TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

OU/AEC 07-01TM15689/2-1

REVIEW OF LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) FLIGHT INSPECTION

REQUIREMENTS, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROCEDURES FOR PRECISION
APPROACH, TERMINAL AREA PATH, AND AIRPORT SURFACE GUIDANCE
OPERATIONS

The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is a safety-critical ground-based

augmentation system based on differential GPS concepts. LAAS is capable of
supporting precision approach, terminal area, and airport surface guidance
procedures. In order to implement LAAS within the United States National
Airspace System (NAS), flight inspection criteria must be developed for these
LAAS applications. This paper provides: background material on LAAS; the
rationale used for developing the initial flight inspection criteria; an overview of
initial FAA flight inspection requirements, procedures, and analysis
methodologies for the evaluation of precision instrument approach procedures
supported by LAAS; discussion of efficiencies that may be gained during the
inspection of an LAAS Ground Facilities servicing multiple runways; draft flight
inspection criteria for terminal and airport surface procedures; and, conclusions
and recommendations.

by

Michael F. DiBenedetto, Ph.D.

Senior Research Program Engineer

Avionics Engineering Center

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701-2979

October 2008

FAA Aeronautical Center

Aviation System Standards
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

Contract DTFAAC-03-A-15689
Task Order 0002 – Final Project Report
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON LAAS ...............................................................2
III. LAAS INSPECTION CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT......................................................5
IV. OVERVIEW OF FAA DRAFT ORDER 8200.LAAS .....................................................8
A. Pre-flight Requirements ....................................................................................................8
B. Flight Inspection Procedures.............................................................................................9
C. Flight Inspection Analysis and Tolerances .....................................................................15
V. REQUIREMENTS FOR TERMINAL AREA PATH PROCEDURES.........................16
VI. REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT SURFACE GUIDANCE PROCEDURES..........20
VII. PARALLEL RUNWAYS CASE STUDY .....................................................................22
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................23
IX. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................27
X. APPENDIX: Draft LAAS Flight Inspection Order, 28 November 2008 ......................30

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Illustration of LAAS subsystems.................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Determining Approach Sector Centerline, FASAP, and FASLTP............................... 10
Figure 3. Determining Right/Left Boundary and Boundary Alignment Points........................... 10
Figure 4. LAAS Approach Coverage Requirements. .................................................................. 14
Figure 5. Illustration of TAP procedure with Containment Requirements.................................. 18
Figure 6. DFW Case Study 1, One Parallel Runway Group........................................................ 24
Figure 7. DFW Case Study 2, Two Parallel Runway Groups. .................................................... 25

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Single Runway (See Note 3). ....................... 13
Table 2. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Parallel Runways.......................................... 14
Table 3. GPS Satellite Parameters Recorded............................................................................... 15
Table 4. Tolerances for LAAS Flight Inspection......................................................................... 16

ii
I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Aviation Systems Standards (AVN) is preparing to conduct flight inspections for
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Ground Facilities (LGFs), including the facilities that
will be installed in both Guam and Memphis [1]. The certification of an equipment design is in
progress and installation of approved equipment is expected to occur early during the year 2009
with commissioning flight inspection to occur shortly thereafter. The initial operational goal for
both of these facilities is to provide non-precision as well as precision approach procedures at
Guam and Memphis.

In order to facilitate the integration of satellite-based navigation systems into the NAS, standards
must be developed based on specific operational requirements and system architectures [2]-[7].
The objective of these standards is to detail, in terms of system-architecture-specific parameters,
the minimum performance required to support a given procedure. The standards development
process includes the generation of flight inspection criteria [8]. These criteria address the
specific system parameters to be assessed and the assessment methodology required to ensure
that the installed-system performance is suitable for supporting the intended procedure(s). Such
flight inspection criteria must be developed and verified to enable the implementation of the
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS).

Avionics has been involved with FAA flight inspection and flight test work for navigation and
landing aids since its inception in 1963. Avionics personnel have conducted many studies for the
FAA, including ones for the Office of Aviation System Standards (AVN) specifically related to
the development, implementation, and modernization of flight inspection concepts, criteria and
procedures. Efforts during this past decade include six separate substantive studies focusing on
the development and revision of flight inspection criteria for satellite-based systems [9]-[14].
Avionics personnel have significant experience with the LAAS that includes the development,
implementation and assessment of both prototype LAAS receiver and LGF architectures.
Avionics currently operates a prototype LFG at the Ohio University Airport (KUNI) and has
provided experimental systems to support FAA and NASA flight test activities [15]-[18]. Based
on this experience, AVN tasked Ohio in 1999 to conduct a study with the purpose of developing
provisional flight inspection concepts for LAAS [10]. The results of this initial study included a
recommendation for continued assessment of the concepts as experience is gained. As
documented in this report, the current study has two primary objectives. Given nearly a decade
has passed since the initial study, the first objective is to provide an independent review of the
flight inspection requirements, methodologies and procedures that will be used for the evaluation
of LAAS precision approach procedures with Decision Altitudes (DA) of not less than 200 feet
Above Ground Level (AGL). The second objective is to develop draft criteria for the evaluation
of Terminal Area Path (TAP) procedures and airport surface operations.

Accordingly, this report provides background material on LAAS; the rationale used for
developing the initial flight inspection criteria; and the revew of initial FAA flight inspection
procedures, evaluation criteria and tolerances. Also, it addresses efficiencies that may be gained
during the inspection of an LGF servicing parallel runways, documents a comment received on
the related draft criteria, and presents two initial case studies used to investigate that comment.

1
In the way of new material, this report provides draft criteria for the evaluation of TAP
procedures and airport surface operations. This report closes with conclusions and
recommendations for follow-on activities.

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON LAAS

This section provides a high-level discussion of the major GPS components and how LAAS is
used to augment GPS performance to meet requirements for navigation and landing operations.
The key LAAS subsystems are introduced with discussions then focusing on the ground
subsystem.

GPS is an integrated system comprised of the following three components: the satellite
constellation or space segment; the ground control and monitoring network also knows as the
operational control segment; and, the user segment commonly referred to as the GPS receiver
[19]. The space segment nominally consists of a 24-satellite constellation with each satellite
providing ranging signals and data to the GPS receiver. The operational control segment
maintains the satellites in terms of orbital location and functionality, as well as monitoring the
health and status of each satellite. Although the satellites are monitored by the control segment,
the requisite user alarm or warning functionality typical of navigation, approach, and landing
systems is not provided. Further, enhancement of the GPS SPS is normally required to meet the
accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity performance requirements for instrument
operations.

Enhancement of the GPS SPS can be accomplished by using airborne based augmentation
systems (ABAS), satellite based augmentation systems (SBAS), and/or ground-based
augmentation systems (GBAS). As referred to herein, LAAS is the specific realization of the
GBAS architecture adopted by the United States of America. LAAS is intended to be an all-
weather navigation service meeting ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) in
terms of performance and interoperability. As illustrated in Figure 1, it consists of the following
three primary subsystems: 1) the satellite subsystem; 2) the ground subsystem; and, 3) the
airborne subsystem [2]. For LAAS, the satellite subsystem is GPS, which was discussed
previously. It provides ranging signals to both the airborne subsystem and the ground
subsystem.

As previously stated, the ground subsystem for LAAS is referred to as the LGF [2]. The LGF
produces ground-monitored differential corrections for each satellite in view, integrity-related
information, and definition of the final approach segment, missed approach, or Terminal Area
Path (TAP) based on path point data stored within its local navigation database. These data are
transmitted throughout the entire service volume by the VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) transmitter
to the aircraft avionics comprising the airborne subsystem. Thus, LAAS is capable of providing
service simultaneously to all aircraft in the service volume. Also, the LGF provides for both
local and remote status, control, and maintenance interfaces.

2
Figure 1. Illustration of LAAS subsystems.

3
The airborne subsystem applies the LGF-generated differential corrections to the GPS ranging
signals to obtain a differentially-corrected position solution with the required accuracy, integrity,
continuity, and availability. In addition to the integrity information broadcast by the VDB, the
airborne subsystem also employs Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) as a
means of GPS ranging signal fault detection on the airborne side [20]. The more-precise position
solution and the path point data transmitted by the VDB are used to calculate lateral and vertical
guidance with respect to the final approach path (precision approach), TAP or other supported
instrument procedures. Proportional guidance deviation outputs, in “ILS look-alike” fashion, are
provided to aircraft displays and navigation systems. The airborne subsystem also provides
appropriate annunciations of system performance to the user, e.g., alerts and flags. In addition to
deviation outputs, a position-velocity-time (PVT) output with integrity is provided to support
enhanced navigation and surveillance operations.

In general, LAAS provides a flexible positioning service capable of supporting precision

approach, TAP, departure procedures, airport surface operations, and enhanced area navigation
(RNAV). It enables “precision RNAV” in the terminal area that provides the level of navigation
serviced required for supporting curved arrival, approach, and departure procedures. The
position accuracy is well suited for supporting airport surface operations by enabling both
enhanced situational awareness and electronic guidance. The PVT output can be used to support
surveillance applications within local and terminal areas; it can be used as a source of position
information for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.

The objective of a commissioning LAAS flight inspection is the evaluation of a particular LGF
and all of the instrument flight procedures to be supported by that facility [8][21][22]. The
rationale for this objective is discussed further in the following section. Since the inspection
activity is “LGF-based”, the LGF and related matters will be discussed in more detail at this
point.

LAAS is intended to provide radio navigation vertical and lateral guidance for instrument
precision approach and landing from 20 nm from the runway threshold through touchdown and
rollout. It will nominally require only one LGF at an airport to provide service to all runways
and aircraft in the service volume. The ground subsystem will be modular and will have
appropriate redundancy to support all runway ends, and it is capable of being installed entirely
on the airport. An LGF generally consists of the following four main equipment groups:
reference receiver; VDB equipment; processor; and operations and maintenance.

The reference receiver group usually consists of four reference receiver stations, each station
containing a GPS reference receiver, a reference receiver antenna, associated cables, equipment
racks, and antenna mounts. The reference receivers may be located in an environmentally
controlled shelter or individual equipment enclosures located in proximity to the reference
receiver antenna. Although there are limitations on the location of the reference receiver
antennas relative to the runways being serviced, they are not constrained to be in close proximity
(i.e., 1,000 feet) to those runways. The reference receiver antennas should be sited in protected,
low-multipath (GPS signal reflection) locations with an unobstructed view of the sky.

4
The VDB equipment group consists of the VDB transmitter, antenna, monitor, associated cables,
equipment racks, and antenna mounts. Although it may be preferable from a logistic view point
to site the reference receiver antennas and VDB antenna in the same location, the VDB antenna
may be independently sited to provide adequate signal coverage. If required, two or more VDB
equipment groups can be used to satisfy coverage requirements at complex airports or airports
having coverage-related siting issues. The use of multiple VDB groups is one method for
satisfying both airborne and airport surface coverage requirements, since antenna installation
requirements differ in the case of airborne versus surface coverage.

The processor group consists of dedicated micro-processors, operationally pertinent data,

software that performs the differential correction computations and integrity processes, and VDB
message generation functions, as well as human interfaces (display), associated communication
cables, and equipment racks. Operationally pertinent data includes the navigation database
containing the all procedure data that is broadcast to users within the LAAS service volume.
This group is housed in the primary LGF equipment shelter, which may also contain the
reference receivers.

The operations and maintenance group includes equipment to perform those control and status
functions normally required for a landing aid. This group includes items such as a local status
and control panel, maintenance data terminal/terminal interface, remote status panel/interface,
and an air traffic control unit/interface.

It is important to realize that LAAS uses an earth-centered, earth-fixed (ECEF) reference system
based on the WGS-84 datum instead of being source-referenced like conventional radio
navigation systems. Because of this, reference receiver antenna locations, runway threshold
coordinates, obstacle locations, and all path point data must be accurately surveyed relative to
each other. Further, if the coordinates for these items are surveyed separately by different
entities and/or accomplished over an extended period of time, then accuracy of the absolute
coordinates becomes important.

III. LAAS INSPECTION CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT

This section discusses the impetus for developing flight inspection criteria for LAAS. Next, the
design and site qualification activities that are assumed to be accomplished prior to flight
inspection are overviewed, as well as the rationale employed when developing the initial FAA
LAAS flight inspection criteria. This section concludes with an overview of when flight
inspection should be conducted and discussion of system accuracy assessment during flight
inspection.

In order to facilitate the integration of LAAS into the NAS, standards must be developed based
on specific operational requirements and system architectures. These standards provide, in terms
of system-architecture-specific parameters, the minimum performance required to support a
given operation. The standards development process includes the generation of flight inspection
criteria. These criteria address the specific system parameters to be assessed and the assessment
methodology employed to ensure that the installed-system performance is suitable for supporting

5
the intended instrument flight procedures (IFPs). Such flight inspection criteria must be
developed and verified to enable implementation of LAAS.

The FAA effort to develop LAAS flight inspection criteria was initiated nearly a decade ago with
the identification of four distinct activities to be accomplished [21]. The first activity involved
identifying those system-specific parameters that should be recorded during flight inspection of
LAAS IFPs. Once the identification of parameters was completed, the next activity was to
develop candidate methodologies for assessing the data collected for these parameters, as well as
specifying other evaluations to be performed (e.g., obstacle evaluation). This activity includes
determining tolerances and other conditions that must be satisfied for a facility or procedure to
be put in service. The third activity is the development of flight inspection criteria and
procedures that ensure a thorough yet efficient inspection of the service volume and IFPs. That
is, how to accomplish effective, meaningful sampling of the service volume. The final activity is
verification of the inspection criteria and procedures. This activity is accomplished through
implementation of the criteria and procedures, which provides the opportunity to assess the
technical merit of the specific parameters considered, data collection and assessment
methodologies utilized, and any implementation issues that may arise during the actual
application of the criteria. Additionally, revision of the criteria and procedures to improve
effectiveness and efficiency may occur as operational experience is gained with a given system.

Developing effective LAAS flight inspection criteria requires understanding what other test and
qualification activities will be accomplished and the objectives of those activities. Thus, an
overview of the activities that are assumed to be accomplished prior to flight inspection will be
discussed at this point.

LAAS receiver standards specify performance requirements, the manner in which data
transmitted by the VDB is to be used, and that receivers shall not provide hazardously
misleading information in the presence of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) [22]. Thus, it is
assumed the receiver design approval process and installation qualification procedures ensure
compliance with the receiver standards in the operational environment.

Similar standards and guidance material exist for the LGF [2][22]. Specifically, it is assumed the
aggregate of the system design approval, site qualification activities, and installation
qualification procedures successfully accomplish the following:

- Verifying suitable GPS signal level and signal quality exist at each reference receiver
antenna site;

- Ensuring installation and systematic errors are addressed such as accurate determination of
each reference receiver antenna phase center or that the maximum use distance parameter
(Dmax) is set appropriately;

- Addressing/monitoring long term variation in range error due to environmental changes;

and,

6
 - Ensuring data sampling intervals, techniques and spatial correlation between reference
receiver antennas are addressed as required to ensure compliance with accuracy and integrity
requirements.

Based on the system design approval and installation qualification procedures discussed above, it
should be realized that LAAS flight inspection criteria are not intended to, nor required to,
provide an assessment of either LGF or LAAS receiver equipment performance. Once design
approval and installing qualification procedures are completed, one relies on the monitoring and
built-in tests inherent to the equipment to detect and announce faults.

Thus, the development of FAA LAAS flight inspection criteria is based on the need to assess the
site-specific elements of a LAAS instrument approach procedure and to confirm service
availability. Specifically, flight inspection is used to confirm procedure design, final segment
alignments, obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the
coverage volume. Flight inspection should be performed for the following situations [21][22]:

- Prior to commissioning on each runway served for each procedure;

- Periodically to ensure there has been no notable degradation of GPS signal reception and
VDB coverage in operationally utilized airspace;

- When interference is reported or suspected and elimination of the interference cannot be

verified by ground-based testing;

- Existing procedures are revised or new procedures are introduced at an operational facility;

- Whenever changes to the LGF configuration are made such as hardware/software changes
having the potential to affect the internal navigation database or coding/construction of the
VDB messages, changes in reference receiver and/or VDB antenna phase center locations, or
change in VDB antenna type; and,

- Whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal
reception and VDB coverage, such as new obstructions or construction.

Requirements for commissioning, periodic and special inspections for approach procedures are
already contained in the FAA draft LAAS Order, which is discussed in the next section. Thus,
discussion of these requirements is not repeated here.

Although the FAA LAAS flight inspection criteria specifies which parameters are measured and
under which conditions, this section will close with a short discussion of assessing system
accuracy as it pertains to flight inspection. Traditionally, system accuracy is measured and
assessed during the flight inspection of ground-based navigation aids. However, LAAS system
accuracy is time varying on a sub-hourly basis due to variation in satellite geometry. Thus, LGF
accuracy tests must be accomplished continuously, which is only feasible by conducting ground-
based assessments. Further, the LGF accuracy performance is specified in the range domain,
thus testing and monitoring in the range domain is required to ensure compliance with the

7
accuracy requirement. Although a flight inspection recording showing in-tolerance accuracy
performance is not a sufficient condition for verifying system performance, it is a necessary
condition. Thus, position domain accuracy measurements performed during flight inspection can
provided a meaningful functional check.

IV. OVERVIEW OF FAA DRAFT ORDER 8200.LAAS

This section provides an overview of FAA draft Order 8200.LAAS [8]. This draft order contains
initial FAA flight inspection procedures, requirements, and analysis for the evaluation of LAAS
precision instrument approach procedures. The current version of the order is applicable to the
evaluation of procedures with DAs of not less than 200 feet AGL. Since the development of
preliminary criteria for TAP procedures and airport surface procedures supporting enhanced
situational awareness was planned at the time this version of the draft Order was produced,
sections in the order have been reserved for inclusion of this material when available. Similarly,
as Category II/III LAAS equipment becomes available or as additional operational experience is
gained, this order is expected to be reviewed and revised as appropriate.

In addition to the cover letter, FAA draft Order 8200.LAAS consists of the following four
appendices: Appendix 1 - Background Material for LAAS; Appendix 2 - Flight Inspection
Evaluation of LAAS Instrument Approach Procedures; Appendix 3 - Records and Reports
Required for LAAS Flight Inspection; and Appendix 4 - Acronyms and Definitions. The
introduction section of this paper is based heavily on the material contained in Appendix 1. The
material for Appendix 3 is under development, and draft material for this appendix is not
available in the current version of the order. Thus, the focus of this section is to provide an
overview of Appendix 2, which addresses pre-flight requirements; flight inspection procedures
for commissioning, periodic and special inspections; data analyses and evaluations to be
performed; and tolerances.

A. Pre-flight Requirements

The material contained in Order 8200.LAAS on pre-flight requirements focuses on those items
specifically related to preparing for a LAAS flight inspection and captures general preparation
requirements by reference to FAA Order 8200.1 [7]. Requirements for calibration of the flight
inspection system draws attention to the fact the VDB antenna may radiate both horizontally and
vertically polarized signals, thus calibration of both antennas on the flight inspection aircraft are
to be performed. The next item addressed is determining the LGF maximum use distance (Dmax)
since this parameter influences the distance at which orbit maneuvers are performed. The LAAS
Final Approach Segment (FAS) data blocks, which have been developed and coded into binary
data files by the procedure designer, are to be downloaded to removable disk media. Flight
inspection system access to each FAS data block is confirmed before mission departure,
including confirmation that the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) remainder is correct to ensure
no errors occurred during data transfer.

Additional pre-flight requirements exist for the inspection of an LGF supporting parallel
runways, and these requirements center on defining approach sectors. An approach sector

8
bounds the area of airspace common to all the approach procedures having the same approach
and landing direction. Thus, a set of parallel runways will have two approach sectors associated
with them, one for each landing direction. The methodology for evaluation of the approach
sector, as opposed to assessing each runway end individually, permits sufficient assessment of
each approach procedure while improving the efficiency of the inspection by eliminating
redundant VDB coverage assessments.

The first step in defining an approach sector is determining the coordinates of the Fictitious
Approach Sector Alignment Point (FASAP) and Fictitious Approach Sector Landing Threshold
Point (FASLTP) for each approach sector. The approach sector centerline runs parallel to the
runway centerlines and is located midway between the centerlines of the two outer-most runways
(see Figure 2). The FASAP and FASLTP are located abeam the furthest most runway stop end
and threshold, respectively, and on the approach sector centerline as illustrated in Figure 2.

The second step is to determine the four coordinates for the left and right limit boundaries of the
approach sectors for each set of parallel runways. The right limit boundary is defined by a radial
rotated 10˚counterclockwise from the controlling runway centerline. The left limit boundary is
defined by a radial rotated 10˚clockwise from the other controlling runway centerline. The final
step is to determine the Right Boundary Alignment Point #1 (RBAP1), Right Boundary
Alignment Point #2 (RBAP2), Left Boundary Alignment Point #1 (LBAP1), and Left Boundary
Alignment Point #2 (LBAP2) as indicated by Figure 3.

B. Flight Inspection Procedures

This portion of Appendix 2 provides the flight inspection procedures for commissioning,
periodic, and special inspections. The check list for initial or commissioning inspections
includes material addressing the evaluation of VDB coverage and the LAAS instrument
approach procedures to be supported. This material will be discussed first, followed by
discussion of requirements for periodic and special flight inspections.

VDB Coverage Assessments: The service volume for LAAS is constrained by both the Radio
Frequency (RF) signal coverage provided by the VDB antenna(s) and the maximum use range
(Dmax) from the LGF for which the broadcast differential corrections are applicable. Thus, the
RF signal coverage of the VDB must encompass the area of intended terminal and approach
operations. Since the outer limit of the service volume is defined by Dmax, Dmax must also be set
appropriately for each facility. Facility-based coverage assessments are specified to evaluate
both the VDB RF signal coverage and the suitability of the value used for Dmax. In addition,
procedure-based coverage assessments are specified for evaluating RF signal coverage within the
service volume for procedurally significant airspace. Coverage assessments are performed with
the VDB power output at the alarm limit and coverage is validated for both horizontally and
vertically polarized signals. The coverage evaluation is based on loss of signal and data
continuity alerts, and this evaluation methodology is based on current inspection equipment
capabilities. The implementation of this methodology will require the development and
validation of a procedure for calibration of flight inspection equipment to ensure that VDB data

9
Figure 2. Determining Approach Sector Centerline, FASAP, and FASLTP.

10°

10°

Figure 3. Determining Right/Left Boundary and Boundary Alignment Points.

10
continuity alerts occur whenever the VDB signal strength is not assured to meet or exceed ICAO
requirements. Since this methodology will have to accommodate the variations in the gain of the
VDB antenna pattern on the flight inspection aircraft, this methodology may provide an overly
conservative assessment of signal strength; thus, fully compliant facilities may inadvertently end
up with restrictions on occasion.

As the previous paragraph states, coverage assessments are currently based on loss of signal and
data continuity alerts, and this evaluation methodology is based on current inspection equipment
capabilities. This method does not provide a direct assessment of signal strength against power
density requirements. This situation results in the dilemma of what should be done to properly
assess coverage requirements and temporarily settling for what can be done due to current
equipment limitations. During the course of this study, the author has discussed this dilemma on
several occasions with FAA flight inspection personnel. These discussions indicate they have
realized for some time that there is a need to transition to a capability that allows for
measurement of signal strength so power density requirements can be thoroughly assessed. VDB
receivers that have an Automatic Gain Control (AGC) or signal strength output have been
available for some time, but the author’s experience back in the year 2000 time frame was these
units were all 19" rack mount prototype units [15]-[18]. Since the technical capability to make
such measurements exists, developing the required capability from a technical perspective hinges
on the FAA allocating sufficient funding to cover the cost of identifying a receiver suitable for
flight inspection applications (quality, size, weight, power, I/O), procurement of equipment,
installation and calibration of the system, the development and validation of calibration
procedures, et cetera. Additionally, the results of the associated cost-benefit analysis will
influence what path is taken forward.

Facility-based coverage assessments consist of orbits flown at the extremes of the LGF service
volume (Dmax). Two orbits are required for initial coverage evaluations. One orbit is flown at
the lower coverage limit as computed using the criteria provided. Since the typical value for
Dmax is 23 nm, this orbit will normally be flown at 2,300 feet above site level. A second orbit is
flown at 10,000 ft above site level. Clear line-of-sight (LOS) from the VDB transmit antenna to
the lower extreme coverage limit may not exist for the entire 360 degrees of azimuth. Such
situations may cause unavoidable outages of the VDB signal during inspection of the lower
coverage limit. In this case, an additional orbit, partial or whole as required, is performed at the
lowest altitude where clear LOS from the VDB transmit antenna to the lower extreme coverage
limit exists for the entire 360 degrees of azimuth.

Procedure-based coverage assessments are intended to verify coverage along TAP procedures,
initial and intermediate approach segments, final approach segments, missed approach segments,
and on the airport surface. These VDB coverage assessments are performed with the power
output at the RF power alarm point. Detailed evaluations are performed to assess coverage for
each instrument approach procedure. Table 1 provides the requirements for assessing VDB
coverage for each approach procedure and is based primarily on recommendations from
Reference [3]. The maneuvers listed in Table 1 are intended to provide assessment of the
coverage requirements illustrated in Figure 4. For LGFs servicing multiple runways, each
approach procedure shall be evaluated in accordance with Table 1, except for the case of parallel
runways.

11
When the LGF to be evaluated supports approach procedures to parallel runways, approach
sectors are defined, one for each landing direction. Table 2 provides modified requirements for
assessing parallel runway configurations, and the measured values are the same as those
specified in Table 1.

Instrument Approach Procedures Assessments. All instrument procedures are required to be

evaluated to ensure flyability and safety. The evaluation and analysis for the Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are included by reference to FAA Order 8200.1 [7]. In
addition, the following requirements are set forth in draft Order 8200.LAAS:

- Initial and Intermediate Approach Segments: The procedure is flown from the Initial
Approach Fix (IAF) to the Final Approach Fix (FAF), maintaining procedural altitudes. The
evaluations performed include obstructions, procedure design, supporting navigation
systems, and VDB coverage where required.

- Final Approach Segment: The final segment is flown at procedural altitudes until
intercepting the glidepath, and then the aircraft descends on the glidepath to the Landing
Threshold Point (LTP) and Fictitious Threshold Point (FTP). Evaluations performed include
obstructions, procedural design, horizontal alignment, glidepath alignment, and VDB
coverage. Procedures that support azimuth only approaches shall be evaluated to the Missed
Approach Point (MAP).

- Missed Approach Segment: The missed approach procedure is flown from the MAP using
the procedural waypoints or associated navigation systems. Evaluations performed include
obstructions, procedural design, transition to the missed approach, and VDB coverage.

Periodic Inspections. In general, the need for periodic flight inspection stems from the fact that
as time passes system performance can degrade from that measured during the commissioning
inspection or the obstacle environment may change. The typical causes for system degradation
and methods for mitigating those causes are discussed in references [23] and [24]. Those causes
mitigated by periodic flight inspection include a change in the environment and Radio Frequency
Interference (RFI).

For LAAS, the purpose of periodic inspection is to ensure that there has not been any
degradation of VDB coverage due to environmental changes and to ensure that new sources of
RFI have not come into existence. Draft Order 8200.LAAS states that commissioned facilities
are initially required to be inspected on a 360-day interval. The interval used for subsequent
periodic inspections may be increased based on both performance of the individual facility and
as NAS-wide experience with LAAS is gained. Since the primary concern is degradation of
VDB coverage due to environmental changes (e.g., signal blockage by a new obstacle), it is
anticipated that the basic interval will migrate towards 540 days, which is consistent with the
interval used for approach obstacle verification [7]. VDB coverage is evaluated at the altitude
established for the lower orbit during commissioning, and the evaluation is based on loss of
signal and data continuity alerts. For each SIAP, the LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC will
be checked to ensure there has been no change or corruption.

12
 Table 1. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Single Runway (See Note 3).

Requirement Evaluation Area Method Evaluation Criteria

Normal Approach From 20 NM to LTP Fly on path, on course 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
“GBAS” Integrity

2) No CDI Flags
Lower-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM and 5000 Same as above
above LGF, fly on course,
intercept and fly glide path Note 1
within 1 dot of full scale
below path Note 2
Upper-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM and 8000 Same as above
above LGF, fly on course,
intercept and fly glide path Note 1
within 1 dot of full scale
above path Note 2
Note 4
Left-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM, fly on path 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
and offset course to within 1 “GBAS” Integrity
dot of full scale of “fly
right” 2) No CDI Flags

Note 2
Right-Limit of Approach Note 4 From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM, fly on path 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
and offset course to within 1 “GBAS” Integrity
dot of full scale of “fly left”
2) No CDI Flags

Note 2
Coverage from the Minimum From 20 NM to 7° From 21 nm, on course and 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
Vectoring Altitude (MVA) Note 4 glide path the MVA or 2,300 feet “GBAS” Integrity
above LTP, which ever is
higher, fly at level altitude 2) No CDI Flags
until 7-degree path
Note 2
Coverage from Upper Service From 20 NM to 7° From 21 nm, on course and 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
Volume Note 4 glide path 10,000 feet above LTP fly at “GBAS” Integrity
level altitude until 7 degree
path 2) No CDI Flags

Note 2
Missed Approach From Runway Stop Fly runway course, climb at 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
End to 4 NM 200 feet per NM “GBAS” Integrity

2) No CDI Flags
Roll Out From Runway End to Taxi along runway 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
Runway End “GBAS” Integrity

2) No Lateral CDI Flags

Note 1: Determine that guidance is available and the CDI is active at the upper and lower vertical procedure extremities.
Note 2: Determine that guidance is available and the CDI is active at the lateral procedure extremities.
Note 3: VDB transmitter power set at the lower limit of the VDB monitor.
Note 4: See Table 2 for requirements when evaluating parallel runway configurations.

13
 ± 35°
± 450 ft

0.9° 0.9°

Figure 4. LAAS Approach Coverage Requirements.

Table 2. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Parallel Runways.

Requirement Evaluation Area Modified Method Performed For

Normal Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Lower-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Upper-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Left-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LBAP2 From 21 NM, on path and fly For left limit of each
( along left limit of approach approach sector
Figure 3) sector boundary
Right-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to RBAP2 From 21 NM, on path and fly For right limit of each
( along right limit of approach approach sector
Figure 3) sector boundary
Coverage from MVA From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on approach For each approach sector
path sector centerline and the centerline
MVA or 2,300 feet above
FASLTP, which ever is
higher, fly at level altitude
until 7-degree path relative to
FASLTP.
Coverage from Upper From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on course and For each approach sector
Service Volume path 10,000 feet above FASLTP centerline
fly at level altitude until 7
degree path relative to
FASLTP.
Missed Approach From Runway Stop End No change For each approach
to 4 NM procedure
Roll Out From Runway End to No change Once for each runway
Runway End

14
Special Inspections. Special inspections are performed when there has been a modification of
the instrument approach procedure or a new procedure has been added to a commissioned
facility. Similarly, a special inspection is required whenever changes to the LGF configuration
are made such as hardware/software changes having the potential to affect the internal navigation
database or coding/construction of the VDB messages; when there is a change in VDB antenna,
antenna type or antenna phase center location; whenever physical changes occur at the site
having the potential to effect GPS signal reception and VDB coverage (e.gs., new obstructions or
construction); or in response to multiple user complaints. As predicated by the reason for the
special, VDB coverage is evaluated at the altitude established for the lower orbit during
commissioning, and in operationally utilized areas where coverage is predicted or known to be
affected. For each modified or new SIAP, the LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC should be
checked to ensure there has been no change or corruption. A normal approach should be flown
for modified instrument approach procedures (see Table 1). A normal approach, as well as
upper, lower, left, and right limit profiles should be flown for new procedures (see Table 1). The
evaluations performed should include procedure design, segment alignments, obstacle clearance,
GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage volume.

C. Flight Inspection Analysis and Tolerances

This section of Appendix 2 provides a high-level discussion of the need for paper records and
electronic collection of data. An overview of what data are collected during each stage of the
flight inspection and how the data are analyzed to confirm proper operation of the service is
presented. As examples, the horizontal alignment and glidepath angle are evaluated to confirm
the aircraft is delivered to the designed LTP/FTP, or how to assess the electromagnetic spectrum
if RFI is suspected. Table 3 lists the parameters that must be documented at the time anomalies
are found. Table 4 lists the tolerances used for evaluation of collected data. The material in
these sections of draft Order 8200.LAAS is expected to become more detailed as operational
experience is gained.

Table 3. GPS Satellite Parameters Recorded.

Parameter Expected
Values
Horizontal Protection Level
≤ 10m
(HPLGBAS)
Vertical Protection Level
≤ 10m
(VPLGBAS)
Horizontal Dilution of Precision
≤ 4.0
(HDOP)
Vertical Dilution of Precision
≤ 4.0
(VDOP)
Horizontal Integrity Limit (HIL) ≤ 0.3nm
Figure of Merit (FOM) ≤ 22meters
Satellites Tracked 5 Minimum
30 dB/ Hz
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
minimum

15
 Table 4. Tolerances for LAAS Flight Inspection.

Parameter Tolerances
Terminal Area Path TBD
Airport Surface Operations TBD
Initial/Intermediate Approach Segment FAA Order 8200.1
Final Approach Segment

FAS data:

Bearing to LTP ± 0.1° true course

Glidepath Angle ± 0.050

FAS Data CRC No Corruption

Threshold Crossing Height ±2 m

Course Alignment w/runway C/L Centerline

Missed Approach Segment FAA Order 8200.1
Broadcast VDB messages Required message types

Coverage VDB, minimum field strength, horizontal polarization -99 dBW/m2/215 μV/m

Coverage VDB, minimum field strength, vertical polarization -103 dBW/m2/136 μV/m
Horizontal Protection Level 40m

Vertical Protection Level 10m

Co-channel / adjacent channels No misleading information

(VOR or ILS) Annex 10, V1, Attach D Para 7.2

RFI No misleading information
Maximum Usable Distance (Dmax) As defined by LGF site

V. REQUIREMENTS FOR TERMINAL AREA PATH PROCEDURES

According to the FAA, “A TAP is a curved path procedure that can begin at the fringes of the
terminal area and end in a Category I LAAS approach, while maintaining the most stringent
RNP equivalent values”[25]. The FAA is assessing the feasibility of TAP as a potential
implementation of RNP/RNAV, including flight testing at the FAA Technical Center and in
Memphis to validate performance. The author’s understanding of procedure design criteria and
near-term applications for TAP is limited and the scope of this task did not permit performing a
detailed literature search and review effort in this regard. However, this subject has been
discussed on several occasions with FAA Flight Inspection Policy personnel, and the general
impression is that experience in this area is limited. The author can envision TAP procedures
being used to increase ATC efficiency by defining a TAP procedure that encompasses several

16
segments of a commonly used terminal route, and/or to provide positive navigation around an
obstruction, or having containment requirements that mandate the use of a system fully meeting
LAAS-level RNP/RNAV performance requirements. Such a TAP procedure is shown in Figure
5.

As was the case for approach procedures, the development of FAA LAAS flight inspection
criteria for TAP procedures is based on the need to assess the site-specific elements of a LAAS
instrument procedure and to confirm service availability. Flight inspection of TAP procedures
should be used to confirm procedure design, segment alignments, obstacle clearance, GPS signal
reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage volume. Flight inspection should be
performed for the following situations:

- Prior to commissioning a TAP procedure;

- Periodically to ensure there has been no notable degradation of GPS signal reception and
VDB coverage in operationally utilized airspace;

- When interference is reported or suspected along the TAP procedure and elimination of the
interference cannot be verified by ground-based testing;

- Existing procedures are revised or new procedures are introduced at an operational facility;

- Whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal
reception and VDB coverage, such as new obstructions or construction.

In addition to the above listed items, requirements for approach procedures indicate that flight
inspection should be performed whenever changes to the LGF configuration are made, such as
hardware/software changes having the potential to affect the internal navigation database or
coding/construction of the VDB messages, and changes in reference receiver antenna phase
center locations. The effect of these types of changes is common across approach, TAP and
surface operations or most likely to affect only the approach procedures. Thus, it is not
necessary to replicate this requirement for TAP procedures since the assessments required for
approach procedures will also suffice in this case.

As discussed previously at the end of section III, flight inspection recordings showing in-
tolerance accuracy performance is not a sufficient condition for LGF performance, but it is a
necessary condition. As with precision approach procedures, position domain accuracy
measurements performed during flight inspection of TAP procedures can provide a meaningful
functional check.

Commissioning Inspection: The TAP procedure should be flown from the initial waypoint to the
final waypoint, flying on course and on path. The evaluations performed should include
procedure design, segment alignments, obstacle clearance, supporting navigation systems, GPS
signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage volume. If the TAP procedure is

17
Figure 5. Illustration of TAP procedure with Containment Requirements.

18
used to provide positive navigation around an obstruction, an augmented GPS/VDB coverage
assessment should be performed for the pertinent segment of the procedure (see Figure 5). Its
recommended that the following profiles be flown:

- Full deflection below path, full deflection towards obstacle;

- On path, full deflection towards obstacle; and,

- Full deflection above path, full deflection towards obstacle.

GPS signal availability and VDB coverage should be assessed when conducting these augmented
coverage profiles.

Periodic Inspections: As is the case for approach procedures, the purpose of periodic inspection
for TAP procedures is to ensure that there has not been any degradation of VDB signal coverage
due to environmental changes, to ensure that new sources of RFI have not come into existence,
and to ensure there has not been a change in, or corruption of, the TAP procedure data. It is
recommended that periodic inspections be performed initially on a 360-day interval. As
discussed for approach procedures, the interval used for subsequent periodic inspections may be
increased based on both performance of the individual facility and as NAS-wide experience with
LAAS is gained, with the migration to a 540-day interval anticipated. The TAP procedure
should be flown from the initial waypoint to the final waypoint, flying on course and on path and
the evaluations performed should include obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, VDB signal
reception, and a check to ensure the TAP procedure data have not changed or been corrupted.
Augmented VDB coverage assessments should be performed when degradation of the VDB
signal or a change in the VDB signal characteristics in a containment region is observed during
the on-path evaluation.

Special Inspections: Special inspections should be performed when there has been a
modification of the TAP procedure or a new procedure has been added to a commissioned
facility. Similarly, a special inspection should be required subsequent to select maintenance
actions; when there is a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or antenna phase center location;
whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal reception
and VDB coverage; or in response to multiple user complaints. As predicated by the reason for
the special, VDB coverage should be evaluated in operationally utilized areas where coverage is
predicted or known to be affected. Each modified or new TAP procedure should be flown from
the initial waypoint to the final waypoint, flying on course and on path and the evaluations
performed should include obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception
within the service volume. The evaluation of procedure design and segment alignments should
be performed when an existing procedure has been modified or a new procedure has been added.
Augmented VDB coverage assessments should be performed when degradation of, or a change
in, the signal characteristics in a containment region is observed during the on-path evaluation.

This section addresses draft flight inspection requirements for TAP procedures. These
requirements should be revisited as experience is gained to improve both effectiveness and

19
efficiency. Tolerances for the flight inspection of LAAS TAP procedures (Table 4) will need to
be developed, particularly for assessing segment alignments.

VI. REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT SURFACE GUIDANCE PROCEDURES

As was the case for approach procedures, the development of FAA LAAS flight inspection
criteria for airport surface operations is based on the need to assess the site-specific elements of a
LAAS instrument procedure and to confirm service availability. Potential LAAS airport surface
applications include the use of LAAS as the source of PVT information for ADS-B in support of
airport surface surveillance applications [15]-[18][26]. This application supports both ATC and
the electronic enhancement of “see-and-avoid” capabilities during low visibility conditions.
LAAS used in conjunction with an electronic airport map (database) and a suitable display can
provide pilots and vehicle drivers enhanced situational awareness at the low-end and electronic
guidance during low-visibility conditions on the high-end (i.e., addition of INS/IRU, head-up
display, etc). The author’s expectation is the near-term application for LGFs capable of
supporting precision approach procedures to a decision altitude of not less than 200 feet AGL is
that of providing enhanced situational awareness. That is, the pilot or vehicle driver has
sufficient visibility to steer and avoid other aircraft/obstacles based on visual observation.
Similarly, the author is not aware at this writing of any intent to implement airport surface
procedures; that is, the use of waypoints to define specific pre-determined surface routes.

Accordingly, flight inspection should be used to confirm physical alignment/agreement of the

electronic airport map with runway and major taxiway surfaces (minimum), GPS signal
reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage volume intended to be serviced. Flight
inspection should be performed for the following situations:

- Prior to authorization of LAAS-supported airport surface operations at an airport;

- Periodically to ensure there has been no notable degradation of GPS signal reception and
VDB coverage in operationally utilized surface areas;

- When interference is reported or suspected;

- Whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal
reception and, particularly, VDB coverage on the airport surface, such as new obstructions or
construction; and,

- Whenever changes are made to the VDB antenna phase center location(s), or for a change
in VDB antenna, or antenna type.

In addition to the above listed items, requirements for approach procedures indicate that flight
inspection should be performed whenever changes to the LGF configuration are made, such as
hardware/software changes having the potential to affect the internal navigation database or
coding/construction of the VDB messages, and changes in reference receiver antenna phase

20
center locations. The effect of these types of changes is common across approach, surface and
TAP procedures or most likely to affect only approach procedure. Thus, it is not necessary to
replicate this requirement for surface operations since the assessments required for approach
procedures will also suffice for surface operations.

As previously discussed for approach procedures, flight inspection recordings showing in-
tolerance accuracy performance is not a sufficient condition for verifying LGF performance, but
it is a necessary condition. This is a valid statement for approach procedures with decision
altitudes of not less then 200 feet AGL since range errors caused by multipath will be negligible
for the airborne receiver [27]. However, this is not the case for a user operating on the airport
surface, since significant multipath can be encountered when operating on the airport surface.
Since multipath effects are not common to the LGF and aircraft or surface vehicle antenna
locations in general, these effects cannot be mitigated using differential GPS techniques such as
LAAS. Although position domain accuracy measurements performed during inspections for
airport surface operations can provide a meaningful functional check, the observation of an out-
of-tolerance condition does not necessarily indicate a problem with the LGF. Range errors
caused by multipath at the aircraft or surface vehicle location may be responsible for the out-of-
tolerance condition. Actually, this is most likely the case assuming one has carefully selected the
LGF reference receiver antenna locations, properly configured the ground station, and given the
inter-comparison of range information across reference stations (i.e., B-values).

Commissioning Inspection: Commissioning inspection should include taxing along all runway
centerlines and major taxiway centerlines within the airport surface area to be serviced. The
evaluations to be performed should include assessing alignment/agreement of the electronic
airport map with runway and major taxiway surfaces, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal
reception within the coverage volume intended to be serviced.

Periodic Inspections: As is the case for approach procedures, the purpose of periodic inspection
for airport surface operations is to ensure that there has not been any degradation of VDB
coverage due to environmental changes, to ensure that new sources of RFI have not come into
existence, and to ensure there has not been a change in, or corruption of, the airport map data.
For operations limited to visibility conditions where the pilot or vehicle driver has sufficient
visibility to steer and avoid other aircraft/obstacles based on visual observations (advisory only),
no periodic inspection is suggested For operations authorized in visibility conditions where the
pilot or vehicle driver may have some level of reliance on LAAS to steer, avoid other
aircraft/obstacles, and detect upcoming runway and taxiway intersections, it is recommended that
periodic inspection be performed initially on a 360-day interval. The interval used for
subsequent periodic inspections may be increased based on both performance of the individual
facility and as NAS-wide experience with LAAS is gained, with the migration to a 540-day
interval anticipated. In this case, the evaluations to be performed should include assessing
alignment/agreement of the electronic airport map with runway and major taxiway surfaces, GPS
signal reception, VDB signal reception within the coverage volume intended to be serviced, and
a check to ensure the airport map data have not changed or been corrupted.

Special Inspections: This paragraph applies when operations are authorized in visibility
conditions where the pilot or vehicle driver may have some level of reliance on LAAS to steer,

21
avoid other aircraft/obstacles, and detect upcoming runway and taxiway intersections. One may
elect to conduct special inspection when LAAS guidance is used in an advisory only capacity.
Special inspections should be conducted when the airport map for a facility has been revised;
when there is a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or antenna phase center location; whenever
physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal reception and VDB
coverage, such as new obstructions or construction; or in response to multiple user complaints.
As predicated by the reason for the special, VDB coverage should be evaluated in operationally
utilized areas where coverage is predicted or known to be affected. The evaluations to be
performed should include assessing alignment/agreement of the electronic airport map with
runway and major taxiway surfaces, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the
coverage volume intended to be serviced.

This section addresses draft flight inspection requirements for airport surface operations.
Although the phrase “flight inspection” is used throughout this section, such inspections may be
performed with a suitably equipped vehicle [18]. Further, these requirements should be revisited
as experience is gained to improve both effectiveness and efficiency. Tolerances for the flight
inspection of airport surface procedures (Table 4) will need to be developed, particularly for
assessing the agreement/alignments between airport physical surfaces and electronic
map/database information.

VII. PARALLEL RUNWAYS CASE STUDY

An overview of the material contained in the FAA draft Order 8200.LAAS [8] was presented by
the author during the June 2008 International Flight Inspection Symposium [14]. This included
the material for the inspection of an LGF supporting parallel runways, and this material was
drafted by the author. Recall that, in part, the pre-flight requirements contain criteria that are
used to define two approach corridors for each group of parallel runways, one for each approach
direction. The boundaries of these corridors are flown to assess VDB coverage towards the
outside of the outer-most approach procedures, see Figure 3 and section IV.A. During the
symposium, a participant from the audience asked a question regarding the applicability of these
criteria to widely spaced parallel runways. In light of this question, further consideration of the
criteria for the case of parallel runways has occurred since the symposium, as well as
determining the need for further development, or at least some clarification of the current
criteria.

It was intended that these criteria to be applicable to the case of “tightly spaced” parallel runways
not the “all encompassing” case of any group of parallel runways, although this thought is not
conveyed in the current criteria. Certainly runway separation is an important factor and the term
“tightly spaced” is used herein in the notional sense and is not associated in any way with the
formal FAA definition for closely spaced runways. For any given group of parallel runways, is
there a maximum separation between the outer most runways that would determine if a group of
runways is suitable for the approach corridor concept? In addition to the physical separation
between the outermost runways of a group, what objects or terrain lies between the runways, and
the location of the VDB antenna relative to the runways are also factors in determining if the
approach corridor concept is applicable to a particular group of runways.

22
A case study was conducted with the intend of gaining some insight into answering this question
The Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport (DFW) was used as an example to bring to light
some thoughts on this subject. DFW has five runways that could be considered as a group of
parallel runways, which are runways 35R, 35C, 35L and 36L, 36R. The first case study is to
consider all five runways as one group of parallels. The criteria in the draft LAAS Order were
applied and the results are illustrated in Figure 6. According to Table 2 herein, which are the
same criteria as contained in Table 2 from the Order, normal approach, lower-limit approach and
upper-limit approach maneuvers are flown, represented by the red dashed lines in Figure 6. A
coverage run at the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) along the approach sector centerline is
flown, and the approach sector right and left boundaries are flown, all shown as blue dashed lines
in Figure 6. There are three ellipses in Figure 6, denoted as A, B, and C, each showing a region
where the VDB signal could be blocked (a coverage gap) and potentially go undetected during
flight inspection since there are no maneuvers flown through these regions. These blockage
regions would be caused by the buildings or other physical structures between the runways. The
boxes denoted by A’, B’ and C’ indicate areas where the VDB antenna would have to be located
and installed improperly to create these signal blockage regions. In assessing the likelihood for
this situation to occur, it is the author’s understanding at this writing that a formal, validated
FAA LAAS siting manual or order does not exist. Such a document would normally contain
criteria used to select suitable antenna locations, thus reducing the likelihood of an improper
location being selected. Even should such blockage regions exist, one also would need to
discuss the operational significance or insignificance of these regions, but this discussion will not
be taken at this time. This case study brings the question: Is the 10-degree rotation for the
left/right sector boundary too large?

Similarly, DFW was considered for a second case study. In this case, two groups of parallel
runways were considered, one group comprised of runways 35R, 35C, 35L and a second group
comprised of runways 36L, 36R. The criteria from the draft LAAS Order were applied and the
results are shown in Figure 7. This result shows less potential for an undetected coverage gap,
but would require more flight time.

Based on the discussion above, it would be beneficial to perform a limited number of case
studies for select airports as a means of better assessing and vetting the current criteria. Such a
study should include assessing the suitability of the 10-degrees rotation angle used to define
approach sector corridor boundaries as well as investing the suitability of using an angle more
inline with the close-in course width (i.e., somewhere between 3-6 degrees).

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As stated in the introduction, the study undertaken and documented by this report had two
primary objectives. The first objective was to provide an independent review of the flight
inspection requirements, methodologies and procedures that will be used for the evaluation of
LAAS precision approach procedures with DAs of not less than 200 feet AGL. The second
objective was to develop draft criteria for the evaluation of TAP procedures and airport surface
operations.

23
Figure 6. DFW Case Study 1, One Parallel Runway Group.

24
Figure 7. DFW Case Study 2, Two Parallel Runway Groups.

25
Accordingly, this report provided background material on LAAS; the rationale used for
developing flight inspection criteria; and the review of initial FAA flight inspection procedures,
evaluation criteria and tolerances (Order 8200.LAAS). Also, it addressed efficiencies that may
be gained during the inspection of an LGF servicing parallel runways, documented a comment
received on the related draft criteria, and presented two initial case studies performed to
investigate that comment. In the way of new material, this report provided draft criteria for the
evaluation of TAP procedures and airport surface operations.

The following has been concluded based on the results of this study:

1) LAAS flight inspection criteria are not intended to, nor required to, provide an
assessment of either LGF or LAAS receiver equipment performance as such assessments
are assumed to be performed during equipment design and installation procedures
approvals;

2) LAAS flight inspection criteria are needed to evaluate the site-specific elements of a
LAAS instrument approach procedure and to confirm service availability. Specifically,
the objective of flight inspection is to confirm procedure design, final segment
alignments, obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within
the coverage volume defined by Dmax;

3) Based on available experience and information, the flight inspection criteria contained in
FAA Order 8200.LAAS (June 2007) are applicable to and suitable for the evaluation of
procedures with DAs of not less then 200 feet AGL when supported by properly
approved ground and airborne equipment; and,

4) FAA Order 8200.LAAS is expected to be reviewed and revised as operational experience

is obtained.

The following recommendations are offered for consideration:

1) The effectiveness and efficiency of the current criteria should be evaluated periodically as
operational experience is gained and as Category II/III LAAS equipment becomes
available;

2) The development of Appendix 3, Records and Reports Required for LAAS Flight
Inspection, of FAA Order 8200.LAAS should be progressed;

3) The feasibility of developing and validating a procedure for calibration of the current
LAAS flight inspection equipment suite to ensure that VDB data continuity alerts occur
whenever the VDB signal strength is not assured to meet or exceed ICAO requirements
should be assessed;

26
 4) The transition to a capability that enables the direct measurement of signal strength so
that facility signal strength can be more effectively assessed against FAA/ICAO power
density requirements should be progressed;

5) A limited number of case studies for select airports should be performed as a means of
better vetting/assessing the current criteria for the evaluation of facilities with parallel
runways, with the study focusing on GPS/VDB signal sampling within the approach
corridors and the angle used to define approach sector corridor boundaries;

6) Flight inspection tolerances (i.e., Table 4 material) for TAP and airport surface operations
should be developed;

7) Criteria for defining the region for augmented coverage assessments for TAP procedures
used to provide positive navigation around an obstruction, or having containment
requirements that mandate the use of a system fully meeting LAAS-level RNP/RNAV
performance requirements should be developed;

8) A review of the draft flight inspection criteria for TAP procedures and airport surface
operations supporting enhanced situational awareness should be facilitated;

9) Re-assessment of TAP and airport surface operations criteria should be performed once a
better understanding of their application and design procedures are gained; and,

10) The viability of migrating to a 540-day interval for periodic inspections should continue
to be evaluated.

IX. REFERENCES

[1] FAA, February 2006, Contract DTAFAAC-A-03-15689, Task Order 0002, Task
Performance Work Statement, “Review of Local Area Augmentation System Flight
Inspection Requirements, Methodologies, and Procedures”.
[2] FAA, April 17, 2002, Performance Type One Local Area Augmentation System Ground
Facility, Specification FAA-E-2937.
[3] RTCA, December 9, 2004, DO-245A, “Minimum Aviation System Performance
Standards for the Local Area Augmentation System.”
[4] RTCA, April 7, 2005, DO-246C, “GNSS Based Precision Approach Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS) –Signal-In-Space Interface Control Document (ICD).”
[5] RTCA, November 28, 2001, DO-253A, “Minimum Operational Performance Standards
for GPS Local Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment.”
[6] ICAO, 2001, AN-WP/7556, Addendum No. 1, “Draft Standards and Recommended
Practices for Global Navigation Satellite Systems.”
[7] FAA, October 2005, Order 8200.1C, “United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual
(USSFIM).”

27
[8] FAA, June 2007, Flight Inspection of Global Positioning System (GPS) Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS) Precision Instrument Approach Procedures, Draft Order
8200.LAAS.
[9] Avionics Engineering Center, September 1998, Development of Provisional Flight
Inspection Criteria for Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) Approach Procedures,
Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 98-16TM00078/2-1, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[10] Avionics Engineering Center, May 2000, Development of Provisional Flight Inspection
Concepts for Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Approach Procedures, Technical
Memorandum OU/AEC 00-09TM00078/2-4, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[11] Avionics Engineering Center, May 2002, Recommended WAAS Flight Measurement
Requirements for Inspection of Commissioned GPS/Barometric VNAV Approach
Procedures, Technical Memorandum, OU/AEC 02-15TM00078/5-1, OU/AEC 02-
15TM00078/5-1, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[12] Avionics Engineering Center, February 2005, Recommended Flight Measurement
Methodology for Periodic Flight Inspection of GPS/RNAV Approach Procedures,
Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 05-03TM15689-1, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[13] Avionics Engineering Center, June 2007, Investigation of Threshold Crossing Height
Variations for Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) Localizer Performance with
Vertical Guidance (LPV) Approach Procedures, Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 06-
27TM15689/0001-2, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[14] International Flight Inspection Symposium, June 2008, Initial Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Flight Inspection Criteria for Precision Instrument Approach
Procedures Supported by the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS).
[15] Avionics Engineering Center, September 2000, Accuracy and Coverage Analysis for the
Local Area Augmentation System Ground Facility Installed at the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport, Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 00-12TM00078/1-FR
[16] Digital Avionics Systems Conference, July 2001, The Local Area Augmentation System:
An Airport Surface Surveillance Application Supporting the FAA Runway Incursion
Reduction Program at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
[17] Digital Avionics Systems Conference, July 2001, The Local Area Augmentation System:
An Airport Surface Guidance Application Supporting the NASA Runway Incursion
Prevention System Demonstration at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
[18] Avionics Engineering Center, December 2003, Accuracy and Coverage Analysis for the
Local Area Augmentation System Ground Facility Installed at the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport with Airport Surface Movement Application, Technical
Memorandum OU/AEC 02-26TM00078/3-FR, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[19] Artech House Inc, Norwood MA 1996, Understanding GPS Principles and Applications,
by Kaplan, Elliott D.
[20] FAA, October 1999, Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation (HBAT),
DOT/FAA Order 8400.10, Appendix 3, Bulletin Number HBAT-95-02A.

28
[21] Avionics Engineering Center, May 2000, Development of Provisional Flight Inspection
Concepts for Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Approach Procedures, Technical
Memorandum OU/AEC 00-09TM00078/2-4, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[22] ICAO, October 2004, NSP WGW Report/Attachment L – Doc8071 GBAS, Chapter 4,
Ground Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS)
[23] Avionics Engineering Center, September 2005, Recommended Flight Measurement
Methodology for Periodic Flight Inspection of GPS/RNAV Approach Procedures,
Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 05-03TM15689-1, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
[24] IFIS, June 2006, The Review and Assessment of United States Flight Inspection
Requirements for the Periodic Flight Inspection of GPS/RNAV Approach Procedures.
[25] FAA, Viewed 10 September 2008, GNSS library web site, http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/faq/laas/..
[26] RTCA, 7 January 1999, The Role of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) in
Supporting Airport Surface Operations, Document No. RTCA/DO-247, Prepared by
Special Committee SC-159.
[27] Institute of Navigation, Winter 1996-1997, GPS Multipath on Large Commercial Air
Transport Airframes, NAVIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, Vol. 43, No.
4, Winter 1996-97, pp. 397 – 406.

29
X. APPENDIX: Draft LAAS Flight Inspection Order, 28 November 2008

This appendix contains an updated draft LAAS Flight Inspection Order (8200.LAAS), which is
based on the draft version produced in June 2007. Updates to the attached version include the
incorporation of a new appendix 1, the inclusion of draft TAP criteria based on recommendation
made herein, and the inclusion of draft airport surface criteria based on recommendations made
herein.

30
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ORDER FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 8200.LAAS

DRAFT

SUBJ: FLIGHT INSPECTION OF GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) LOCAL AREA

AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

DRAFT
1. PURPOSE. This order details the flight inspection procedures, requirements and analysis for
the evaluation of LAAS precision instrument approach procedures. This version of the order is
applicable to the evaluation of procedures with Decision Altitudes (DA) of not less then 200 feet
above ground level (AGL), terminal area path (TAP) procedures, and airport surface procedures that
provide enhanced situational awareness. As LAAS equipment certified for supporting Category
II/III operation becomes available and as additional operational experience is gained, this order will
be reviewed and revised as appropriate.
2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the division level in Airway Facilities and Air
Traffic, and to the branch level in Aviation System Standards, Washington headquarters; to the
Regulatory Standards and Compliance Division, FAA Academy; to the branch level in the regional
Airway Facilities, Air Traffic, and Flight Standards Divisions; to the Flight Inspection Offices and
International Flight Inspection Office; and to Special Military Addressees.
3. BACKGROUND. The GPS is a world-wide position, velocity, and time determination system
operated by the Department of Defense that includes a satellite constellation and a ground control
segment. The GPS has been accepted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as an
integral part of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Civil use of GPS for oceanic,
enroute, terminal, non-precision, and special precision approach flight has been authorized in the
National Airspace System (NAS).
LAAS is a safety-critical system consisting of the hardware and software that augments the GPS
Standard Positioning Service (SPS) to provide for precision approach and landing capability. The

DRAFT
standard positioning service provided by GPS is insufficient to meet the integrity, continuity,
accuracy, and availability demands of precision approach and landing navigation. The LAAS
Ground Facility (LGF) augments the GPS SPS in order to meet these requirements. These
augmentations are based on differential GPS concepts.
4. RELATED MATERIAL.
a. Specification FAA-E-2937, April 17, 2002, “Performance Type One Local Area
Augmentation System Ground Facility”.
b. RTCA DO-245A, December 9, 2004, “Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards
for the Local Area Augmentation System.”
c. RTCA DO-246C, April 7, 2005, “GNSS Based Precision Approach Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS) –Signal-In-Space Interface Control Document (ICD).”
d. RTCA DO-253A, November 28, 2001, “Minimum Operational Performance Standards for
GPS Local Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment.”

Page 1
 e. RTCA DO-247, January 7, 1999, “The Role of the Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS) in Supporting Airport Surface Operations.”
f. ICAO AN-WP/7556, Addendum No. 1, “Draft Standards and Recommended Practices for
Global Navigation Satellite Systems,” October 27, 2000.
g. FAA Order 8200.1C, October 2005, “United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual
(USSFIM).”
h. Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 00-09TM00078/2-4, May 2000, “Development of
Provisional Flight Inspection concepts for Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Approach
Procedures”, Avionics Engineering Center, Ohio University.

DRAFT
i. Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 07-01TM15689/2-1, October 2008, “Review of Local
Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Flight Inspection Requirements, Methodologies, and
Procedures for Precision Approach, Terminal Area Path, and Airport Surface Guidance Operations”,
Avionics Engineering Center, Ohio University.
5. FLIGHT INSPECTION PROCEDURES, ANALYSIS, AND TOLERANCES. Appendix 1
contains background material concerning the LAAS. Appendix 2 contains the flight inspection
procedures, requirements, and analysis for LAAS approaches. Appendix 3 contains the records and
reports required for LAAS flight inspection. Appendix 4 contains Acronyms and Definitions.
6. INFORMATION UPDATE. Any deficiencies found, clarifications needed, or suggested
improvements regarding the contents of this order should be noted on FAA Form 1320-19, Directive
Feedback Information. If an interpretation is needed, call the originating office for guidance;
however, you should also use FAA Form 1320-19 as a follow-up to the verbal conversation.

Thomas C. Accardi
Program Director of Aviation
System Standards

DRAFT
Page 2
 APPENDIX 1. BACKGROUND MATERIAL FOR LAAS

This appendix provides a high-level discussion of the major GPS components and how LAAS is
used to augment GPS performance to meet requirements for navigation and landing operations.
The key LAAS subsystems are introduced with discussions then focusing on the ground
subsystem.

GPS is an integrated system comprised of the following three components: the satellite

DRAFT
constellation or space segment; the ground control and monitoring network also knows as the
operational control segment; and, the user segment commonly referred to as the GPS receiver.
The space segment nominally consists of a 24-satellite constellation with each satellite providing
ranging signals and data to the GPS receiver. The operational control segment maintains the
satellites in terms of orbital location and functionality, as well as monitoring the health and status
of each satellite. Although the satellites are monitored by the control segment, the requisite user
alarm or warning functionality typical of navigation, approach, and landing systems is not
provided. Further, enhancement of the GPS SPS is normally required to meet the accuracy,
integrity, availability and continuity performance requirements for instrument operations.

Enhancement of the GPS SPS can be accomplished by using airborne based augmentation
systems (ABAS), satellite based augmentation systems (SBAS), and/or ground-based
augmentation systems (GBAS). As referred to herein, LAAS is the specific realization of the
GBAS architecture adopted by the United States of America. LAAS is intended to be an all-
weather navigation service meeting ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) in
terms of performance and interoperability. As illustrated in Figure 1, it consists of the following
three primary subsystems: 1) the satellite subsystem; 2) the ground subsystem; and, 3) the
airborne subsystem. For LAAS, the satellite subsystem is GPS, which was discussed previously.
It provides ranging signals to both the airborne subsystem and the ground subsystem.

As previously stated, the ground subsystem for LAAS is referred to as the LGF. The LGF
produces ground-monitored differential corrections for each satellite in view, integrity-related
information, and definition of the final approach segment, missed approach, or Terminal Area

DRAFT
Path (TAP) based on path point data stored within its local navigation database. These data are
transmitted throughout the entire service volume by the VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) transmitter
to the aircraft avionics comprising the airborne subsystem. Thus, LAAS is capable of providing
service simultaneously to all aircraft in the service volume. Also, the LGF provides for both
local and remote status, control, and maintenance interfaces.

The airborne subsystem applies the LGF-generated differential corrections to the GPS ranging
signals to obtain a differentially-corrected position solution with the required accuracy, integrity,
continuity, and availability. In addition to the integrity information broadcast by the VDB, the
airborne subsystem also employs Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) as a
means of GPS ranging signal fault detection on the airborne side. The more-precise position
solution and the path point data transmitted by the VDB are used to calculate lateral and vertical
guidance with respect to the final approach path (precision approach), TAP or other supported
instrument procedures. Proportional guidance deviation outputs, in “ILS look-alike” fashion, are
provided to aircraft displays and navigation systems. The airborne subsystem also provides

Page 1-1
 DRAFT

DRAFT
Figure 1. Illustration of LAAS subsystems.

Page 1-2
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 1

appropriate annunciations of system performance to the user, e.g., alerts and flags. In addition to
deviation outputs, a position-velocity-time (PVT) output with integrity is provided to support enhanced
navigation and surveillance operations.

In general, LAAS provides a flexible positioning service capable of supporting precision approach,
TAP, departure procedures, airport surface operations, and enhanced area navigation (RNAV). It
enables “precision RNAV” in the terminal area that provides the level of navigation serviced required
for supporting curved arrival, approach, and departure procedures. The position accuracy is well suited

DRAFT
for supporting airport surface operations by enabling both enhanced situational awareness and electronic
guidance. The PVT output can be used to support surveillance applications within local and terminal
areas; it can be used as a source of position information for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.

The objective of a commissioning LAAS flight inspection is the evaluation of a particular LGF and all
of the instrument flight procedures to be supported by that facility. The rationale for this objective is
discussed further in the following section. Since the inspection activity is “LGF-based”, the LGF and
related matters will be discussed in more detail at this point.

LAAS is intended to provide radio navigation vertical and lateral guidance for instrument precision
approach and landing from 20 nm from the runway threshold through touchdown and rollout. It will
nominally require only one LGF at an airport to provide service to all runways and aircraft in the service
volume. The ground subsystem will be modular and will have appropriate redundancy to support all
runway ends, and it is capable of being installed entirely on the airport. An LGF generally consists of
the following four main equipment groups: reference receiver; VDB equipment; processor; and
operations and maintenance.

The reference receiver group usually consists of four reference receiver stations, each station containing
a GPS reference receiver, a reference receiver antenna, associated cables, equipment racks, and antenna
mounts. The reference receivers may be located in an environmentally controlled shelter or individual
equipment enclosures located in proximity to the reference receiver antenna. Although there are
limitations on the location of the reference receiver antennas relative to the runways being serviced, they

DRAFT
are not constrained to be in close proximity (i.e., 1,000 feet) to those runways. The reference receiver
antennas should be sited in protected, low-multipath (GPS signal reflection) locations with an
unobstructed view of the sky.

The VDB equipment group consists of the VDB transmitter, antenna, monitor, associated cables,
equipment racks, and antenna mounts. Although it may be preferable from a logistic view point to site
the reference receiver antennas and VDB antenna in the same location, the VDB antenna may be
independently sited to provide adequate signal coverage. If required, two or more VDB equipment
groups can be used to satisfy coverage requirements at complex airports or airports having coverage-
related siting issues. The use of multiple VDB groups is one method for satisfying both airborne and
airport surface coverage requirements, since antenna installation requirements differ in the case of
airborne versus surface coverage.

The processor group consists of dedicated micro-processors, operationally pertinent data, software that
performs the differential correction computations and integrity processes, and VDB message generation
functions, as well as human interfaces (display), associated communication cables, and equipment racks.
Operationally pertinent data includes the navigation database containing the all procedure data that is

Page 1-3
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 1

broadcast to users within the LAAS service volume. This group is housed in the primary LGF
equipment shelter, which may also contain the reference receivers.

The operations and maintenance group includes equipment to perform those control and status functions
normally required for a landing aid. This group includes items such as a local status and control panel,
maintenance data terminal/terminal interface, remote status panel/interface, and an air traffic control
unit/interface.

It is important to realize that LAAS uses an earth-centered, earth-fixed (ECEF) reference system based

DRAFT
on the WGS-84 datum instead of being source-referenced like conventional radio navigation systems.
Because of this, reference receiver antenna locations, runway threshold coordinates, obstacle locations,
and all path point data must be accurately surveyed relative to each other. Further, if the coordinates for
these items are surveyed separately by different entities and/or accomplished over an extended period of
time, then accuracy of the absolute coordinates becomes important.

DRAFT

Page 1-4
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2. FLIGHT INSPECTION EVALUATION OF

LAAS INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

1. Introduction. This appendix provides flight inspection requirements for LAAS precision
approaches. This policy is preliminary and will be revised as more experience with system performance
is acquired.
2. Preflight Requirements. The Flight Inspector shall prepare for the flight inspection in

DRAFT
accordance with FAA Order 8200.1 (USSFIM). For each LGF to be evaluated, the inspector shall
determine the type and number of approach procedures to be support, if approach procedures to parallel
runway groups will be provided, if TAP procedures will be provided, and if airport surface operations
are to be supported. For each TAP procedure, determine if augmented VDB coverage assessments are
required.
2.1 Inspection System Calibration. Since the VDB antenna may radiate both horizontally and
vertically polarized signals, the flight inspection system will be calibrated for both horizontal and
vertical polarized signals. This will include data for the airborne antenna pattern and cable loss.
2.2 Dmax Determination. Determine LGF maximum use distance (Dmax) for approach coverage
evaluation.

2.3 LAAS FAS Data Block Verification. The LAAS FAS data (data specified on FAA Form 8260-
10) is developed and coded into binary files by the procedure developer. The FAS data files are saved
into a network file for flight inspection access. Download the FAS data blocks files required for the
scheduled itinerary onto removable disk media.

Prior to mission departure, confirm Automated Flight Inspection System (AFIS) access to the
removable disk media. Access each individual FAS data file and confirm the cyclic redundancy check
(CRC) remainder matches the FAA Form 8260-10 data, or equivalent This ensures no errors occurred
during data transfer (data file integrity). Any corruption must be resolved prior to conducting the
inspection. AFIS uses the FAS data to calculate course alignment and glide path angle.

DRAFT
2.4 LGF Supporting Parallel Runways. When the LGF to be evaluated supports approach
procedures to parallel runways, approach sectors are defined. An approach sector bounds the area of
airspace common to all the approach procedures having the same approach and landing direction. Thus,
a set of parallel runways will have two approach sectors associated with them, one for each landing
direction. The methodology for evaluation of the approach sector, as opposed to assessing each runway
end individually, permits sufficient assessment of each approach procedure while improving the
efficiency of the inspection by eliminating redundant VDB coverage assessments.

2.4.1 Determine FASAP and FASLTP. Determine the coordinates of the fictitious approach sector
alignment point (FASAP) and fictitious approach sector landing threshold point (FASLTP) for each
approach sector. The approach sector centerline runs parallel to the runway centerlines and is located
midway between the centerlines of the outer-most runways (see figure 2-1). The FASAP and FASLTP
are located abeam the furthest most runway stop end and threshold, respectively, and on the approach
sector centerline as illustrated in figure 2-1.

Page 2-1
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

2.4.2 Determine Left/Right Sector Limits. Determine the four coordinates for the left and right limit
boundary of the approach sectors for each set of parallel runways. The right limit boundary is defined
by a radial rotated 10˚counterclockwise from the controlling runway centerline. The left limit boundary
is defined by a radial rotated 10˚clockwise from the controlling runway centerline. Determine right
boundary alignment point #1 (RBAP1), right boundary alignment point #2 (RBAP2), left boundary
alignment point #1 (LBAP1), and left boundary alignment point #2 (LBAP2) as indicated by figure 2-2.

DRAFT
2.5 LGF Supporting TAP Procedures. The TAP procedure data (data specified on FAA Form TBD
is developed and coded into binary files by the procedure developer. The TAP procedure data files are
saved into a network file for flight inspection access. Download the data files required for the scheduled
itinerary onto removable disk media.
If augmented VDB coverage assessments are to be performed, determine the segment(s) of each
procedure that requires an augmented assessment (criteria TBD). For each segment, the
waypoint/navigation data need to fly the required profiles is developed and coded into data files. The
required profiles are: 1) Full deflection below path, full deflection towards obstacle; 2) On path, full
deflection towards obstacle; and, 3) Full deflection above path, full deflection towards obstacle. The
augmented coverage profile data files are saved into a network file for flight inspection access.
Download the data files required for the scheduled itinerary onto removable disk media.
Prior to mission departure, confirm AFIS access to the removable disk media. Access each individual
TAP procedure data file and confirm the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) remainder matches the FAA
Form TBD data, or equivalent Access each individual augmented coverage profile data file and confirm
the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) remainder matches the FAA Form TBD data, or equivalent. This
ensures no errors occurred during data transfer (data file integrity). Any corruption must be resolved
prior to conducting the inspection. AFIS uses the TAP to calculate course alignment, and path vertical
angle/decent profile or altitude and the augmented VDB coverage flight profiles, if required.

2.6 LFG Supporting Airport Surface Operations. The airport map data (data specified on FAA
Form TBD) is developed and coded into binary files by the map developer. The map data files are saved

DRAFT
into a network file for flight inspection access. Download the map data files required for the scheduled
itinerary onto removable disk media.
Prior to mission departure, confirm AFIS access to the removable disk media. Access each individual
airport map data file and confirm the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) remainder matches the FAA Form
TBD data, or equivalent This ensures no errors occurred during data transfer (data file integrity). Any
corruption must be resolved prior to conducting the inspection. AFIS uses the airport map data display
the location of runways, taxiways, and other pertinent airport features.

Page 2-2
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

DRAFT
Figure 2-1. Determining Approach Sector Centerline, FASAP, and FASLTP.

10°

DRAFT
10°

Figure 2-2. Determining right/left boundary and boundary alignment points.

Page 2-3
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

3. Flight Inspection Procedures.

3.1 Checklist.

Check Reference
Initial Evaluation/Commissioning
VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) 3.2.1
Terminal Area Path (TAP) 3.2.1.2.2a, 3.2.2
Initial and Intermediate Approach Segment 3.2.3
Final Approach Segment 3.2.1, 3.2.4

DRAFT
Missed Approach Segment 3.2.1, 3.2.5
Instrument Approach Procedure 3.2.6
Airport Surface 3.2.1.2.2b, 3.2.7

VDB Equipment or Frequency Change

VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) 3.2.1
Final Approach Segment 3.2.4

Periodic Evaluation 3.3

Facility-based Coverage 3.3.1
Approach Procedures 3.3.2
Terminal Area Path (TAP) 3.3.3
Airport Surface 3.3.4
Special Evaluations 3.4
Approach Procedures 3.4.1
Terminal Area Path (TAP) 3.4.1
Airport Surface 3.4.1

3.1.1 Maintenance Procedures That Require a Confirming Flight Evaluation. A confirming flight
inspection evaluation shall be required whenever the data link transmit antenna location or type is
changed, or the system database has been changed or corrupted. The extent of the evaluation shall
depend on the changes made.
3.1.2 Flight Inspection Evaluation.

DRAFT
Commissioning: The LAAS instrument approach procedures and VHF Data Broadcast (VDB)
coverage shall be evaluated during initial flight inspection. If provided, each TAP procedure
shall be evaluated during initial inspection. If airport surface operations are supported, the
applicable electronic map and VDB signal coverage shall be evaluated during initial inspections.
Periodic: VDB coverage along the lower orbit will be evaluated based on loss of signal and data
continuity alerts. The altitude established for the lower orbit during commissioning shall be
used. The LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC will be checked for each Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to ensure there has been no change or corruption. VDB signal
coverage and obstructions shall be evaluated for each commissioned TAP procedures, and the
TAP data CRC will be checked to ensure there has been no change or corruption. VDB signal
coverage on the airport surface may be required depending on the level of service provided, and
the airport map data CRC will be checked to ensure there has been no change or corruption.
Special: A special flight inspection evaluation shall be required subsequent to select
maintenance actions, for a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or antenna phase center
location, whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal
reception and VDB coverage, such as new obstructions or construction or in response to multiple

Page 2-4
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

user complaints. Evaluations shall be required when an existing approach or TAP procedure is
modified or when a new approach or TAP procedure added to an operational facility.
3.2.1 LAAS VHF Data Broadcast Coverage
The service volume for LAAS is constrained by both the RF signal coverage provided by the ground-
based VDB antenna(s) and maximum range (Dmax) from the LGF for which the broadcast differential
corrections are applicable (See Figure 2-3). RF signal coverage refers to those regions where the signal
strength is sufficient to ensure reliable, continuous reception of the data broadcast by the aircraft. RF

DRAFT
signal coverage can extend 100 to 200 NM, dependent on the output power of the VDB transmitter,
VDB antenna type, aircraft altitude, and the horizon (line-of-sight) profile about the VDB antenna site.
The applicability, or accuracy, of the differential corrections degrade with increased distance from the
LGF, specifically, the reference receive antenna locations. In general, the vertical/horizontal protection
levels (VPL/HPL) must not exceed the vertical/horizontal alert limits (VAL/HAL) for the differential
corrections and satellite status information to be applicable. The values for VAL/HAL are dependent on
the flight operation being conducted. For LAAS, the maximum use distance, Dmax, is site dependent
and it is usually broadcast by the LGF. In order to use the LAAS differentially corrected
position/velocity/time (PVT) information, the aircraft must be within the range defined by Dmax. That
is, the LAAS positioning service is available when within the RF coverage service volume out to the
Dmax range. Outside of Dmax, the uncorrected PVT or SBAS corrected PVT information provides
performance equivalent to GPS or the associated SBAS performance requirement, respectively.
The service volume required is depedent on the operations to be supported and Dmax is set accordingly.
The value for Dmax will typically be 23 nm when the LGF is used to support terminal and approach
procedures.

DRAFT
Figure 2-3. LAAS Coverage/Service Volume (courtesy RTCA DO-245).

Page 2-5
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

3.2.1.1 VDB Signal Polarization. The VDB transmits either a horizontal or elliptically polarized
signal. This allows the data broadcast to be tailored to the operational requirements of the local user
community. The majority of aircraft will be equipped with a horizontally polarized VDB receive
antenna, which can receive the VDB from either a horizontally or elliptically polarized transmitter.
Aircraft equipped with a vertically polarized antenna are limited to the reception of elliptically polarized
transmissions only.
3.2.1.2 VDB Coverage Evaluation. The service volume of the VDB must encompass the area of
intended terminal and approach operations. Since the outer limit of the service volume is defined by

DRAFT
Dmax, Dmax must be set appropriately for each facility. The suitability of the value used for Dmax will
be evaluated for each LGF (facility-based coverage assessment). In addition, RF signal coverage within
the service volume defined by Dmax will be evaluated for procedurally significant airspace (procedure-
based coverage assessment).
VDB coverage will be evaluated based on loss of signal and data continuity alerts. LAAS sensor
annunciation of operation in GBAS mode will confirm adequate coverage. VDB signal coverage
validation must be made for both horizontally and vertically polarized signals. No data continuity alerts
are allowed. The LGF shall be configured for normal data transmission except the power output shall be
at the RF power alarm point and the Dmax data field populated for test mode. The initial coverage
checks will either confirm or establish the RF power alarm point.

3.2.1.2.1 Facility-based Coverage Assessment. Orbits are required at the extremes of the VDB
coverage service volume. The orbit maneuver is used primarily to check the lateral VDB coverage
volume of the LGF. LGF coverage will be verified by flying an orbit at the maximum distance required
to support the terminal and approach procedures to be supported by the LGF. This distance will
typically be 23 nm, that is, Dmax is expected to be 23 nm. Two orbits are required during the initial
coverage evaluation: 1) at a height above the antenna elevation as computed using equation 1; and, 2) at
10,000 ft above the antenna elevation. Clear line-of-sight (LOS) from the VDB transmit antenna to the
lower extreme coverage limit may not exist for the entire 360 degrees of azimuth. Such situations may
cause unavoidable outages of the VDB signal during inspection of the lower coverage limit. In this case,
an additional orbit (partial or whole, as required) should be performed at the lowest altitude where clear

DRAFT
LOS from the VDB transmit antenna to the lower extreme coverage limit exists for the entire 360
degrees of azimuth.
Note 1: Enable “Test Override” during coverage orbit to override test message/Dmax limit.
Note 2: Facility-based coverage assessments are performed with the power output at the RF
power alarm point.

Orbit Altitude (ft) = (Dmax – 3) * 100+(Dmax-3)2*0.883, Dmax in nautical miles (1)

Note 3: Orbit height is 2,300 feet above site level for Dmax equal to 23 nm

a) Facilities Broadcasting Dmax: The LAAS sensor and AFIS will display integrity status
“GBAS” when VDB coverage is satisfactory in side Dmax. Verify Dmax is properly set by flying across
the Dmax distance specified. “GBAS” integrity/correction and course guidance will only be available
inside the Dmax limit.

b) Facilities Not Broadcasting Dmax: (Reserved)

Page 2-6
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

c) Spectrum Analyzer (Reserved)

Other validation checks may be requested by facilities maintenance. All restrictions should be defined
and noted on the commissioning inspection report.

3.2.1.2.2 Procedure-based Coverage Assessment.

a. Terminal Area Path (TAP) Coverage. The VDB transmitter power is set at the lower limit of

DRAFT
the VDB monitor. The TAP procedure shall be flown from the initial waypoint to the final waypoint,
flying on course and on path. Augmented coverage profiles are flown for the indicated segments, as
required. GPS signal reception is confirmed and VDB coverage is evaluated. LAAS sensor
annunciation of GBAS mode will confirm adequate coverage will inside Dmax.
b. Approach Coverage. Table 1 provides the requirements for assessing VDB coverage for each
approach procedure and is based primarily on RTCA D0-245 recommendations. The maneuvers listed
in table 1 are intended to provide assessment of the coverage requirements illustrated in Figure 2-4. For
LGFs servicing multiple runways, each approach procedure shall be evaluated in accordance with table
1, except for the case of parallel runways.
When the LGF to be evaluated supports approach procedures to parallel runways, approach sectors are
defined, one for each landing direction. Table 2 provides modified requirements for assessing parallel
runway configurations, and the measured values are the same as those specified in Table 1.
Note 1: Approach coverage assessments are performed with the power output at the RF power
alarm point.

c. Airport Surface. The VDB transmitter power is set at the lower limit of the VDB monitor. The
flight inspection aircraft or inspection vehicle shall taxi along all runway centerlines and major taxiway
centerlines within the airport surface area to be serviced. GPS signal reception is confirmed and VDB
coverage is evaluated. LAAS sensor annunciation of GBAS mode will confirm adequate coverage when
with the area intended to be serviced.

3.2.2 Terminal Area Path. The TAP procedure should be flown from the initial waypoint to the final

DRAFT
waypoint, flying on course and on path. Evaluations shall include procedure design, segment
alignments, obstacle clearance, supporting navigation systems, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal
reception within the coverage volume. Augmented coverage profiles are flown for the indicated
segments, as required.

3.2.3 Initial and Intermediate Approach Segments. Fly the procedure from the Initial Approach Fix
(IAF) to the Final Approach Fix (FAF). Maintain procedural altitudes. Evaluation shall include
obstructions, procedure design, supporting navigation systems, and VDB coverage where required.
3.2.4 Final Approach Segment. Fly the final segment at procedural altitudes until intercepting the
glidepath, and then descend on the glidepath to the LTP/FTP. Evaluation shall include obstructions,
procedural design, horizontal alignment, glidepath alignment, and VDB coverage. Procedures that
support azimuth only approaches shall be evaluated to the MAP.

Page 2-7
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

Table 1. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Single Runway (See Note 3)

Requirement Evaluation Area Method Evaluation Criteria
Normal Approach From 20 NM to LTP Fly on Path, on course 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
“GBAS” Integrity.
2) No CDI Flags.
Lower-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM and 5000 above LGF, Same as above.

DRAFT
fly on course, intercept and fly glide
path within 1 dot of full scale below Note 1
path. Note 2
Upper-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM and 8000 above LGF, Same as above.
fly on course, intercept and fly glide
path within 1 dot of full scale above Note 1
path. Note 2
Left-Limit of Approach Note 4 From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM, fly on path and offset 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
course to within 1 dot of full scale of “GBAS” Integrity.
“fly right”.
2) No CDI Flags
Note 2
Right-Limit of Approach Note 4 From 20 NM to LTP From 21 NM, fly on path and offset 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
course to within 1 dot of full scale of “GBAS” Integrity.
“fly left”.
2) No CDI Flags
Note 2
Coverage from MVA Note 4 From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on course and the 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
path MVA or 2,300 feet above LTP, “GBAS” Integrity.
which ever is higher, fly at level
altitude until 7-degree path. 2) No CDI Flags
Note 2
Coverage from Upper Service From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on course and 10,000 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
Volume Note 4 path feet above LTP fly at level altitude “GBAS” Integrity.
until 7 degree path.
2) No CDI Flags

DRAFT
Note 2
Missed Approach From Runway Stop End Fly runway course, climb at 200 feet 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
to 4 NM per NM “GBAS” Integrity.
2) No CDI Flags
Roll Out From Runway End to Taxi Along Runway 1) LAAS Receiver maintains
Runway End “GBAS” Integrity.
2) No Lateral CDI Flags

Note 1: Determine that guidance is available and the CDI is active at the upper and lower vertical procedure extremities.
Note 2: Determine that guidance is available and the CDI is active at the lateral procedure extremities.
Note 3: VDB transmitter power set at the lower limit of the VDB monitor.
Note 4: See Table 2 for requirement when evaluating parallel runway configurations.

Page 2-8
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

± 35°
± 450 ft

0.9°
DRAFT 0.9°

Figure 2-4. Approach Coverage Requirements

Table 2. VDB Approach Coverage Assessment – Parallel Runways

Requirement Evaluation Area Modified Method Performed For
Normal Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Lower-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Upper-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to LTP No change Each approach procedure
Left-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to From 21 NM, fly on path and on For left limit of each approach

DRAFT
FASTLP sector left boundary to within 1 dot of sector
full scale of “fly right”.
Right-Limit of Approach From 20 NM to From 21 NM, fly on path and on For right limit of each
FASLTP sector right boundary within 1 dot of approach sector
full scale of “fly left”.
Coverage from MVA From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on approach sector For each approach sector
path centerline and the MVA or 2,300 feet centerline
above FASLTP, which ever is higher,
fly at level altitude until 7-degree
path relative to FASLTP.
Coverage from Upper Service From 20 NM to 7° glide From 21 nm, on course and 10,000 For each approach sector
Volume path feet above FASLTP fly at level centerline
altitude until 7 degree path relative to
FASLTP.
Missed Approach From Runway Stop End No change For each approach procedures
to 4 NM
Roll Out From Runway End to No change Once for each runway
Runway End

Page 2-9
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

3.2.5 Missed Approach Segment. Fly the missed approach procedure from the MAP using the
procedural waypoints or associated navigation systems. Evaluation shall include obstructions,
procedural design, transition to the missed approach and VDB coverage.
3.2.6 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure. The instrument approach procedure shall be
evaluated to ensure flyability and safety. This evaluation and analysis shall be performed in accordance
with FAA Order 8200.1 (USSFIM).
3.2.7 Airport Surface. The flight inspection aircraft or inspection vehicle shall taxi taxing along all

DRAFT
runway centerlines and major taxiway centerlines within the airport surface area to be serviced.
Evaluations shall include assessing alignment/agreement of the electronic airport map with runway and
major taxiway surfaces, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage volume
intended to be serviced.
3.3 Periodic Evaluation. The purpose of periodic evaluation is to ensure that there has not been any
degradation of the VDB coverage due to environmental changes or equipment repair/replacement and to
ensure that new sources of RF interference have not come into existence. Commissioned facilities shall
be inspected initially on a 360-day interval. The subsequent periodic interval may be increased based on
both performance of the individual facility and as NAS wide experience with LAAS is gained. Until
such interval criteria are establish, the 360-day interval will be used.

3.3.1 Facility-based Coverage. VDB coverage along the lower orbit will be evaluated based on loss
of signal and data continuity alerts. The altitude established for the lower orbit during commissioning
shall be used. LAAS sensor annunciation of operation in GBAS mode will confirm adequate coverage,
while inside the Dmax area.

3.3.2 Approach Procedures. The LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC will be checked for each
SIAP to ensure there has been no change or corruption. The evaluation shall be performed during the
orbit specified in paragraph 3.3.1. Additionally, VDB coverage and the LGF broadcast FAS data block
CRC should be checked when runway-based obstacle clearance evaluations are performed for runways
provide LAAS approach service.

DRAFT
3.3.3 Terminal Area Path (TAP). The TAP procedure shall be flown from the initial waypoint to the
final waypoint, flying on course and on path. Evaluations performed shall include obstacle clearance,
GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception, the TAP procedure data block CRC will be checked
for each procedure to ensure there has been no change or corruption. Augmented VDB coverage
assessments shall be performed when degradation of the VDB signal or a change in VDB signal
characteristics in a containment region is observed during the on-path evaluation.

3.3.4 Airport Surface. For operations limited to visibility conditions where the pilot or vehicle driver
has sufficient visibility to steer and avoid other aircraft/obstacles based on visual observations, no
periodic inspection is required. Otherwise, the flight inspection aircraft or inspection vehicle shall taxi
taxing along all runway centerlines and major taxiway centerlines within the airport surface area to be
serviced. Evaluations shall include GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage
volume intended to be serviced, and the airport map data block CRC will be checked to ensure there has
been no change or corruption.

3.4 Special Evaluation. A special flight inspection evaluation shall be required subsequent to select
maintenance actions (as detailed below); for a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or antenna phase

Page 2-10
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

center location; when an existing procedure is modified or a new procedure added; whenever physical
changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal reception and VDB coverage, such as
new obstructions or construction or in response to multiple user complaints.

3.4.1 Approach Procedures. Special inspections shall be performed when there has been a
modification of the instrument approach procedure; a new procedure has been added to a commissioned
facility; whenever changes to the LGF configuration are made such as hardware/software changes
having the potential to affect the internal navigation database or coding/construction of the VDB

DRAFT
messages; when there is a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or antenna phase center location;
whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect GPS signal reception and VDB
coverage; or in response to multiple user complaints. As predicated by the reason for the special, VDB
coverage is evaluated at the altitude established for the lower orbit during commissioning, and in
operationally utilized areas where coverage is predicted or known to be affected. The VDB coverage
evaluation is based on loss of signal and data continuity alerts. For each modified or new SIAP, the
LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC should be checked to ensure there has been no change or
corruption. A normal approach should be flown for modified instrument approach procedures (see
Table 1). A normal approach, as well as upper, lower, left, and right limit profiles should be flown for
new procedures (see Table 1). The evaluations performed should include procedure design, segment
alignments, obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the coverage
volume.

3.4.2 Terminal Area Path (TAP). Special inspections shall be performed when there has been a
modification of the TAP procedure; a new procedure has been added to a commissioned facility;
subsequent to maintenance actions having the potential to affect TAP data; whenever there is a change
in VDB antenna type or antenna phase center location; whenever physical changes occur at the site
having the potential to effect GPS signal reception and VDB coverage; or in response to multiple user
complaints. As predicated by the reason for the special, VDB coverage is evaluated in operationally
utilized areas where coverage is predicted or known to be affected. Each modified or new TAP
procedure should be flown from the initial waypoint to the final waypoint, flying on course and on path
and the evaluations performed should include obstacle clearance, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal
reception within the service volume. The evaluation of procedure design and segment alignments

DRAFT
should be performed when an existing procedure has been modified or a new procedure has been added.
Augmented VDB coverage assessments should be performed when degradation of, or a change in, the
signal characteristics in a containment region is observed during the on-path evaluation.

3.4.3 Airport Surface. The criteria herein applies when operations are authorized in visibility
conditions where the pilot or vehicle driver may have some level of reliance on LAAS to steer, avoid
other aircraft/obstacles, and detect upcoming runway and taxiway intersections. Special inspection may
also be conducted when LAAS guidance is used in an advisory only capacity, depending on the nature
of the situation and availability of inspection resources. Special inspections shall be conducted when the
airport map for a facility has been revised; when there is a change in VDB antenna, antenna type or
antenna phase center location; whenever physical changes occur at the site having the potential to effect
GPS signal reception and VDB coverage, such as new obstructions or construction; or in response to
multiple user complaints. As predicated by the reason for the special, VDB coverage should be
evaluated in operationally utilized areas where coverage is predicted or known to be affected. The
evaluations to be performed should include assessing alignment/agreement of the electronic airport map
with runway and major taxiway surfaces, GPS signal reception, and VDB signal reception within the
coverage volume intended to be serviced.

Page 2-11
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

4. Flight Inspection Analysis. Paper recordings and electronic collection of data are required.
Differential GPS is required. During an LAAS approach, document LAAS data starting from the
Initial/Intermediate fix inbound to LTP/ FTP. A flight inspection “low approach” is required to provide
data analysis. Document LAAS data during all runs.

4.1 VDB. Initial evaluation shall require the VDB signal be validated throughout the defined service
volume by ensuring there are no data continuity alerts. The LGF shall be configured for normal data

DRAFT
transmission except the power output shall be at the established RF power alarm point.
For periodic evaluation, VDB coverage along the lower orbit will be evaluated based on loss of signal
and data continuity alerts. The altitude established for the lower orbit during commissioning shall be
used. LAAS sensor annunciation of operation in GBAS mode will confirm adequate coverage, while
inside the Dmax area. The LGF broadcast FAS data block CRC will be checked for each SIAP to
ensure there has been no change or corruption. The LGF shall be configured for normal data
transmission.
4.2 Procedural Design and Database Integrity. Commissioning flight inspection shall require the
approach path be evaluated to verify that the instrument approach procedure delivers the aircraft to the
desired aiming point. The FAS data CRC remainder will be compared with the procedural design data
to insure no data changes or corruptions have occurred.
4.3 Horizontal Alignment and Glidepath Angle. Horizontal alignment and glidepath angle shall
deliver the aircraft to the designed LTP/FTP.
4.4 GPS Satellite Parameters. The following parameters must be documented at the time
anomalies are found during any phase of the flight inspection:

Parameter Expected Values

HPLGBAS ≤ 10m

DRAFT
VPLGBAS ≤ 10m
HDOP ≤ 4.0
VDOP ≤ 4.0
HIL ≤ 0.3nm
FOM ≤ 22meters
Satellites Tracked 5 Minimum
Signal-to-Noise Ratio 30 dB/ Hz minimum
(SNR)
Note: There are no flight inspection tolerances applied
to these parameters. However, they may provide useful
information should GPS signal anomalies or interference
be encountered.

Page 2-12
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 2

4.5 Electromagnetic Spectrum. The RF spectrum from 1559 to 1595 MHz should be observed
when GPS parameters indicate possible RF interference. Interference signals are not restrictive unless
they affect receiver/sensor performance. Loss of differential data is an indication of interference,
multipath, or shadowing of the VHF transmission. The RF Spectrum ± 100 kHz either side of the VHF
Data Link (VDL) frequency shall be observed on the spectrum analyzer in the case of suspected
interference. Report any spectrum anomalies or suspected anomalies encountered to the National
Maintenance Control Center (NMCC).

DRAFT
5. Tolerances.
5.1 Flight Inspection Reference System. AFIS with differential GPS (DGPS) corrected data will
be used to provide FAS data analysis.
5.2 Specific Parameter Tolerances (TBC).

Parameter Reference Tolerances

Terminal Area Path 3.2.2 (Reserved)
Airport Surface 3.2.7 (Reserved)
Initial/Intermediate Approach Segment 4.2 FAA Order 8200.1
Final Approach Segment
FAS data:
Bearing to LTP 4.2 ± 0.1° true course
Glidepath Angle 4.2 ± 0.050
FAS Data CRC 4.2 No Corruption
TCH 4.2 ±2 m
Course Alignment w/runway C/L 4.2 Centerline
Missed Approach Segment 4.2 FAA Order 8200.1

Broadcast VDB messages 4.1 Required message types

DRAFT
Coverage VDB, minimum field strength, -99 dBW/m2
horizontal polarization 215 μV/m

Coverage VDB, minimum field strength, -103 dBW/m2 or

vertical polarization 136 μV/m
Horizontal Protection Level (DO-245A) 40m
Vertical Protection Level 10m
Co-channel / adjacent channels 4.5 No misleading
(VOR or ILS) Annex 10, V1, Attch D 7.2 information
RF Interference 4.5 No misleading
information
Maximum Usable Distance (Dmax) 3.2 As defined by LGF Site.

6.0 Adjustments. (Reserved)

Page 2-13
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3: ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

AFIS Automated Flight Inspection System

AGL Above Ground Level
APL Airport Pseudolites
ATCU Air Traffic Control Unit
CRC Cyclic Redundancy Check
DA Decision Altitude

DRAFT
DCH Datum crossing height
Dmax Maximum use distance of LAAS Differential Corrections
ECEF Earth Center Earth Fixed
FAF Final Approach Fix
FAP Final Approach Path
FASAP Fictitious Approach Sector Alignment Point
FASLTP Fictitious Approach Sector Landing Threshold Point
FTP Fictitious Threshold Point
FAS Final Approach Segment
FOM Figure of Merit
FPAP Flight Path Alignment Point
GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPA Glide Path Angle
GPIP Glide Path Intercept Point
GPS Global Positioning System
HAL Horizontal Alert Limit
HDOP Horizontal Dilution of Precision
HIL Horizontal Integrity Limit
HPL Horizontal Protection Level
IAF Initial Approach Fix
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

DRAFT
ICD Interface Control Document
LAAS Local Area Augmentation System
LBAP1 Left Boundary Alignment Point 1
LBAP2 Left Boundary Alignment Point 2
LGF LAAS Ground Facility
LSP Local Status Panel
LTP Landing Threshold Point
MDT Maintenance Data Terminal
MVA Minimum Vectoring Altitude
NAS National Airspace System
PVT Position Velocity Time
RBAP1 Right Boundary Alignment Point 1
RBAP2 Right Boundary Alignment Point 2
RDP Runway Datum Point
RSP Remote Status Panel
SBAS Space Based Augmentation System
SIAP Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

Page 3-1
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 3

SPS Standard Positioning Service

TAP Terminal Area Path
USSFIM United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual
VAL Vertical Alert Limit
VDB VHF Data Broadcast
VDOP Vertical Dilution of Precision
VHF Very High Frequency
VPL Vertical Protection Level

DRAFT
WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System

Alert - an indication provided to other aircraft systems or annunciation to the pilot to identify that an
operating parameter of a navigation system is out of tolerance.
Alert Limit - for a given parameter measurement, the error tolerance not to be exceeded without issuing
an alert.
Availability - the ability of the navigation system to provide the required function and performance at
the initiation of the intended operation. Short-term system availability is the probability that the aircraft
can conduct the approach at the destination given that the service at the destination was predicted to be
available at dispatch. Long-term service availability is the probability that the signal in space from the
service provider will be available for any aircraft intending to conduct the approach.
Continuity - the ability of the total system (comprising all elements necessary to maintain aircraft
position within the defined airspace) to perform its function without interruption during the intended
operation. More specifically, continuity is the probability that the specified system performance will be
maintained for the duration of a phase of operation, presuming that the system was available at the
beginning of that phase of operation.
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) – a very powerful form of parity check. The CRC algorithm
associates a sequence of CRC code bits with a data block to preserve its integrity during storage and
transmission operations.
Datum Crossing Height (DCH) – the relative height at which the Final Approach Segment passes over
the Runway Datum Point.
Datum Crossing Point (DCP) – the point on the Final Approach Segment directly above the Runway
Datum Point.

DRAFT
Fictitious Threshold Point (FTP) – The FTP is a point functionally equivalent to a Landing Threshold
Point, except that the FTP is not coincident with the designated runway threshold.
Final Approach Segment (FAS) – The straight line segment that prescribes the three-dimensional
geometric path in space that an aircraft is supposed to fly on final approach.
Final Approach Path (FAP) - the prescribed straight three-dimensional path in space to be flown on
final approach. For GPS/LAAS, this path is defined in the FAS Path Data by the Runway Datum Point
(RDP), the Datum Crossing Height (DCH), the Flight Path Alignment Point (FPAP), and the Glide Path
Angle.
Flight Path Alignment Point (FPAP) - a surveyed position used in conjunction with the Runway
Datum Point to define the along track direction for the Final Approach Segment. The FPAP is specified
in terms of (latitude, longitude), with height equal to the WGS-84 height of the RDP. The FPAP is used
in conjunction with the LTP/FTP and the geometric center of the WGS-84 ellipsoid to define the
geodesic plane of a precision final approach, landing and flight path. The FPAP may be the LTP/FTP for
the reciprocal runway.
Glide Path Angle (GPA) – The glide path angle is an angle, defined at a calculated point located
directly above the LTP/FTP, that establishes the intended descent gradient for the final approach flight

Page 3-2
 8200.LAAS
Appendix 3

path of a precision approach procedure. It is measured from the plane containing the LTP/FTP that is
parallel to the surface of WGS-84 ellipsoid.
Glide Path Intercept Point (GPIP) – The GPIP is the point at which the extension of the final
approach segment intercepts the plane containing the LTP/FTP that is parallel to the surface of WGS-84
ellipsoid.
GBAS Ground-based augmentation system.
Landing Threshold Point (LTP) – The LTP is used in conjunction with the FPAP and the geometric
center of the WGS-84 ellipsoid to define the geodesic plane of a precision final approach flight path to

DRAFT
touchdown and rollout. It is a point at the designated center of the landing runway defined by latitude,
longitude, ellipsoidal height, and orthometric height. The LTP is a surveyed reference point used to
connect the approach flight path with the runway. The LTP may not be coincident with the designated
runway threshold.
Misleading Information - Within this standard, misleading information is defined to be any data which
is output to other equipment or displayed to the pilot that has an error larger the current protection levels
(HPL/VPL) for the current operation. This includes all output data, such as position and deviations.
Maximum Use Distance (Dmax) – The range from the LGF within which the required integrity for the
differentially-corrected position can be assured. Dmax is the maximum distance lateral and vertical
guidance are provided from the LGF antenna (Service Volume). Dmax is broadcast in Message Type 2.
LGF Dmax distance value is dependent on the specific operations intended and must be defined on a
case-by-case basis.
Message Type 0 – Message type broadcast from the LGF when the facility is in test mode. This
message prevents an aircraft’s avionics system from being able to use the LGF. AVN flight inspection
aircraft have a unique capability to override “Message Type 0” in order to perform inspection and
evaluation while the LGF in in test mode.
Protection Level - the statistical error value which bounds the actual error (navigation sensor error in
particular) with a specified confidence.
Pseudolite - A pseudolite (pseudo-satellite) is a ground-based GNSS augmentation which provides, at
GNSS ranging source signal-in-space frequencies, an additional navigation ranging signal. The
augmentation may include additionally differential GNSS corrections. (Adapted from the FANS
GNSS Technical Subgroup).
Runway Datum Point (RDP) - a surveyed position on the ground over which the Final Approach

DRAFT
Segment passes at a relative height specified by the Datum Crossing Height.
Reference Receiver - a GNSS receiver incorporated into the LAAS ground subsystem, used to make
pseudorange measurements that support to generation of pseudorange corrections.
Standard Service Volume for LAAS – The standard service volume and Dmax setting for LAAS is
23nm. However, the service volume for a particular LGF is dependent on the specific operations
intended and may be adjusted accordingly.
Terminal Area Path (TAP)- A terminal procedure utilizing LAAS for lateral and vertical path
definition, which is attached to a LAAS final approach segment. The path is defined by using ARINC
424 track-to-fix and radius-to-fix leg types

Page 3-3