1 Loran-C User Position Software (LUPS) Navigation Performance with the August 2001 Cross-Country/Alaska Flight Test Data Jaime Y. Cruz and Robert Stoeckly.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Flight Validation Process of RNP APCH Procedures: Thailand Case Study ICAO Asia-Pacific GNSS Seminar Bangkok, Thailand 26 March 2012 Flight Validation.
Advertisements

Using Seasonal Monitor Data to Assess Aviation Integrity Sherman Lo, Greg Johnson, Peter Swaszek, Robert Wenzel, Peter Morris, Per Enge 36 th Symposium.
Loran Integrity Performance Panel The Loran Integrity Performance Panel Sherman Lo, Per Enge, & Lee Boyce, Stanford University Ben Peterson, Peterson Integrated.
Location Forum 2006, 7 November, 2006 School of Surveying & Spatial Information Systems The University of New South Wales, Australia Adaptive Kalman Filtering.
Long RAnge Navigation version C
Hazardously Misleading Information Analysis for Loran LNAV Dr. Ben Peterson, Peterson Integrated Geopositioning Dr. Per Enge, Dr. Todd Walter, Dr. Sherman.
Differential Loran Ben Peterson, Ken Dykstra & Peter Swaszek Peterson Integrated Geopositioning & Kevin Carroll, USCG Loran Support Unit Funded by Federal.
Status of GPS/Loran Prototype for FAA Trials by James H. Doty and Patrick Y. Hwang, Ph.D., Rockwell Collins, Inc., Linn Roth, Ph.D., Locus, Inc., and Mitchell.
1 Integrated GPS/Loran Navigation Sensor for Aviation Applications by James H. Doty, David A. Anderson and Patrick Y. Hwang, Ph.D., Rockwell Collins, Inc.,
Transitioning to Time of Transmission Control in the U.S. Loran System ILA 2003 Boulder, CO Mr. Gene Schlechte CAPT Curtis Dubay, P.E. U. S. Coast Guard.
The Game Plan for Loran-C Modernization John J. Macaluso U. S. Coast Guard Mitchell J. Narins U. S. Federal Aviation Administration International Loran.
Summer Vacation 2003 – ASF Spatial Mapping in CO, AR, FL, and CA 32 nd Annual Technical Symposium International Loran Association 5 Nov 2003 Boulder, CO.
Loran Integrity Performance Panel Loran Integrity & Performance Panel (LORIPP) Per Enge, Stanford University, November 2003 Based on the work of: Federal.
Ohio University Russ College of Engineering and Technology School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Avionics Engineering Center Ranjeet Shetty.
Cost-effective dynamical downscaling: An illustration of downscaling CESM with the WRF model Jared H. Bowden and Saravanan Arunachalam 11 th Annual CMAS.
Avionics Engineering Center Characterization of Atmospheric Noise in the Loran-C Band Presented to the International Loran Association (ILA-32) November.
Collaboration FST-ULCO 1. Context and objective of the work  Water level : ECEF Localization of the water surface in order to get a referenced water.
FAA Tests An H-Field Antenna To Increase Loran-C Availability During P-Static Events R. Erikson, FAA WJ Hughes Technical Center and Dr. R. Lilley, Illgen.
1 Loran Timing ILA – 36 th Convention and Technical Symposium Orlando, Fl., Oct Arthur Helwig Gerard Offermans Christian Farrow.
1 EARLY SKYWAVE EXAMPLES FROM U.S. COAST GUARD PRIMARY CONTROL MONITOR SET DATA KIRK MONTGOMERY, U.S. COAST GUARD NAVIGATION CENTER BOB WENZEL, BOOZ, ALLEN,
Avionics Engineering Center ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007 Computer Modeling of Loran-C Additional Secondary Factors Janet Blazyk, MS David Diggle, PhD.
ILA 32 (Boulder, CO) - Page 1.
LORAN C By Farhan Saeed.
Loran Integrity Performance Panel Integrity Fault Tree for Loran Sherman Lo Second LORIPP Meeting Portland, OR September 23-24, 2002.
SSC Page 1 Frequency Agile Spectrum Access Technologies Presentation to FCC Workshop on Cognitive Radios May 19, 2003 Mark McHenry Shared Spectrum Company.
© David Last, University of Wales, Bangor 31st Annual Convention & Technical Symposium International Loran Association October, 2002 Washington,
V-1 Common-View LORAN-C for Precision Time and Frequency Recovery Tom Celano, Timing Solutions Corp LT Kevin Carroll, USCG Loran Support Unit Michael Lombardi,
V-1 TFE: The New Heartbeat of Loran T. P. Celano, Timing Solutions Corporation LT Kevin Carroll, Loran Support Unit.
Antenna Techniques to Reduce Airborne User Dynamic Range Requirements Jeff Dickman JUP - Quarterly Review Winter
Multiplexing GPS & eLoran on single RF cable for retrofit installations Benjamin Peterson Peterson Integrated Geopositioning International Loran Association.
Loran Integrity Performance Panel The Loran Integrity Performance Panel Sherman Lo, Per Enge, & Lee Boyce, Stanford University Ben Peterson, Peterson Integrated.
A Preliminary Study of Loran-C Additional Secondary Factor (ASF) Variations International Loran Association 31st Annual Convention And Technical Symposium.
Differential eLoran Reference Station for Maritime and Precise Time Applications Gerard Offermans, Arthur Helwig, Reelektronika NL International Loran.
GPS Vulnerability Assessment CGSIC International Sub-Committee Meeting Melbourne, Australia February 10,   CAPT Curt.
EGNOS TRAN: Broadcasting EGNOS messages over the Eurofix Datalink
Antenna Techniques to Optimize Pseudorange Measurements for Ground Based Ranging Sources Jeff Dickman Ohio University Avionics Engineering Center The 29.
1 HFSystemSimulation1.PPTCopyright © 2003 by Richard P. Buckner, P. E. HF SYSTEM SIMULATION TECHNIQUES by Richard P. Buckner, P. E.
LORAN-C in Paradise International Loran Association 31 st Annual Convention and Technical Symposium October 27-30, 2002 Washington, DC Written and Presented.
Satellite Navigation Program Federal Aviation Administration.
Making a Silk Purse from a Sow’s Ear, Loran Style David H. Gray Canadian Hydrographic Service Ottawa Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this paper are.
New Loran-C Receiver Performance Levels for Extended Range Eurofix and Kinematic Applications G.W.A. Offermans, A.W.S. Helwig, R. Kellenbach, W.J. Pelgrum,
Getting a Bearing on ASF Directional Corrections 32 nd Annual Technical Symposium International Loran Association 5 Nov 2003 Boulder, CO.
KICKOFF OF ASF DISCUSSIONS 1000 km  sec to 6  sec 400 to 1800 meters on a 1310 km --- up to 8  sec.
James T. Doherty Institute for Defense Analyses 16 October 2007
LOng RAnge Navigation- LORAN, (Class II navigation) AST 241 Dr. Barnhart.
LORAN TRANSITION Briefing to National PNT Advisory Board Captain Curtis Dubay, PE Department of Homeland Security U. S. Coast Guard Friday, October 5,
1 Timing with loran Judah Levine Time and Frequency Division NIST/Boulder (303)
Hazardously Misleading Information Analysis for Loran LNAV Dr. Ben Peterson, Peterson Integrated Geopositioning Dr. Per Enge, Dr. Todd Walter, Dr. Sherman.
Timing Augmented GPS Update Eddie Byrne, Symmetricom January 23, 2008.
Status – U.S. Maritime Backup Issues Session 2, 28 October 2002 –Status & Plans of LORAN-C Service Providers 31st Annual Convention & Technical Symposium.
Changes in the Performance of the IMS Infrasound Network due to Seasonal Propagation Effects David Norris and Robert Gibson BBN Technologies 1300 N. 17.
ILA 36 – Orlando Florida October 2007 Dr. Gregory Johnson, Ruslan Shalaev, Christian Oates, Alion Science & Technology Capt. Richard Hartnett, PhD,
P-Static Effects Testing
Loran Integrity Performance Panel The Loran Integrity Performance Panel (LORIPP) The LORIPP Team Loran Team Meeting McLean, VA July 30, 2002.
CCAR / University of Colorado 1 Airborne GPS Bistatic Radar in CLPX Dallas Masters University of Colorado, Boulder Valery Zavorotny NOAA ETL Stephen Katzberg.
1 Purpose of the Evaluations To determine whether Loran-C can provide the: Accuracy Availability Integrity Continuity, and Coverage to support Lateral.
APNT An Airline view Captain Rocky Stone Chief Technical Pilot United Airlines APNT Meeting Stanford University August 10, 2010.
Satellite Navigation Program
Transmitter Performance Section Participants –LSU –NAVCEN –NAVCEN (West) –Peterson Integrated Geo-positioning, Inc –BAH LORIPP Meeting #2 Portland, OR.
LORAN Modernization Loran Data Channel Mr. Raymond Agostini International Loran Association Orlando, FL October 15, 2007.
Image Enhancement Objective: better visualization of remotely sensed images visual interpretation remains to be the most powerful image interpretation.
Geoencryption Using Loran Di Qiu, Sherman Lo, Per Enge Stanford University Sponsored by FAA Loran Program.
Data Collection Effort Objectives Time of Transmission (TOT) monitors Time of Arrival (TOA) monitors Pulse Analysis Measurements re UTC, & sign of delay.
LORIPP Meeting July 24-25, Implementing a LORIPP-Compliant Option in the Loran-C User Position Software (LUPS) LORIPP Meeting July 24-25, 2002 Jaime.
Younis H. Karim, AbidYahya School of Computer University Malaysia Perlis 1.
Flight Validation Process of RNP APCH Procedures: Thailand Case Study
Telecommunications Engineering Topic 2: Modulation and FDMA
Loran c R.Ezhilarasan( ) R.Dinesh( )
Loran Integrity & Performance Panel (LORIPP)
UAV Navigation Using Signals of Opportunity
Presentation transcript:

1 Loran-C User Position Software (LUPS) Navigation Performance with the August 2001 Cross-Country/Alaska Flight Test Data Jaime Y. Cruz and Robert Stoeckly Illgen Simulation Technologies, Inc. or Presented by R. Stoeckly at ILA31 30 October 2002

2 Background Effort is part of the overall program to show that the Loran-C component of a GPS/Loran system can meet Non-Precision Approach (RNP-0.3) requirements during loss of the GPS signal LUPS is a Loran-C navigation software with key features:  Propagation delay model based on the FCC M3 ground conductivity database with extension to Alaska  Measurement fault detection and exclusion (FDE) techniques  Optimal weighting of all-in-view signals LUPS was used to post-process SatMate and DDC receiver data from the August 2001 cross-country and Alaska flight tests conducted by the FAA Technical Center  Aircraft GPS positions used as truth reference  Results in terms of accuracy, integrity, continuity, availability

3 Flight Paths

4 Measurement noise  Inversely proportional to the measured signal-to-noise amplitude ratio  Standard deviation at 0 dB SNR varies from 43 to 56 ns (13 to 17 m), depending on GRI Propagation delay spatial error Propagation delay error due to seasonal variation Transmitter clock error  Standard error of master clocks with respect to UTC is  master = 1100 ns (330 m) (based on differences between time-of-arrival measurements of dual-rated signals) Error due to other sources:  other = 130 ns (40 m) Error Models

5 Propagation Delay Error Models Northeast, Midwest, Great Plains South, Alaska West Coast Rocky Mountains Conductivity (S/m) Standard error (ns ) LUPS (red) and Wenzel and LORIPP (blue) models for error in time-averaged ASF (left) and error due to seasonal variation of ASF (right). The Wenzel model for ASF error is 0.15*ASF, plotted for four conductivity values.

6 Signal reasonability edit criteria  U.S. Coast Guard Academy DDC receiver -10 < ECD < 10  sec SNR > -15 dB  Locus SatMate receiver Use only signals not flagged by the receiver Use only signals used in at least one of the SatMate- native solutions Signal Edit Criteria

7 EASTERN CONUS 95% Error = 234 m Max Error = 337 m Ave # signals = 17.6 LUPS Navigation Results (using SatMate receiver data) WESTERN CONUS 95% Error = 630 m Max Error = 854 m Ave # signals = 9.3

8 EASTERN CONUS 95% Error = 667 m Max Error = 1332 m Ave # signals = 11.8 LUPS Navigation Results (  master = 100 ns -> wrong model!) WESTERN CONUS 95% Error = 667 m Max Error = 1654 m Ave # signals = 8.0

9 Ave. # signals used SatMate: 11 LUPS: 19 LUPS vs. SatMate-Native Navigation Errors Atlantic City to Sioux Falls

10 Ave. # signals used DDC: 7.2 LUPS: 7.3 LUPS vs. DDC-Native Navigation Errors Atlantic City to Sioux Falls

11 LUPS Navigation Results (Alaskan flights, SatMate data) ALASKAN FLIGHTS 95% Error = 881 m Ave # signals used = 7.1 (2.9 chains, 5.1 stations) Ave # signals available = 8.6 Seattle to Juneau Juneau to Anchorage Anchorage to Sitka Sitka to Sacramento

12 Possible causes of the weak performance in Alaska:  Use of constant conductivity in Alaska  Low estimate of ASF error in Alaska  Apparent miscalibration of emission delay for secondary(ies) at Narrow Cape (or Port Clarence ?)  Use of smooth-earth propagation model (Millington- Pressey) in rugged Alaskan terrain  Weak geometry in SE Alaskan panhandle (NE-SW direction)  Small number of signals received Causes of Difficulty in Alaska

13 Current observing geometry and LUPS design yield RNP-0.3 and RNP-0.5 level of performance in eastern and western CONUS, respectively Key performance parameters  Minimum of 10 signals in good geometry  Use of conductivity database, FDE techniques, optimal weighting of observations Fault-mode integrity will improve significantly with the planned change to control synchronization of master clocks by Time of Transmission Monitors (TTM) Alaskan navigation needs more investigation Summary

14 Backup Slides

15 Further LUPS development could include:  Implement and exercise error and integrity models developed by Loran Integrity Performance Panel (LORIPP)  Improve ASF and ASF-error models to support planned ASF calibrations by the FAA  Improve conductivity database in Alaska and Canada using the FCC R2 database  Develop visualization software for using LUPS diagnostic output and presentation of results. Recommendation

16 Chain Timing Biases (from TTM data) Chain timing biases based on USCG-NAVCEN Time-of-Transmission Monitor measurements. * Timing biases for Canadian chains are estimates from measured dual-rate TOA measurements.