Let us not exaggerate — nor prematurely announce — the death of a subsystem. However, the demise of the U.S. Nationwide Differential GPS (NDGPS) network can be confidently foretold. Although a Federal Register notice dated Aug. 18 merely seeks public comment on plans to shut down a large portion of NDGPS, the handwriting is on the wall. Once having writ, the hand of fate moves on.
We should neither lament nor applaud. NDGPS, like many other technologies, has seen its time come and go, while competitors have arisen to perform its role and take its place. Such is evolution in the industrial world as well as in the biological kingdoms.
In 2016, three quarters of the currently operating NDGPS reference stations will be taken down and decommissioned. That’s not what the federal notice states, but that’s what it effectively says. The document’s comment period ends on Nov. 16. It is difficult to conceive of a public outcry that might reverse the intended course of the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation and Army Corps of Engineers.
The NDGPS network had its birth in the 1980s, as a tool to provide real-time positioning accuracy for harbor entrances and coastal navigation. Inland components were added over the years to improve river navigation, NDGPS use in precision agriculture began to grow, and a role in railroad positive train control (PTC) was much discussed. But all these efforts could not gather enough momentum to firmly establish the network’s viability. Meanwhile, satellite-based differential services from both commercial providers and the U.S. government’s own Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), and a network of continuously operating reference stations (CORS) from the National Geodetic Survey continually nibbled away at NDGPS’s potential customer base. Consequently, industry fielded a meager range of radiobeacon DGPS receivers.
The real death blow came in 2013, when the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) eliminated an NDGPS requirement from its PTC program. The railroads, never a nimble industry nor one receiving the governmental support it enjoys in other countries, had by that time become the last hope of NDGPS. Ag users had already for the most part moved over to WAAS and commercial SBAS providers. Marine users did not by themselves form a sufficiently large constituency, and even they were not fully equipped nor wholesale adopters of the system.
The story of Loran bears some similarities to NDGPS, but Loran now enjoys a resurgence that NDGPS will never see. It is destined for the technological graveyard. There is an ecosystem of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) tools and applications. Operating in a free market, with some measure of governments’ interference and manipulation, it has its own patterns of natural selection. We will continue to see the rise and fall of species. NDGPS has now been branded a dinosaur. It will be interesting to see how other technologies, competing for the same finite range of resources, will interact, thrive, or decline.
Twenty-two NDGPS sites that serve coastal areas would remain operational under the proposal.
An Aug. 18 Federal Register notice proposes shutting down the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) in January 2016 because of a decline in its use, except for sites in coastal areas.
The notice, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Transportation Department (DOT) and Corps of Engineers (USACE), reads:
The Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) service augments GPS by providing increased accuracy and integrity using land-based reference stations to transmit correction messages over radiobeacon frequencies. The service was implemented through agreements between multiple federal agencies including the USCG, DOT, and Army Corps of Engineers, as well as several states and scientific organizations, all cooperating to provide the combined national DGPS utility.
However, a number of factors have contributed to declining use of NDGPS and, based on an assessment by the Department of Homeland Security, DOT and USACE. DHS, DOT and USACE are proposing to shut down and decommission 62 DGPS sites, which will leave 22 operational sites available to users in coastal areas.
A DGPS reference station antenna.
Contributing factors cited in the decision are:
USCG changes in policy to allow aids to navigation (ATON) to be positioned with a GPS receiver using Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM), which assesses the integrity of a GPS signal within the receiver;
increased use of Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) in commercial maritime applications, which uses ground-based reference stations and satellite communications to improve accuracy;
limited availability of consumer-grade NDGPS receivers;
no NDGPS mandatory carriage requirement on any vessel within U.S. territorial waters;
the DOT Federal Railroad Administration’s determination that NDGPS is not a requirement for the successful implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC), which provides the railway system the capability to positively enforce movement authorities along railroad systems.
In April 2013, announced that DHS and DOT were in the process of analyzing the need for NDGPS. “The response to the 2013 notice was limited, but the responses received were well informed on the NDGPS system, its use, and current and potential applications,” the notice reads. “While a limited number of responders found the broadcast of corrections to be beneficial, no respondents reported the discontinuance of DGPS broadcast to be detrimental or harmful. Ship pilots in particular noted that DGPS can be critical in confined waterways for precise ship-handling maneuvers.”
Public comments on the proposed shutdown and decommissioning of 62 DGPS sites are being accepted until Nov. 16. Termination of the NDGPS broadcast at these sites is planned to occur on Jan. 15, 2016.
Full details on how to submit public comments can be found on the Federal Register page.
The 2014 Federal Radionavigation Plan, just released from the U.S. Department of Transportation, touches on funding for the Nationwide Differential GPS and the use of eLoran as a precision timing alternative.
The plan is signed by the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation and Homeland Security, and released by the DOT Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. A PDF of the document has been posted to the NAVCEN’s website.
Nationwide Differential GPS (NDGPS). The nationwide differential GPS (NDGPS) service augments GPS by providing increased accuracy and integrity using land-based reference stations to transmit correction messages over radiobeacon frequencies. The service has been implemented through agreements among federal agencies including the Coast Guard, DOT and the Army Corps of Engineers, but a decision has not yet been made on funding beyond FY2016:
“The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, is analyzing the future requirements for the NDGPS to support investment decisions beyond Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. Future investment decisions might include maintaining NDGPS as currently configured, decommissioning NDGPS as currently configured, or developing alternate uses for the NDGPS infrastructure. Contributing factors to these decisions are: (1) the U.S. Coast Guard change in policy to allow aids to navigation (ATON) to be positioned with a GPS receiver using Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM), and to allow USCG navigation in all waters using the WAAS receiver; (2) limited availability of consumer grade NDGPS receivers; (3) no USCG DGPS carriage requirement on any vessel within U.S. territorial waters; (4) the Presidential Directive turning off GPS SA; (5) continuing GPS modernization; and (6) the Federal Railroad Administration’s determination that neither NDGPS, nor High Accuracy NDGPS, are requirements for the successful implementation of Positive Train Control.”
eLoran for Timing. eLoran is mentioned in the plan only briefly, in the following excerpt about precision timing alternatives:
“For precise timing applications, chip-scale atomic clocks are now available from at least one company, and others have active research and development programs in the United States and abroad. The U.S. Coast Guard has established a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to assess a high-power wireless alternative for providing precise time using U.S. government facilities such as mothballed Loran-C sites, upgraded to eLoran capability. If successful, this effort would offer another solution suitable for integration with GPS, or use as an independent complement to GPS, that could together provide highly available and precise timing for many applications.”
The twin-engine, wide-body Airbus A350 XWB, seen here at Spain’s Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas airport, comes with EGNOS capability.
News by the European Space Agency
The EGNOS system, developed by the European Space Agency (ESA) for sharpening the accuracy of satnav across Europe, has been adopted by a growing number of airports to enable satellite-guided landing approaches. The new Airbus A350 airliner, currently entering service, comes fitted with it as standard.
“For the first time on the A350 we have a new system called the Satellite Landing System,” explained Jean-Francois Bousquie, an Airbus flight-test engineer focused on avionics. “This allows pilots to perform precision landing approaches guided by EGNOS or its U.S. equivalent, WAAS, offering vertical guidance down to a minimum of 60 meters before the pilot sights the ground to make the go/no-go decision on the final landing descent.”
The A350’s Satellite Landing System allows pilots to perform precision-landing approaches guided by EGNOS or its U.S. equivalent, WAAS. The capability offers vertical landing guidance down to a minimum of 60 miles before the pilot sights the ground to make the go/no-go decision on the final landing descent.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System, or EGNOS, can provide horizontal and vertical guidance to anywhere in Europe, without the need for any additional airport-hosted infrastructure. By using three geostationary satellites and a 40-strong network of ground stations, EGNOS improves the accuracy of GPS signals over European territory, while also providing continuous updates on their integrity.
The result is that the EGNOS-augmented signals are guaranteed to meet the extremely high performance standards set out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation standard, adapted for Europe by Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. The signals from space can therefore be relied on routinely for the safety-critical task of vertically guiding aircraft during landing approaches.
A total of 131 airports in Europe offer some 225 EGNOS-based approach procedures. By 2020, 582 landing procedures are expected across 20 European countries. The largest international airports use Instrument Landing System (ILS) infrastructure, with radio beams offering a truly precision landing capability, including the ability to autoland when visibility is at its worst.
But ILS is expensive to install and maintain, so smaller regional airports often forego it. The same is true of many new or expanding airports. Even with larger airports, in many cases only their busiest runways are equipped with ILS. So EGNOS offers a cost-effective way of safely increasing use of remaining runways, boosting the flexibility of any given airport.
“By reducing the value of the minima — the lowest safely guided altitude — for non-ILS runways, EGNOS increases the efficiency and safety of aircraft landings,” added Bousquie. “The take-up of EGNOS by European airports remains relatively low for now, but this should change over time. And with the A350, we are really designing for the long term — each aircraft will have a working life of 25 to 30 years.”
“Every qualified commercial airline pilot has been trained on ILS, to follow its radio beam,” Bousquie said. “So the Satellite Landing System works by having them follow the same type of cues as much as possible on a ILS ‘look-alike’ basis, employing all available navigation data including EGNOS.”
A pair of onboard Multi Mode Receivers manage the A350’s radio sensors, compute the deviations and ensure interface with display and guidance systems.
EGNOS is Europe’s first venture into satellite navigation. EGNOS broadcasts augmented information through a trio of geostationary satellites linked to a network of monitoring ground stations, to sharpen the accuracy and reliability of GPS signals across the continent. (artist’s concept: ESA)
News from the European Space Agency
The next decade’s aircraft pilots will be able to rely on enhanced, reliable satellite navigation signals on a seamless basis across much of the world, thanks to decisions made at the latest gathering of worldwide satnav augmentation system providers and experts.
The U.S. Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) are leading examples of satellite-based augmentation systems (SBAS) that apply additional ground stations and satellite transponders to sharpen the accuracy and reliability of existing satnav services across given geographical regions.
These performance enhancements permit satnav to be employed for safety-of-life services, especially aviation. Such systems are based on the U.S. GPS for now, but plans are being laid to move to a multi-constellation design employing Europe’s Galileo, China’s Beidou and Russia’s GLONASS satnav systems beyond 2020.
The 28th Satellite-based Augmentation Systems Interoperability Working Group (IWG), planning standardization of SBAS systems to come, was hosted at ESA’s ESTEC technical centre at Noordwijk, the Netherlands, on April 1-3.
The ESTEC facility in Noordwijk, The Netherlands. (Photo: ESA)
All participants unanimously endorsed the “message definition” for a new secondary SBAS channel — to be known as L5, along with the current L1 — for the planned second-generation SBAS systems, which will utilize dual-frequency multi-constellation signals.
Using dual frequencies greatly increases the accuracy of navigation systems, by allowing interference from the ionosphere — an electrically active outer layer of Earth’s atmosphere — to be largely subtracted from the final result.
“This definition is presented in what is called the Dual Frequency Multi-Constellation Definition document,” explained Didier Flament, representing ESA. “It represents the outcome of a four-year activity, which started at IWG 19 in Japan, back in 2010, coordinated between all IWG members under the technical leadership of ESA and French space agency CNES on the European side, and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and Stanford University on the U.S. side.
“The formal IWG review loop for the document took six months to conclude, with this IWG 28 then allowing endorsements to be gathered by SBAS project managers, culminating in formal signatures to the document,” Flament said.
SBAS coverage for 2020: Comparing current worldwide SBAS coverage — based on WAAS, EGNOS and MSAS — to the situation envisaged for 2020–25: near-global coverage based on WAAS, EGNOS, MAAS, SDCM and GAGAN, with an expanded network of stations in the southern hemisphere, all based on a common dual-frequency/dual satnav standard being finalized by the SBAS Interoperability Working Group. (Image: ESA)
IWG members now intend to have this document accepted by the official international SBAS standardization bodies: the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the U.S. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) and the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment.
“This next step is very important,” added Didier. “Not only for the coming 2016-22 implementation of the European EGNOS v3 but for implementation of other second generation SBAS in other regions of the world.”
The meeting also reported on the state of development of the other global SBAS systems. Along with the four operational systems — the U.S. WAAS, European EGNOS, Japan’s Multi-functional Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS) and India’s GPS-aided geo-augmented navigation or GPS and geo-augmented navigation system (GAGAN) — these comprise South Korea’s KASS, China’s Beidou SBAS, Russia’s System for Differential Corrections and Monitoring (SDCM) and the West African Agency for Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (ASECNA) SBAS.
The follow-up IWG meeting will take place in October, hosted by the FAA in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the next RTCA meeting.
By Mirko Stanisak, Mark Bitter, and Thomas Feuerle
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
GPS = SAFER FLIGHT. While reviewing material for an article celebrating the 25th anniversary of the launch in February 1989 of the first Block II or operational GPS satellite, I was yet again annoyed by many articles on the Web stating that GPS only became available for civil use after the launch of this satellite. Some sources get closer to the truth when they say that GPS was opened for civil use in 1983, following the shoot-down of the Korean Airlines Flight 007. In fact, GPS was designed to serve the needs of both the military and civil communities from the outset. A government memo from April 1973 clearly states: “Civil user needs should be considered in the design of the spaceborne equipment.”
One of the first demonstrations of the use of GPS for aircraft navigation occurred in July 1983, when a Sabreliner business jet was flown in stages from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to the Paris Air Show, flying only when a sufficient number of the experimental or Block I satellites were in view. The first standalone GPS receivers certified for aviation use (with Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring or RAIM) became available by the mid-1990s. But already the Federal Aviation Administration had been looking into the development of a system to provide higher accuracies and better integrity than that afforded by standalone receivers. In 1994, the FAA announced the development of the Wide Area Augmentation System, its brand of a system generically known as satellite-based augmentation. Geostationary satellites transmit corrections and integrity information to GPS receivers, permitting GPS use for en route navigation all the way down to traditional Category I approach and landing. CAT I approaches can be flown down to a decision height of 61 meters (200 feet). WAAS was declared operational on July 10, 2003, but enhancements to the system continue. Japan, Europe, and India also have operational SBAS based on GPS.
Ground-based GPS augmentation was first developed for maritime applications with the U.S. Coast Guard’s low-frequency system coming on line in the mid-1990s. Also in the mid-1990s, the FAA began the development of the Local Area Augmentation System, generically known as a ground-based augmentation system (GBAS), to provide aircraft with approach and landing capabilities from CAT I down through CAT II (30-meter or 100-foot decision height) and CAT III (no decision height but certain visual range minima) using a VHF datalink. Initial CAT I systems are being operated at Bremen, Germany, and at Newark Liberty International Airport and Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
While a GPS-based GBAS will definitely offer improved navigation services for aircraft, might these services be even better if the systems were to use satellites from other constellations besides GPS? In this month’s column, we look at a straw-man concept for modifying the GBAS protocols to accommodate multiple constellations and the results of preliminary tests using GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo simultaneously.
“Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology and its applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas. Write to him at lang @ unb.ca.
Ever since the declaration of Full Operational Capability (FOC) of the U.S. Global Positioning System in April 1995, GPS has dominated satellite navigation, especially in aviation applications. By contrast, the Russian GLONASS system cannot be used in western aviation because no approval guidelines exist for GLONASS equipment. Thus GPS has been the de-facto standard in aviation for years.
However, within the last few years, major changes have evolved in the field of GNSS, providing a wide variety of useable satellite navigation systems. The European Union launched its Galileo project, which will provide global multi-frequency services in the near future. China is upgrading its BeiDou system (formerly called Compass) to provide global coverage with more medium-Earth-orbit (MEO) satellites. The operators of GPS and GLONASS have started modernization programs that will enable multi-frequency operations in the future, too. Therefore, a large number of usable satellites and signals from multiple systems will soon be available.
In aviation, almost all phases of flight can be assisted by satellite navigation systems nowadays. The most challenging phase of flight with respect to accuracy, continuity, availability, and integrity is the approach and landing phase. The Ground Based Augmentation System (see FIGURE 1; courtesy of the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment) allows precision approaches to be performed using satellite navigation. It uses a VHF data link to broadcast differential GNSS corrections, integrity information, and approach definitions to approaching aircraft. These aircraft combine the differential corrections with their own GNSS measurements, calculate a GBAS-corrected position solution, and determine path deviations based on the selected approach.
FIGURE 1. GBAS principle. (Source: EUROCAE WG 28, ED-114)
From a technical perspective, GBAS can use either GPS or GLONASS for differential corrections. For this, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) include GPS and GLONASS side by side. On the other hand, some standardization documents (for example, those from RTCA) are limited to GPS only, effectively excluding GLONASS from being used in the western world. Nevertheless, Russian GBAS systems provide differential corrections for GPS and GLONASS, and are expected to be certified in Russia in the near future. Additional GNSS such as Galileo or BeiDou are not yet included within these documents, as these systems are not approved for aviation use themselves. This article will focus on how a multi-constellation GBAS with GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo could work.
GBAS installations can provide multiple services for different kinds of operation, based on GNSS L1 corrections only. On the one hand, the differentially corrected positioning service (DCPS) is intended to be a generic service for high accuracy positioning. On the other hand, two different GBAS approach services have been defined. GBAS Approach Service Type C (GAST-C) allows Category I (CAT I) procedures and is already in operation. GAST-D is still under development and will enable precision approaches and landings down to CAT II/III minima once certified. To mitigate all possible hazards, GAST-D will require some additional broadcast messages.
VHF Data Broadcast
The VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) is used to communicate binary GBAS messages to approaching aircraft. It operates in the VHF band (108.025 – 117.975 MHz) and uses time-division multiple access (TDMA) to allow the operation of multiple GBAS ground stations on a single frequency. As shown in FIGURE 2, VDB uses UTC time to have a common time frame. Two frames are transmitted each second, lasting 0.5 seconds each. Within each frame, eight slots with durations of 62.5 milliseconds can be used for transmission. Binary application data is encoded using a differentially encoded eight-phase-shift-keying modulation (D8PSK) and a symbol rate of 10,500 symbols per second. With three bits transmitted per symbol, up to 31,500 bits per second can be transmitted. Each slot can contain up to 222 bytes of binary application data. Usually, only a subset of slots is allocated to a particular ground facility. This way, multiple GBAS ground facilities can share a common VDB frequency.
Within each slot, multiple VDB messages can be transmitted as application data. The coding of information in VDB messages is defined in the RTCA’s GNSS-Based Precision Approach Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Signal-in-Space Interface Control Document (ICD) and depends on the VDB message type. (LAAS is the U.S. GBAS.) Currently, message types (MT) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 are defined. Figure 2 is derived from this document.
Message Type 1 – MT1. Within VDB Message Type 1, differential corrections based on 100-second smoothing are transmitted. These corrections are required by all GBAS approach services (GAST-C and GAST-D). Aside from the differential corrections, additional information for the first broadcast satellite is transmitted. This includes an ephemeris cyclic redundancy check (CRC), mitigating the effects of wrongly received GNSS navigation data, and the Issue of Data (IOD) flag, indicating the time of applicability for the ephemeris data to be used. To transmit this information for all satellites, the satellite for which differential corrections are transmitted first has to be alternated continuously.
Each MT1 message can contain up to 18 pseudorange- and range-rate corrections for individual satellites. Nevertheless, it is possible to link two consecutive MT1 messages using the Additional Message Flag (AMF). The value of this parameter indicates whether this is a single message (0), or the first (1) or second (3) part of a linked MT1 message. Up to 36 differential corrections can be transmitted using two consecutive VDB time slots with 18 corrections each.
All MT1 measurement blocks must be transmitted at least once per frame. The maximum transmission rate is once per slot for all measurement blocks.
Message Type 2 – MT2. VDB Message Type 2 contains station and integrity parameters such as the coordinates of the reference point to which all differential corrections refer. MT2 messages can include (next to a “core” MT2 message) multiple Additional Data Blocks (ADBs) to transmit information required for different GBAS services. At the moment, the Additional Data Blocks 1, 3, and 4 are defined.
ADB1 contains the maximum distance to the reference point at which the corrections may be used (Dmax) as well as parameters to calculate the remaining risk of incorrect GNSS ephemeris data (Kmd,e). Within ADB3, additional information required for GAST-D is transmitted. ADB4 implements the VDB authentication feature. If this ADB is broadcast by a ground facility, MT2 messages must be transmitted first and contain additional indications about which VDB slots are allocated to the ground facility.
MT2 messages must be transmitted at least each 20th frame, but may be repeated up to once per frame.
Message Type 3 – MT3. The VDB Message Type 3 is a fill message, which is only used in conjunction with the GBAS authentication feature (MT2, ADB4). Among other things, this feature requires a minimum slot occupancy of at least 95 percent. Thus, MT3 messages are broadcast only by ground facilities that support the authentication feature and are completely ignored by airborne GBAS receivers.
Message Type 4 – MT4. With VDB Message Type 4, approach information can be broadcast to approaching aircraft. A pilot can select a specific approach by simply tuning to a given channel number.
Currently, GBAS only uses Instrument Landing System look-alike straight-in approaches called Final Approach Segments (FAS). Each FAS represents one approach. This way, a single GBAS ground facility can provide multiple approaches for all runways of an airport. All approaches must be broadcast at least once per 20 consecutive frames.
Message Type 11 – MT11. The VDB Message Type 11 provides differential corrections in a way very similar to MT1 messages. The main difference is that MT11 corrections are based on 30-second smoothing, which is required for GAST-D service. As for MT1, all MT11 measurement blocks must be transmitted at least once per frame.
Enhancements for GBAS with Galileo
At the moment, the GBAS standardization documents include information on GPS, GLONASS, and SBAS ranging sources. No information on Galileo or other constellations has been added yet. Thus, to include Galileo for GBAS, some Galileo-specific experimental additions to the standards are necessary. These proposed modifications have been made in such a way as to keep as close to the other system standards as possible to preserve consistency. This way, hardly any new functionality is added, but additional satellites can be used. The additional Galileo signals (E5a, E5b, E6) are not used at the moment; however, they might be highly beneficial for multi-frequency applications in the future.
All modifications presented here are purely experimental and will most probably not be exactly the same as those in future standards documents. Nevertheless, they provide a way to test Galileo together with GPS and GLONASS for GBAS on an experimental basis.
Ranging Source ID. The Ranging Source ID uniquely addresses a single satellite. It is used in MT1 and MT11 to transmit the differential corrections and other information for each ranging source. In ICAO Annex 10, Standards and Recommended Practices, the Ranging Source ID is defined for GPS, GLONASS, and SBAS only. To provide Galileo corrections as well, an experimental mapping for Galileo satellites was added; see TABLE 1.
TABLE 1. GBAS Ranging Source IDs.
In this way, up to 36 Galileo satellites can be addressed.
Navigation Data. Galileo provides two different sets of navigation data. The I/NAV data corresponds to the Safety-of-Life (SoL) service and is broadcast on E1 and E5b. The F/NAV data corresponds to the Open Service (OS) and is broadcast on E5a. In order to remain as close as possible to the legacy navigation systems, we selected the I/NAV navigation data for use, as it is broadcast on the E1 frequency and can thus be received with an L1-only GNSS receiver.
The navigation data is primarily used in VDB MT1. For the first transmitted correction in this message, the ephemeris set that shall be used in the aircraft is identified via the Issue of Data (IOD) field. To be consistent with the GPS ephemeris, we used Galileo’s IODnav parameter.
Together with the identification of the navigation data, a CRC parameter is transmitted in MT1 for the first satellite within the differential corrections. This parameter ensures that the receiver as well as the ground facility use identical navigation data for all calculations. The CRC algorithm uses the raw navigation data to generate a distinct CRC value.
For GPS and GLONASS, two ephemeris masks are defined. These masks ensure that only information relevant for GBAS processing are covered by the CRC. For Galileo, a similar mask had to be designed.
Additional Data Blocks in MT2. Within VDB MT2, station parameters and integrity information are transmitted. Some parameters for the over-bounding of possible ephemeris errors are specific to each satellite navigation system.
To extend MT2 to Galileo, parameters for the DCPS, GAST-C, and GAST-D must be added for Galileo. For downward compatibility, these parameters cannot be included in the existing Additional Data Blocks beside the existing parameters. Thus, a new Additional Data Block (ADB5) was defined on an experimental basis. This Additional Data Block is dedicated to Galileo and is structured as shown in TABLE 2. The coding of all values corresponds to the coding of the parameters for the existing systems.
TABLE 2. Additional Data Block 5 in Message Type 2 for Galileo parameters.
Optimized VDB Transmission Scheme
Having available a large number of ranging sources for differential corrections, the VHF VDB is a bottleneck for the transmission of this data. To demonstrate this, we first consider the number of visible satellites that there will be in the future. This leads to construction rules for an optimal VDB transmission scheme, which allows transmitting the maximum number of differential corrections.
Number of Satellites Available. To demonstrate the number of differential corrections enabled by the different systems in the future, we computed the number of visible satellites over a day for a stationary GNSS receiver in Braunschweig, Germany. Even though only four Galileo satellites were in orbit at that time, up to 26 different satellites (GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo) were in view simultaneously. Keeping in mind the preliminary Galileo constellation, it is obvious that more than 30 satellites will be available simultaneously in the future — considering only GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. Adding BeiDou satellites for GBAS would further boost these numbers.
The broadcast of such a large number of differential corrections is limited by the capacity of the VDB and thus by the number of slots assigned to a GBAS ground facility. The number of assigned slots for a facility should be limited as far as possible to be able to use the same frequency for other GBAS ground facilities. Thus, the available capacity must be used as effectively as possible.
Number of Bytes Required. Each VDB message is framed by a message block header (6 bytes) and the message block CRC (4 bytes).
The length of each message depends on the message type and the amount of information to be transmitted. The resulting length for a message of each type is given in TABLE 3.
TABLE 3. Size of different VDB message types (including message block header and CRC). Variable length message types are dependent on the number of corrections, N.
VDB Constraints. A GBAS ground facility must transmit the VDB data following some constraints. These are:
MT2 messages (including all Additional Data Blocks required) must be transmitted at least each 20th frame (that is, every 10 seconds).
If authentication is required, each MT2 message must be transmitted in the first slot assigned to the GBAS ground facility.
All differential corrections (both MT1 and MT11) must be transmitted at least once in each frame. However, it is possible to split the differential corrections into two adjacent slots using the Additional Message Flags in MT1 and MT11 messages.
Within each MT1 message, the ephemeris decorrelation parameter (Peph), the Issue of Data (IOD), and the ephemeris CRC is transmitted for the first satellite in the message. Thus, the first satellite must be alternated in order to broadcast the ephemeris information for all satellites.
Approach definitions are transmitted in MT4 messages. All MT4 messages must be transmitted within at least each 20th slot.
Based on these constraints, a VDB encoding scheme has been developed, which allows us to fulfill all the requirements listed above while optimizing the number of differential corrections that can be transmitted. Even though it is optimized for GAST-D-like services (including authentication parameters, MT11 messages, and experimental Galileo extensions), it can be used for legacy GAST-C systems, too.
Rules for Optimal VDB Transmission. To fulfill the requirement for the MT2 message to be transmitted first, a complete MT2 message must be transmitted each 20th frame at the beginning of the first slot assigned. If no MT2 message has to be transmitted, an MT4 message is transmitted instead. Thus, all messages are arranged in proper order by three simple rules:
MT2 (each 20th frame) or MT4 (otherwise)
MT11 (all corrections; can be split into two messages)
MT1 (all corrections; can be split into two messages).
Additionally, two more rules must be fulfilled. On the one hand, if supporting the authentication feature, each slot in which the ground facility may transmit VDB data must be filled to at least 95 percent. For this, MT3 null messages may be used to ensure that each slot is filled sufficiently. On the other hand, an additional rule for MT1 messages is necessary if more than three slots are assigned to the GBAS ground facility. In this case, to maximize the number of differential corrections the MT1 messages may be transmitted in the last two assigned slots only. This rule is necessary because the Additional Message Flag is limited to two slots for differential corrections.
Using this transmission scheme, the number of differential corrections is maximized while fulfilling the minimum requirements on the VDB data. Even in case of the maximum number of differential corrections, MT4 approach definitions can still be broadcast. However, in this case, the number of transmittable FAS segments is limited to 19. If more approaches (or different approach types such as Terminal Area Paths (TAPs)) have to be transmitted, the VDB generation scheme must be adapted.
Number of Transmittable Corrections. Using the optimized transmission scheme explained earlier, the number of transmittable corrections can be calculated easily for different numbers of assigned slots for GAST-C as well as for GAST-D services (see TABLE 4).
TABLE 4. Number of differential corrections that can be broadcast.
The exact distribution of VDB messages for the maximum number of differential corrections (18) is shown in FIGURE 3 for an MT1/MT11 configuration and two assigned slots.
FIGURE 3. VDB messages for two slots and 18 satellites (MT1 and MT11).
Experimental Realization of Multi-Constellation GBAS
The experimental GBAS multi-constellation extensions described earlier have been implemented in software for further testing. As these enhancements are purely experimental and might change in the future, we have ensured that these definitions can be changed easily.
Navigation Software. The Institute of Flight Guidance at Technische Universität Braunschweig has been developing an experimental navigation framework for many years. This software, called TriPos, can handle and combine different navigation technologies. TriPos can be used for simulations, post-processing of recorded data, and even for live (online) processing. It is written in C++ and supports various platforms.
The navigation framework can be extended easily. Originally, only GPS was supported within the software, but support for GLONASS and Galileo as well as augmentation systems like SBAS and GBAS were added over the past few years. Additionally, the software handles GNSS data of multiple frequencies internally and can thus be used for multi-constellation and multi-frequency applications. TriPos includes decoders for the binary protocols of most GNSS receivers currently available.
For GBAS research, two components can be simulated using the software. On the one hand, the Ground Facility simulation calculates the differential corrections and provides simulated VDB data. On the other hand, the GBAS receiver simulation emulates the behavior of an airborne GBAS receiver and uses VDB data and GNSS measurements to calculate a GBAS solution. Both simulations can use either recorded data in post-processing or live data for online-processing. This allows complete simulation of GBAS.
Multi-Constellation GBAS Ground Facility Simulation. The GBAS ground facility simulation uses raw binary data from multiple stationary GNSS receivers to calculate binary VDB data. The simulation can be freely configured to process either live or pre-recorded GNSS data. Even though it features all algorithms required by the standards, it does not contain additional monitor algorithms at the moment.
Nevertheless, it can provide a valid VDB signal-in-space (SIS), which can be used by GBAS receivers and simulation tools (such as Eurocontrol’s PEGASUS tool). The ground facility simulation supports legacy GBAS CAT-I (GAST-C) as well as GAST-D (including all additional VDB information required) using GPS and GLONASS. Support for Galileo has been added according to the experimental definitions described earlier. In addition to FAS data blocks, the ground facility simulation is also capable of providing curved approaches using TAP data blocks.
Multi-Constellation Airborne GBAS Receiver Simulation. The GBAS receiver simulation has been used for various GBAS-related projects. It supports GAST-C as well as GAST-D and can be configured flexibly to use GPS, GLONASS, and/or Galileo (using the experimental enhancements as described earlier). For GAST-D, all airborne monitoring algorithms required are present. Thus, the aircraft-specific parameters (for example for the airborne geometry screening) can be configured together with the other parameters.
Flight Trials
The practicability of the multi-constellation GBAS approach has been tested in flight trials. To ensure that all four Galileo satellites were in view and capable of providing valid data during our trials, an orbit prediction tool and the Notice Advisory to Galileo Users (NAGU) service of the European GNSS Service Center (GSC) were used prior to the flight.
The data processing configuration is shown in FIGURE 4 and includes the GBAS simulation components explained earlier. All processing is done in real time while recording all data for later post processing.
FIGURE 4. Schematic data processing for the flight experiments (ground components in orange, airborne components in blue).
Ground Processing. On the ground, two Septentrio AsteRx3 GNSS receivers connected to two roof-top antennas were used. The GNSS receivers were connected to the GBAS ground facility simulation via a network and provided binary GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo raw measurements with an update rate of 2 Hz as well as navigation data. Using this data, the ground facility simulation generated binary VDB data. The GBAS ground facility simulation was configured to generate multi-constellation GAST-D VDB data for a three-slot configuration. All required messages (MT1, MT2 including all required ADBs, MT3, MT4 and MT11) were generated and sent to the telemetry facility via the network.
Telemetry. Official VHF data broadcasts operate in a frequency band between 108 and 118 MHz, which is reserved for authorized aviation applications. However, for our experimental system, an alternative data link was used. The Institute of Flight Guidance operates a full-duplex telemetry system to share data between ground and aircraft. Even though the operating frequencies are different, the telemetry system allows the generated binary VDB data to be transmitted to research aircraft. The airborne telemetry receiver outputs data as if it were a VDB receiver to allow us to switch between a real VDB receiver and the telemetry receiver easily.
Research Aircraft. The Institute of Flight Guidance operates the research aircraft of the Technische Universität Braunschweig. The Dornier Do 128-6 with the call sign D-IBUF (see FIGURE 5) is a twin-engine turboprop aircraft without a pressurized cabin and has been used multiple times for GBAS-related research over the years.
FIGURE 5. Research aircraft D-IBUF (Dornier Do 128-6).
The research aircraft allows us to flexibly integrate experimental equipment for specific flight trials. For the multi-constellation GBAS flights, a JAVAD Delta GNSS receiver (capable of multiple constellations and frequencies), a telemetry receiver, and an experimental cockpit display were installed temporarily.
Airborne Processing. The online GBAS receiver simulator uses GNSS data from the JAVAD Delta GNSS receiver together with the VDB data received via telemetry. The receiver was configured to output raw GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo measurements with an update rate of 10 Hz. The simulator was configured to use this data to calculate a multi-constellation GAST-D solution. Based on the selected approach definition, the resulting information (deviations, distance to threshold, and so on) was displayed in the cockpit using an experimental cockpit display.
Results. The flight test was conducted in the evening of November 6, 2013 (16:52 – 17:58 UTC), at Research Airport Braunschweig (EDVE). We performed five approaches with a 10 nautical mile final segment. The flight path as calculated by the GBAS receiver subsystem is shown in FIGURE 6.
FIGURE 7 shows the number of satellites used for the GBAS receiver simulation, and distinguishes between the different satellite navigation systems used. Up to 22 satellites have been used simultaneously for GBAS processing, including up to 10 GPS satellites, eight GLONASS satellites, and four Galileo satellites.
FIGURE 7. Number of satellites used by the multi-constellation GBAS receiver simulation.
Even though no certified GBAS equipment was used for the flight trials, FIGURE 8 shows the resulting vertical and lateral protection levels (VPL and LPL) of the online multi-constellation GBAS receiver simulation. Both values fluctuate due to the differences between 100- and 30-second smoothing position solutions, which have to be added to the protection levels for GAST-D. Nevertheless, both sets of values remain clearly below the corresponding Alert Limits (FAS Lateral Alarm Limit (FASLAL): 40 meters, FAS Vertical Alarm Limit (FASVAL): 10 meters). A valid GAST-D service was achieved continuously.
FIGURE 8. Vertical and lateral protection levels (VPL and LPL).
FIGURE 9 shows a vertical integrity diagram, commonly known as a Stanford plot, for the integrity of the multi-constellation GBAS simulation. This plot shows the Vertical Protection Level (VPL) as determined by the GBAS receiver simulation against the actual Vertical Position Error (VPE). The Vertical Position Error is a direct measure for the Vertical Navigation System Error (V-NSE). This has been determined using a precise point positioning reference trajectory. Both values are normalized by the current VAL as these values change during the approaches. During the flight, the GBAS online processing ran at a rate of 10 Hz, resulting in 43,670 GAST-D epochs and an availability of 100 percent.
FIGURE 9. Normalized vertical Stanford plot of flight trials (GAST-D using GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo). Color scale indicates number of occurrences.
Of course, these results must not be misinterpreted as a multi-constellation GBAS performance assessment. The ground facility simulation was highly experimental and lacked any kind of long-term analysis. Even the GNSS antennas used do not meet formal requirements. However, aside from a quantitative judgment, these results show the practicability of this multi-constellation GBAS approach on an experimental basis.
Conclusion and Outlook
In this article, experimental extensions to GBAS have been developed to support GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo simultaneously. Based on these extensions, an optimized VDB transmission scheme has been created. In this way, the number of transmittable differential corrections could be maximized. Using flight trials, the multi-constellation GBAS concept has successfully been verified. The experimental airborne GBAS subsystem was able to calculate a valid GBAS solution including GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo satellites continuously.
It has been shown that multi-constellation GBAS is possible from a purely technical perspective. On the other hand, neither operational nor approval aspects for satellite navigation systems other than GPS have been addressed yet. Additionally, further testing would be necessary to ensure the compatibility with legacy GPS-only GBAS equipment. However, in theory, all modifications for Galileo are backward compatible. Nevertheless, it has to be assured that certified GBAS multi-mode receivers only use the GPS part of the VDB data and are not disturbed by additional VDB messages or additional ranging sources, for example. The required tests are planned for the future.
The operational benefit of multi-constellation GBAS systems cannot be foreseen yet. A certification for this will take several years and could only be addressed by the GBAS community after the completion of the GAST-D certification. Most probably, the use of GNSS signals on multiple frequencies could provide a highly improved GBAS service and will allow much more operational benefit. Many of the satellite navigation systems have already introduced additional frequencies, including signals in the protected L5 aviation band. The use of multiple frequencies for satellite navigation in aviation can remove most ionospheric errors effectively and mitigate a major source of uncertainty. Thus, multi-constellation GBAS can just be seen as a preliminary step on the way towards multi-frequency GBAS. The concepts and infrastructure described in this article will serve as a basis for more research in this area.
Acknowledgments
Most of our work on multi-constellation GBAS was done within the research project “Bürgernahes Flugzeug,” which was established in 2009 and is partly funded by the German federal state of Lower Saxony. This is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. Additionally, the authors would like to thank all colleagues involved for constructive discussions and their support. This article is based on the paper “Mulitple Satellite Navigation for the Ground Based Augmentation System” presented at ITM 2014, The Institute of Navigation 2014 International Technical Meeting, held in San Diego, California, January 27-29, 2014.
MIRKO STANISAK is a research assistant at the Institute of Flight Guidance (IFF) at the Technische Universität (TU) Braunschweig in Germany. He received his diploma in mechanical engineering (Dipl.-Ing.) in 2009 from TU Braunschweig.
MARK BITTER holds a Dipl.-Ing. in mechanical engineering from TU Braunschweig and has been employed as a research engineer at TU Braunschweig IFF since 2003.
THOMAS FEUERLE received his Dipl.-Ing. in mechanical engineering in 1997 from TU Braunschweig. He joined the TU Braunschweig IFF in May 1997. Since 2005, he has been the leader of the Air Traffic Management Team at the IFF. In April 2010, he completed his Ph.D. dissertation at TU Braunschweig.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“Multiple Satellite Navigation Systems for the Ground Based Augmentation System,” by M. Stanisak, M. Bitter, and T. Feuerle in Proceedings of ITM 2014, the 2014 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, January 27–29, 2014, pp. 254–264.
• Standards Documents
Aeronautical Communications, Vol. 1, Radio Navigation Aids, Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, International Standards and Recommended Practices, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Draft Version, May 2010.
GNSS-Based Precision Approach Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Signal-In Space Interface Control Document (ICD), DO-246D, RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems, RTCA Inc. Washington, D.C., December 2008.
Minimum Operational Performance Standards for GPS Local Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment, DO-253C, RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems, RTCA Inc. Washington, D.C., December 2008.
Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Global Navigation Satellite Ground Based Augmentation System Ground Equipment to Support Category I Operations, ED-114, EUROCAE Working Group 28 on Global Navigation Satellite System, European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment, Malakoff, France, September 2003.
• GBAS Research and Development
“Conception, Implementation and Validation of a GAST-D Capable Airborne Receiver Simulation” by M. Stanisak, R. Schork, M. Kujawska, T. Feuerle, and P. Hecker in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2012, the 25th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Nashville, Tennessee, September 17–21, 2012, pp. 250–257.
“Initial GBAS Experiences in Europe” by A. Lipp, A. Quiles, M. Reche, W. Dunkel, and S. Grand-Perret in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2005, the 18th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, California, September 13–16, 2005, pp. 2911–2922.
Galileo Growth, Constellation Updates, and Jamming
I used to spend quite a lot of time in Munich working on a multi-national, multi-role fighter aircraft program, so returning for this year’s Munich Satellite Navigation Summit stirred some good memories for me.
Held in the opulent Residenz Muenchen March 25-27, the conference always has a special atmosphere that these historic 1385 surroundings convey to the attendees. The former royal palace of Bavarian monarchs, the whole complex has ten courtyards and 130 rooms. The summit was held in the Max-Joseph Hall, which took a little bit of work to find at first, wandering around the huge complex. One wing of the building hosts a theater, and the mainhall is the primary concert venue for the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. Overall, this is a delightful setting.
Munich is in the Southern German state of Bavaria, and Bavaria has taken a real interest in the promotion and success of Galileo; witness the extensive Bavarian booth at recent European and North American GNSS conferences. Germany has, of course, been one of the principle nations providing significant funding for Galileo from its inception.
Ilse Aigner
So with this backdrop, the summit brings together people involved with GNSS from around the world to report on the current status of GNSS and to relate how their participation in satellite navigation has progressed. And, of course, Europe, Germany, Bavaria and the European GNSS industry, which is now recognized around the world, all take the opportunity to present their capabilities and successes.
The plenary session on the first evening covered GNSS, Earth Observation (EO) and Telecommunications — with the panel headed by Ilse Aigner, Bavarian State Minister of Economic Affairs and Media, Energy and Technology — an extensive mandate, even for a state-certified engineer who used to work for Eurocopter.
Dr. Merith Niehuss, speaking at the opening of the summit. (copyright: Munich Satellite Navigation Summit).
The host of the summit is actually the University of the German Army in Munich, and we received a warm welcome from two leading professors: Dr. Bernd Eissfeller and Dr. Merith Niehuss, the president. The theme of the summit was to move from implementation to utilization, and in typical European form, all parties were looking to shower potential users with funded solutions to problems of which users are not yet aware — so users clearly need government-provided education, pilot projects and funding. Not exactly a North American concept, where we tend to encourage users to buy our innovative stuff by demonstrating how it can save them money or earn them more revenue.
The European Commission, ESA, DLR, European GNSS Agency (GSA), Airbus, OHB, and Telespazio were also represented. The minister did indeed associate with and praise the local area, claimed 1,000 jobs created related to Galileo through an incubation center at Oberpfaffenhofen, and declared Bavarian support for satellite navigation.
Other important things mentioned by the panel at the plenary included an €11B budget for Galileo/EGNOS and Copernicus (EO project) under the Horizon 2020 program, and an intent to declare Early Service for Galileo before the end of this year with two or three dual Galileo satellite launches — the first two FOC (production) SVs should go to the European launch center in Kourou in April in preparation for launch around June. I heard in a corridor that launches may be planned for June, October and December, but an EU spokesman later said that there would only be two launches this year. OHB now has the contract to build 22 FOC Galileo SVs, each with a design life of 14 years, and they are bullish on their ability to deliver on time and budget.
The program continued the following day with constellation updates from GPS, Galileo, Beidou and the UN International Committee on GNSS (ICG) — GLONASS delegates were notably absent. There was much speculation that they declined to attend due to the Crimean situation, and one U.S. delegate even inferred that they were “uninvited.”
Constellation Updates
GPS: It’s estimated that there are ~2B GPS receivers in use, and there may be ~10B by 2020. A return on investment (ROI) analysis is currently underway, but a rough guess is that costs are in the tens of billions, while annual returns are of the order of $60-100B/year. Another IIF satellite (SV) launched last month, bringing the total to five SVs transmitting L1, L2C and L5, with seven more to come, and multiple launches are expected this year. There are 30 operational SVs on orbit, signal performance significantly exceeds the specs, and consistent, dependable performance has been provided for more than 20 years.
Galileo: First fix was achieved March 12, 2013, with four SVs, two (maybe three?) launches of two SVs each planned for 2014, and early operational capability to be declared by end of this year. €7B in funding is provisioned for 2014-2020, with 16-24 operational ground stations, Commercial Service (CS) planned by 2016 (more on this later), and a long-term evolution plan being worked up during this year.
BeiDou: Fourteen SVs are on orbit — five GEO, four MEO and five Inclined Geosynchronous Orbit (IGOS) satellites, providing dual-frequency services. Thirty total SVs are planned, and the intent is to provide open, compatible, interoperable signals with other GNSS free of charge. There was not much other news to report, other than that China intends to invest significantly in BeiDou to keep improving services.
United Nations ICG: Nine nations and European Union = International Committee on GNSS (ICG), with 20 other associate and observer States. Activities include GNSS compatibility/interoperability, GNSS enhancements, information sharing, and reference frames, timing and applications — lots of upcoming meetings and activities.
Regional and Augmentation Updates
WAAS: Phase IV is underway with GEO replenishment begun, introduction of L5 to replace L2, and replacement of obsolete component parts. One hundred GIII receivers were ordered with L1/L2C and L5 capability for delivery by September this year — and have capacity to also add Galileo. GIII receivers have already been fielded in six locations as part of initial integration testing. The Safety computer will also be upgraded starting this year. 3,912 LP/LPV approaches have been approved, of which 3,379 LPVs serve 1,667 airports. GBAS CAT I is progressing with four U.S. airport installations. System design approval began in January this year, and United Airlines has begun equipping over 90 B737/B787 for GPS approach and landing. Alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (APNT) investigations are underway (as a backup to GPS) with a hybrid DME-pseudolite configuration currently favored. Stanford University subsequently presented this and other concepts.
EGNOS: A €1.58B budget has been approved, and EGNOS V3 evolution is underway, with L1/L5 and GEO (SES 5 and Astra 5B) replenishment, a requirement to expand East and West and to the North to provide full coverage to all EU States.
About 100 EGNOS LPV approaches are approved — this year, it’s hoped to add 150 more.
QZSS: The operational concept has been proven with the first IGOS SV (Michibiki), so Japan is moving forward quickly to add another three SVs (3xIGOS and 1xGEO) and ultimately would like to have a total of seven SVs in orbit providing QZSS services. L1/L1C/L2C/L5 signals are identical to GPS, and L1s/L5s are augmentation signals, while L6 is proposed to be similar to Galileo E6, providing centimeter-level PPP-type service. QZSS essentially is intended to provide higher elevation satellites to improve urban navigation in dense cities.
IRNSS: Coverage extends 1500 km beyond India. The target is <20-meter accuracy, and signals are in L5 and S band and can be used independently or in dual-frequency combinations. A second IRNSS-1B GEO satellite is scheduled to launch on April 4.
GAGAN: The Indian SBAS was commissioned and certified in February this year with a number of ground stations, redundant uplinks and two on-orbit GSAT 8 and 10 GEOs. Gagan is now qualified to provide RNP0.1 (navigation accuracy to 0.1 miles).
QZSS and Japan’s Space Policy
This session provided some detail on how changes in Japan’s Basic Space Law has lead to efforts to expand the use of space and derive further economic benefits that this provides.
Munich Highlights
A collection of examples of Bavarian GNSS innovations followed in a very interesting session led off by an overview of Business Incubation Centers and their collaboration with government agencies and research centers. Small business start-ups are apparently encouraged to apply during four annual time-slots, and receive two years’ incubation support and cash incentives. This has lead to 81 new ventures and has apparently been the source of the 1,000 new jobs mentioned by the Minister of Economic Affairs. The annual European Satellite Navigation Competition and Galileo Masters competition have also generated a whole bunch of ideas and concepts (8,000), some of which have found support through this incubation process.
Airbus Defence gave a short overview of the testing work it accomplished in supporting the first Galileo fix and has prepared several vehicle test platforms, ready to take the next phase of Galileo testing to the streets in realistic, real-world environments.
DLR provided insights into a number of its activities, namely:
Iono mapping
Signal distortion
Multipath
Jammer mitigation – adaptive antenna and processing
GNSS repeaters – how they can become unintentional jammers
Spoofer and Multipath inbvestigations
Antenna designs
GNSS evolution – Maser and clock combination benefits
Army University of Munich discussed radio science experiments in the Solar System and experiments using Mars Express (above) in polar orbit around Mars and resulting measurements of the moon Phobos. Internal and external outreach efforts with numerous organizations were also mentioned.
IFEN provided more down-to-Earth information on the on-going activities at the GATE ground-based pseudolite range, which has enabled realistic outdoors testing of Galileo receivers, well in advance of signals from orbiting satellites. Recent testing has now been able to include the four operating Galileo SVs on orbit with GATE pseudolite signals. GATE will continue to evolve over the next few years to keep up as more Galileo orbital signals come on-line.
Fraunhofer presented information on its 40-channel GPS/Galileo/GLONASS chip-receiver (above) – claiming 1-meter accuracy, low-cost, robust reliable position solution, small form-factor and low-power. Following PRS test-bed development efforts, Fraunhofer has now received a contract to also deliver 20 pre-operational Galileo PRS receivers for use in initial pilot projects.
GNSS Interference
Vidal Ashkenazi, in his inimitable form, lead a panel discussion on interference, jamming (in particular Personal Privacy Devices, or PPD) and spoofing, and coaxed his panel members to provide a whole bunch of information on what’s being done, mitigation capabilities and potential enforcement. Unlike all the other sessions, Vidal’s panel members didn’t use presentations, but rather responded to wide-ranging questions on the subject from the session chair.
David Turner, representing the U.S. State Department, indicated that the ICG will meet shortly in Geneva hosted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to focus on interference, jamming and mitigation. The recourse that nations have for use of PPDs by their people is the law — jammers are illegal, sale and purchase of them is illegal — however, Internet sales are very difficult to police. So detection and mitigation are required to find and shut them down. Dave’s presentation on the GPS.gov website indicates that the ICG is working on an education program for states to inform about GNSS sensitivity to interference and the threat to critical infrastructure if they are allowed to operate. The ICG also has a task force on detection, reporting and systems development.
ISRO indicated that PPD jammers in India are restricted, but permitted for gatherings such as at churches where personal safety may be an issue. Ground-based detection is needed, as well as stronger legal protection that may well prohibit use of PPDs altogether.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) indicated that it is working on “signal proofing” for QZSS.
BeiDou said it is building a monitor network in China that will detect jamming.
There was a general discussion on whether receiver manufacturers should be mandated to make receivers that are resilient to jamming – many thought that there have already been significant advances in that direction by manufacturers. The normal approach would be to develop requirements with industry, agency and user inputs, publish them, and call up the requirements in equipment specifications. In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security is seeking an approach to detection and location.
Legal Impacts of Personal Privacy Devices (PPDs)
While the audience may have had high hopes that the legal eagles could come up with some magic prevention and prosecution solution, the next session was more of a legal background briefing without any concrete conclusions (quite similar to other discussions I’ve had with some lawyers in the past, actually).
The first briefing was from the European Commission/European Union, who indicated that the EU doesn’t own the frequency rights to Galileo (Oh Oh…). They have to operate through a member state, which gets the rights through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and then licenses use to the EU — the bottom line being that EU enforcement of jamming protection laws maybe be difficult, as the legal framework only exists at the national level for each state. The EU is trying to get recognition under another class of ITU membership.
EU regulations were presented that state that GNSS re-transmitters can only be operated legally by governments or government contractors. Or can be used indoors for indoor navigation, but only for emergency services at fixed sites which are pre-approved. Pseudolites can only be operated indoors, and there should be no interference to other systems. Jammers are forbidden and cannot be placed on the market for sale.
Eurocontrol had a lot to say about the impact on aviation navigation infrastructure and receivers on aircraft. Existing ground nav aids have limitations, the worldwide equipment infrastructure is becoming quite old — aviation has generally moved away to GNSS and inertial based navigation and uses ground navaids as backup. There is a conflict between regulating GNSS heavily for aviation and how people want to use it in the commercial world. We may have to consider a trade-off between heavily restricted GNSS operations, and wide open commercial GNSS applications.
David Sobel, from Electronic Frontier Foundation in the U.S., presented the contrary case for individual privacy. His argument is that sale of tracking devices is unregulated and can readily be purchased, so people may presumably use them to track others, thereby infringing their privacy. So why shouldn’t people be able to “defend their privacy” by use of PPDs?
Say an employer insists that a vehicle you are driving have a tracking device so he knows where you are. Isn’t the driver also justified in trying to protect his privacy? Since the police in the U.S. can no longer place tracking equipment on suspect vehicles without a warrant, tracking appears to be down to private individuals or companies, who it would appear, have the legal ability to attach tracking devices under most circumstances. So the argument goes that if people have a legitimate concern about privacy, there should be acceptable provisions to allow them to disrupt tracking.
If there is a service such as road tolling, there is an incentive for people to avoid these costs. So systems should be robust enough to avoid disruption. Enforcement is a problem — should police chase people they suspect have jammers, or should they rather chase criminals or help and protect citizens? Mitigation systems need testing, so to test these systems there has to be jamming transmission — which needs to be controlled and regulated. Restricting the import of bad devices into a country might be desired, but the manufacturing countries don’t tend to want to restrict exports as exports help their economy. Again, the argument seems to be that of personal privacy over potential risks and damages to society.
No solutions, but a healthy discussion of views from a legal perspective.
Precise Point Positioning (PPP)
The group discussing PPP options consisted of the GSA (charged with exploitation of Galileo services), several principle industry service providers of PPP, and the federal agency, which provides PPP-like services in Germany.
The GSA presented its ideas concerning the provision of high-accuracy PPP corrections over the Galileo E6 signal – the so-called Commercial Service (CS). The intent, however, would not be to disrupt the commercial marketplace. Nevertheless, GSA is proposing a public-funded service to be sold to users within a market that is already well served by commercial worldwide service providers who charge users for cm-level PPP service.
And while Trimble made a polite presentation on the many levels of capabilities of its TerraSat services, as did Veripos and to some extent Fugro, it was clear that the commercial providers are not eager to find competition in their market from a government entity. NovAtel also chimed in on this conflict as it will be involved in Veripos/TerraStar, following its acquisition by Hexagon. Fugro appeared to be interested in acquiring rights to distribute CS on behalf of GSA.
The German Federal agency promoted open data, source and standards from the IGS network to which it contributes: IGS is supported by numerous national agencies around the world. Orbit and clock PPP service is available 24/7 from multiple sources. However, the service is offered on a best efforts basis without a service guarantee, and cannot achieve the accuracies or convergence times of commercial services.
I talked subsequently with Michael Ritter, CEO of NovAtel, to learn the background to the Veripos/TerraStar acquisition. It’s clear that providing PPP services means added value to NovAtel when they sell receivers with PPP capability, so they will quickly discontinue offering Omnistar subscriptions and will shortly launch NovAtel Correct, offering Veripos (marine) and TerraStar (land) PPP subscription services. NovAtel is making significant inroads in the agriculture segment, and they see PPP service as an essential element of this and other businesses. The acquisition was worth something on the order of $200 million, so there is a vested interest in making these services pay and discouraging GSA entry into this market. Veripos will continue supplying other GNSS OEM receiver manufacturers — notably Septentrio, who use TerraStar services, now also NovAtel, and potentially another major GNSS manufacturer.
Future of GNSS in User Segment
Chaired by Greg Turetzky of Intel, this session opened the third day of the Summit. The presenters offered their concepts for current and future GNSS equipment and systems.
Stanford University outlined its work with FAA on an alternate PNT system to be used as a back-up to GNSS. It used to be that GNSS systems were designed to overcome space-weather effects and faults in equipment design or manufacture — nowadays, there are “bad guys” out there and we need to “protect, toughen and augment” these systems. Antennas can be built that impart a specific signature to the signals they transmit, and this may aid in finding and prosecuting the bad guys, but the main focus of work is development of a hybrid system using Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and a pseudolite.
Tests have demonstrated good performance, and these prototype efforts could lead to aviation requirements (MOPS) development by 2018 and deployment by 2020.
Septentrio has been involved in Galileo since it began and was the first company with Galileo receivers. Nowadays, they have receivers fielded in multiple commercial applications, including machine control, maritime, aviation, automation, and measurement, delivering accuracies from a meter down to a centimeter. They will add E6 to their AsteRx family of multiple-channel, multi-frequency, multi-constellation receivers, and have developed a number of hardware and software mitigation techniques to combat jamming, interference and multipath, and to integrate receivers with inertial units for aiding.
Furuno is interested in resilient PNT for marine applications, and has examined the use of eLoran as an alternative to GPS, but has moved towards a system of radar beacons that detect radar pulses from passing ships and transmit their positions, enabling position determination. In tests, accuracies of around 2 meters have been obtained with two beacons.
Quascom’s approach is to add firewalls inside receivers, which toughen the processing and prevent distortion of position information. Quascom believes this will be necessary until authentication can be added into the GNSS system itself, so that any data received is validated and is known to be good.
Chris Rizos from the University of New South Wales, Australia, drew attention to the “holes” that exist in GNSS, and reviewed a number of possible “Band-Aid” fixes, such as Wi-Fi especially for indoor location. However, his solution seems to be to establish terrestrial networks transmitting GNSS-like signals.
Eurocontrol indicated that aircraft currently use inertial and DME extensively as a back-up to GNSS navigation. By 2030, there will be multiple constellations, and dual-frequency use should become commonplace in aviation, so GNSS navigation should be much more robust. Aircraft approaches are required to be in conformance with Required Navigation Performance (RNP), so would it be possible to develop RNP procedures for DME and inertial to be used as back-up during approaches in the event GNSS is disrupted?
To conclude the session, Airbus provided a “starter course” overview on inertial systems – how they work, the range of different types available, what they can achieve, costs, strengths and weaknesses and integration with GNSS.
The summit continued with subsequent sessions on:
Space technologies and users
GNSS monitoring of Earth and disaster management
Copernicus – Earth Observation
GNSS Education
Unfortunately, my deadline didn’t allow me to attend these equally interesting presentations.
There is also a manufacturers’ exhibit area at the summit that just fits into a couple of corridors near the main hall – around 20 booths. I talked with several of the manufacturers, including Spirent who has launched its latest GSS9000 multi-frequency-constellation simulator, with a four-fold increase in system iteration rate over the previous model. Exhibitors appeared to be pleased to be at the summit and by the level of interest shown by the attendees.
So, as this year’s Munich Summit concludes, where does this leave us? We’ve learned some new things about several GNSS topics and heard some interesting new concepts. Europe appears to be now focused on users and applications, to ensure there is market growth and use of Galileo. What stands out for me is the contrast between how European governments go about GNSS and how North America and the commercial world does the same thing without as much direct influence. This is nothing new, of course, it’s just the European way…
NovAtel, an OEM provider of high-precision GNSS positioning products, has been contracted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to produce and deliver 176 Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) third-generation reference receivers (G-III).
The contract includes engineering support for the receiver as well as support for the current generation reference receiver (G-II), Geostationary Earth Orbit Uplink Subsystem – Type 1 (GUST) receiver, and Signal Generator (SIGGEN).
The third-generation WAAS program is a technology refresh of the highly successful, currently operating second generation WAAS Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS). WAAS provides integrity monitoring, correction data, and increased satellite availability to users of GPS within its coverage area. The integrity monitoring features of the WAAS allow the use of GPS L1 C/A for safety-of-life applications and in particular for the civil aviation industry. The third-generation WAAS will monitor and augment the modernized GPS L5 signal, allowing aviation receivers to operate in two protected aviation frequency bands with assured integrity.
NovAtel’s WAAS G-II receiver.
NovAtel’s reference receivers and uplink station equipment have been a central element of the WAAS since its inception. The G-III reference receiver uses fully updated hardware and tracks all GPS signals including the legacy GPS L1 C/A, L2P(Y) (semi-codeless), and the modernized L2C, L5, L1C signals as well as the WAAS L1 C/A and L5 signals.
The WAAS G-III reference receiver provides a rich set of range measurement data, signal integrity metrics, and logs for processing by the system’s data communication processor. The receiver architecture is designed to facilitate future expansion and reconfiguration to support the evolving needs of WAAS and other SBAS systems worldwide, including multi-constellation augmentation systems.
“We have a long relationship with the FAA and have worked very closely with the WAAS program team to develop a third-generation ground reference receiver that carries over the pedigree of our first and second generation products, while adding features and processing capacity required for the modernized system,” said Jason Hamilton, director of marketing for NovAtel. “The WAAS G-III was designed and tested specifically for ground reference networks requiring reliable continuous operation, high-longevity components, and DO-178B design assurance.”
Aerospace GNSS receivers constitute a class apart, compared to their more popular relatives used in automotive, cell phone, or survey applications. Automotive and cell-phone receivers can sometimes provide position information even in indoor environments. The survey class of receivers provides centimeter-level accuracies. However, neither group can guarantee the reliability and integrity of the position solution, and users rely upon them at their own risk, and only in non-critical applications.
On the other hand, an aerospace GNSS receiver not only provides decimeter-level accuracy, but it also guarantees that the position error is bounded by an integrity limit. The probability that the position error is more than the integrity limit is very rare: one in ten million times.
Now, isn’t that the best class of GNSS receiver?
A certified aerospace GNSS receiver stands as the keystone of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) ambitious NextGen Aviation program for the United States. The FAA developed NextGen to revolutionize the way an aircraft flies in the U.S airspace. In its June 2013 update report, the FAA states that “NextGen is providing major benefits to the general aviation community. The Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS) has improved general aviation access to more than 1,500 airports in all kinds of weather with no costly investment in ground infrastructure.”
According to the report, by the end of the NextGen mid-term in 2020, NextGen improvements will reduce delays by 41 percent from today. The FAA estimates that by 2018, NextGen will reduce aviation fuel consumption by 1.4 billion gallons, reduce emissions by 14 million tons, and save $23 billion in costs. NextGen also has an important safety impact for air travelers.
Tens of thousands of aircraft are already equipped with WAAS receivers, which improve the availability, accuracy, and integrity of GPS signals. Pilots take advantage of WAAS technology to fly approach procedures using Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) to altitudes as low as 200 feet. The FAA has published 3,123 WAAS LPV approaches as of May 2013 and expects to publish 5,218 by 2016.
The key to NextGen is the aerospace GPS-SBAS receiver.
How different are aerospace GNSS receivers from commercially available receivers, including high-precision receivers?
An aerospace GPS-SBAS receiver is characterized by very high reliability, accuracy, and availability. Among these attributes, the reliability factor is the most important parameter. Misleading information from an aerospace receiver should be extremely improbable, since that can lead to hazardous or severe major consequences to the aircraft, its passengers, and flight crew.
Table 1 shows the major differences between a standard GNSS receiver and an aerospace GNSS receiver.
Table 1. Differences between a standard GNSS receiver and an aerospace GNSS receiver.
Performance Requirements
The DO-229D standard document — formally, the RTCA Minimum Operational Performance Standards for GPS/WAAS Airborne Equipment — specifies the minimum performance standards of an aerospace GPS-SBAS receiver. In particular, an aerospace GNSS receiver needs to meet the GPS and SBAS signal processing requirements, GPS and SBAS data/message processing requirements, satellite integrity status requirement, accuracy requirements in presence of interference, dynamic range and sensitivity requirements, and so on, as defined in DO-229D standard.
Most importantly, the receiver must meet the Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) requirements for en-route, terminal, non-precision and precision phases of flight of DO-229D. Additionally, the receiver must meet the fault detection, fault exclusion, missed alert, false alert, step detection, ramp detection, and other integrity-related requirements of DO-229D.
Further, the receiver needs to meet the environmental conditions specified in DO-160 standard for temperature, temperature variation, altitude, humidity, shock, vibration, magnetic effects, voltage spike, EMI/EMC, lightning, and so on.
Safety and Reliability Aspects
A Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA) based on the intended function of the GPS-SBAS receiver software needs to be carried out to determine whether the receiver meets the requirements of hazardously misleading information. The safety and reliability aspects of the receiver are computed through Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). The effects of each failure mode are determined at the system level for each operating mode of the equipment.
RAIM. For an aerospace GPS-SBAS receiver, RAIM is of paramount importance. The measure of protection provided by RAIM is given by Horizontal/Vertical Protection Limits (HPL/VPL). HPL is used as the protection limit for en-route, terminal, and LNAV (Non-precision approach) phases of flight and compared against the Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) for the phase of flight. Whereas, VPL is compared against the Vertical Alert Limit (VAL) for the LNAV/VNAV and LP/LPV phase of flight.
The most critical part of the integrity requirement is to detect a satellite failure and, if possible, to make corrective actions in addition to generating timely alerts. A Failure Detection and Exclusion algorithm, often known as FD/FDE, is to be implemented in an aerospace GNSS receiver. The effectiveness of the FD/FDE algorithm has to be tested extensively in off-line condition for availability of satellite failure detection and exclusion. Further, the algorithm has to be tested in on-line conditions as well as on a target environment. There has to be a match among the off-line,
on-line, and on-target test results for using the algorithm in
the GNSS receiver.
The integrity tests on an aerospace GNSS receiver are carried out as per the guidelines in DO-229D. This requires simulation of the GPS orbit and determination of satellite visibility at more than two thousands grid points on the Earth surface and for 12 hours at 5-minute time intervals. The FD/FDE algorithm is validated at each space-time point to determine the availability of failure detection and exclusion.
For the non-precision approach, the space-time points are arranged in terms of the HPL values and Horizontal Exclusion Limit (HEL) values and the most difficult to detect/exclude satellite is identified. Extensive Monte Carlo simulations are carried out at the selected space-time points to validate the false alert and missed alert requirements of DO-229D standard. Similar tests are carried out on the GNSS receiver for the precision approach, wherein the VPL values are considered instead of HPL values. Further, the test results of the off-line tests are validated through comprehensive on-line and on-target tests on the selected space-time points.
Certification Aspects
To ensure that the software and the firmware of the aerospace GNSS receiver are robust, providing adequate levels of safety and reliability, the receiver software and firmware need to be developed conforming to the software and hardware design assurance standards — DO-178B and DO-254 respectively. Based on the criticality of the end application, the design assurance should meet DO-178B and DO-254 objectives of Level A, B, or C criticality.
An aerospace GNSS receiver needs to be certified by the FAA (or other competent authorities in other countries) for airworthiness. The FAA gets involved in the certification process right from the planning stage and oversees the compliance of the entire development process as per DO-178B and DO-254 standards. The aerospace GNSS receiver software and firmware undergo extensive verification and validation processes. Further, the GNSS receiver is subjected to all the functional and environmental tests as per DO-229D and DO-160 standards respectively under FAA supervision. Only after the successful completion of all the software, hardware, and systems tests, the receiver is certified by the FAA for airworthiness through Technical Standard Order TSO-C145 Authorization (TSOA).
Conclusion
Aerospace GNSS receivers, by virtue of their inherent safety, reliability, and integrity, are far more suitable for critical applications, where an error could have hazardous or catastrophic consequences. These receivers must be used in commercial transport aircraft, business jets, general aviation aircraft, gliders, experimental aircraft, balloon, and so on. Further, in airport surface vehicles and mass-transport vehicles such as high-speed trains, trams, and unmanned autonomous vehicles of all sorts, whether ground or air, receivers similar to aerospace GNSS receivers should be used for navigation and surveillance purposes.
Jaynata Ray received his Ph.D. from the University of Calgary. He has worked in the GPS field since 1992, and is group manager at Accord Software and Systems in Bangalore, India. He is a member of GPS World’s Editorial Advisory Board.
Accord Technology’s NexNav GPS receiver will be supporting FreeFlight Systems with its recently awarded FAA Capstone Retrofit Project. In March 2013, FreeFlight and Accord announced their collaboration to develop practical and cost-effective ARINC 429 WAAS GPS solutions that enable aircraft operators to meet ADS-B, RNP (0.3) and other performance-based navigation mandates, worldwide.
The NexNav Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) will integrate with FreeFlight’s upgraded automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) avionics to fulfill the requirements of the second phase of the FAA Capstone Project.
“This is an excellent example of how we are working closely with FreeFlight Systems to create state-of-the-art NextGen solutions that are not only meeting upcoming mandate requirements but doing it in a cost effective manner,” stated Hal Adams, Chief Operating Officer for Accord Technology, LLC.
The Accord Technology NexNav product line revolves around two key receivers, NexNav mini and NexNav MAX. The receivers are at the heart of embedded customer solutions whether as a Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) or embedded in the Line Replacement Unit (LRU) as a stand-alone GPS solution.
NexNav mini was the industry’s first GPS receiver and sensor qualified to fully support the known worldwide and U.S. FAA ADS-B GPS source requirements The NexNav mini and MAX are compatible with EGNOS and other Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) to the extent they are is compatible with WAAS.
Aeroflex Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of Aeroflex Holding Corp., has announced its capability to simulate WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance) approaches by adding this new feature to their GPSG-1000 Portable GPS Simulator.
Aeroflex has developed the capability of simulating WAAS LPV approaches to expedite and validate the installation of WAAS-enabled navigation systems in aircraft. The GPSG-1000 offers the following features to installers of these systems:
Ability to perform structured, repeatable dynamic motion tests (actual flight) of a WAAS/LPV installation,
Ability to check and validate the sensitivity and dynamic range of an airborne GPS receiver, either statically or while in motion,
Reduce aircraft down time and flight demonstration time required by FAA,
Additional support data for documenting proper FAA processes of WAAS/LPV system upgrades or installs without leaving the hangar.
New orders for the GPSG-1000 are ready for immediate delivery. For existing GPSG-1000 customers, a no-charge software upgrade will be available by mid-April 2013.
The FAA created the WAAS program in 1992 to provide the necessary integrity to utilize GPS signals for precision approach. The WAAS consists of a network of precisely surveyed wide area reference stations (WRS). These reference stations monitor GPS satellites to determine errors in the GPS satellite signal. Each reference station relays the information about the GPS satellites to the WAAS wide area master stations (WMS). The master station then develops corrections to the GPS position information and provides timely notification of unreliable GPS data. These corrections are sent to ground uplink stations (GUS) where they are transmitted in the form of a WAAS correction message to a Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite. The WAAS signal is then broadcast to users on the same frequency as GPS. This WAAS corrected signal provides three-dimensional guidance to aircraft.
It used to be that professionals using precision GNSS applications had to go to the expense of buying, operating, and maintaining RTK base-stations and radio set-ups. Then L-Band corrections came on the scene and things changed. Most precision receiver manufacturers supply an L-band option for a nominal fee, and also sell PPP service subscriptions. There are now a number of PPP correction service providers offering higher precision, including a couple of new options.
As a quick overview — L-band is just like WAAS, but with privately owned assets, rather than provided by a state agency. WAAS focuses on high integrity and accuracy, while L-band corrections are largely more focused on providing accuracy to users. A geographically distributed ground network of base stations sends receiver data to one or more central processing facilities, which formulate wide area corrections. A number of uplink stations then send these corrections up to geostationary satellite transponders (time on a number of satellites is often rented, but L-band companies could also own and operate their own satellites), and the transponders transmit the wide area corrections at L-band frequency for reception by suitably configured user receivers. Users are able to buy subscriptions that enable them to receive corrections for a period of time — and that’s how the private L-band suppliers make money. The accuracy a user can achieve depends on the service, but anything from a few meters to a few centimeters is now possible.
Before WAAS was fully operation in the U.S., L-band corrections supplied by private companies were already available. It became possible to regularly get meter-level accuracies without base-stations, and it was clear that this could well turn into a major benefit for users. Operations like agricultural automation, asset tracking, mining, marine navigation, and others that could get by with a few meters of accuracy began to rely on L-band corrections. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) could even work without base stations, and vehicle tracking could determine which side of the road a truck was on. Then with expanding worldwide ground networks, more satellites and ever-improving clock and orbit algorithms, we started talking about corrections that gave us decimeter accuracies. That’s when PPP began to outpace WAAS for some applications requiring higher precision.
Never quite got the significance of why the original marine PPP companies were spinning off land-focused providers from their marine businesses, but the original marine correction providers now have successfully established “land-only” provider companies. It makes sense to have a supplier talk to you in marine terms if you’re running a shipping company, and for that provider to focus on providing higher integrity corrections to your shipping fleet. Land-based machine control, GIS and vehicle tracking outfits, on the other hand, want their own land-based support networks and don’t want to talk in marine terms. So we now have a number of providers supplying different sets of PPP corrections. It’s also possible that segment pricing for the different markets might have played a role in these spin-offs.
The granddaddy system would seem to be Fugro’s OminSTAR — whose services are now marketed by Trimble following acquisition of OminSTAR marketing rights by Trimble in 2011, while Fugro retained its marine services. OminSTAR HP, G2, XP and VBS services are available courtesy of a worldwide network of reference stations, data networks, carrier-phase measurements and sophisticated “clocks and orbits” correction algorithms which provide sub-meter thru 10-cm capability to users.
The OmniSTAR network.
And of course Trimble is also running its own RTX service alongside OmniSTAR. With a world-wide reference station network, and a number of concentrated regional networks, CenterPoint RTX is regularly achieving less than 4cm for users. RTX is available over regular L-band satellite and over internet. Overall an impressive PPP capability.
The CenterPoint RTX network, by Trimble.
Then NavCom — and Deere & Co, its parent company — fielded the StarFire system for both NavCom and John Deere customers, who not surprisingly use it mainly for agriculture. However, use of the system has grown since it was introduced in 1999 and currently around 10 percent of customers are in markets other than ag — in offshore, survey, construction, aerial, GIS, and government/military applications. The StarFire signal is available worldwide but NavCom offers two differently priced services: “Land Only” and “All Area” for non-ag applications. You have to have Navcom or John Deere equipment to be able to use it, but the network and the receivers come from the same people, so the system has been optimized for peak performance and there shouldn’t be concerns about third-party integrators or service providers.
In 2001 in collaboration with JPL, Real Time GIPSY (RTG) was combined with the existing StarFire clocks and orbits algorithms and a StarFire GPS 10-cm service was offered. Nowadays StarFire GNSS has evolved out of that original correction service and claims impressive 5-cm accuracies using its multi-constellation GPS and GLONASS corrections.
The Starfire GNSS network.
StarFire also uses over 80 reference stations with mostly GPS/GLONASS receivers providing carrier phase data for redundant processing and distribution by L-band transmissions over the Inmarsat satellite network.
Then we come to the latest entrant into the land PPP business – TERRASTAR. The parent company Veripos has been around since 1989 and has been extremely successful in its marine business, going public in 2012 on the Oslo stock exchange. Veripos recently launched TERRASTAR to better address the land market for all the same good reasons discussed earlier. TERRASTAR provides two correction services: –M is meter level DGNSS and –D is a decimeter solution using both GPS and GLONASS. All the 80+ owned and operated reference sites around the world have dual-frequency GPS/GLONASS receivers, and there are plans to add Galileo and even COMPASS in the future.
Dual-redundant processing and network servers ensure uninterrupted distribution of GPS and GLONASS orbit and clock corrections, enabling decimeter accuracy for users. TERRASTAR distributes corrections over all seven Inmarsat GEOs, providing most land users with redundant L-band visibility.
Correction quality and availability are largely dependent on the number of reference stations that track the same GNSS satellite. The figures below show the location of satellites at a given time and the number of stations simultaneously tracking those satellites. For the TERRASTAR ground network, there are often more than 30 stations tracking the same satellite. This makes for high-quality clock and orbit corrections, and TERRASTAR-D claims to provide consistent, stable horizontal 5-10 cm and vertical 10-15 cm performance.
The TERRASTAR network.
As a new player, TERRASTAR has yet to corner a whole bunch of customers, but it already has some significant customer applications. It “GEO-Gates” its corrections like other providers to ensure usage on land, but it extends coverage to land areas plus about 6 km beyond the coastline — termed “nearshore.” So TERRASTAR has been able to capture in-shore dredging and construction business in Europe that otherwise might have had to go to more expensive marine correction services.
In addition, a new customer is using TERRASTAR for airborne geophysical applications. There are also ongoing trials on excavators in road construction, on trains, in oil and gas, for GIS/surveying, and with integrated agricultural sprayer-control and harvesters. TERRASTAR plans shortly to offer a web-based e-Commerce System for users to control their subscriptions. TERRASTAR and Septentrio/Altus have long-term relationships for receivers/systems, and Septentrio and Altus also retail the TERRASTAR service.
So, just when you think you have a good picture of PPP, another option for users has started to show up. PPP over internet — or iPPP as Nexteq Navigation in Calgary, Canada terms their service – is designed to provide similar corrections as PPP, but over cellular phone or Wi-Fi connection to the internet, rather than over satellite. With single frequency GPS, Nexteq claims accuracies of around 50cm, and 10cm with dual frequency, although their T5 and T5A handhelds only currently support L1. Of course Trimble has had corrections over the internet for a number of years.
So its clear that PPP services continue to evolve and become more and more sophisticated to match the growing complexity of customer applications. And as achievable accuracies improve, we’re seeing use in higher precision applications which would have seemed impossible just a few years ago, where local RTK base-stations and radio links would have been the only way to go.
With several very capable sources to choose from, GNSS industry customers have several options to carefully assess and fit to their business. Each PPP supplier has specific advantages and features available to meet customer expectations. The market now appears to be large and specialized enough that its inviting for new entrants. And each new entrant seems to bring with them new twists and capabilities which sell their services. As a customer, it’s a good time to trial new precision applications with PPP.
