1 / 10

Overview of Performance Analysis of Alternative Navigation

Overview of Performance Analysis of Alternative Navigation. Sherman Lo, Rick Niles. Outline. Performance Study Parameterized study allows study of many architectures and equipment performance Rick will show some first cut test Integrity Study. Performance Requirements for Alternate Nav.

iren
Download Presentation

Overview of Performance Analysis of Alternative Navigation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of Performance Analysis of Alternative Navigation Sherman Lo, Rick Niles

  2. Outline • Performance Study • Parameterized study allows study of many architectures and equipment performance • Rick will show some first cut test • Integrity Study

  3. Performance Requirements for Alternate Nav • Coverage/Performance study only one part • Test to most stringent performance level (operation supported) • Availability/coverage/accuracy • Other performance issues • Integrity/TTA & security • Update rate, continuity, etc.

  4. Summary of architecture alternatives

  5. What can we simplify and why: Example • Each column should have similar coverage (geometry) • Similarities due to geometry, number of measurements needed for solution • Assuming same ground stations used • Difference due to error on each measurement, measurement time difference (if TDMA) • Accuracy will differ • Implementation may differ greatly even though concepts similar

  6. Test Scenario Matrix • Performance in US (highlighting ~50-150 busiest airports) • Altitude: 350 ft AGL (RNP 0.3) and at altitude • Ground infrastructure • 1. DME stations • 2. MLAT stations • 3. Both • 1-3 plus a few additions, depending on results above • Solve for horizontal position with passive or active (& hybrid) concepts • Passive needs 3 stations (need to resolve user clock error) • Active needs 2 stations (assuming ambiguity can be resolved) • Accuracy: start by calculating DOP • Gets a rough idea of required performance of ground infrastructure • Doesn’t cover all cases (i.e. range dependent accuracy, different accuracy between GBT, DME) • RAIM/Integrity: Calculate residual matrix • Proposal: Ben and I will work on a reasonable quantity

  7. Simplified Test Matrix • Test matrix for either passive or active/hybrid • Full matrix in example represents 12 different tests • Can reduce number of cases • May not need to consider coverage at 350 ft for some cases • Not necessarily final design – gets us some idea of performance • DOP is not adequate if accuracy vary (due to distance, GBT may differ from DME)

  8. Accuracy • Parameterized by ranging accuracy • Ranging accuracy determined by • Equipment performance • Concept of operations (CONOPS) • Ex. Simultaneous or serial measurements • Range dependent errors (propagation, SNR) • Rough approximation for σ= σ(d), or different σ for different ground transmitters • Similar idea for RAIM integrity • Use nominal accuracy and minimum detectable error

  9. DME Accuracy • DME/N • System accuracy of 0.17 NM (up to 200 NM range) (ICAO Annex 10, as referenced by ION paper) • σair = MAX(0.085 nm, .00125*d), σsis = 0.05 nm, (AC90-100A) • DME/P accuracy changes with distance from runway • 15 m to 250 m (centerline) (position domain) (ICAO Annex 10)

  10. MITRE Coverage tool for DME/GBT • Rick Niles will discuss

More Related