A Summary of the Data Analysis for Halifax GPS Precision Approach Trials Transport Canada Aviation/Cougar Helicopters Inc. University of New Brunswick

Similar documents
Surveying. Session GPS Surveying 1. GPS Surveying. Carrier-Phase (RTK) Pseudo-Range (DGPS) Slide 1

Observed Differential Carrier Phase Float Accuracies on three Kinematic Surveys using a u-blox Antaris GPS Receiver under Open Sky Conditions

UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE AERIAL TARGET GROUND CONTROL SURVEY REPORT JOB # DATE: MARCH 2011

Lewis County Public Works Department (County) GIS Mapping Division 350 N. Market Blvd. Chehalis, WA Phone: Fax:

Runway Centerline Deviation Estimation from Point Clouds using LiDAR imagery

Project Report Nooksack South Fork Lummi Indian Nation. Report Presented to:

MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA COASTAL MAPPING

Project Report Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Report Presented to:

Project Report Snohomish County Floodplains LiDAR Survey. Report Presented to:

Airborne Kinematic Positioning and Attitude Determination Without Base Stations

DIGITAL ROAD PROFILE USING KINEMATIC GPS

GPS SUPPORTED AERIAL TRIANGULATION USING UNTARGETED GROUND CONTROL

Terrain Integrity Monitoring Studies using Kalman Filter for SVS

Geometric Approach to Position Determination in Space: Advantages and Limitations

Project Report Lower Columbia River. Report Presented to:

LiDAR Remote Sensing Data Collection: Yaquina and Elk Creek Watershed, Leaf-On Acquisition

LiDAR data overview. Dr. Keiko Saito Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)

Geometric Accuracy Assessment of Unmanned Digital Cameras and LiDAR Payloads

Mapping Project Report Table of Contents

Everything you did not want to know about least squares and positional tolerance! (in one hour or less) Raymond J. Hintz, PLS, PhD University of Maine

Performance Evaluation of Optech's ALTM 3100: Study on Geo-Referencing Accuracy

William E. Dietrich Professor 313 McCone Phone Fax (fax)

THE SIMPLE POLYNOMAIL TECHNIQUE TO COMPUTE THE ORTHOMETRIC HEIGHT IN EGYPT

President of X DOT, Inc. NSMA 2014 Conference

Lecture ID: WT

20 Barrett Court Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 6Y1 navsoft.com

SimActive and PhaseOne Workflow case study. By François Riendeau and Dr. Yuri Raizman Revision 1.0

Up to 4 range measurements per pulse, including last 4 Intensity readings with 12-bit dynamic range for each measurement

LiDAR & Orthophoto Data Report

Title: Understanding Hyporheic Zone Extent and Exchange in a Coastal New Hampshire Stream Using Heat as A Tracer

Up to 4 range measurements per pulse, including last 4 Intensity readings with 12-bit dynamic range for each measurement

A COMPARISON OF THE KINEMATIC GPS AND AEROTRIANGULATION RESULTS COMPLETED FOR THE NEW BRUNSWICK COLOUR SOFTCOPY ORTHOPHOTOMAP DATA BASE PROJECT

Correcting INS Drift in Terrain Surface Measurements. Heather Chemistruck Ph.D. Student Mechanical Engineering Vehicle Terrain Performance Lab

A NEW STRATEGY FOR DSM GENERATION FROM HIGH RESOLUTION STEREO SATELLITE IMAGES BASED ON CONTROL NETWORK INTEREST POINT MATCHING

Zodiac Software v3.00

Waypoint Consulting Inc. RTKNav / RtStatic / RtDLL:

Video integration in a GNSS/INS hybridization architecture for approach and landing

Central Coast LIDAR Project, 2011 Delivery 1 QC Analysis LIDAR QC Report February 17 th, 2012

Evaluating the Performance of a Vehicle Pose Measurement System

PSLC King County LiDAR

Epic Made Easy The Redesigned 350 QX3

AIRBORNE LIDAR TASK ORDER REPORT SHELBY COUNTY TN 1M NPS LIDAR/FEATURE EXTRACT TASK ORDER UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

Towards Real-time Geometric Orbit Determination of Low Earth Orbiters

FLIGHTZOOMER RELAY SERVER REFERENCE

Patch Test & Stability Check Report

Quinnipiac Post Flight Aerial Acquisition Report

TITLE SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. TITLE SHEET 1 REVISIONS 2 DOCUMENT 3

Airborne LiDAR Data Acquisition for Forestry Applications. Mischa Hey WSI (Corvallis, OR)

GPS SOFTWARE & MISSION PLANNING

Horizontal Positional Accuracy (HPA) How is it calculated? Gord Gamble and Peter Goodier, Practice Advisory Department

Chapters 1 9: Overview

HAWAII KAUAI Survey Report. LIDAR System Description and Specifications

ERRORS. cannot be eliminated completely, nor accounted for satisfactorily. These systematic errors can have a

Simulation of GNSS/IMU Measurements. M. J. Smith, T. Moore, C. J. Hill, C. J. Noakes, C. Hide

PSLC King County LiDAR. July 18, Technical Data Report.

GI-Eye II GPS/Inertial System For Target Geo-Location and Image Geo-Referencing

Support. TerraSync. Advanced Data Collection Techniques MGIS. Summary. Advanced Data Collection Options

OLC Wasco County: Delivery One.

Orthophotography and LiDAR Terrain Data Collection Rogue River, Oregon Final Report

SGW1-MB-NM User s Manual

Using Simulation to Define and allocate probabilistic Requirements

Rogue River LIDAR Project, 2012 Delivery 1 QC Analysis LIDAR QC Report September 6 th, 2012

CONFIGURATION MANUAL. Helicom V2. Firmware and greater. Helicom V2 Configuration Manual 1 / 13 Last change

Presented at the FIG Working Week 2017, May 29 - June 2, 2017 in Helsinki, Finland

Prepared for: CALIFORNIA COAST COMMISSION c/o Dr. Stephen Schroeter 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA

LiDAR REMOTE SENSING DATA COLLECTION BISCUIT FIRE STUDY AREA, OREGON

Evaluation of CDA as A Standard Terminal Airspace Operation

Flytec Bluetooth Option

QUICK START GUIDE. SOLO Forest

Terrestrial GPS setup Fundamentals of Airborne LiDAR Systems, Collection and Calibration. JAMIE YOUNG Senior Manager LiDAR Solutions

Getting Started Processing DSN Data with ODTK

Zero Launch Angle. since θ=0, then v oy =0 and v ox = v o. The time required to reach the water. independent of v o!!

The Global Positioning Sytem II 10/13/ /13/2015 GEO327G/386G, UT Austin /13/2015 GEO327G/386G, UT Austin 5-4

Fig 1. Geometry of DGPS

UART GPS NEO-7M-C User Manual

Purpose : Understanding Projections, 12D, and the System 1200.

P h a s e O n e i X U - RS A c c u r a c y A n a l y s i s. T h e f o r e f r o n t o f a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y

W D-0049/004 EN

Sandy River, OR Bathymetric Lidar Project, 2012 Delivery QC Analysis Lidar QC Report March 26 th, 2013

Mobile Century data documentation

2017 OLC Siskiyou. September 27,

An Overview of Applanix.

Vutog GPS Simulator White Paper

CYCLONE TIMING MODULE - 2 User Guide

Kinematic Data Processing

Personal Navigation and Indoor Mapping: Performance Characterization of Kinect Sensor-based Trajectory Recovery

Generating highly accurate 3D data using a sensefly exom drone

2017 OLC Silver Creek

Vector Compact-S (NMEA 0183) Vector Compact-N (NMEA 2000) Quick Installation Guide

AN INTEGRATED SENSOR ORIENTATION SYSTEM FOR AIRBORNE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC APPLICATIONS

PSLC Walla Walla, Washington LiDAR

Trends in Digital Aerial Acquisition Systems

TRAVEL TIME SYSTEM TYPE C DEVICE TESTING - LEVEL A

Geometric Rectification of Remote Sensing Images

Large-Scale Flight Phase identification from ADS-B Data Using Machine Learning Methods

Base Configurations Carlson SurvCE

CHAPTER 2 SENSOR DATA SIMULATION: A KINEMATIC APPROACH

Improvements In Dynamic GPS Positions. Using Track Averaging. Department of Mathematics. Beny Neta. Code MA/Nd

Learning Objectives LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING. Sensing. Blacksburg, VA July 24 th 30 th, 2010 LiDAR: Mapping the world in 3-D Page 1

Autonomous Landing of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Transcription:

A Summary of the Data Analysis for Halifax GPS Precision Approach Trials Transport Canada Aviation/Cougar Helicopters Inc. University of New Brunswick Attila Komjathy and Richard B. Langley Geodetic Research Laboratory University of New Brunswick Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3 Canada email: w3y@unb.ca Presented at the Technical University of Budapest March 1996

Outline of the Presentation Introduction Step 1: Evaluating the Ashtech ground truth system. Step : Software development assessing the Trimble LDGPS solutions based on Ashtech PNAV solutions. Step 3: Development of statistics and analysis of results. Conclusions Recommendations

Objective: to provide evidence that Trimble local differential GPS (LDGPS) can be used for Special CAT I precision runway. Equipment: a Sikorsky S-76A helicopter equipped with Trimble TNL 31 DZUS GPS avionics receiver & Ashtech LM-XII GPS geodetic receiver; base station equipped with Trimble TNL-8G GPS landing system & Ashtech LM-XII GPS geodetic receiver. Data collected: Trimble real-time differential solution & simultaneous Ashtech raw data at base station and onboard for 73 at Halifax International Airport in Feb/March 199. Method used to meet objective: the independent Ashtech solution is used as ground truth with which we compared the Trimble LDGPS solution.

Transport Canada Aviation/Cougar Helicopters Inc. GPS Precision Approach Trials Sikorsky S-76A helicopter equipped with Trimble TNL 31 DZUS GPS avionics receiver & Ashtech LM-XII GPS geodetic receiver

Airfield of Halifax International Airport

Step 1. : We used three different solutions to validate the Ashtech solution: - C/A-code/carrier phase solution (PNAV), - Carrier-phase smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV), - Postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF). Figure 1: 1 Shows an example of the comparison between the three solutions along with the estimated position accuracy of the Ashtech solution. Figure : Shows an example of the comparison between the three solutions computed from the raw data without cycle slip editing & checking for data quality. Figure 3: 3 Gives an indication about how noisy the solution and data are, and how good PNAV thinks the solution is. Conclusion from step 1.: 1 Estimated position accuracy from Ashtech data is lower than expected. Why? Because pseudorange observations are biased by multipath; carrier-phase ambiguities are not resolved; and observation periods are too short.

6 - - -6 Estimated Latitude Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5: 3-GPS) :56. 3:3.5 3:51. :18.5 :6. 5:13.5 5:1. 6:8.5 6:36. 7:3.5 7:31. 7:58.5 8:6. 8:53.5 9:1. 9:8.5 1:16. Latitude differences (m) 1:3.5 11:11. 11:38.5 1:6. 1:33.5 13:1. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) Estimated position error computed by C/A-code/carrier phase solution ( sigma,pnav) Estimated Longitude Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5:3- GPS) Longitude differences (m) 6 - - -6 :56. 3:3. 3:5. :17. :. 5:11. 5:38. 6:5. 6:3. 6:59. 7:6. 7:53. 8:. 8:7. 9:1. 9:1. 1:8. 1:35. 11:. 11:9. 11:56. 1:3. 1:5. 13:17. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) Estimated position error computed by C/A-code/carrier phase solution ( sigma,pnav) Height differences (m) 6 - - -6 Estimated Height Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5:3-GPS) :56. 3:. 3:8. :1. :. 5:6. 5:3. 5:58. 6:. 6:5. 7:16. 7:. 8:8. 8:3. 9:. 9:6. 9:5. 1:18. 1:. 11:1. 11:36. 1:. 1:8. 1:5. 13:. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) Estimated position error computed by C/A-code/carrier phase solution ( sigma,pnav) Figure 1

Estimated Latitude Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5:3-GPS) Latitude differences (m) 6 - - -6 8 7 6 5 3 1 # of satellites tracked :56. 3:3.5 3:51. :18.5 :6. 5:13.5 5:1. 6:8.5 6:36. 7:3.5 7:31. 7:58.5 8:6. 8:53.5 9:1. 9:8.5 1:16. 1:3.5 11:11. 11:38.5 1:6. 1:33.5 13:1. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) # of satellites tracked at a particular epoch Estimated Longitude Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5:3- GPS) Longitude differences (m) 6 - - -6 8 7 6 5 3 1 # of satellites tracked :56. 3:3.5 3:51. :18.5 :6. 5:13.5 5:1. 6:8.5 6:36. 7:3.5 7:31. 7:58.5 8:6. 8:53.5 9:1. 9:8.5 1:16. 1:3.5 11:11. 11:38.5 1:6. 1:33.5 13:1. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) # of satellites tracked at a particular epoch Estimated Height Differences Referenced to C/A-Code/Carrier Phase Solution (5:3-GPS) Height differences (m) 6 - - -6 8 7 6 5 3 1 # of satellites tracked :56. 3:3. 3:5. :17. :. 5:11. 5:38. 6:5. 6:3. 6:59. 7:6. 7:53. 8:. 8:7. 9:1. 9:1. 1:8. 1:35. 11:. 11:9. 11:56. 1:3. 1:5. 13:17. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus smoothed C/A-code solution (PNAV) C/A-code/carrier phase (PNAV) minus postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (PPDIFF) # of satellites tracked at a particular epoch Figure

Solutions (A) & (B) in metres 5 3 1-1 - -3 - Comparison of Three Different Solutions of Estimated Heights Differenced over Time (5:3-GPS) 3 1-1 - -3 - -5 Solution (C) in metres :56. 3:. 3:5. :. :8. 5:16. 5:. 6:1. 6:. 7:8. 7:36. 8:. 8:3. 9:. 9:8. 9:56. 1:. 1:5. 11:. 11:8. 1:16. 1:. 13:1. Time in minutes and seconds C/A-code/carrier phase solution (A) (PNAV) Smoothed C/A-code solution (B) (PNAV) Postprocessed differential smoothed C/A-code solution (C) (PPDIFF) S/N in db S/N For SV#5, Elevation = 5 Degrees (Base & Airborne Receiver) 1 9 8 7 6 5 3 1 1 63 15 187 9 311 373 35 97 559 61 683 75 87 869 931 993 155 # of epochs S/N for SV#5 (airborne) Loss-of-lock indicator (airborne) S/N for SV#5 (base) Loss-of-lock indicator (base) Accuracy Assessment Provided By PNAV (5: 3-GPS).15.1.5 -.5 -.1 -.15 -. -.5 -.3 :56. 3:.5 3:53. :1.5 :5. 5:18.5 5:7. 6:15.5 6:. 7:1.5 7:1. 8:9.5 8:38. 9:6.5 9:35. 1:3.5 1:3. 11:.5 11:9. 11:57.5 1:6. 1:5.5 13:3. r.m.s. of the carrier phase residuals (m) 1.9.8.7.6.5..3..1 Chi** test Time in minutes and seconds Figure 3

Step.: - We used the Ashtech solution as a benchmark against the Trimble DGPS solution. - Software development that performs the analysis: - use aircraft velocity to interpolate aircraft position between epochs, - use of geoidal model that accounts for geoidal undulation, - use aircraft velocities to compute cross-track error and vertical error. Figures & 5 : Show examples of the comparisons between the two sensors. Conclusions from step.: - All 73 were able to be processed. - Trimble solutions show distinct jumps both in cross-track and vertical sense which could be due to: - sudden change in the # of satellites tracked, - delay in airborne receiver solution updates.

Runway Threshold Approach 1:1-GPS6 Ashtech position error, crosstrack and vertical error (m) 15 1 5-5 -1-15 Comparison Between Ashtech and Trimble DGPS Solutions (1:1-GPS6) Time (UT) in minutes and seconds 36:38 36:59 37: 37: 38:3 38: 38:6 39:8 39:9 39:5 :1 :33 :55 1:16 1:38 1:59 :1 : 3: 3:5 3:7 :8 :3 :5 5:13 5:35 5:57 6:18 6: 7:1 7:3 7:5 8:6 8:7 8:8 7. 7. 6.7 6. 5.7 5.3.7.5.7 5. 5.8 6.5 7.1 7. 7.3 7. 6.5 5.9 5.3.8.3 3.8 3. 3..5.1 1.7 1.3 1..6.3.1..7 1.1 35 3 5 15 1 5 Aircraft altitude (feet) Distance from runway threshold (nautical miles) Ashtech position error ( sigma) Cross-track error Vertical error Aircraft altitude Comparison Between Ashtech and Trimble DGPS Solutions (1:1-GPS6) Time (UT) in minutes and seconds Ashtech position error, crosstrack and vertical error (m) 5 35 3 5 15 1 5-5 36:38 36:59 37: 37: 38:3 38: 38:6 39:8 39:9 39:5 :1 :33 :55 1:16 1:38 1:59 :1 : 3: 3:5 3:7 :8 :3 :5 5:13 5:35 5:57 6:18 6: 7:1 7:3 7:5 8:6 8:7 8:8 7. 7. 6.7 6. 5.7 5.3.7.5.7 5. 5.8 6.5 7.1 7. 7.3 7. 6.5 5.9 5.3.8.3 3.8 3. 3..5.1 1.7 1.3 1..6.3.1..7 1.1 35 3 5 15 1 5 Aircraft altitude (feet) Distance from runway threshold (nautical miles) Ashtech position error ( sigma) Cross-track error Vertical error Aircraft altitude Aircraft Horizontal Trajectory (1:1-GPS6) Geodetic latitude in degrees.87.86.85.8.83.8.81.8.79.78.77 96.6 96.8 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.56 96.58 96.6 96.6 96.6 Geodetic longitude in degrees Figure

Runway Threshold Approach 6:-GPS15 Comparison Between Ashtech and Trimble DGPS Solutions (6:-GPS15) Time (UT) in minutes and seconds 15 37:5 38:16 38:37 38:58 39:19 1 5-5 -1-15 8.6 39:1 8. : 8. : 16 7.6 7.1 :5 6. 5.9 5..9.5.1 3.7 3..7.3 1.8 1. 1..6... 1:7 1:9 1:5 :1 :33 :55 3:17 3:38 : : :3 5:5 5:6 Ashtech position error, crosstrack and vertical error (m) 1 1 1 8 6 Aircraft altitude (feet) Distance from runway threshold (nautical miles) Ashtech position error ( sigma) Cross-track error Vertical error Aircraft altitude Comparison Between Ashtech and Trimble DGPS Solutions (6:-GPS15) Time (UT) in minutes and seconds 15 37:5 38:16 38:37 38:58 39:19 39:1 : : :5 1:7 1:9 1:5 :1 :33 16 1 5-5 -1 8.6 8. 8. 7.6 7.1 6. 5.9 5..9.5.1 3.7 3..7.3 1.8 1. 1..6.. :55. 3:17 3:38 : : :3 5:5 5:6 Ashtech position error, crosstrack and vertical error (m) 1 1 1 8 6 Aircraft altitude (feet) Distance from runway threshold (nautical miles) Ashtech position error ( sigma) Cross-track error Vertical error Aircraft altitude Aircraft Horizontal Trajectory (6:-GPS15) 5. 5 Geodetic latitude in degrees.98.96.9.9.9.88 96.3 96.3 96.36 96.38 96. 96. 96. 96.6 96.8 96.5 Geodetic longitude in degrees Figure 5

Step 3.: - A.) Analysis of the whole data set. - We computed the s & standard deviations of cross-track & vertical errors for all data (Fig.( 6&7). - B.) Setting up categories to develop further statistics. - We also investigated several categories of : - 3 & 6 degree glidepath, - & 1 ft decision height, - missed (landing, left-right, straight), - 5&7 knot. - We looked at the data before & after the Trimble airborne receiver firmware modifications. - We treated: 1.. all the data collected,.. all data except 3 which needed to be eliminated due to bad quality of Ashtech ground truth solution. Figure 8: 8: as an example shows cross-track error statistics for 3 & 6 degree glidepath. Figure 9: 9: shows vertical error statistics for 3 & 6 degree glidepath.

Mean of the Cross-track Errors for All 73 Approaches 18 16 1 1 Frequency 1 8 6 [, 3) [ 3,.5) [.5, ) [, 1.5) [ 1.5, 1) [ 1,.5) [.5,) [,.5) [.5,1) [1,1.5) [1.5,) [,.5) [.5,3) [3, ] Mean of the cross-track errors in metres Standard Deviation of the Cross-track Errors for All 73 Approaches 5 Frequency 15 1 5 [,.5) [.5,1) [1,1.5) [1.5,) [,.5) [.5,3) [3,3.5) [3.5,) [,.5) [.5,5) [5,5.5) [5.5,6) [6,6.5) [6.5, ] Standard deviation of the cross-track errors in metres Figure 6

Mean of the Vertical Errors for All 73 Approaches 1 1 8 Frequency 6 [,.5) [.5, ) [, 3.5) [ 3.5, 3) [ 3,.5) [.5, ) [, 1.5) [ 1.5, 1) [ 1,.5) [.5,) [,.5) [.5,1) [1,1.5) [1.5,) [,.5) Mean of the vertical errors in metres [.5,3) [3,3.5) [3.5,) [,.5) [.5, ] Standard Deviation of the Vertical Errors for All 73 Approaches 16 1 1 Frequency 1 8 6 [,.5) [.5,1) [1,1.5) [1.5,) [,.5) [.5,3) [3,3.5) [3.5,) [,.5) [.5,5) [5,5.5) [5.5,6) [6,6.5) [6.5,7) [7,7.5) [7.5,8) [8,8.5) [8.5,9) [9,9.5) [9.5, ] Standard deviation of the vertical errors in metres Figure 7

5 5 35 3 5 15 1 5 Vertical Errors for 3&6 Degree Glidepath Approaches Prior to the Software Modifications ( Approaches Eliminated) Maximum variations in metres Max (TH33) Max SD (TH33) Max Mean + SD (TH33) Max (TH) Max SD (TH) Max Mean + SD (TH) Max (TH6) Max SD (TH6) Max Mean + SD (TH6) Max (TH15) Max SD (TH15) Max Mean + SD (TH15) 3 degree glidepath 6 degree glidepath Figure 8

5 5 35 3 5 15 1 5 Cross-track Errors for 3&6 Degree Glidepath Approaches Prior to Software Modifications ( Approaches Eliminated) Maximum variations in metres Max (TH33) Max SD (TH33) Max Mean + SD (TH33) Max (TH) Max SD (TH) Max Mean + SD (TH) Max (TH6) Max SD (TH6) Max Mean + SD (TH6) Max (TH15) Max SD (TH15) Max Mean + SD (TH15) 3 degree glidepath 6 deg glidepath Figure 9

- C.) Investigating categories in.1 nm increments from the threshold: - 3 & 6 degree glidepath, - & 1 ft decision height, - 5&7 knot. Figure 1: : example of horizontal error bars for 3 degree glidepath prior to firmware modifications. Figure 11: : example of vertical error bars for 3 degree glidepath prior to firmware modifications. Analysis of results - A.) Investigating all data without categorizing them Mean of the cross-track errors Standard deviation of the cross-track errors Mean of the vertical errors Standard deviation of the vertical errors 17 (3%) fall into the bin size ranging from. to.5 metres (58%) fall into the bin size ranging from -.5 to 1. metres (3%) fall into the bin size ranging from.5 to 1. metres 35 (8%) fall into the bin size ranging from.5 to 1.5 metres 11 (15%) fall into the bin size ranging from 1. to 1.5 metres 9 (%) fall into the bin size ranging from. to 1.5 metres 15 (1%) fall into the bin size ranging from 1. to 1.5 metres 35 (8%) fall into the bin size ranging from 1. to.5 metres

15 1 5 Error in metres -5-1 -15 - Cross-track Errors ( Sigma) for 3 Degree Glidepath Approaches Prior to Receiver Software Modifications (TH6). 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3. 3.3 3. 3.1 3..9.8.7.6.5..3..1. 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1. 1.3 1. 1.1 1..9.8.7.6.5..3..1. Distance from runway threshold in.1 NM increments Figure 1

5 3 Error in metres 1-1 - -3 - -5 Vertical Errors ( sigma) for 3 Degree Glidepath Approaches Prior to Receiver Software Modifications (TH6). 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3. 3.3 3. 3.1 3..9.8.7.6.5..3..1. 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1. 1.3 1. 1.1 1..9.8.7.6.5..3..1. Distance from runway threshold in.1 NM increments Figure 11

- B.) Investigating the categories and looking at maximum variation, maximum standard deviation variation and maximum + sigma variation (all data, all data minus ). Figure 1: shows the three statistics of horizontal errors for the four thresholds, 6 categories, prior to and after the firmware modifications. Figure 13: shows the three statistics of vertical errors for the four thresholds, 6 categories, prior to and after the receiver firmware modifications. - C.) Investigating the categories in.1 nm increments from the threshold (all data minus ). Figure 1: shows the horizontal error statistics to compare the individual categories, thresholds, prior to and after receiver firmware modification. Figure 15: shows the vertical error statistics to compare the individual categories, thresholds, prior to and after receiver firmware modification.

Thresholds/ Type of approach CROSS-TRACK ERRORS (ALL DATA USED) UNITS IN METRES [MIN,MAX] Approaches prior to the receiver software modifications TH33 TH TH6 TH15 Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max 3 deg glidepath [-.3,3.65] [.7,.] [1.6,1.9] [-.69,.63] [.53,15.8] [1.7,3.85] [-.17,.3] [.6,1.3] [1.75,.99] [.6,1.83] [.1,.6] [5.,6.75] 6 deg glidepath [-.,.86] [.97,3.33] [.1,8.5] [-.86,.9] [.7,3.97] [1.7,1.3] DH [-.3,3.65] [.7,.] [1.6,1.9] [-.69,.63] [.53,15.8] [1.7,3.85] [-.17,.9] [.6,1.3] [.,.99] [.6,1.83] [.1,.6] [5.,6.75] DH 1 [1.3,.86] [1.9,3.33] [5.6,8.5] Missed approach: landing [-.,.86] [1.67,3.3] [3.77,8.5] [.37] [1.36] [3.9] [-1.,1.6] [.6,.88] [.,3.88] Missed approach: left-right [.18,.76] [.83,.8] [.,5.31] [-.35,-.5] [1.6,5.31] [3.5,1.97] [-1.] [1.1] [.] Missed approach: straight-18 deg 5 knots [-.,.53] [.83,3.33] [.,8.5] [-1.36,.9] [.7,3.55] [.8,9.59] 6 knots [-.17,-.86] [.8,.88] [.6,3.18] 7 knots [1.3] [.8] [5.8] [.6,.3] [1.6,1.3] [3.5,.99] 8 knots [.86] [.51] [7.88] [-1.] [.6] [.] 9 knots [-.88] [.55] [1.98] 1 knots [1.73] [1.8] [.69] Approaches after the receiver software modifications Thresholds/ TH33 TH TH6 TH15 Type of approach [1.57,1.73] [1.8,.7] [.69,5.71] [-.3] [1.] [.7] [-.17,.9] [.7,1.3] [1.7,.99] [.6] [.1] [5.] Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max 3 deg glidepath [.15,1.9] [.66,.] [1.7,6.7] [-.15,1.3] [.3,6.3] [.61,13.9] [-.39,1.6] [.76,15.81] [3.7,35.61] [-.3,.91] [1.9,7.56] [.61,18.3] 6 deg glidepath [-.59,.66] [.58,.86] [1.1,.38] [-.19,5.] [.8,5.95] [.,17.3] DH [-.15,.66] [.66,.86] [1.7,.38] [-.19,5.] [.91,5.95] [.95,17.3] DH 1 [-.59,1.9] [.58,.] [1.1,.9] [-3.99,.95] [.76,15.81] [.36,35.61] Missed approach: landing [-.5,.66] [.58,.86] [1.75,.38] [.19] [5.16] [1.51] [-3.99,.78] [.76,15.81] [.39,35.61] Missed approach: left-right [.] [.98] [.36] [-.19,-.3] [1.9,.5] [.61,.9] Missed approach: straight&18 deg [-.59,1.9] [.66,.] [1.91,.9] [-.15,-.3] [.3,6.3] [.61,13.9] [.17,1.6] [.8,1.78] [.,.] 5 knots [-.15] [.66] [1.7] [.17,1.9] [.8,.3] [.,.83] 6 knots [-.59,-.5] [.58,.8] [1.1,.19] [.77,.78] [1.9,1.88] [.95,.5] 7 knots [.6,1.9 [.77,.] [3.,.9] [-.15,.19] [.3,5.16] [.61,1.51] [[.7,5.] [.91,5.95] [.95,17.3] [-.19,.91] [1.9,7.56] [.61,18.3] 8 knots [1.3] [6.3] [13.9] [-3.99,.75] [1.9,15.81] [3.5,35.61] 9 knots [-1.55] [.76] [3.7] DH 5 [.19,1.3] [5.16,6.3] [1.51,13.9] [-.19,.91] [1.9,7.56] [.61,18.3] DH 15 [1.9] [.9] [3.9] 65 knots [.66] [.86] [.38] Figure 1.Statistics for cross-track errors of all categories (all data used)

Thresholds/ Type of approach VERTICAL ERRORS (ALL DATA USED) UNITS IN METRES [MIN, MAX] Approaches prior to the receiver software modifications TH33 TH TH6 TH15 Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max 3 deg glidepath [-6.6,.87] [1.,18.8] [.55,38.7] [-.39,9.86] [1.11,16.67] [.61,3.] [-.93,3.1] [.83,18.9] [.7,38.] [.98,.8] [.7,.83] [6.38,8.8] 6 deg glidepath [-.7,5.1] [1.56,13.8] [.3,3.] [.56,7.73] [1.71,16.3] [.1,39.79] DH [-6.6,.87] [1.,18.8] [.55,38.7] [-.9,9.86] [1.11,16.67] [.61,3.] [-.93,7.73] [.83,18.9] [.7,38.] [.98,.8] [.7,.83] [6.38,8.8] DH 1 [-.7,5.1] [.1,13.8] [8.6,3.] Missed approach: landing [-.7,5.1] [1.8,18.7] [.93,37.9] [.9] [6.8] [13.9] [.56,.61] [.83,1.78] [.1,.7] Missed approach: left-right [-6.6,-1.] [1.31,8.88] [.39,.] [1.1,3.6] [1.59,3.3] [6.,7.6] [1.5] [.5] [6.13] Missed approach: straight-18 deg 5 knots [-.7,.18] [1.38,18.7] [.39,37.9] [.33,7.73] [1.78,16.3] [.1,39.79] 6 knots [.67,3.7] [1.71,.3] [6.9,7.13] 7 knots [.87] [8.8] [17.3] [.,.9] [3.3,18.9] [9.98,38.] 8 knots [5.1] [1.1] [5.3] [.61] [.83] [.7] 9 knots [.1] [1.3] [.98] 1 knots [-.3] [3.5] [11.3] Approaches after the receiver software modifications Thresholds/ TH33 TH TH6 TH15 Type of approach [-.3,.18] [3.5,.1] [8.6,11.3] [1.3] [1.31] [3.85] [.33,.9] [.6,18.9] [.5,38.] [.8] [.83] [8.8] Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max Max Max s.d. Max 3 deg glidepath [.17,.37] [1.1,.8] [.55,5.33] [-.,1.3] [1.77,7.1] [.76,8.6] [-.56,3.83] [.9,11.11] [.7,6.78] [.75,16.13] [1.1,9.6] [.95,75.37] 6 deg glidepath [-1.,1.9] [1.16,.1] [3.7,5.6] [-.3,.79] [1.15,3.5] [3.8,89.79] DH [-1.,.17] [1.5,.1] [3.7,.37] [-.56,.75] [1.6,11.11] [.6,6.78] DH 1 [-.5,1.9] [1.1,.8] [.55,5.33] [-1.91,3.83] [.9,3.5] [.7,89.79] Missed approach: landing [-1.,1.9] [1.16,.1] [.,5.6] [1.3] [7.1] [15.67] [-.5,3.83] [.9,3.5] [.7,89.79] Missed approach: left-right [1.7] [.9] [5.5] [.9,.75] [1.1,3.9] [.95,6.87] Missed approach: straight&18 deg [-.5,.7] [1.1,.8] [.55,5.33] [-.,1.] [1.77,.] [.76,8.6] [-.3,1.7] [1.38,6.61] [.6,13.6] 5 knots [.17] [1.5] [3.7] [-1.9,1.7] [1.15,3.8] [.,8.33] 6 knots [-.5,1.9] [1.16,1.1] [3.7,.] [-.56,.] [6.61,11.11] [13.6,6.78] 7 knots [.7,.37] [1.1,.8] [.55,5.33] [1.,1.3] [1.77,7.1] [.76,15.67] [-.3,.79] [1.9,3.5] [.9,89.79] [.9,16.13] [1.1,9.6] [.95,75.37] 8 knots [-.] [.] [8.6] [-.3,3.83] [1.6,1.55] [.6,6.93] 9 knots [.88] [.9] [.7] DH 5 [-.,1.3] [.,7.1] [8.6,15.67] [.9,16.13] [1.1,9.6] [.95,75.37] DH 15 [-.7] [1.38] [3.8] 65 knots [-1.] [.1] [5.6] Figure 13. Statistics for vertical errors of all categories (all data used)

Thresholds/ Type of approach CROSS-TRACK ERROR STATISTICS IN METRES Approaches prior to the receiver software modifications TH33 TH TH6 TH15 All Thresholds 3 deg glidepath 1.38.17 1. 1 -.19 3.3 1.88 1.69 6.59 13.86 8.5 3.68 7.1.61.7 1. 3 6 deg glidepath.6 3.38 15.67 7.9.68 18.76 6 1.9.3 18.76 13 DH 1.7.5 15.19 11 -.1 3.6 1.3 9.6 6.9 1.86 15.5 3.68 7.1.57.5 15.19 37 DH 1.3 3.9 16.5 6.3 3.9 16.5 6 5 knots 1.5.66 15.87 8 1.57.3 18.76 1.51 3.8 18.76 1 7 knots 1.8 1 1.89 5.38 18.7 3 1.8 5.38 18.7 Approaches after the receiver software modifications Thresholds/ Type of approach TH33 TH TH6 TH15 All Thresholds 3 deg glidepath.38.5 15. 3-1.5 6.86.5 3.66. 11.8 6 -.5 1.81 6.6 3 -.11 3.79.5 15 6 deg glidepath.1 1.76 5.35 3.65. 3.57 11. 1.9 5.35 1 DH. 1.75.8 1. 3. 8.83 8.61.38 8.83 1 DH 1..3 1.3.17.5 3.35 8.. 1.3 1 5 knots -.37 1.5.1 3.76 6.8.1 3.76 7 7 knots 1.36.8.7 1.5 3.8 1.3 6 -.5 1.81 6.6 3.79.56 1.3 11 Figure 1. Statistics for cross-track errors of 6 categories using readings sampled at.1 NM increments

Thresholds/ Type of approach VERTICAL ERROR STATISTICS IN METRES Approaches prior to the receiver software modifications TH33 TH TH6 TH15 All Thresholds 3 deg glidepath -.65 13.58 7.16 1 1.11 5. 7.68 1 3.8 13.7 96.67 8.8 3.91 1.11 1.6 8.95 96.67 3 6 deg glidepath.77 1.73 66.5 7.87 1.1 36.66 6 1.8 11.57 66.5 13 DH -.6 13.79 7.8 11 1.16 5.5 3.91 9.3 11.83 66.86 15.8 3.91 1.11 1.8 8.75 7.8 37 DH 1.8 13.97 73.9 6.8 13.97 73.9 6 5 knots -1.13 8.3 87. 8.. 16.7 -.37 6.13 87. 1 7 knots.5 1 7.98 16.79 113.6 3 5.1 16.79 113.6 Approaches after the receiver software modifications Thresholds/ Type of approach TH33 TH TH6 TH15 All Thresholds 3 deg glidepath.39 3.3 15.91 3.73 8.51 33.37 3 -.56 8.16 9.6 6..36 8.18 3.1 5.59 9.6 15 6 deg glidepath -.67 3.95 1.19 3. 5.85 17.7 11 -.3.9 17.7 1 DH -.66.37 9.6 -.86 9.83 1.78 8 -.76 7.1 1.78 1 DH 1.8 3.1 1.1.6 3.88 6.66 8.5 3.5 1.1 1 5 knots.63 1.97 3.8 9.3 6.8 3.8 9.3 7 7 knots.1 1.88 5.56 -.39 5.9 1.99 6..36 8.18 3 -.6 3. 1.99 11 Figure 15. Statistics for vertical errors of 6 categories using readings sampled at.1 NM increments

Conclusions - Four eliminated (1 for lost VHF link, 3 for inadequate quality of Ashtech ground truth data). - Worse case scenario: in the case of horizontal errors the maximum +sigma = 18. metres due to jumps in the Trimble positions. Fig.1 - Worse case scenario: in the case of vertical errors the maximum + sigma = 89.8 metres due to jumps in the Trimble positions. Fig 13 - There is a marginal improvement in the Trimble positions after the receiver firmware modifications took place (Fig 1 & 15). - In the case of horizontal errors (Fig 1): - 6 degree glidepath app. proved to have performed better than the 3deg, - ft decision height app. proved to have performed better than the 1 ft, - 5 knot app. proved to have performed better than the 7 knot. - In the case of vertical errors (Fig 15): - comparing 3 and 6 degree app. is inconclusive, - 1 ft decision height app. proved to have performed better than the 1 ft, - 5 knot app. proved to have performed better than the 7.

- The number of vary from category to category. Also, investigation C.) only takes sample every.1 nm so it does not contain all data pertaining to a particular approach. Therefore, jumps in positions provided by Trimble are only reflected in investigation A.) and B.) not in C.). - The accuracy requirements for CAT 1 precision are: - in horizontal sense 17. m at sigma level, - in vertical sense 7. m at sigma level. - The LDGPS system provided this accuracy for 68 (93%) in horizontal sense but failed to fulfill the vertical requirements for 3 (7%). Why? - jumps in Trimble solution, - required vertical accuracy is inherently higher than the horizontal. Recommendations: - More accurate ground truth system is required such as by using Ashtech Z-1s. - More repeated of the same kind and careful design of are needed.