Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:42:19.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study of EGNOS accuracy and integrity in eastern Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

G. Grunwald ,
M. Bakuła  and
A. Ciećko
G. Grunwald*
Affiliation:
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Department of Satellite Geodesy and Navigation, Olsztyn, Poland
M. Bakuła
Affiliation:
Polish Air Force Academy in Dęblin, Aeronautics Faculty, Dęblin, Poland
A. Ciećko
Affiliation:
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Department of Satellite Geodesy and Navigation, Olsztyn, Poland
*
g.grunwald@kgsin.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ionosphere is one of the main factors affecting the accuracy and integrity of satellite-based augmentation system positioning systems. This paper presents the results of a 30-day study of the accuracy and integrity of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) conducted at the EPOD airport belonging to the Aeroclub of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, in northeastern Poland (the area until recently considered as the edge of EGNOS coverage). Analyses of the parameters characterising the accuracy and integrity of positioning were performed in three calculation variants/modes: with the original EGNOS ionospheric correction, with correction determined by means of Klobuchar algorithm, and finally with modified ionospheric coefficients developed by the CODE. Studies have shown clearly that the original EGNOS ionospheric model gives the best integrity and accuracy results allowing to use EGNOS for approach with vertical guidance procedures, while the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe and Klobuchar models could only be used for non-precision approach operations.

Keywords

SBASEGNOSSBAS integrityGNSS navigationRNAV navigation
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1230 , August 2016 , pp. 1275 - 1290
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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

1. Radio Technical Committee for Aeronautics: Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Equipment Using Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation System, Doc. DO-229D, 2006.Google Scholar
2. European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Safety of Life Service Definition Document, 2.1, 2014.Google Scholar
3. Ilcev, D. S. Development and characteristics of African satellite augmentation system (ASAS) network, Telecommunications Systems, 2013, 52, (1), pp 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. International Civil Aviation Organization: European Region Area Navigation (RNAV), guidance material, 2003.Google Scholar
5. Felski, A. and Nowak, A. On EGNOS monitoring in local conditions, Artificial Satellites, 2013, 48, (2), pp 85–92.Google Scholar
6. Vassilev, B. and Vassileva, B. The satellite navigation system EGNOS and safety of life service performance in Sofia, Information Technologies and Control, April 2011, pp 32–39.Google Scholar
7. Felski, A., Nowak, A. and Woźniak, T. Accuracy and availability of EGNOS: results of observations, Artificial Satellites, 2011, 46, pp 111–118.Google Scholar
8. Grzegorzewski, M., Świątek, A., Oszczak, S., Ciećko, A. and Ćwiklak, J. Study of EGNOS safety of life service during the period of solar maximum activity, Artificial Satellites, 2012, 47, pp 137–145.Google Scholar
9. Bakuła, M. Network code DGPS positioning and reliable estimation of position accuracy, Survey Review, 2010, 42, pp 82–91.Google Scholar
10. Popielarczyk, D. and Templin, T. Application of integrated GNSS/hydroacoustic measurements and GIS geodatabase models for bottom analysis of Lake Hancza: the deepest inland reservoir in Poland, Pure Applied Geophysics, 2014, 171, pp 997–1011.Google Scholar
11. European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Service Definition Document Open Service, 1.1, 2009.Google Scholar
12. Konin, V. and Shyshkov, F. Extending the reach of SBAS: some aspects of EGNOS performance in Ukraine, Inside GNSS, 2015, 1, pp 50–54.Google Scholar
13. Świątek, A., Stanisławska, I., Zbyszyński, Z. and Dziak-Jankowska, B. Extension of EGNOS ionospheric correction coverage area, Acta Geophysica, 2014, 62, (1), pp 259–269.Google Scholar
14. Klobuchar, J.A. Ionospheric time-delay algorithm for single-frequency GPS users, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1987, AES-23, pp 325–331.Google Scholar
15. Yuan, Y., Huo, X., Ou, J., Zhang, K., Chai, Y. et al. Klobuchar ionospheric coefficients based on GPS observations, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2008, AES-44, pp 1498–1510.Google Scholar
16. Arbesser-Rastburg, B. Ionospheric and tropospheric modelling and monitoring for GNSS at the European space agency, IEEE in General Assembly and Scientific Symposium 2011 XXXth URSI, 2011, pp 1–4. http://www.ursi.org/proceedings/procga11/ursi/FG-1.pdf Google Scholar
17. Jakowski, N., Borries, C. and Wilken, V. Introducing a disturbance ionosphere index, Radio Sci., 2012, 47, RS0L14, doi:10.1029/2011RS004939.Google Scholar
18. Angrisano, A., Gaglione, S., Gioia, C., Massaro, M. and Robustelli, U. Assessment of NeQuick ionospheric model for Galileo single-frequency users, Acta Geophysica, 2013, 61, (6), pp 1457–1476.Google Scholar
19. Radicella, S.M. The NeQuick model genesis, uses and evolution, Annals of Geophysics, 2009, 52, (3/4), pp 417–422.Google Scholar
20. Mageed, K.M.A. Effect of using Klobuchar, CODE, and No-ionosphere models on processing single frequency GPS static medium baselines, Int J Scientific and Engineering Research., 2014, 5, (5), pp 363–371.Google Scholar
21. http://aiuws.unibe.ch/ionosphere/#cgim (accessed 2 December 2014).Google Scholar
22. Øvstedal, O. Absolute positioning with single-frequency GPS receivers, GPS Solutions, 2002, 5, (4), pp 33–44.Google Scholar
23. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Transportation. Federal Radionavigation Plan, 2012, Springfield, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
24. http://www.asgeupos.pl/index.php?wpg_type=news_show&news_id=159 (accessed 15 December 2014).Google Scholar
25. Azaola-Saenz, M. and Cosmen-Shortmann, J. Autonomous Integrity, Inside GNSS, 2009, 4, pp 28–36.Google Scholar
26. ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS), Annex10 Volume I (Radio Navigation Aids) (International Civil Aviation Organization), 2006.Google Scholar
27. Oliveira, J. and Tiberius, C. Quality control in SBAS: Protection levels and reliability levels J Navigation, 2009, 62, pp 509–522.Google Scholar
28. Vassiley, B. and Vassileva, B. EGNOS performance before and after applying an error extraction methodology, Annual of Navigation, 2012, 19, (2), pp 121–130.Google Scholar