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.
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!
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.
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
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.
Closing Pandora’s Box
The UWB Camel Noses In
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
The Second Science Fellow
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.
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?
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
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.”
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
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
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 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 …
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.
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.
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?
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.
Rhumb line distance (on a small circle) is calculated as follows:
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
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)
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.
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.
NEW ENGLAND SECTION
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.
WASHINGTON D.C. SECTION
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.
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.
All contents (c) Institute of Navigation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Close Window / Return to ION Website