METIS REPORT & SUPPORT MATERIAL RESULT FOR DEMONSTRATION WAD 1 D20-WAD1. Prepared by: Version: Company reference (if any) Date: 11/12/2009 Signature:

Transcription

1 D20-WAD1 Reference: _4200_20_WAD1 Number of pages: 85 File: _4200_D-20_1_ Classification: Public Customer: GSA Contract: GJU/06/5025-CTR/ Prepared by: ENAV, DHMI, Pildo, TPZ, TechnoSky Company reference (if any) Date: 11/12/2009 Signature:

2 _4200_20_WAD1 2 of 85 Summary Sheet Contract Number: Project Title: Deliverable Type: Deliverable Number: Title of Deliverable: GJU/06/5025-CTR/ Report D20-WAD1 Report & Support Material Result for Demonstration WAD 1 WP related to the Deliverable: WP 4200 Emitting Company: Partner(s) Contributing: Abstract: Keywords: ENAV ENAV, DHMI, Pildo, TPZ, TechnoSky This document is the Report & Support materials results for Wide Area Demonstration 1. It reports: the description of the activities performed in the preparation phase and during the flight trial campaign, and the results of the data postprocessing including the feedbacks gathered from the key actors (MEDA and EU) involved in the demonstration. Civil Aviation, APV, Airports, SBAS procedures, Perugia, Canakkale, ENAV, DHMI, Workshop on Civil Aviation Project WEB site address: Project Coordinator: Antonella Di Fazio Telespazio S.p.A. 965 via Tiburtina Rome - Italy Tel: Fax: FaxMail: Antonella.difazio@telespazio.com

3 _4200_20_WAD1 3 of 85 Distribution List Company Quantity GNSS Supervisory Authority 3 Telespazio 1 Al Akhawayn University 1 Thales Alenia Space 1 ESSP 1 ENAV 1 DHMI 1 Pildo 1 Turksat FDC 1

4 _4200_20_WAD1 4 of 85 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION Scope and Purpose of the Document Document Overview List of References Applicable Documents Reference Documents Abbreviations DEMONSTRATION OVERVIEW APV PROCEDURE DB CODING AND TEST Perugia APV Çanakkale Data Base Coding Process INSTALLATION OF THE EGNOS ON-BOARD AVIONICS FIXED GROUND RECEIVER CONFIGURATION Configuration Fixed ground receiver in Çanakkale Fixed ground receiver in Perugia PRE-ANALYSIS OF DATA DETAILED FLIGH TRAIL PLAN DATA POST-PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS Çanakkale fligh trials analysis results th November First approach Second approach Third approach Fourth approach Perugia flight trials analysis results First approach Second approach Third approach Fourth approach...77

5 _4200_20_WAD1 5 of 85 9 PROMOTION ACTIVITIES CONCLUSIONS & LESSONS LEARNT...84 List of Tables Table 1 Applicable Documents...10 Table 2 Reference Documents...10 List of Figures Figure 1 EGNOS performances (source: ESA - HPL and VPL, 11 Nov 2009, PRN 120)...12 Figure 2 EGNOS availability (source: /MEDACON)...13 Figure 3 Perugia/S. Egidio Experimental LPV Chart...16 Figure 4 Çanakkale Experimental LPV Chart...18 Figure 5 Avionic platform installed on board the aircraft...20 Figure 6 Çanakkale on-ground receiver installation...23 Figure 7Çanakkale AsteRx2e and DC power supply...24 Figure 8 Perugia on-ground equipment...26 Figure 9 Perugia vehicle internal equipment...26 Figure 10 Navigation System Error, Flight Technical Error and Total System Error...33 Figure 11 Horizontal Protection Levels and Horizontal Alert Limit...33 Figure 12 HPL and VPL (Çanakkale 5 th of November 2009, UTC 12:40)...34 Figure 13 Trajectories visualization...35 Figure 14 HPL and VPL...36 Figure 15 HPL, HNSE...37 Figure 16 VPL, VNSE...37 Figure 17 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...38 Figure 18 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...38 Figure 19 HDOP, VDOP...39 Figure 20 NSAT used & visible...39 Figure 21 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...40 Figure 22 Trajectories visualization...41 Figure 23 HPL and VPL...42 Figure 24 HPL, HNSE...43 Figure 25 VPL, VNSE...43

6 _4200_20_WAD1 6 of 85 Figure 26 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...44 Figure 27 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...44 Figure 28 HDOP, VDOP...45 Figure 29 NSAT used & visible...45 Figure 30 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...46 Figure 31 Trajectories visualization...47 Figure 32 HPL and VPL...48 Figure 33 HPL, HNSE...49 Figure 34 VPL, VNSE...49 Figure 35 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...50 Figure 36 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...50 Figure 37 HDOP, VDOP...51 Figure 38 NSAT used & visible...51 Figure 39 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...52 Figure 40 Trajectories visualization...53 Figure 41 HPL and VPL...54 Figure 42 HPL, HNSE...55 Figure 43 VPL, VNSE...55 Figure 44 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...56 Figure 45 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...56 Figure 46 HDOP, VDOP...57 Figure 47 NSAT used & visible...57 Figure 48 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...58 Figure 49 Trajectories visualization...59 Figure 50 HPL and VPL...60 Figure 51 HPL, HNSE...61 Figure 52 VPL, VNSE...61 Figure 53 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...62 Figure 54 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...62 Figure 55 HDOP, VDOP (vs distance to THR)...63 Figure 56 NSAT used & visible (vs distance to THR)...63 Figure 57 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...64 Figure 58 Trajectories visualization...65 Figure 59 HPL and VPL...66

7 _4200_20_WAD1 7 of 85 Figure 60 HPL, HNSE...67 Figure 61 VPL, VNSE...67 Figure 62 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...68 Figure 63 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...68 Figure 64 HDOP, VDOP...69 Figure 65 NSAT used & visible...69 Figure 66 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...70 Figure 67 Trajectories visualization...71 Figure 68 HPL and VPL...72 Figure 69 HPL, HNSE...73 Figure 70 VPL, VNSE...73 Figure 71 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...74 Figure 72 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...74 Figure 73 HDOP, VDOP...75 Figure 74 NSAT used & visible...75 Figure 75 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...76 Figure 76 Trajectories visualization...77 Figure 77 HPL and VPL...78 Figure 78 HPL, HNSE...79 Figure 79 VPL, VNSE...79 Figure 80 FTE UP, FTE CROSS...80 Figure 81 TSE UP, TSE CROSS...80 Figure 82 HDOP, VDOP...81 Figure 83 NSAT used & visible...81 Figure 84 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical...82

8 _4200_20_WAD1 8 of 85 Change Records Issue Date Change Log Author(s) V1 27/11/2009 Draft version Demo Team 11/12/2009 Final version Demo Team

9 _4200_20_WAD1 9 of 85 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT This document is the Report & Support materials results for Wide Area Demonstration 1. It reports: The description of the activities performed in the preparation phase and during the flight trial campaign The results and main outcomes of the data post-processing The feedbacks gathered from the key actors (MEDA and EU) involved in the demonstration and in the public workshop organised in Istanbul. 1.2 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW The document is organised in the following chapters and contents: Chapter 1 and chapter 2 give the introduction and the demonstration overview, respectively. Chapter 3 describes the activities related to the APV procedure DB coding and test. Chapter 4 reports the activities performed for the installation of the avionic platforms/equipments in the aircraft. Chapter 5 reports the activities related to the fixed on-ground receivers in the two airports for the static data collection. Chapter 6 details the main task carried out for checking the capability to successively process data (using the GrafNav and PEGASUS tools). Chapter 7 reports the activities done during the flight trial campaign in the two airports. Chapter 8 includes the outcomes of the post-processing performed using the static and dynamic sets of data collected during the flight trial campaign in the two airports. Chapter 9 describes the main promotion activities. Chapter 10 summarises the conclusions and lessons learnt. 1.3 LIST OF REFERENCES Applicable Documents

10 _4200_20_WAD1 10 of 85 Ref. Title Code Version Date [AD. 1] Contract GJU/06/5025-CTR/ 10/07/2006 [AD. 2] Technical and Administrative, DT-PO-PRO-073 Management & Financial Tender Table 1 Applicable Documents V 6 20/06/ Reference Documents Ref. Title Code Version Date [RD. 1] Management Plan _WP1100_O-O1 V1 21/07/2006 [RD. 2] Description of Work _WP1100_O-05 V1 01/08/2006 [RD. 3] CCN-04 _TN-10_V1 V1 07/05/2009 [RD. 4] MoM WAD 1 preparatory meeting-final /MOM/ /06/2009 Report on [RD. 5] demonstration definition for demonstration WAD 1 _4200_D-19_1_ 12/10/2009 Table 2 Reference Documents 1.4 ABBREVIATIONS A AFP C COTS D DME E EGNOS F FTE G GNSS Actual Flight Path Commercial Off-The-Shelf Distance Measuring Equipment European Geostationary Overlay System Flight Technical Error Global Navigation Satellite System

11 _4200_20_WAD1 11 of 85 GPS GSA H HPL I ILS L LAD M MEDACoN N NSE NSFP O Global Positioning System GNSS Supervisory Authority Horizontal Protection Level Instrumental Landing System Local Area-Demonstration () MEDA Region Data Collection Network Navigation System Path Navigation System Flight Path P PAPI PEGASUS R RIMS RWY S SoW T THR TTC TSE TWR V VOR W WAD WP Precision Approach Path Indicator Prototype EGNOS and GBAS Analysis Ranging and Integrity Monitoring Station RunWay Statement of Work Thresholds Total Trimble Control Total System Error Tower VHF Omni-directional Radio-range Wide-Area Demonstration () Work Package

12 _4200_20_WAD1 12 of 85 2 DEMONSTRATION OVERVIEW The WAD 1 performed two flight campaigns for demonstrating EGNOS utilization in Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) operations in the airports of Çanakkale (Turkey) and Perugia. The two airports were selected considering the EGNOS APV performances, in terms of HPL and VPL and in terms of availability, as shown in the next figures (values are related to the period of the flight trials, i.e. November 2009). Edirne (Turkey) and Ifrane (Morocco) are the location where two /MEDACON stations are located and monitor the EGNOS service. Figure 1 EGNOS performances (source: ESA - HPL and VPL, 11 Nov 2009, PRN 120)

13 _4200_20_WAD1 13 of 85 Figure 2 EGNOS availability (source: /MEDACON) The demonstration consisted of the following main phases: Design, including design of APV procedures and DB coding, the avionic platform installation, on-ground receivers procurement and configuration, flight trials definition Test, including the procedure DB uploading into the GNS 480 and test, avionic platform test and preliminary analysis of the data Trials preparation, including the on-ground receivers installation and georeferencing, airport sites preparation, detailed flight plan vs climatic conditions definition, pilots-atc coordination Execution and data collection, including the running of the flight trials and data collection Data analysis, including the post-processing of the collected data and interpretation Promotion, including the presentation of the demonstration activities and main results/outcomes during a technical workshop in Istanbul and during the final event in Tunis, the preparation of promotional material for publication and circulation (pressrelease, leaflet and movie). The demonstration involved a team including 6 companies, as reported in next table. COMPANY ROLE Telespazio demonstration coordination responsible for the data analysis and post processing

14 _4200_20_WAD1 14 of 85 ENAV Perugia APV procedures design operations at Perugia airport (including procurement/operation of the fixed on-ground receiver and ATC coordination) DHMI Support to Çanakkale APV procedures design operations at Çanakkale airport (including procurement/operation of the fixed on-ground receiver and ATC coordination) TechnoSky aircraft provision and operation (including aircraft crew) installation/de-installation of the avionic platform and relevant no-hazard approval procedure Pildo GPS/SBAS navigation unit (GNS 480) procurement Çanakkale APV procedures design Turksat Istanbul workshop organization

15 _4200_20_WAD1 15 of 85 3 APV PROCEDURE DB CODING AND TEST Details on the design of the APV procedures are included in [R.5]. In the following, the charts designed for Perugia and Çanakkale are briefly described. 3.1 PERUGIA APV The operational scenario at Perugia is constrained by the terrain and the adjacent airspace configuration (both civilian and military). The runway 01 is served by a ILS CAT I procedure joining different segments which accommodate traffic coming from south and from north. Some of these segments (base turn, or DME arch) imply a relevant human intervention by the pilot, in terms of speed, attitude and altitude changes, and do not optimise both flight time duration and fuel consumption. The precision segment gradient (3.4 ) is higher than the recommended standard (2.5 3 ), due to the mountainous terrain. This is the same reason why the operational minimum (OCH) of published ILS procedure for standard missed approach (2.5%) is about 500 feet, depending on the aircraft category. The runway 19 is served by no IFR flight procedures, whereas their use is desired in case of south wind. The APV procedure (runway 01) was developed according to the ILS-look-alike concept, which facilitates the approval process. The procedure chart is shown in next figure. The aircraft can initiate the descent from three different Initial Approach Fixes (RZ005, RZ006 or RZ001), or by joining the extended Final Approach Segment if their avionics support Vectors To Fix capabilities. Despite of the ILS conservative approach, interesting benefits are introduced by the APV procedure: two straight-in segments are introduced, capturing traffic form different initial approach fixes (RZ005 and RZ006), and joining into a common intermediate/final segment; a continuous descent rate (5.9%, equivalent to 3.4 ) is achieved along the intermediate/final segment with less human intervention and fuel saving than ILS procedure; in case of arrivals form north the RNAV segment from RZ001 replaces the current arrival, consisting of a DME arch, with less human intervention and fuel saving; the resulting minimum (OCH) of about 580 feet (standard missed approach) is comparable with the published minimum of ILS CAT I (500 feet about).

16 _4200_20_WAD1 16 of 85 As a result, ILS-alike nearly CAT I operations are supported by EGNOS APV, including additional benefits. The advantage of no ground infrastructure of EGNOS APV, as compared to ILS, is recurring where the traffic, or the average meteorological conditions, do not justify the cost (installation and operation) of further ILS CATI equipment, such as the runway 19 of Perugia. Figure 3 Perugia/S. Egidio Experimental LPV Chart

17 _4200_20_WAD1 17 of Çanakkale This procedure sets major improvements over the existing Non Precision Approach procedures currently published for Çanakkale. The designed LPV offers both lateral and vertical guidance. With a Final Approach GPA of 3º, safety is dramatically improved during low visibility conditions and minima is reduced from previous procedures in almost 900 ft. Aircraft pertaining to A, B, C and D categories might initiate the LPV from the Initial Approach Fix (IAF), or alternatively by joining the extended Final Approach Segment if their avionics include Vectors To Fix capabilities. No LNAV minimums have been computed for Çanakkale and the chart only offers LPV OCA/H information. The definition of LNAV minima and its future inclusion in the same chart jointly with the LPV is considered an important enhancement for the future, since the number of users with SBAS capabilities is still lower than those with GPS capabilities. It must be noted as well the absence of a Missed Approach Point (MAPt). In obstacle free environments procedure designers sometimes include a MAPt in order that distance to next waypoint, which is displayed to the pilot, is coincident to the distance to the runway. The GNS480 is able to display this information without a coded MAPt. Finally, the Channel Number was assigned as No special criteria were followed for this choice further than the required range for SBAS (40000 to 99999), since this has been a trial demonstration. The procedure chart is shown in next figure.

18 _4200_20_WAD1 18 of 85 Figure 4 Çanakkale Experimental LPV Chart

19 _4200_20_WAD1 19 of DATA BASE CODING PROCESS For the coding of the approaches it was necessary to involve Jeppesen and Garmin under Pildo s coordination. Jeppesen is an American company specialised in aeronautical charting and navigation services. Garmin is an American manufacturer of GNSS receivers and navigation products, including aviation products such as the GNS 480. The Garmin GNS480 includes a data card containing an aeronautical Jeppesen database. The procedures designed by Pildo and ENAV were sent to both companies. Each procedure included: 1. Procedure chart 2. Procedure description: path terminators and waypoints crossing altitudes of initial, intermediate and missed approach segments 3. Waypoints coordinates 4. Final Approach Segment Data Block including the three path point records and the CRC remainder Once Jeppesen inserted the procedures into their systems, they transferred a file to Garmin to create an experimental GNS 480 database which was finally sent back to Pildo, an successively loaded in the GNS 480 navigation unit.

20 _4200_20_WAD1 20 of 85 4 INSTALLATION OF THE EGNOS ON-BOARD AVIONICS Figure 5 Avionic platform installed on board the aircraft The previous figures show the avionic platform installed on-bard the TechnoSky Cessna Citation VI aircraft, used for the flight trials. The GPS/SBAS navigation unit (Garmin GNS 480) and the on-board Septentrio PolaRx were installed in a rack. The GNS 480, where the database of the APV procedures was loaded, was connected to a conventional CDI/VDI (Course Deviation Indicator/Vertical Deviation Indicator) installed in the cockpit to provide the pilots with the guidance information. The installation of the experimental equipment was done in three steps and carried out by a Company certified by EASA as DOA (Design Organisation Approval): 1. Design of the modifications, in terms of equipment and cabling specifications (modification and installation bulletin), including dimensions, weight, position, electric supply, electromagnetic compatibility; 2. the installation according to JAR 145 regulation; 3. The release of the modification and installation bulletin, resulting in the no hazard approval - this means the guarantee that no additional risk, in terms of airworthiness, is introduced by the installation of the experimental equipment.

21 _4200_20_WAD1 21 of 85 5 FIXED GROUND RECEIVER CONFIGURATION 5.1 CONFIGURATION In the following the configuration of the two on-ground Septentrio receivers is reported. For the PolaRx2 installed at Perugia, through the the RxControl software, the following configuration shall be applied: Use the following values for the Global folder: Messages to Log -> SBF Messages Data Logging Interval -> 1.0 Marker Name -> to be decided Project Path -> to be decided File Naming -> IGS Convention New File Creation -> At Every Hour (GPS Time) And in the SBF folder, select the following ones: Rinex (automatically activates logging of GenMeas, Nav, IonUtc, RxInfo, PVTCar) Meas Alm GeoRaw PVTGeo EndofEpoch GeoCorr For the AsteRx2 installed at Çanakkale, through the the RxControl software, the following configuration shall be applied: Use the following values for the Global folder: Messages to Log -> SBF Messages Data Logging Interval -> 1.0 Marker Name -> to be decided Project Path -> to be decided File Naming -> IGS Convention (1 hour) And in the SBF folder, select the following ones:

22 _4200_20_WAD1 22 of 85 Rinex GPSAlm DOP. 5.2 FIXED GROUND RECEIVER IN ÇANAKKALE For the flight trials in Çanakkale, a GNSS receiver Septentrio AsteRx2e was used, installed in the airport Control Tower room, while the antenna was placed on the roof of the building close to the apron. Equipment Model Picture GNSS Receiver Septentrio AsteRx2e Receiver Antenna Septentrio Tripod LEICA

23 _4200_20_WAD1 23 of 85 Power Supply TT-T-ECHNI-C MCH 305-D The installation of the receiver antenna was performed during the day of 4 November inside the Canakkale Airport in a fixed position between the tower and the apron. The surveyed point in which the receiver antenna was installed is inside the red circle shown in the picture below. The antenna was installed on top a LEICA tripod that was fixed on the roof of the Control Tower Building. Particular attention was applied to the selection of the place in order to: Avoid physical obstruction from the objects; Avoid multipath; Place the antenna in a secure place that could resist to high speed wind. The following figures show the receiver antenna on top the tripod and the position of the antenna/tripod on the Control Tower building. Figure 6 Çanakkale on-ground receiver installation Data were collected for three days for performing the georeferencing using the Trimble Total Control software: Latitude Longitude Altitude (ellipsoidal WGS84) N ,70402 E , m

24 _4200_20_WAD1 24 of 85 The receiver was installed in the Control Tower room, after the connection with the antenna cable (a coaxial RG/58 cable for antennas) and the DC power supply set at 12.0 Volts. It was switched on and connected with a notebook equipped with the Septentrio RxControl tool, in order to configure the receiver, start the data acquisition and log the data on the internal receiver memory. The figure below shows the receiver connected to the antenna and the DC power supply. Figure 7Çanakkale AsteRx2e and DC power supply 5.3 FIXED GROUND RECEIVER IN PERUGIA For the flight trials in Perugia, a Novatel GPS-533 antenna and a GNSS Septentrio PolaRx2e receiver were used for static data acquisition. Geo-referencing operation was carried out with LEICA GPS-1200 system which allows very accurate performance in order to provide precise antenna coordinates. Equipment Model Picture GNSS Receiver Septentrio PolaRx2e

25 _4200_20_WAD1 25 of 85 Receiver Antenna Novatel GPS-533 Geo-referencing instrument LEICA GPS-1200 The installation of the receiver antenna was performed during the day of 10th November inside the Perugia Airport in a fixed position close to Localizer Shelter. The surveyed point in which the receiver antenna was installed is inside the red circle shown in the picture below. The antenna was installed on the top of a pole that was fixed on the vehicle parked nearby Localizer Shelter in Perugia Airport. Particular attention was applied to the selection of the place in order to: Avoid physical obstruction from the objects; Avoid multipath; Resist to high speed wind. The georeferenced coordinates of the on ground antenna phase centre are: Latitude Longitude Altitude (ellipsoidal WGS84) N E m

26 _4200_20_WAD1 26 of 85 The following figures show the position of installation of receiver antenna and the antenna fixed to vehicle. Tower Figure 8 Perugia on-ground equipment The receiver was switched on and connected with a desktop computer equipped with the Septentrio RxControl tool, in order to configure the receiver, start the data acquisition and log the data. The figure below shows the vehicle internal equipment. Figure 9 Perugia vehicle internal equipment

27 _4200_20_WAD1 27 of 85 6 PRE-ANALYSIS OF DATA In order to check the capability to process data using tools and methodology as described in the chapter 5 of document _4200_D-19_1_, a preliminary analysis was performed using a complete set of data coming previous trials and measures. Static data: Perugia/Septentrio PolaRx2e receiver -.sbf files coming from a measurement campaign done in Parma have been processed with the PEGASUS-Converter and converted into RINEX format. Çanakkale/Septentrio AsteRx2e receiver RINEX The static set of data in RINEX format is processed with the dynamic data to get the Actual Flight Path (AFP), using the GrafNav tool differential GNSS processing utility. In order to be able to correctly run the GrafNav DGPS utility, it is required that the RINEX static data contains the C/A code range and L1 carrier phase 1 measurements (in the.yyo file, the availability of the C/A code range and L1 carrier phase depends on the specific receiver configuration). Moreover, the GrafNav 8.20 used in supports the RINEX format version 2.0 or 2.1. Thus the first pre-analysis step has been to: - examine the contents of two RINEX data sets (Perugia and Çanakkale receivers) to check the availability of C/A code range and L1 carrier phase measurements - check the RINEX format version (2.1 version in both cases). Static and dynamic data: Static and dynamic data sets from the GIANT San Sebastian (Spain) flight trials have been processed using PEGASUS and GrafNav (see section 5.3 of document _4200_D- 19_1_). In this case, static data comes from the Igeldo permanent GPS station. The dynamic data includes two sets of data related to the flight trials in San Sebastian (Spain), one set from the on-board Septentrio PolaRx2 receiver and the Navigation System Flight Path (NSFP) from the Garmin GNS480. The complete processing using PEGASUS and GrafNav has been done: The AFP has been calculated using the data from the Igeldo GPS station in RINEX format and the data from the Septentrio PolaRx2 data in.sbf file. In parallel the Desired Flight Path (DFP) has been calculated following the APV procedure and using the PEGASUS -Procedure. 1 Use of L1 carrier phase improve the accuracy of the analysis

28 _4200_20_WAD1 28 of 85 The AFP, the NSFP and the DFP have been processed with the PEGASUS -Dynamics to calculate the NSE (Navigation System Error) and the FTE (Flight Technical Error).

29 _4200_20_WAD1 29 of 85 7 DETAILED FLIGH TRAIL PLAN The following flight campaign was carried out: Çanakkale 2 days: 5 6 November 2009 Perugia 1 day: 11 November 2009 Date Location Number of sessions 5 November 2009 Çanakkale Two sessions, morning and afternoon 6 November 2009 Çanakkale Two sessions, morning and afternoon Number of approaches 2 EGNOS APV approaches aborted (only visual approaches) 5 approaches according to RNAV (GNSS) 04 Procedure NA Number of approaches retained for analysis 4 approaches retained for successive analysis 11 November 2009 Perugia Two sessions, morning and afternoon 6 approaches according to the RNAV (GNSS) 01 procedure; 2 approaches for each IAF (RZ001, RZ005, and RZ 006) 4 approaches retained for successive analysis (2 approaches for RZ005, and 1 for RZ001 and RZ 006)

30 _4200_20_WAD1 30 of 85 8 DATA POST-PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS Details on the data post-processing included in [R.5]. Input data are: Static data come from the on-ground Septentrio receivers (as binary.sbf files) Dynamic data from the on-board Septentrio PolaRX receiver (as binary.sbf format ) and from a Garmin GNS480 receiver (.rlg converted into.pos through the PildoGNS480 software converter). Output data are: AFP Actual Flight Path, generated from the differential processing of dynamic data coming from the onboard Septentrio receiver using the static data coming from the on ground receiver. NSFP Navigation System Flight Path, derived from the processing of the Garmin GNS 480 data. The difference between the NSFP and the AFP is the Navigation System Error (NSE).

31 _4200_20_WAD1 31 of 85 DFP Desired Flight Path, is the ideal route the aircraft should follow during the APV (calculated from the procedure as detailed in the [R.5]). It is processed with the AFP in order to calculate the Flight Technical Error (FTE) and the Total System Error (TSE). Based on the output data, the following plots are generated for each approach: Trajectories visualization - The plot represents the whole path followed by the aircraft and projected on the horizontal plane; three different lines are drawn: the NSFP, the AFP and the constructed DFP. HPL and VPL - The plot shows the Horizontal and Vertical Protection Levels (respectively) of by the navigation unit along the path followed by the aircraft during the trial. The Horizontal Protection Level is the radius of a circle in the local horizontal plane (the tangent plane to the WGS-84 ellipsoid), having its centre at the position, for which the navigation unit ensures the horizontal position is contained. The Vertical Protection Level is half the length of a segment on the vertical axis (perpendicular to the horizontal plane of WGS-84 ellipsoid), having its centre at the position, for which the navigation unit ensures the vertical position is contained. HPL, HNSE - The plot show on the same scale the Horizontal Protection Level and the Horizontal Navigation System Error versus the distance to THR. The Navigation System Error (NSE) is obtained by comparing epoch by epoch, the navigation trajectory (i.e. the NSFP) with the reference one (i.e. the AFP) in latitude and longitude directions. It can be decomposed into two components. The Horizontal NSE (HNSE) is the NSE component lying on the local horizontal plane (the tangent plane to the WGS-84 ellipsoid). VPL, VNSE - The plot is similar to the previous one. The Vertical NSE (VNSE) is the NSE component placed along the vertical axis. When SBAS vertical guidance is used, navigation trajectory (based on SBAS sensors on board) is compared with the reference and the sign of the vertical error gives the relative position of the aeroplane with the reference (true) position in each epoch: It gives the relative position of the aircraft with the reference position (from AFP) in each epoch: If error is positive the aircraft height is lower than the reference one. Otherwise it is negative. FTE UP, FTE CROSS - The plot reports the two components up track and cross track of the Flight Technical Error (FTE). The FTE is defined as difference between the constructed DFP and the NSFP of the aircraft. The constructed DFP is the path built by the PEGASUS Dynamics module from the procedure in order to keep always zero the along track component of the FTE. In case the FTE Up Track is positive, the aircraft is above the flight path. TSE UP, TSE CROSS - The Total System Error (TSE) is the vector sum of the Flight Technical Error and the Navigation System Error. It represents the difference between required aircraft s position and its true position. In case the TSE Up Track is positive, the aircraft is above the flight path. HDOP, VDOP - The plot shows the Horizontal and Vertical Dilution Of Precision (DOP). The DOPs are functions of satellite geometry only, while the Position Dilution Of Precision (PDOP) is related to user position accuracy. The HDOP and the VDOP are the horizontal

32 _4200_20_WAD1 32 of 85 and vertical components of the PDOP respectively. A low DOP value means good satellite geometry for calculating user position and thus a good accuracy. NSAT used & visible - The plot shows the number of used and visible satellites versus Time of Week. These parameters are connected with the DOPs and can give useful information in order to interpret the behaviour of the navigation unit. Stanford diagram Horizontal and Vertical - In the Stanford diagrams the values of the protection levels are plotted against the navigation system errors. This representation led to quickly evaluating the status of the integrity during the flight trials. A point fallen in the white area means normal operation data. In the yellow area the navigation unit is not considered available, due to a too high value of the protection level. Misleading information falls in the red area. This area is divided into two parts. The deeper red area collects the highly misleading information. The FTE is the difference between the required flight path and the displayed position of the aircraft. It contains aircraft dynamics, turbulence effects, man-machine interface problems, etc. Since the actual NSE can not be observed without a high-precision reference system (the NSE is the difference between the actual position of an aircraft and its computed position), an approach has to be found with which an upper bound can be found for this error. The computed protection levels must be compared to the required Alert Limits, AL, for the particular phase of flight. The Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) is the radius of a circle in the horizontal plane (the local plane tangent to the WGS-84 ellipsoid), with its centre being at the true position, which describes the region which is required to contain the indicated horizontal position with a probability of 1-2*10e-7 per each 150 seconds, for a particular navigation mode, assuming the probability of a GPS satellite integrity failure being included in the position solution is less than or equal to 10e-4 per hour. The Vertical Alert Limit (VAL) is half the length of a segment on the vertical axis (perpendicular to the horizontal plane of WGS-84 ellipsoid), with its centre being at the true position, which describes the region which is required to contain the indicated vertical position with a probability 1-2*10e-7 per each 150 seconds, for a particular navigation mode, assuming the probability of a GPS satellite integrity failure being included in the position solution is less than or equal to 10e-4 per hour. If the protection level is smaller than the required alert limit, then the phase of flight can be performed. However, if the protection level is greater than or equal to the required alert limit, then the integrity of the position solution can not be guaranteed in the context of the requirements for that particular flight phase. Thus: XAL < XPL integrity can be assured XAL >= XPL integrity can not be assured with XPL (horizontal or vertical) protection level and XAL (horizontal or vertical) alert limit.

33 _4200_20_WAD1 33 of 85 The corresponding situation in the horizontal plane is depicted in the next figures (source GIANT project, 6FP). Figure 10 Navigation System Error, Flight Technical Error and Total System Error Figure 11 Horizontal Protection Levels and Horizontal Alert Limit

34 _4200_20_WAD1 34 of ÇANAKKALE FLIGH TRIALS ANALYSIS RESULTS th November 2009 Two sessions were carried out. All EGNOS APV approaches were aborted due to excessive value of HPL (> 40 m), thus only visual approaches were done. Next plots provide the protection levels during the flight campaign Figure 12 HPL and VPL (Çanakkale 5 th of November 2009, UTC 12:40)

35 _4200_20_WAD1 35 of First approach Figure 13 Trajectories visualization

36 _4200_20_WAD1 36 of 85 Figure 14 HPL and VPL

37 _4200_20_WAD1 37 of 85 Figure 15 HPL, HNSE Figure 16 VPL, VNSE

38 _4200_20_WAD1 38 of 85 Figure 17 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 18 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

39 _4200_20_WAD1 39 of 85 Figure 19 HDOP, VDOP Figure 20 NSAT used & visible

40 _4200_20_WAD1 40 of 85 Figure 21 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

41 _4200_20_WAD1 41 of Second approach Figure 22 Trajectories visualization

42 _4200_20_WAD1 42 of 85 Figure 23 HPL and VPL

43 _4200_20_WAD1 43 of 85 Figure 24 HPL, HNSE Figure 25 VPL, VNSE

44 _4200_20_WAD1 44 of 85 Figure 26 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 27 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

45 _4200_20_WAD1 45 of 85 Figure 28 HDOP, VDOP Figure 29 NSAT used & visible

46 _4200_20_WAD1 46 of 85 Figure 30 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

47 _4200_20_WAD1 47 of Third approach Figure 31 Trajectories visualization

48 _4200_20_WAD1 48 of 85 Figure 32 HPL and VPL

49 _4200_20_WAD1 49 of 85 Figure 33 HPL, HNSE Figure 34 VPL, VNSE

50 _4200_20_WAD1 50 of 85 Figure 35 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 36 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

51 _4200_20_WAD1 51 of 85 Figure 37 HDOP, VDOP Figure 38 NSAT used & visible

52 _4200_20_WAD1 52 of 85 Figure 39 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

53 _4200_20_WAD1 53 of Fourth approach Figure 40 Trajectories visualization

54 _4200_20_WAD1 54 of 85 Figure 41 HPL and VPL

55 _4200_20_WAD1 55 of 85 Figure 42 HPL, HNSE Figure 43 VPL, VNSE

56 _4200_20_WAD1 56 of 85 Figure 44 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 45 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

57 _4200_20_WAD1 57 of 85 Figure 46 HDOP, VDOP Figure 47 NSAT used & visible

58 _4200_20_WAD1 58 of 85 Figure 48 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

59 _4200_20_WAD1 59 of PERUGIA FLIGHT TRIALS ANALYSIS RESULTS First approach Figure 49 Trajectories visualization

60 _4200_20_WAD1 60 of 85 Figure 50 HPL and VPL

61 _4200_20_WAD1 61 of 85 Figure 51 HPL, HNSE Figure 52 VPL, VNSE

62 _4200_20_WAD1 62 of 85 Figure 53 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 54 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

63 _4200_20_WAD1 63 of 85 Figure 55 HDOP, VDOP (vs distance to THR) Figure 56 NSAT used & visible (vs distance to THR)

64 _4200_20_WAD1 64 of 85 Figure 57 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

65 _4200_20_WAD1 65 of Second approach Figure 58 Trajectories visualization

66 _4200_20_WAD1 66 of 85 Figure 59 HPL and VPL

67 _4200_20_WAD1 67 of 85 Figure 60 HPL, HNSE Figure 61 VPL, VNSE

68 _4200_20_WAD1 68 of 85 Figure 62 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 63 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

69 _4200_20_WAD1 69 of 85 Figure 64 HDOP, VDOP Figure 65 NSAT used & visible

70 _4200_20_WAD1 70 of 85 Figure 66 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

71 _4200_20_WAD1 71 of Third approach Figure 67 Trajectories visualization

72 _4200_20_WAD1 72 of 85 Figure 68 HPL and VPL

73 _4200_20_WAD1 73 of 85 Figure 69 HPL, HNSE Figure 70 VPL, VNSE

74 _4200_20_WAD1 74 of 85 Figure 71 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 72 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

75 _4200_20_WAD1 75 of 85 Figure 73 HDOP, VDOP Figure 74 NSAT used & visible

76 _4200_20_WAD1 76 of 85 Figure 75 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

77 _4200_20_WAD1 77 of Fourth approach Figure 76 Trajectories visualization

78 _4200_20_WAD1 78 of 85 Figure 77 HPL and VPL

79 _4200_20_WAD1 79 of 85 Figure 78 HPL, HNSE Figure 79 VPL, VNSE

80 _4200_20_WAD1 80 of 85 Figure 80 FTE UP, FTE CROSS Figure 81 TSE UP, TSE CROSS

81 _4200_20_WAD1 81 of 85 Figure 82 HDOP, VDOP Figure 83 NSAT used & visible

82 _4200_20_WAD1 82 of 85 Figure 84 Stanford diagrams Horizontal and Vertical

83 _4200_20_WAD1 83 of 85 9 PROMOTION ACTIVITIES The following promotion activities were done in combination with the demonstration: A technical workshop in Istanbul on the 18 th of November 2009 A presentation during the Final even in Tunis on the 7 th of December 2009 The production of promotion material, including a press-release, a movie and a leaflet. Presentations and promotion material are publicly available on the web Site.

84 _4200_20_WAD1 84 of CONCLUSIONS & LESSONS LEARNT flight trials allowed to show to MEDA countries: EGNOS benefits for APV Easy adoption of the technology (on-ground receiver, procedures, flight operations, etc.) The necessity of EGNOS service coverage extension on the entire MEDA region, as primary enabler. Moreover they also gave the opportunity to MEDA countries to be informed on the present EU strategies. During the Istanbul workshop, European stakeholders (the GSA, Eurocontrol and ENAV) had the opportunity to present to representatives from the Civil Aviation sector of the MEDA countries main outcomes in relation to the use of EGNOS: It has been explained that the availability of EGNOS across Europe is one of the key enablers of the Single European Sky (SES) policies, which is aimed at improving the safety, regularity and efficiency of flights, while copying with the demand growth. EGNOS has been recognised beneficial for improving safety, efficiency, capacity, while reducing the conventional ground navigation aid infrastructures. Major benefits are for airports presently having Non Precision Approach procedures and visual approaches, and for regional airports with average visibility conditions which do not justify the investments of ground infrastructures for CAT 1 performance. As a matter of example, according to a study carried out by ENAV (the Italian Air Navigation Service Provider), at least 70% of the Italian runway ends could benefit from EGNOS approach operations.

85 _4200_20_WAD1 85 of 85 END OF DOCUMENT