INVITED
PAPER
Implementation and
Operational Use of
Ground-Based Augmentation
Systems (GBASs)VA
Component of the Future Air
Traffic Management System
These systems detect and correct aircraft landing position errors by comparing satellite
data with data from compact, inexpensive airport based equipment.
By Tim Murphy, Member IEEE , and Thomas Imrich
GNSS-Globat
ABSTRACT | This paper discusses a satellite navigation
augmentation system designed for use by aviation. The
ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) was originally
developed as a precision approach and landing aid. This paper
describes the GBAS concept, discusses the system architecture,
and discusses ground and airborne equipment that compose
the system. This paper also describes typical operational use of
the system and the experience gained during early implemen-
tations. Advantages over the current Instrument Landing
System technology are also discussed.
KEYWORDS | Aircraft landing guidance; Global Positioning
System and aircraft navigation; satellite navigation systems
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper describes a particular satellite navigation
technology known as a ground-based augmentation system
(GBAS). Satellite navigation has become a critical
component of the emerging worldwide air traffic manage-
ment (ATM) infrastructure. As congestion grows and
rising costs demand ever greater efficiencies, the manage-
Manuscript received November 6, 2007; revised July 8, 2008. Current version
published January 16, 2009.
The authors are with the Boeing Company, Seattle, WA 98203 USA
(e-mail: tim.murphy@boeing.com).
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/JPROC.2008.2006101
1936 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC
Downloaded
Navigation Satellite System
ment of air traffic will rely more and more on the
management of airplane trajectories in four dimensions
(lateral, vertical, and longitudinal path and time). GBAS
promises to become an indispensable tool in the future for
the management of airplane trajectories for ATM,
particularly near and at airports and landing sites.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
committee on Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS)
developed a vision for a Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS) to support aviation navigation needs. The Global
Positioning System (GPS) was offered to the world’s
aviation community by the United States in a letter to the
ICAO in October 1994 [1]. ICAO accepted the offer,
establishing GPS as an important component of the GNSS.
The Russian Federation made a similar offer with respect
to use of the Global’naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya
Sistema (GLONASS). Hence GPS and GLONASS became
the core constellations in the system of systems defined by
ICAO as the GNSS. However, because of certain limita-
tions (real and perceived) in the performance of GPS and
GLONASS, additional system components were added to
GNSS to augment performance, including:
3
1) space-based augmentation systems (SBASs);
2) ground-based augmentation systems (GBASs); Com e
3) airplane-based augmentation systems (ABASs); de
4) ground-based regional augmentation systems GNSS
(GRASs).
0018-9219/$25.00 ! 2008 IEEE
from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
The GNSS as defined by ICAO includes the core
constellations (GPS and GLONASS) as well as these
augmentation systems. Formal standards and recom-
mended practices (SARPS) for GNSS were developed and
published in 2000 [2]. These SARPS are intended to ensure
interoperability between components of the GNSS and to
ensure that equipment based on GNSS operates safely and
with consistent performance that meets the operational
needs of aviation users.
The augmentation systems listed above were developed
to provide improved accuracy, integrity, continuity of
service, and availability of navigation to support a wide
variety of operational needs. These augmentation systems
have been the subject of nearly two decades of research
and consequently much has been written about them. This
paper focuses on only one of these four augmentation
types: GBAS [3], [4].
GBAS is significant for air transport users for a variety
of reasons. It is the only augmentation system defined at
this time that is expected to be capable of meeting the most
stringent operational needs of aviation (e.g., takeoff and
rigurosot landing in very low-visibility conditions). Furthermore,
the system is relatively inexpensive, physically compact,
and self-contained, so that deployment in response to
demand anywhere globally is technically feasible. Al-
though GBAS relies on the core constellations, it does not
rely on any other large and expensive infrastructure.
Lastly, GBAS offers very cost-effective, very precise
navigation service that can serve all runway ends at a
given airport as well as provide improved navigation
performance in the terminal area. It can do so with lower
installation, maintenance, and lifecycle costs.
II . GBAS SYSTEM DE SCRIPTION
A. GBAS System Architecture
GBAS is fundamentally a local differential satellite
navigation system [5]. As such, the basic principle is that
definite pseudorange observations made by ground-based receivers
are used to develop differential corrections for each
satellite. These corrections are provided to the airborne
user’s receiver via a data link. The airborne receiver then
applies these corrections in order to produce a set of
corrected pseudoranges that are then the basis of a position
solution. The underlying assumption is that, for relatively
short baseline separations between the ground-based
receivers and the airborne-based receivers, the most
?
significant error sources will be common to both observers
and will therefore be eliminated by the differential
processing [6].
Fig. 1 illustrates a typical GBAS, which consists of a
ground segment, airborne segment, and space segment. The
space segment for GBAS consists of GNSS satellites from
the core constellations (GPS [7]–[9] and GLONASS [12]) as
well as ranging sources that may optionally provided by
Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
↑
insegeAssy/SBAS
an SBAS [13]. A GBAS may provide augmentation signals
based on GPS alone or, optionally, may include
augmentation information for GLONASS and/or SBAS
satellites as well.
The GBAS ground segment consists of three or four
GBAS reference receivers that are sited typically on or near
an airport property. These reference receivers track the
signals from navigation satellites and pass pseudorange
measurements and other information relevant to signal
health and system performance monitoring to a central
processing facility. The central processing facility uses the
multiple, redundant observations of the pseudoranges to
compute estimates of the pseudorange corrections for each
satellite signal observed by the reference receivers. The
central processing facility also monitors the signal integrity
and computes parameters for each satellite that the user
may use to determine the availability of the signal in space
for a desired level of service and a given satellite geometry
[14]–[16]. The differential corrections and integrity
information are broadcast to the user over a very high-
frequency (VHF) data broadcast (VDB) signal transmitted
in the 108.0–117.975 MHz band.
The GBAS ground facility may provide corrections for
SBAS satellite signals. However, if SBAS signals are used,
the GBAS only uses relevant information for the signal
ranging function. The SBAS augmentation (i.e., correc-
tions and integrity) data are not used.
The GBAS also broadcasts information that is used to
define a reference path typically leading to the runway
intercept point. A GBAS ground station can uplink reference
path information for as many as 49 different reference paths
using a single radio frequency. (Even more reference paths
could be supported by using additional radio frequencies.)
Hence, a single GBAS facility can potentially provide service
to all the runway ends at a given airport. By uplinking the
reference path information on the data broadcast, the
Fig. 1. GBAS system.
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEE of
Xplore. IEEE 1937
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
integrity and availability of this information are controlled by
the service provider. Should a runway be closed, then the
approach can be effectively deactivated by removing the
associated reference path data from the VDB transmission
stream. Also, if a runway’s usable length is altered due to
maintenance activities, the approach can be revised as
necessary to support continued operations on the runway.
The 108–117.975 MHz band is currently also used by
VHF omnidirectional ranging (VOR) systems and instru-
ment landing systems (ILSs), which are well established
conventional aviation navigation systems [55]. Conse-
quently, the band is somewhat congested in some regions
of the world. The VDB signal structure was designed to
provide very high spectral efficiency to help mitigate the
potential difficulty a service provider may have in finding
unused frequencies in the band. A single ILS frequency
assignment provides only a single approach to a single
runway end. With GBAS, the same 100 kHz currently
required for an ILS assignment can theoretically support
up to 192 approaches with the capability for multiple
approaches to the same runway end if desired. Clearly,
GBAS offers significant flexibility over the existing ILS and
VOR uses. In an age where the electromagnetic spectrum
continues to become more crowded, the efficient
Breengineering[ of this valuable band allocated to aviation
navigation is an important feature of GBAS. The fact that a
single ground station can support all the runway ends at an
airport is perhaps a valuable economic boon. However, the
↓
fact that precious spectral resources are being used
efficiently is probably more important in the long run
with respect to viability of this system.
sendicion
B. GBAS Signal in Space
The GBAS signal in space is defined as the combination
of the satellite signals from the core satellite constellations
and the VDB signal [14]. The current standards allow a
GBAS to augment signals from either the GPS or
GLONASS constellations.
The GPS signals are direct sequence spread spectrum
signals. These signals consist of a binary phase-shift keyed
(BPSK) modulated carrier with a pseudorandom binary
code at a chipping rate of 1.024 Mchips per second. In
addition, a 50 bit per second navigation message is
combined with the direct sequence signal. The primary
civil GPS signal, designated BL1 Coarse/Acquisition[ or
BL1 C/A,[ is centered nominally at 1575.425 MHz. All
satellites transmit at the same nominal frequency, and code-
division multiple access is used to share the band. The GPS
signal structure is well documented in the GPS Interface
Control Document (GPS ICD-200 [8]) and the interested
reader is referred there for further details. A good description
of the signal structure as well as a general description of
entire GPS system can be found in [10] and [11].
A GBAS currently uses only the primary GPS civil
signal L1 C/A. GPS also includes signals at another
frequency, designated BL2.[ A GBAS makes no use of
1938 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Downloaded
Fig. 2. D8PSK modulator and phase constellation.
those signals, as they are not fully supported for civil
applications and are primarily intended for use by
Department of Defense authorized users. Modernization
plans for GPS include the addition of a third frequency,
designated BL5,[ which is intended to support civil
applications. The current definition of GBAS does not
support the use of these planned signals, but it is
anticipated that the standards will be expanded to allow
for use of these signals once they are available.
The GLONASS signals are similar to GPS signals in that
they are BPSK modulated direct-sequence spread-spectrum
signals. However, unlike GPS, GLONASS uses frequency-
division multiple access as the means for satellites to share
the frequency band. GLONASS satellites broadcast on
different frequencies. The GLONASS signal structure is
well documented in the GLONASS Interface Control
Document [12] and, again, the interested reader is referred
there for further details.
The VDB signal produced by the GBAS ground station
employs a differential 8-phase shift key (D8PSK) wave-
form. This waveform was chosen because of the relatively
good spectral efficiency in terms of the number of bits per
second that can be supported within a 25 kHz frequency
assignment. Fig. 2 illustrates a typically D8PSK modulator
and the resultant 8-phase constellation.
Table 1 illustrates the coding of 3 bits to a relative phase
change. Every phase transition represents 3 bits. The signal
is modulated with 10 500 phase transitions per second,
resulting in 31.5 kbps of data. Then rate 1/3 error correction
coding is employed, so the information bit rate is 10.5 kbps.
However, the system uses relatively low duty cycle
transmission bursts so that the effective information bit
rate is much smaller (on the order of one-fourth or less) for
a given GBAS.
The VDB signal is broadcast with either horizontal or
elliptical polarization. The standards require a minimum
signal strength in the horizontal component throughout
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Table 1 D8PSK Data Encoding
the coverage region. Optionally, the ground segment may
also provide a vertical component to support certain
military aircraft that cannot practically carry a horizontally
polarized antenna due to physical constraints. If a vertical
signal component is provided, the resultant composite
signal must be elliptically polarized and must meet nominal
requirements regarding the ratio of power in the horizontal
and vertical components as well as maintain a phase
relationship between the two within a specified tolerance.
The choice of horizontal polarization in this particular
frequency band of 108.0–1117.95 MHz was driven by the
fact that most existing commercial airplanes are already
equipped with navigation systems that use antennas that
cover this band, i.e., ILS and VOR. For most installations, the
same antenna will be used for the reception of VDB signals.
Fig. 3. GBAS VDB TDMA frame and slot structure.
Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
The GBAS VDB signal uses a time-division multiple-
access (TDMA) scheme to enable multiple ground stations
to share the same physical frequency. GBAS VDB
transmissions are constrained to occur within a time slot
structure that consists of two frames per second with eight
slots per frame. The basic update rate for differential
corrections from a GBAS is 2 Hz, so one set of corrections
is broadcast via the VDB in each frame. The GBAS TDMA
frame and slot structure is illustrated in Fig. 3.
A GBAS service provider will assign a subset of the
eight available time slots to a particular ground station.
The ground station will broadcast a single burst of data
within the assigned time slot or slots. Each transmission
burst includes a training sequence and forward error
correction coding bits. Within the payload portion of the
transmission burst, the service provider will put one or
more message types, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Four types of
messages are currently defined for GBAS.
• Message Type 1VDifferential Corrections: Includes
differential correction and integrity related data
for each satellite tracked by the ground system.
• Message Type 2VContains important information
about the ground system (such as the GBAS
reference location).
• Message Type 4VApproach Path Definitions:
Includes Final Approach Segment definitions for
each runway end or approach served by the ground
segment.
• Message Type 5VPredicted Ranging Source Avail-
ability: Is an optional message that gives an
indication of when ranging source corrections are
expected to become available of unavailable in the
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1939
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Fig. 4. VDB transmission burst and message types.
Type 1 Message). (This optional message is generally
not used by the current implementations and will
not be discussed further in this paper.)
Message type 1) messages include differential correc-
tions for each satellite tracked by the ground station with
an elevation angle of greater than 5! . In addition, the
message includes information regarding integrity in the
form of parameters to be used in the computation of
Bprotection levels.[ Finally, the Type 1) message includes
a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) intended to ensure the
same ephemeris information is being used by the ground
segment and the airborne user to compute the position of
the satellites. A CRC is computed by the ground station
using the ephemeris data currently being used to compute
the satellite position in order to develop the pseudorange
corrections. This CRC is then uplinked via message type 1)
to the user who compares this CRC to one computed with
the ephemeris data being used by the airborne equipment for
the same satellite. If the CRCs do not match, the associated
satellite is excluded from the position solution.
Message type 2) contains information related to the
GBAS ground station such as the reference location of the
station as well as tropospheric and ionospheric modeling
parameters for integrity monitoring. This message type
includes a number of optional extension blocks that carry
some specific information needed for specific types of
service.
Message type 4) contains Final Approach Segment
(FAS) definitions. A type 4) message will include one or
more FAS definitions, which consist of specific points that
together unambiguously define a straight line that is the
intersection of two reference surfaces: a plane defining
the desired lateral path and a conical surface defining the
desired vertical descent path. The apex of the conical
surface is typically on the runway at the Glide Path
Intercept Point (GPIP). The vertical place defining the
lateral path typically also includes the GPIP and bisects the
1940 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.
UNIVERSIDAD DE96, No. 12, December
GRANADA.
Downloaded on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
runway at the centerline. However, the FAS definition is
general enough that final approach paths that are offset and
not aligned with the runway can be defined. In fact,
virtually any straight line segment path can be defined by
the parameters that make up a FAS definition. The points
used to define an FAS are illustrated in Fig. 5. The deviation
reference surfaces are further illustrated in Fig. 6.
C. GBAS Performance
GBAS performance is characterized in several ways.
One fundamental metric is the Bsignal in space[ (SIS)
space performance. The SIS performance is defined in
terms accuracy, integrity, continuity, and availability of the
service. This SIS performance is referenced to the output
of a Bfault free[ instance of compliant user equipment. For
example, integrity is defined at the output of user
equipment that is conforming to certain mandatory
functional requirements that define how the data from
the ground station is combined with measurements made
by the airborne equipment. A full discussion of SIS
performance for GBAS is beyond the scope of this paper.
Fortunately, copious references are available [14]–[16],
[21]–[28].
Underlying the design of GBAS is a philosophy that
allocates responsibility for potential error sources and fault
modes. This philosophy can be summarized as follows.
• The airborne equipment is responsible for making
good pseudorange measurements, monitoring the
quality of those measurements, and for following
the established protocols for the combination of
those measurements with data from the ground
station. The airborne equipment is responsible for
monitoring, detecting, and mitigating any faults
that originate within the airborne equipment.
• The ground segment is responsible for monitoring
the satellite signals, computing differential correc-
tions, and for detecting and mitigating faults in the
2008
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

Fig. 5. GBAS reference path definition for approach services.

Fig. 6. Deviation reference surfaces.

satellite signals that could result in unacceptably
large errors in the position solution at the output of
a compliant Bfault free[ receiver. The ground
segment is therefore responsible for monitoring
for, detecting, and mitigating any fault conditions
that originate in the ground station or the satellite
constellation.
There are several potential sources of error that could
cause unacceptably large position errors in a differential
satellite navigation solution, including:
1) hardware/software failures in the ground station
or satellites (e.g. clock failures);
2) multipath at the ground segment receiver anten-
nas or airborne receiver antennas;

Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEE of
Xplore. IEEE 1941
theRestrictions apply.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
mas
los
complicados
M3) large errors in the ephemeris information broad-
2
cast by the satellites;
4) residual ionospheric errors due to relatively small
scale structures in the ionosphere;
5) residual errors due to tropospheric effects;
6) deformation of satellite signals at the source.
The detection and mitigation of these error sources has
been an active area of research for many years now, and
some very sophisticated monitoring techniques have been
developed. Among the error sources listed above, the
satellite ephemeris failure and the residual ionospheric
error effects have proven to be very challenging [29]–[40].
The potential error for both of these sources tends to
decorrelate as a function of increasing distance between
t the user and the ground station. Development of effective
el error monitors and mitigations for these error sources has been
es distinto
challenging. Again, a detailed discussion of integrity
en avion y
GBAS/nolo monitoring for GBAS is beyond the scope of this paper.
puede Corregin However, it should be noted that fault monitoring,
el 6BAS) detection, and mitigation is an automatic function that is
essentially transparent to the operational use of the
system. The user is given a positive indication if the
system should not be used.
Many other performance metrics for GBAS are also
important from a practical perspective. For example,
transmit power, out-of-band spurious emissions, and signal
polarization are all very important when considering the
spectrum management aspects of the operational imple-
mentation of GBAS.
1) Typical GBAS Accuracy Performance: Over the last
decade and a half, many organizations in many countries
have conducted flight trials and experiments with GBAS
[41]–[54]. The basic technology has not changed (carrier
smoothed code phase) during that time, although certain
developments, such as the multipath limiting antenna
(discussed below), have improved nominal performance.
Not surprisingly, there is very consistent experience with the
nominal accuracy of GBAS across these various flight trials.
The instantaneous accuracy of a GBAS depends on the
current satellite geometry. However, given the current GPS
constellation, horizontal accuracy on the order of 1 m 95%
(or better) is typical. Similarly, nominal vertical accuracy
on the order of 1.5 m 95% is typical. The 95% position
accuracy specified by ICAO to support CAT I operations
is 4 m 95% in the vertical dimension and 16 m 95% in
the lateral direction. Hence GBAS easily meets the
accuracy requirements for CAT I approaches. However,
the more difficult problem for GBAS, as noted above,
has always been in meeting the integrity requirements.
D. GBAS Landing System (GLS) Approach Selection
Unlike ILS or the microwave landing system (MLS),
GNSS-based approaches are not referenced to a ground-
based antenna. Both the desired flight path and the
measured or estimated position of the airplane are
1942 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Downloaded
referenced to an earth fixed coordinate frame. The desired
reference path is defined by a set of coordinates supplied
via the data broadcast. A mechanism is required that allows
the correct set of coordinates defining the approach to be
selected. Also, a mechanism to verify that the correct
selection has been made is required.
As new operational capabilities are introduced, consis-
tency with existing operations is highly desirable. Consis-
tency reduces the cost of integrating the new functionality,
the cost of training pilots, and safety hazards that can occur
if inconsistent system interfaces are used. Consistency
with existing ILS and MLS operations is also important to
enable air traffic management service providers to handle
mixed-mode operations at airports. The transition from
ILS to GBAS is likely to take decades, and some airports
will need to support operations with both systems during
the transition.
The data broadcast on a single frequency may contain
FAS datablocks for several different runway ends, multiple
approaches to a single runway end, or even multiple
runway ends at multiple airports. Due to the TDMA
frequency sharing, a receiver tuned to a given frequency
could see FAS definitions provided by multiple different
ground stations for airports separated by large distances.
Therefore, unlike ILS, the simple selection of a frequency
does not uniquely identify a specific approach.
Fig. 7 illustrates the data required to uniquely identify a
GBAS approach. A selection scheme that required entry of
all the unique data would require entry of 12 alphanumeric
characters. Such a requirement would be burdensome in
situations that entail high pilot workload. If an onboard
database were used, the amount of data that is required to
be entered could be reduced. However, GBAS approaches,
particularly for CAT II/III operations, should not be
dependent on the existence of an onboard database. The
option for a simple manual entry is required because the
onboard database equipment may fail. (Availability of a
CAT III approach today does not depend on having a
functional flight management system (FMS) or database.)
Furthermore, some airplanes are not FMS equipped, some
airlines prefer not to carry FMS equipment, and some
Fig. 7. Data required to uniquely identify a GBAS approach.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Table 2 Channel/Frequency Range for Precision Approach Systems
airlines prefer to not include the FMS on their minimum
equipment list for dispatch. Even on some FMS equipped
airplanes, a simple control head type interface for the
approach selection is preferable, particularly in a retrofit
situation. Therefore, at a minimum, the approach selection
methodology is required to be simple enough that the pilot
can manually enter all the required data, even in a high
workload situation.
The solution for GBAS approach selection is based on
the assignment of five digit channel numbers in the range of
20 000 to 39 999. Each approach is assigned a channel
number that allows the user to unambiguously select that
approach.
Use of a five-digit channel assignment for GBAS allows
GBAS to be consistent with ILS. Flight deck integration
and crew operations can be consistent between ILS and
GLS. If a certain airplane model uses a simple control head
for tuning ILS, then the control head interface can be
expanded to include GBAS approach selections. If an
airplane has an Bautotune[ interface based on an FMS and
navigation database, then the GBAS tuning can be realized
in a manner consistent with that interface. The five-digit
channel could be stored in a database in the same manner
that the ILS frequency is stored in the database today. In
many airplanes, the pilot never deals with the ILS
frequency (unless there is an FMS failure) and the same
sort of interface is supported by the GBAS five-digit
tuning. It is important to understand the distinction
between the signal-in-space/equipment interface and the
pilot interface. For ILS, the signal-in-space/equipment
interface is the frequency. The pilot interface could be a
selection of airport and runway. Similarly, the signal-in-
space/equipment interface for GBAS is the five-digit
channel number. The pilot interface can be something
more sophisticated (with the aid of a database). In both
cases, the lowest common denominator for the pilot
interface is the signal-in-space/equipment interface.
The GBAS channel range is restricted to 20 000 to
39 999 so that the channel space is segregated from other
approach selections. Table 2 lists the channel or frequency
range for ILS, MLS, GBAS, and SBAS. The ranges are
segregated to help reduce the possibility of entry error.
Also, segregating the ranges allows the channel assignment
to identify the system being tuned, thereby eliminating
another pilot entry.
1) Approach Selection Verification for GBAS: Positive and
unambiguous feedback to the pilot is required for
Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
verification that the correct approach has been selected.
The channel number allows a specific FAS datablock to be
identified. Once the desired datablock has been found, any
information contained in the datablock could be presented
to the pilot as an independent verification that the correct
block has been found. Here again, similarity to the current
ILS system is advantageous. Hence each unique FAS
datablock is assigned a four-character approach identifier
or Bident.[ For example, an approach to Boeing field could
be assigned the identifier BGBFI,[ which is analogous to
the ILS audio ident assigned to the ILS approach at the same
runway BIBFI.[ Optionally, the Airport ID, Runway ID, and
Route Indicator from the selected datablock could addi-
tionally be used as feedback that the correct approach has
been selected. However, the four-character approach ident
is the preferred feedback method and should be supported
as a minimum for the following reasons.
• The four-character approach ident is similar to the
ILS ident and will enable cockpit integrations to be
consistent across ILS and GLS.
• The four-character ident supports audio feedback.
Some airplanes may need an audio feedback
mechanism to be used in the event of equipment
failures, etc. The ILS ident is presented to the pilot
as an audio (Morse code) signal. For consistency,
the GBAS approach ident could be provided the
same way. Audio feedback is advantageous because
it is consistent with past precedent, but modern
display systems make it unnecessary. The four
characters could also be displayed on the primary
display or on the control head.
• The pilot selects the approach by entering a five-
digit number, and verification comes back in the
form of a four-character code. The feedback is in a
dissimilar form and could only have come from the
desired datablock (i.e., it is not entered or stored
in the database, etc.).
• The approach idents can be selected to minimize
the potential for confusion. For example, if there
were two approaches to the same runway, one with
a 3! path and one with a 4! path, they could be
assigned dissimilar idents such as BGABC[ and
BGXYZ.[ If the Airport ID, Runway ID, and Route
Indicator were used as feedback, they would be
seven characters long and only differ by one
character.
Both the channel number and the approach ident will
be shown together on the approach plate just as the ILS
frequency and ILS ident are shown on the approach plate
today.
A strong mechanism to avoid selecting the wrong
approach is needed for GLS because multiple approaches to
the same runway end are supported. Consider the example
given in Table 3, where a single runway end has three
different approaches. Each of the three approaches uses a
different Final Approach Segment path. Two of the three
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1943
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Table 3 Hypothetical Example of Three Approaches to the Same Runway End
defined paths are intended to support special operations.
One has a steeper glide path, which may be useful for noise
abatement or for wake vortex mitigation. The other is an
offset approach that could be useful for converging
operations to closely spaced parallel runways. In this
example, it is conceivable that if a pilot accidentally
selected the wrong approach, it would not be immediately
obvious since he would be getting what appears to be
normal guidance and his location relative to the airport is
correct, etc. The approach identifier is the feedback
mechanism that tells the pilot which approach is actually
selected.
Table 3 illustrates that a pilot interface based on
Airport ID, Runway ID, and Route Indicator is somewhat
prone to accidental selection of an unintended approach
since the identifiers only differ by one letter. The GBAS
channel assignments are such that no two channels that
map to the same frequency have more two digits in
common. Similarly, the approach identifiers were chosen
such that there are virtually no letters in common. This
should aid in preventing input errors if the approach ident
is displayed and checked against the approach plate.
Selection of an ILS approach does not require a route
indicator because each ILS provides only a single approach.
The potential for multiple approaches to a single runway
with GBAS is one of the main advantages of GBAS. This
advantage comes at a price of needing an extra piece of
information to distinguish between the approaches. The
five-digit channel method encodes the differences and does
it in a manner that reduces the potential for confusion.
E. Specifics of the GBAS Channel Mapping
The channel number has encoded within it both the
frequency selection and the selection of the specific
approach. In other words, all 12 characters worth of
information are contained in the channel number. Two
pieces of information are derived from the channel
number using the following two simple formulas.
The data broadcast physical frequency is given by
F ¼ 108:0 þ ððN % 20 000Þ mod 411Þ ' 0:025 MHz: (1)
The reference path data selector (RPDS) is given by
RPDS ¼ ðN % 20 000Þ div 411
1944 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.
UNIVERSIDAD DE96, No. 12, December
GRANADA.
Downloaded on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
at piloto de la Appelegida
seebacle
where
x div y ¼ the integer part of the quotient x=y
x mod y ¼ x % ððx div yÞ ( yÞ:
The number 411 used in the mapping is larger than the
number of physical frequencies available in the band. This
might seem wasteful in that some of the availability
channel space (20 000–39 999) will actually be mapped
to frequencies outside the allocated range. The reason for
using the value 411 in the mapping is that this ensures that,
for a given physical frequency, all channel numbers that
map to that physical frequency will differ from all other
channel numbers by at least three of the five digits. This
means an erroneous pilot entry of one digit will not result
in selection of a different approach supported by the same
ground station. Hence, the probability that an erroneous
pilot entry would go undetected is reduced.
The following steps describe a typical GBAS tuning
scenario.
1) The pilot selects the approach. This can be done
either by selecting the GBAS channel number
directly or through some other interface that
allows the pilot to select the approach using the
airport identifier, runway identifier, and route
identifier.
2) The channel number N corresponding to the
desired approach is provided to the GBAS
equipment.
3) The frequency F of the data broadcast channel is
computed using (1).
4) The RPDS is computed using (2).
5) The data broadcast receiver tunes the frequency F
and demodulates all the data found on that
frequency.
6) All the type 4) messages received are searched
until a FAS datablock that contains a value in the
RPDS field that matches the RPDS computed in
step 3) above is found. When the matching RPDS
is found, the desired FAS datablock has been
found.
7) The selected ground station is determined from the
header of the type 4) message, which contained the
FAS datablock with the matching RPDS.
8) The approach ident from the FAS datablock with
(2) the matching RPDS is returned from the GBAS
2008
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Fig. 8. GBAS approach selection and verification.
equipment as verification of the correct selection.
(Optionally, the airport identifier, runway identi-
fier, and route indicator for the selected FAS
datablock could be used for selection verification.)
The approach selection and verification scheme is
illustrated in Fig. 8.
F. Management of GBAS Channel Assignments
In order for this tuning scheme to identify one and only
one approach, the assignments of frequencies and RPDS
values must be managed so that an airplane will receive a
given RPDS from only one ground station on a given
frequency. Each RPDS must be associated with one and
only one FAS datablock within radio range for a given
frequency. This means that the RPDS assignments for
GBAS installations that share the same frequency must be
carefully coordinated. The coverage for each station for an
airplane at altitude must be considered, as well as the
regions where coverage for two stations overlap.
GBAS channels can be reassigned for stations that are out
of radio range. Consider the simple example given in Fig. 9,
where four airports share a single GBAS VDB frequency
assignment. Because of the TDMA nature of the datalink,
those airports may be relatively close to each other, or they
may be very far from each other such that their coverage areas
overlap near the edge of coverage. Coverage here should be
understood to mean the actual volume within which the VDB
signal can be received and decoded by an airborne user. In
many cases for a user at altitude, VDB coverage is likely to
extend to the line of sight radio range.
From Fig. 9, it can be seen that there are areas where
an airborne user can receive two or three of the GBAS
stations simultaneously. However, there is no area where
Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
an airborne user can receive the signals from airports B
and C simultaneously. Therefore, the RPDS assignments
and associated channel assignments used at airport B can
be reused at airport C. (The TDMA slots assigned to
airports B can also be reused by airport C.)
G. GBAS Services
A GBAS may support two basic types of service:
approach services and the GBAS positioning service
(GBAS/PS).
• The GBAS/PS enables the user to compute an
accurate differential position solution with integ-
rity. Only one type of positioning service is defined.
• A GBAS approach service enables the user to
compute an accurate differentially corrected posi-
tion solution but also includes the definition of a
reference path so that the airborne equipment can
compute guidance information (deviations) rela-
tive to the reference path. Multiple types of GBAS
approach service are defined that provide different
levels of performance. Additional approach ser-
vices are currently being developed to allow GBAS
to support additional types of operations.
A given ground station may or may not support either
or both of the services described above. In this case, the
airborne equipment is required to output deviation
guidance relative to the selected reference path based on
differentially corrected position. At the same time, the
receiver outputs position, velocity, and time (PVT)
information for use by other airplane system based on
unaugmented GPS. If the ground station does support the
GBAS positioning service, the airborne equipment will
output PVT based on the GBAS corrections. The ground
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1945
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

Estos dos

-
S queden
reutilizat

-
codigos

Fig. 9. Simple example: four airports share a single data broadcast frequency 115.525 MHz.

station indicates in the type 2) message whether or not the describe some typical hardware implementations of those
GBAS/PS is supported via information conveyed in functions and discuss issues associated with siting.
message type 2). It is also possible for a GBAS ground Fig. 10 shows a picture of a GBAS reference receiver
station to support the GBAS/PS and not provide any installation. This particular reference receiver configuration
approach service. was implemented by the University of Oklahoma [56], [57]
The type of service used by the airborne equipment in and has been used in GBAS-related research in support of the
all cases is determined by the approach selection as
described above. The fundamental interface is the five-
digit channel number. If the RPDS derived from the five-
digit channel number [per (2)] matches the Reference
Station Data Selector (RSDS) value uplinked in message
type 2), this indicates that the receiver has been instructed
to select the GBAS/PS only. The receiver then outputs
differentially corrected PVT and does not compute or
output valid deviations. If the RPDS derived from the
channel number matches the RPDS in an FAS datablock
within message type 4), then the deviations are computed
and output. If message type 2) indicates the GBAS/PS is
supported, the receiver will output differentially corrected
PVT. The airborne equipment will automatically support
both types of service simultaneously if they are available.
Assignments of RSDS must be managed along with
RPDS assignments as described in Section II-E. RPDS and
RSDS assignments must be unique within radio range on a
given frequency.

H. GBAS Ground Segment Sergio ->

As mentioned earlier, the GBAS ground segment

consists of a set of GBAS reference receivers, a processing Fig. 10. GBAS reference receiver with multipath
facility, and a VHF data broadcast facility. This section will limiting antenna system.

1946 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.
UNIVERSIDAD DE96, No. 12, December
GRANADA. 2008
Downloaded on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s program to develop results from where the satellites happen to occupy the sky
the technology [58]–[60]. The FAA’s GBAS project has gone over the duration of the test. A limited observation period
by the name of the Local Area Augmentation System is never guaranteed to produce the worst possible
(LAAS), so throughout the literature one will see references multipath error that could be generated by an environ-
to LAAS where the specific FAA GBAS program is being ment. Therefore, siting evaluations typically involve
discussed. One can think of BLAAS[ as the FAA’s brand analysis coupled with observations. Finally, performance
name for their GBAS product. GBAS is the internationally monitoring over time during operation can be used to
accepted term for this type of augmentation system. identify, isolate, and mitigate multipath effects.
A GBAS reference station such as the one shown in Another factor influencing the siting of reference
Fig. 10 would typically be sited on or near an airport stations is that fact that the GBAS facility uses multiple
property. Proper siting of the reference receivers is very reference observations as a means to monitor for and limit
important in that a major source of potential error in a the impact of noncommon mode error sources such as
differential GPS system is multipath at either the reference multipath. Therefore, reference stations must be spatially
or the user receiver [61], [62], [64]. Errors induced by distributed in a manner that ensures the effects of
signal energy that arrives at the receiver via reflection, environmental multipath will be uncorrelated.
diffraction, or any means other than the direct path will be Fig. 11 shows a typical central processing facility for a
unique to one side of the differential system and therefore GBAS. The facility shown in the figure is the prototype
will not be compensated for by the differential corrections. GBAS ground station installed at SeaTac airport. This
One source of potential multipath is the ground. To ground station was manufactured by Honeywell [77], [78].
combat this source of error, multipath limiting antennas The racks shown contain the computers that process the
(MLAs) such as the one shown in Fig. 10 can be employed. pseudorange correction and that support integrity moni-
The MLA antenna technology was originally developed by toring. These racks also include the VHF transmitter
Braasch at Ohio University [62]. That development work equipment and power management equipment. In total,
led directly to the development of the commercial antenna about one and a half racks of equipment are required for
product depicted in Fig. 9 [63]. The MLA shown consists this installation. This compares very favorably to ILS since
of a stacked array of elements approximately 2 m tall. The this GBAS equipment can support all the runway ends at
elements of the array are phase-combined in a manner the airport, whereas ILS would require multiple shacks of
such that the resultant pattern has a very sharp cutoff at equipment such as the one shown to provide similar
the horizon, and several tens of decibels of rejection is approach services. As a case in point, the GBAS shown in
provided against signals that would enter the antenna from Fig. 11 broadcasts FAS definitions for ten different
arrival angles below the horizon (i.e., 0! elevation). approaches: four runway ends at SeaTac; two runway
Multipath resulting from signals reflecting off the ground
would arrive from elevation angles below zero degrees,
and in no cases would valid direct path satellite signals
arrive from such angles. Hence the antenna greatly
reduces the energy in the multipath signals.
Much research has been done on the effects of GPS
multipath. The interested reader is referred to [62], [64],
and [66]–[71] for more information.
The reference station shown in Fig. 10 employs two
antenna systems: the MLA array and a zenith coverage
antenna. The MLA provides coverage from near the
horizon to between 30! and 40! . The zenith coverage
antenna has complementary coverage such that satellites
between 30! and 90! elevation can be tracked. Recent
antenna designs for MLAs provide full coverage of the
upper hemisphere with a single MLA array [72].
Multipath limiting antennas can be very effective at
mitigation of ground bounce multipath. However it is still
important to carefully site the reference station antennas
to minimize the effects of multipath from other sources.
Hence a site survey that evaluates potential multipath
sources is typically conducted [73]–[75]. Post installation
evaluation of multipath errors can be accomplished by
code-minus-carrier analysis. However, the results of such
observations are limited to evaluation of multipath that Fig. 11. GBAS ground facilityVSeaTac airport.

Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1947
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
ends at Boeing Field; two runway ends at Renton Field;
and two runway ends at Paine Field. In addition, the GBAS
provides the positioning service that can support Aera
Navigation (RNAV) operations in the terminal area and
perhaps will support surface applications in the future.
RNAV is a method of air navigation that allows an aircraft
to fly desired paths point to point, rather than being
constrained by paths that lead directly to and from
navigation aids. This can conserve flight distance, reduce
congestion, and allow instrument flight procedures into
and around airports without conventional navigation aids
like distance measuring equipment (DME) or VOR.
Surface applications may include things like:
• enhanced situation awareness on the airport
surface through use of digital airport maps;
• guidance on the airport surface during very low
visibility conditions;
• surveillance of airplane positions by the air traffic
service providers (through Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast);
• runway incursion detection systems;
• reduction of runway occupancy time through
optimum runway exiting applications.
The differential corrections and integrity information
are broadcast to the user over a VHF data broadcast signal
transmitted in the 108.0–117.975 MHz band. Fig. 12
Fig. 12. VHF data broadcast antenna.
1948 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.
UNIVERSIDAD DE96, No. 12, December
GRANADA.
Downloaded on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
shows a typical VHF antenna installation to support the
VDB function of a GBAS ground subsystem. This antenna
is installed at Memphis Airport and is part of the
Honeywell prototype GBAS installed there to support the
FAA development program done in cooperation with
FedEx. The antenna is an array of three elliptically
polarized sources, which are themselves constructed of
four folded dipole elements. A stacked array of three
sources is used to provide increased gain towards the
horizon and improved system range, and to reduce the
illumination of the ground, thereby reducing the impact of
nulls in the pattern that are induced by the ground
reflections. As a result, this configuration also mitigates
some of the deep nulls that might otherwise result from a
horizontally polarized signal source above the ground. As
mentioned above, elliptical polarization is optional
(although recommended by ICAO), and a horizontally
polarized antenna would be somewhat simpler than the
one shown in Fig. 12.
I. Airborne ImplementationVGBAS
Landing System (GLS)
This section will discuss typical airborne implementa-
tion of GBAS equipment and a GBAS landing function
(GLS).
First, let us review some terminology. The reader may
have seen the term GBAS and the term GLS seemingly used
interchangeably (even in this very paper). Strictly speaking,
this is not correct, as the terms refer to different things.
GBAS refers to the total navigation system composed of the
ground segment, space segment, and airborne segment.
GLS refers to the function as it is integrated into the
airplane. Although GLS is based on GBAS and includes the
GBAS airborne equipment, it also includes other equip-
ment not specific to the GBAS such as the autopilot,
displays, approach selection mechanisms, and other parts
of the GLS system on the airplane. However, not everyone
(including the author) is always careful about this
terminology, and sometimes GLS is used where GBAS
might have been more appropriate and vice versa.
Fig. 13 shows a block diagram of the GLS system
architecture for the Next Generation 737 (NG 737). The
NG 737 implements the GBAS airborne functions in a
multimode receiver (MMR) [79]–[81]. The MMR has
quickly become the preferred package for integration of
GBAS functionality (and basic GPS functionality for that
matter) on commercial air transport class aircraft. This is
due to the fact that the MMR readily allows integration of
the GBAS function into an existing landing system
architecture based on ILS. The MMR leverages existing
interfaces, and this results in relatively modest wiring
changes being required for a given airframe. Furthermore,
given the choice of VDB frequency and polarization,
existing ILS and/or VOR antennas can be utilized for the
VDB function, thereby eliminating the need to install an
additional antenna.
2008
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Fig. 13. NG 737 GLS airborne system architecture.
From Fig. 13, it can be seen that the MMR (or
navigation landing sensor) interfaces to many systems on
the airplane. This is a consequence of the general nature of
modern integrated glass cockpit aircraft. Although this
diagram is specific to the NG 737 aircraft, diagrams of
similar complexity exist for all other Boeing models in
production. In the figure, sources that provide data to the
MMR are colored yellow and equipment that uses the
output of the MMR are coded green. No fewer than nine
systems utilize the output of the MMR. This implies that
changes in the interface could require each of the nine
downstream systems to be modified. Therefore, an effort
Vol. 96,onNo.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded
has been made to make the interfaces as consistent as
possible with ILS in order to minimize the necessary
changes.
The MMR supports the landing function as well as the
basic GPS positioning in its GPS receiver function. This
GPS positioning information is used to support navigation
in all phases of flight. The MMR provides PVT outputs to
the FMS, which is responsible for management of the
multisensor navigation system. FMS systems and the
management of multisensor navigation systems is a
complex subject that could be the focus of another paper
entirely.
12, December
October 2008
19,2023 at | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1949
the Restrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
When GLS is active, the MMR will simultaneously
support both the landing function by providing deviations
relative to a selected reference path and basic aircraft
navigation through PVT outputs. As discussed above, the
GBAS ground segment may support both functions simul-
taneously, or the airborne receiver may use the GBAS to
support the landing function and support the PVT using
unaugmented GPS. This means that the receiver has to be
able to produce two different solutions at once. The landing
system function requires deviations produced relative to a
specific point on the aircraft. Therefore, the differentially
corrected position solution is translated to a common
guidance control point (GCP) on the airplane using the
pitch, roll, and heading information from the inertial system
and lever arms defining the offset between the GPS antennas
and the GCP. (The lever arms are airframe specific and are
stored in the MMR.) The basic PVT to support FMS
operations is referenced to the GPS antenna. So again, the
MMR maintains two different position solutions that are
ultimately referenced to two different places on the aircraft.
Fig. 14 shows a picture of the navigation control panel
implemented on the NG 737 airplane. The control panel
allows the pilot to enter ILS frequencies, VOR frequencies,
or GLS channel numbers by using a keypad. The desired
selection is keyed into the standby window using the
keypad. Then when the pilot wishes to make the control
selection active, the double arrow button on the left-hand
side of the panel is used to swap the active and standby
windows, which changes the tuning commands sent from
the control head.
Fig. 15 shows a typical FMS approach selection
interface through a page on the multifunction control
display unit (MCDU). This interface allows the pilot to
select an approach procedure by name (e.g., GLS32LA).
Although the menu selection may be an alphanumeric
sequence that is meaningful to the pilot, the five-digit
GBAS channel number is stored in the FMS database, and
it is this channel number that is supplied to the MMR to
accomplish the approach selection. In a typical modern
integrated glass cockpit aircraft, the FMS navigation
database will contain much information about a given
Fig. 14. Control panel for GLS approach selection on NG 737 airplane.
1950 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December
GRANADA.
Downloaded
Fig. 15. Typical FMS approach selection interface through MCDU.
approach, including the location of the threshold, heading
of runway, and other physical attributes. This information
is used to generate display symbology. However, should
the FMS fail, the pilot can use a reversionary mode where
the five-digit channel number is entered directly, the
approach is selected, and raw deviation data is provided
through the either the primary display or through the
standby instruments.
The GBAS airborne equipment is integrated into the
airplane in much the same manner that the ILS sensor is.
The airplane is designed to support automatic landings and
exploits redundancy to ensure that any failures of airborne
equipment that might cause a hazardous situation are
detected. For this reason, multiple independent threads of
equipment are used for fault detection. The autopilot
system will perform signal selection and fault detection
using the multiple inputs. In some configurations, the
receivers themselves are dual redundant internally so that
the output of the receiver is always monitored. With such
dual receivers, a fail operational capability can be
implemented with only two independent sensor threads.
I II . GBAS OPERATIONAL USES
A. Operational Use of GBAS
GBAS was originally conceived primarily as an
approach and landing aid. Consequently, the principle
operational use of GBAS is to support takeoff and landing
operations similar to those supported by ILS today. In fact,
GBAS is likely to eventually displace ILS particularly for
support of very low-visibility landing operations. A typical
operation supported by GBAS will look very similar to a
typical ILS operation. There will be a transition from some
terminal area arrival procedure to the final approach path,
typically a straight segment aligned with the runway.
Today, typically, at a large airport, Air Traffic Control
directs aircraft to the localizer via assigned headings or
vectors. Often, several aircraft will be on the approach at
the same time, separated by several miles. Once an aircraft
has intercepted both the localizer and the glideslope
2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
guidance, the aircraft is said to be established on the
approach. Typically, an aircraft will be established on the
approach by 6 nmi from the runway threshold. The point
where the aircraft is established on the final approach
segment is at or near a final approach fix.
The deviation of the aircraft from the selected path is
indicated to the flight crew by means of a display that
includes vertical and horizontal bars referred to as
Bneedles.[ The two Bneedles[ are the course deviation
indicator (CDI). In a modern glass cockpit, the CDI is
typically integrated as one element of a multifunction
display with an associated flight director to aid guidance
and an autopilot to automatically track the intended path.
The output from the navigation receiver (ILS or GBAS)
goes both to the display system and to the flight control
computer. An aircraft landing procedure can be either
Bcoupled,[ where the autopilot directly controls the aircraft
and the flight crew monitors the system; or Bmanual,[ where
the flight crew manually controls the aircraft via use of flight
director commands to minimize the deviation from flight
path to the runway centerline.
1) Decision Altitude (Height): Once established on an
approach, the autoland system or pilot will follow the
vertical and lateral deviations and descend along the
glideslope until the decision altitude is reached [82]–[84].
(For a typical Category I operation, this altitude is 200 ft
above the runway.) At this point, the pilot must be able to
see the runway or runway environment (e.g., the runway
lights) in order to continue the approach. If neither can be
seen, the approach will be aborted and a missed approach
procedure is performed.
B. Approach Categories
There are three categories of approach operations.
• Category I: An instrument approach and landing
with a decision height not lower than 60 m (200 ft)
above touchdown zone elevation and with either a
visibility not less than 800 m or a runway visual
range not less than 550 m.
• Category II: An instrument approach and landing
with a decision height lower than 60 m (200 ft)
above touchdown zone elevation but not lower
than 30 m (100 ft) and a runway visual range not
less than 350 m.
• Category III is subdivided.
a) An instrument approach and landing with a
decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft)
above touchdown zone elevation or no
decision height and a runway visual range
not less than 200 m.
b) An instrument approach and landing with a
decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft) above
touchdown zone elevation or no decision
height and a runway visual range less than
200 m but not less than 50 m.
Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded on No. 12, December
c) An instrument approach and landing with no
decision height and no runway visual range
limitations.
Specific types of aircraft equipment and crew qualifica-
tions are required for low-visibility operations. For
example, to conduct an approach and landing using
Category III weather minimums below runway visual range
of 600 ft, a fail-operational autopilot system is required and
crew training on this type of procedure must be current.
Approach and landing using Category I minimums does not
require a fail-operational system. Approaches to Category I
minimums rely on baroaltimeter indications to determine
when the airplane has reached the decision altitude.
Approaches to Category II and Category III minimums
typically use radar altimeter to determine when the
decision height or alert height has been reached.
During an ILS approach, the position of the airplane
along the desired reference path is determined via a marker
beacon, DME, or RNAV fix [55]. The marker beacon is a set
of transmitters operating at a carrier frequency of 75 MHz.
When the transmission from a marker beacon is received,
an indication appears on the pilot’s instrument panel and
the modulating tone of the beacon is audible to the pilot.
The approach procedure will include information regard-
ing the correct height at which the aircraft should be when
it crosses each of the marker beacons, DME, or RNAV fixes.
In the early history of ILS, this was an important feature, as
it supported situational awareness of the pilot with respect
to their longitudinal distance to the runway. Also, by having
the flight crew cross-check the baroaltitude at the marker
beacon transitions, it provided some additional assurance
of a correct altimeter setting and of capture of the
appropriate glidepath. For ILS, this was very important
since a glideslope antenna array will naturally form Bfalse[
glidepaths that will have a much steeper descent. Use of
marker beacon signals for pilot situational awareness (in
commercial air transport class aircraft) has all but
disappeared and has been replaced by the use of DME
[55] measurements and navigation moving maps.
In some early autopilot implementations, the marker
beacon transitions were used to activate time-based
scheduled gain changes to the control of the aircraft [85].
Such practices were later abandoned, and gain desensiti-
zation scheduling in ILS-based autoland systems is typically
driven by an estimate of distance to go based on radio
altitude changes. GBAS offers a much cleaner and easier
interface for autopilots since differential GPS provides
precise position in three dimensions. Furthermore, GBAS
airborne equipment outputs deviation indications in both
angular scaling (for compatibility with existing autopilots
designed for use with ILS) and rectilinear scaling. The use
of the rectilinear scale deviations makes sensitivity scaling
unnecessary and eliminates a source of inaccuracy inherent
in ILS-based autoland control systems.
GBAS does not use marker beacons. Instead, the distance
to the runway threshold is computed and displayed directly to
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEE of
Xplore. IEEE 1951
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
the pilot and is available for use by other onboard equipment
such as the autopilot. This is an important feature of GBAS
and a great improvement over ILS. Most ILS systems include
a DME installation so that the pilot has an indication of
distance to the airport. This DME is less accurate and cannot
be physically sited at the threshold, so typically the distance is
referenced to another location. GBAS FAS path definitions
typically include a point at the threshold (the landing
threshold point) and hence GBAS airborne equipment can
continuously compute a distance to that point.
Fig. 16 shows a prototype xLS approach plate. The term
xLS refers to a generic landing system operation. The xLS
procedure can be flown using either ILS or GLS. In the
example chart for SeaTac Runway 16R, the approach
selection information for both ILS (i.e., 111.7 MHz) and
GLS (i.e., channel number 20 250) is shown. Note that the
two approaches have different ident strings (i.e., BISZI[
and BGSZI[). Both approaches are referenced to the same
desired approach path. The chart is nearly identical to an
ILS approach chart today except for the addition of some
GLS-specific information such as the approach selection
channel number. (Note, this chart is presented as an
example onlyVnot to be used for navigation purposes.)
C. GBAS Support of Terminal Area Operations
As mentioned earlier, GBAS may also provide a service
that is not specific to a particular approach path or runway,
i.e., the GBAS/PS. This service will allow airborne equipment
to output very high-accuracy positioning with integrity with
very high availability. Such a service can support RNAV and
required navigation performance (RNP)-based procedures. A
full treatment of RNP is beyond the scope of this paper. RNP
is a parallel and complementary development that has been
focused on using the capabilities of modern, multisensor
navigation systems to implement new operations based on
precise control and containment of aircraft trajectories.
GBAS has been integrated into the aircraft in a manner such
that when a ground station does support the GBAS/PS, the
navigation system can take full advantage of the improved
navigation capabilities. Through RNP and the use of RNAV,
an airplane can reliably and repeatably fly predetermined,
complex two- and three-dimensional paths such as curves
and sequences of straight and curved flight legs. RNP can
provide optimum transitions to GLS procedures and
optimum missed approach paths from GLS procedures.
IV. OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE
WITH GBAS
A. Operational Experience During Development
The first commercial air transport airplane with GLS
capability was certified in May 2005. The NG 737 achieved
this milestone after more than a decade of technology
development, standardization, and flight demonstrations. In
the course of implementing GLS on the NG 737, Boeing
1952 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Downloaded
demonstrated many advantageous aspects of GBAS capabil-
ities for the first time. These demonstrations occurred
during a technology demonstrator program in 2002 and then
again during flight testing in support of the certification
program. For example, during this testing, Boeing success-
fully demonstrated the use of multiple approach definitions
to the same runway, the use of offset thresholds, and support
of approach capabilities to nearby airports.
During the development program, the NG 737 was
flown with GLS using six different ground stations
manufactured by three different organizations serving 11
different airports including locations in both the northern
and southern hemisphere. Approaches flown included
typical ILS-like straight in approaches with autoland as
well as multisegment curved approaches using RNAV,
RNP, and the GBAS positioning service. Other demonstra-
tions included guidance for low-visibility takeoff, guidance
on missed approach, and landing performance during
simulated and induced ground station failure conditions.
Boeing’s early operational experience with GBAS has
generally been excellent. In fact, GBAS has already provided
operational advantages to Boeing. For example, during the
spring and summer of 2005, GBAS supported a temporary
displaced threshold to runway 13R at King County Interna-
tional Airport, Boeing Field (KBFI), in Washington State.
King County began construction of an extension for runway
KBFI 13R in May 2005. This required the ILS to be placed out
of service and a temporary displaced threshold to be created.
To maintain precision guidance capability to KBFI 13R, the
Boeing Flight Test organization utilized the SeaTac Airport
(KSEA) GBAS to create an additional GLS approach to
support the displaced threshold for its test aircraft. Using the
published information for the distance of the displaced
threshold from the existing threshold, Boeing Flight Test
engineers were able to derive the latitude and longitude of the
temporary displaced threshold and mathematically define the
new approach parameters within about 15 min. This
information was then e-mailed to Honeywell for final coding
of the FAS definition. The additional approach was loaded
into the KSEA GBAS station and was flown to an autoland (in
visual conditions) by the next available GLS-equipped Boeing
test airplane. The flight crew reported the guidance brought
the airplane across the displaced threshold at the intended
height and set the airplane down on the runway center line.
This was the first practical demonstration of a displaced
threshold using GBAS.
Fig. 17 shows a comparison of the guidance quality
provided by the ILS at Boeing Field with the guidance quality
obtained using the approaches to Boeing Field provided by the
SeaTac GBAS station. The scales in both plots are the same to
facilitate the comparison. The ILS guidance includes errors
with large and quick excursions with magnitudes of up to 70 ft
(at a distance of less than a mile from the threshold). In
contrast, the lateral guidance errors in the GBAS signals are
apparently bias-like and limited to 6.5 ft maximum. Similarly,
the ILS glideslope error characteristics are noisier than the
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

Fig. 16. GLS approach plate.

Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1953
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
Fig. 17. Comparison of ILS and GLS signal quality at Boeing Field.
GLS vertical deviation errors. Boeing Field is a particularly
challenging environment for ILS since there are many large
buildings (and often large airplanes) near the runway.
Furthermore, the airport is in a valley. This results in
multipath and consequently significant beam noise. In fact,
the guidance quality of the ILS at Boeing Field is so poor that
autopilot systems will not stay coupled making CAT II or
CAT III operations impractical, if not impossible. However,
with GLS, the performance is immune to the challenging
multipath environment and the signal quality is sufficient to
support autoland and potentially both Category II and
Category III minimums. This is another boon to Boeing
since it makes automatic landing at Boeing Field a reality
where it was previously impossible. The approach mini-
mums at Boeing Field are limited by other factors so it
never made sense to get the ILS quality improved. It would
not have resulted in any lower minimums. However, the
ability to autoland, even though the minimums remain
unchanged, is valuable.
It is important to note that the autoland capability at
Boeing Field is being supported by the GBAS station at
SeaTac Airport, which is 6 nm away, and the VDB
transmitter is over a 400 ft ridge. The VDB reception is
certainly not line of sight, but solid datalink reception
while taxiing on the ground around Boeing Field has been
consistently demonstrated.
B. Operational Experience in Revenue Service
Operational use of GBAS in revenue service by
scheduled air transport operators is now beginning.
1954 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Downloaded
Several airlines have acquired airplanes with GBAS
equipment, and the system is currently being used
regularly by airlines on three continents.
1) Qantas Airways: Qantas Airways has taken delivery of
its new 737-800 airplanes with GLS functionality and is
committed to retrofitting their entire NG 737 fleet with
the capability. The total Qantas NG 737 fleet with GLS
capability is expected to be nearly 50 airplanes. Qantas has
also ordered the Airbus A380 with the optional GLS
capability. They are the launch customer for the GLS
capability on the A380 and expect to take delivery in
August 2008. Qantas believes GLS will play an important
role in solving proposed critical area protection require-
ments. Qantas has also ordered the new Boeing 787
Dreamliner, which will have GLS on entry into service as a
basic feature. (Qantas ordered 65 787s with options for an
additional 50, making a total of 115 airplanes.) Between
these three models alone, Qantas should have a very
substantial fleet of aircraft with GLS capability.
During the aircraft acceptance phase of the NG 737
program, approximately 100 GLS approaches were flown
demonstrating the various system capabilities. These flights
occurred at 5 airports: KBFI (Boeing Field), KMWH
(Moses Lake), KSEA (Seatac), KPAE (Paine Field) and
YSSY (Euphrata), using 3 different ground stations. These
demonstrations included operations to narrow runways
(30 m) and displaced threshold operations.
A GBAS ground station has been installed at Sydney
International Airport, and Qantas began operational trials of
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

GLS at Sydney in December 2006. At the time of this writing,
all of the Qantas B737 flight crew (580 pilots) have been
trained in the used of the new system. All of the GLS capable
B787-800s that Qantas has are participating in the trials. All
six runways have been used in the trials. The initial
operations have included parallel runway operations (during
visual approaches). The trials have included autoland
operations (again in visual conditions). As of May 2008,
more than 1000 GLS approaches had been successfully
completed in-service. Approximately 20%–25% of those
operations were autoland operations. Qantas pilots have
reported excellent performance under a variety of conditions.
2) TUIFly.com: TUIfly.com, in conjunction with Boeing
and DFS (Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH), began GBAS
trials at Bremen Airport, Germany, in September 2007.
This trial phase includes using the GBAS during visual
conditions to support landings during normal revenue
operations at Bremen. The trial phase will support the
eventual certification of GBAS in Germany.
The GBAS ground station at Bremen was manufactured
by Honeywell and is operated by DFS. Boeing has fitted the
TUIfly.com aircraft with onboard equipment developed by
Rockwell-Collins. The project is funded by the 3rd
Aviation Research Programme launched by the German
Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology.
DFS has announced that they expect to realize
considerable cost savings by eventually replacing their
current ILS systems with GBAS. While each runway and
each landing direction requires a separate ILS, one GBAS
ground station will normally suffice. Moreover, the
mandatory maintenance and flight inspection activities
for instrument landing systems involve substantial costs.
Those costs are expected to be significantly reduced with
GBAS, as the system should not require periodic flight
inspection of signal quality.
3) Continental Airlines: Continental Airlines is working
to begin a GLS in-service evaluation using a GBAS
installation in Guam, which is scheduled to be completed
in 2008. The trials would be conducted by Continental
Micronesia, which is a subsidiary of Continental. The
airline also has plans for eventual deployment of GBAS and
GLS operations in other parts of the world.
V. FUTURE POTENTIAL
This paper addresses only GBAS applications to date.
There is a significant potential role yet to be defined for
68AS
other aviation applications of GBAS that could be yet more
beneficial. Some potential expanded uses of this tool
include:
• use of GBAS to guide helicopter landings;
• use of mobile, temporary GBAS to support disaster
relief or rescue operations;
• use of GBAS to support unmanned aerial vehicles;
• networks of GBAS stations to implement extended
coverage;
• use of GBAS to support high-precision airport
surface applications;
• use of GBAS to support high-precision air-to-air
surveillance applications;
• use of GBAS on ships or sea-based platforms (e.g.,
for helicopter operations).
VI . CONCLUSION
As we begin use of GBAS in daily airline operations, it is
important for airspace managers, airline operational
planners, and navigation service providers to understand
the potential new or improved capabilities enabled by
GBAS, as well as its potential for cost reduction for existing
airspace system infrastructure. GBAS can offer a signifi-
cant improvement in performance and cost relative to ILS.
Furthermore, the additional services offered by GBAS
should contribute to greater reliability of advanced
operations. h
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge their
colleagues at Boeing who have toiled many years to
make GBAS and GLS a reality. In particular, many
thanks are offered to J. Ackland, R. Friedman, M. Harris,
J. VandenBrooke, T. Lapp, S. Duenkel, and a host of
others without whose efforts GBAS would not exist. The
industry owes a debt of gratitude to Capt. A. Passerini of
Qantas for his leadership in moving forward to gain
operational experience with GLS. The author would also
like to thank several key members of the FAA for their
support of the GBAS development over the years,
including B. Clark, J. Warburton, and V. Wulschleger.
There are a host of other people in industry who
should be thanked for their extensive contributions to
GBAS, such as M. Brenner, A. Stratton, Dr. G. McGraw,
C. Shively, Dr. F. VanGraas, Dr. T. Skidmore,
Dr. M. Braasch, K. Class, K. McPherson, and D. Jensen, to
name a few.

y
REFERENCES
[1] ICAO State Letter 4/49.1-94/89, Oct. 1994.
[2] ICAO, BInternational standards and
recommended practicesVAeronautical
telecommunications,[ ICAO Annex 10,
Amend. 77, vol. I, Radio Navigation Aids.
[3] RTCA, BMinimum aviation system
performance standards (MASPS) for the
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS),[
DO-245A, Dec. 9, 2004.
[4] RTCA, BMinimum operational performance
standards for GPS Local Area Augmentation
System airborne equipment,[ DO-253A,
sec. 2.3.6.6.
[5] B. Parkinson and P. Enge, BDifferential GPS,[
in Global Positioning System: Theory and
Applications, vol. II. Reston, VA: AIAA
Press, 1996, ch. 1, pp. 3–50.
[6] G. McGraw et al., BDevelopment of the LAAS
accuracy models,[ in Proc. ION GPS 2000.

Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEEof
Xplore. IEEE 1955
theRestrictions apply.
Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems
[7] USAF GPS JPO, BGlobal position system
standard positioning service signal
specification,[ Nov. 5, 1993.
[8] USAF GPS JPO, ICD GPS-200, Oct. 10, 1993.
[9] USAF GPS JPO, BGlobal Position System
Standard Positioning Service performance
standard,[ Oct. 2001.
[10] P. Misra and P. Enge, BGlobal Positioning
System, Signals, Measurements, and
Performance. Lincoln, MA: Ganga-Jamuna,
2001.
[11] E. Kaplan et al., Understanding GPS, Principles
and Applications. Reading, MA: Artech
House, 1996.
[12] Russian Federation, BGLONASS interface
control document,[ ver. 5.0.
[13] RTCA, BMinimum operational performance
standards for global positioning system/wide
area augmentation system airborne
equipment,[ DO-229C.
[14] T. A. Murphy et al., BG(x),[ in Proc. ION Nat.
Tech. Meeting, Jan. 1997.
[15] T. A. Murphy et al., BSpecifics of the LAAS
context model, (G(x)),[ in Proc. ION GPS
Conf. 1997.
[16] T. A. Murphy et al., BLAAS signal-in-space
integrity monitoring: Description and
verification plan,[ in Proc. ION GPS-97,
Kansas City, MO, Sep. 16–19, 1997.
[17] F. Lui et al., BVerification of the LAAS
signal-in-space integrity monitoring
algorithm,[ in Proc. ION GPS 1998.
[18] T. Urda, BAvailability requirements for Local
Area Augmentation System (LAAS),[ in Proc.
ION GPS 2002.
[19] C. Varner, BGaussian and mixed Gaussian
methods of LAAS overbounding,[ in Proc. ION
GPS 2002.
[20] C. Shively, BA comparison of LAAS error
bounding concepts,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech.
Meeting 2001.
[21] S. Pullen, BGBAS validation methodology and
test results from the Stanford LAAS integrity
monitor testbed,[ in Proc. ION GPS 2000.
[22] Pervan et al., BSigma estimation, inflation, and
monitoring in the LAAS ground system,[ in
Proc. ION GPS 2000.
[23] J. Rife, BCore overbounding and its
implications for LAAS integrity,[ in Proc. ION
GNSS 2004.
[24] H. Wen et al., BB-value research for FAA
LAAS station integrity and fault detection,[ in
Proc. Nat. Tech. Meeting Inst. Navigat.,
Jan. 26–28, 2004.
[25] I. Sayim et al., BLAAS ranging error
overbound for non-zero mean and
non-Gaussian multipath error distributions,[
in Proc. ION Annu. Meeting 2003.
[26] I. Sayim, BExperimental and theoretical
results on the LAAS sigma overbound,[
in Proc. ION GPS 2002.
[27] C. Shively, BDerivation of acceptable error
limits for satellite signal faults in LAAS,[
in Proc. ION GPS 1999.
[28] R. Kelley, BComparison of LAAS B-values to
the linear model optimum B-values,[ in Proc.
ION Annu. Meeting 1999.
[29] M. Luo et al., BLAAS ionosphere spatial
gradient threat model and impact of LGF
and airborne monitoring,[ in Proc. Inst. Navig.
GPS Conf., Sep. 2003.
[30] T. Walter et al., BThe effects of large
ionospheric gradients on single frequency
airborne smoothing filters for WAAS and
LAAS,[ in Proc. Inst. Navig., Nat. Tech.
Meeting, Jan. 2004.
1956 Proceedings
Authorized ofto:the
licensed use limited IEEE | Vol.DE96,GRANADA.
UNIVERSIDAD
[31] M. Luo et al., BIonosphere spatial gradient
threat for LAAS: Mitigation and tolerable
threat space,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting,
Jan. 2004.
[32] M. Luo et al., BLAAS study of slow-moving
ionosphere anomalies and their potential
impacts,[ in Proc. Inst. Navig., GNSS Conf.,
Sep. 2005.
[33] J. Lee, BPosition-domain geometry screening
to maximize LAAS availability in the presence
of ionosphere anomalies,[ in Proc. ION GNSS
2007.
[34] M. Luo et al., BAssessment of ionospheric
impact on LAAS using WAAS supertruth
data,[ in Proc. ION 58th Annu. Meeting,
Albuquerque, NM, Jun. 24–26, 2002,
pp. 175–186.
[35] Y. Park et al., BData-replay analysis of LAAS
safety during ionosphere storms,[ in Proc.
ION GNSS 2007.
[36] T. Yoshihara et al., BA study of the ionospheric
effect on GBAS (ground-based augmentation
system) using the nation-wide GPS network
data in Japan,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting
2004.
[37] R. Shankararaman, BTargeted ephemeris
decorrelation parameter inflation for
improved LAAS availability during severe
ionosphere anomalies,[ in Proc. ION Nat.
Tech. Meeting 2008.
[38] T. Murphy and M. Harris, BMitigation of
ionospheric gradient threats for GBAS to
support CAT II/III,[ in Proc. Inst. Navig. GNSS
Conf., 2006.
[39] L. Gratton et al., BEphemeris failure rate
analysis and its impact on category I LAAS
integrity,[ in Proc. ION GNSS 2007.
[40] C. Shively, BLAAS integrity risk due to
satellite ephemeris faults,[ in Proc. ION GPS
2001.
[41] A. Passerini, BGLS in-service experience,[
in Brief. Int. GBAS Working Group,
Seattle, WA, Jul. 2007.
[42] T. Murphy et al., BEarly operational
experience with new capabilities enabled by
GBAS Landing Systems (GLS),[ in Proc. Inst.
Navig., Nat. Tech. Meeting, Jan. 2006.
[43] A. Lipp, BInitial GBAS experiences in
Europe,[ in Proc. ION GNSS 2005.
[44] S. Saitohi et al., BExperimental GBAS
performance at the approach phase,[ in Proc.
ION Nat. Tech. Meeting 2003.
[45] S. Saitohi et al., BFlight experiment of GBAS
in Japan,[ in Proc. ION GPS 2001.
[46] K. Butzmühlen et al., BPreparation for GBAS
at Branschweig research airportVFirst flight
test results,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting
2006.
[47] U. Bestmann et al., BMaking the case for
GBAS, experimantal aircraft approaches in
Germany,[ Inside GNSS Mag., Oct. 2006.
[48] Murphy et al., BApproach with precision,[
GPS World, Sep. 2006.
[49] Schachteneck et al., BFlight testing and data
evaluation of ground based augmentation
systems,[ in Proc. IEEE 25th Digital Avion. Syst.
Conf., Oct. 15, 2006.
[50] M. Brenner et al., BPerformance of a
prototype Local Area Augmentation System
(LAAS) ground installation,[ in Proc. ION GPS
2002.
[51] J. Warburton, BFAA flight test results using
airport pseudolites with the LAAS Test
Prototype (LTP),[ in Proc. ION 1997.
[52] J. Warburton, BValidation of the FAA LAAS
specification using the LAAS Test Prototype
(LTP),[ in Proc. ION GPS 1998.
No. 12, December 2008on October 19,2023 at 07:34:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Downloaded
[53] F. Van Graas, BOhio University/FAA flight
test demonstration results of the Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS),[ in Proc. ION
GPS 1997.
[54] T. Murphy et al., BResults of the Boeing/
industry GPS landing system flight test
experiments,[ in Proc. ION GPS 1996.
[55] M. Kayton and W. Fried, Avionics Navigation
Systems, 2nd ed., New York: Wiley, sec. 4:4.4
and 13.5.
[56] P. Yih-Ru et al., BFlight test results of a MOPS
compliant LAAS system to provide guided
straight and curved path departures and
missed approaches,[ in Proc. ION GNSS, 2005.
[57] H. Wen, BB-value research for FAA LAAS
station integrity and fault detection,[ in Proc.
ION Nat. Tech. Meeting, 2004.
[58] J. Miller, BLAAS government industry
partnership,[ in Proc. ION GPS 99.
[59] J. Warburton et al., BFlight test results of the
FAA local area augmentation system test
prototype,[ in Proc. ION Annu. Meeting, 1997.
[60] J. Warburton et al., BValidation of the FAA
LAAS specification using the LAAS Test
Prototype (LTP),[ in Proc. ION GPS, 1998.
[61] F. Van Graas et al., BFAA/Ohio University
United Parcel Service DGPS autoland flight
test demonstration,[ in Proc. ION GPS 1995.
[62] M. Braasch, BMultipath effects,[ in Global
Positioning System: Theory and Applications,
vol. 1, B. Parkinson et al., Eds. Washington,
D.C.: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1996, ch. 14.
[63] D. Bryce, BThe LAAS Integrated Multipath
Limiting Antenna (IMLA),[ in Proc. ION GPS
2002.
[64] Investigation of multipath effects in the
vicinity of an aircraft dependent on different
flight profiles, Eurocontrol EEC Rep. 357
project GNS-Z-E2.
[65] M. Braasch, BOptimum antenna design for
DGPS ground reference stations,[ in Proc.
ION GPS Conf., 1994.
[66] T. Murphy, R. Snow, and M. Braasch, BGPS
multipath of air transport airframes,[
Navigation, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 397–406R
Winter, 1996–1997.
[67] J. Booth et al., BValidation of the airframe
multipath error allocation for local area
differential GPS,[ in Proc. IAIN/ION Meeting,
Jun. 2000.
[68] T. Murphy et al., BA program for the
investigation of airborne multipath,[ in Proc.
ION Nat. Tech. Meeting, Jan. 2004.
[69] T. Murphy et al., BMultipath modeling for
airborne and ground-based receivers utilizing
flight test data,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech.
Meeting, Jan. 1997.
[70] T. Murphy et al., BResults from the program
for the investigation of airborne multipath
Er,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting,
Jan. 2005.
[71] T. Murphy et al., BMore results from the
program for the investigation of airborne
multipath error,[ in Proc. ION GNSS,
Sep. 2005.
[72] A. Lopez, BLAAS/GBAS ground reference
antenna with enhanced mitigation of ground
multipath,[ in Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting,
2008.
[73] J. Kelly et al., BAn advanced multipath model
for DGPS reference site analysis,[ in Proc.
ION Annu. Meeting, 2004.
[74] D. Bryce, BLAAS Multipath Limiting Antenna
(MLA) performance testing and analysis,[ in
Proc. ION Nat. Tech. Meeting 2005.
 Murphy and Imrich: Implementation and Operational Use of Ground-Based Augmentation Systems

[75] D. Lamb, BDevelopment of local area
augmentation system siting criteria,[ in Proc.
ION Annu. Meeting 2001.
[76] A. Lopez, BLAAS reference antennas. . . key
siting considerations,[ in Proc. ION GNSS
2004.
[77] M. Brenner et al., BPerformance of a
prototype Local Area Augmentation System
(LAAS) ground installation,[ in Proc. ION GPS
2002.
[78] F. Liu et al., BSignal deformation monitoring
scheme implemented in a prototype local area
augmentation system ground installation,[ in
Proc. ION GNSS 2006.
[79] D. Stratton et al., BMulti-mode receivers for
verification of ground and space-based
augmentations systems,[ in Proc. ION GNSS
2004.
[80] S. Y. Ryan et al., BMMR-centric multisensor
integration architecture for civil aviation
applications,[ in Proc. ION GNSS 2005.
[81] D. Stratton et al., BArchitectures for combined
standard positioning system/precise
positioning system user equipment,[ in Proc.
ION GNSS 2004.
[82] FAA, BCriteria for approval of Category III
weather minima for takeoff, landing and
rollout,[ Advisory Circular AC 120-28D.
[83] PANS-OPS, vol. II, pt. III,
Doc. 8168-OPS/611.
[84] Joint Airworthiness Requirements All
Weather Operations (JAR-AWO), BSubpart 2,
Airworthiness certification of aeroplanes
for operations with decision heights below
60 m (200 ft) and down to 30 m
(100 ft)VCategory 2 operations,[ sec. 236.
Excess-deviation alerts.
[85] Flight Safety Foundation, BPitch oscillations,
high descent rate, precede B-727 runway
undershoot,[ Accident Prevention, vol. 58,
no. 9, Sep. 2001.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Tim Murphy (Member, IEEE) was born in
Greenville, OH, on May 14, 1960. He received the
B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees from Ohio University,
Athens, in 1984 and 1985, respectively.
He was a Stocker Fellow and a Research Intern
with the Avionics Engineering Center, Ohio Uni-
versity. He has 25 years of experience in analysis,
design, and deployment of communication, navi-
gation, and surveillance (CNS) systems for aircraft.
He was a satellite communications System Engi-
neer with Hughes Space and Communications company, El Segundo, CA,
from 1985 to 1988. He then joined Boeing Company’s commercial
airplane division in Seattle, WA. The current focus of his work is avionics
for new airplane product development and next-generation CNS
technologies to support air traffic management. His primary expertise
is in navigation systems including satellite navigation systems (GPS, GPS
augmentations, GPS modernization, GPS landing systems) as well as
conventional navigation systems (VOR, DME, ILS, etc.). He is very active in
the development of international standards for use of satellite navigation
by commercial aviation. He is the panel member nominated by the
International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations
to the International Civial Aviation Organization Navigation Systems
Panel. He has published more than 30 papers and has received nine
patents.
Mr. Murphy is a member of the Institute of Navigation.
Thomas Imrich received undergraduate and
graduate degrees in aeronautics and astronautics
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge.
He was an active duty officer in the U.S. Air
Force. He is a Senior Engineering Test Pilot for the
Boeing Company, assigned to the new B747-8 and
B787 programs. He previously was Boeing’s Chief
Research Test Pilot, starting in 2001. At Boeing, he
has supported numerous flight test development
and certification efforts for GLS, RNP, and data link, as well as major flight
test efforts for the B737NG, B777, and B747, including the B747-400 LCF,
which is now used to carry component parts for B787 assembly. Prior to
Boeing, he held a variety of management and technical positions with the
FAA, including serving as its NRS for Air Carrier Operations. In those
positions, he worked with the operational introduction of various large
transport aircraft, including the MD-80, B757, B767, B737-300/400/500,
B747-400, MD-11, B737-600/700/800, A330, A340, and B777. Also while
with the FAA, he formulated various FAA or international rules or policies
for BAll Weather Operations,[ Cat III, GLS, RNP, HUD, FANS, data link,
collision avoidance, windshear, and crew qualification, and served on
numerous RTCA, ICAO, or ARAC related panels, task forces, or
committees. He has received several patents.
Capt. Imrich is a member of Sigma Xi. He is a member of AIAA, SAE,
and the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He has received numerous
awards, including several Aviation Week Laurels and the Flight Safety
Foundation’s Admiral deFlorez Award.

Vol. 96,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA. Downloaded onNo. 12, December
October 19,2023 at2008 | Proceedings
07:34:30 UTC from IEEE of
Xplore. IEEE 1957
theRestrictions apply.