1. EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain
The Data Collection Network:
EGNOS revealed
GNSS 2004 – Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Santiago Soley, PILDO Labs S.L.
Link to general SAM presentation. We’ve seen the general method, now let’s see why and how it can be applied to GBAS

2. EUROCONTROL: GNSS-1 Operational Validation The Data Collection Network
Summary
EUROCONTROL: GNSS-1 Operational Validation
The Data Collection Network
A Methodology to assess EGNOS performance
First Glance
Anomaly Investigation
Towards the Final Results
Conclusions and Future Work

3. EUROCONTROL 31 Member States
The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
32 Member States
31 Member States

4. GNSS-1 Operational Validation
EUROCONTROL will coordinate the GNSS-1 Operational Validation:
To support the Member States in achieving the approval for the provision of EGNOS services throughout ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference)
Two distinct areas of work:
Technical Validation of the performance
SARPS requirements – RNP values
MOPS DO229C compliant receiver
Definition of operational rules and procedures for aircraft to use the system for a particular application (APV implementation)

5. The Data Collection Network: Objectives
Collect ESTB/EGNOS Data and Evaluate them from different sites in Europe
Group of experts to support:
the development of the tools need in the future EGNOS Operational Validation - PEGASUS
definition of data collection and processing procedures
Baseline for the future static campaign in the GOV Plan – extended with the Air Navigation Service Providers participation

6. The Network IOR PRN131 Tromsö ESTB reference station (RIMS) Höfn
EURIDIS reference
station
ESTB processing
facilities (CPF, MCC)
NLES
Tromsö
Höfn
Hönefoss
GOV ANSP
IOR PRN131
Rotterdam
The Data Collection Network
Scilly
Toulouse
Lisboa
Barcelona
Fucino
Ankara
Palma
Kourou
Malaga
Matera
Canaries
Hartebeesthoek

7. The Methodology Actual performance Confidence System behaviour
Continuity
Accuracy
Availability
Integrity
Data sample filtering
(plausibility rules/flag)
Actual performance
SARPS Thresholds
event counting
visualisation
position domain
Processed
data
samples
parameters
Anomaly investigation System analysis
System
behaviour
file watch MT
ionosphere
ranges
clock
multipath
etc.
Extrapolation Simulation
Confidence
Integrity (range)
RNP availability
Continuity

8. Check against RNP parameters Proposed algorithms
A First Glance
A C C U R A C Y
A V A I L A B I L I T Y
C O N T I N U I T Y
I N T E G R I T Y
Check against RNP parameters
Proposed algorithms
single site/day
test fail or pass
EGNOS post-SIS1
EEC, April 23rd, 2004

9. Summary of results – Vertical Position Error 95%

10. Summary of results – APV-II Availability (AL 20m)

11. Anomaly Investigation
What to do if some anomalies appear that makes some of the test fail?
Just a first check on the obtained performance is not enough to declare the system not compliant with the requirements
detailed analysis on what caused a test fail
Different methods and techniques used by the Network

12. Example 1: Jump on the VPE
Jump on the position error periodically experienced
Delft, December 26th, 2002

13. Example 1: Jump on the VPE
Multipath
Mc combination
Delft, December 26th, 2002

14. Example 2: Integrity Failures
Integrity failures: HPE>HPL
Barcelona, February 6th, 2003

15. Example 2: Integrity Failures
MT02/03 anomalies
Psedorange correction oscillations broadcast in MT02 and MT03
UDREI<12
IODF<3
Barcelona, February 6th, 2003

16. Example 3: Integrity Failures
MT26 anomalies
60 MI in about 500 epochs
Ionospheric corrections for all visible satellites
PRN17 in red
Barcelona, September 12th, 2002

17. Example 4: Integrity Failures
UPC1: Vertical Component
8 consecutive MI
Prefit- residuals
Barcelona, May 22th, 2003

18. (IODF <3 & UDREI<15)
Example 4: Integrity Failures
satellite clock jump
Fast Corrections: UDREI
UDREI=14
PRN 29
NO Alarm Conditions
(IODF <3 & UDREI<15)
9 s
PRN 29
Sudden jump in C1 code
Pseudorange for PRN 29.
The ESTB declares the
sat. as NOT MONITORED
(UDREI=14) 9 sec. after.
Prefit- residuals
Barcelona, May 22th, 2003

19. Example 5: Integrity Failures
VPE/VPL
Large number of MI
19:17
20:40
Pref-Res
PRN11
PRN16
PRN02
Prefit- residuals
Barcelona, November 20th, 2003

20. Example 5: Integrity Failures
PRN16: C1-Rho (shifted)
PRN16: L1-L2 (shifted)
STEC (m L1)
PRN16: P2-P1 (shifted)
PRN16: STEC +/- UIRE (ESTB)
19:17
20:40
Barcelona, November 20th, 2003

21. Example 5: Integrity Failures Ionospheric storm
LOW
Medium
High
Very High
Extreme
October 29-31th
November 20-21th
18:00
20:00
Kp index
from
Oct. 17th
up to
Dec. 1st 2003
22:00

22. Towards the final results
To validate SARPS requirements in a reasonable period of time just the data collected from the network would not be enough
simulations or other methods – get up to the required level of confidence from the measurements
Impossible to do it for all locations under all conditions
extrapolation of the local results from the network sites
Global Assessment

23. The Global Monitoring System
GPS networks
LINUX
24h RINEX files
Automatic data gathering
BRUS
PEGASUS
24h GPS and GEO binary data
Automatic daily processing
INTERNET
Slog
Automatic data collecting
Receiver
Automatic results
presentation
WEB server

24. The Global Monitoring System
Cross-check with simulations
Network results extrapolation
Global Assessment
HPE 95% & Integrity Events
HPL 99% & satellites used

25. Conclusions
Summary of the activities from the Data Collection Network – Eurocontrol
gain knowledge on how the data need to be collected, processed and analysed – EGNOS Operational Validation
Methodology (3 axis)
Actual performance- First glance report
System Behaviour - Anomaly investigation
Confidence, Extrapolation – Global Monitoring System
Dynamic trials

26. Improving the network layout and the automation of procedures
Future Work
Improving the network layout and the automation of procedures
continuous data logging
automated results data sharing - ftp
Potential data exploitation and validation of the Global Monitoring System results
harmonization with the network sites ones
Data campaigns with the first EGNOS SIS
reuse of all the ESTB lessons learned
expected that the encountered anomalies rarely happen
EGNOS SIS-1 confirms that

27. Questions?