Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
48th ICASC meeting minutesMonterey California
October 3rd - 5th, 2017
ICASC Members PresentJoseph Doubleday, Chairman [email protected] Rocca, Vice Chairman [email protected] [email protected] Goedicke [email protected] Madsen [email protected] Maracich [email protected] Powell [email protected] Spanner [email protected] Wede [email protected] Musmann [email protected] Bashkirov [email protected] Dibenedetto dibenede@ohio. eduDarko Rascanin darko.rascanin@smatsa. rsFlorence Jacolot florence. [email protected] Ferencz [email protected] Buffon [email protected] Sigurd Bjelkaroey [email protected]
Executive SecretariatRick Wild [email protected]
ICASC members absentChristo van Stratten [email protected] Egon Koopmann [email protected] Malescot [email protected] Ki Hyoun [email protected] Thirkettle [email protected]
GuestLisa Beaty (ION) [email protected] Enge, Stanford University
1. Opening remarks Joe Doubleday
2. Member Updates
Dave Powell
Stanford continues to support the FAA on SBAS/WAAS, GBAS, GPS backup planning, and the possible use of UAVs for FI. Most of the effort is aimed at long term evolution of navigation capabilities. However, it may be of interest to report that there are now approximately 3,795 satellite-based LPV public approaches in the U.S. At least 977 of the approaches have a 200 ft DH and 1020 are <250 ft DH. Ground-based GNSS approaches are being implemented more slowly. There are two operational CAT-I GBAS approaches at Newark and Houston and three installations in progress at SEA, JFK, and LGA. The supporting avionics are now available and is standard or optional on most new aircraft today. Boeing reported that 1900 a/c are now equipped with GBAS and 100 airlines are currently taking delivery of a/c so equipped. More detail on GNSS progress is reported by the FAA’s SatNav News available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/satnav/
We are continuing the work on the use of UAVs to quickly isolate sources of interference. We have been continuing to develop the capabilities of a UAV to quickly isolate sources of interference. One of the key improvements being developed now is upgrading the sensor used for bearing determination from a directional antenna to a 3 element phased-array antenna. This enables the system to make bearing measurements without requiring the rotation of the vehicle. Two key benefits will be a much higher rate of bearing measurements to the interference source (on the order of 30 seconds between measurements instead of the minutes between measurements in the current method) and the ability to make measurements while moving. This improvement will allow for potentially faster localization algorithms to be tested on the UAV and, more importantly, enabled the UAV to begin to use the source of the interference as a feature for self-localization when the UAV’s navigation sensors are being jammed.
Prof. Per Enge provided a verbal update on the performance of the FAA’s SBAS system (WAAS) and showed that the coverage has been excellent over the last few years, with an extremely small retraction of the LPV coverage during some high solar activity. He will present the same material as an invited paper at the 2018 IFIS.
For other SBAS efforts at Stanford, we continue to work on changes indicated for the dual frequency era (i.e., about 10 years out when L1/L5 is available via GPS and/or Galileo, Glonass, and Beidou) for acceptable performance worldwide. L1/L5 MOPS should be complete in 2021 with avionics available a year or two later. The FAA has replaced all of the reference receivers with ones that can track L1/L2 & L5. The L5 capability is expected to reach FOC in 2024 and SBAS then plans an L1/L5 service starting in 2026. We are also studying what level of complexity is required in this era. At this time, it appears that GEOs will be required at least until the year 2040. Once the L1/L5 era is operational, the rare outages of LPV coverage should be eliminated entirely.
Recently, the focus of worldwide GBAS development has been on completion and validation of standards for CAT II/III approaches and landings using single-frequency GPS L1 C/A code and an extension of the hardware and software developed for CAT I GBAS. The ICAO SARPs requirements that enable this are known as “GBAS Approach Service Type D”, or “GAST D,” and require both ground system and airborne upgrades. One difference for the ground system is that a larger separation of the ground receivers (200 meters or more) is required in order to detect anomalous ionospheric gradients. This additional separation has the advantage of further limiting the effects of local RF interference from jammers such as so-called “Personal Privacy Devices” to a single ground reference receiver, allowing the GBAS ground
station to continue operating without interruption using the remaining (three or more) unjammed receivers. These outages occurred at the Newark airport due to truckers who didn’t want their dispatchers to know their location. However, this potential has been eliminated by receiver placement changes at the airport according to the criteria mentioned above.
We continue our research on a future extension of GBAS to include multiple frequencies (e.g., GPS L5) and additional satellite constellations such as Galileo. The benefits of multi-frequency/multi-constellation GBAS include higher availability and greater robustness to availability and continuity threats such as RF interference and ionospheric anomalies.
For GPS backup, the plan for the next 5 years or so is to use two-way ranging using DME-DME. The current DMEs work fine for aircraft equipped with inertial navigation systems; however, the addition of new DMEs to fill gaps in coverage (“NextGen DME”) is also planned to allow continuous coverage from DME-DME so that non-INS equipped aircraft would have acceptable backup navigation. The FAA recognizes that the nation’s navigation system needs to be robust to GNSS outages (perhaps it would be more to the point to say: robust to local outages due to jammers). The FAA is studying GNSS spoof detection technologies for their capabilities and feasibility for implementation within current GNSS avionics architectures. Technologies include signal power and quality checks, comparison with accelerometer and measurement quality checks. For more detailed information on all the SatNav items, there is a periodic newsletter at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/satnav/
Mike Dibenedetto
Under the sponsorship of FAA Flight Inspection Services (FIS), the Ohio University Avionics Engineering Center (AEC) finished a study that reviewed GBAS flight inspection criteria, flight inspection system capabilities, and aircraft equipment requirements. The draft report has been submitted to the FAA for review and comment. This study:1. Examined how the current calibration process for airborne VDB signal strength measurements
could be improved;2. Suggested procedures for evaluating/defining service volume restrictions due to VDB coverage
issues within both the Approach Service Volume (ASV) and instrument approach procedure airspace (i.e., operationally significant airspace);
3. Assessed the feasibility/suitability of using R&S EVS-300 for supporting data collection and signal strength measurements;
4. Investigated the potential impact to flight inspection requirements due to decoupling Dmax with ASV;
5. Investigated inspection requirement/procedures of facilities with multiple VDB transmitters;6. Provided an initial look at requirements for GAST-D (Cat II/III) inspection requirements; and,7. Examined preliminary inspection requirements for extended approach procedures and 2D
navigation corridors where GBAS would be used as advisory information.
Under the sponsorship of FAA Navigation Programs, AEC led an effort which produced an approved Preliminary Hazard Assessment (PHA) for DME flight operations. The flight operations considered included both conventional and RNAV flight operations. RNAV operations both with and without the requirement for inertial aiding (i.e., with/with IRU) were addressed.
Under the sponsorship of FAA Certification and Training, AEC is providing technical support for the modernization of FAA training courses for Navigation, RADAR, and Instrument Landing System (ILS) concepts. AEC will provide the educational, technical and programmatic support needed to conduct a proof of concept analysis of the current FAA instructor-led training courses. This analysis will identify outdated content and required updates. Course design guides will be developed that recommend new course formats and delivery strategies, note where more engaging graphics and simulations could be used to enhance the learning experience, as well as outline new distance learning training modalities.
Ongoing activities within AEC include VGLS standard update/verification; support the development of an improved gravity models for supporting GPS/INS flight operations; UAS autonomous navigation and remote sensing research, and CubSat research as well.
Florence Jacolot
- In April, 8 LPV FI in SPM, french island close to Canada, covered by WAAS. 1st WAAS LPV FI. Cessna 406 aircraft modified for RNAV FI equipped with our portable RNAV FIS. One shot operations due to phased workouts on the runway that reduced the runway to less than 800m. ( I must tell that WAAS performances are even better than EGNOS ones although SP is on the very edge of WAAS coverage)
- participation to FLAG European group sponsored by GSA to promote helicopters IFR procedures implementation end to end. FV is one of the concerns. In this framework, participation together with Swiss and Italians to an European safety workshop led by ECTRL on HEMS IFR operations, for PINS to hospitals, linked by the so called Low Level Routes (below 3000ft MSL). Some safety issues regarding IFR and VFR mixity in class G airspace, weather requirements, and regulations gaps (RNP 0.3). We’ll have to perform FI and FV next year in a pioneer project in the Eastern part of France to join there 3 hospitals, and we are also in other projects dealing with hc to VFR airports in non controlled airspace. Each time different helicopters operators, but mainly Securité Civile (Civil Guard)
- France has finished its PBN plan for APV deployment on all IFR runway ends with LPV everywere and where needed BaroVNAV, now France is working on having RNAV1 departures on all major airports, that we are tasked to fly on the first 10NM for interferences verification and sometimes FV (like in Chambery, city close to the Alps, where OCV FV pilot wanted to check EGPWS alarms and coding issues). And first procedures have come to the 5 years period for revision, where obstacles are being reassessed against SBAS cat 1 criteria and against airspace changes)
- Very first tests with an UAV for VOR/ILS FI
- 2 ILS replacements in CDG, where we still work on day time during the week.
- Lebanon annual campaign
Joe Doubleday
Newly retired from Constant Aviation. Will continue to serve the ICASC.
3. Minutes from last meeting
Minutes from the 47th ICASC meeting were approved with no changes.
4. Financial report
No activity, hence no change from last ICASC meeting. The current ICASC fund balance is $674.78.
5. Discuss IFIS Logo Rebranding.
The email discussions after the meeting seemed to prefer less bold lettering and retaining the original red in lieu of magenta. Frank Musmann proposed the following;
6. Tour of upcoming IFIS facilities.
Lisa Beaty from ION and a few of the hotel staff lead the committee on a tour of the facilities. The showed the space available and how they would be configured to best accommodate the requirements of the upcoming IFIS.
7. Discuss papers for 20th IFIS.
The following email was a follow up to the discussion during the meeting;
As discussed during the ICASC meeting last week, a revised scoring method will be used for selecting abstracts/papers for IFIS 2018. Instead of the 0 or 1 method originally requested in the email below, please score all abstracts using either a 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, with 5 indicating highest preference/recommendation for the abstract. Please use the attached spreadsheet to score the abstracts and remember to revised the file name to include your name at the end.
The 2018 IFIS Abstract scoring results;
# IONAB# TOPIC TITLE COUNTRY Avg Score
1 5585 Safety (including Safety Management System and Crew Resource Management)
Night Operations: A Successful Example of Risk Management in Flight Inspection Italy 3.94
2 5586 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
The Summary of the Flight Inspection Data Management System Japan 3.35
3 5588 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
ADS-B and Functions for Flight Inspection Germany 3.24
4 5589 GBAS inspection, operational experience Flight Inspection of GAST-D Approach and Taxi Guidance Systems Germany 4.125 5594 Training and Certification Training Pilots in the Employment of FIAPA United States of America 3.356 5596 Legacy Navaids Study on Glide Slope’s Clearance Flight Check Criteria China 3.12
7 5597 Operation Discussion of Utilizing Big Data Analysis in Flight Inspection China 2.478 5591 Legacy Navaids Critical and Sensitive Areas of ILS and its 3rd Height Dimension - Examples, Effects and
ProposalsGermany 3.71
9 5598 Legacy Navaids The High Iron Ore Content Brick Enclosure’s Impact on a Commissioning DVOR’s 9960 Hz Modulation Depth
China 2.29
10 5601 Training and Certification How does the ISO/IEC 17025 System Improve the Flight Inspection Quality in China China 2.4111 5605 Training and Certification Simulator Training for Flight Inspection Germany 2.9412 5606 Flight Validation and ARINC Coding (including
database issues)Total System Error Error (TSE) Analysis of Helicopter Procedure in an Alpine Environment flying Advanced RNP Procedures
Switzerland 3.88
13 5612 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Drone Support for Flight Inspection France 3.88
14 5613 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Ground Check of GNSS Antennas on Aircraft Germany3.24
15 5614 Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems) Quality Assurance During Flight Inspection Germany 2.4116 5615 Flight Validation and ARINC Coding (including
database issues)Experiences in Performing Flight Inspection with Rotary Wing Aircraft Germany
3.47
17 5616 Training and Certification Software Quality Assurance in Development of Flight Inspection Systems Norway 3.18
18 5621 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Calibration of Navigational Aids with RPA Spain 3.4119 5624 Legacy Navaids Evolving to 4D Signal Strength Normalization United States of America 3.24
20 5625 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Unmanned Aerial System for RFI Localization and GPS Denied Navigation United States of America 3.8221 5626 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and
RFI)Best Practices in Flight Inspection Software Development United States of America
2.29
22 5630 Safety (including Safety Management System and Crew Resource Management)
Aeronautical studies as support to stakeholders decision making and planning referring to ICAO ANNEX 10, DOC 8071, Annex14-15 and usage of EM ADQ compliant site models for obstacle impact assessment potentially interfering navaids signal in space
Italy2.65
23 5584 Legacy Navaids Solution to Coverage Issues Created by Large Hangars France 3.1824 5590 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Using UAV Multicopters as an Extension of ILS Ground Measurements: This Innovative Idea has
Already Become Reality in Switzerland!Switzerland 4.00
25 5595 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems as an Instrument in Flight Inspection Germany 3.7626 5600 Legacy Navaids Research on The Measurement Method of The Space Field Strength of The Localizer Coverage
Signal and The Comparison of The Relevant International StandardsChina 2.65
27 5602 Legacy Navaids Influence Of Temperature on Flight Inspection of LOC Field Strength China 2.0628 5603 Training and Certification More Traps and Pitfalls Germany 2.8829 5604 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and
RFI)Degradation of AHRS Heading Accuracy during Typical FI Maneuvers Germany
3.35
30 5607 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Correlation between Ground and Flight Inspection of PAPI System in Mongolia Mongolia4.35
31 5609 Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems) Flight Inspection System Standardization Work in China China 2.3532 5610 UAV operations and flight inspection applications UAV-Based Flight Inspection System China 3.88
33 5599 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Solution to the Problem of Civil Aviation VHF Band Radio Frequency Interference by Using Flight Inspection Aircraft
China2.88
34 5611 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) Flight Inspection - Technology and Practices Germany3.06
35 5617 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Flight Inspection of Aviation Data Links Norway3.88
36 5618 Legacy Navaids Alternative PNT: What Comes After DME? Belgium 4.4737 5619 Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems) Update of ICAO DOC 8071 Volume 1 Belgium 4.71
38 5620 Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI)
Experiences with GNSS Interference in Flight Inspection Norway 3.94
39 5622 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Employing UAS to Perform Low Altitude Navaids Measurements Germany 4.2440 5623 Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems) Importance of Time Synchronization and Signal Filtering in Automated Flight Inspection systems Norway 3.35
41 5664 GBAS inspection, operational experience Challenges with GBAS VDB Flight Inspection United Kingdom 4.6042 5765 ????? Magic CMOS United States of America 0.0043 5802 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Implementation of RPAS in Flight Inspection activities at Brazilian Airspace Control System
(SISCEABBrazil 4.00
44 5803 UAV operations and flight inspection applications Application of RPAS in Flight Inspection for visual navaids. Brazil 0.0045 5804 Operation Remote maintainers for Flight Inspection mission Brazil 3.0746 5807 Operation The challenges of conducting flight inspection/Validation in remote and inhospitable locations New Zealand 4.0047 5877 Operation FLIGHT INSPECTION PROCEDURES: Different cases to considerer affected by deterioration Spain 3.21
8. Discuss 20th IFIS schedule
The program schedule was discussed and the following 2018 IFIS Program Schedule was published after the last ICASC and paper selection was complete. This is also available online.
IFIS 2018 Program Schedule/Matrix
Monday
7:30 - 9:30 Continental BF and registration, booths open # papers
9:30 – 10:30 IFIS Chair, ICASC Chair, ION rep, each 10 min. Aerodata 30 min
10:30 – 11:15 Break
11:15 – 12:15 NSM & Safran, each 20 min. ICAO rep, 30 min
12:25 – 13:55 Lunch
13:55 – 14:45 Keynote Speaker, "A Brief History of GPS, which led to Unforeseen Applications for Humanity, and Creeping Obligations to Providers," by Brad Parkinson, 50 min.
14:45 - 15:15 Invited Paper, "Two Difficult Problems in Modern Navigation,” by Per Enge, 30, min.
15:15 – 16:00 Break
16:00 – 17:00 SESSION: Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems)
Two 30 min papers
2
Tuesday
8:30 – 10:00 SESSION: Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B & RFI)
3 papers, 30 min each
3
10:00 – 10:45 Break
10:45 – 12:15 (Flight Inspection Technology continued)
3 papers, 30 min each
3
12:15 – 13:45 Lunch
13:45 – 15:15 (Flight Inspection Technology continued)
3 papers. 30 min each
3
15:15 – 16:00 Break
16:00 – 17:00 SESSION: GBAS Inspection, Operational Experience
Two 30 min papers
2
Total papers 2+11 = 13
Wednesday
8:30 – 10:00 SESSION: Operation
3 papers, 30 min each
3
10:00 – 10:45 Break
10:45 – 11:15 SESSION: Safety (including Safety Management System and Crew Resource Management)
1 paper, 30 min
1
11:15 – 12:15 SESSION: Flight Validation and ARINC Coding (including database issues)
2 papers, 30 min each
2
12:15 – 13:45 Lunch
13:45 – 15:15 Panel Discussion (Topic - Flight Validation) 0
15:15 – 16:00 Break
16:00 – 17:00 Panel Discussion Q&A Session 0
Total papers 13+6=10
Note: maybe better to delete pm break and schedule entire Panel and Q’s for two hours? Saves $3500 or so on the budget, so lunches or BFs are better.
Thursday
8:30 – 10:00 SESSION: UAV Operations and Flight Inspection Applications
3 papers, 30 min each
3
10:00 – 10:40 Break
10:40 – 12:10 (UAV Operations and Flight Inspection Applications continued)
3 papers, 30 min each
3
12:10 – 13:35 Lunch
13:35 – 14:35 (UAV Operations and Flight Inspection Applications continued)
2 papers. 30 min each
2
14:35-15:05 SESSION: Training and Certification
1 paper. 30 min
1
15:05 – 15:45 Break
15:45 – 17:15 (Training and Certification continued)
Three 30 min papers
3
Total papers 19+12= 31
Friday
8:30 – 10:00 SESSION: Legacy Navaids
3 papers, 30 min each
3
10:00 – 10:45 Break
10:45 – 11:45 (Legacy Navaids continued)
2 papers, 30 min each
2
11:45 – 12:00 Closing remarks, 15min.
Total papers 31+5=36
The technical (paper/presentation) sessions include:
• Legacy Navaids – Asbjorn, sileno• GBAS inspection, operational experience – Frank Musmann• Flight Validation and ARINC Coding (including database issues)• Flight Inspection Technology (including ADS-B and RFI) – Fabrizio, Mike Spanner,
sileno• Safety (including Safety Management System and Crew Resource Management)• Training and Certification - Asbjorn• Operation• Standards (Organizational, Operations, Systems)• UAV operations and flight inspection applications - Fabrizio
9. IFIS Promotion
Everyone is encouraged to reach out to their contacts not only for IFIS attendance, but especially potential sponsors. As of the 48th ICASC they were still short of sponsorship to cover IFIS costs.
The idea of adding an IFIS promotion to our email signature when corresponding could help bolster support for the IFIS Frnak Musmann proposed the following example shortly aafter the meeting;
International Flight Inspection Symposium IFIS 2018April 16-20, 2018 in Monterey, Californiawww.ion.org/ifis/index.cfm
__|__ * - - o - (_) - o - - *
10. IFIS and IFP conference integration
Fabrizio raised the possibility of combining these conferences. The following email information was sent out shortly after the meeting with more details
Dear members of the steering committee, before discussing the matter in a plenary session with all the ICASC members I feel more appropriate to define a strategy to integrate the IFIS and the IFP Conference, to be defined within the steering committee. I just got an email from Beat Zimmermann, ICAO IFPP chairman and initiator and organizer of the IFP Conference, stating serious interest in merging the two events every second year, as per IFIS schedule.
The benefits are obvious, but before going any further we need to define exactly what is our proposal, in terms of event management, papers and proceedings management, schedule of technical presentations (is it wise to separate the the IFIS from the IFP-C with a 3+2 formula? Couldn’t be better to integrate the sessions in order to capture the audience for the full duration of the event?), financial matters management, and so on. These are just few points for your consideration, there are many more.
If the Steering Committee agrees I can easily assume the task of “liaison officer”. Beat is a good friend of mine and his place is at such a distance that face to face coordination meetings can be easily organized.
First event of this type could be IFIS 2020.
Awaiting your comments.
I would like to use this opportunity to thank you all for the wonderful experience in Monterey. It is always a pleasure working with you.
Final note: by definition the steering committee is made up by the chairman, vice-chairman and each WG chairperson. Mike D. is the chair of the Tech. WG but he is not mentioned in the relevant web page. Maybe an update is needed.
Regards
Fabrizio
11. Reviewed action items from 47th ICASC.
Reviewed action items from last meeting and created new action items for next meeting. These are captured in the Action Items document.
12. Membership discussion
Reviewed the application of Liu Tong from China. After discussion about his past participation, technical knowledge and regional representation he was elected to the board unanimously.
13. Web page update
The web page needs quite a bit of updating. Several of the vendors are no longer doing business and many of the contact points have changed. Also the web site needs uniformity. Not every vendor has the same information and the data is formatted differently between vendors. The website has been updated to some extent, but will require input from several members
concerning clients and vendors they deal with regularly. This will be an ongoing collaboration between Asbjorn and Rick and need to set a format and collect corrected data at the next IFIS.
14. Technical Working Group (TWG) Summary
Technical Committee Meeting MinutesMike DiBenedetto
48th ICASC, October 3-6, 2017Monterey, California, USA
Technical Working Group (TWG) Summary
ICASC papers presented during the NSP Joint Working Group 2 (JWG/2) were discussed. This meeting occurred in Montreal during June 13-23, 2017. Two Working Paper (WP), two Information Papers (IP), and three flimsies were presented during the meeting.
WP 24, titled Proposed DME Field Strength Tolerance Value, was presented during the Conventional Navaids and Test Working Group (CNTWG). NSP/3 (Navigation Systems Panel Third Meeting) WP27 outlines changes needed to implement signal strength requirements in units of both dBW/m² and µV/m. A specific field strength value was needed for DME to complete the revision process. A value of 690 µV/m was proposed by WP24 and this value was adopted.
WP25, titled ICASC Proposal for DOC 8071 Chapter 4 Updates, was present during the CNTWG session. NSP/3 IP46 presented proposed changes to DOC 8071 related to ILS parameters. These changes were reviewed by the CNTWG. The resolutions to the proposed changes and the resulting changes were captured in NSP3 Flimsy 27. ICASC reviewed Flimsy 27 post NSP3 and we revised our proposal for updates to Chapter 4 with all changes now captured within this WP. The CNTWG review of this paper during JWG/2, see Flimsy 13 below.
Flimsy 13, titled Remaining DOC 8071 Chapter 4 Changes, was generated during NSP JWG/2. These changes proposed in WP25 were reviewed and revised during the CNTWG meeting and the resulting changes to be made to Chapter 4 are captured in this flimsy.
IP28, titled Editorial Updates for PAR chapter of DOC 8071, was presented during the CNTWG session. NSP/3 IP48 presents the ICASC review of DOC 8017, Chapter 7 on PAR. The results of this review were submitted as IP48 at NSP/3 since it had not been reviewed by the full ICASC team, but was not presented during NSP/3 due to time constraints. IP48 was reviewed during the April 2017 ICASC meeting and minor editorial changes were made. Both the changes in IP48 and the additional minor editorial changes identified during the April 2017 ICASC meeting were reviewed against the revisions shown in NSP/3 Flimsy 19, which provides suggested changes to the working draft of Doc 8071 Volume I. In IP28, the ICASC changes already incorporated into
Flimsy 19 are shown in Appendix A of IP28 with green highlight, while the additional editorial changes are shown with yellow highlight. The CNTWG review of this paper during JWG/2, see Flimsy 18 below.
Flimsy 18, titled Editorial Updates for PAR chapter of DOC 8071, was generated during NSP JWG/2. IP28 presents previously accepted and new ICASC proposed changes to DOC 8071, Chapter 7, PAR. The changes proposed in IP 28 were reviewed and revised during the CNTWG meeting. Appendix A to this flimsy captures the changes to be made to Chapter 7, which are shown with yellow highlight, while previously accepted changes already incorporated into JWG/2 Flimsy 12 are shown with green highlight.
WP29, titled Editorial Updates for Sample ILS Flight Inspection Report, was presented during the CNTWG session. NSP/3 WP28 provides an updated sample ILS flight inspection report. WP28 was reviewed during the April 2017 ICASC meeting and minor editorial changes were identified in the “General Remarks” and “Specific Remarks” sections. These changes are provided in this paper. The CNTWG review of this paper during JWG/2, see Flimsy 15 below.
Flimsy 15, titled Editorial Updates for Sample ILS Flight Inspection Report, was generated during NSP JWG/2. The changes proposed in WP29 were reviewed by the CNTWG and additional editorial revisions were identified during this review. This flimsy captures all the resulting changes to be made to the updated sample ILS flight inspection report.
Three residual items related to the update of Doc 8071 vI were discussed. The three items are:1. ICASC assessment regarding the practical achievability of the linear tolerances
(particularly 8 cm vertical) specified in Table I-4-10 (NSP 8071/040);2. Opinion from ICASC needed on trained vs. qualified, as in suitably trained vs suitably
qualified crew for phase in section 7.3.16 of Doc 8071 (NSP 8071/020); and3. Opinion from ICASC members if putting coverage/field strength requirements into
consistent dBW/m2 units could introduce a notion of increased formality that could be undesired.
The discussion that occurred for each item is summarized below.
Item 1 - Assessment of Proposed Linear Tolerances As background, Table I-4-10 of Doc 8071 provides minimum positioning subsystem accuracies to be achieved when performing ILS Cat I, II and III flight inspections. These accuracies are specified as angular tolerances and a distance tolerance. However, most current flight inspection organizations use differential GNSS as a truth reference system, thus the application of these angular tolerances is not straightforward. NSP/3 WP/29 suggests a set of linear values for differential GNSS-based truth reference system positioning accuracies. It was proposed that these linear values be added as a second row in Table I-4-10. Discussions ensued during NSP/3
regarding the suitability and achievability of the proposed linear values, particularly the most stringent value of 0.083 meters vertical for evaluation of the glide path signal structure in the vicinity of ILS Point T. It was suggested that additional feedback be obtained, thus ICASC was requested to verify the practical achievability of the specified linear tolerances. Both the existing and proposed revised Table I-4-10 are provided below.
Existing Table I-4-10
Revised Table I-4-10
The TWG members present reviewed NSP/3 WP/29. The discussion focused on the proposed update to Table I-4-10 of Doc 8017 and formulae used to obtain the proposed set of linear accuracy values. The most stringent accuracy value proposed is 0.083 meters. This value is for the vertical axis, which is the most challenging axis for GNSS position accuracy.
An error budget was developed based on the collective experience of the members present and is provided in the table below. This error budget was used to assess the practical achievability of the specified linear tolerances. The results of the assessment indicate that the 0.083 meter requirement can be achieved in practice provided one keeps error sources to minimum achievable values for all error budget components.
Component Error (mm)
Comment/Stipulation
GNSS Receiver 30 Two Sigma Value Vertical Accuracy per Trimble Spec; low multipath environment
Lever Arm Correction 51 Relative antenna separation X=2.5 m Z= 1.5 m; attitude reference error of 1 deg
Timing Inaccuracy 37 10 ms timing inaccuracy and 140 ktsGNSS to ILS Antenna Phase Center Distance
40 measurement and phase center uncertainty error
Reference Station Position 20 Includes survey, repositioning error, operator error @ 1 cm each, RSS
Total Error Allocation for Position Subsystem
82.9
It was agreed that an Information paper would be prepared that summarizes the ICASC review and provides a conclusion regarding the practicality of achieving the accuracy values (see Action Item 48-01 below).
Item 2 - Suitably Trained vs Suitably Qualified
As background, IP 48 presented at NSP/3 (Dec 2016) provided ICASC proposed revisions to Chapter 7, PAR. In section 7.3.16, it was suggested that the word “qualified” be replaced with the word “trained” as shown below. During NSP/3, the CNTWG membership questioned the change of the word ‘qualified’ to ‘trained’. As the author (and technical advisor) of the proposal was not present at the meeting when the IP was presented, the ICASC representative took an action to clarify the reason for this proposed change.
7.3.16 Aircraft. Although it is not necessary to utilize a special aircraft for the flight testing of PAR, it is highly desirable that the aircraft used be specially designated for this work and that it be piloted by a suitably qualified trained flight inspection pilot, who is familiar with PAR talk-down procedures (i.e., Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) procedure). The flight inspection aircraft may have automatic data recording systems that allow direct measurement of the aircraft position without the use of a theodolite placed on the ground. Such systems may be augmented by ground reference equipment that operate in an automatic mode (e.g. differential GPS ground stations)
The members present discussed the matter, including a review of the proposed change to section 7.3.16 above. A concern expressed was the inability to define, or point to a reference that defines, what qualified means in this case. No members were aware of any process that, or examiner who, could qualify a flight inspection pilot in this respect. It was also noted during the discussion that PAR is not a pilot interpreted aid and that the pilot only need to follow the controller’s instructions. Other sections of Doc 8071 were reviewed to examine the use of the words “trained” and “qualified.”
It was agreed to discussion this matter further with the Operations Working Group, and then to draft an Information Paper (see Action Item 48-02 below) to provide feedback to the CNTWG.
Item 3 – Give Undue Notion of Increased Formality by Use of Consistent Units.
As background, NSP/3 WP 27 noted cases in Doc 8071 where coverage requirements are specified in units of µV/m, other times in units of dBW/m², and sometimes no values are presented. To remedy these inconsistencies, WP27 outlined where changes would be required in Doc 8071 to implement the requirements in both units of µV/m and dBW/m². Subsequent to NSP/3, it was learned that a CNTWG member felt that putting everything into consistent of dBW/m2 units could introduce a notion of increased formality which may be undesired. Accordingly, the CNTWG rapporteur felt it would be useful to have an opinion from ICASC members as to if they think that such a change could lead to excessive oversight or such.
The matter was discussed during the TWG breakout session. The consensus of the members present is that the proposed changes are to promote consistency with Annex 10 and not to change the level of formality. Furthermore, it is the membership’s understanding that the proposal adopted was that the requirements be provided in both units of dBW/m2 and µV/m. The TWG Chair accepted an action to provide feedback to the CNTWG Rapporteur regarding the opinion of the ICASC membership (see Action Item 48-03 below).
ICAO Action Item ListOctober 5, 2017
Ref # ACTION ITEM UPDATE/
STATUS
Latest Update/Due By
OWNER(S)/
Volunteer
STATUS
8071/
019
Coordination with the International Committee for Airspace Standards and Calibration (ICASC)
Opened 29Mar2013-05-16 On-going
Planning/coordination for June 2017 NSP papers in progress.
April 6, 2017
ICASC/
Mike DB
Closed
8071/
022
Review Ch1 General Review completed, comments provide in NSP3 WP30.
NSP Comments to WP30 are captured in Flimsy 24
April 6, 2017
ICASC/
Asbjorn
Closed
8071/
028
Vol 1
Review Ch 7 PAR Review completed by Mike Spanner, proposed revisions provided in NSP3 IP48. IP 48 was reviewed/revised by TW, can now be submitted as WP, See ref# 47-01
April 6, 2017
ICASC/
Mike S
Closed
8071/
033
Vol 1
Obtain updated ILS Flight Inspection Report Example (potentially including new figures)
New example ILS report was submitted to NSP as NSP3 WP28. Report was reviewed/revised to correct grammatical errors, can now be submitted as WP, See ref# 47-02
April 6, 2017
ICASC/
Asbjorn
Closed
Prepare a list of proposed additional changes to Doc 8071 Vol I, partly done, to be distributed to Tech WG before Oct meeting
Review if change still required to following items:
1. Reference Source Accuracy: Completed, NSP3 WP29
2. Displacement Sensitivity: completed, NSP3 IP46
3. Course and Angle Completed. NSP3 IP46
4. Coverage and Field Strength: completed, NSP3 IP46
5. Minor changes (like μa to μA): Completed. NSP3 IP46
NSP3 WP27, Follow-on working paper to be generated, see Ref 47-03
April 6, 2017
ICASC/
Mike DB with help from Asbjorn
Closed
ICASC 47 - Action item 01
47-01
Review Ch 7 PAR Coordinate with CNTWG Chair regarding submission of WP containing ICASC proposed changes.
NSP JWG/2 IP28 provided proposed changes and Flimsy 18 captured CNTWG review and Chapter 7 revisions
Oct 5, 2017 Mike DB Closed
47-02 Example ILS Flight Inspection Report
Coordinate with CNTWG Chair regarding submission of WP containing ICASC proposed changes to address
October 5, 2017
Mike DB Closed
typographical errors identified during ICASC 47.
NSP JWG/2 IP29 provided proposed changes and Flimsy 15 captured CNTWG review and revisions to be made
47-03 Coverage and Field Strength NSP3 WP 27 was reviewed during, noted that “XX” remained in paragraph 3.1. Value for XX to be calculated.
Coordinate with CNTWG Chair regarding submission of WP containing ICASC proposed change/value.
NSP JWG/2 WP24 proposed value of 690 V/m, which was adopted.
October 5, 2017
Mike DB Closed
47-04 Additional ILS Parameters (i.e., Chapter 4 Updates)
NSP3 Flimsy 27 captured resolutions to proposed changes in NSP3 IP46, Flimsy reviewed post NSP3, revised proposed updates to be presented in WP.
Coordinate with CNTWG Chair regarding submission of WP containing revised proposed update.
NSP JWG/2 WP25 presented proposed updates, and Flimsy 13 captured CNTWG review and Chapter 4 revisions.
October 5, 2017
Mike DB Closed
48-01 ICASC requested to verify the practical achievability of proposed linear tolerances for differential GNSS-based truth reference system positioning accuracies (NSP 8071/040)
An Information Paper will be prepared and submitted that summarizes the ICASC review and provides a conclusion regarding the practicality of achieving the proposed linear accuracy values.
October 5, 2017
Mike DB
48-02 Opinion from ICASC on trained vs. qualified, as in suitably trained vs suitably qualified crew for phase in section 7.3.16 of Doc 8071 (NSP 8071/020)
An Information paper will be prepared and submitted that provides an ICASC proposed resolution to the use of the word “trained” vs “qualified”.
October 5, 2017
Mike Spanner
48-03 Opinion from ICASC members if putting coverage/field strength requirements into consistent dBW/m2 units could introduce a notion of increased formality that could be undesired.
The TWG Chair to provide feedback to the NSP CNTWG rapporteur regarding the opinion of the ICASC membership.
October 5, 2017
Mike DB
15. Next Meeting
The 49th ICASC meeting tentatively will be held April 13th -20th, 2018 in Monterey California.
16. New Action Items
See 48th ICASC Action Items document
Rick WildICASC Executive Secretariat
