DOT Action Plan Announced For Critical Transport Applications Using GPS U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will implement an action plan to maintain the adequacy of backup systems for each area of operation in which the Global Positioning System is being used for critical transportation applications. The announcement follows the department’s review of a study assessing the vulnerability of the national transportation infrastructure that relies on GPS. The study, prepared by DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and released in September 2001, noted that GPS is susceptible to unintentional disruption from such causes as atmospheric effects, signal blockage from buildings, and interference from communications equipment, as well as to potential deliberate disruption. It contained a number of recommendations to address the possibility of disruption and ensure the safety of the national transportation infrastructure. DOT’s operating administrations have completed their assessments and concur with all of the report recommendations. The Secretary has formally endorsed the report, noting that safety-critical transportation applications that use GPS currently have adequate backups in case of GPS disruptions. Secretary Mineta added that future actions will be necessary to build redundancy into critical transportation systems under development and ensure essential radionavigation services continue. "Immediately following the report’s release, I directed DOT’s operating administrations to assess the adequacy of backup systems for each area of operation in which GPS is being used for vital transportation functions," Secretary Mineta said. "The action plan we are announcing today will ensure that the vulnerabilities identified in the report do not affect the safety and security of our transportation system as we work to ensure that GPS fulfills its potential as a key element of the nation’s transportation infrastructure."

IN THIS ISSUE Loran-C Modernization The Galileo Debate Departments: From the ION President: Bylaws Changes Congressional Fellow Report: Coming to a Close Portney’s Corner: The Errant Balloon From the ION Historian: Studying Navigation History GNSS Around the Globe: News in Brief, Section News, Launches, and more Calendar

Based on the report recommendations, the department will implement an action plan to include the following initiatives for maintaining the viability of the transportation infrastructure: (1) Ensure that adequate backup systems are maintained; (2) Maintain the partnership with the Department of Defense to continue modernizing GPS with the implementation of new civil signals; (3) Facilitate transfer of appropriate anti-jam technology from the military for civil use; (4) Conduct industry outreach to develop receiver performance standards; (5) Emphasize and promote education programs with state and local departments of transportation that advise users about GPS vulnerabilities; (6)Complete an assessment of radionavigation capabilities across all the modes of transportation to identify the most appropriate mix of systems, from both a capabilities and cost perspective, for the next 10 years and beyond. This will include completing the evaluation of the long-term need for the continuation of the Loran-C.

The DOT Positioning/Navigation Executive Committee will oversee the implementation of the report recommendations and the associated work plan over the next year. Implementation of the report recommendations will be integrated into future editions of the Federal Radionavigation Plan.

The Volpe report, Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying on the Global Positioning System, is available through the Coast Guard Navigation Center Web site at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov.

Galileo Gets Green Light

The release of 450 million euro of European Union (EU) funding for the development of the Galileo European satellite navigation systems was unanimously approved at a meeting of the EU Transport Council on March 26. The council also adopted a regulation establishing the “joint undertaking” that will manage the project.

The decision will unlock funding for the development stage of the project—Europe’s answer to the American GPS that has been delayed due to concerns expressed by some EU Members States.

The development phase of Galileo, which will run from 2002 to 2005, will allow researchers to test the technology in orbit before the entire 30-satellite network is put in place. This will be followed by the deployment phase up to 2008, when operation and exploitation of the system is expected to begin.

Commission vice-president responsible for transport and energy, Ms. Loyola de Palacio, highlighted the increased choice that Galileo will create, explaining that it will help to avoid “a monopoly situation, and give everyone the opportunity to choose.” She emphasized, however, that Galileo “aims to be completely compatible” with GPS, and that together the two systems will be “more solid and reliable.”

The decision had some conditions that will (1) require the Transport Council to review progress at the end of 2003 and to take a decision on the continuation of the development phase. The council will also take decisions on the future release and capping of public funds for the deployment and operational phases; (2) ensure that future funding comes from the redeployment of funds within the existing European Union budget lines—not as additional contributions from member states; (3) make Galileo a civil program under civil control and ensure that it is developed to be independent but interoperable with the U.S. civil GPS service.

This will ensure that the full potential of satellite navigation and positioning can be exploited through the combined services of Galileo and GPS but will allow users continued access to one of the systems should the other become unavailable.

From the ION President: Bylaws Changes Ronald R. Hatch

January’s National Technical Meeting, in San Diego, Calif., was a great success! Dr. Pratap Misra (general chair) and Mr. Jay Spalding (program chair) conjured up mostly sunny days and produced an outstanding program that drew 372 participants. Dr. Todd Walter from Stanford University will succeed Jay Spalding as our 2003 National Technical Meeting program chair as Jay assumes the job of general chair. Thank you to all the session chairs, authors and volunteers who helped make this year’s event such a success!

The ION is always on the lookout for other nonprofit organizations that are interested in co-sponsoring a technical meeting program. We actively pursue original session topics that explore unique technology, applications, emerging markets, and the political or business aspects of the industry. Your involvement is always welcome!

Council News
The ION Council met on January 27, 2002, in conjunction with the ION’s National Technical Meeting. The central issue of the meeting was the Council’s adoption of a bylaws change that creates only two ION regions, East and West. The Western Region will assimilate North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. The Eastern Region will assimilate Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and the Canadian Province of Ontario. Interesting to note is that under the new regional boundaries the Eastern and Western Regions will be comparatively equal in representation with 1084 members in the East and 1045 members in the West. This bylaws change will be incorporated into this year’s election so you can expect to see only two regions on the ballot this year.

Included in the bylaws change was an action to change the number of council member-at-large officers representing each region from one per region to two per region with a two-year term of office. Additionally, the Council extended the term of office for the current Eastern and Western council members-at-large for one year. This year’s nominated council members-at-large will serve for two years and thus one representative from each region will rotate off the Council every other year (as is currently done with the Land, Air, Space, and Marine Representatives). You can find an updated version of the bylaws with all the approved modifications currently on the ION’s web site at www.ion.org.

The reason the Council decided to adopt the new regional boundaries was to assist in moving our membership through the chain of nominations, as people need to have served on the Council for a minimum of three years to be nominated for executive vice president. It was also noted that ION tradition, not policy, had dictated that the nomination for executive VP rotate from region to region and with the previous regional definitions it was becoming difficult to identify an adequate number of qualified individuals from all regions.

Other News
The National Office continues to function efficiently—with special thanks to Lisa Beaty and Carl Andren. Note that Jennifer Murphy-Smith, who was employed as the Membership Services Coordinator left the ION in November to pursue a career in special education. We wish her the best in her new endeavor! Wendy Hickman has assumed membership service duties.

The Council commended the staff, Rick Buongiovanni in particular, for launching the upgraded Web site. If you haven’t explored the site, be sure to do so. Our upgraded site features enhanced publication search capabilities, secure online purchasing and meeting registration, and new “members only” features that provide online search and retrieval capabilities of select ION publications, a career opportunities section, and more.

Additionally, the Council approved the Nominations Committee, the 2002-’03 operating budget and noted the Institute’s continued secure financial position. This year’s Annual Awards Committee was also approved.

In June of this year, the ION "Red Books" will be available on a fully searchable CD-ROM. The CD will be sold at an introductory members-only price for a short period of time, so be sure to reserve your copy now! (See the ad on page 18 in this newsletter.)

Finally, plan on attending our 58th Annual Meeting being held in conjunction with CIGTF’s 21st Guidance Test Symposium, June 24-26, 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. See you there! u

Regards,

The Purpose of The ION The Institute of Navigation, founded in 1945, is a non-profit professional society dedicated to the advancement of the art and science of navigation. It serves a diverse community including those interested in air, space, marine, land navigation and position determination. Although basically a national organization, its membership is worldwide, and it is affiliated with the International Association of the Institutes of Navigation. 2000-01 National Executive Committee President: Mr. Ron Hatch Executive Vice President: Dr. Rudy Kalafus Treasurer: Mr. Larry Hothem Eastern Region Vice President: Ms. Sally Frodge Central Region Vice President: Maj. John Raquet Western Region Vice President: Dr. A.J. Van Dierendonck Immediate Past President: Ms. Karen Van Dyke How to Reach The ION Telephone: 703-683-7101 Facsimile: 703-683-7105 Web site: http://www.ion.org E-mail: membership@ion.org ION National Office Staff Director of Operations: Lisa Beaty Technical Director: Carl Andren Assistant to the Technical Director: Miriam Lewis Meeting Services/Author Liaison: Connie Mayes Member Services/Registrar: Wendy Hickman Graphic Design/Editor: Paula Danko Information Manager: Rick Buongiovanni

From the ION Congressional Fellow: Coming to a Close Phil Ward

Only two months remain on my tenure as a congressional fellow for Sen. James Inhofe. This report focuses on some specific successes and challenges during 2001 and the first quarter of 2002.

I have been very much involved in supporting policy issues that benefit GPS. Sen. Inhofe is a strong supporter of the SASC policy issues that benefit our military defense and, in particular, is an advocate for military readiness. In fact, Sen. Inhofe was the chair of the SASC Readiness Subcommittee when I came on board and is currently its ranking member.

Spectrum Encroachment
Because he is opposed to spectrum encroachment into the Department of Defense (DoD) restricted radio frequency band, Sen. Inhofe has been receptive to my technical advice related to the protection of the GPS spectrum from encroachment by the ultra wideband (UWB) industry and the seriousness of the interference issues that UWB poses. The UWB lobby in Washington, D.C., has had considerable influence on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the past three years and on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—a body that is supposed to represent DoD’s spectrum interests to the FCC. As a result, the FCC, with NTIA endorsement, announced that on Dec. 12, 2001, it planned to issue a report and order (R&O) under a modified Rule 15 to permit unlicensed UWB intentional transmitter operation. The FCC premise is that UWB is a new low-power, non-interfering technology similar to the low-power garage door openers, family radio service, etc., now unlicensed under Rule 15 for intentional transmitters. This R&O allows an unlimited number of UWB transmitters at a specified low power level to overlay the entire spectrum, including restricted government bands such as GPS and may well become the only transmitter industry that operates without tuning and without filters!

Closing Pandora’s Box
I became involved when ION Washington Section Chair Jim Doherty, who works for IDA, sent me a draft letter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, John Stenbit. I tailored the letter for Sen. Inhofe’s signature. The letter expressed concern about UWB interference with the GPS signals. Stenbit, an outstanding DoD appointee by President Bush, responded, and shortly thereafter, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Donald Evans requesting a sixty-day postponement of the FCC UWB agenda item. The FCC rarely tables an announced agenda item, but FCC Chairman Michael Powell did postpone this R&O until Feb. 14, 2002. A lot has happened since that event, but “Pandora’s Box” was at least temporarily closed while the DoD worked feverously with the NTIA to limit the UWB power levels in the GPS and other restricted bands.

The UWB Camel Noses In
Prior to attending the ION National Technical Meeting in San Diego, I also prepared a delegation letter (one with many senator’s signatures) to FCC Chairman Powell recommending that the FCC not go forward with the R&O on Feb. 14, 2002. I took my cause to Sen. Conrad Burns’ (R-Mont.)office because he is a high ranking, albeit minority member on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. A letter to the FCC chair is more effective with signatures from senators that sit on that committee in addition to those on the SASC. Sen. Burns’ office agreed to take the lead for the committee. Unfortunately, the UWB lobby also received the draft letter and worked to its demise: the chair, Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), did not agree to sign. When I returned from the ION meeting, I was disappointed to learn that the letter had been overcome by events.

Our office was also lobbied by Time Domain, Inc. (the leading UWB lobby in Washington, D.C.) who did their best to convince our staff that they had proven that there would be no harmful interference to GPS or to any other “safety of life” frequency. I quickly rewrote the letter for Sen. Inhofe’s signature expressing his concerns and requesting that Chairman Powell provide an explanation to Congress prior to making a final ruling in this matter. It was signed and mailed Feb. 6, 2002, but Inhofe’s request was ignored.

On Feb. 14, the FCC posted a news release on its Web site with the caption “New Public Safety Applications and Broadband Internet Access Among Uses Envisioned by FCC Authorization of Ultra-Wideband Technology.” I found the following statement most alarming:

“Since there is no production UWB equipment available and there is little operational experience with the impact of UWB on other radio services, the Commission chose in this First Report and Order to err on the side of conservatism in setting emission limits when there were unresolved interference issues. The Commission intends within the next six to twelve months to review the standards for UWB devices and issue a further notice of proposed rule making to explore more flexible standards and address the operation of additional types of UWB operations and technology.”

Due to the heroic work of the DoD and NTIA during the 60-day moratorium, this R&O has reduced the UWB power level in the GPS band and other restricted bands significantly compared to the Dec. 12 version, but there are numerous flaws in the new R&O. The FCC will soon learn that putting “spin” on their announcement will not alter the real world interference problems it has introduced with this new rule. Unfortunately, its announced intent means that this is just the camel’s nose in the spectrum tent. The entire camel will soon follow.

When I Say Jammin’ — I’m Not Talkin’ Music
My other GPS cause has been to assist Dr. Terry McGurn, an ION member, retired CIA executive, and now an independent consultant, with his mission of finding support on the Hill for the GPS Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR) program. McGurn has been successful getting the Old Crows Association to recognize that GPS jamming and countermeasures issues should indeed come under their Electronic Warfare (EW) umbrella. Our next objective (which has been successful), was to get Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.), chair of the House EW Working Group, to take the same perspective. Unfortunately, there is no counterpart to this working group on the Senate side of the Hill, and I doubt there is time for me to initiate an interest. However, Congressman Pitts is enthusiastic about this issue and has invited McGurn, Joe Lorti (an ION member who works for Overlook Systems), and myself to brief the EW Working Group on this subject. Pitts recently published an issue brief on NAVWAR from this working group. He has prepared a delegation letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requesting that he provide adequate resources to the NAVWAR program. Sen. Inhofe has agreed to co-sign this letter. McGurn and I have played a prominent role in crafting the issue brief and the DoD letter. Both are timely since the GPS Joint Program Office has recently zeroed the NAVWAR budget for FY 2003, having taken all of its money in prior years for GPS modernization. I believe that I have at least “primed the pump” on this important military GPS issue. We want to see the NAVWAR program integrated into the overall military EW community. Congressman Pitts wants to see the overall EW community have a separate command and budget authority in the DoD. I am optimistic about the outcome.

The Second Science Fellow
I have also taken the lead to help Sen. Inhofe find a science fellow to replace me. Since I was his first science fellow, it is rewarding that he and his staff are now strong supporters of the program. Dr. Donna Michalek, an American Association for the Advancement of Science January-start fellow sponsored by the American Association for Mechanical Engineers, is his second science fellow. She has an interest in both defense policy and environmental policy. Michalek will not be carrying the GPS torch, but she is up to speed on the UWB spectrum encroachment issue and will serve the senator well.

I continue to be grateful to the ION for its endorsement and support of the congressional fellowship program. It has truly been a once-in-a-lifetime experience for me.

Status of Loran-C Modernization Testing Mitch Narins, Systems Engineering (AND-702)

The Loran-C navigation system, developed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), has been operated by the U.S. Coast Guard since the 1950s. Initial installations were primarily outside the continental U.S., but by the early 1970s, the Coast Guard had determined that the Loran-C system should be used as a federally provided maritime navigation system throughout the coastal areas of the United States and the system was expanded to provide coverage in the coastal waters of the continental United States and Alaska. Interest by the aviation community led the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to support additional Loran installations to fill the “mid-continent gap” so that coverage would be available throughout the continental U.S. Through the mid- to late-1980s, the FAA also undertook the development of requirements, procedures, and ground systems to support the certification of the Loran-C system for use in the non-precision approach phase of flight. However, initial attempts by user equipment vendors to achieve aviation certification disclosed the need for significant hardware and software improvements to meet system availability and continuity requirements—the focus of which primarily involved aircraft antenna system improvements to deal with precipitation static and advanced receiver processing to rapidly acquire/re-acquire and take advantage of all available Loran-C signals. Because of these and other related problems, certification requirements for non-precision approach could not be met and Loran remained a system only available to aviators for use in enroute and terminal airspace.

Despite the lack of certification for approach and landing, there was widespread use of Loran-C under visual flight rule (VFR) conditions through the mid-1990s by the general aviation community. However, as the Global Positioning System (GPS) began to mature, users found a comparable niche for this new system and a migration from Loran-C began. Although the migration rapidly accelerated when the U.S. government announced in its 1994 Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) that Loran-C services would be terminated in December 2000, support to continue Loran navigation services grew from some groups within the aviation community and their efforts resulted in directions from the U.S. congress, via the budgetary process, for the FAA to continue the development of the Loran system. This also resulted in the subsequent 1999 FRP announcement that Loran services would continue in the short term, while the merits of its long-term operation are evaluated and the U.S. Coast Guard starting recapitalization of the system infrastructure.

Over the past several years, following a number of years of mandated funding, Congress has continued to substantially increase Loran-C funding to the FAA over budgetary requests—including plus-ups of $3 million (to $10 million) in FY 2000, $5 million (to $25 million) in FY 2001, and $6 million (to $19 million) in FY 2002. In compliance with the congressional mandates and budgetary language, the FAA initiated an evaluation program to determine whether Loran could provide benefits to aviation, and if so, by what means. As indicated above, Loran-C currently can be used as a secondary navigation system in both terminal and enroute environments, but does not support the approach phase of flight. Reasoning that to be of true benefit to aviation, Loran would have to support “chock-to-chock” operations, the FAA established an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard, the operators of the Loran system, and formed an evaluation team to help determine whether Loran would be capable of providing, as a minimum, lateral navigation (RNP.3) services to the National Airspace System (NAS) and, if possible, other ancillary capabilities. The evaluation team’s focus has been primarily to answer two questions:

Can Loran provide the accuracy, availability, integrity and continuity to support LNAV?, and Can Loran provide an alternative mechanism for delivering GPS augmentation to aircraft and other user communities?

Loran Navigation In terms of accuracy, Loran has long been touted to provide 0.25 nm repeatable accuracy, and thereby would appear to already meet the 0.30 nm LNAV accuracy requirement. However, taking into account other factors (e.g., flight technical error), it will be necessary to improve Loran’s accuracy. The FAA’s Loran Evaluation Team is already working this challenging issue and, through improved transmitter and receiver development, better additional secondary factor (ASF) determination, and changes in operational procedures, hopes to achieve accuracies that support LNAV requirements. In the past, Loran’s most significant shortcoming has been availability. Precipitation (p-) static build-up and discharge on an aircraft flying through rain and/or snow resulted in noise levels that rendered Loran unusable for navigation. Additionally, reliance on a specific triad of Loran stations for navigation signals at times resulted in navigation outages when tube transmitters overloaded, lightning struck 600-foot to 1200-foot antennas, or power grids went down. Old receivers took minutes to acquire or re-acquire position. With the development of magnetic (H)–field antennas, replacement of tube transmitters, installation of uninterruptible power supplies (UPS), and development of all-in-view (AIV) and digital signal processing (DSP) receivers, it looks promising at this stage of the program that LNAV availability requirements can be achieved. FY 2001 tests conducted in both CONUS and in Alaska have demonstrated the ability of H-Field antennas to operate in severe p-static conditions while electric (E-) field antennas cannot. Figure 2 shows the relative signal levels derived from E-Field and H-Field antennas during a flight from Ohio to Florida are shown. When snow was encountered approximately 30 minutes into the flight, it is clear that while use of the E-Field antenna became problematic, the H-Field antenna continued to provide useable signal levels. Figure 3 shows a developmental H-Field antenna mounted within a certified aircraft enclosure. Plans include installing a GPS antenna within the same structure to allow collocation of both system antennas and mitigate the need for multiple aircraft installations.

Historically, the Coast Guard has provided for Loran integrity by monitoring the output of its Loran signals and manually “blinking” the first two Loran pulses to preclude receivers from using them for navigation during “out-of-tolerance” conditions. In FY 2000, using funding provided by the FAA, the US Coast Guard commissioned their Loran Automatic Blink System (ABS). While ABS recognizes an out-of-tolerance condition within six seconds and blinking the signal within ten seconds, further analysis is required before it can be determined that can achieve the required level of integrity to support LNAV. This will be one of the primary tasks that the Team undertakes this year.

Continuity of Loran navigation historically relied on the availability of all transmitters within a single Loran chain. However, current AIV Loran receiver technology allows for use of all Loran signals in view. Recent analyses have shown that while the number of necessary geographically well placed “sticks in the fix” required for navigation is three, AIV receivers typically provide for five or more, such that the loss of a number of Loran stations can be tolerated and should not affect the navigation solution. The Team continues to study this aspect and believes that Loran’s ability to meet LNAV continuity requirements should be achievable.

Loran as a Channel for Differential GPS Correction/Augmentation
The FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the means by which differential GPS corrections will be provided to aircraft operating in the NAS to support both LNAV and vertical (VNAV) navigation. The current WAAS architecture includes geostationary satellites, which transmit differential correction messages to aircraft at L-band frequencies. WAAS messages are currently transmitted on the GPS L1 frequency for non-safety related services via two leased INMARSAT geo-stationary (geo) satellites. It has always been known that the combination of high angles of elevation, or look angle, in some northern areas of the NAS in combination with high terrain elevation could cause masking of the WAAS geo signal. So, many alternatives are currently under investigation to solve this problem. Loran is one of those alternatives that are being studied to solve this masking issue. Loran’s significant coverage of the NAS (Figure 1), its robust signal (400 - 1600 kW), and its diverse spectrum (between 90 kHz and 110 kHz) made it attractive for further exploration. The problem was how could Loran transmit the entire WAAS message at the 250 bits per second (bps) rate without significant modification of the signal specification and, thereby, denial of service to existing legacy users? The FAA Navigation IPT’s System Engineering Office and the U.S. Coast Guard Loran Support Unit (LSU), in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Peterson Integrated Geopositioning, the University of Rhode Island, Ohio University, and Stanford University have developed and successfully tested an enhanced Loran-C Communications capability for Global Positioning System (GPS) integrity, and potentially for GPS correction data. The Loran Recapitalization Project LRP is a multi-year FAA/USCG initiative to modernize the U.S. Loran-C system to meet present and future radionavigation requirements while leveraging technology and funds to optimize operations, support and training, and reduce total cost of ownership.

Analysis of the testing in Alaska (Figure 4) appears to show that transmission of WAAS data via Loran at the required 250 bps is feasible and that use of all-in-view receivers and H-field antennas are promising mechanisms to allow Loran to support lateral navigation within the NAS. Coupled with the fact that it provides Stratum I timing capability throughout the NAS, Loran appears to show great promise in finding a place as one of the future “systems of systems” that will provide the accuracy, availability, integrity, continuity, and coverage to support navigation requirements of all transportation modal users throughout the United States. While more research and development and associated evaluation and testing is necessary before Loran can be considered both a system to support LNAV and an alternative method for broadcasting WAAS corrections, things continue to look promising at this stage of the program. —Mitchell Narins is the System Engineering Lead within the Navigation and Landing Product Team (AND-702)

The Galileo Debate Continues U.S. Officials cite Concerns About Galileo

U.S. officials say the United States wants to cooperate with Europe to ensure a planned European Galileo satellite navigation system can operate without interference alongside a U.S. GPS satellite system.

Ralph Braibanti, director of the State Department’s Space and Advanced Technology staff, and Scott Pace, deputy director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said a U.S. delegation is continuing talks with officials of the European Commission (EC) to reach an agreement.

Braibanti said it’s true that the United States sees “no compelling need” for Galileo because it is believed that the U.S. GPS will meet the needs of the global user community for the foreseeable future.

“But if Europe, for its own reasons, decides to go forward with Galileo, we would be interested in cooperating with Europe to ensure that it is interoperable with GPS,” he said. “And to that end we have proposed an agreement on GPS-Galileo cooperation.

“At this point ... it’s too early to know whether a solid basis for cooperation exists. That will only become clear as we move forward with more detailed talks throughout the rest of the year.”

The United States, however, has raised a number of issues concerning the way Galileo would operate. One issue is that the EC is considering private funding as one way to generate revenue to help pay for Galileo.

“It’s not immediately obvious why users in Europe or elsewhere would pay voluntarily for Galileo services when they can get the GPS signals for free,” Braibanti said.

He said U.S. officials are concerned that European policymakers “may be tempted” to mandate the use of Galileo or require its use for certain purposes—a situation that would not be beneficial for U.S. or European users.” “It raises various kinds of potential trade-related issues that could arise in the future,” Braibanti said. “So we have been trying to discourage mandating the use of Galileo in a way that would discriminate against users.”

Pace said, for example, that a user who has GPS on a boat or airplane should be able to go to Europe and come back without being required to carry Galileo equipment when he can get the same performance from his GPS equipment.

Braibanti said that users should be able to choose whether they want to use the GPS signals, the Galileo signals, or a combination of the signals “rather than being required by government regulations or standard setting to do so.”

Security Issues
Another concern is whether Galileo would interfere with GPS signals, which raises security issues. The U.S. Department of Defense recently wrote to the 15 European Union defense ministers expressing technical concerns about where Galileo’s frequency signals would be located.

Braibanti said that in some cases the location of frequencies could interfere with GPS signals that are used by NATO countries, including the United States. “This is a serious matter and ... we feel very strongly that there should be no harm or interference to GPS signals because that would pose risks to ourselves as well as our allies,” he said. Braibanti also emphasized that Galileo should be built in such a way that it doesn’t degrade the signals received by civilian users of GPS.

A meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Istanbul in May 2000 authorized an increase in the number of frequencies that could be used for satellite radio navigation in general and for Galileo in particular. Braibanti said that having separate frequency bands that do not interfere with each other “would be a major step toward making sure the two services were seamless and interoperable.”

Pace said Galileo could go in one of two directions. One would lead to a satellite system that augments, complements and works with GPS to benefit European consumers.

“On the other hand, we can see ... where there would be attempts at pricing and regulation and trade restrictions that would reduce benefits for European consumers, and therefore reduce our own economic interests in Europe and around the world; where there could be restrictions and limits that would hurt the security uses of GPS, Pace said. “What we are trying to make sure of is that consumers get a choice, and that our own security interests and those of our allies are not harmed,” he said. u

State Department Outlines Position on Galileo

The European Union is considering building its own global navigation satellite system called Galileo. The United States Government sees no compelling need for Galileo, because GPS is expected to meet the needs of users around the world for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, should Europe decide to go forward with Galileo, the United States would be interested in cooperation to ensure that Galileo is interoperable with GPS and benefits users on both sides of the Atlantic.

Potential GPS-Galileo Cooperation
Users in Europe, North America, and around the world will benefit if Galileo is designed and built so that it is compatible and interoperable with GPS. This requires, among other things, establishing the Galileo technical parameters (for example, signal structure and radiofrequency selection) so that GPS service is not adversely affected.

To ensure interoperability and mutual benefits, the United States has proposed an agreement on GPS-Galileo cooperation. A U.S. team has been discussing the proposed agreement with a European Commission-led delegation since October 2000. The talks are likely to continue at least through the end of the 2002. At this point in the dialogue, it remains unclear whether or not a solid basis for cooperation exists.

During the course of these ongoing discussions on GPS-Galileo cooperation, the U.S. delegation has raised potential concerns about various aspects of the Galileo project as it has been described by Europe. These potential concerns fall into three broad categories: trade-related, technical, and security.

The European Commission is considering options to generate revenue to help pay for Galileo. The U.S. view is that Europe should not opt to use regulations or system-driven standards to mandate the use of Galileo at the expense of GPS manufacturers, service providers, and users. The U.S. view is that users should be free to choose which system or combination of systems best meets their needs. Similarly, the United States would be against any restrictions on access to information on Galileo that non-European companies may need to participate fully in the equipment and services markets.

In the course of the ongoing discussions on GPS-Galileo cooperation, the U.S. delegation has emphasized that it would be unacceptable for Galileo to overlay the same portion of the radio frequency spectrum used by the GPS military service. The United States would be opposed to anything that would degrade the GPS signals (civil or military), diminish the ability to deny access to positioning signals to adversaries in time of crisis, or undermine NATO cohesion.

The United States hopes that these and other issues can be resolved during future discussions with the European Commission and European Union members.

National Technical Meeting 2002

Integrating Technology, Sun and Fun!

In January, the ION held its National Technical Meeting, in San Diego, Calif. Dr. Pratap Misra, general chair, and Mr. Jay Spalding, program chair, produced an outstanding program that drew over 370 participants from 19 countries (29 percent international participation!). The Plenary Session was shared by members from the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation and covered a number of hot topics including GPS Vulnerability Assessment, the 2001 Radionavigation Plan, DoD GPS Policy Update, GPS Constellation status and other important topics. Over ninety papers will be included in the proceedings. Dr. Todd Walter from Stanford University will succeed Jay Spalding as our 2003 National Technical Meeting program chair and Spalding will assume the job of general chair. Thank you to all the session chairs, authors and volunteers who helped make this years event such a success!

Johannes Kepler Award Nominations Requested

Nominations Deadline: by Aug. 1, 2002

Nominations are being accepted for the Johannes Kepler Award. The purpose of this award is to honor an individual for sustained and significant contributions to the development of satellite navigation. All members of the ION are eligible. To submit a nomination, go to www.ion.org, click on annual awards, then Kepler Award, complete the form and submit it. Or, send a supporting letter via fax (703-683-7105) or mail to: Satellite Division Awards Chair, The Institute of Navigation, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 480, Alexandria, VA 22314. Nominations are due by Aug. 1, 2002.

And the ION Nominees for 2002 Are …

2002 ION Council Nominations

The following nominations were submitted by the 2002 Nominating Committee for officers of The Institute of Navigation. The nominations committee was chaired by Karen Van Dyke and included two representatives from each region.

President	Dr. Rudy Kalafus, Trimble Navigation, Ltd.
Executive Vice President	Mr. Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey
	Dr. Duncan Cox, DBC Communications
Treasurer	Dr. Boris Pervan, Illinois Institute of Technology
	Mr. John Clark, The Aerospace Corporation
Eastern Region Vice President	Mr. Jim Doherty, Institute of Defense Analyses
	Dr. Chris Hegarty, The MITRE Corporation
Western Region Vice President	Prof. Gérard Lachapelle, University of Calgary, Canada
	Mr. Dan Crouch, USAF, 46th Test Group/XP
Eastern Council Member-at-Large	Mr. Michael Shaw, Department of Transportation
	Ms. Marie Lage, ARINC
Western Council Member-at-Large	Dr. Stephen Peck, SAIC
	Mr. Kevin Rudolph, Raytheon Electronic Systems
Space Representative	Ms. Ruth Neilan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	Dr. Richard Langley, University of New Brunswick, Canada
Air Representative	Dr. Stewart Cobb, IntegriNautics
	Dr. Todd Walter, Stanford University
Land Representative	Mr. Jim Arnold, Federal Highway Administration
	Mr. Chris Wilson, Daimler Chrysler RTNA
Marine Representative	Cdr. Gordon Weeks, U.S. Coast Guard Loran Support Unit
	Capt. Richard Hartnett, U.S. Coast Guard Academy

Pursuant to Article V of The Institute of Navigation’s bylaws,* “additional Nominations may be made by petition, signed by at least 25 members entitled to vote for the office for which the candidate is nominated.” All additional nominees must fulfill nomination requirements as indicated in the ION bylaws and the nomination must be received at The Institute of Navigation office by April 30, 2002. Ballots will be mailed by May 6. Election results will be announced during Institute of Navigation 58th Annual Meeting being held June 24–26, 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico in conjunction with the CIGTF 21th Biennial Guidance Test Symposium. The newly elected ION officers will take office on June 26, 2002.

*At the January 2001 ION Council Meeting, the bylaws were amended to create only two ION regions, East and West. The Western Region will assimilate North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. The Eastern Region will assimilate Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and the Canadian Province of Ontario. Under the new regional boundaries, the Eastern and Western Regions will be comparatively equal in representation. Also included was a change to the number of Council Members-at-Large representing each region from one to two per region with a two-year term. Furthermore, the term for the current Eastern and Western Council Members-at-Large was extended for one year. Therefore, this year’s nominated Council Members-at-Large will serve for two years and thereafter the two representatives from each region will rotate off the Council every other year. The amended and approved bylaws can be found on the ION’s Web site at www.ion.org.

Portney's Corner: The Demise of an Errant Balloon Courtesy of Litton Guidance and Control

An errant balloon, at an altitude of 1,000 feet, has eluded its captors for a considerable time. A rifleman observes (through his sights) the balloon due east and over 2,000 yards away. He realizes that his rifle has a range of only 1,600 yards; yet he took aim, fired and succeeded in shooting down the balloon.

Where and how could this occur?

A. At high latitudes where the effect of Coriolis force is greater and extended his range.
B. At ultra-high latitudes where the trajectory was along a great circle.
C. At ultra-high latitudes where the trajectory was along a rhumb line.
D. At the equator where the rhumb line and great circle are the same.

The Answer The first thought should be to recognize that a great circle is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere. A rhumb line is the longer distance between two points. This event can occur only at a location very close to the pole, where for short distances, there is a pronounced advantage in distance saved by a great circle over a rhumb line (in this case 23 percent) as seen in Figure 1. The trajectory of a bullet is along a great circle. The due east direction of the balloon is measured along a small circle (a rhumb line) which intercepts all longitudes at a constant 90 degrees. The great circle is consistently shorter than a rhumb line, but this advantage is not significant until longer distances are traversed. The great circle between two points on the Earth is the arc intercepted at the surface of the Earth by a plane passing though the two points and the center of the Earth. It is the smaller arc of the circle intercepted on the Earth. The direction of a great circle measured in the Earth’s coordinate system is constantly changing, yet referenced in inertial space it is a straight line.

In the past, the great circle was difficult to employ in navigation, despite its utility, as its use required recalculating the great circle course repeatedly. The rhumb line is easier to use on a Mercator chart as it appears as a straight line between two points and represents a constant course. With the advent of computers and the inertial navigation system, the computation of the great circle course was easily accomplished and enabled a craft to steer or fly the shortest path between two points.

The conditions for this event are shown as follows: Rifleman at 89.993° N latitude, 70.0° W longitude Balloon at 89.993° N latitude, 70.25° E longitude Great circle distance 1599.98 yards Rhumb line distance 2082 yards

Rhumb line distance (on a small circle) is calculated as follows:
cos latitude x longitude difference = 0.0001221 x 140.25 deg x 60 nmi/deg x 2,025.378 yds/nmi = 2,082 yards rhumb line distance

Since the location of this event is less than 0.5 nmi of the pole, the spherical triangle to be solved can be treated as a plane triangle shown in Figure 2 with little error incurred. The law of cosines is typically used to calculate great circle distances and its formula is shown at the end. The law of cosines is difficult to use when small angles are involved. The value of cosine 1 arcminute is 0.9999999 and the value of cosine 10 arcminutes is 0.9999957, which illustrates how the value of the cosine function for small angles changes very slowly. The distance between the rifleman and the balloon, we will find, is 1,599.98 yards or 0.7899668 nmi or 0.7899668 arcminutes—an angle too small to obtain from the law of cosines formula (from a typical calculator).

To solve for the distance, we will use the plane triangle shown in Figure 2 and employ the law of sines, where:

A = location of rifleman
B = location of balloon
C = pole

Distance: Along the equator, the difference in longitude in arcminutes; along the meridian, the difference between latitudes in arcminutes. Each arcminute is a nautical mile.

Formula: cos D = sin(lat₁)sin(lat₂) + cos(lat₁)cos(lat₂)cos(Δlong)

Where:
D = Distance
lat₁ = Departure latitude
lat₂ = Destination latitude
Δlong = Difference in longitude between departure and destination

The great circle is important for being the shortest distance between two points and because radio wave transmissions, natural phenomena such as light, and many trajectories all travel along this path.

Afterword
A more precise solution can be obtained with the use of programs such as MATLAB™.

From the ION Historian Should We Study Navigation History?

A recent survey of elite colleges, from Princeton to Stanford, revealed that none of them required a course in American history. And students could graduate from 78 percent of them without taking any history course. One reason for this inattention to history is that there is little professional incentive for professors to teach general history courses. Advancement in academia comes from publishing, and there is little market in academic journals for articles on subjects that are broadly conceived. Academic laurels go to authors of specialized articles, who prefer to teach specialized courses, so general education is slighted. This attenuation in the study of history is thought by some to lead to a dangerous inability to put recent events in perspective. A New Epoch? "Nonsense" Owen Harris, editor emeritus of the National Interest quarterly, rejects the idea that September 11 ushered in a new epoch in world history. This "nonsense," he says, reflects "the difficulty intellectuals habitually have in distinguishing between the state of their minds and the state of the world." And it reflects what has been called "the parochialism of the present," which Harries says is a "condition resulting from a combination of ignorance of history and an egotistical insistence on exaggerating the importance of events that more or less directly involve oneself. Horrifying and atrocious as the acts of terror were, it should be remembered that they happened at a time when people who experienced the Somme and Verdun, the Holocaust and Hiroshima, are still alive."

These words resonated in my mind as I was reading some of the "Directions 2002" essays in the GPS World Showcase of December 2001. The essays extolled the virtues of GPS and reveled at its technological prowess. But have the authors of these essays studied navigation history and are they prone to egotistically exaggerating the importance of a system that involves themselves?

Consider the Navy Navigation Satellite System also known as TRANSIT. This system was conceived, designed, developed and tested during the period of 1960 to 1964. The first artificial satellite Sputnik was launched into orbit in 1958. The word "digital" was still new to many engineer’s vocabulary and computers were expensive, esoteric, complex machines. The information technology revolution had not begun and dissemination of technical data was further impeded by the tight security regulations associated with the Cold War. Today’s familiar navigation concepts such as worldwide geodetic systems, dual frequency ionospheric compensations, relativistic effects, gravitational perturbations, and carrier phase tracking were unchartered waters during those days. The scientists and engineers involved with TRANSIT managed to overcome these obstacles and pioneered satellite navigation.

The study of navigation history will not cause the accomplishments of GPS to be neglected or minimized; rather it will place them in proper perspective.

Marvin B. May teaches specialized master’s degree courses in navigation at Pennsylvania State University. The quoted portions of this article are from George Will’s Washington Post article of Jan. 1, 2001.

GNSS AROUND THE GLOBE

Girl Scout NavStars—Navigating Through Life GPS was the nav-”star” of the show at the Camp CEO workshop sponsored by the Girl Scout’s Milehi Council at Camp Tomahawk in Bailey Colorado. The camp’s theme was “Navigating through Life” and provided a series of workshops, run by local “Women of Distinction,” to assist the girls in developing a business plan for a notional product and company they would launch. Alison Brown, of the Rocky Mountain Satellite Division, provided GPS receivers and instruction to allow the girls to navigate between the different events using GPS. The final “products,” briefed at the end of the workshop, showed an amazing amount of imagination, ranging from a new solar/hydrogen/electric car (“Drive Green, Drive Clean!”) to a designer survival hat accessorized with everything from a water bottle to a GPS receiver! All of the girls attending had a great time (young and old) and left sporting snazzy Camp CEO t-shirts provided by the ION for the event.

In Memoriam Robert Mitchell 1923-2002 It is with much regret that the ION announces the passing of our bylaws chair, Robert Mitchell, age 79, on March 17, in Mesa, Arizona. Mitchell’s Air Force career of 27 years involved development of the space missile program. He retired from the USAF with the rank of Lt. Colonel. In Arizona, he participated in the Apache helicopter program. Upon his retirement from the Apache program, he continued to participate in the ION as a council member and as the ION bylaws committee chair. His longtime contributions to the Institute have been greatly appreciated. He will be sorely missed.

DAYTON SECTION On Nov. 14, Dr. Dave Diggle hosted the Dayton Section meeting at Ohio University’s Avionics Engineering Center. Members learned about a myriad of research activities and classes at the center, including aircraft software certification procedures, operational LAAS testing at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, software radio research, and aircraft attitude determination using a single GPS antenna and GPS velocity information. The highlight was a hands-on tour of the Ohio University’s aircraft including their famous DC-3. You can visit the center on the Web at http://webeecs.ent.ohiou.edu/avn/. Dayton area residents can visit the section Web site at www.ion.org/sections/dayton/ hs_apprenticeship.pdf to download an application for the ION Apprenticeship/ Scholarship mentioned in the last newsletter.

NEW ENGLAND SECTION
On Nov. 7, the New England Section held its 22nd meeting at the U.S. DOT Volpe Center in Cambridge. Dr. James Carroll of the Volpe Center presented the “Vulnerability of the U.S. Transportation Infrastructure That Relies on GPS,” in which he gave an overview of the recently-released DOT vulnerability assessment and recommendations for all U.S. transportation modes relying on GPS.

On Jan. 16, the 23rd meeting of the section was held at The MITRE Corporation in Bedford, Mass. Paul DeBitetto of the Draper Laboratory talked about the work the Draper Lab is doing to address the problem of accurate personal navigation in environments where use of GPS signals is precluded. The Draper team is currently developing an accurate man-portable, real-time navigating device that would allow individuals to navigate in unknown GPS-denied areas for several hours. The next meeting is scheduled for March 20 at the Dynamics Research Corporation in Andover. A presentation on maritime navigation and electronic charting is planned.

PHILADELPHIA SECTION
The following individuals are slated for section officers: chair, John Warburton, FAA; vice chair, Ray Filler, Army CECOM; secretary, Victor Wullschleger, FAA; and for treasurer, Neil Weinman, ARL/PSU.

WASHINGTON D.C. SECTION
The results of the recently held section elections follow: section chair, Jim Doherty; vice chair, Mike Shaw; secretary, Chris Varner; treasurer, Chuck Schue; and programs committee chair, Keith McDonald.

In 2001, the Washington Section held three evening meetings: in May at the U.S. Naval Observatory in May; in August, when the section toured the U.S. Capitol, and in October, when the meeting was at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Future meetings being planned include an evening meeting and tour at the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center in April.

The Washington Section is one of the first sections to participate in the Institute of Navigation’s pilot scholarship program. Sally Frodge, ION’s Eastern Region Vice President is chairing this committee.

RTCA Corner Special Committee-159 Global Positioning System Report

The fifty-seventh meeting of SC-159 was held on December 14 at RTCA. No new documents were presented for approval. Working Group activities dominated.

Next Meeting: April 8–12, 2002

Chair: Larry Chesto, Consultant

Vice Chair: George Ligler, PMEI

Program Director: Harold Moses, RTCA, Inc.

Secretary: Young Lee, The MITRE Corporation

Working Group-1, Third Civil Frequency, discussed GPS modernization status, new L5 message change proposals, L5 signal ellipticity, modernized GEO, and Galileo signal proposals.

Working Group-2, GPS/WAAS, future work will consist of two different areas, which will be documented separately. One area is maintaining the current DO-229C document. The second area is new directions such as developing user airborne equipment standards for dual-frequency equipment (L5 WAAS). The WAAS implementation is on schedule—last build of WAAS software will be implemented around April 2002, contractor acceptance inspection is scheduled for March 2003 and commissioning for December 2003. The congressional conference committee put $80.9 million in the proposed budget for the WAAS program for FY 2002 and an additional $5 million for acquisition of a geostationary satellite.

Working Group-2A, GPS/GLONASS, continues to monitor GLONASS activity to determine if DO-229 should be updated to include GLONASS. It was reported that three new satellites were launched.

Working Group-2C, GPS/Inertial, long term goal is to revise Appendix R to DO-229C to incorporate the case for SA off. As a result of the recently published Volpe report, the working group was asked to determine how inertial integration would help continue navigation in the presence of interference. The working group will focus on how much the GPS/inertial system can coast upon the loss of all satellites due to interference.

Working Group-4, Precision Landing Guidance, GPS/LAAS, presented a schedule to revise DO-245, LAAS MASPS, by the end of 2002. The working group is working to define operational concepts and requirements for RNAV operations and CatII/III precision approach.

Working Group-5, Airport Surface Navigation and Surveillance, continues to monitor airport surface requirements. Status reports were provided for international activities, DFW Program and the Safe Flight 21 OpEvals.

Working Group-6, GPS/Interference, plans to finalize the GNSS 11 RFI assessment report and present it to SC-159 on April 12, 2002. The working group expects to review the draft L5 Report in Spring/Summer 2002 and present the final report to SC-159 in the Fall 2002.

RTCA, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based recommendations regarding communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management system issues. RTCA functions as a federal advisory committee. Its recommendations are used by the Federal Aviation Administration as the basis for policy, program and regulatory decisions, and by the private sector as the basis for development, investment and other business decisions.