**SUMMARY REPORT OF THE**

**TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING OF THE**

**CIVIL GPS SERVICE INTERFACE**

**COMMITTEE (CGSIC)**

[Sponsored by]{.underline}: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy (OST/P-7) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Navigation Center (NAVCEN)

[Dates]{.underline}: September 16, 1996, Full Committee

September 17, 1996, Full Committee

September 17, 1996, Timing Subcommittee

September 17, 1996, GPS Interagency Advisory Council

September 17, 1996, International Information Subcommittee

September 17, 1996, U.S. States and Municipalities Subcommittee
(proposed Committee)

[Location]{.underline}: Kansas City Marriott, 200 West 12^th^ Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64105.

[Meeting Chair]{.underline}: Captain James Doherty, Commanding Officer,
Coast Guard Navigation Center.

[CSGIC Chair]{.underline}: George Wiggers, Office of the Assistance
Secretary for Transportation Policy (OST/P-7).

[Agenda]{.underline}: The agenda for the 28^th^ meeting is included as
Appendix A.

[Attendance]{.underline}: One hundred twenty people pre-registered for
the meeting. A list of registered attendees is included as Appendix B.

**STATUS OF THE CGSIC**

Captain James Doherty, Deputy Chair.

CAPT Doherty introduced himself as the new Commanding Officer at the
Coast Guard Navigation Center. The CGSIC is a growing organization with
approximately 400 members. His first viewgraph showed a breakdown of
membership.

As a result of the returned User Information Sheet, the CGSIC will
continue to have its fall meeting at the same time or in the same week
as the ION meeting. The membership is most interested in policy
discussion, GPS system status, and its augmentations. There was a lot of
interest in all the issues listed. The meeting planners use this
information to prepare the agendas.

The Performance Task Force has developed an Executive Business Plan.
Copies of the Plan were distributed with the meeting agenda. When the
Executive Board meets on Wednesday, they will approve the plan unless
major objectives are raised during this meeting. A copy of the Executive
Business Plan is included as Appendix C.

The Civil GPS Service Interface Committee page was developed on the
Navigation Information Service World Wide Web site at the Navigation
Center. The membership is to look at the page and offer some suggestions
on what it should include. The CGSIC will try to disseminate more
information that through the Web page rather than on paper. The complete
summary of this meeting will be available on the Web page.

**GPS MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CHANGES**

George Wiggers, OST/P7.

Mr. Wiggers stated the defining event for the Department of
Transportation (DOT) was the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) for
the management of GPS, which was signed by the President on March 28,
1996.

The policy goals for the PDD were to:

-   strengthen and maintain U.S. national security,

-   encourage the world wide acceptance and integration of GPS,

-   promote transportation safety and efficiency,

-   promote international cooperation in using GPS for peaceful
    purposes, and

-   advance U.S. scientific and technical capabilities.

The guidelines for the federal agencies, that manage the GPS system, are
to:

-   provide GPS standard positioning service free of user charges,

-   discontinue use of GPS selective availability (SA) within a decade,

-   GPS and its augmentations remain responsive to the national command
    authorities,

-   advocate acceptance of GPS and its augmentations as international
    standards,

-   establish a GPS Interagency Executive Board chaired jointly by the
    Department of Defense (DOD) and DOT, and finally,

-   the U.S. will purchase commercially available GPS products and
    services to the fullest extent possible.

The PDD gave specific assignments to different parts of the federal
government. The DOD will continue to acquire, operate, and maintain the
basic GPS system. This is viewed as positive, since the Air Force has
done an outstanding job at that. The DOD will maintain a standard
positioning service, on a continuous worldwide basis, and will maintain
a precise positioning service for the use by the U.S. military, allies,
and other authorized users. It will assess the national security
implications of GPS use and will develop measures to prevent the hostile
use of GPS and its augmentations.

The PDD assigned to the DOT the following responsibilities:

-   to serve as the government's lead agency for all federal Civil GPS
    matters,

-   to develop and implement U.S. government augmentations

-   to advocate GPS and the U.S. government augmentations as a world
    standard,

-   to promote the commercial applications of GPS technologies, and

-   minimize duplication of GPS Civil Augmentation Systems within the
    government.

Under the PDD, the Department of State (DOS) is to assess feasibility of
bilateral and multilateral GPS agreements, coordinate instructions to
U.S. delegations tasked to plan, operate, or manage GPS services, and
coordinate interagency review of international GPS agreements.

Beginning in the year 2000, the President will make an annual
determination on the continued use of GPS Selective Availability (SA),
but in any case, SA will be turned off in 10 years. Starting in 2000,
assessments of SA will be provided to the President from the Secretary
of Defense, Secretary of Transportation, Director of Central
Intelligence, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,
National Security Affairs, and other agencies that have a significant
stake in the system.

The PDD provides a comprehensive national policy on the future
management and use of the Global Positioning system and related U.S.
government augmentations. It supports the continued growth of GPS as the
standard for all modes of transportation and other civil users. It
provides the highest level of U.S. government support for GPS.

Mr. Wiggers presented a diagram which showed the operating structure of
the IGEB. The top row shows the major federal department stake holders.
It includes DOD, DOT, DOS, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and
Agriculture and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration.
These departments have indicated that GPS is very important for what
they do and they want a role in the management of GPS. The box beneath
the IGEB is the Secretariat that supports the IGEB. The IGEB and its
Secretariat are the only new organizations that have been created within
the federal government to manage GPS. The rest are existing
organizations, departments, and agencies that have been working in GPS.
The Executive Board charter is in the final phase of development, and
will then be signed by the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation.

The second level indicates the working level and the policy development
functions within the government. There are working groups within the DOD
and DOT that deal with GPS matters. Although these groups deal with
other Radionavigation matters, GPS is a very important element of their
work. A new group, the GPS International Working Group, was established
by the Department of State to carry out their mandate under the PDD. The
Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee, which also works as the GPS
Interagency Advisory Council, was recommended by the Joint Task Force
Report three years ago and is the internal coordinating body for civil
use of GPS within the government.

On the DOD side, there are three significant organizations identified\--
the Air Force Space Command, the GPS JPO, and Falcon AFB. A GNSS
architecture team was set up between the FAA and GPO JPO to focus on
long term strategic issues for GPS and aviation maters. The Federal
Radionavigation Planning Group produces the Federal Radionavigation
Plan, which defines the U.S. plan for GPS. Because of the importance of
radio spectrum use, not only in GPS itself but in many of its
augmentations, there is a liaison with the National Telecommunication
and Information Agency within the Department of Commerce. They
coordinate all spectrum matters for federal agency use of radio
spectrum. NASA itself has some very significant aeronautical and space
use of GPS and has a significant flow into the management of GPS.

At the bottom, the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee, is an
information exchange which includes all civil users of GPS.

Mr. Wiggers viewgraphs are included as Appendix D.

**QUESTION**:

*Rolf Johannoson said Selective Availability is featured in two places
of the PDD. Towards the beginning, it says it is the aim to end SA
within 10 years and talks about the annual review. Mr. Wiggers slide
said SA will be turned off in 10 years and asked if there had been a
firming up on SA after the PDD*

Mr. Wiggers stated that his interpretation of the PDD was that SA would
end in ten years. Only the President can speak for what's in the PDD.
The presence of SA is a national security feature that assures that the
U.S. and its allies have a military advantage in the use of this system.
In the long run, given the developments in receiver technology, and
augmentations, SA will really not serve much purpose, but the DOD needs
some time to develop their systems for dealing with an environment
without SA. Being able to operate in an environment without SA in ten
years is doable. Most people would say when WAAS and the other
augmentation systems are implemented, they won't care, because they have
much better accuracy anyway.

*David Allan stated he assumed the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee
Subcommittees were included in the CGSIC box, even though that is not
spelled out*.

Mr. Wiggers replied that they were included.

*David Allan asked who chairs the GNSS Architecture Team and what are
their activities*.

Mr. Wiggers stated he wasn't sure there is a chair specifically
designated. He guessed it was the commander of JPO and an FAA
representative. Mr. Wiggers thought the team had only met once. From his
perspective, this group is very important. Their type of approach is
looking at the long range strategic development of GNSS from a civil
perceptive and that type of work whould be expanded.

**THE DOD PERSPECTIVE**

Mike Shaw, Office of the UnderSecretary of Defense.

Mike Shaw stated he was now in the Department of Defense (DOD). For the
last four years he was in the Satellite Program Office with the FAA.

The Presidential Decision Document (PDD) was the defining moment for all
departments and agencies in the U.S. government dealing with GPS,
including DOD. DOD fully participated in the PDD development process,
putting its view points on the table. The PDD is now the United States
Policy and the DOD stands ready to fully support its implementation.

The PDD states "It is our intent to discontinue the use of Selective
Availability within a decade to allow adequate time for the military to
live in a world without Selective Availability". That is still the
position today and it is a very firm position.

DOD is committed to constellation sustainment. The first fully
capability operational satellite was the Block II constellation with the
first launch on February 14, 1989. That satellite series has performed
very well.

The second block is the Block IIR constellation, which was a Lockhead
Martin Contract in 1989. The first launch of this block is planned for
January 1997.

The next block is the Block IIF. The contract for these satellites was
awarded in April 1996 for a total of 33 satellites. Their anticipated
launch begins in the year 2001, relying on what the status of the
constellation in the current Block II, IIA, and IIR that are in orbit.
The message through all of this is the United States, as a nation, and
the DOD are committed to sustaining the constellation in its current
status for a long, long time. Some of the Block IIF satellites,
currently being procured, will still be in orbit around the year 2020 -
2025.

The Security Program is an outflow of the PDD and the commitment is to
discontinue SA within the next decade This year DOD initiated a new
security program, called NAVWAR. It is designed to deter hostile use of
Global Satellite Navigation Systems, but in the end, will promote civil
use. The specific goals of that program are to insure and protect the
use of GPS by U.S. ally and collation forces in a theater of operations
and to deny its use to our adversaries while insuring that outside that
combat area, full and open GPS use is available to the civil community.

DOD is now developing and evaluating various things and looking at the
military user equipment, both from a hardware and software perspective.
DOD is also looking at tactics and how to deal with that in a combat
area. The results of this program will be used in the next generation of
military equipment. This capability will be fielded no later than the
year 2006, which matches the PDD commitment to turn off SA.

**QUESTIONS**:

*Tom Stansell, Leica, stated he understood that the signal power to be
transmitted by the IIR satellites will be less than the power
experienced from the Block IIA satellites and what will be experienced
from the IIF satellites. He asked Mr. Shaw to comment on this and to
indicate what the reduction in power for both L1 and L2 is likely to be
compared to what is experienced today.*

Mr. Shaw responded that there is a specification on the broadcast power
of the Block II constellation. The broadcast power level of IIAs is
slightly above that. The specification for the IIR contract is for the
same specification and they will all broadcast at or above that level.
Mr. Shaw asked the AF Space Command representative to answer that
question in his presentation.

**UPDATE ON FEDERAL RADIONAVIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT**

Mike Shaw, Office of the UnderSecretary of Defense.

The purpose of the Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) is to provide an
integrated federal policy for positioning and navigation systems. The
FRP was also developed to reduce system proliferation, provide the
information in an open public forum for system planning, to clarify
issues and to provide a focal point for user input. Meetings and user
forums have occurred during the year to provide input into that process.

The objectives of the plan are to support national security, to provide
for the safety of travel, and to promote efficient transportation. It is
jointly published by both the Departments of Defense and Transportation
and is signed by both Secretaries. The FRP covers all common use
positioning and navigation systems, both military and civil, and is a
source of official policy. Since 1980, it has been updated every two
years. The next plan will be published this year.

The final Working Group meeting, in support of the 1996 FRP, met in
early September to finalize the wording. The coordination process
continues through the end of November, and will go to the Government
Printing Office in December. It should be available in its published
form in late December or early January.

The 1996 FRP will show GPS and its augmentations as the primary
federally provided radionavigation system in the future. GPS and its
augmentations must met the radionavigation requirements of current
systems.

Suitable transition periods include consideration of user equipage,
acceptance, and budget as a minimum. International commitments are also
considered.

The intent is for WAAS to be initially available in late 1998 with full
capability around the end of 2001. ILS will probably be sustained into
the mid part of the next decade.

Marine radiobeacons are expect to be phased out by the year 2000.
Aeronautical beacons will also be replaced by GPS with phase out
starting in the year 2000.

The Transit will cease operation as a position finding system on
December 31, 1996. Loran-C will terminate on December 31, 2000 and Omega
will terminate on September 30, 1997.

The FRP is available through the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Information
Center. If everything goes as planned, it will be at the Government
Printing Office the early part of December and should be available for
public distribution somewhere around the end of December.

**QUESTIONS**:

*David Allen asked if PPS users are authorized, does that mean SPS users
are unauthorized*.

Mr. Shaw responded that the Standard Positioning Service is available
world wide, free of direct user charge, to any user.

*Ed McGann stated that recently he heard comments that addressed the
U.S. military effort to develop the capability of denying GPS to the
enemy. There have been a number of concerns as to how you do that
without denying it to the civil user community, not just in times of
conflict and warfare, but in preparing for conflict and warfare. Many
areas of the world will conduct exercises which has happened in the
United Kingdom in the last year. Mr. McGann asked Mr. Shaw to comment*.

Mr. Shaw said for the military, a key part of operating in a peace time
mode, is being able to train as you would fight. If you want methods to
prevent GPS use by an adversary, how do we train in a peacetime
environment. At this point in time, it is a requirement. What that means
and how training exercises are conducted is not known. That is one of
the things to be worked on over the next decade. A group, that is
looking at interference testing, is chaired by Hank Skalski, the DOT
representative at Space Command.

*Hank Skalski said he would have a presentation later on those points.
There is a very valid need for military forces to be able to train with
the equipment they are going to use in the event they have to go to war.
It is also very important to insure uninterrupted civil use for peaceful
purposes*.

**STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS**

Henry Baird, Department of State.

Mr. Baird stated that he is an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel detailed to
the State Department (DOS).

Presidential Decision Directive, NSTC-6, provides a national
comprehensive policy on GPS. The DOS is involved in leading talks with
other countries and serves as a facilitator in those discussions between
other countries and the DOD and DOT.

This PDD looks at the economic competitiveness and productivity of our
country and the protection of the national security and the foreign
policy interest at the same time. The PDD got all the departments and
agencies in the U.S. working along the same lines in order to promote
GPS and its use.

The PDD also encouraged private sector investment in GPS. The amount of
money spent by the U.S. is remarkable, about \$10 billion. The user
community is going to be huge and the civilian sector is getting more
important and moving away from DOD as the primary user.

The State Departments role is directed by the PDD and is to discuss with
other countries the desire to have bilateral or multilateral agreements
concerning GPS and its augmentations around the world.

Japan, Europe, and Russia are the first focus areas. Japan has a large
number of users in a huge automotive navigation systems market and a lot
of manufacturers of GPS equipment. Europe is a very important partner in
terms of economic and military affairs with NATO. Russia has the other
GNSS, GLONASS. The delegation includes representatives from Defense,
Transportation, State, and Commerce.

The purpose of the discussions is to brief the foreign counterparts on
those important parts of the PDD and to discuss government-to-government
all the important parts and to answer any questions. They also identify
issues for future discussion. It is an attempt to be proactive rather
than reactive. They will also assess the desire from other countries to
have a bilateral or multilateral agreement concerning the use of GPS and
its augmentations.

The consultation strategy is to stress our U.S. commitment, to discuss
the policy and the PDD, and to advocate GPS and its augmentations as the
international standards. In addition, the delegation will invite
cooperation with other governments to insure an appropriate balance
between the requirements of civil users and national security interests
of both the U.S. and the other countries.

At the meeting in Tokyo, Japan had a large contingent of approximately
70. That was the first time all the groups concerned with GPS were in
the room at the same time to talk about the use of GPS. The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs lead the group which included Mr. Hiroshi Karube from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MOT, MITI, MOC, JDA, NPA, and NSA. The
DOS hopes the Japanese delegation, probably lead by Mr. Karube, will
come to Washington, D.C. in late October.

European consultations, in Brussels, with the Europeans are more
difficult. It is more difficult to get all the countries' ministries,
organizations and agencies that are involved with GPS to sit down
together at one time. The delegation will be going to Brussels and to
the four other capitals to talk to the governments about the use of GPS
and its augmentations. There will also be lower level talks, at a
technical level, through some of the departments. The talks in Europe
might be pushed into 1997. They are also trying to have talks in Russian
in early December.

Mr. Baird's viewgraphs are included as Appendix E.

**QUESTION**:

*George Priess noted that the Japanese GPS Industry Council was missing
from the list of representatives in the Japan talks*.

Mr. Baird responded that the Japanese GPS Industry Council was in the
background, just as the U.S. GPS Industry Council was in the background.
They were very much involved.

*Ed McGann stated there were announcements in the paper reporting a
change of position regarding the Japanese governments policies, with
respect to GPS augmentations. The headlines said their WAAS equivalent
is going away, and the Japanese intended mix of geostationary has, for
the near future, been deferred. He asked Mr. Baird to clarify what
programs have been deferred and what augmentation programs are still
part of the discussions.*

Mr. Baird said he didn't want to speak for the Japanese government or
the industry itself, but would give his understanding of the articles.
The system that was intended to replace the GPS system and be a Japanese
Controlled Satellite Navigation System was deferred to a later time. The
MTSAT, Multipurpose Transport Satellite, that has a meteorological and
Air traffic control communications, as well as a navigation capability,
will still happen. MTSAT is their wide area augmentation system.

*Tony Vaudrey, British Embassy, asked what the financial agreements
between governments, U.S. governments and foreign governments, might
involve.*

Mr. Baird replied the DOS has only put together a strawman trying to
figure out what that might be. He could not discuss it yet. Uses of GPS
and the standards are being discussed in consultations with Japan and
Europe. One broad category of discussions with Russia will be
harmonization, inoperability, standardization and associated issues. The
second category is mutual security interest and using GPS in the best
manner and not restricting the use. The last category is commercial
applications and commercialization of GPS. Those are the broad
categories and areas that under discussion, which might result in
agreements.

*George Preiss noted it was the CGSIC's Tenth Anniversary and the GPS
community has discussed these issues for the last ten years. The State
Department has been to Japan and proposes going to Europe and to Moscow.
The CGSIC has a contact network and has been discussing the issues for
some years and should be contacted. There is enormous interest from the
private sector in what DOS will do.*

Mr. Baird said he was relatively new to the State Department, but DOS is
very much interested in what the community has to say. It's very
difficult to figure out who to say it to in the European community.
EUROCONTROL, the European Union, and European Space Agency are the
primary groups who will be interested, along with NATO in terms of
mutual security. The Japan talks identified the need for a point of
contact list between the two countries to know the various levels to
discuss GPS matters. He was sure the same thing would be needed in
Europe. There has been ten years of activity between the Ministries of
Defense and DOD and other agencies and organizations. It's hard to keep
up with all the new ones and to keep the policy out ahead of the
industry.

*George Preiss added that the International Subcommittee exists and has
existed for years, with contacts all over the world. The International
Subcommittee has not heard from the State Department, but looks forward
to talking to DOS, because the International Subcommittee has a lot of
information to offer DOS.*

Mr. Baird stated he has been invited over to Frankfurt Germany to speak
to the Subcommittee and looks forward to it.

*Bernard Smith, FAI and SSA, asked Mr. Baird if he was there because
nobody in State knows anything about GPS or because DOD wants to
exercise control of State.*

Mr. Baird replied he was previously the Delta 2 program manager and
launched ten of the GPS satellites from Cape Canaveral. He has been at
the State Department only a couple of months, but is the representative
for the Department of States concerns in GPS matters. He is not
considered a DOD spy at the State Department. He is an engineer who
understands GPS and is a help to the State Department. The DOS is our
government's apparatus for talking to other governments, and that is why
the Ministry of Foreign affairs headed the delegation in Japan and will
probably do the same thing in Europe and Russia. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs or their like organizations will do those discussion, and
hopefully, get those groups together.

*George Wiggers* said that the State Department is new in this business,
but is directed by the President to become involved. The State
Department will be part of the CGSIC Executive Committee so they will be
able to utilize the resources of the CGSIC to make sure they are
knowledgeable about the GPS user community. This group has a world wide
network which can both provide information about GPS and also receive
information about the user requirements. There still is a government
need that is well beyond the scope of this group's charter. The CGSIC is
simply not empowered to reach agreements with other governments and that
is the role of the State Department. Mr. Wiggers added that it's very
important that we have an understanding of the different roles of the
different parties so that we can work together smoothly and make sure
that the system does provide the service of use on a world wide basis.

**GPS INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COUNCIL**

Mr. William Strange, National Geodetic Survey

The purpose of the GPS Interagency Advisory Council (GIAC) is to provide
input to the GPS program through the DOT for those aspects of the civil
uses by U.S. Federal government agencies outside of the DOT main
purview. This involves mainly positioning, meterological applications,
and timing.

The GIAC has been involved in standardization issues for navigation
spectrums and positional accuracy, which is being headed by the Commerce
Department. Standards are important and there are a lot of different
groups working with this. An International Standards Organization group
is specifically looking at GPS standards with all the governments
involved. The GIAC has been involved in looking into the L5 and spectrum
allocation.

The GIAC is representing the non-navigation people on Federal
Radionavigation Plan (FRP) Working Group. They circulated requests for
input, to the FRP, to the other agencies that might be involved. The
GIAC is interested in the FHWA proposal to expand the Coast Guard
differential system nationwide and how that might be integrated into
Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS). These are the kinds of
activities we try to bring, from all the agencies interest, into these
discussions of general policy and questions that come up.

The GIAC has a Website with the results of meetings, minutes, and lots
of interesting information.

The NGS is putting together the CORS network by using primarily the data
from the Navigation sites and providing it over the Internet for
postprocessing and after-the-fact analysis. There is a lot of basic
structural frame work that ties the United States to a common coordinate
system. There are 75 sites that provide data for use in after-the-fact
processing. He expects CORS to continue to expand.

They have started having different agencies present their plans and
activities at the GIAC meetings. At the meeting tomorrow, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will discuss their work with the inland waterway
navigation system.

Mr. Strange's viewgraphs are included as Appendix F.

**EUROPEAN COMMISSION STATEMENT**

Luc Tytgat, European Commission DG VII

The European Commision (EC), which represents the executive institution
of the European Union, is leading some activities in the field of GNSS
in order to support a regional contribution to a global navigation and
positioning system.

Various studies have been or will soon be initiated:

-   a cost/benefit analysis of GNSS for all modes of transportation,

-   the definition of certification requirements for regulated
    applications,

-   a strategic examination of the actions to be undertaken to implement
    an international system,

-   and an analysis of possible architectures for the second generation
    system.

As agreed during a meeting held between President Clinton and President
Santer in December 1995, a working group will be established for
consultation on design and implementation of GNSS.

The European Union High Level Group, created to elaborate an Action plan
for the period 1996-2005, has met 5 times. A proposal for actions
(technical and institutional) to be undertaken in order to support the
European contribution to a global system, will be submitted for approval
to the Ministers of Transport in Spring 1997.

The study to devise a European Radio-Navigation Plan (ERNP) is
terminated. This study aims at preparing the adoption of a plan for the
European region. The conclusions of the study are under approval.

An Education and Awareness programme will be launched in Luxembourg on
the 25^th^ November 1996. This programme aims at educating all sectors
of all modes of transport concerned.

Mr. Tytgat's viewgraphs are included as Appendix G.

**GPS STATUS CONSTELLATION**

Lt. Col. Mike Cimafonte, Headquarters Air Force Space Command

Lt. Col. Cimafonte stated that the constellation is in really good shape
with one slight exception, the B plane. That is because one satellite is
out of service. A slide with the total age of the satellites and the
average age is included in the appendices. C plane has five operational
satellites, but that is not permanent. A satellite was just launched
into the B plane, spot B2. The latest information is everything is
working normally with no problems. The yellow status in the B plane will
turn green as soon as the satellite is turned over to 2SOPS and it is
declared operational.

In addition, the first IIR satellite launch is planned for January
13^th^, 1997. The first IIR built is at the Cape and is being processed
and tested. The IIR satellite launch is planned so the Air Force can get
it into orbit to be tested to make sure everything is working as it was
designed to work.

Lt. Col. Cimafonte added that the testing in the chamber at Lockheed
Martin shows that although the IIR satellite does have less power than
the IIA satellites, it does have more power than the specification.

**QUESTIONS**:

In response to a question on signal-to-noise ratio, Lt. Col. Cimafonte
said that exact numbers will not be known until after the launch in
January. All indications are for 1 to 1½.

*Ian Mallet said we are seeing an increased amount of maintenance time
on the satellites.*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte stated that twenty-four satellites do require a lot
of work, anomalies occur and things break, that obviously impacts the
signal coming out of the satellite.

*Ian Mallet said a lot of prediction services are based on access
satellite down times and asked if it was possible to get direct access
to those down times.*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte replied that 2SOPS publishes NANUS as rapidly as they
can. The Coast Guard Navigation Information Service gets the information
from 2SOPS and redistributes.

*Ian Mallet said he was looking for an automatic system.*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte answered that he and Hank Skalski, a DOT liaison at
Air Force Space Command, have discussed, on numerous occasions, how to
inform the civilian user community as rapidly as possible. He knows that
the DOT is looking at various ways of getting information disseminated
as rapidly as possible.

*Ian Mattet added that there is a lot of civilian aviation users
confidence in the GPS and asked if there was any unclassified material
that would help aviatorsknow that is not true.*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte deferred that question to the Department of
Transportation and FAA.

*Rolf Johannsen said it sometimes appears that the Europeans have been
critical of certain aspects of GPS. He then complimented the Air Force
on the way they produce the satellites, launch them, keep them up, and
repair them when they go wrong.*

Lt. Col. Mike Williams said he works jointly with the FAA and the NOTAM
system, which is an information distribution system for civil and
military aviators. The Air Force and FAA distribute the NANUs from 2SOPS
and information on the health status, both internationally and
domestically, and to the military as soon as they happen.

*David Allen said in a worst case scenario and realizing that the IIR
autonomous behavior will not be operational for some years, if 2SOPS
disappeared, what degradation performance of the system could be
expected and is there a backup?*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte answered that 2SOPS will not go away. 2SOPS does
operate a backup master control station; they periodically exercise
operating the Constellation from the backup facility. The long-term
plans of Air Force Space Command and the direct coordination and
cooperation with the Joint Program Office is to procure a permanent
backup facility that is geographically separate from Colorado and Falcon
Air Force Base. The concepts of operating the Constellation dictate that
AUTONAV is indeed a player in the Constellation, there is a limit to how
long AUTONAV will operate, without going into specific numbers, before
the signal would start degrading to the point outside specs. A backup
facility would be in operation before that point. So the Air Force will
always have, as long as the current mode of thinking dictates and the
budget allows, a hands-on control of the GPS Constellation.

*George Preiss asked if the commissioning of the IIR satellite would be
invisible to existing users?*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte replied the change in satellites would be invisible.

*George Preiss added that there had been a certain amount of
unreliability in the NANUS in recent months. Someone said a few meetings
ago there is scheduled maintenance every six months on each satellite.
Roughly, every six months each satellite has to be taken out for some
period of hours. He added our colleagues from the CIS seem to be more
specific about the way they do it and issue NAGUs which are reliable in
format and content.*

Lt. Col. Cimafonte said there is no planned scheduled per satellite to
take it down and do maintenance every six months. The 2SOPS operates and
maintains the Constellation. If the satellite is operating nominally,
there is no reason to do maintenance on it.

Every twelve months a vehicle will go down for maintenance for at least
12 hours. Clock maintenance is required on all Cesium clocks once a year
per vehicle. Delta V's are required to maintain the Constellation to
maintain accuracy. Each one of those can take four to twelve hours to
bring the vehicle back on line, depending on monitor station visibility,
and ground antenna visibility. They try to make sure that positional
accuracy is not effected.

Lt. Col. Cimafonte then showed the happy face constellation chart,
stating that it would not be available for the minutes.

*CAPT Doherty added that the Coast Guard operates a navigation
information service, where NANUs are available on the World Wide Web and
Fax on Demand.*

**BLOCK IIR AND BLOCK IIF STATUS**

Lt. Col. Al Mosley, GPS Joint Program Office

Lt. Col. Al Mosley said the Block IIF program is deemed to be centered
around something called Insight Management. As the Block IIF program
manager, he is striking a balance between heavy oversight and allowing
the contractor to run the program.

Block IIF is the satellite that will continue the constellation beyond
Block IIR. The 33 satellites will sustain it beyond the year 2000, with
the first launch in August 2001, with delivery in April 2001. The \$1.3B
contract went to Rockwell in April. The first six satellites is a basic
contract. There are some contract options, including control and launch
support activities.

This program embraces acquisition reform. The next and final launch for
block IIA will be March next year. Block IIR includes 21 satellites at a
cost of \$800M, with the first satellite launch on 16th January, 1997.
Block IIR has an automatic navigation capability, the secondary payloads
NDS, and design life of 10 years. The Air Force is looking at about four
launches per year thereafter.

The Block IIF vehicle will crosslink two satellites to talk to each
other. The space vehicle life expands to 12.7 years. DOT has an option
for L5. DOD recommended 1309. Electromagnetic interference capability is
designed into the satellite. The EELV will be the booster to launch the
satellites. Block IIF's will have a 32 bit processor. Rockwell is
pushing hard to implement the 32 bit radiation hardened processor in the
Block IIF.

Additional options for the remaining satellites are for fifteen and then
twelve. There are four key contractually binding dates:

-   Space Vehicle Plan Date Design Complete (PDC)

-   Space Vehicle Design Complete (FDC)

-   Production Readiness Complete Date.

-   Complete Space Vehicle 1- April, this 2001.

The four things that impacted the program in terms of acquisition reform
are:

-   Military standards, reduced to two from 150 on Block IIR,

-   contract data requirements list to three from 339,

-   the information system tracking database, GEMS (GPS Engineering
    Management System) RITS (Rockwell Integrated Technical Information
    Systems) makes the program paperless, and

-   the government insight team action which sits in the Rockwell Plant
    in Seal Beach, California.

The Block IIF program makes the contractor responsible for the delivery
of the system, and also makes them the integrator for the system,
especially software, starting the year 2000. There is an incentive of
the delivery of the satellites against the 12.7 years in terms of the
satellite life. There will be full replacement if the first two space
vehicles fail within the first four years. There is a partial
replacement if this total performance proves less than its performance
pool, which is computed using the actual performance hours and failure
hours. If that number is less than the period, then there is some
monetary compensation that goes back into the U.S. Treasury. If the
faults pool exceed the performance period of 12.7 years, there is no
replacement. Launch costs, of \$50M to \$60M, are the responsibility of
the government.

The program's Risk Management Plan manages the risk. If something is
moderate or high risk, there is a procedure to move that item from
moderate or high down to moderate or below. There is risk closure
information associated with it. Also, the IIF team is involved daily
with the IIR team, because they are interested in lessons learned.

Lt. Col. Mosley's viewgraphs are included as Appendix H.

**QUESTIONS**:

In response to a question, Lt. Col. Mosley stated the power requirements
are just as good as, if not better, than the IIA and IIR requirement.

**L5 FREQUENCY SELECTION**

Sally Frodge, the Department of Transportation.

The second civil frequency was recommended in the NRC Research Council
Report. The block IIF GPS satellite contract has an option which can be
exercised to implement the L5 frequency. The civilian industry is
utilizing L1 and L2 to a frequency based,. L1 is the only frequency
promised for civilian use. After the turn of the century, there will be
a period of higher solar activity for which ionosphere corrections to
frequency measurements are required. In January, 1996 a joint DOD and
DOT Positioning/Navigation Working Group formed a tiger team, and moved
this issue forward.

The goals were to coordinate the L5 selection, to collect and compile
technical and operational features of L5 that were necessary to meet the
civilian requirements, and to get a handle on what those requirements
might be. These had to be consistent with military needs and full
spectrum protection. The team reviewed and analyzed the L5 frequency
candidates, and determined a diffusion matrix about the suggested
frequencies, recommend potential outside frequencies with some risk
assessment. The ultimate goal would be to get a second civilian
frequency that could meet civilian needs on a worldwide basis, and then
to prepare a national timeline for achieving these goals.

This would be a requirement-based achievement with sufficient L5
requirements to support it and justify the funding. Considerations
included technical feasibility, the impact to the space platform, user
platform and equipment, signal characteristics necessary and
characteristics of the suggested frequency. Direct and indirect cost to
implement can be a significant impact to the Block IIF satellite design,
schedule and cost. The direct cost estimate is \$28.4M over 11 years.

The technical benefits from L5 include ionosphere corrections to get
tracking improvements and reduction in multipath which helps with
interference. A frequency must be selected by October 1996, for the
contract option to be exercised on the first Block IIF satellites.
Frequency coordination and approval process, nationally and
internationally through the ITU approval process, would be 1999 or 2001.

Once SA is gone, the next largest error component for accuracy then is
the ionosphere correction. The baselines can then be linked with more
frequencies. Further reasons for having a second civil frequency are
included in the NRC Report. The Tiger Team has built upon that report
and inputs from experts in the area. If L5 is a replacement for L1, it
needs to be far enough away to reap the RF benefits so that RF
interference with L1 would not trickle over into L5.

There were two different options in the contract. The Tiger Team favored
a complete package of L1 on L5. The spacing must be great enough from L1
to benefit from ionosphere delay measurement with a 200 MHz spacing
minimum. L5 should be code trackable. The wide link carrier phase
measurements should have sufficient separation so that you have another
wide range. Carrier phase should be coherent with both L1 and L2.

The system requirements included in the Appendices are basics required
by the L5. The short list, narrowed down to 1207.14, is an aeronautical
radionavigation band allocated worldwide. An advantage is the TACAN and
DME systems that currently populate that band are in phaseout period.
Some hope to clear out that spectrum and get a very clean area for L5 to
operate in, and perhaps get the minimum requirements of 4 to 20 MHz.

There are other systems in that band. For example, the Joint Tactical
Information Display System is a noninterference basis system of critical
importance to DOD. This frequency would have some, hopefully minimal,
impact on JTIDS, but that is an issue on the table.

The impact on expensive satellite real estate is actually minimal.
Rockwell has said the impacts here could be quite significant. The exact
cost and the impact on schedule and design need to be fully determined
before a decision could be made.

A frequency close to L2 would have minimal impact on the user. Some in
the community would like to see greater spacing so that you could get
trilaning. The 960 to 1215 band is only for aeronautical safety systems,
so there are already a limited number of systems within that band. It
also might have the added advantage of providing some benefit to L2,
since that area of the band would be cleaned out of systems that might
cause interference. Colonel Mosley mentioned earlier 1309 was their
frequency suggestion. This is in the 1248 to 1328 radar band, where
existing systems might cause interference. As with 1207, interference
with JTIDS is an issue.

Other frequencies were considered including 1841, which was suggested in
GPS World and discussed by Ron Hatch. Some of these frequencies lie
outside the current contractual language. So, to accommodate some of
these frequencies would impact the contract and possibly require
renegotiations.

Mrs. Frodge's viewgraphs are included in Appendix I.

QUESTIONS:

*Tom Stansell asked if the government had acknowledged or identified the
many tens of thousands of very important users who are using L2 today.*

*Mike Shaw said it is a reality that the civil community does use the L2
carrier today. Since the Standard Positioning Service (SPS) was
initiated, there has been clear definition that L2 is not a part of the
SPS. In essence, this drove this whole issue of looking at an L5
frequency. Ken Lamm talked about a significant number of users, with
significant benefits derived, which needs to be clearly demonstrated in
the cost benefit analysis. The L5 option is \$28M, so U.S. taxpayers
ought look at a clear definition of a cost benefit analysis that merits
that expenditure.*

*Ken Lamm said the cost benefit analysis is not complete at this time.
In the initial go around with the cost benefit analysis, they got to a
point where they decided they didn\'t ask the right questions to decide
whether or not there was a benefit. The real benefits of an L5 may come
from just having an L5, but there is also the possibility that something
could happen to L2 to make it useable for civilian community. What is
the benefit of an L5 to the users today? Mr. Lamm ask the user community
to give their point of view on the benefit of having an L5 if L2 is made
unavailable.*

**\[Editor's note: The CGSIC is collecting comments on L5, in general,
and L5 if L2 is unavailable.\]**

*Franz Von der Kop said his office is doing a lot of geodetic work close
to the Equator. They cannot use single frequencies because there is too
much noise. So, at least for them, the L2 frequency is very essential.*

*Bill Strange said the 1207 frequency was already approved for use by
the aeronautical worldwide. He asked if someone decided on the 1309
frequency, what would be the impact in trying to get approval for use
worldwide as a navigation frequency?*

Sally Frodge replied she understood it could not be used for aviation
purposes because of the interference with the radar systems in that
band, but could be very useful for geodetic land uses.

*Lt. Col. Cimafonte said the civilian requirements need to be
documented, validated, and sent through DOT to Headquarters Space
Command, where they can be passed onto the Program Office so they can
meet and satisfy the needs in the community.*

*Tom Stansell said tens of thousands today use L1 and L2. The survey
world and the world which is machine controlled, where relative position
is determined to sub-centimeter accuracy. That requires both L1 and L2.
That is going to increase extremely fast over the next couple of years.
The de facto situation is some of our most important and valuable
applications of GPS in the world, where people are both making lots of
money are absolutely dependent on two frequencies. 1) There is an
absolute requirement for two frequencies in these applications. 2) The
user population of equipment would have to be completely replaced. Maybe
that\'s good news for manufacturers, but it is not very good news for
their customers. They need at least a decade of transition so that they
would have a complete 24 satellite constellation with dual frequencies
in parallel over that decade of transition with the L1 and L2 that
exists. The reality is that an extremely vital use of GPS does depend on
L2 today and will continue to do so.*

*George Wiggers added that in terms of the transitioning to this, the
earliest this capability could be available to the civil community is
about ten years from now, because that is the lead time on getting a
sufficient number of satellites. In that sense, there would be adequate
transition of some kind. Mr. Wiggers encouraged comments concerning L2
or L5 be sent to Ken Lamm.*

*Mike Shaw added the requirement needs to be defined. Include in your
response of your requirements for: 1) carrier, 2) carrier plus CA code,
or 3) carrier plus CA code plus NAVMESSAGE. Articulate the benefit to
the civil community to justify the expense of this additional
capability.*

Sally Frodge added Ken Lamm's E-mail address is: Ken.lamm@OST.dot.gov.

**SYSTEM TESTING INTERFERENCE**

Hank Skalski, DOT Representative to AF Space Command.

Mr. Skalski stated he would give a status report on the GPS Information
Dissemination Coordination Team. There are a lot of information needs in
the community. One of the most important has to do with coordination of
in-band testing activities the Department of Defense plans to do in the
very near future. There is a process in place now for doing this.
Testing has always taken place and testing will probably continue
forever. GPS has many diverse users.

Coordination was broken into a couple areas\-- one being the DOD and the
civil focal points, who talks to who. The existing process was Air Force
Regulation 5544. The civil coordination process addresses the
coordination problem on the civil side to respond to a request from DOD.
After the approval process, the next part is information dissemination
and how to notify users that service may not be available in a
particular area.

The next major step is broken into two steps addressing who should be
notified and what is the process to distribute notification. The second
major step will address the current need for information. There are
several processes in place. The FAA has its Notice to Airmen. The Coast
Guard has the Notice to Mariners. Both systems work well, but airmen and
mariners are not the only GPS users.

Once the process is in place, they will look at the whole process of
distributing information, evaluating the process, and looking to the
future. What is being done might be the best way, but it should be
examined. The findings will be cataloged and published.

There is a lack of understanding and good communications about what is
going on in GPS in-band testing. A lot of people misconceive about what
this means and I\'ll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.
One of roles and responsibilities for the Department of Defense, under
the PDD, is to develop measures to prevent the hostile use of GPS and
its augmentations and to ensure that the United States retains a
military advantage. Most countries want to do that. But, there is an
ending to this sentence, and this is the part that makes the job for DOD
a lot harder. It gives us some concerns on our side and that is to do
all of that without unduly disrupting or degrading signaling use. That
is what this team is trying to do.

The DOD and the civil focal points have been identified. On the defense
side, the three frequency management agencies for the Army, Navy and Air
Force have been identified as a focal point for DOD. The FAA is
responsible for the spectrum L1 falls into and is the focal point for
the civil side.

The Air Force Regulation was out of date and didn\'t adequately address
the needs of GPS. The Joint Chiefs of Staff J6S group has been
designated to work with DOT in this area. They are now in the process of
working on a new Joint Chiefs instruction to identify all the
information and processes that the DOD needs to do. Last January they
issued an interim message until that instruction can come out.

As a result of DOT effort, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are coordinating
internally with the other services in Defense to work on the procedures
and the time frames of any Memorandums of Agreements that might be
needed. They can help DOT achieve better coordination with any in-band
testing. They will look at where they do their testing. DOD is very much
aware of the civil community and understands civil uses. They will to
try to do everything possible to reduce effects on the civil users. They
will do a majority of testing in an enclosure where there will be no
affect on any receiver. If they need to test in open air, they will do
everything possible to confine it to restricted areas.

DOD also realizes that GPS is literally everywhere. Honda dealers sell
4-wheel ATVs that come with a Navigator 2000.

DOD is working on their NAVWAR activities. The civil side has been
included. An ad hoc working group was formed which has been called GITA,
GPS Interference Testing Approval Ad Hoc Working Group. This group is
under the auspices of the new Interagency GPS Executive Board and is
made up of representatives from nearly everybody, from every facet of
the government, that is involved with GPS.

Two committees will look at the next step in this process of getting
civil approval to GPS testing. One group is a policy group that will
look at the policy for the civil side. This will be headed by Larry
Hothem from USGS and Phil D'Agnese from the Coast Guard. The other part
will look at the process and will be headed by Captain Doherty and Becky
Casswell. They had their first meeting but are looking for input.

This information dissemination is something that goes beyond the U.S.
and needs to be incorporated into all worldwide users in the future. The
Department of Transportation has been working through State, so it is
discussed in their international negotiations.

There is a lot of communication between DOD and the civil side.

Mr. Skalski's viewgraphs are included in Appendix J.

**QUESTIONS**:

*David Allen said that those of us who work with the current system are
aware that the current signal strengths are nice, but there are certain
areas where jamming and interference cause significant problems. So,
with the decreased signal strength anticipated for IIR is that being
considered in the planning.*

Mr. Skalski replied that things with others had to be taken in
consideration. The time of high solar activity in 2000, 2001 needs to be
looked at and kept in mind when tests are done. The Joint Chiefs of
Staff are looking at where they would do their testing and how would
they conduct their tests. DOD is working with us and providing a lot of
data on tests and the location affected.

**WAAS UPDATE**

Dave Peterson, FAA.

Mr. Peterson said the WAAS program objective was to provide navigation
capabilities for satellites. The cost benefits for this program are
roughly 4:1. If you add free flight, the cost benefit ratio goes to
28:1. One of the other primary objectives is to deliver the system by
calendar year 1998. The hardware, software and communication linkage
components are seen as the current risk to this program today. An
assessment was made on May first after the contractor change.

The implementation window is started. The probability risk of meeting
delivery is July 1997 is 50%, April 1998 is 80%, and December 1998 is
95%. The new contractor is Hughes Aircraft Company, the Hughes
Information Technology Services in Fullerton, California. Lockheed
Martin is a subcontractor.

Delivery of the first phase is expected mid-October. The second phase
will start about three or fours months after that. The final system will
be delivered June to October 2001. Right now there is nothing
technologically that prevents that from happening.

The program was changed from two to three phases as a matter of funding.
Requirements were added to beef up Phase 2. They intend to put on the
NOTAM system. Lastly, the third phase, delivers the End State System and
full operating capability.

The signal in space will give the capability to do precision approaches
throughout the lower 48 in Phase 1. It provides approach capability,
sustained operations, full ranging capability, and will be certified for
flight by the FAA.

Reference station locations cover Hawaii, Alaska, San Juan, and the
continental U.S. The geostationary satellite was lost to the Europeans,
so a lot of redundant coverage was lost. Negotiations are ongoing with
three major companies to pick up an additional satellite, which could be
delivered by 1999. This would give redundant coverage throughout the
U.S.. He believes it is more cost beneficial to buy four or five small
satellites that are dedicated to the FAA for navigation primarily with a
secondary capability of communications.

The End State System meets the full requirements and will be
self-sufficient. There will be 41 reference stations and 6 master
stations as part of the FAA net. There is an agreement with the
Canadians for them to provide five reference stations for WAAS use. They
will be across the lower tier of Canadian states and tied in to the WAAS
system. The master control system will broadcast corrections throughout
the United States and up to a high latitude in Canada.

They are also working the same agreement with Mexico for three
additional reference stations. They are also looking at conducting a
bilateral with Iceland to put a station there. They intend, by 2001, to
have a North American grid that will be the first real step towards the
GNSS.

The first block of functional verification system is key to the
successful development of the system. It allows the prototyping of the
software algorithms, which was finished by Hughes five weeks ahead of
schedule. All the technical requirements are met.

The WAAS test locations will be in secured facilities that have adequate
communications. They will provide corrections to accuracies less than
the needed 7.6m. Test bed corrections are coming close to 5.6 to 5.8m in
the vertical. They are using Ashtech receivers that seem to be working
exceptionally well. The next process they intend to add is Regional
Augmentation System.

Mr. Peterson's viewgraphs are included in Appendix K.

*QUESTIONS*:

James Miller, United Airlines, said the benefits to the airlines from
WAAS still need to be determined. He understands that the FAA has to
look at aviation from a comprehensive perspective, including general
aviation users and business aviation. Since WAAS will be utilized by
many different administrations, why does the FAA feel that it needs to
fund it with the Airports Program alone. \$100M will be used to put up
the WAAS system. What alternatives under the DOT umbrella are being
looked at in order to get the WAAS fully funded. One of the concern is
if the FAA does fully fund the WAAS, the stage is set for thesers to pay
, being the airlines and the aviation community, for the primary costs
for the operation of the WAAS.

Mr. Peterson replied that the Department of Transportation from
Secretary Peña on down fully supports and fully funded this program. The
FAA asked for an additional \$26M in 1997 to complete on schedule. All
the agencies approved and the ATA and Small Business Aircraft
Association signed up to it.

It basically was cut by Congress because of the legal situation. They
were told they couldn't get any appropriations for 1997 because of the
administration\'s reductions, but they would give the program,
additional funds in 1998, which they did. The administration has lived
up to providing the funds. The only reason the WAAS program was
supported in the first place was because of the aviation users. The
administrative believes this is the cornerstone of free flight, and free
flight is where the airlines are will make substantial savings.

*Indeed the other user communities could benefit from the WAAS, but
indeed the Coast Guard has already gone operational with the Coast Guard
Differential System using beacons which cover all the coasts. They
worked with the Corps of Engineers to install a system for about \$15M.
So, although others could use it, they have much cheaper alternatives
than buying into the WAAS system. So the other communities should not be
looked at to fund the aviation oriented system.*

Mr. Peterson said the program is not lacking for money. They went from a
zero funded program 3½-4 years ago up to a \$600M program. That has been
only because of all the support from the community. The three airline
presidents sold this program in front of Congress with testimony three
years ago. So, money is really not the issue. The FAA still will deliver
this system in 1998. There is no change to the old contract as far as
the signal in space quality goes, so you will get the accuracy.

**LAAS UPDATE**

Ray Swider, FAA.

The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is the FAA's second GPS
augmentation. The WAAS will consume about 10% of the amount of resources
that the WAAS program will have for 1996. It is a modest amount, but
sufficient to fund a program of classic differential GPS techniques. It
is classic in that the differential correction message that is derived
at a reference station will be a lumped correction accounting for
natural errors from the GPS Constellation, the NAV message, the effect
of Selective Availability, and any atmospheric distortion of the
broadcast signal in space.

One correction message derived at the reference station will be
rebroadcasted to a user within the service volume of the WAAS itself.
That service volume will extend from the reference station, located on
Air Force property to approximately 30 nautical miles by one-way data
broadcast medium. It will serve a terminal area environment in aviation
terms, out to 30 nautical miles, approximately 10,000 feet high and will
enable a user to maneuver aircraft useing random navigation techniques
within the terminal area. It will support to-to navigation to any
particular runway and includes Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3
approaches, guided missed approach and guided departure. The LAAS will
also provide a navigation signal to enable aircraft and perhaps other
vehicles to navigate in very low visibility conditions on the surface of
the airport and gate to gate service at major airports within the
national airspace system.

The LAAS will compliment the WAAS service, but be independent of WAAS.
It will back up WAAS service so there will always be an augmentation
service in the event WAAS service is lost or degraded. It will be
independent other than it will depend on the GPS Constellation. There
will be no common threads or common features between the two
augmentation systems.

The National Airspace System Precision Approach and Landing Study
(NASPALS), was conducted with a team from not only the FAA but also the
Department of Defense as well. They were looking to derive data and make
recommendations about future architecture for not only navigation but
also precision approach and landing in the United States. They
recommended the FAA pursue the wide area augmentation system for all
user needs through Category 1 precision approach. Then they recommended
the local area system as an adjunct where WAAS was insufficient.

The NASPALS study was a key study for the U.S. position at the ICAO
CONOPS meeting in March 1995. They stated to ICAO that the U.S. was
proceeding with wide area augmentation of GPS for the vast majority of
user needs, and was going to pursue local area for its additional needs,
all the way down through Category 3.

The program office performed a life cycle cost estimate/cost benefit
analysis that concluded last year. It was about a year\'s worth of
effort. It concluded that a system could be delivered to approximately
150 airports within the United States and would be served by LAAS by the
year 2005 for approximately 170 million dollars. That included
development, production, and fielding costs for those 150 airports. The
quantified benefits compared to that cost estimate, gave a ratio of
approximately 4:1. That was a very conservative estimate, but showed
this is a cost-justified system for the FAA to pursue.

The LAAS has considerable industry interest and support. The Air
Transport Association, all the major airlines in the United States, and
the Helicopter Association International are interested in pursuit of
LAAS technology. The RTCA is actively engaged in this program. The FAA
has a cooperative research and development agreement with the Boeing
Corporation as well.

DOD recently got approval for the JPALS program, Joint Precision
Approach and Landing System. They are conducting an analysis of
alternatives to come up with DOD requirements, but they have not
concluded that a satellite-based system is the correct way to go.
However, this is one of their alternatives and there is significant DOD
interest.

At present, the Department of Transportation and FAA are obligated to go
through a series of key decision points to justify continued
expenditures on program development and eventual production and
fielding. They are developing a specification and a map of the
performance standards for the avionics. They are engaged in an
architecture definition for the program. In order to maintain and meet
system requirements and do it robustly enough, they are taking a good
hard look at the feasibility of producing a pseudolite, or
pseudosatellite, that would be placed on airport property and act as an
additional ranging source, as if there was an additional GPS satellite
in view. They think that is a necessary and integral ingredient into
their architecture. They still have to prove that this is feasible, and
can be incorporated in the architecture and enhance performance.

They are looking at integrity algorithms, all the way down to Category
3, because system safety has to be guaranteed. They are looking at an
appropriate data broadcast media or data link. They have some standards
now that are popular with the aviation community and seems to be the
preferred standard. In order to make this architecture determination,
they looked at some integrity solutions that also provide system
continuity. They have a crash program for pseudolite development to make
a data link selection. They are drawing conclusions to determine the
appropriate architecture to meet all the operation requirements for the
system.

That architecture selection was approved internally in the FAA,
including the Satellite Operational Implementation Team and Boeing.
There was a lot of valuable advice offered which they will use to
perfect some of the decisions. Next they will brief the RTCA and the
rest of the industry about the FAA conclusions and get advice and their
consensus.

With adequate funds for the next fiscal year, the FAA intends to build
the signal model in conjunction with the Navy. They will use it to test
some operational requirements and our architectural assumptions,
validate those assumptions, and then proceed with the specification of
the system. In parallel, the FAA will work with RTCA on the MOPS
development and will start to build a test bed very much like the
national satellite test bed to test hardware and software. They will
look at the modeling results to insure the requirements and architecture
definitions are correct and they are on the right path for the specs and
the maps.

After the FAA starts testing with that test bed, the conclusions will go
to ICAO forum for Standards of Recommended Practices (SORP) for an
international standard. By the year 1998, the maps and the specification
will be completed. The SORPs always lag because ICAO is a little bit
more ponderous process, so SORPs development will continue. In the out
years, the test bed will validate specification on those maps and
modifications will be made as necessary and appropriate. They will also
have a continuing R&D program that will extend from FY \'98 to about
2001 to look at advance pseudolite concepts.

LAAS is principally targeted at the major airlines, but will also have
applications for general aviation and the business community. The
precision approach maps for avionics will be developed in the next year
or so. They would like to do have the specification and maps, if not a
full scale development system out by 1998. This should prevent the
airlines from having to make a multiple retrofit decision. They would
like to have the maps and the specification for the augmentation system
available so that manufacturers can build a combined WAAS/LAAS box, even
though the LAAS equipment may not exist at a given airport for a number
of years.

**QUESTIONS**:

*James Miller, United Airlines said LAAS is an aviation specific
application the airlines need. The terminal area is where they have
their greatest operational penalties in terms of irregular operations.
Mr. Miller would like to see more LAAS program funding so that LAAS can
be develop in collaboration with the WAAS.*

**U.S. COAST GUARD DIFFERENTIAL GPS SYSTEM**

LCDR Gary Schenk, USCG NAVCEN.

The Coast Guard has 52 sites transmitting DGPS corrections now. There
are several sites with communications problems. Working with the Army
Corps of Engineers, they have been able to expand our system into the
western rivers. There are agreements for two sites with the Corps of
Engineers Districts for the Louisville, Kentucky and the Omaha areas.
They have not yet started construction on these sites.

The Environmental Assessment was just completed for Key West. It is a
highly environmentally sensitive area and a site was finally located
that meets all of the environmental concerns. The Kansas City DGPS site
came on air about two weeks ago. Last Friday, the West Coast Center was
able to establish communications with the two sites in Prince William
Sound.

Full Operational Capability (FOC) for Coast Guard DGPS means something
different than what was defined by DOD for the GPS Constellation. For
DGPS, it means meeting all the specifications of accuracy, availability,
integrity, reliability, and coverage. FOC will apply to the original 48
site setup design.

To get to the point where the system is today, existing equipment was
used. New transmitters will be installed which will have battery backup
capability. Generators are needed in some areas that are succeptable to
adverse weather.

Coverage validation was started in southeast Alaska. It is a time
consuming process to fly along navigable waterways to verify the signals
cover the operations of any navigator as well as the incidental users
such as the farmers.

LCDR Schenk's viewgraphs are included in Appendix L.

**NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS COVERAGE**

Jim Arnold, Federal Highways Administration.

With the Differential GPS expansion, the intent is to build on what the
Coast Guard has done: expanding it nationwide. The December 1994 report
on augmentations found the FAA\'s WAAS did not meet surface
transportation requirements. The biggest issue there was would be
terrain blockage with the geostationary satellites. (Anyone interested
in a copy of the report should contact Mr. Arnold).

The recommendations from that study are three-fold. WAAS for Category 1
and LAAS for Category 2 and 3 users seemed to meet the aviation
requirements. Expanding the U.S. Coast Guard beacon system for surface
transportation definitely improves the Coast Guard map. CORS
(Continuously Operating Reference Stations) was the first processing
application.

The report said there was no single augmentation system that would meet
the needs of all users. There was no way that the Coast Guard system
could meet the aviation requirements and there was no way the FAA system
would meet surface transportation requirements.

One issue is if the Coast Guard system was expanded to cover the U.S.,
how many stations would it take. The initial analysis was 23 stations,
which didn't include Alaska. In looking at some of the existing
infrastructure, the number of stations can be decreased. The Air Force
has a very interesting system they would like to hand over which could
decrease the number of stations from 23 to 19. Using that system is
feasible. The FAA has some beacons in that band, but is willing to move
those beacons to a different frequency.

Now that it has been determined that it is feasible, they have to
address some of the policy issues. If the Federal government pursues
this direction, how will they do it, and they need to ensure long-term
funding for such a system. Within different areas, public-private
partnerships will be investigated. The government needs to identify and
assist groups to work out the appropriate agreements. In addition, it
needs approval of existing source providers to build a system that
covers the entire U.S, insuring private differential service providers
come out of this on the positive side.

**INDUSTRY CONCERNS**

Michael Swiek, U.S. GPS Industry Council.

Mr. Swiek said he was asked to discuss industry concerns, what was on
the mind of industry today with regards to government policies and the
international scene. The first concern in any industry is simply to stay
in business and the second concern is to make money. Another concern is
to develop useful products that will have a place in the marketplace and
be of benefit to consumers and users alike. The following concern is to
continue developing innovative applications that address new means, new
subject areas, new user groups, and to provide new capabilities to
enhance safety, performance and efficiencies. This is followed by a
concern to continue to advance the state-of-the-art of GPS technology,
both in the equipment standpoint and from the user standpoint.

In addition, industry wants to work within the regulatory framework to
continue providing assistance in developing stable, far-sighted,
effective policies to government use of GPS and its implementations.

From 1989 the industry was doing very well, at about \$40M in annual
sales worldwide, growing to well over \$1B in \'95 and \'96. So far it
has been accomplished in commodity marketplaces and in regulatory
structures which have provided very little interference to the growth of
GPS industry and its applications. Most companies will agree that they
have been able to develop, grow, and become a permanence in the world of
GPS in a fair market, with very few restrictions or roadblocks.

It is technology where the challenges have been met. There are now \$200
handheld receivers that perform quite well. There is real time
centimeter and possibly even sub-centimeter accuracies. There are chip
sets smaller than a 35 mm slide. GPS engines cost less than \$50 and are
about the size of a business card. So, from the technological
standpoint, GPS has been a success and it is being integrated into just
about every aspect of everyday life.

As evidence of that, the companies that now boast products or offer
services that incorporate GPS include common household names\-- Ford,
GM, Toyota, Honda, Sony, Pioneer, Boeing, Kodak, AT&T, and John Deere.
These are not the companies you would have expected to hear being
involved in GPS just five to ten years ago, yet they are and they touch
every aspect of our lives today.

It has been said that there are two great tragedies in life, one is not
having your dream fulfilled, the other is having it fulfilled. The
future of GPS may be on the verge of the tragedy of having our dreams
fulfilled. Perhaps tragedy is too big, too strong a word; it is more the
challenge of having our dream fulfilled.

The foreign policy of the United Kingdom, in the later half of the 19th
century, was once described by Queen Victoria as one of suspended
isolation. That term "suspended isolation" is also applicable to the
development of the GPS industry. It has been able to go forward, largely
unhindered, by existing infrastructures, existing technologies, existing
regulatory structures, or existing structures in standards. Now with the
very broad application of GPS and the fact that GPS doesn\'t stand alone
in any of these applications, the point has come where that suspended
isolation may be ending. The industry will have to start opening its
eyes a bit broader in order to accommodate the other issues inherited
just by virtue of the broad application of GPS.

Almost all of the other areas have their own existing regulatory
structures, sets of standards, technical requirements, certification
procedures, test procedures, and inspection procedures. Industry\'s
concern is \"Who\'s in charge?\" Within the United States, from a policy
standpoint, it has been fairly well defined from the early years that
the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation share
responsibility for GPS policy. Recent events in GPS, both globally and
technically, has caused some surprises and has again raised the question
of who is in charge.

Earlier this year, the State Department found out that they too have an
interest in GPS. This resulted from the Presidential mandate to broaden
GPS policy discussions to include bilateral and multilateral discussion
around the world. So even in the United States, the issue is not quite
clear, nor is the menu clearly set forward in any type of great
precision. There are concerns of coordination and cooperation. In the
realm of policy, the lessons in the United States will have an
applicability overseas as well. Now, foreign governments in Europe and
Asia have to start looking through their own houses and saying who\'s in
charge here, who are the interested parties within their governmental
structures, who are the users, who has authority, and who will be the
spokesman.

In technical areas, technical standards and regulatory environments,
there has been progress, but it has been principally on an ad hoc basis,
in application centered areas. Standards have been provided by RTCM and
RTCA, but the picture is now much bigger. The integration of GPS
technology into other fields of life and with existing technologies need
to be coordinated in their own standard bodies with existing standards
and existing procedures. Does the work done in RTCA and RTCM have
applicability in related fields? This has not been looked at in any
organized way.

Only by coordination can we insure that GPS will be accepted as a global
standard for position navigation and timing, and with the other benefits
that it can give.

**GPS CHARTING CONCERNS**

Dave Simpson, U.K. Hydrographic Office.

The British Admiralty, in common with the Defense Mapping Agency of the
United States, produces a worldwide series of charts. The coverage
consists of approximately 3,300 navigational charts. Only about 10% of
them can be related to WGS-84. Unknown datums may well range from local
datums to unknown in every sense of the word. As we move rapidly into
the electronic age, most users expect these charts to be on WGS-84, and
that is not possible in many cases.

Over 100 datums have been identified in the BA series. It is important
to know which datums you are referring and to be aware of the problems
of ignoring or assuming that you have certain datum. The charts have a
reputation for reliability which is based on the expertise of the
compilers. Charts are upgraded and changed by Notices to Mariners and
they are very true and familiar in format.

Unlike most maps, charts are really just a hotchpotch of the worst
scenario of the data that has been collected over the last 150 years.
The consequence of that is very often the position and accuracy is going
to be very dubious.

Mr. Simpson presented examples of the problems which are contained in
the Appendices. They show the problems of matching charts of different
scales and data gathered from surveys conducted in the 19th and early
20th centuries. Satellite imagery was used to correct some of the gross
positional discrepancies.

The opportunity of the chart is applying into data for Electronic Chart
Displaying Information Systems (ECDIS). If the chart datum isn't stated
on the chart, then it must be compatible with what was used before. The
U.K. Hydrographers Office has used the Notices to Mariners to point out
the strengths and weaknesses of both GPS and charts. The Notice to
Mariners quoted their 142/143 of 1993 have been combined into a new
notice which provides information on the shift between datums and the
possible problems with GPS and certainly the problem with charts. Shift
notes on charts that are on another datum are a rather poor solution to
the problem because people can apply shift notes incorrectly. In that
case, they are twice as badly off as if they didn\'t bother at all.

It is the responsibility of the chart maker to improve positional
accuracy with product and to warn users of existing failures and
weaknesses. It is an incumbent on the user to heed these warnings and to
make use of charts and GPS prudently.

Mr. Simpson's viewgraphs are included in Appendix M.

QUESTIONS:

*Franz Van der Kop asked if he needs to get a reference station and
knows the exact shift, if he could apply that shift in his reference
station offset to get an area of WGS-84 based on the coordinates, if he
doesn't have the hydrographic survey and the datum*.

Mr. Simpson said he would encourage it. One of the problems is that many
transformations within GPS receivers may not be compatible with the
local transformations used in both mapping and charting. You have a wide
area solution which is fine, but locally, when you are producing the
charts or maps on a large scale. They only do surveys in very limited
parts of the world, mainly around the U.K. but do get input from around
the world based on contact with other survey utilizations and mapping
agencies.

**INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SURVEYS (FIG) ACTIVITIES**

Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey.

Technical Committee 211 of the International Standards Organization to
which FIG is one of the liaison organizations will have an impact on the
use of GPS. Mr. Hothem chairs International Federation of Surveyors and
the Technical Committee Commission Five.

The International Federation of Surveyors was founded over a hundred
years ago, in Paris in 1878. It is an organization to represent national
associations that focused primarily in the application or in the
practical use of surveying technologies and to support the use of these
technologies for legal surveys. In those days, nothing was heard about
geographic information systems and special related surveys. But, that is
what it has become today. Nearly one hundred countries are represented
in the FIG.

About six years ago, FIG became one of the U.N.\'s recognized main
government organizations. The liaison, in particular, relates to the
practice of surveying, positioning, and geodesics surveying. In
particular, they were invited to view the definitions and terms of
reference.

There are nine technical commissions in the FIG. The organization is
administrated by a country, which is selected once every four years, to
host the FIG offices. Currently, that office is located in London.
Beginning in 1999, it will be located in the United States. The nine
technical commissions range anywhere from the standards and practice and
professional education, buying information systems, to line management,
special planning development and real estate variations.

Operational activities are the areas involved in the use of the
instrumentation for positioning. Most of the focus is in the application
of a global positioning system and starting, in some cases, with the use
of GLONASS. In hydrography, the commission closely cooperates with the
American Hydrographic Office and any organizations similar to that which
have common interests. The Positioning and Measurement Commission is
involved in the application of the satellite positioning systems. The
Engineering Surveyors focus primarily on the public works surveys and
work with the surveys to deal with public works construction, highways,
etc.

Commission 5, Positioning and Measurement, has a Website, which is
currently being revised. It covers a lot of different things including a
calendar. It goes very extensively into a lot of different areas that
the practitioner might be concerned with GPS or any other
instrumentation used for positioning or special referencing. The
calendars are mainly the activities of the current officers and the
activities in the working groups. The calendar of events includes
cooperative events. For example, Commission 5 is a cooperating
organization for a Kinematic Information Systems event that will be held
in Banff, Alberta, Canada in June of 1997. They also cooperated with the
International Association for Geodesy (IAG).

A workshop, with the cooperation of FIG Commission 5, will be held in
Buenos Aires, Argentina, dealing with the South American Geodetic
Control Networks and property surveying in the 21st century. In both
these cases there is a lot of interest on the application of GPS.

Commission 5 representation covers the world. There are five working
groups. The first working group is Quality Assurance and Product
Control, which is responsible for keeping tabs on what is happening in
the International Standards Organization (ISO), and what impacts the use
of surveying in GPS or any other instrumentation would have on their
standards. Reference Systems is looking at other useful references, and
trying to bring it together to be helpful to the practicing surveyor.
The Satellite Positioning Systems is headed by Sally Frodge from the
U.S. DOT and Maria Marchella from Italy. The final two are Kinematic
Systems and Instrumentation and Data Access. All of these have extensive
activity in dealing with GPS.

FIG interfaces with the other major organizations including the
International Standards for Photogrammetry on Right Sensing (ISPRS),
International Association of Geodesy, and the International Hydrographic
Organization (IHO). Every four years all these international
organizations come together at a major Assembly They come together, in
technical sessions, to deal with information on the technologies that
they are concerned with.

The FIG Congress will occur in July 1998 in Brighton, England. Everyone
is invited and information is contained on the Web page. There will be a
large number of presentations and technical sessions dealing with the
application use of GPS.

The work of the International Standards Organization Technical Committee
211 is extremely critical. (See Henry Toms, DMA presentation in the 27th
Meeting Summary Report.) GPS comes in particularly in two of 20
programs. They will work and link to a couple standards that exist
today. For example, in the GPS area, Mr. Hothem presented information
about the RTCM 104 at a primary session a year ago. Most of the
community is very aware that these have more or less become de facto at
the International Standards and are very important to the industry that
is being sold and marketed today.

Mr. Hothem urged the membership to go to the Website, see who is the
expert from their country, and if you are not familiar with him, contact
him. That person will the expert on your behalf; see that they are
focused in areas that will deal with GPS. Decisions made by the ISO,
when adopted, will have an impact on industry and the users. The IAG
(International Association for Geodesy) has appointed someone to be the
chair of the project looking at geographic systems.

Working Group 4, Geospacial Services, led by the Norwegian Mapping
Authority, as part 16, positioning services. They intend to deal with
GPS, because GPS is the primary positioning service that will be used in
support of GIS. Mr. Hothem encouraged the members to investigate these
activities.

Mr. Hothem's viewgraphs are included in Appendix N.

**POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL**

Dick Shamberger, Federal Railroad Administration.

In this country the freight railroads own the track and the
infrastructure. Amtrak, the passenger cooperation, is a tenant on the
freight railroad. The third kind of a railroad is a regional computer
railroad.

Two American railroads, the Union Specific and the Birmington Northern
Santa Fe front-ended private sector funds for effort. They found that
committee work and collective effort over a twelve year period did not
work well. The railroads then committed their own money and got a
private sector system integrator involved.

Last year, Mr. Shamberger addressed the Transportation Research Board on
Positive Train Control in the interest of safety of life, which is the
Federal Railroads Administration\'s primary concern. The Board wondered
why the economic productivity advantages of train control weren't
considered. They conducted research and development on positive train
control. The positive train control is robotics that is going to make up
for human failure.

That evening an accident occurred inside the Washington beltway. The
MARC train engineer pulled out of Kensington Station and forgot that he
had come in under a restrictive signal of 30 mph or less. He went past
30 mph accelerating to 63 mph. It was blowing snow. By the time he got
eyesight contact with the crossover, Amtrak was crossing over, and the
lead locomotive was in the middle of the crossover. The MARC train threw
on the brakes, which means steel wheels on steel rails producing
shooting sparks, setting diesel fuel on fire and hitting Amtrak amid
ships. There were eleven fatalities because the man simply forgot. The
dispatchers in Jacksonville were controlling the trains and the signals.

Positive train separation, PTS, or positive train control, are two
aspects of the same thing. Positive train control would have restricted
the speed to 30 mph. At 29 mph it would alert the engineman, at 29.5 mph
it would take over the controls and the train would shift into robotics.
It would have enforced the authority limit, not letting him get near the
crossover.

Positive train control is so exciting these days because of the GPS
system and the potentials of differential. The train location and speed
can now be known. The issuance and control of the train movement is
centralized. The communication between the control center and trains is
constant and in real time. There is onboard enforcement and civil speed
enforcement.

Headquarters will have a host computer. The two railroads and train
control tests are now being run in Omaha, Nebraska and in Fort Worth,
Texas. It is storing all the train data, the tracks sensors and the
detector data base. There is an onboard digital map of every switch,
every piece of superstructure, every curve, every elevation change, to
within a couple of centimeters, on the trains.

On the railroad, there is a one dimensional problem and that is time.
Computer assisted dispatching performs the same as today. The wayside
signals will not be necessary anymore. Sixty-five percent of this nation
has no signals.

They can't depend on differential GPS alone, because the railroad\'s
problem is determining what track the train is on. Track centers are
about 13½ feet apart. With digital data, accelerometer, odometer, and
inertial systems, the differential GPS allows the specification set at
20 m. along the track. There is constant correction.

The test area is an 863 mile stretch from the border of Canada, at a
place called Blaine, to Eugene, Oregon. There are north-south routes and
east-west routes on both sides of the Columbia River gorge. This is some
of the toughest territory with problems of terrain masking and humidity.
They are going to try to make differential GPS and the rest of the
system work in this area.

There is a Coast Guard DGPS tower at Fort Stevens, Oregon. Instead of
putting out 27 watts it seems to be putting out 16. When they run
locomotive chase cars through this area, they have 60% in and out
coverage of differential GPS.

Locomotives in the U.S. are diesel electric from 4000 to 6000 horse
power. The generator in turn feeds four or six traction motors. This
thing is an electromagnetic interference noise platform in the 300
kilohertz range, which is precisely what the USCG puts out. In some
cases, the locomotive overrides the signal, particularly when dealing
with a 16 watt output. Mr. Shamberger then asked if anybody in the
community ever solved a 300 kilohertz noisy platform problem in trying
to bring in a 300 kilohertz signal. He would like assistance in solving
the problem.

One solution suggested is to bring the differential signal into a
receiver, pipe it down the railroad and into the server, back out of the
server and back to the locomotive, but they only got 2 MHz of frequency
in this industry and that is not enough.

Jim Arnold mentioned an Air Force system Ground Wave Emergency Network
that will be decommissioned. The antennas are 300 feet tall sitting on
11 acres, and run at three kilowatts. There are 54 of these sites which
could be used to produce a differential GPS signal that is common across
the U.S. If these sites were turned up to 300 watts, it might just
overcome the noise on the locomotive.

The railroad runs by predefined blocks of track, with a block being 15
or 20 miles long. It was determined in late 1968 how long it would take
the heaviest train to stop. With the computer guarding that, the
envelopes shall not touch. Positive train control and collision
avoidance are another view of the same thing.

This positive train control project will be fully tested with reports
presenting the advantages, and the cost and benefits by the end of
calendar year 1997. There is a land transportation problem in this
nation. There is a crumbling highway infrastructure. Tens of millions of
dollars are spent idling in traffic. As we move into the 21st century,
the problem will become more complex because there will be more people
and goods moving. The railroads could lessen this problem.

Positive Train Control is a communication, command and control
opportunity. Train technology changed from steam engines to diesel
electric with fancier signal systems, and the satellites will take them
in to the next dimension. The fatalities in the three train wrecks of
February 1996 were all preventable. There was a human failure involved.
If Positive Train Control works in this nation, there could be a
seamless railroad system on the Continent of North America.

Mr. Wiggers opened the second day of the meeting.

**CEI ACTIVITIES**

Dr. Janusz Sledzinski, Warsaw University of Technology.

Dr. Sledzinski's full report "GPS Techniques in Geodetic and Geodynamic
Programmes of the Central European Initiative is included as Appendix O
.

There are now fifteen member countries of central Europe. The main
objective is to strengthen the stabilization within central Europe and
to promote all-European integration processes. This organization is
established on a very high level.

Prime ministers of the countries meet once a year and foreign ministers
of these countries meet every six months. Working Groups constitute the
basic structural component of the CEI.

GPS, in particular, is represented in Working Group 7, Science and
Technology. This working group is divided into three sections: geology,
geophysics and geography.

The Group addresses the interconnection of geodetics mainly by GPS, how
to use GPS, GIS and others, and investigations with events.

CEI Section C "Geodesy" recommended each country establish at least one
permanent GPS station. At present, they have 22 operating permanent
stations and 26 stations are planned by the end of the next year.

**UPDATE ON THE GLONASS SYSTEM**

Dr. Peter Daly, the University of Leeds.

As of the beginning of 1996, the Full Operational Constellation was
achieved by GLONASS with the full 24 satellite system. So, at that
point, there was 24 GLONASS satellites and 24 GPS. There were a couple
losses in August. So at this moment in time, the Russians had 22
satellites fully operational. They have a spare in orbit. GLONASS uses
three different planes, separated by 120° on the equatorial plane, and
the separation between satellites and the plane is always 45°. So
normally you have eight satellites in each plane.

They are now in a situation with a triple launch coming up. There will
be a launch at the end of this year, but they haven\'t decided into
which plane to launch the satellites. They will probably wait for a
second satellite to fail in either plane.

In the past there was a problem, in a sense, that the Russians have
launched three satellites at the time and the rest we haven\'t really
known what to call them. They don\'t always correspond to the way the
Russian\'s describe them. There has been a confusion in that you have
been able to get almanac\'s to the wrong satellite, if you are not
careful. Hopefully this has been put right.

The Russians have 22 satellites in total at the moment, with one
satellite in reserve. In 1995, the Russian\'s did not lose any
satellites at all, but have lost two in the last month. In the past, the
rate of loss has been somewhat higher than that, so we can conclude that
something is being done to improve the reliability of their satellites.
And, we look forward to the new GLONASS M.

Those who have been around for some time will remember the Russians, or
the Soviet Union, was not terribly good at communicating information.
They have done a lot to improve that. The Russian Coordination of
Scientific Center is on the Internet. You can fax them messages or
E-mail them. They have a Home Page and some very interesting information
about Constellations, the history of the project, and how GLONASS works.
The information is available in English and in Russian.

The Russian Space Forces, Russian DOD, is providing this service so one
can rely very heavily on the information that is being provided as being
accurate. There is another organization in Russia which is called
Internavigation Council. This is a government agency.

Recently, they started providing information on status called NAGUs,
which is very close to the same format as the NANUs. The numbers
attached to the satellites do not go in sequence and are probably a
production number. The system seems reliable.

GLONASS M is the updated version of the GLONASS satellite system. The
original requirement was to launch in the first quarter of 1996. Clearly
there has been some delay. On the next launch, before the end of the
year, two of the satellites will be GLONASS and one will be a GLONASS M.

GLONASS M will have intrasatellite ranging, two narrow bands, CA codes,
one on L1 and one on L2. This is very significant because then the
ordinary civil user will have the facility to remove the ionosphere with
a CA code receiver.

The University of Leeds has a number of receivers with 20 channels which
will access either GPS or GLONASS. They use them as routine monitoring
receivers and have been doing so for many, many years. Recently, they
have done work on differential GLONASS and differential GPS by running
real time RTCM differential corrections up to the Skyfix satellite and
then to a receiver in our lab. They did this last January between
Aberdeen and Leeds, which is about 250 miles apart.

The static spheres of that experiment worked pretty well. When they
pulled the plug on the differential correction, the GPS position went up
very quickly and GLONASS sailed through, not being subject to SA. They
also tested at the North Pole. Recently, they did another test with the
CAA and the U.K., running differential up to the point. They started
with a static survey and are now doing it dynamically using standard GPS
and GLONASS. Last March they ran the RTCA differential GNSS by the MRS
data link and are now interfacing, onto the flight management system.

They monitor the difference between our local timing standard and
GLONASS system time everyday, all day. On one day, the value is around
-30 microseconds, and is a standard spread on the data. What happens is
that the receiver looks at the higher satellite at the time, so during
the day, it runs through all the GLONASS satellites, and you see it was
doing fine here. Then all of the sudden, there was a difference almost
of a microsecond to that satellite. This happens every now and again.
The Russians notified in a NAGU saying that that satellite was
unhealthy. Unfortunately, the satellite itself didn\'t say it was
unhealthy.

The health of satellites or to be able to determine its health is very
important when it comes to integrity monitoring. The satellite which
failed, GLONASS 14M was a little over five years old. The very narrow
range of frequency over five years from +3 to about -5 picoseconds per
second is not bad. The jumps actually represent the running off error
and the data message from the satellite, so they are not real jumps. The
clock offset can sometimes been seen to correspond to a frequency
change. When the satellite had reached a point in time, the satellite
was switched off.

Some people say it would be difficult to use GLONASS and GPS together
because the system times are different and that would make it difficult
to use them. This is nonsense. From data, we can build a picture of how
time is changing to be able to predict accurately into the future what
the difference will be. The difference is stable changing 25 nanoseconds
a day. Since you know it will be 25 nanoseconds, it can be removed. That
quantity is a very stable parameter.

The University of Leeds is building a receiver for the European Space
Agency. This receiver will be a high precision, multichannel GPS/GLONASS
receiver for space applications and for ground reference applications.
It is a very powerful receiver for a number of different applications.

As of September 1996, 3S and Ashtech are producing receivers. Sextant
Avionique, a French company, and DASA, in Germany in collaboration with
the Russians, have also produced receivers. Nortel in the U.K. is
working on a GLONASS simulator. Man Technologie, a German company who
worked together with the 3S people is also working on GPS/GLONASS
receivers.

Dr. Daly's viewgraphs are included in Appendix P.

**QUESTIONS**:

*George Weber, Institute for Applied Geodesy, Frankfurt, said if anyone
is interested in getting NAGUs in real time, there are two
possibilities\-- one is to send an E-mail to CSIS or ask to be put on
IfAG's E-mail for the NAGU distribution.*

Dr. Daly added there are a number of organizations in Europe cooperating
with the Russians to disseminate this information.

*Dr. Terry Moore said there is an A0 problem in downloading A0
periodically. In discussing an anomaly with a high satellite, was that
the A0 problem or was that something else?*

Dr. Daly said A0 is a phase outset off your satellite time from system
time as transmitted by the satellite and sometimes the data messages
were just plain wrong.

*Dr. Moore said it is no good getting an NAGU after you have flown into
the mountain, because all the health bits say the satellite is healthy.*

Dr. Daly said control segments are extremely important for any
successful combination of the two system.

**INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE (IISC)**

George Preiss, Chair.

Since the March meeting in Washington, the IISC has participated in the
Performance Task Force on the Executive Business Plan. At the same time,
the IISC has been preparing for the next European Subcommittee meeting
which would take place in Frankfurt in 3-4 Decembe, 1996. The
arrangements are being handled by George Weber, Vicechair and by Mike
Savill, Secretary. Thirdly, they have worked to speed up and streamline
the National Report process. They issued a layout design for national
reports where they specified the paragraph headings and issued an
example of what a national report ought to look like. Five nations, in
the very short time they had, were able to produce a report in this
format. Those nations reports will appear in the meeting proceedings.

The response from Switzerland said they were very pleased with the
guidance of how national reports are to be done, but the work involved
was a bit too much in the time that they had. They will be issuing a
full report of Swiss activity at the next meeting in Washington in
March.

**Saudi Arabia**

Saudi Arabia is in the process of establishing a permanent GPS network
for geodynamic studies as well as transmitting DGPS corrections. The
initial plan is to use three stations in Jeddah, Riyadh and Damman.

The full letter submitted by Saudi Arabia is included in Appendix Q.

**Japan**

\"The Current Activities in Japan\"

by H. Nishiguchi, Secretary General of the Japan GPS Council

An influential recommendation report was published recently by a
half-ear-study-group composed of the related Ministries, Agencies and
industries.

The discussing subjects were mainly what the future strategy of \"the
Global Satellite based Positioning System\" should be, what the Japanese
role and contribution to the such system should be, and what we should
do now.

We, study group including JGPSC, examined the following points of
issues;

(1) Requirements for civil use will be \"the continuity of the services
    to meet the user needs\" and \"the transparency of
    managerial/operational systems\" in the wide range of services.

(2) Regarding technical issues, we have to catch up peers because Japan
    is behind the technical development required for the implementation
    of a satellite based positioning system, such as the atomic clock to
    be carried by satellites, the multi-constellation tracking control,
    and the precise satellite altitude determination.

(3) Whose initiative is better for the systems control, of which studies
    have been conducted in the world so far.

(4) Japan may be in a position to make active contribution to an
    important infrastructure common to the world.

(5) It will be reasonable to study the way of role sharing by private
    sectors and Government organs for the best interest of Japan, by
    referring to the good sample of the U.S.

(6) And then, it should be important to improve the administrative
    systems in Japan, while various studies have been made by respective
    related organs independently.

The report concluded as a recommendation:

-   To form a Ministerial Interface Committee in the earlier stage.

-   To establish Japanese basic design of the policy for using the
    existing satellite based positioning systems.

-   To strengthen international relations and

-   To support & promote the international cooperation by the private
    industries association.

View graphs and National Report are included in Appendix R.

**Canada**

Doug Scott, Geomatics Canada, Geodetic Survey Division.

The Canadian Coast Guard has an active control system with a network of
about ten GPS tracking sites. It is integrated with a scientific network
of global tracking sites which is part of the international GPS service
for geodynamics. It is maintained to determine geodynamic and to assist
in the determination of the parameters for the IAG. Canada acts as the
analysis center coordinator for this global network community and
produces the precise orbiting clocks for the GPS satellites. This
information has been used to determine positions accurate to 7
centimeter level accuracy using differential processing.

The precise orbiting clocks are going to be introduced and made
available, in real time mode, to support the interlevel position and
navigation in real time. The approach that Canada is taking is
essentially to work with private industry on this and distribute the
information to the users themselves. There has been considerable
interest on the part of private industry in this venture. There is
considerable benefit to both sides to potential parties. They can make
the validated information available as part of the Canadian Space and
Reference System through all of Canada. From industry\'s point of view,
this reduces duplication and the cost of making this information
available, therefore, reduces the cost to the user.

The Canadian Coast Guard, on August 23rd of this year, announced what
they call the Initial Operation of Service Capability. In Phase 1, there
are 10 sites across Canada- two on the coast, three in St. Lawrence and
five in the Maritimes. One site, Fort Hackinson, has since been
relocated and is not in operation at this time. The Coast Guard advises
that, under the terms of the Initial Operation of Service, they are
still undergoing testing and validation of the information. They advise
the users to use the information with caution. Phase 2 sites are
scheduled to be in service by next year. The Canadian Coast Guard
anticipates full operational service in the Fall of \'97.

Mr. Scott's viewgraphs are included in Appendix S.

**Australia**

Ian Mallet

Australia runs a Commonwealth GPS Users Forum which is similar to the
CGSIC, but is essentially to ease out the starting activities. One thing
they are trying to do is integrate the midworks. Australia, from a
mapping point of view, had a judicial network which will be used as the
basis for the wide area augmentation system. It is a wide spread system.

From the civilian side, there will be a new datum. There is a
differential system being put into place, with maritime single frequency
in the base stations that are operating in different places around
Australia. There is also a number of commercial wide area systems in
place.

They had a contract for a cost/benefit analysis to Booz Allen,Australia,
to look at GNSS augmentation systems. The GPS Implementation Committees
coordinate regional and industry activities. Also, there is a fairly
strong support from the military and users to coordinate all its
activities.

**Germany**

Georg Weber, Institute for Applied Geodesy

The GPS permanent stations in Europe are working together in the EURO
Working Group, which is providing this information to the international
GPS geodynamic service. Data is analyzed daily at the Institute for
Applied Geodesy in Frankfurt. From this data they get geodynamics and an
analysis of time series coordinate components. Using the stations to
evaluate latitude, longitude and height, the variation of the component
is just a few millimeters. This operation is performed two or three
times a week in a year for geodynamic purposes or for defining the
geodetic reference system. If you do a full spectral analysis of these
components you find there may be some systematic affect. This kind of
analysis, with the attention to increase the accuracy of the permanent
GPS data analysis, you can only get from a continuous data analysis over
a long time. Right now they are looking for the reason for these
system-like effects.

Germany will have a differential GPS service covering the Northern area
of Germany, which is based on a contract between the Institute for
Applied Geology and the Telecommunication Services in Germany.

**United Kingdom**

Dr. Terry Moore.

[CSNG - Why the Change?]{.underline}

The Civil Satellite Navigation Group of the Royal Institute of
Navigation has recently changed its name from its former title as the
United Kingdom Civil Satnav Group (UKCSG). This change reflects the
changing role of the group, and its complete integration into the Royal
Institute of Navigation, as a Special Interest Group. The established
aims and objectives of the UKCSG were,

-   To provide a focus point for all Associates and Members of the Royal
    Institute of Navigation with a common interest in Satellite
    Navigation, Positioning, Geodesy and Time Transfer, and foster the
    overall awareness of Satellite Navigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To collect and disseminate information on the current status of
    satellite navigation systems and their applications and to represent
    the views of the members of the UKCSG to external bodies by advising
    the Royal Institute of Navigation to take appropriate action as they
    see fit.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To act, on behalf of the Royal Institute of Navigation, as the
    Ministry of Defense nominated civilian Point of Contact for the
    Global Positioning System.

The latest NATO agreement does not call for a civilian point of contact
to be nominated, as so the latter role is now redundant. With the loss
of the computer bulletin board in March and the Fax information service
last year the 'information dissemination' role has also become
redundant. It has been necessary to inform members of the RIN to look
elsewhere for GPS information. It was, therefore, timely to review the
aims and objectives of the group, and the change of name is the first
logical step towards a transition.

[CSNG Meetings]{.underline}

The CSNG is still actively involved in the organisation of meetings and
has two key events for the Autumn. 'Satnav for General Aviation' is a
one-day meeting aimed at general aviation pilots, and is jointly
organised with the General Aviation Navigation Group (GANG) of the RIN.
A second one-day meeting has been organised for December, which is
scheduled to link with the European IISC meeting in Frankfurt. The
meeting on 'The Future of Satellite Navigation and Positioning' is being
jointly organised by the CSNG and the Hydrographic Society in Scotland,
and will be held in the George Inter-Continental Hotel in Edinburgh. A
number of speakers will be drawn from visitors from the US, who will be
in Europe for the IISC meeting. In 1995 a one-day meeting was organised
entitled 'Navigating by Satellites' which was aimed at 16-18 years old
school students. It is planned to repeat this event in the late spring
of 1997.

[Guidelines and Quality Measures]{.underline}

The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has developed a series
of recommended quality measures to be adopted by DGPS service providers.
These activities have been reported at previous CGSIC meetings. The
recommendations have been published and have now been implemented by the
majority of service providers operating in the UK and its offshore
waters. The recommended benchmarking procedures to test and validate a
DGPS service have yet to be published.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of
Geographic Information have set up a joint working group to develop a
series of guidelines and recommended practices for the use of GPS for
land surveys. The working group includes representatives of survey
companies, receiver manufacturers, national survey organisations and
academics. After four workshops, the guidelines have reached the draft
stage and will shortly be published for consultation.

Dr. Moore's viewgraphs are included in Appendix T.

**Poland**

Dr. Janusz Zielinski, Polish Academy of Sciences.

There are a number of projects in geodynamics. The Baltic Sea Level
Project is focused on the Baltic in cooperation with the Baltic
countries. They are studying closely the sea level changes in the
region, the vertical datum definition, and compatibility between these
countries. The next activity is the composition and checking of the
height datums.

There are three government stations which are working in IGS network.
These stations deliver data to international data bank, but in Warsaw
Technical University there is also a computing center and analyzing
center which processing data not only from Poland, but also from other
countries. There are two GPS stations operating on the sea coast. This
is still an experimental phase of the operation but heading towards
operational. By the end of the year they should have an operating GPS
system in this region for marking application.

This is an experimental car, in which the INS system is connected with
GPS. Another popular application is where the position of the car is
tracked by GPS and includes a data transmission system.

The National Report for Poland is included in Appendix U.

**Sweden**

Bo Jonnsen

Sweden's DGPS Network has been operational since May of this year and is
managed by the National Maritime Administration. It consists of seven
stations radiobeacons and is uncoded.

The SWEPOS network consists of 21 stations and is in advanced test
operation. The purpose of SWEPOS is to provide data for processing
production work and studies of geodynamics and to provide data for real
time users. This data is transmitted from twelve stations via the FM
radio network by Teracom. SWEPOS will be operational during 1997. They
are connecting all the stations and installing central integrity
monitoring devices on the control center. The data will be available for
processing through the Internet or the Data Quality and Board System.

They have information from the U.S. Coast Guard Information Center and
Swedish information concerning GPS. In the future, distributors of
differential GPS data and carrier phase data for real time use will
connect to the control center instead of connecting to a reference
station as it is today.

The National Report for Sweden in included in Appendix V.

**Norway**

Given by George Preiss.

Norway's SATREF system, which consists of ten reference stations
broadcasting at maritime beacons, is now complete and operational. On
the other hand, the Norwegian Mapping Authority, which is responsible
for that SATREF system, has now moved to getting differential
corrections broadcasted by RDS, Radio Distribution Systems, over FM
radio. That is now under test. The receiver equipment is gradually
coming into the market and the whole of this operation is being
conducted as a joint effort between the Norwegian Mapping Authority, the
Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment and the company
SEATECS.

The National Report for Norway is included in Appendix W.

**Austria**

The National Report for Austria is included in Appendix X.

**TIMING SUBCOMMITTEE**

David Allan, Allan's TIME.

More improvements have been made in UTC as a result of international
timing cooperation, using GPS in the common view mode, as well as the
new kinds of clocks that are impacting international timing
significantly. This impacts GPS, directly and indirectly. NASA JPL is
upgrading their deep space network in order to measure the ionosphere as
we look towards solar maximum. They are currently working at tens of
nanoseconds and they need to push that down to the nanosecond level.

The telecommunication industry is advancing rapidly the number of GPS
receivers being deployed. This area is growing astronomically. Recent
power outages has increased interest in being able to diagnose problems
within the network.

International formal bodies, which are important to GPS timing, have
long been associated with the CGSIC Timing Subcommittee. The CCDS
(Consultative Committee for the Definition of the Second) suggested
GLONASS and GPS have the same time and the same coordinate system. GPS
is moving extremely well along those lines.

They have met with their colleagues in Russia who have made some
interesting progress. The decision has been made to move time to within
one microsecond of UTC. When that will occur is not known, but it is
very good news. There are now off 22 microseconds.

There is a new method of using GPS for time transfer called the Advance
Common View Method. It has two advantages: 1) it utilizes the
Constellation much more efficiently and 2) it is a real-time system. The
current method of comparing clocks internationally is using the common
view method one day after the fact. They average the satellites every
one day, using an international schedule given by the BIPM. This has
worked extremely well, but it is after the fact.

One of the receivers, Hewlett Packard on the West Coast, is using is
very inexpensive Motorolla, which is about a \$200 unit integrated into
a very nice packaged system. The receiver was never designed to work at
the nanosecond level, but at the microsecond level. These receivers do
not correct for the troposphere. If the tropospheric correction is
inserted, everything straightens out. Motorolla has been very
cooperative in updating software, and so the new receivers have the
troposphere as well as ionosphere correction. These experiments are
showing encouraging results.

The advances in UTC using 0 'g' high accuracy orbit has the potential to
give real time orbits at the sub-centimeter level. This high accuracy
orbit determination technique where the onboard accuracy of the clock is
improved, the system improves, and removes the need for a data comm.
GLONASS could get by with one station using this technique. System
reliability, robustness, and autonomy could be greatly enhanced.

It is still in the theoretical phase, but there is some discussion that
it might be considered for some of the IIF satellites. It shows great
promise in terms of robustness, reliability, and accuracy for the future
system.

The GPS common view is no longer good enough to make comparisons
internationally. The measurement noise is limiting the capability to
take advantage of the best clocks in the world, so we are looking to
using other techniques.

A GLONASS counter-view schedule which has been distributed so more data
can be processed, to know time differences for the global set of clocks.
The stability goes down for integration times in the order of weeks and
months into the 10^-16^. The data is from real clocks, but is a
theoretical result because they have no clock to compare it. Great
progress is being made in the quality of international time, stability
and accuracy. The accuracy has improved dramatically. These primary
frequency standards, employing cesium, which is the definition of the
second.

The ITU has a new handbook called the 'Selection and Near to Precise
Frequency' in Timed Systems, written by the world\'s best experts. It
will be available from the Secretary after the ITU in Geneva,
Switzerland.

**Timing Subcommittee**

Dr. Lewandowski, BIPM.

W. Lewandowski reported on the status of Two-Way Satellite Time Transfer
(TWSTT) through telecommunication geostationary satellites. A two-year
field trial using INTELSAT 307 deg East ended in December 1995. Since
then, the timing community is preparing use of this satellite on
commercial basis. Beginning of permanent operation is scheduled for the
end of this year.

Dr. Lewandowski then gave a report on the progress in using GLONASS and
combined GPS/GLONASS for accurate time transfer. There are already seven
major timing centres around the world using GLONASS in common-view mode.
Several other are in preparation. New double system GPS/GLONASS time
receivers are now commercially available. He underlined the need for
harmonisation of GPS and GLONASS. To realize this, the best solution is
the adoption by two systems of international standards: UTC for time and
ITRF for space. GPS does it already. The harmonisation of two systems
would simplify their common use in any field of their application
(navigation, geodesy, timing,\....).

David Allan

Mr. Allan then announced that he was retiring and hoped that the
friendships he developed over the years would continue.

**OPEN DISCUSSION**

CAPT James Doherty

Since the last meeting, the Performance Task Force has been working on a
draft of a business plan. The idea behind the business plan is to make
it a little bit more definitive and to put a little bit more structure
into what the CGSIC is and does. The CGSIC has a direct communication
line to the Interagency GPS Executive Board.

The plan attempts to set some goals for the CGSIC. The mission statement
states "To achieve the full potential of GPS in the civil sector, both
service providers and users of GPS, a need for an effective channel in
the exchange of information. The Civil GPS Service Interface Committee
serves as the primary link between world-wide civil GPS users and the
U.S. government service providers. The CGSIC 1) provides a forum for the
two way exchange of GPS technical information end needs between civil
users and U.S. service providers; 2) it identifies information
requirements and methods to distribute this information to the civil GPS
user community; and 3) it identifies GPS issues that need resolution by
the U.S. service providers, providing interagency, GPS Executive Board."

Basically the goals are to:

1)  align the information made available through CGSIC with the means of
    users, service providers, and policy makers,

2)  achieve CGSIC membership and participation that reflects the
    diversity of civil GPS users and service providers,

3)  promote the image and standing of the CGSIC,

4)  organize the CGSIC business procedures to support the mission, and

5)  to establish effective CGSIC lines of communications within the U.S.
    government.

George Preiss added that the International Subcommittee officials were
deeply involved in the work of the Task Force from the very beginning.

CAPT Doherty summarized the five action items taken from the meeting.

1.  The first one addressed information distribution requirements
    regarding GPS and its augmentations. Mr. Wiggers proposed that Hank
    Skalski and the Information Dissemination Coordination Team lead an
    effort to identify the requirements and potential solutions.

2.  The second one was to identify the extent of use of the L2 carrier
    phase. Specifically there was a serious concern expressed about the
    number of users who are using L2 carrier phase. We should look to
    obtain information from receiving manufacturers about how many
    receivers are now in use that are actively using that information.

3.  The third action item was based on a discussion on the International
    Standards Organization Technical Committee 211 on Geographic
    Information in Geomatics. There is a concern that members should
    strive to identify who from their country is their representative
    and to see if they can assist in the work of this working group.

4.  The fourth action item was to encourage the adoption of the proposal
    to bring the timing and coordinate systems of GPS and GLONASS into
    agreement.

5.  The last one is to encourage users to contact their receiver
    manufacturers concerning the August, 1999 projected roll-over
    problem and how that will impact their operations.

Mr. Wiggers then thanked the attendees for their participation at the
very successful 10th anniversary CGSIC meeting and closed the meeting.