weatherhill
Concept artwork of optical instruments for atmospheric measurement
Evidence and evaluation

Airport research.
Follow the evidence.

Our airport program separates published science, proposed work and demonstrated results. This is the evaluation standard we intend to use when deciding which ideas deserve another experiment—and which do not.

Discuss your airport Explore the first offer
Research stage

AI-GENERATED CONCEPT ART · NO DEPLOYMENT SHOWN

Weatherhill airport program · Published 14 October 2026 · Source-linked research, prepared with AI assistance. No airport trial results are reported.

Keep the evidence levels visible

A physical explanation, a laboratory result, a field result and an operational benefit are different kinds of evidence. Each can be valuable, but none should quietly stand in for another. The airport program is structured around that distinction.

Published fog-collection research supports investigation of a mechanism. It does not establish a Weatherhill product, a certified installation or a customer outcome. Our proposed studies would label their inputs and findings so a reader can identify what comes from an external source, what is an analytical assumption and what has actually been measured.

Prefer questions that can fail

A useful hypothesis specifies the effect, location and conditions under which it should occur. It also allows a result that does not support the idea. The proposed testing approach uses controls, predeclared eligibility, independent measurements and uncertainty estimates to make that distinction meaningful.

Weatherhill would seek to record negative results and operating limits alongside successes. If a result depends on a narrow range of conditions, that belongs in the main explanation. A transparent failure can prevent an expensive deployment and can identify a more productive research question.

The final report should preserve enough methodological detail for another team to understand the comparison and assess whether the conclusion follows from it.

Use the right metric and comparison

Water captured, atmospheric extinction, MOR, RVR, aircraft movements and financial outcomes are not interchangeable. Each claim needs a metric suited to the question and a comparison that isolates the proposed contribution. A compelling photograph is an illustration, not a substitute for that analysis.

Comparisons should also account for existing options. Airports already use observation systems, forecasts, operating procedures and engineering measures. A proposed Weatherhill intervention should be judged against the customer's actual alternative, including implementation effort and maintenance, rather than against an unrealistic assumption that nothing is being done.

Build economic cases with visible assumptions

An economic model should identify who pays, who benefits and which losses might plausibly be avoided. Airport, airline, ground-handler and maintenance costs require separate treatment before they are combined. Historical disruption describes exposure; it does not automatically establish recoverable savings.

Our proposed approach uses customer records where available, ranges where uncertainty remains and explicit scenarios for unproven performance. Sensitivity analysis should show which assumptions change the decision. An attractive headline return built on an unsupported physical effect is not a defensible investment case.

Publish status as carefully as results

The current airport program is seeking design partners and defining research and assessment scopes. It has no demonstrated airport fog-clearing result to report. The published topic pages explain the intended questions, relevant external evidence and the proposed route to evaluation.

Future claims should be dated, attributable and tied to a defined test or customer-approved result. Independent specialist input is especially valuable when moving between laboratory, field and aviation contexts. Our standard is simple: make the next decision easier to assess, and make the limits as findable as the promise.

The source register below combines the references used across this airport section. Download the source register as JSON or explore the paper library.

Questions from airport teams

Are the illustrations photographs of Weatherhill airport installations?

No. Concept artwork illustrates the intended research and application area. It should not be interpreted as evidence of installed equipment, field performance or an airport partnership.

Does a cited paper endorse Weatherhill?

No. Sources support the specific scientific or operational points discussed. Citation does not imply author, institution, airline or regulator endorsement.

Will all proposed work become a product?

That is not assumed. A study or pilot should identify whether an idea should advance, change direction or stop based on the evidence and the practical requirements.

Sources & further reading

Keep exploring

Follow the next question.

01 / Research stage

FogLab pilot pathway

The proposed FogLab airport pathway begins with controlled measurements and an off-runway experiment. Every stage has a question to answer and a reason to stop if the evidence does not support progression.

Explore foglab pilot pathway ↗
02 / Design partners sought

Weather Readiness Study

A proposed four-week study turns airport weather concerns into an evidence-backed set of decisions: what matters, who bears the cost, what is missing and which project deserves to proceed.

Explore weather readiness study ↗
03 / Research and planning

Runway visibility

Runway visual range, meteorological optical range and a photograph describe different things. An airport visibility project needs to measure the right outcome before it can claim an improvement.

Explore runway visibility ↗

Bring us the airport.
Start with the real constraint.

Airport operators, airlines, FBOs, engineering teams and research partners: help define a measurable first project.

Start a project brief

Search weatherhill

Search papers, tools and the project.