most disappointing to note that in the September issue of World Airnews Magazine there is no retraction of the false claims of retroreflective markers for runway lighting being a new and unique product recently developed in South Africa.

Anyone involved in aviation in a professional capacity would be checking PPRuNe from time to time and receiving the free email newsletters from AVweb in order to keep current with developments in world aviation. I assume you consider yourselves to be aviation professionals and so I have to assume that you have read the posts regarding this on the African Aviation forum of PPRuNe and have chosen to ignore them. This is most regrettable for the damage that these false claims do to the credibility of South African aviation as a whole and to World Airnews Magazine.

If you are not aware of the posts, which I find to be scarcely credible, then I suggest you go to www.pprune.org - to the forum index - to African Aviation and look at the two threads titled “Retroreflective markers for runway lighting” and “World Airnews Magazine – Infomercials or serious inaccuracies damaging SA aviation credibility?”

I trust you will reconsider your stance and have the good grace to correct the situation.

Cheers, Carrier


Does their continuing refusal to retract the false claims, apologise and acknowledge the true pioneers of the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting say anything about the levels of personal integrity, scruples and moral fiber of the individuals concerned?

[Carrier]

I was most surprised to find that the November edition of SA Flyer has the same false claims as World Airnews magazine’s August edition. Do John Miller and Charmaine de Villiers do no checking whatsoever? Do they make no effort to keep current with what is available worldwide in aviation? Does Gavin Brown, the false inventor, have no conscience at all that he should allow these false claims to continue? It will be interesting to see if SA Flyer’s editor has the moral fibre and conscience to issue a retraction and apology for the false claims.

[B Sousa]

Carrier
Im real curious. Your in SA and the folks you mention are available by phone. Have you ever called THEM to see if they can give you an answer??

[Rhodie]

Carrier...

I must second the suggestion of using your middle digit and using the phone...

I say this because you seem to have a huge gripe about this whole issue - whether right or wrong, invented or re-invented (in another form/type/design etc) is not the issue.

What IS, however, is the unwarranted and, quite frankly, slanderous attack on the integrity of both Tom Chalmers and John Miller.

I know both gentlemen personally, and would say that not only are they above what you imply, but they have both done incredible good for the SA aviation scene, and are well respected as the editors of their respective journals. The odd spelling mistake or typo does NOT detract or justify your attack.

If you are so affronted by these "false claims", then get a lawyer - or get a life... :mad:

Cheers

R

[pointer41]

How sad to see people shooting down what other's are trying to achieve!!!

While the reflective markers are not a new concept by a long shot (I know a farmer and great soul in private flying that have used such a system for years), the manner in which the system is designed is new: It uses space age reflective material specially developed with the aid of the CSIR to increase luminosity, as well as a special curvature that will allow no reduction in reflection from a wider range of angles than the norm. I was one of the pilots who test-flown the system (and I do not know the designer or am part of the project, just to cull nasty remarks), and it is damn sight better than having nothing below you at all, which incidentally I have also done many times.

As I understand, the designer is trying to make humanitarian operations safer, and at least look at that aspect before so viciously attacking it.

That said, yes a number of problems remain to be solved, such as the obvious fact that you have to arrive on final, on centerline for your landing lights to illuminate the reflectors. But the fact remain that precisely this is being done in the case of medivac aircraft, now ask yourself, would you land with the aid of landrovers that might or might not be in the way on the runway, or prefer to have a demarkated runway?

Be part of the solution, not the problem! And finally, well done to all entrepeneurs who constantly attempt to add value to aviation!:ok:

[Carrier]

The January 2006 issue of World Airnews magazine has an article on the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting in Botswana. Gavin Brown of Landing Eyes is again referred to as the inventor.
In the post on 27 September 2004 is copied in full a letter from Gary Hretsina, President of Reginald Bennett International Inc, in which he refers to Gavin Brown as “our false inventor in S. Africa”.
Before posting a reply or getting worked up readers should do two things. First read and understand the letter from Eduard Alf of Transport Canada reproduced in full in the second post on 20 September 2004. Then go to the Reginald Bennett International Inc website at www.rbi-inc.com/index.htm and read and understand all of the various articles from different publications regarding the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting. Note the dates when these articles were first published and when retroreflective markers to ICAO Annex 14 and FAA certification standards were first installed at various airfields and heliports. Take a look at the world map and note that RBI retroreflective runway marker installations are in service at hundreds of airfields in all continents, including Africa and Antarctica. This does not include installations from other makers, including those in Russia. To get a basic understanding of retroreflective airfield lighting and the Passive Approach Slope Indicator (PASI) reflective landing system read the article “Flying The Retroreflective Approach” by Terry Simcoe. Note in the article “What is Retroreflectivity” by Roland Hoeffener that with the RBI product 98% of the light is reflected back to the source. It is difficult to see how Gavin Brown, Landing Eyes and 3M can have come up with a new material that makes a significant improvement on something that in the 1980s was already in service with a 98% efficiency level. Even if they could get to the 100% level the additional 2% would make no noticeable difference. The evidence indicates that Gavin Brown, Landing Eyes, their associates and helpers are not the inventors or even early pioneers of the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting. The evidence indicates that all they have done is duplicate or copy something that has already been in service worldwide for the better part of two decades in both fixed and portable installations and with no increase in product performance or aviation safety.
There is an old saying: “Give credit where it is due”. The opposite also applies and in most countries actions such as claiming credit for someone else’s idea or work or plagiarism are not acceptable behaviour. Also in most cultures if one makes a mistake it is normal to own up, apologise as necessary and take steps to correct the mistake. Presumably these also apply in Southern Africa. Do Gavin Brown, Tom Chalmers, John Miller, Donna Collins, B Sousa, Rhodie and Pointer41 not subscribe to them? It is always disappointing to see people apparently claiming credit for someone else’s invention or pioneering work. It is always disappointing to see others supporting this, perhaps because they do not understand the facts and issue or perhaps because they subscribe to the ethic that it is acceptable to claim credit for someone else’s work or perhaps out of a false sense of loyalty to their friends. I refer you again to Gary Hretsina’s description: “our false inventor”! If Gavin Brown, Tom Chalmers, John Miller, Donna Collins, B Sousa, Rhodie, Pointer41 or others have evidence to refute Gary Hretsina’s statement and confirm that Gavin Brown and Landing Eyes are the true inventors of the use of retroreflective markers for runway lighting, presented in the August 2004 issue of World Airnews magazine as a new and unique product recently developed in South Africa by a Durban civil engineer, please add the evidence or links to it to this thread. Then everyone will be able to review it and judge for themselves!
It seems that various persons, apparently ignorant of what has been in worldwide service for nearly two decades, have done much work under the impression that they were making a contribution. It must have been disappointing to discover that their work, time and expense were for nothing. Their intention is appreciated but it does not change the fact that they merely duplicated someone else’s work many years later. They have made no improvement whatsoever to either aviation safety or product performance on what has been available for many years. The solution was readily available, including to South Africa, with off-the-shelf components well over a decade ago. Components include runway edge and threshold markers, taxiway and apron markers, reflectors for heliports, runway alignment strobe lights with solar and/or battery power and ARCAL, and even the Passive Approach Slope Indicator (PASI) reflective landing system. The landingeyes participants, particularly a medevac air operator such as S. A. Red Cross Air Mercy Service and its pilots, should have been aware of all this and introduced it in Southern Africa a decade or more ago, as was done in other parts of Africa and the rest of the world. There is no excuse for participants in the landingeyes “development”, their supporters and some publications to allow the clearly incorrect claim of retroreflective markers for runway lighting being a new and unique product recently developed in South Africa to continue and to attack those who point out the true facts. Such false claims and attacks merely demean those who make and support them. There is a lesson for all to learn here. First, keep up to date with what is available in your profession or industry. Changes and new inventions are coming through all the time. Second, if you have a problem take a good look around first, perhaps the solution is already available somewhere.
On a related matter, the April and August 2004 issues of World Airnews magazine refer to runway solar powered lighting products by SunSolutions as being something new. Again, they might be new products but they are not a new concept. Interested readers might care to visit www.carmanah.com and www.SolarAirportLights.com and check for themselves on other solar powered airfield lighting options. The products of Carmanah Technologies Inc have been in use with UN, US DOD, NATO and Coalition Forces since well before 2004.
I shall not waste time and effort adding further posts to this thread. Plenty of evidence is available. Readers should check and understand it and then form their own opinions as to whether the South African claim or Gary Hretsina’s statement is correct. If anyone has any further credible evidence to add either way please post it here so that we can all get the full story and facts. However, please refrain from adding slanderous “shoot the messenger” style of posts. Kindly keep any additional posts to a factual basis and professional level.

[I.R.PIRATE]

Wow, you sure do have a lot to say about a really small issue. Would hate to hear you on the radio.......

[MysticFlyer]

I.R. you ever invented something, other than a foot in a jam jar? Nope, that have been done before too, so pipe down and refer to the last sentences!;)

Mystic - far too serious; take a chill pill, smoke a pipe, light some incense - if you're going to have a personal campaign against someone do it by PM or email please. Tks. 4HP

[MysticFlyer]

Missed the moderation untill now - noted, fact remains.

[compressor stall]

Royal Flying Doctor Service uses reflectors in Southern Western Australia, only the pilots operating out of Kalgoorlie base are trainined to fly in to those strips (PC12 and B200C).

The requirements are two kero flares at each end, and two in the middle on each side, the rest is small A-frames covered in reflective tape. It's a much easier approach in the PC12 as the lights are further apart and brighter; the KingAirs are bunched on the nosegear, causing less reflection.

Eucla (on the south coast where the WA/SA border is) was the one I landed at the most frequently.