Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:10:12.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harmonisation of Category-III Precision Approach Navigation System Performance Requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2010

Wolfgang Schuster  and
Washington Ochieng
Wolfgang Schuster*
Affiliation:
(Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial CollegeLondon)
Washington Ochieng
Affiliation:
(Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial CollegeLondon)
*
(Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two distinct methods have been proposed and used to derive the required performance for CAT-II and III precision approaches: the “ILS (Instrument Landing System) Look-Alike Method” and the “Autoland Method”. The former is based on the concept of matching the performance of the ILS at the Navigation System Error (NSE) level through linearization of current specifications at a given height. The latter is based on the need to protect the safety of a landing operation using the current specification for the probability to land in a given landing box. Fundamentally, both methods assume the same safety targets and type of distribution, and are independent of specific navigation architectures. Therefore, they should deliver the same performance requirements. However, the requirements from the two methods for CAT-III approach are different. This paper reviews the two methods in detail, highlighting the key differences, and proposes ways to reconcile the methods and the requirements.

Keywords

CAT IIIILS Look-alikeAutoland
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 569 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2010

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

REFERENCES

Capretti, A., (2006). Communication with A. Capretti, ICAO.Google Scholar
EASA, (2003). Certification Specifications for All Weather Operations, CS-AWO Book 2, AMC-AWO-131.Google Scholar
Eurocae, (2007). High-Level Performance Requirements For a Global Navigation Satellite System/Ground Based Augmentation System to Support Precision Approach Operations, ED-144, EUROCAE (2007).Google Scholar
FAA, (1999). Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather Minima for Takeoff, Landing and Rollout, FAA Advisory Circular 120-28D (July 1999).Google Scholar
Guillet, A., (2007). Communication with A. Guillet – Airbus-France.Google Scholar
ICAO, (2002). Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids – Volume I: Testing of Ground-Based Radio Navigation Systems, DOC 8071.Google Scholar
ICAO, (2004). Aeronautical Telecommunications – Annex 10, Volume 1.Google Scholar
Indiens, R., (2005). Alert Limit Requirements Harmonization, RTCA.Google Scholar
Murphy, T et al. , (2005). Determining the Vertical Alert Requirements for a Level of GBAS Service that is Appropriate to Support Cat II/III Operations, Boeing Report Vol. IV.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. (2006). Work currently ongoing at Boeing, Communication with T. Murphy.Google Scholar
RTCA (2004). Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards for the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), RTCA-DO245A.Google Scholar
Schuster, W. and Ochieng, W., (2006). Presentation to EUROCAE WG28-SG4 (27-29 March).Google Scholar
Schuster, W., (2006). Navigation Performance Requirements Tables, ANASTASIA (July).Google Scholar
Schuster, W. et al. , (2008). High Accuracy Navigation Study Report, ANASTASIA EC Deliverable D3232.Google Scholar
Schuster, W. et al. (2009). Key technology operational performance analysis final report, ANASTASIA EC Deliverable D3.4.Google Scholar
Shively, C. (2004) Derivation of Vertical Alert Limit for LAAS Cat III Autoland Considering Limit Risk Requirement, 60th Annual Meeting of the ION.Google Scholar