EGNOS Service Provision Meeting, EC - Brussels 24/06/2010
Agenda • 10:00 - 10:30 Welcome and context • 10:30 - 12:00 Past EGNOS performances • 12:00 - 12:30 Q&A on EGNOS Past Performances • 12:30 - 13:30 Lunch • 13:30 - 15:30 EGNOS Service Provision status and future • 15:30 - 15:45 Break • 15:45 - 16:00 Status of FP7 projects related to EGNOS trials • 16:00 - 17:00 Q&A on EGNOS Service Provision • 17:00 - 17:30 Conclusions
Content • 1. EGNOS Program Context • 2. ESSP Introduction • 3. EGNOS Past performances • 4. EGNOS Service Provision status and future • 4.1Certification Status • 4.2 SoL service Introduction • 4.3 EGNOS User Support • 4.4 EGNOS NOTAMs • 4.5 EGNOS Operations & Maintenance • 5. Status of FP7 projects related to EGNOS trials • 6. Conclusions
AENA DGAC NATS ENAV DFS SKYGUIDE NAV 2. ESSP Introduction European Satellite Services Provider
ESSP Mission To provide the EGNOSOpen Service and Safety of Life Service compliant with ICAO SARPS throughout the ECAC region
ESSP Status (1/2) • ESSP EEIG founded in 2001 • Mission: Operation of EGNOS • Based in Brussels • ESSP SAS created in 2008 • Mission: EGNOS Service Provider • HQ,PASSQ & SOU: Toulouse • SPU: Madrid
ESSP Status (2/2) • ESA Initial Operation Phase (IOP) • Ended April 2009 • EGNOS Signal Continuity Provision (ESCP) • 6 Months: Ended in October 2009 • EGNOS Service Provision (ESP) • Contract signed 30 September 2009 for 51 months
ESSP Past Milestones April 2009: Transition of the EGNOS Service Provision and Operations from the ESSP EEIG organisation to the new ESSP SAS. April 2009 – September 2009: execution of the EGNOS Signal Continuity Provision Contract with the EC. Completed the “hand over” of the EGNOS system of the EGNOS program from the ESA ARTES 9 program to the European Commission GNSS Program > October 2009:enter EGNOS Service Provision period, On that date the EC formally declared the EGNOS Open Service available
ESSP Future Milestones Preparation of Safety of Life service provision July 2010: Certificationof the ESSP as a Navigation Service Provider under the SES regulation August 2010: Message Type 0 off November 2010: SoL Service Declaration to users
EGNOS Performances The ESSP and EC have implemented several Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the measurement of the EGNOS performances as well as ESSP management performances The performance presented as well as the reference service area has been established for the current EGNOS version v2.2-ext Following slides show the highlights for the past performances for the Required Navigation Services (RNS) Signal In Space (SIS) broadcast availability Open Service (OS) NPA APV-1
EGNOS Performances Parameters EGNOS has been designed to meet stringent requirements coming from Aviation ICAO SARPS define performances in terms of Accuracy Availability Continuity Integrity 14
EGNOS GEO footprints EGNOSService Area EGNOS Satellite Footprints 3 Geostationary satellites PRN120: INMARSAT 3F2 AOR-E (15.5°W), PRN124: ARTEMIS (21.3°E), PRN126: INMARSAT 3F5 IOR-W (25°E) - test
SIS Broadcast Availability SIS: 99,99% Network Issue PRN 120: Inmarsat AOR + Operator PRN 124: Artemis payload PRN 124: Artemis payload
Open Service (1/6) Horizontal and Vertical Accuracywas monitored at 19 RIMS sites. The 95th percentile of the Horizontal/Vertical Navigation System Error (HNSE/VNSE) over a day, in each of the days of the period from April 2009 to March 2010 has been below HNSE < 3m VNSE < 4m The only exceptions were found at Kirkenes (Norway) and Tromsoe (Norway)
EGNOS Open ServicePositioning Compliance Area (2/6) Area where the user is able to calculate its position within the accuracy requirements
Open Service (3/6) Histogram of HNSE for all monitored RIMS sites during the full period reported for PRN124
Open Service (4/6) The value for OS Availability (% of time in the month in which HNSE<3m and VNSE<4m) has always been above 99% for each month of the period April’09-March’10 and for the monitored RIMS sites The only exceptions were found at Kirkenes (Norway) and Tromsoe (Norway) sites on the month of October 2009 and February 2010
Open Service (5/6) Main Observations: October 2009 Underperformances are located in the timeframe between 14th and 25th, due to NANU. Visible peak caused by the important loss of monitored IGPs over the north ECAC detected from 22nd to 24th October.
Open Service (6/6) Main Observations: February 2010 RIMS LYR has not been operational from 15th February until the end of the month Several NANUs have taken place during this period. In particular the NANU in PRN20 from 15th to 19th, the NANU in PRN30 from 22nd to 24th, the NANUs in PRN02 occurred on 16th and the NANU in PRN06 occurred on 22nd February. On 15th February a planned maintenance activity provoked the loss of the RIMS connected to MCC-LAN (ALB, KIR, WRS, BRN, GVL, LAP) during a few minutes.
NPA Availability NPA Availability (% of time in the month in which HPL NPA < AL NPA) has always been above 99% for each month of the period April’09-March’10 and for the measured sites . HPL: Horizontal Protection Level AL: Alert Limit
APV-1 Availability (1/4) APV-I availability is reported using maps showing the area for which APV-1 availability (99%) is reached. During the period from April 2009 to March 2010 , the APV-I Availability requirement is met over 98.6% of the Service area for both operational GEOs PRN120 and PRN124.
APV-1 Continuity (1/4) APV-I continuity is reported using maps showing the area for which 5*10-4 value for APV-1 continuity is reached. During the period from April 2009 to March 2010 , the APV-I Continuity Risk requirement was met.
APV-1 Availability & Continuity Border areas are more sensitive to potential degradations caused by GPS and RIMS outages. Several anomalies have been identified during the year being the main drivers: GPS outages (NANUs). To be highlighted: PRN8 and PRN24 were not usable from 15th to 27th October and from 5th to 29th November 2009. PRN20 and PRN30 were not usable during 4.5 and 2 days during February 2010. EWAN breaks. It should be noted that a significant part of the issues resulted during the network migration from Frame-Relay technology to MPLS one. Ionosphere Monitoring degradation. Specially relevant in the North of ECAC area and also partially related to the effect of geomagnetic activity in northern latitudes. Future version 2.3.1 implements an improvement of IGP monitoring algorithm.
APV-1 Integrity (1/2) The measurements of the Safety Index demonstrate a very good safety confidence. One Misleading Information (MI) event was detected on the 26th June 2009 in a receiver located at Bergen. No impact on integrity. Safety index (meters):
APV-1 Integrity (2/2) Safety Index histogram measured in RIMS locations: HSI PRN120
EGNOS Performances – Summary (1/6) The Required Navigation Services (Availability, Continuity, Integrity and Accuracy) are in line with ICAO-SARPS Signal-in-space performance requirements except for continuity for which the probability of discontinuity has been increased until 5*10-4 for APV-1 operation (instead 1-8*10-6 in SARPS) This limitation of current version v2.2-ext in continuity performances does not prevent the use of the service but it should be taken into account in the specific Application Safety Cases.
EGNOS Performances – Summary (2/6) The Accuracytarget value have been improved to below3 meters for horizontal and 4 meters for vertical accuracy (being in SARPS 16m and 20m for APV1 operation) in line with the accuracy requirements for the potential provision of LPV approaches down to 200 feet minima
EGNOS Performances – Summary (3/6) GPS outages RIMS/EWAN outages IGPs Not Monitored • Main underperformance drivers affectingspecially the stability in border areas :
EGNOS Performances – Summary (4/6) All underperformances are duly investigated, reported and tracked via anomaly investigation reports (Observation Reports) when relevant.
EGNOS Performances – Summary (5/6) Current EGNOS V2.2ext achieving good levels of performance towards Aviation ICAO SARPS New EGNOS V2.3.1 (in 2011) with 4additional RIMS sites and improvement EGNOS functions will increase the service area the service robustness in the service border area 42
APV-1 Expected Availability Extension (2011) (6/6) Indicative coverage observed with EGNOS Test 43
The need for Certification • To provide the SoL Service for Aviation, ESSP has to be certified as ANSP according to the EC-SES Single European Sky regulation • The (SES) Certification process is managed by the French National Supervisory Authority (NSA) Seven other NSA are associated to the process: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom
NSA Organisation NSA Committee manages the certification process • Provide • support Safety Case Interoperability Assessment Team (SCIAT) Certification Team (CT) SERVICE regulation management oriented SYSTEM regulation Technical oriented 49
Certification activities NSA Certification Team (CT) 1) ESSP SAS Certification (compliance to SES 2096, SES 668) is one management process Safety Assessment of change Implemented 2) Safety Demonstration of the change (compliance to SES 1315, SES 482) Provided in Safety Case Is one interoperability evidence 3) EGNOS System Interoperability (compliance to SES 552) NSA Safety Case Interoperability Assessment team (SCIAT) Mid 2010 • ESSP to provide the 3 demonstrations of compliance • NSA (CT and SCIAT) to assess the compliance
ESSP SAS Certification The conditions for a safe and efficient provision of air navigation services (in compliance with the Common Requirements : organisational structure and management , safety, quality, security, human resources, financial strength, liability and insurance, quality of service, reporting) 51