backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 9 comment(s) - last by spluurfg.. on Dec 16 at 3:16 PM


The PPA system will help keep the C-20A Gulfstream III flying level so the UAVSAR radar pod can scan geoseismic hot spots.  (Source: US Army)
NASA develops PPA system to up the safety and accuracy of civil and research aircraft

The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is just now finally entering into civil aviation navigation in the United States.  WAAS provides a GPS based means for aircraft to maintain a flight path by issuing level correction vectors.  The end result is that the plane flies on a prescribed level path -- either from a previous flight or a computer generated path -- and follows the path to an accuracy of 30 feet.

Not one to rest on their laurels, NASA is keeping the ball rolling developing an even better system, dubbed the Platform Precision Autopilot (PPA).  One significant advantage of PPA over WAAS is that due to its usage of GPS satellites and traditional techniques WAAS can only operate with 75 degrees of latitude in the northern and southern hemispheres.  For PPA, which NASA plans to use in research planes which travel over Greenland and the Arctic, NASA also uses GPS but it boosts the range by relaying real-time GPS correction-vectors along Iridium’s satellite phone network to allow for navigation anywhere on the global.

NASA makes significant gains in accuracy between PPA and WAAS.  WAAS's accuracy of 30 feet has been beefed up to 15 feet with PPA, a two-fold improvement.  NASA hopes to become even more accurate, and is shooting for an accuracy of a few millimeters.

The final step after grabbing the more accurate GPS data is to combine it with 40 Hz input data from the aircraft's laser gyro-driven Inertial Navigation Unit (INU).  Combining these signals the aircraft's onboard computer outputs positional and guidance information.  This is used to autopilot the plane, but the output is displayed in traditional instrument landing system (ILS) form. Pilots will be able to read and understand it, and take corrective actions if necessary in case of system malfunction or failure.  By implementing ILS, the system can become FAA-certified, paving the way for its eventual adoption on commercial aircraft.

The system was developed at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, CA, which worked in conjunction with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA.  The system is designed to be utilized for NASA's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar (UAVSAR), a radar system designed at NASA's JPL under the guidance of NASA engineer Scott Hensley.  The UAVSAR is a radar system which broadcasts microwaves in the 1.2 GHz range from an L-Band aperture. 

NASA intends to use the UAVSAR for precision mapping of terrain, particularly with unmanned vehicles to map and monitor sites of extreme geologic activity.  The UAVSAR is very flexible and can electronically adjusts its signal, allowing it to be mounted on a wide variety of vehicles, but it requires a system like PPA to maintain a steady enough altitude for it to get good images.

The UAVSAR will be mounted aboard NASA's C-20A Gulfstream III, which will be used as a test of PPA's accuracy and whether it operates sufficiently for the UAVSAR system's readings.  NASA plans to log 140 hours of test flights before August 2008.   Since the Gulfstream III operates outside civilian air space it will not need a permit to use the UAV which takes 90-days due to a somewhat archaic processing system.  The test platform will allow NASA to instantly map hot zones of geologic activity.  Satellite SAR systems currently exist, but they only flyby a location with 24 to 45 days, so being in the right place at the right time for short-term events is unlikely.

NASA continues to lead the way in international aviation and its PPA and UAVSAR systems are no exception.  The PPA is especially promising to not only allow cutting edge research flights, but also promises to evolve and America's next generation of civilian aircraft safer.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Inaccuracies
By etekberg on 12/14/2007 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 1
Lots of confusion and inaccuracies in the article.
quote:
WAAS provides a GPS based means for aircraft to maintain a flight path by issuing level correction vectors


WAAS provides no such thing. WAAS provides GPS corrections for ionospheric and other errors and has nothing to do with aircraft flight paths. WAAS is a beefed up GPS signal - what is done with it is up to the avionics in the aircraft. I suggest reading about WAAS on wikipedia before writing about this stuff.

Also WAAS in practice is accurate to about 3~5 feet, not 30.




RE: Inaccuracies
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/14/2007 12:59:37 PM , Rating: 4
You raise one possibly valid point which is the range information, but it seems you are very off base on the other point.

I am guessing the accuracy somewhat depends on how the standard is implemented. Space.com, in the linked article, explicitly said that WAAS is accurate only to a practical range of 30 ft in its current implementation. Please refer to the linked article if you disagree and direct your comments towards Space.com.

Both ranges given are worst case estimates, obviously. Please reread the wikipedia article you reference, as well. It gives a worse case estimate of 7.6 m, which is around 23 feet, which is I believe what they drew the 30 ft number from. I do not know which is more reliable -- Space.com or Wikipedia. There are often mistakes on technical articles in Wikipedia, mind you.

From the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAAS

Also please reread your source when it comes to your refutation of WAAS's use in flight paths.

From the article:
"WAAS allows a precision approach to be published for any airport".

That is a guided flight-path, WAAS implemented. Full flight paths are obviously not heavily implemented, but they could be in theory by applying the technology.

If you found two points you disagree on that hardly is grounds to cite that the article contains lots of confusion and inaccuracies. The only (possible) inaccuracy it possibly holds originates with Space.com, which is a reputable news source, like DailyTech. If its numbers are erroneous DailyTech will correct them.


RE: Inaccuracies
By etekberg on 12/14/2007 2:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. I amend my comment from "lots" of confusion to "some".

Anyhow, nothing personal here, you just present an incorrect picture of WAAS to the readers. I wasn't really interested in assigning blame, sorry if it came off that way.

The article states that WAAS issues "level correction vectors". It does not. In fact, I don't even know what a level correction vector is, but I know WAAS certainly doesn't issue it. Whatever is issuing a level correction vector I presume is NASA's thing, not WAAS. WAAS is FAA, not NASA.

Also the 7.6m is the specification (i.e. what the FAA told the WAAS contractor the worst performance that they would accept wanted as a limit), not it's actual measured performance.

You are correct that WAAS allows for a precision approach to be created to any airport (that supports one). But allowing for and doing it are two very different things. WAAS also allows for a precision crash into small crater, but it certainly doesn't provide any vectors or guidance to the pilot to do that. It is the avionics that provide the guidance, not WAAS.


RE: Inaccuracies
By Ringold on 12/14/2007 4:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a guided flight-path


In a limited defense of the OP, in the above quoted part you said it in a better way than what was used in the actual article.

quote:
Full flight paths are obviously not heavily implemented, but they could be in theory by applying the technology.


I'm not sure what you mean by full flight paths, but most every signficant airport (not just the key class bravo airport used by the airlines) have ILS approachs, and seems like more and more get their WAAS approachs all the time.

As for being heavily implemented, I never finished my instrument ticket (want to donate to the Buy Ringold an IFR Ticket Fund?), but I got far enough to see that if you can do it (and many serious pilots have their IFR tickets) then flying IFR even on a nice day is more convenient then not, and full-blown instrument approachs are the only way to land when the weather isn't great. In fact, the first ILS landing was made by a commercial flight two months before my grandfather was born in 1938. Old school.. to the extreme.

Just as a random example, KOCF, Ocala Jim Taylor Field, that serves a city with a population of 5000 (cattle), even has an ILS:
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0712/05055I36.PDF

The cattle might be an exaggeration, but it's by far not a busy field.

As for the portion of the flight not landing and departing:

http://skyvector.com/

Those are VFR charts; IFR are much less ink-intensive, none of that information is necessary since one should never deviate from the paths laid out. Any grass field within range of a VOR for a nice radial to follow can be said to have a "full flight path" implemented, and an autopilot hooked up to the right avionics could follow it. If it's following directions from a GPS, any airport anywhere has a full flight path!


RE: Inaccuracies
By spluurfg on 12/16/2007 3:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
While we're nitpicking, 15ft versus 30ft could be interpreted as a four-fold improvement, if you consider that the margin of error is the radius of a circle that is the area that the plane could be in. Thus dividing that radius by two decreases the area by four. But I doubt many people will care.


I could look it up..but...
By Souka on 12/14/2007 4:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
The post says, "..relaying real-time GPS correction-vectors along Iridium’s satellite phone network..."

Isn't the Iridium satellite network no longer being maintained and is falling?

I"m probably thinking of another satellite phone service... right?




RE: I could look it up..but...
By Zok on 12/15/2007 12:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
You're thinking of Globalstar. Iridium's satellites are good for at least another 10 years, according to a recent independent audit, and are scheduled to be upgraded / replaced before then, much like the GPS constellation.


About time...
By jskirwin on 12/14/2007 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is welcome news for travelers. With this system we can increase capacity of flight lanes without compromising safety. This would go some way towards alleviating congestion, but it wouldn't help much on the ground with delays caused by lack of gates.

Round-the-clock flights would help too, but face stiff local opposition.




HAHAHA
By lebe0024 on 12/15/2007 10:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
As a SW developer for the FAA contractor who develops our en-route air traffic system, I can tell you that anything like this is at least 5 years, maybe 10, form being implemented. You think the FAA can just snap its fingers and transform the entire air traffic infrastructure? NASA is implementing this for research and that is a lot more flexible situation.

Consider this: The new enroute system, ERAM, is just now being installed at the FAA. It took years (at least 5) to develop, and it doesn't not even use normal GPS. And this is a brand new system!




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki