John Pottle, director of the Royal Institute of Navigation, announced the release of the organization’s Resilient PNT Portal.
“It’s widely understood that satellite navigation has vulnerabilities,” Pottle said. “What is less well understood is how to assess risks and what steps to take to achieve a robust solution, appropriate to the application.
“This resource portal for resilient positioning, navigation and timing brings together key information — background context, risk assessment approaches, data on actual reported events, and guidance on mitigation strategies. The various standards and best practices notes for different sectors have also been included.”
The portal, available at https://rin.org.uk/page/ResilientPNT, has sections devoted to vulnerabilities and impacts, risk assessment, disruptions and reported problems, guidelines and standards, and general guidance.
“Our aim is to enable improved knowledge and thereby build expertise and understanding, in line with the Royal Institute of Navigation’s core objectives,” Pottle said.
The page includes a feedback form to make suggestions or ask questions. Users can also use the form to register for email updates as new information is added.
“We have ideas to improve and add to this resource through 2019 — for example, we are currently working on a white paper discussing various practical steps to mitigate common vulnerabilities,” Pottle said.
He added that the organization welcomes feedback and that there is a feedback link on the website.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s most recent document preparing for the future of self-driving cars almost entirely ignores positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) needs, according to the Resilient Navigation and Timing (RNT) Foundation. And when it does address GPS, it gets things wrong. A Dec. 3 deadline looms for interested parties to file their comments with DOT.
The comment period is open until December 3. Interested parties can make their own comments and read those already submitted at the website for Docket DOT-OST-2018-0149.
The cited comment from the RNT Foundation states that, while most self-driving cars are being designed to navigate without external inputs, GPS/GNSS will still be required to initialize location information for vehicle cold startups. Also, most vehicles will reference GPS/GNSS when communicating their positions to other vehicles and traffic control systems.
Much of the benefit of automated vehicles will come from their participation in Intelligent Transportations Systems. This means wireless networks. The RNT Foundation also urges the department to consider these networks’ critical dependence on GPS timing synchronization in their plans going forward.
(Image: Pavel Vinnik/Shutterstock.com)
The Secretary of Transportation has had a mandate to provide a backup capability for GPS since 2004 that has not been acted upon. The RNT Foundation comments observe that doing so could greatly mitigate all of the concerns mentioned.
Dana Goward is president of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, based in Washington D.C.
An electronic pelorus is poised to become a useful tool in any mariner’s toolbox of resilient PNT systems. Learn how it works, and the benefits it brings to position fixing at sea.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
POP QUIZ: What do a character from Greek mythology, a point on the coast of Sicily, the pilot of Hannibal’s ship, a fizzy wine from New Zealand, and a navigation instrument have in common?
They are all called Pelorus or pelorus in the case of the instrument as it’s not a proper noun (grammar lesson over). And while a discussion of each of the uses of the word could be quite educational, this month’s column, perhaps predictably, will be about the pelorus or rather a modernized version of it.
If you are a landlubber, like me, you may not have heard of the pelorus. Yet, in one form or another it has been around for hundreds of years although not always going by that name. In appearance and use, it resembles a compass with sighting vanes.
But it has no magnetic components of any sort. And while a compass is used to get a magnetic bearing of a charted feature such as a tower or lighthouse or the magnetic heading of a vessel, a pelorus is used to measure a relative bearing between a feature and a reference direction such as the heading of the vessel, commonly called the ship’s head.
If a line is drawn on a chart through the sighted feature at an angle equal to the measured bearing, the vessel must be somewhere along this so-called line of position. If a second bearing on another feature significantly displaced from the first is measured in quick succession, a second line of position can be drawn on the chart, crossing the first.
The intersection point gives the (two-dimensional or horizontal) location, or position fix, of the vessel. Since the measured bearings will have some error, generally at least three lines of position are established with their intersections forming a small triangle, sometimes called a “cocked hat.” The location of the vessel is either inside the triangle or nearby depending on the similarity of the bearing errors.
Position fixes can also be obtained from instruments that measure ranges. In this case, the lines of position are circles for terrestrial systems providing two-dimensional fixes or spheres of position in the case of three-dimensional fixes obtained from GNSS measurements.
But let’s get back to the pelorus. Most vessels of a certain size are equipped with a pelorus. Frequent use of the pelorus helps to maintain situational awareness and being a completely passive device, it is not dependent on receiving an electronic signal of any kind. Only an acceptable level of visibility is required. And it can provide a manual check on any automated ship’s systems such as a GNSS receiver.
However, determining position fixes using a pelorus and a paper chart is laborious and time consuming and it is cumbersome to manually add lines of position to an electronic chart. What is needed is an electronic pelorus, which measures bearings electronically and automatically generates a line of position on an electronic chart.
The General Lighthouse Authorities of the United Kingdom and Ireland, the agencies responsible for aids to navigation in the U.K. and Ireland, have developed such an instrument. Dubbed the BinoNav, it is poised to become a useful tool in any mariner’s toolbox of resilient PNT systems and in this month’s column, we learn about its genesis, how it works, and the benefits it brings to position fixing at sea.
The overreliance on GNSS is well known and widely publicized. While GNSS is generally available, concerns remain on how maritime operations, and safe navigation in particular, are affected should GNSS not be usable, or become denied for any reason.
The General Lighthouse Authorities of the United Kingdom and Ireland (GLA) have been working on resilient positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) for many years. This work has included a comprehensive review of different potential solutions and their availability. One option proposed is the development of a ship-based positioning system that makes use of a modernized pelorus to work with a modern bridge.
Pelorus systems work by providing bearings from fixed positions, normally on the vessel bridge wings, to specific targets visible to the mariner and identified on the navigation chart. By taking several bearings in quick succession, intersecting lines can be drawn on the navigation chart, providing a position estimation. Clearly, there are limitations to this approach — these are explored within this article, but can be summarized as:
Automation. The time taken to measure the bearings can limit the achieved accuracy.
Visibility. Performance is limited by the mariner’s ability to see unique targets.
Paperless bridges. Many vessel bridges are moving away from paper, limiting the mariner’s ability to take bearings and plot them.
e-Navigation. More bridge systems require electronic values of latitude and longitude.
In an attempt to resolve most of these limitations, the GLA has been working on the development of an enhanced pelorus, or ePelorus, with its name registered to the Research and Radionavigation Directorate (R&RNAV) as BinoNav.
Prototype BinoNav systems have been developed and installed on all GLA vessels for trial. They enable the navigator to take visual bearings to known targets, from anywhere on the bridge using a handheld device — they are no longer confined to the bridge wings and targeting port or starboard objects.
Measured bearings are automatically registered and drawn on an electronic chart. Multiple bearings can then be made with ease, each of which is displayed on the chart and the intersecting “cocked-hat” position (to be discussed later), calculated automatically. This information can then be used to feed other bridge systems and confirm the vessel’s position.
In this article, I will provide a comprehensive overview of the BinoNav system, provide the results of initial trials and explain the planned development of the proposed resilient PNT solution.
e-NAVIGATION
Much has been written about e-Navigation elsewhere, but briefly, it is the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) concept for the future of navigation, instigated by the U.K. Department for Transport in 2004. It will lead to the integration of systems and data — for the exchange of relevant geolocated information — faster and more cost effectively, and it will do this in the context of larger, faster vessels operating in ever more constricting shipping lanes and increasing offshore obstacles such as renewable energy infrastructure as well as the legacy of non-renewable energy infrastructure.
e-Navigation is designed to enhance safety of life for the mariner, improve protection of the environment, and increase energy efficiency in terms of shorter routing for fuel-efficient shipping. Moreover, it will allow more effective use of resources and integration across transport modes, including the more effective provision of integrated port operations.
Since its inception in 2004, development and delivery of e-Navigation services has been slow. Even now, some 14 years later, only a few prototype projects have delivered anything like what was anticipated in the original e-Navigation vision. This sluggishness has been caused by minimal leadership and drive from the IMO.
Despite this, some initiatives have been successfully delivered on a local or regional basis. These initiatives have come largely through projects such as Accessibility for Shipping, Efficiency Advantages and Sustainability (ACCSEAS), Efficient Safe and Sustainable Traffic at Sea (EfficienSea) 1 & 2, Motorways and Electronic Navigation by Intelligence at Sea (MonaLisa) 1 & 2, and Sea Traffic Management (a MonaLisa project), all of which have been supported by funding from the European Union.
Resiliency in PNT has been identified by the IMO as a lead area in the delivery of e-Navigation, and all these projects have used resilient PNT as the basis of what they have delivered.
REQUIREMENT FOR RESILIENT PNT
FIGURE 1. Ships’ systems affected by GPS jamming. (Data: Author)
It is now well recognized that all GNSS are vulnerable to interference, whether these interferers are from natural causes such as space weather or from synthetic sources such as jamming or spoofing devices. GNSS receiving units and satellite failures also occur. There are many examples of each of these problems affecting GNSS worldwide.
Resilient PNT information is needed to ensure continuity of maritime operations and safe navigation — especially for e-Navigation, management of sea traffic, and autonomous vessels.
GPS jamming trials were conducted by GLA’s R&RNAV in 1994, 2008, 2009 and 2012. These trials showed the real-time vulnerability of maritime systems to jamming. They identified that many ships’ systems were affected by GPS jamming. However, some systems we did not expect to be affected actually were (see Figure 1). Devices such as the helicopter-deck stabilization system and the ship’s gyrocompass are good examples.
GLA Work on Resilient PNT. GLA, through R&RNAV, has conducted a program of work that has looked at the issues of GNSS vulnerability and what they can do about it through a series of studies. These have looked at a number of systems such as
enhanced Loran, absolute radar positioning (two different methods)
ranging mode or R-mode, which is the use of ranging signals from existing marine infrastructure (two different methods)
signals of opportunity (many methods)
hybrid systems
dead reckoning
inertial
other on-board systems.
The timeline for the introduction of some of these systems into operational use, as well as current and new GNSS, can be seen in Figure 2. This article deals with equipment that falls into the “other on-board systems” category.
FIGURE 2. Timeline for resilient PNT (GNSS and complementary systems). (Diagram: Author)
A DRIVER FOR OPTICAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS
The need for new optical navigation systems has been driven by a number of marine incidents, one of which I will discuss in detail.
MV Tricolor Incident. On Dec. 14, 2002, in early morning thick fog, on its way from Zeebrugge to Southampton, the MV Tricolor, with a load of almost 3,000 BMW, Volvo and Saab cars, collided with a Bahamian-flagged container ship named Kariba, about 20 miles north of the French coast in the Dover Strait Traffic Separation Scheme.
Albeit damaged above the water line, the Kariba could continue, while the MV Tricolor remained wedged on her side in 30 meters of water in a busy area of navigation. No lives were lost and the crew were rescued by the Kariba and a tugboat. Nevertheless, approximately 2,862 cars and 77 units of cargo, consisting mainly of tractors and crane parts, could not be salvaged.
The shipping lane, being the busiest in the world, was marked by buoys and guarded by the French police vessel Glaive and HMS Anglesey, thereby warning other vessels of the MV Tricolor’s presence. Despite the marking and patrolling, only two days later a cargo ship, Nicola, followed by another vessel, Vicky (carrying 70,000 tonnes of highly flammable gas oil) collided with the wreck of the Tricolor, after failing to heed several French naval warnings. In between the two further collisions, more buoyage and patrol vessels were deployed. On Jan. 22, a third accident happened when a salvage tug knocked a safety valve off the Tricolor, resulting in a massive oil spill.
Besides the heavy economic losses, including the estimated operation cost of around £25M (roughly $40M), the incident caused massive marine pollution and environmental contamination by spilling large quantities of oil. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimated more than 1,000 birds were found dead or damaged by oil spilled from Tricolor.
Why Did It Happen? The incident was blamed on declining professional standards among seafarers, which was leading to scores of near misses in the area every day. Indeed, Andrew Linnington of the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers is quoted as saying that ship owners had been cutting costs by reducing use of deep-sea pilots to guide vessels through the world’s most crowded shipping lanes. Ships were increasingly crewed by one trained officer and a few poorly paid sailors from parts of the developing world.
“We know of at least four cases in the past year of ships going the wrong way in shipping lanes against the flow of traffic,” Linnington said. “Complaints are made to the states where the ships are registered, but they are often small countries used as flags of convenience and don’t have the resources to take action.”
It is clear from the incident and the ensuing investigation that navigators were not looking out the window, despite various radio navigation warnings and other methods, not the least of which was deploying wreck-marking buoys and virtual aids to navigation.
A very good way of mitigating the failure of any navigation system is by using reversionary methods of navigation, like looking out the window! This was a big driver in the GLA development of the BinoNav.
WHAT IS BINONAV?
FIGURE 3. A pelorus. (Photo: Author)
BinoNav is an electronic pelorus. A pelorus is a device that is completely independent of any other system or electronic position fixing system (EPFS), and this is important for providing resiliency.
Pelorus. A standard pelorus (see Figure 3) is used to take relative (to the vessel’s head) bearings to charted objects in the vicinity. The navigator then draws a line on the relevant navigation chart through the charted object. It is clear now that the vessel lies somewhere on this “line of position” from the charted object. This process is then repeated several times using different charted objects, with a minimum of three iterations.
This process then creates a “cocked hat” (a triangle in the case of three lines of position) generated from the intersection of the lines. Accounting for systematic errors, the vessel should lie somewhere within this cocked hat (see Figure 4 for an example).
This process is laborious and time consuming, but it does have the advantage of getting the navigator to look at real features outside the vessel — not just a red line on an electronic chart that they follow without question.
FIGURE 4. An example of positioning using a pelorus. (Chart: Author)
What about Electronic Chart Display? Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDISs) are excellent, when used correctly, and have driven innovation in the shipping industry. However, they do have disadvantages: If you are using a pelorus, you cannot very easily draw on a screen. You can generate an electronic bearing line (EBL) on an ECDIS, but it is a very long, convoluted way of providing a position not derived from an EPFS, such as a GNSS fix.
Any system that needs to generate an EBL on an ECDIS needs to do it electronically. Moreover, it needs to do this without having to rely on GNSS for position or time to avoid the issues of GNSS vulnerability: it should be completely independent. It should also be able to carry out optical to electronic integration to ensure that the mariner is looking out the window. Another GLA requirement was that it should be relatively low cost to make and distribute to enable take up across all users. So the idea of BinoNav was born. BinoNav fulfills all these criteria easily, intuitively and quickly, updating the electronic position of the vessel. Furthermore, with its wireless connection, bearings can be taken anywhere on the bridge of a vessel.
BINONAV FEATURES
In this section, I will describe the BinoNav and how it is used.
FIGURE 5. The BinoNav configuration. (Photo: Author)
Easy to Use. BinoNav comprises two parts: the “Bino” unit, which is a modified pair of binoculars, and a “base” unit that performs the communication link between the Bino unit and the electronic chart. Pick up the Bino unit from the base unit (see Figure 5 for overall configuration of the BinoNav).
Line up the graticule inside the Bino unit with a charted feature of use, press either of the buttons to automatically generate a line on the displayed electronic chart, which is relative to the ship’s head. As with a standard pelorus, one needs at least another two of these EBLs to generate a cocked-hat position on the electronic chart. Using either the touch screen or the mouse, “hover” over the cocked hat to generate a triangle. Now, right click to drop a marker at the center of the cocked-hat position and delete all lines. Once the vessel has moved (and dictated by the operating environment at the time), this process can be repeated. When two or more of the markers have been dropped, a line is drawn between the marks, thereby showing a track on the chart.
Features. From the use of the BinoNav unit as described above, a track is produced on an electronic chart that is not derived from an EPFS. This is important as it shows the integration of visual navigation into e-Navigation, something which e-Navigation has tried to do from the very beginning, as described by Brian Wadsworth in his earliest vision of e-Navigation (see Further Reading).
Another feature of BinoNav is “radar mode” for charted feature recognition. This feature draws a continuously moving line on the display that points at the position relative to the ship’s head. This is useful for the recognition of charted features when in unfamiliar territory.
The BinoNav is very easy to install, with only a connection for power and a connection for a suitable National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) protocol data feed for heading. Many of its electronic components are available off the shelf and are widely available commercially with bespoke printed circuit boards. Some modification to the binocular unit has been necessary, with the addition of a bespoke unit, which links to the base unit for both orientation measurement and power when the unit is docked. The binoculars are readily available for around $500. The gyros incorporated in both the base unit and the binocular unit are high-grade microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) devices giving an angular resolution of 0.25-0.5 degrees, similar to that of a standard pelorus.
Currently, the BinoNav is 3D-printed, which allows for the quick production of one-off units. However, this approach is clearly not a suitable solution for long production runs and would require a different method of production.
FIGURE 6. The BinoNav installation on THV Alert. (Photo: Author)
Something for the Future. R&RNAV has received a lot of interest in the BinoNav not only from our own mariners, but also from a variety of influencers in the maritime world. We have had a great deal of positive feedback on potential improvements and additional features that we plan to develop.
We will also seek to gain approvals through IMO and the International Electrotechnical Commission to integrate BinoNav with ECDIS, so there will be no need for separate displays (unless being used on non-SOLAS vessels; that is, ones to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea does not apply.)
CURRENT GLA INSTALLATIONS
FIGURE 7. Using the BinoNav on ILV Granuaile. (Photo: Author)
The BinoNav has been installed on all six GLA vessels: ILV (Irish Lights Vessel) Granuaile, NVL (Northern Lighthouse Vessel) Pharos, NVL Pole Star, THV (Trinity House Vessel) Alert, THV Galatea and THV Patricia. The installation on Alert is shown in Figure 6 and BinoNav use on Granuaile is shown in Figure 7.
CONCLUSIONS
The key points made in this article can be summarized as follows:
e-Navigation is based on the premise of electronic navigation from “berth to berth.”
Many accidents happen because crews do not look out the window.
There is a need for electronic positioning from non-GNSS sources.
The BinoNav integrates visual navigation and electronic navigation through an ECDIS.
The BinoNav provides an independent verification of position with or without EPFS.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
BinoNav is a registered trade mark and carries unregistered design rights. BinoNav has patents pending.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the masters, officers and crews of all the GLA vessels for their help and for the benefit of their experience throughout the whole process of the BinoNav development. Special thanks go to those who helped during the various development trials on ILV Granuaile and THV Alert prior to the mainstream installations.
This article is based on the paper “BinoNav® – A New Positioning System for Maritime” presented at ION GNSS+ 2018, the 31st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Miami, Florida, Sept. 24–28, 2018.
MARTIN BRANSBY is the head of the Research and Radionavigation Directorate at the General Lighthouse Authorities of the UK and Ireland, stationed in Harwich, Essex. He is responsible for the delivery of its program portfolio in research and development in technically diverse areas such as resilient PNT, e-Navigation, GNSS, Automatic Identification System (AIS) and visual signaling. He is a fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation, and holds memberships in the Institute of Engineering and Technology and The Institute of Navigation. He is also a member of the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities’ AtoN (Aid to Navigation) Requirements and Management Committee.
FURTHER READING
Author’s Conference Paper
“BinoNav® – A New Positioning System for Maritime” by M. Bransby in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2018, the 31st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Miami, Florida, Sept. 24–28, 2018, pp. 1728–1735.
“Marine eNavigation: An Orientation Paper” by B. Wadsworth, document WEND9-INF4, presented to the 9th meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization World-wide Electronic Navigational Chart Database (WEND) Committee, Monaco, April 7–8, 2005.
“The Impact of GPS Jamming on the Safety of Navigation” by S. Basker, A. Grant, P. Williams and N. Ward, presented at the 48th meeting of the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee, Savannah, Georgia, Sept. 15–16, 2008.
The U.S. Army is drafting new rules for the use of GPS receivers in weapon systems to combat spoofing and jamming attacks, as well as signal loss in GPS-denied environments, according to news reports.
The six- to seven-page capabilities requirements document is awaiting a signature from Army leadership, according to Willie Nelson, director of the assured PNT (positioning, navigation and timing) cross-functional team. Nelson spoke to reporters Oct. 9 at the Association of the U.S. Army annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
The Army has been trying for years to complete a GPS requirements document, a “system of systems architecture for assured PNT.” But with virtually every device equipped with GPS, the document would have been too big and too broad, Nelson said.
(Photo: U.S. Army)
The approach now is for separate sets of requirements: one for mounted equipment (now complete and awaiting the signature), a dismounted requirement, and situational awareness.
The difficulty facing the Army is the plethora of PNT systems in use. For instance, an armored personnel carrier may have five to seven unconnected GPS receivers, some with encryption, some without. The weakest receiver could negatively affect the vehicle, Nelson said.
With the new requirements, Army vehicles will have a consolidated, networked, software-based PNT solution. Dismounted receivers used by soldiers will have similar requirements.
Industry will be asked for specific solutions within each of the PNT sectors rather than an “all of the above” solution.
The Army is also expected to create a training program for soldiers that operate PNT systems.
Experts from all over the world will discuss positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) and their role for augmented/mixed reality at the Munich Satellite Navigation Summit 2019. The summit will take place March 25-27, 2019, at the Alte Kongresshalle in Munich, Germany.
“Augment Yourself with GNSS…” is the theme of the 2019 summit. The organizing Institute of Space Technology and Space Applications (ISTA) of the Universitaet der Bundeswehr Muenchen will invite experts to talk about the latest GNSS and PNT news and their role for augmented/mixed reality as well as other up-to-date technologies.
The conference starts on March 25 with the Exhibition Opening and Champagne Reception at 16:00 hours, followed by the Opening Plenary Panel at 16:45 hours. Afterwards, a reception provides opportunities for high-level networking with experts from industry, science and government.
Trending topics of the 2019 summit:
First- and second-generation of the European satellite navigation system Galileo
Modernization of the U.S. Global Positioning System
Status and modernization of the Russian Global Satellite Navigation System GLONASS
Developments of new global and regional systems like the Chinese Beidou (BDS), the Japanese QZSS and the Indian IRNSS
Augmented/mixed reality and the use of Android raw measurements
Autonomous systems
Civil use of the Public Regulated Service
GNSS satellites and the Space Service Volume
Legal aspects on selected topics in the field of GNSS.
What is the greatest threat to GNSS over the next three years? Click to enlarge. (Source: GPS World 2018 State of the GNSS Industry report)
When we designed the survey of the global PNT community for the 2018 State of the GNSS Industry report, we put a couple of new wrinkles into the online questionnaire. We wanted to know, succinctly, what you felt was the number one obstacle to growth for your organization. And, with the same brevity, what you saw as the number one opportunity for growth.
The answers most frequently given within each sector — mobile, OEM, survey, UAV, transportation, machine control, mapping and defense & government — appear on those respective pages in this issue. They weren’t the only answers, by far.
Obstacles to Growth
Other stumbling blocks that were called out included security, competitors (sometimes mentioned by name), politics (sometimes mentioned by party), budgets, funding, understanding, ignorance, management, bureaucracy, age, and that enduring favorite, time.
The most frequently cited obstacles to growth were:
regulation, and
the lack of qualified staff, personnel, engineers.
One ingenious survey-taker somehow found a way to cram 21 words into an answer box meant for only one or two. “In my industry, deep technical talent that addresses the specific issues. Without that, the ‘big picture’ judgments are often just wrong.”
This problem is not new, nor is it particular to the GNSS/PNT industry. The fact that it is with us year after year suggests that it is not getting enough effective attention. Talented engineers can be imported, yes, if the homegrown supply falls short. In the current political climate, this may not be a strategy with legs. Even given a totally benign immigration regulatory landscape, it is far from a panacea. More on this in a moment.
Growth Opportunities
Various flavors of technology integration, both multi-GNSS and non-GNSS, led the pack in nearly every sector. Other popular answers included customization, broadband, autonomous navigation, Galileo, international markets, alt-nav, Brexit, the Cloud, M-code, anti-jamming, connectivity, flexibility, more clients, and, in riposte to the aforementioned obstacle: training, education, or simply engineering.
The great American thinker Margaret Mead said, “We are continually faced with great opportunities which are brilliantly disguised as unsolvable problems.”
If your organization encounters this perennial problem, this shortage of qualified staff that stifles innovation, inhibits growth, and causes you to pass on new ventures that are just out of reach, here’s the biggest whopping opportunity of all: get involved with higher education and engineering graduate schools in your area.
The talent is there. If you’re not out actively cultivating, encouraging, training and recruiting it, those bright young engineering people will be drawn instead to Internet ventures or gaming software or other industries that sap the soul but nourish the pocket — and those are your true competitors.
The Korea Research Institute of Ships and Oceans Engineering (KRISO) has awarded UrsaNav a contract to supply an eLoran Transmitter Test Bed System in the Republic of Korea.
UrsaNav, the exclusive, worldwide distributor of Nautel’s NL Series transmitters, will provide eLoran transmitter technology, as well as timing and control equipment.
A meeting to kick off the eLoran work. (Photo: UrsaNav)
The contract, awarded through UrsaNav’s agent Dong Kang M-Tech, represents the first phase in a broader program to upgrade Korea’s Loran-C stations to be the foundation of a sovereign Enhanced Loran (eLoran) positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) service.
The Republic of Korea recognizes the challenges associated with relying solely on space-based signals, the relative ease with which those signals can be jammed or spoofed, and the necessity to provide trusted time and position to its citizens and critical national infrastructure, UrsaNav said in a press release.
The press release also included the following description of the importance of eLoran.
Accurate time and position are necessary components upon which many critical infrastructure sectors rely, including maritime, aviation, electrical distribution, telecommunications, finance/banking, and digital broadcast. A complementary PNT (CPNT) service provides continuity of operations through alternative and diverse timing and positioning information. CPNT is a vital element in ensuring national security and assuring Trusted Time and Trusted Position.
eLoran is the latest in the longstanding series of low-frequency (LF), LOng-RAnge Navigation (LORAN) systems. It meets the accuracy, availability, integrity, and continuity performance requirements for maritime harbor entrance and approach maneuvers, aviation En Route and Non-Precision Approaches, land-mobile vehicle navigation, and location-based services. It provides bearing (azimuth) information, even when the user is not moving, and has built-in integrity. Users within the coverage area can simultaneously synchronize their timing to absolute (not relative) UTC. Of equal importance is that the eLoran signal includes one or more Loran Data Channels that are available to provide one-way, low data rate, “Short Message Service” information.
eLoran is completely independent of GPS/GNSS, operates in the internationally protected 90 to 110 kHz spectrum, is built on internationally standardized Loran-C, and provides a high-power PNT service for use by all timing and navigation users. SAE International expects to release eLoran standards this year. The RTCM also has maritime-related eLoran standards underway.
eLoran is a key vertex of a Resilience Triad that would typically include space-based, terrestrial, and at least one other PNT source. It is a very-wide area (i.e., country-wide or “continental”) source of PNT that continues providing a resilient solution even when GNSS may be unavailable or untrustworthy. eLoran delivers information comparable to that of GNSS, but with completely different phenomenology. It is a very high-power, LF, pulsed transmission, whereas GNSS are low-power, UHF, multiple modulation scheme transmissions. eLoran is literally at the other end of the spectrum from GNSS, and has completely dissimilar failure modes. That is, an issue that disrupts GNSS is unlikely to disrupt eLoran. The unique characteristics of eLoran enable its use in environments where GNSS does not work very well, or at all (e.g., indoors, underwater, underground, and in mountain or urban canyons).
eLoran is exceptionally difficult to spoof or jam, and it is nearly impossible to do so at a distance. Just as equipment required to spoof and jam GNSS must mimic relatively low powered GNSS transmissions, spoofing and jamming eLoran requires very high powered transmissions. Equipment needs alone to disrupt eLoran over a significant area would be almost prohibitive for any actor other than a nation state engaged in open conflict. This is the reason that an independent assessment by researchers at Stanford University described eLoran as “for all practical purposes, unjammable” across any significant area. A MITRE paper concluded: “The analysis shows a very low probability of successfully producing operationally significant interference.”
GPS World magazine recently conducted the 2018 State of the Industry survey, an online polling of the GNSS community. It has become an annual feature, probing for the technical and business challenges that are drawing attention this year, how executives, managers and product developers are driving business in today’s economy, what issues they are concerned about, and — always — what solutions hold the most promise for positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) in challenged and indoor environments, regardless of which technology provides them?
This column reports on the answers provided by those who identified themselves as working in the Defense, Security and Government (DSG) sector of the GNSS/PNT industry, and speculates on the insights that can be drawn from the answers.
Among all who took the survey, 18 percent said they worked in Defense, Security and Government, the second largest group among eight industry sectors, following only Survey and High Precision in size. Of the DSG group members, 82 percent were based in the United States, 6 percent each in Europe and Asia-other-than-Russia-China-and-Japan, and 4 percent from Latin America. Slightly more than half of them worked in companies of more than 500 people.
Queried as to job title, they answered as follows:
Owner/president/co-owner/CEO: 8 percent
Vice president, CTO, COO, CFO or similar: 6 percent
General Manager: 2 percent
Product or program manager: 10 percent
Researcher: 12 percent
Engineer: 44 percent, the largest group
and Other: 18percent, with this last category encompassing consultants, cartographers, a security architect systems engineer, and more.
Each sector group taking the survey answered two questions specific to their sector, while also responding to a variety of economic and systemic questions for the industry as a whole. In the DSG group, the specific questions were:
How vulnerable is GPS/GNSS in defense/security/critical government applications, that is, M-code or similar, to disruption by jamming, whether intentional or unintentional?
And:
What is the greatest threat to GNSS over the next three years?
The answers to vulnerability appear here:
Source: GPS World 2018 State of the Industry survey
And the answers to threat here:
Source: GPS World 2018 State of the Industry survey
Perhaps we erred in offering an “All of the above” answer, as nearly half of respondents selcted that option. This shows a generalized awareness (and fear) of threats, but lacks the capability to then prioritize those threats.
Delving a little further into the responses from the DSG sector, when asked “What technology will win fully enable seamless outdoor/indoor navigation, in combination with GNSS,” they answered:
Assisted GNSS 8.57 percent
Assisted GNSS plus any ONE of the six other answers (Cell-tower triangulation, Proximity beacons, Radio frequency pattern-matching, Sensor-based dead reckoning, Terrestrial ranging system,Wi-Fi 22.86 percent
And the winner: Assisted GNSS plus MORE THAN ONE of the six alternatives 34.29 percent
With Don’t Know, 17.14 percent, and Other, 8.57 percent.
More than any other solution an integration of at least three sensors, in the opinion of the plurality, will be necessary for ubiquitous positioning and navigation.
First choice for a GNSS back-up? The leading answer was eLoran, at 25.71 percent, followed by Low-Earth orbit satellite constellations, 22.86 percent, and Sensor-based dead reckoning, 17.14 percent.
How much effort are you devoting to mitigation of GNSS jamming and/or spoofing?
This is the leading concern of out research and development effort 40 percent
This is an important concern for our R&D, but not the dominant one 20 percent
This is one among many factors we consider; no particular importance above others 17.14 percent
And very surprisingly: We are not focusing on jamming/spoofing mitigation at all at this time 22.86 percent
Finally, describe the market for GNSS products/services in the Defense, Security and Government PNT industry sector as of today.
Very healthy; strong growth 25.71 percent
Relatively healthy; moderate growth 48.57 percent
Flat 22.86 percent
Slightly down 2.86 percent
For more results from the 2018 State of the GNSS Industry, see this page.
UPDATE: The deadline has been extended to July 16.
What technical and business challenges are getting your attention this year? How are you driving business in today’s economy? What issues are you concerned about? What solutions hold the most promise for positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) in challenged and indoor environments — regardless of which technology provides them?
We want to know, and so does the rest of the industry.
Click to enlarge. (Image: GPS World State of the Industry survey)
GPS World is asking PNT professionals about the developing technology frontiers, the state of their business, the economic climate for products and services, driving market factors, the effects of jamming, the Issue of the Year — and more! Please give us your opinions in the 2018 State of the Industry survey. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses are confidential.
A handful of lucky participants drawn at random will win:
TWO $100 gift cards good (virtually) anywhere.
Complete the survey by July 16. Then look for a complete report of our findings in the September issue of GPS World.
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback and help us improve our magazine content, industry awareness — and your own business!
The survey covers such topics as:
Technology Trends. PNT is rapidly diversifying among a number of complementary technologies, as GNSS looks to inertial, lidar, laser, cellular, WiFi and other beacons, signals of opportunity, low-Earth orbit satellite constellations and more. Different market sectors have, naturally, different requirements, and these lead to different integration combinations. Where do you see the most promise?
The Global Economy and how it affects business in your sector. Customers’ availability of capital to invest is top-of-mind for most industry professionals, whether designers, manufacturers, integrators, suppliers/dealers, or end users.
Industry Confidence in the road ahead. Sound business navigation requires a fluid, responsive combination of technology, capital, investment, and often most important, human capital. .
Issues of Concern. To what extent do industry leaders take into account the following as well as further factors?
Pricing and competitive issues;
GNSS jamming, spoofing, other RF interference;
Developing compatibility and interoperability of GNSSs: GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo;
Advantages and drawbacks of other positioning and navigation technologies.
The survey, complete with insightful infographics, will appear in the September issue. Look for it!
The International Navigation Conference, sponsored by the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN), is a premier forum for the presentation of research and advances in navigation.
The 2018 conference — the RIN’s fourth — will take place Nov. 12-15 in Bristol, England, United Kingdom.
INC2018 brings together industry, academia and governments from around the world. The theme for INC2018 is “Navigation Challenges and Societal Benefits.”
Orolia’s atomic clock solutions have been selected for the Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) under contracts totaling 26 million euros for an additional 12 Galileo satellites.
This latest initiative builds on Orolia’s long-standing role in providing precise timing technology for satellite programs, including Galileo.
Each satellite will carry two rubidium atomic clocks and two passive hydrogen masers, considered the most stable clock in the world. Under these contracts, Orolia will supply its Spectratime Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard and its passive hydrogen masers physics package.
Orolia’s Space Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard. (Photo: Orolia)
“We’re honored to continue supporting the European Commission with precise timing for Galileo,” said Orolia CEO Jean-Yves Courtois. “These new contracts further emphasize Orolia’s position as the world’s leading provider of resilient positioning, timing and navigation (PNT) solutions.”
In addition to serving as Europe’s independent PNT source, Galileo can also serve as a secondary signal source for systems such as GPS, GLONASS or BeiDou in the event of service disruption. Galileo’s quadruple clock redundancy designed into each satellite ensures that even if a failure occurs, overall system performance will not be compromised.
More than 150 Orolia Spectratime atomic clocks are flying to support Galileo, IRNSS, BeiDou, GAIA and other missions, some for more than 10 years. Orolia provides the expertise necessary to design solutions for highly reliable space applications.
Orolia is a designer and manufacturer of a full range of high-performance, low-cost GNSS synchronized crystal solutions, rubidium and maser sources, smart integrated GNSS reference clocks, rugged PNT devices, GNSS simulation and clock testing systems. Orolia’s PNT solutions support a variety of critical applications including defense, government, space, maritime, enterprise networks, aviation and telecommunications.
The ninth Workshop on Satellite Navigation Technologies, NAVITEC 2018, will be held Dec. 5-7 at the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
The workshop, themed “Golden opportunities for PNT,” is organized by the Radio Navigation Systems Implementation & Verification Section of the Directorate of Technical and Quality Management, European Space Agency (ESA).
NAVITEC 2018 will include the GNSS Signals and Signal Processing Workshop in coordination with CNES, DLR and the University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich.
The aim of the workshop is to provide an open forum to space and terrestrial satellite navigation technology designers, developers, integrators, users, universities and agency representatives.
“We are now seeing an explosion of new applications using position and time,” stated an ESA event announcement. “People expect PNT to be available always and everywhere. Solutions require reliable service outdoors and indoors, high-accuracy and able to survive in challenging environments with new security threats. All this at ever lower prices. These solutions require innovative technologies such as integration with other sensors, cloud processing, low power technologies, all with the latest security measures.”
Participants will have the opportunity to share their technical expertise and experiences by formal presentations, informal discussions and round tables. The workshop will provide an overview of satellite navigation technologies that are available, or being developed, especially in the frame of current research and development programmes.
Scope and topics of interest
The scope of the workshop will include navigation equipment and techniques: receivers, payloads, signals, navigation algorithms, signal processing techniques and applications of GNSS (terrestrial and space).
A call for papers will be issued soon. The papers should describe new equipment developments and systems concepts, innovative technologies and designs, testing/validation procedures, linked to the topics that are listed below.
Mass-market GNSS/Galileo results
GNSS in IoT (low-power & snapshot processing)
Positioning and Timing for 5G
Cloud and collaborative positioning techniques and applications
Precise Positioning in challenging environments
Augmentation services
Interference, Spoofing and Authentication and Cyber Security
