Airport fog.
Define the test.

Start with the constraint that matters

An airport fog project should begin with a specific operational question: where does reduced visibility constrain the airport, when does it occur, and which decisions could an intervention realistically influence? A sensor reading, a delayed departure and a closed operating window are connected, but they are not interchangeable measurements.

Our proposed assessment maps fog episodes against airport activity and existing observations. It separates surface visibility from cloud ceiling, approach-zone conditions and wider network disruption. That distinction determines whether local fog treatment deserves further work or whether a different investment offers more value.

The resulting brief should name a testable bottleneck and the person responsible for deciding whether a proposed improvement would matter.

Different fog calls for different physics

For liquid-water fog, temperature, droplet sizes, wind and the supply of moisture change the engineering problem. WMO distinguishes established supercooled-fog dispersal under suitable conditions from heating and mixing approaches that can be expensive or impractical. No single technique should be assumed to transfer across sites.

For Weatherhill, the first useful output is an operating envelope: the conditions a proposed mechanism might address, the conditions it cannot, and the measurements needed to tell them apart. A project without that envelope cannot support a credible performance promise.

What electrostatic collection could contribute

Electrostatic collection adds electrical forces that move charged droplets toward a collecting surface. Published collector experiments justify investigating the mechanism. The airport question is harder: can a system produce a useful, sustained reduction in airborne droplets across a relevant volume while new fog continues to enter?

That is the question behind our FogLab pathway. The proposed sequence measures droplet capture, then spatial visibility effects, then operating cost and compatibility. Collected water is evidence of capture. It is not, by itself, evidence of a usable clear corridor.

Measure the whole result

A useful pilot needs measurements upstream, within and downstream of the test area, plus an independent reference. It should record wind, humidity, temperature, optical extinction, power and maintenance events. Treated and control periods must be comparable, with eligibility rules set before the result is known.

We want the report to answer practical questions: how far did an effect extend, how long did it persist, when did it fail, and what did it cost to sustain? Photographs can explain the apparatus. They cannot replace calibrated measurements or establish runway performance.

A route to an airport decision

The proposed starting point is a readiness study and an off-runway research plan. Airport operations staff can identify the constraint; researchers can test the physical hypothesis; qualified aviation and engineering partners can assess whether the next stage is justified. Each stage should produce a decision, including a decision to stop.

We are seeking design partners with a defined fog problem, relevant records and interest in a transparent evaluation. The objective is a defensible answer about a specific site. Operational deployment would require separate evidence, review and authorization.

Sources & further reading

• WMO Statement on Weather Modification ↗World Meteorological Organization · Published June 14, 2025; technical assessment covers information through June 2024.
• Electrostatically driven fog collection using space charge injection ↗MIT / Science Advances · Maher Damak and Kripa K. Varanasi. Science Advances 4(6) (2018), eaao5323. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5323. Collector experiments, not an airport deployment.
• Aviation Weather Research Program ↗Federal Aviation Administration · Applied weather research addressing operational needs, including ceiling and visibility.