Sponsored by-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

With Participation of-
American Astronautical Society (AAS)
u

F E A S I B I L I T Y DEMONSTRATION T E S T I N G O F A
SCANNING B E A M MLS

bY
J. L. VILBIG and R . L. GASSNER
Texas Instruments Incorporated
e Dallas, Texas

1 .
)--

ANAHEIM, CALIFORNiA / AUGUST 59,1974

First publication riqhts reserved by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

1290 Avenue of the Americas. New York, N. Y . 10019. Abstracts may be published without
permission i f credit is given to author and t o AIAA. (Price: A l A A Member $1.50. Nonmember 52.00).
Note: This paper available at A l A A New York office for six months;
thereafter, photoprint copirs are available a 1 photocopy prices from
A l A A Library, 750 3rd Avenue, New York, New York 10017
 FEASIBI LlTY DEMONSTRATION TESTING
OF A SCANNING BEAM MLS"
J.L. Vilbig and R.L. Gassner
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Dallas. Texas
.-
Abstract 'configuration intended to provide guidance through flare,
touchdown, and rollout; (2) a portable, military "G" system, a
Since October 1973. Texas Instruments feasibility demonstration Cat II accuracy configuration intended t9 provide guidance
mechanical-scan scanning beam MLS. consisting of azimuth, down to 100-foot decision height: and (3) the "AMSCAN" low^
elevation, flare, and DME ground sta:ions, has undergone cost azimuth antenna. All these equipments were implemented
extensive testing a t NASA Wallops Station. Virginia, facility. with components that would fully demonstrate the performance
Aircraft tracking was provided by ANIFPS-16 radar (with of the scanning beam technique, but which had minimum
beacon) a t long range and a four~camera photogrammetric design. cost, and schedule risks. All mechanical and electronic
system near the runway. The test aircraft were a USAF C-131 components were "stack" items and no compcnent develoiirnent
and a USA UH-1D. while a mobile test van was employed to was required. The Systems were non-redundant and did not
obtain "static" test data. Various combinations of flight patterns employ any "closcd~loap" monitor control, since these functions
and static tests were performed with "clean" sites. with large were not critical to the feasibility demonstration program.
mobile multipath-generating screens, and with a C-124 aircraft to
simulate a variety of "real.world" test environments. The NASA The ground system parameters are given in Table 1. The
tracking and data processing systems provided merged digital deployment of the MLS equipment on the assigned runway a t
tapes, containing raw radar and MLS data, and calculated error Wallops Station i s shown in Figure 1. The "K" azimuth system
data from which MLS data was plotted for analysis. Flight and installation a t Wallops Station is shown in Figure 2 and the
s t a t i c test results ir.dicating MLS coverage and accuracy characteristics of the azimuth subsystem are shown in.Table 2.
performance are presented. The primary elevation (glideslope) guidance in the "K" system is
provided Vuith the EL-1 angle subsystem. Its characteristics are
Introduction given in Table 3. The flare elevation guidance i s provided by the
El-2 angle subsystem whose characteristics are given in Table 4.
The Phase II. Feasibility Demonstration. of the Federal Aviation Figure3 shows the Ei-2 flare guidance subsystem. The El-1
Administration National Plan for a Microwave Landing System i s elevation guidance subsystem is very similar in appearance. The
nearing completion. This paper ieports preliminary results of the El-2 antenna i s located 250 feet from runway centerline, 2.750
Phase II feasibility demonstration tests conducted by Texas feet from tlireshold. The El-1 antenna i s located 1,000 feet from
Instruments on a mechanical scan, scanning beam Microwave threshold. 265 feet from runway centerline. The DME trans-
Landing System. The Texas Instruments feasibility demonstra- ponder i s in the azimuth equipment shelter and its antenna is
tion MLS was designed and manufactured between March and mounted on top of the shelter. I t s characteristics are given in
4 September of 1973 and was deliyered to the NASA Wallops Table5.
Station facility in Virginia in late September and October for
field test. The equipment 'was imtalled, checked-out, and aligned The low~costAMSCAN antenna i s an electronic-scan, limited-
during October and, November and the official flight test coverage antenna. It is shown in Figure 4 and i t s characteristics
, commenced in December of 1973. The s e t of data specified by are given in Table 6.
the FAA Test Requirements and Coordination Plan for Feasibil-
i t y Demonstration was completed in May 1974. Supplemental The Military ground system i s trailer-mounted with collocated
tests of an airborne system in a USA UH-1D helicopter and the arimu:h and elevation angle systems. The system is shown in
Texas Instruments "AMSCAN," low-cost ground azimuth Figure 5 and its characteristics are given in Table 7.
antenna were performed in June, 1974.
MLS Airborne Equipment and Instrumentation
In the following sections the feasibility hardware and test
facilities are described and preliminary test data i s presented. A t To minimize cost and schedule risk, a common airborne system
the time this paper was written (early June, 1(174), only a part capable of receiving guidance signals from all of the ground
of the flight t e s t radar tracking data was available to Texas equipment was developed for the feasibility demonstration
Instruments, and none of the more precise photogrammetric testing. The airborne package also included a n interface unit for
"close-in" data was available. The data displayed in the paper is. the GF E recording system. The feasibility test airborne
therefore, taken from some of the earlier flight tests and charac. equipment was rack-mounted for ease of installation as shown in
teristically displays anomolies, such as tracking radar and MLS Figure& The G F E recording system was mounted on a similar
equipment calibration errors, normally encountered in such rack. An Air Force C-131 aircraft was loaned to the FAA for
testing. In spite of this, however, the data clearly demonstrates use in the test program and over 70 flight test hours were
the basically excellent guidance performance of scanning beam accumulated during the program. Also, an Army U l i - l D was
M LS. used for helicop:er tests of the military system.

Texas Instruments Feasibility MLS In addition to the flight test aircraft, a test van was provided by
the FAA which was used t o take ground data at heights from 5
MLS Ground Equipment feet to 70 feet. The van is shown in Figure 7 with the "bug" at
the top of the permanent mast (about 50 feet). An additional
The ground equipment tested a t Wallops Station included ( 1 ) a 20 feet 'was obtained by using a fiberglass extension which
Category I l l , "K." system. which is the high-accuracy attached to the bug. An airborne rack and a recording rack
V'

'This paper is bared on work performed by Texas Instruments under Contract Number DOT-FA72WA-2802 for the FAA a t NASA
Wallops Station, Virginia, facility.

1
 Table 1. Feasibility Demonstration MLS Ground System Parameters

Civil angle Military angle DME

AZ EL-1 EL-2 A2 EL
Frequency C C Ku Ku Ku C
Antenna beamwidth 1" 10 0.5' 2" 1.5" -
Antenna type Reflector Slotted array Slotted array Reflector Scanned Slotted
aperture array
Power 20 w 20 w 10 w 10 w 10 w 2 kW, peak
Coverage
A2 360" 120" 80' 1200 120" 120' FC
(360' option) 80" 8C
EL 0"' to 20" 10 to 200 0" to 8' 1" to 20"
~~ 10 to 20"
~~ 0"' to 20*
Scan type Rotational Rotational Rotational Rotational Rotational None
Back-to-back Back-to-back Back-to-back Back-to.back
Scan speed 150 rpm 150 rpm 300 rpm 150 rpm 300 None
Update rate Slsec Sisec 1Otsec Slsec 5isec 40Isec

'Along runway

EL-2 SHELTER A N D A 2 ANTENNA

RUNWAY LENGTH = 8753 F T

Figure 1. TI Feasibility Demonstration Inslallation

containing equipment similar to that in the aircraft were radar azimuth errors when the aircraft was between 1.5 and
mounted in the van. 2.5 miles from threshold. On some runs, errors in elevation also
occurred in this region. depending on the orientation of the
Tracking Facilities large antmna during a particular run. Elsewhere, the radar and
MLS data agree remarkably well; and on one run from 10 miles

-
The aircraft position data was recorded dynamically using two to 2.5 miles from threshold. t l i e azimuth "error" averaged over
systems. The primary longrange'tracking system was an FPS-16 the segment was 0.005 degree. Analysis and flighr tests of the
radar; short-range tracking was accomplished by the use of a radar by NASA contractors indicate. however, that tlie azimuth
4-camera photogrammetric system. The radar elevation data was and range "bias" accuracy of tlie radar is, at best, only about
useable to within about 3,000feet from threshold. On a equal to that of the MLS it i s measuring. I n other words. in
3 degree gliderlope a large satellite tracking antenna located azimuth and range. the "raw" data IMLS data minus radar
between the FPS-16 and the path of the aircraft caused large tracking data) shown in later sections of this paper may contain

2
 Figure 2. T I Azimuth System
Figure 3. TI Elevation 2 System
approximately equal parts of radar and MLS bias errors. Si,nce
the radar data i s heavily filtered, however, the raw error data
gives a good indication of the higher frequency MLS noise. In
elevation the radar errors are about one~halfthe MLS specified
errors at longer ranges (e.g., beyond 2 miles); but the radar
elevation errors degrade to more than the MLS specified errors
a t shorter ranges. In addition, consistent radar angle errors were
encountered inside of 1 mile from threshold on 3 degree
approach paths.
The photogrammetric coverage extended beyond the threshold
about 3,000 feet. (See Figure 1). One camera looked down the
runway towards the threshold so that its coverage extended
b e y o n d the touchdown region. Another camera pointed
perpendicular to the runway to cover the touchdown region. A
third camera pointed perpendicular to the runway to cover the
flare region and a fourth camera pointed toward threshold to
3
Figure 4. TI AMSCAN Azimuth Antenna .
Figure 5. TI Military Trailer System
cover the last 3,000 feet of the approach path and some of the
flare region. Using the azimuth camera and one of the other
cameras, the angle between the aircraft and surveyed “target
boards” was measured on the film and aircraft position was
calculated. Ten pictures were taken per second. and the reduced
data was filtered and converted to MLS coordinates. The ”error’’
in MLS angle and range data was then computed by the
algorithm used by the radar system. The error performance of
the Photogrammetric system should be much better than that of
the radar.
For “static” van data, the location of the receiving antennas was
establish& by the use of surveyed points on tile airport snrfacc.
The van was parked as close to the point as possible and leveled,
and X, Y . and Z bias measurements were made to a reference
point on the van. The height of the antenna ”bug“ was
displayed in the van on a nixie tube display to within 0.01 foot.
 Table 2. Feasibility Demonstration MLS Table 4. Feasibility Demonstration MLS
Civil Azimuth Subsystem Parameters Civil Elevation-2 Subsystem Parameters

Transmitted signal Transmitted signal

v Swept angle tone 60 to 120 kHz Swept angle tone 50 to 66 kHz
(500 Hzldeg front course (2.000 Hzidegl
250 Hzldsg back course) Power 10 w
Fixed data tones ERP Ipeak) +32 dBW 11.6 kW)
DAAG secondary guidance Antennas
Auxiliary data Type Back-to-back rotating
Beam I D waveguide linear array
Audible Morse code status Gain t 2 8 dB peak
Status Beamwidth 0.5' EL X 80' AZ
Power 20 w Sidelobes 24dB -
ERP (peak) +38 dBW (6.3 kW) Specified accuracy
Antennas Bias 0.018"
Type Back-to-back rotating Nois? ( 2 0 ) 0.036'
reflectors Prime power
Gain t 3 5 dB peak Electronics 0.5 kW
Beamwidth 1' AZ, 1 to 20" EL Antenna system 2 kW
Sidelobes 21 dB
Specified accuracy
Bias 0.038"
Noise ( 2 0 ) 0.034' Table 5. Feasibility Demonstration MLS
Prime power Civil DME Transponder Parameters
Electronics 1 kW
Antenna system 7 kW Transmitted signal
Special features Pulse pairs 0.7 psec long. spaced 10 or 12 gsec
Boani hopover Repetition 1,000 pulse pairsisec (squitterl
360' coverage Power 2 kW peak
Sector cutvff ERP (peak) t 4 6 dBW (40 kW) front course
Received signal
Pulse pairs 0.7 psec long, spaced 10 or 12 psec
Table 3. Feasibility Demonstration MLS Receiver noise figure 12 dB
Civil Elevation -1 Subsystem Parameters Receiver selectivity 2 MHz (Ferris discriminator)
Receiver sensitivity -82 dBm
Transmitted signal Antennas
Swept angle tone 60 to 70 ktlz Type: Back.to~back linear array
(500 Hrldeg) Gain: t 1 4 dB peak front course
Fixed data tones -2 dB peak hack course
DAAG secondary guidance Beamwidth 120' A 2 front course
Beam I D 80" A 2 back course
Power: 20 w 1' to 20' EL
ERP (peak): +30.5 dBW (1.1 kWI Specified accuracy
Antennas Bias 20'
Type Back-toback rotating Noise (201 20'
waveguide linear array Prime power
Gain +25 dB peak Electronics 0.6 kW
Beamwidth 1" (EL) X 120' (AZ)
Sidelobes 24 dB
Specified accuracy
Data System
Bias 0.046'
Noise (201 0.054*
Data acquisition was primarily digital, although analog and strip
Prime power
c h a r t recorders were used for special signal recording
Electronics 0.5 kW
requirements.
Antenna system 2 kW
Digital data tapes were used to record both static data and flight
test data from the MLS equinnient. Data tapes made in the van
Several times during the test, the bug height readout was were copied by Wallops Station and the copies were provided
checked against theodolite height measurements with agreement for data reduction and plotting by Texas Instruments. Data
to within 0.05 foot. These errors seemed to be repeatable to tapes made in the aircraft during flight tests were given to
within 0.02 foot and were subtracted out for critical elevation 'Nallops Station for "merging" (time matching) wit!> the radar-
measurements. When all v i the measurement errors are con- tracking-data tapes: copies of the merged data tapes. containing
v
sidered. the receiving antenna position was known to better both MLS data and radar-tracking data. were provided to Texas
than 0.1 foot. Instruments for data reduction and plotting.

4
 Table 6. AMSCAN Azimuth Antenna Parameters

Frequency 5.19 GHz

Polarization Vertical

- Cross polarization
Gain
Power handling
A 2 beamwidth
AZ sidelobes
-20 dB
18 dB
6.0 watts
3.2'
-18 dB worst-case (1 to 8' ELI
A 2 scan coverage t13'
Scan rate 1.800"lsec
Data rate 5 Hz
EL pattern shape Maximum gain from tl" to 6.25" '
CSC' D fall-off from 6.25' to
20' (within t2. -4 dB)
Accuracy 1-5 dB centroid) t0.12" over 1.5' to 5.5'EL;
A12" A 2
+0.25' over 0' to 8" EL:
fl3' A2
Gain variation f0.5 dB
Clearance coveraqe EL 0 t o 200
A2 -130 10-90"
t13" to t90" Figure 7. TI Feasibility Demonstration Test Van

Table 7. Feasibility Demonstration MLS 0.046 degree I201 a t a typical maximum 'range from the
Military Collocated System Parameters Elevation No. 1 antenna of 1,500 feet, corresponding to 50 feet
altitude on a 2-degree glide slope approach. The elevation
Transmitted signal angular error requirement i s then allowed to degrade only with
Swept angle tone AZ 60 to 120 kHz elevation angle above 9 degrees. The specified maximum !
1500 Hzideg) elevation angular error of 0.046 degree corresponds to a
EL 60 to 70 kHz maximum computed altitude error of 144 feet viithin the
1500 Hzidegl elevation coverage volume It60 degrees azimuth, 1 to 20 degrees
DAAG secondary guidance AZ and EL elevation, up to 20,000 feet altitnde. out to 30 nautical miles
Fixed data tones rangel.
Beam ID
v Status The Elevation No. 2 vertical path following error is specified to
Audible Morse code be less than 0.7 foot throughout the touchdown zone. here
Power 10 w assumed to extend from 750 to 2,250 feet from the antenna.
ERP (peak1 A2 t 3 7 dBW (5 kW1 This leads to the same 1.2 feet maximum vertical error specified
EL 128 dBW (0.6 kWl for the Elevation No. 1 system a t its minimum guidance altitude.
Antennas The corresponding maximum angular error i s 0.018 degree. The
Type A2 Back-to~backrotating reflector angular error i s allowed to degrade with range SO as to match
EL Rotating waveguide linear array the Elevation No. 1 error. The Elevation No. 2 angular accuracy
Gain AZ +33 dB lpeakl is also allowed to decrease with elevation angles above 2 degrees,
EL t 2 3 dB loeak) since these angles correspond to higher altitudes. where altitude
Beamwidth A2 2'(1" to'20' ELI error i s not so critical.
EL 1.5" X BO"
Sidelobes A2 20 dB The DME range error is specified to be less than 20 feet from
EL 22dB , 1,000 to 15,000 feet range. corresponding to the criticel
Specified accuracy decision height through touchdown and rollout region. The
Bias 0.25" (A21 0.07" (ELI range error i s allowed to degrade with range to 200 feet at long
Noise 1201 0.10' IAZ) 0.08" (ELI range.
Prime power
3 kW The back azimuth (missed approachldeparturel lateral path
Special features following error is specified to he 160 feet maximum a t 5
360" scan mode nautical miles from the departure end of the runway, which
A 2 antenna tilt corresponds to 45.000 feet range for a hack azimuth system
Sector cutoff installed a t the threshold end of a 14,000-feet-long runway.
Transportable
> The higher frequency error components, which cause control
vibration but negligible path-following error, are specified in
the azimuth coverage volume ( f 6 0 degrees azimuth. up to 20 Table 9. Again the maximum requirements are specified in the
degrees elevation, up to 20,000 feet altitude. out to 30 nautical

-
miles range) is limited to 600 feet (0.1 nautical milel maximum.
Elevation No. 1 vertical path-following error i s specified to
be than 1.2feet a t the minimum guidance altitude of 50
which leads to a maximum angular accuracy requirement of
critical touchdown zone and are as recommended by RTCA
SC-117. Elsewhere in the coverage regions. these errors are
allowed to degrade somewhat to accommodate the reduced
signal-to-noise ratios expected. The maximum noise error (201 is
limited to 0.1 degree in angle and 200 feet in range. These
values are not expected to cause appreciable control vibration

6
 Table 8. K Configuration Error Criteria
-Path Following Error-

Distance of Maximum allowable accuracy degradation

Error ( 2 0 ) error window
from antenna With azimuth
' (feet) (degrees) (feet) With distance angle With elevation angle
v

Azimuth' 10.0 0.038 15,000 Angle: Angle: Angle: None from 0" to 9'
3:l a t 22.5 nmi 2:l at i60° 2:1 from 9" to 20'
Elevation 1 1.2 0.046 1,500 None None Angle: None from 0' to 9"
(50'on 2' 2:1 from 9" to 20'
glideslopel
Elevation 2 0.7 0.018 2,250 Angle: None Angle: None from 0" to 2'
1.2$:1 a t 5 nmi 4:l from 2' to 6'
DME 20 - 15,000 .Range:' None None
1O:l a t 22.5nmi
Back azimuth 160 0.20 45,000 - None None

'Up t o 0.1 nmi ( 2 0 ) maximum

Table 9. K Configuration Error Criteria

-Control Vibration Noise Error-

Distance of
error window Maximum allowable accuracy degradation
from antenna
Error ( 2 0 ) (feet) Wi!h Distance With azimuth angle With elevation angle

Azimuth' 0.034" 15,000 Angle: Angle: Angle:

3:l at 22.5 nmi 2:l a t S O " None from 0' t o 9'
2:1 from 9
' to 20'
' + Elevation '1 , 0.054" 1,500 Angle: None None
(50'on 2' 2:l a t 20 nmi
glideslope)
Elevation 2' 0.036' 2,250 Angle: None None
1.51 a t 5 nmi
DME 20 feet 15,000 Range: None None
1O:l at 22.5 nmi
Back azimuth 0.10" 45,000 None None None

*UD to 0.1' ( 2 0 ) maximum

because they are mainly random or 2.5 Hz components and may use filtering to remove as much of the error components as
be attenuated strongly by simple electronic filtering in the MLS possible. Such filtering i s used in today's ILS receivers and
receiver or the auto pilot. as appropriate. couplers and will continue to be useful with MLS.

These error criteria have not been finalized for the purpose of
evaluating the MLS feasibility test data. However, they are based
on RTCA SC.117 recommendations and Texas Instruments draft
i n p u t s t o the FAA "8aseline Functional Requirements"
documents (which will guide the test data evaluation during the
Phase I I feasibility program evaluation); and represent Texas
Instruments best estimate a t this time of the final specifications.
MLS Receiver Filtering
The instantaneous position information available in the receiver bandwidth it should have. A good indication can be obtained by
Because of these considerations, the presentation of unfiltered or
"raw" MLS data alone can be misleading, since the presence of
the high-frequency "noise" will indicate total error amplitudes
higher than the amplitudes that would be produced by a normal
MLS receiver, which i s of interest in flight control (either by
human or automatic pilots). T o provide a better indication of
the magnitude of the significant errors, the MLS test results in
this paper are presented in filtered as well as in raw form,
In the selection o f the filter, the question arose as to what

- contains both actual position and error components. The true

position component is of relatively low frequency; receivers and
autopilot couplers will take advantage of this characteristic and
examining existing equipment. Recent practice is to design
receivers with a relatively large bandwidth so as 10 contribute
l i t t l e phase shift and to allow the autopilot desigwr to

7
 incorporate appropriate prefiltering in the autopilot itself. Thus Coverage Flight Tests
it is the autopilots that must be examined in the selection of the Accuracy Flight Tests
proper MLS filter. Multipath Flight Tests
Static Field Tests
Examination of the L l O l l autopilot indicates that both Samples of preliminary test results are presented in the follwfling
channels have a pre-filter of first-order low-pass form for their sections for each of these categories of tests except the
ILS inputs. The time constants for these filters are 1.0 second multipath flight tests and multipatll static field tests, because
v
for the roll (lateral control) channel and 0.5 second for the pitch data on these tests has not been reduced and plotted a t the time
(vertical controll channel. of this writing.

The filters chosen for this data presentation are straightforward Coverage Flight Test Data
predictor-corrector filters, used in many tracking systems. 7 hey
have the advantage over analog filters that, for a constant The flight test program plan calls for coverage flights to he made
velocity input, they have zero lag. The parameters of these as shown in Figure 10 a t 2,000 and 10,000 feet altitude on
digital filters have been chosen to approximate the character- inbound radial paths toward the azimuth antenna dong 0. i10.
istics of the analog filters mentioned in the previous paragraph, +30. +50, and +60'degree azimuth radials, some starting a t 10
except that, for convenience in data reduction, the bandwidth nautical miles range, some starting a t 30 nautical miles range,
has been made higher for the lateral IAz) filter. This is and continuing in to the cone of silence where all MLS signals
conservative, in that more noise is passed by this higher are lost. Samples of coverage flight test data recorded on Texas ';
bandwidth filter. These filters are described by the recursive Instruments Flight 19. Run 3. performed on February 13, 1974
equations and Flighr9, Runs3 and G. performed on December 18. 1973
A are presented here. The Flight 1 9 ~ 3i s a 30-nautical-mile run on
X" = XP" + a ( X " - XJ 0 degree azimutli a t 10,000 feet altitude; Azimuth, Elevation
No. 1, and DME data are presented from this run. 1-he Flight 9.6
A I ! i s a 10-nautical-mile run on -1Odegrees azimuth at 2.000 feet
XPI"+Tl = X" + T X" altitude; Elevation No. 2 data is presented from this run. The
F l i g h t 9 - 3 i s a 30-nautical~mile run or, -50 degrees a t
4 0 10.000 feet altitude; DME data i s presented from this run.
X, = Xn-, + (ITTI (Xn - Xonl
Azimuth Coverage Data. Azimuth data is presented in Figure 11.
where Figures I l a and l l h show the "raw" MLS azimuth error data.
T = sampling period This data is simp:y the difference between the azimuth angle to
' the aircraft referenced to the MLS azimuth antenna, as
Xn = input a t time index n determined by transforming the smoothed radar data (azimuth,
A elevation, and range) into MLS coordinates, and the MCS "raw"
Xn = estimated position a t time index n azimuth data. Figures l l c and l l d are "filtered" MLS azimuth
i 4 error data, and are the difference between the MLS azimuth
Xn = estimated velociiy a t time index n angle as measured by the radar and the "filtered" MLS azimuth
Xpn = predicted position a t time index n data; the filter used i s the limiting a, p recursive digital filter
defined in the preceding section. This data is representative of
For all three angle signals, the parameters a. p have been set to the error signal between a normal MLS receiver azimuth angle
a = 114 output and the MLS azimuth angle as determined by the
tracking radar. The difference between the two plots i s MLS
p = 1/32 random noise and noise with 2.5 Hz frequency components,
This results in a higher bandwidth for EL-2 processing (by a primarily consisting of random independent noise error and
factor of 2) sicce the sampling rate for EL-2 is twice that of A2 "back-to-back" errors caused by the slight mismatch in pointing
and EL-1. angle of the two back-to~backreflectors used in the azimiith
antenna syctem. This "mismatch" varies with elevation angle
I n addition to this linear filtering, a limit has been placed on the from the azimuth antenna; and, a t one angle labout 9.4 degrees1
amount of deviation from predicted position that will be the performance of the feasibility antennas exceed "production"
processed a t any one iteration of the filter equations. This specifications by a factor of 4. Figures l l e and l l f show the
reduces the impact of "outliers" or noise spikes that may appear "raw" azimuth error data from each of the two back-to-hack
in the data. This is accomplished simply by limiting the azimuth antennas. This data contains no back-to-back noise, and
magnitude of the (X, - X D o ] term in the above equations to comparison of the two plats indicates the source of the back-to-
0.075 degree. back noise evident in Figures 1 l a and l l b .

This sampled-data filtering can be compared to the guideline
continuous filters in frequency response and phase response by
using a transformation of the sampled-data transfer function.
The most appropriate such transformation is the Matched
2-Transform.' This has been done and the resulting frequency
and phase characteristics are shown in Figures 8 and 9. respec-
tively. For comparison, the guideline analog low-pass filter
characteristics are also shown.
Feasibility Data Presentation
4 The MLS feasibility demonstration tests include four basic
mtel(orier of tests:
Returning to Figures l l a and l l b . the solid lines represent the
path-following (bias) error limits specified; the vertical bars
represent the allowable control vibration noise error t 2 o limits,
hereinafter termed noise error limits; the solid line through the
data represents the best straight line fit to the data over specific
3-nautical.mile intervals with the circle on the best straight line
fit being the mean value of all the data in that interval; and the
dotted lines parallel to the best straight line fits are the 2.5 and
97.5 percent limits on the data in that interval. I n those
intervals where the best straight line fits lie wholly within the
solid lines showing the "bias" error limits, it is to be concluded
that the data meets the bias error requirement. Regarding
"noise" error, the situation is not so clear; where the dotted

8
 f!
MLS F I L T E R
s SAMPL.ES/SEC
0
u
-5
-1 c
--I 5
-2c
I I I 1 1 1 1 I
0.025 0.050 0.100
FREQUENCY (HZ)
Figure 8. Filter Amplitude Responses
lines lie within the vertical bars, the noise specification i s clearly
met, because the 2.5 and 97.5 percent limits are intended to
measure the 220 variations of the data on that interval.
However, much of the ''noise'' on the "raw" data plots of
Figures 1 l a and 1 ib i s back.to-back noise with a fundamental
frequency component of 2.5 Hz, which i s strongly attenuated by
the simple limiting a, 6 recursive filter discussed above.
Figures l l c and l l d , representing a normal "filtered" MLS
receiver output, contain all frequency components of interest for
autopilot use but the 2.5 Hz and random noise components of
the raw data have been strongly attenuated. The resultinq error
plot is much easier to analyze. Clearly the signal meets the noise
specification; however, a t 2 points the "bias" error specification
i i s exceeded. The first out.of.spec error i s at 9.4 degrees elevation
relative to the azimuth antenna and occurs a t about 10 miles
range. This error is caused by a beam centroid anomaly which
was not detected in tile abbreviated antenna range tests
'performed on the feasibility antennas. This anomaly shows up
consistently in a l l the coverage flights. The second out-of-spec
error is between 18 and 20 degrees elevation. a t the edge of the
coverage region of the elevation pattern of the antenna.
inadequate antenna performance above 18 degrees elevation was
noted during antenna range testing but io view of the feasibility
w demonstration test schedule, this deficiency was judged to be
immaterial for the purpose of feasibility demonstrarion testing
MLS F I L T E R
IO S A M P L E S ~ E C
I , I I I I I I I I I
0,250 0.500 1.000 2.500
and therefore was not corrected. The prototype antenna design
will benefit from the extensive flight t e s t data available and is
expected to provide performance fully compliant with the
specification.
Elevation No. 1 Coverage Data. The data presentation here is
similar to that for azimuth. Figures 12a and 12b show "raw"
MLS elevation error data: Figures 12c and 12d show "filtered"
MLS elevation error data; Figures 12e and 12f show single
antenna "raw'' MLS elevation error data, which does not have
the "back.to-back" noise in it.
The specific run shown here contains a 0.05-degree fixed bias
error caused by an unexplained long term drift in the EL-1
system. This behavior was apparently confined to the civil
elevation systems and i s attributed to some implementation
anomaly in the "breadboard" antennas or t o physical shifting of
the antenna support pedestals. T h e drift error could have been
removed by recalibrating periodically; however, t o characterize
the drift problem, this was not done. As a result the drift bias
error does appear to some degree in all the flight test data.
Assuming that the long term drift observed in the feasibility
hardware will be eliminated in the profotype hardware, the
analysis has assumed this error to be correctable and the various
error limits have been centered on this value. The data then
9
 30 r
MLS FILTER
io SAMPLES/SEC
0
MLS FILTER
5 SAMPLES/SEC

-30 -

-60 - RC F I L T E R
T = 0.5
RC F I L T E R
T = 1.0 SEC

-90. I I I I I I
0.025 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.5

FREClUENCY ( H Z )

Figure 9. Filter Phase Responses

clearly demonstrates the potential for meeting the accuracy

requirements of the MLS elevation system.
SLANT
Elevation No. 2 Coverage Data. The data presentation here i s -0 RANGE
similar tv that for Elevation No. 1. Figure 13a shows ”raw” MLS
flare elevation error data: FiQUre 13b shows ”filtered” MLS flare
elevation errvr data

The specific run shown here contains a 0.03-degree bias error,

/ d \ \ 6 - -5u ’ -100 + l o o
apparently due to the same implementation anomaly mentioned
above for the EL-1 system. As in the case of the E L - l data, the
analysis has assumed this error is correctable and the error limits
have been centered on this value. The data then clearly
demonstr.ates the potential for meeting the accuracy require.
ments of the MLS flare system.

DME Coverage Data. DME range data i s presented from 2 runs,

F LIG‘HT ’\
PATH
Ilight 19-3 a t Odegrees and 10,000feet and flight 9-3 at LRUNWAY
-5Odegrees and 10,000feet. Figures14a and 14b show the Ai!
Odegree range data. Figures 14c and 14d show the -50degree
range data. Both runs have a net fixed bias error of 65feet.
caused by use of the “Van” DME interrogator in the aircraft
without recalibration for the different cable runs involved. Since Figure 10. Coverage Flight Plan
this is a calibration error, the analysis has assumed this error is
correctable and the error limits have been centered on this value.
In both cases, the data clearly demonstrates the potential for Accuracy Flight Test Data
achieving better than 20 feet bias accuracy and less than 20 feet
20 noise error. Figures 14e and 14f show the DME range rate The flight test program plan calls for accuracy flights consisting
error data. No firm specification has been established a t this of approaches along 0 degrees azimuth from 10 nautical miles
time for range rate but it i s believed that the range rate error range to touchdown (touch-and-aol or overflight (break-off a t
shown here will meet a reasonable specification. One anomaly 50feet or 200feet altitude) along glideslopes of 2, 3. and 6
which has not been analyzed as yet i s the apparent, range rate degrees.
bias of 3.5 feetlsecond which appears in Figure 14f. This is
inconsistent with the associated range error data and may be an Samples of accuracy flight test data recorded on Texas
error in Ihe data reduction software. Instruments Flight 12. Run 3, a 3-degree glideslope approach,

10
 SPECIFIED NOISE ( . + 2 v ) S P E C I F I E D NOISE ( i 2 0 )
ERROR L I M I T S ERROR L I M I T S

0.200

N
4
SPECIFIED B I A S J
'r -0.200
ERROR L I M I T S
-0.300 I I l l 1 I l l 1 I
9 I1 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
GROUND RANGE FROM A 2 (NMI) GROUND RANGE FROM A 2 (NMI)

-E
0.200-

0.100 -
(9-3F
00, 10,000'
SPECIFIED BIAS
ERROR L I M I T S
0.300- SPECIFIED BIAS
ERROR L I M I T S -
0
" 0-
E
D:
W
-0. l o o - N

'
4
-0.200- , E L ANGLE
F R O M A Z -20'
.,
,.

I:I
I

18.2' I20
4 -0.100-

-y -0.200-
9.40
v

-0.300 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1

- 19-38
S P E C I F I E D BIAS
- 19-3A S P E C I F I E D NOISE (f 2 0 )
ERROR L I M I T S
- 00, 10,ood
00. 10.00d
0.200- 0.200

0 . 100 - 0.100
-
+.I . , , ) # !

0- 0-
N
-0.100- 4
I
-
:Y -0.100
SPECIFIED BIAS J
-0.200 - -0.200l- I ERROR LJMITS
ERROR L I M I T S
206
I I I I I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
GROUND RANGE FROM A 2 (NMI) GROUND RANGE FROM A Z (NMI)

Figure 11. Azimuth Coverage Data

performed on January8, 1974, are presented. Data from
-2000 feet to 10 nautical miles relative to the Elevation No. 2
site is required by the flight test plan, but the tracking radar
provides accurate tracking data only beyond about 1 mile from
the Elevation No. 2 site. The photogrammetric system gave
coverage from -2,000 feet to +6.000feet on the accuracy
flights. but no reduced data has been received a t the time of this
writing. Therefore, only the 1 to 10 nautical mile data is
presented here.
requirements for both "bias" and "noise." Note the slight
anomaly b,etween 2 and 3 miles range. This i s trackingradar
error caused by lineof-sight blockage of the radar by a large
satellite tracking antenna a t Wallops Station. This anomaly
appears to some degree in all azimuth, elevation, and flare data
on the 3-degree glideslope approaches.
Figure 16 shows the Elevation No. 1 error data. Figure 16a
shows the "raw'.' MLS elevation error data; Figure 16b is the
"filtered" error data. On this flight, a fixed bias error of 0.07

-
Figure 15 shows the azimuth error data. Figure 15a i s the "raw"
azimuth error data; Figure 15b i s the "filtered" error data. Again
the back.10-back noise makcs analysis difficult; but the "bias"
error specification i s clearly achieved. Figure 15b. the "filtered"
error data, very clearly demonstrates performance meeting the
degree is observed. This fixed bias error is attributable to the
long-term drift error previously mentioned. Again, the analysis
has assumed that this error is correctable and the error limits are
centered on this value. Both the "raw" error data and the
"filtered" error data clearly demonstrate the ability of the

.
11
\
 0.05' B I A S ERROR DUE TO 0.05O B I A S ERROR DUE T O
LONG T E R M D R I F T LONG T E R M D R I F T
Y
S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR
L I M I T S - C E N T E R E D ON S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR
LONG T E R M D R I F T B I A S L I M I T S - C E N T E R E D ON LONG
T E R M DRIFT B I A S ERROR

S P E C I F I E D NOISE ( + 2 V )
ERROR L I M I T S

5 -0. IO0
W

19.5'

GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMI) GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMI)

0.05"BlAS ERROR DUE T O

0.05' B I A S ERROR DUE T O
0.300r LONG T E R M D R I F T

v O.lOO1 I D R I F T B I A S ERROR

\
- w
W
$ 0 >.'.:-'.; :. c. . . .,.; , ~ .
D:
IL
w 0-, ,.
~ 4 . 1 0 0 -
J
-'-. ,
. I _ \ _

00, 10,000' 19-3F

.y -0.200 I
19.50
3 -0.200 - I
'6
I
o', 10,006
3.50
l
-0,300 I I I I I I I I I -0.300 I l l I 1 1 1 1 I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 ( I ' 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 2 7 29
GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMI) GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMIJ

0.05' B I A S ERROR DUE TO 0.05' B I A S ERROR DUE T O

LONG T E R M D R I F T LONG T E R M D R I F T

0.300 SPECIFIED B I A S ERROR

S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR
L I M I T S - CENTERED ON
LIMITS - CENTERED ON LONG
0.200 LONG T E R M D R I F T B I A S
c? ERROR
0.100
v

0: 0 . ~.
a
W
-
A
-0.100
19-3A
W

-0.300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMI) GROUND RANGE FROM E L I (NMI)

Figure 12. Elevation-1 Coverage Data

12
 0.03' BIAS E R R O R SPECIFIED NOISE (+2U)
DUETOLONG ERROR LIMITS
v
'x g LONG T E R M D R I F T E R R O R
'N. I 8-
0
- the runway surface of 15 feet. The average value of the data is
n
00
w 0-
N
S P E C I F I E D BIAS ERROR
7.3O LONG T E R M D R I F T ERROR
0-
..
20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
G R O U N D R A N G E F R O M E L 2 (NMI)
p'
Figure 13. Elevation-2 Coverage Data
cr' elevation system t o achieve the accuracy requirements. Note that
the tracking-radar anomaly i s relatively small in this flight.
Considerably larger perturbations are observed in other runs.
apparently depending on the position of the large reflector on
the satellite-trackingsystem.
Figure 17 shows the Elevation No. 2 error data. In this case, a
0.01-degree fixed bias error caused by long-term drift is
observed. On this run, the back-to-back noise i s appriciabie;
however, both the "raw" error data and the "filtered" error data
clearly demonstrate the ability of the Elevation No. 2 system to
meet the accuracy requirements. The group of "outliers" a t
7.5 miles is noteworthy. Because se~eral"outliers" are grouped
together, the limiting a. p recursive filter failed to reduce this
error impulse to an unnoticeable level. The cause of this
anomaly i s unknown, but. to date. this i s the only such grouping
of "outliers" observed. The most likely explanation i s a brief
malfunction of the receiverlprocessor due to a power line
transient.
Figure 18 shows the DME range error data. In this case, a DME
calibration error of 155 feet is observed. However. assuming this
error can be corrected, the error limits have been centered on
this value. The minimum error limits are k20feet; the data
clearly shows the DME i s capable of achieving "bias" and
"noise" error performance better than 20feet in both cases.
Figure 19 shows the DME range rate error data. A very slight
bias error is evident, which again i s inconsistent with the range
data, However, the bias and noise errors are vsry small, about 1
footlsecond bias and 5 fcetisecond 20 noise.
v Static Field Test Data
A great deal of static field t e s t data i s required by the feasibility
demonstration t e s t plan. This data i s intended primarily for
engineering purposes to characterize system performance in
terms of accuracy and signal level a t very low heights above the
runway surface, to monitor system stability, to perform
simulated field monitor overflights, to perform multipath tests,
IO evaluate the lower limits of Azimuth, DME, and Elevation
No. 2 coverage, etc.
The data presented in this section is confined to a summary
I presentation of azimuth accuracy along runway centerline and a
sumniary presentation of the lower limits of coveragc of the
Elevation No. 2. system in the touchdown zone.
Static Azimuth Data. Figure 20 summarizes the static test data
measured a t 7 test points along the runway certerline from 800
feet t o 7,200 feet from the azimuth antenna a t a height above
indicated, as well as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. The associated
linear error in feet i s also shown next 13 each mean value. As in
the case of the flight data, a major ''noise'' contribution i s
"back-to-back" antenna alignment. The data clearly demon-
strates the ability to achieve the specified f.10 feet lateral error
along runway centerline.
Static Elevation No. 2 Data. Figure 21 shows the. static data
I
taken a t a test ooint on runwav centerline 1,600 feet in front of
9 the Elevation No. 2 system. In the particular plot shown here, a
bias error of 0.02 degree i s observed. which i s caused by the
long-term drift error. Assuming this drift error can be eliminated
by an improved design, the signal error relative to tliis value is
analyzed. A conservative estimate of the lower limit of coverage
i s 15 feet. as shown. A more liberal estimate of t i l e lower limit
of coverage is 12 feet, as shown. Below 12 feet. the beam cut-off
leads to rapidly increasing systematic errors. Performing this
type of analysis on each test point in the touchdown zone, the
data of Figure 22 was generated. The horizontal axis is a level
line through the axis of the Elevation No. 2 antenna. Below this
line i s shown the runway surface contour. Above this line is
shown a typical touchdown zone of 1,500 feet, positioned from
250 to 1.750feet in front of the Elevation No. 2 antenna. The
specified limit of coverage of 8 feet over the touchdown zone
also i s shown. The test data coverage limits measured on the
Elevation No, 2 system, derived as discussed for Figure 21. are
also shown. The test data indicates the specified coverage can be
achieved a t this particular site by carefully tailoring the beam
cut-off for optimized performance over the touchdown zone.
Several comments on this data are appropriate. First, since the
aircraft proceeds through this coverage zone at high speed,
"bias" errors measured in static tests may be converted to
"noisc" errors by the dynamics of the situation. Thus, i t is
believed that much of the ''bias" error measured from test point
t o test point will be converted to "noise" error and perhaps the
fundamental measure of the lower limit of coverage is the very
systematic, predictable, error associated with the beam cut~off,
which will appear as a "bias" error in the aircraft.
Second. the static test data a t very low heights and beyond the
touchdown zone (see data in Figure22 at 1.930feet and
2,600 feet from Elevation No. 21 appeared to contain an error of
about 10.05 degree, which might be due to in-beam multipath
The relative level of multipath which would cause this amount
of error i s about -14dB: since the sidelobe levels were
considerably better than this, and ground reflection coefficients
of about 0.7 were measured, terrain reflections do not appear to
be the cause. Thc satellite-tracking antenna complex off to the
side could possibly be generating some main beam reflections,
but this has not been wrified yet. However. again these errors
13
 i
S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR L I M I T S
C E N T E R E D ON 65'CALIBRATION ERROR

E
v
MAXIMUM SPEClFlED BIAS
ERROR L I M I T IS + Z O O '
IL
e -
&wx"""""
w
w -50
I
D -100 - 19-3
00, 10,ood 65'CALlBRATlON ERROR
-I50
-200 I l l 1 1 -
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
GROUND RANGE FROM D M E (NMI)

9-3
-500, 1a.ooo'
MAXIMUM SPECIFIED BIAS
25-
+ 200'
E
Y
-2s - 9-3 /
/ - F
c -25-
ERROR L I M I T IS

65' C A L I B R A T I O N ERROR
a a
a a
W W
w
z,
-75

-125- - S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR
L I M I T S - C E N T E R E D ON
C A L I B R A T I O N ERROR
#&

I I I I I I I I I L i
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

GROUND RANGE FROM D M E (NMI)

GROUND RANGE FROM D M E (NMI) GROUND RANGE F R O M D M E (NMl)

Figure 14. DME Coverage Data

almost certainly would be converted t o "noise" errors in the Summary

aircraft by the dynamics of the situation.
A sample of the test results on the Texas Instruments feasibility
In summary, the static test data indicates that the Kk-band, demonstralion Micro,wave Landing System has been presented.
0.5-degree beamwidth, Elevation No. 2 antenna can provide the Preliminary analysis of all the flight test data now available on
coverage and accuracy required for flare guidance. Nowwer. a the Texas Instrument? mechanical-scan, scanning beam MLS
COnclusiwe demonstration can be provided only by the results of indicates that the performance goals for the national MLS can
the touch-and-go flight tests run with the photoqrammetric be achieved by the Texas Instruments system.
system providing coverage in the touchdown Zone. These results
J'ould be available shortly.

14
 REGION O F TRACKING
RADAR ERROR DUE
TO BLOCKAGE SPECIFIED B I A S ERROR . O l n B I A S ERROR
U E T O LONG T E R M D R I F T
0.100
L..
w0
0 0.050
a
a
W
0

9w -0.050

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ;y -O.loo
S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
S L A N T RANGE TO E L 2 (NMI)
S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR

l3
W
0
Y
SPECIFIED B I A S ERROR L I M I T S -
a
[r
C E N T E R E D ON LONG T E R M DRIFT
w
N
4
Y

S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI) Y
SPECIFIED NOISE ( *2o)
-0.100 ERROR L I M I T S
Y I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI)
Figure 15. Azimuth Accuracy Data

Figure 17. Elevation No. 2 Accuracy Data

S P E C I F I E D B I A S ERROR
I L I M I T S - C E N T E R E D ON
LONG T E R M DRIFT ERROR . Texas Instruments i s pleased to have been associated with the

,-.
0
go. l S o r
REGION O F TRACKING
RADAR ERROR D U E T 0
BLOCKAGE
I
1
k0.046" M I N I M U M

~
12-3
00,3Q
Feasibility Demonstration Phase of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration National Plan for a Microwave Landing System. We
look forward to successful completion of the Phase I1 effort and
c o n t i n u i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e u p c o m i n g Prototype
Development Phase for the national Microwave Landing System.

Acknowledgment

This paper is based on work performed by Texas lnstruments

under Contract Number DOT-FA72WA-2802 for the Federal
0 Aviation Administration. The flight test was performed a t the
S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI)
NASA Wallops Station. Virginia, facility, with the support of
SPECIFIED NOISE
NASA personnel.
(+2uj

0 0.156-
W
- -
eo. I O O -
I
1. Golden, Roger M.. "Digital Filter Synthesis by Sampled-
,;. ,... 7
. . .......
~ .,C. - .. . ~.
7
~

K Data Transfarmarion:" =E Transactions on Audio and

$0.050- ~).,i:
..T .~,.
. .. . . ~
.~..... .-=?-
,, . *.
~.. Electroacoustics. Vol. AU-16, No. 3, Sept. 19GB.

z o I I L I I 1 - 1 I I 1 .
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 1 0

Figure 16. Elevation No. 1 Accuracy Data

15
 -110

SPECIFIED BIAS ERROR

v
L I M I T S - C E N T E R E D ON
-130
CALIBRATION ERROR
*20' M I N I M U M
.. CALIBRATION ERROR

te -150

e
W
W
5 -170
IY ,

-190

0 1 2 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI)

Figure 18. D M E Range Accuracy Data

12-3

00.30

1 I I I I 1 I I I 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
S L A N T RANGE T O E L 2 (NMI)

Figure 19. D M E Range Rate Accuracy Data

16
*-

T A B L E H6. PARTITION 9.
T E S T POINT NO. 62
X DISTANCE = 1603 F E E T
Y DISTANCE = -0 FEET
0.15 r
c T A B L E H4. PARTITION 12. Z REFERENCE=-7 FEET

,. HEIGHT 15 F E E T .
8
- 0.10

tic---
-'

d I T
S Y S T E M A T I C ERROR
DUE T O B E A M C U T - O F F
ABOVETHEGROUND

.y -0.10

4.151
t
0 1.0
I
2.0
I I
3.0 4.0
I I
5.0
I
6.0
I
7.0
,
0.02" B I A S ERROR DUE T O

DISTANCE ALONG RUNWAY C E N T E R L I N E (1000 F T . )

Figure 20. Azimuth Static Data

CONSERVATIVE E S T I M A T E
O F LOWER L I M I T O F
COVERAGE

LIBERAL ESTIMATE
O F LOWER L I M I T O F
COVERAGE

5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
HEIGHT A G L (FT)

Figure 21. Flare Static Data

T E S T DATA SPECIFIED LOWER

L I M I T OF
COVERAGE

HEIGHT OF E L E V A T I O N NO, 2
AXIS OF ROTATION

DISTANCE ALONG RUNWAY E (FEET) RUNWAY

(TOWARD RUNWAY THRESHOLD) SURFACE L E V E L

Figure 22. Flare Static Data Summary

17