Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:16:35.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A dynamic sampling scheme for GPS integrity assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. Feng ,
W. Ochieng ,
D. Walsh  and
R. Ioannides
S. Feng
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
W. Ochieng
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
D. Walsh
Affiliation:
CAA Institute of Satellite Navigation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
R. Ioannides
Affiliation:
CAA Institute of Satellite Navigation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is already being used for certain aviation applications and some safety critical air traffic services will be based on GPS. These air traffic services must achieve allowable levels of safety before they can be accepted. For this to occur, GPS based navigation systems must achieve a defined level of performance specified in terms of accuracy, integrity, continuity and availability. This must be determined by various analysis techniques including failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and integrity assessment. Because of the high percentile requirements placed on integrity (as the parameter most directly related safety), it is unfeasible to measure system performance by demonstration (field trial). Realistic simulation informed by some field experience is usually employed. However, the current simulation-based approaches for receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) performance assessment have a number of weaknesses including the use of coarse (large) spatial and temporal sampling intervals, loose definitions of error and geometric correlations, a lack of sampling of all geometries and the inability to account for critical points due to uncorrelated factors.

This paper proposes a dynamic sampling method that takes account of these weaknesses, identifying dynamically only the required points for integrity performance assessment. Comprehensive simulations carried out to test the proposed approach for a single point, an area, and a non-precise approach (NPA) flight path to Gatwick airport in the United Kingdom show that the method can be effective in capturing all the points enabling a robust and reliable assessment of system integrity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1105 , March 2006 , pp. 129 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ochieng, W.Y., Sheridan, K.F., Sauer, K. and Han, X., An assessment of the RAIM performance of a combined Galileo/GPS navigation system using the marginally detectable errors (MDE) algorithm, GPS Solution, 2002, 5, 3, pp 42–42.Google Scholar
2. RTCA/DO-229C. Minimum operational performance standards for global positioning system/wide area augmentation system airborne equipment, November 2001.Google Scholar
3. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service. Airborne supplemental navigation equipment using the global positioning system (GPS)-TSO-C129a February 1996, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
4. Eurocontrol, AUGUR, http://augur.ecacnav.com/augurHelp.html.Google Scholar
5. Parkinson, B.W. and Enge, P. K., Differential GPS, Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, 1996, Volume 2, Chapter 1, pp 3–79, AIAA.Google Scholar
6. Monteiro, L.S., Moore, T. and Hill, C. What is the accuracy of DGPS?, 2004, European Navigation Conference GNSS 2004, 16-19 May 2004, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
7. Van Dyke, K.L., The World after SA: Benefits to GPS integrity, Position Location and Navigation Symposium, IEEE 2000, 13-16 March 2000, pp 387–394.Google Scholar
8. Ochieng, W.Y., Sauer, K., Walsh, D., Brodin, G., Griffin, S. and Denney, M., GPS integrity and potential impact on aviation safety, J Navigation, 56, (1), pp 51–51.Google Scholar
9. US Department of Defense. Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Performance Standard, October 2001, Assistant secretary of Defense for command, control, communication and intelligence.Google Scholar
10. Brown, R.G. and Chin, Y.G., GPS RAIM: calculation of thresholds and protection radius using Chi-Square methods-A geometric approach Global Positioning System: Navigation V, 1998, pp 155–155.Google Scholar
11. Corrigan, T.M., Hartranft, J.F., Levy, L.J., Parker, K.E., Pritchett, J.E., Pue, J.E., Pullen, S. and Thomson, T., GPS Risk Assessment Study, Final Report, 1990, http://gps.faa.gov/Library/Data/gps_risk.pdf.Google Scholar
12. Feng, S., Ochieng, W., Walsh, D. and Ioannides, R., A highly accurate and computationally efficient method for predicting RAIM holes, J Navigation, to be published.Google Scholar
13. Kelly, R.J., The Linear Model, RNP, and the near-optimum fault detection and exclusion algorithm, Global Positioning System, Navigation V, 1998, pp 227–227.Google Scholar
14. Grewal, M., Raytheon, H.H. and Schempp, T.R., Overview of the WAAS Integrity Design, 2003, ION GPS/GNSS 2003, Portland, OR, USA, 9-12 September 2003, pp 2750–2750.Google Scholar
15. ICAO/SARPS. Annex 10 Volume I Radio and Navigation Aids, 25 November 2004.Google Scholar