Publication: Magyar Közlöny
Issue: MK-2007-70 (Year: 2007, Number: 70)
Era: 2004-2010
Section: Melléklet a 2007. évi XLVI. törvényhez
Paragraph Index: 3837

d) potential disturbances due to moving vehicles, aircraft or airport structures. 2.3.2.2 An offset azimuth antenna is normally adjusted such that the zero-degree azimuth is either parallel to the runway centre line or intersects the centre line extended at an operationally preferred point for the intended application. The alignment of the zero-degree azimuth with respect to the runway centre line is transmitted on the auxiliary data. 2.3.3 igh rate approach azimuth. Where the approach proportional guidance sector is plus or minus 40 degrees or less, it is possible to use a higher scanning rate for the azimuth function. The high rate approach azimuth function is available to offset the increase in CMN caused by large beamwidth antennas (e.g. 3 degrees). Reducing the CMN provides two benefits: 1) angle guidance signal-in-space power density requirements can be reduced; and 2) dynamic side-lobe level requirements can be relaxed. ATT G-3 23/11/06 2007/70/II. szám Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications Volume I 23/11/06 ATT G-4 2.3.3.1 In general, this function will reduce the CMN caused by wide bandwidth, uncorrelated sources such as diffuse multipath or receiver thermal noise by a factor of 1/ 3 relative to the basic 13 Hz function rate. However, the full reduction of power density by 1/ 3 cannot be realized for all ground antenna beamwidths because of the requirement to provide sufficient power density for signal acquisition on a single scan basis. The power required for DPSK transmissions may be such that no economies are realized in the ground equipment transmitters by using the higher data rate (see Table G-1).* 2.3.3.2 However, with respect to the CMN performance, the full benefit of the increased data rate can be realized. For example, at the minimum signal levels shown in Table G-2, the azimuth CMN can be reduced from 0.10 degree to 0.06 degree for the 1-degree and the 2-degree beamwidth antennas. 2.3.4 Clearance 2.3.4.1 Where used, clearance pulses are transmitted adjacent to the scanning beam signals at the edges of proportional guidance sector as shown in the timing diagram in Figure G-7. The proportional guidance sector boundary is established at one beamwidth inside the scan start/stop angles, such that the transition between scanning beam and clearance signals occurs outside the proportional guidance sector. Examples of composite waveforms which may occur during transition are shown in Figure G-8. 2.3.4.2 When clearance guidance is provided in conjunction with a narrow beamwidth (e.g. one degree) scanning antenna, the scanning beam antenna is to radiate for 15 microseconds while stationary at the scan start/stop angles. 2.3.4.3 At some locations it may be difficult to satisfy the amplitude criteria of Chapter 3, 3.11.6.2.5.2, because of clearance signal reflections. At these locations the scan sector may be extended. 2.3.4.4 Care is to be taken with respect to the fly-right/fly-left clearance convention change when approaching azimuth stations in an opposite direction (e.g. approach towards the back azimuth antenna). 2.3.5 Approach azimuth monitoring. The intention of monitoring is to guarantee the guidance integrity appropriate for the promulgated approach procedure. It is not intended that all azimuth angles be monitored independently, but that at least one approach azimuth, normally aligned with the extended runway centre line, be monitored and that adequate means be provided to ensure that the performance and integrity of the other azimuth angles are maintained. 2.3.6 Lower coverage limit determination. When the threshold is not in line of sight of the approach azimuth antenna, the height of the lower limit of the approach azimuth coverage in the runway region is determined by simulation and/or field measurements. The lower limit of the azimuth coverage to be published is the height above the runway surface that satisfies the accuracy requirements in Chapter 3, 3.11.4.9.4 as determined by field measurements. 2.3.6.1 If operations require coverage below the coverage limits obtainable from 2.3.6, the azimuth antenna can be offset from the runway centre line and moved toward therunway threshold to cover the touchdown region. The airborne installation must use the azimuth guidance, precision distance and siting coordinates of the ground equipment to compute the centre line approach. 2.3.6.2 The landing minima obtainable from a computed centre line approach are, among other things, a function of the combined reliability and integrity of the MLS approach azimuth, DME/P transponder and airborne equipment. 2.4 Elevation guidance functions 2.4.1 Scanning conventions. Figure G-9 shows the approach elevation scanning conventions. * All tables are located at the end of the Attachment. 2007/70/II. szám Attac ment G Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications 2.4.2 Coverage requirements. Figures G-10A and G-10B illustrate the elevation requirements specified in Chapter 3, 3.11.5.3.2. 2.4.3 Elevation monitoring. The intention of monitoring is to guarantee the guidance integrity appropriate for the promulgated approach procedure. It is not intended that all elevation angles be monitored independently, but that at least one, normally the minimum glide path, be monitored, and that adequate means be provided to ensure that the performance and integrity of the other elevation angles are maintained. 2.5 Accuracy 2.5.1 General 2.5.1.1 System accuracy is specified in Chapter 3, in terms of the path following error (PFE), path following noise (PFN), and control motion noise (CMN). These parameters are intended to describe the interaction of the angle guidance signal with the aircraft in terms which can be directly related to aircraft guidance errors and the flight control system design. 2.5.1.2 The system PFE is the difference between the airborne receiver angle measurement and the true position angle of the aircraft. The guidance signal is distorted by ground and airborne equipment errors and errors due to propagation effects. To assess the suitability of the signal-in-space for aircraft guidance, these errors are viewed in the pertinent frequency region. The PFE includes the mean course error and the PFN. 2.5.2 MLS measurement methodology 2.5.2.1 The PFE, PFN and CMN are evaluated by using the filters defined in Figure G-11. The filter characteristics are based on a wide range of existing aircraft response properties and are considered adequate for foreseeable aircraft designs as well. 2.5.2.2 While the term “PFE” suggests the difference between a desired flight path and the actual flight path taken by an aircraft following the guidance signal, in practice, this error is evaluated by instructing the flight inspection pilot to fly a desired MLS azimuth and recording the difference between the airborne equipment output guidance indication from the PFE filter and the corresponding aircraft position measurement as determined by a suitable position reference. A similar technique using the appropriate filter determines the CMN. 2.5.2.3 Error evaluation. The PFE estimates are obtained at the output of the PFE filter (test point A in Figure G-11). The CMN estimates are obtained at the output of the CMN filter (test point B in Figure G-11). Filter corner frequencies are shown in Figure G-11. 2.5.2.3.1 The PFE and CMN for approach azimuth or for back azimuth are evaluated over any 40-second interval of the flight error record taken within the coverage limits (i.e. T = 40 in Figure G-12). The PFE and CMN for approach elevation are evaluated over any 10-second interval of the flight error record taken within the coverage limits (i.e. T = 10 in Figure G-12). 2.5.2.3.2 The 95 per cent probability requirement is interpreted to be met if the PFE or CMN does not exceed the specified error limits for more than 5 per cent of the evaluation interval (see Figure G-12). 2.5.2.3.3 An alternative flight inspection procedure can be used which does not rely on an absolute reference. In this procedure, only the fluctuating components of the flight record produced at the output of the PFE filter are measured and compared with the PFN standard. The average value of the PFE is assumed to not exceed the mean course alignment specified during the flight inspection period. Therefore, the mean course alignment is added to the PFN measurement for comparison with the specified system PFE. The CMN may be similarly evaluated without accounting for the mean course alignment. ATT G-5 23/11/06 2007/70/II. szám Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications Volume I 2.5.2.4 Ground and airborne instrumentation errors. The instrumentation error induced by the ground and airborne equipment may be determined by measurements taken in an environment which is free from reflected signals or other propagation anomalies which can cause beam envelope perturbations. 2.5.2.4.1 First, the instrumentation errors associated with the standard airborne receiver are determined using a bench test instrument, and the centring error is adjusted to zero. Airborne equipment errors can be measured by recording 40 seconds of data using a standard bench test set. The data can then be divided into four 10-second intervals. The average of each interval is considered to be the PFE while twice the square root of its associated variance is the CMN. Note.— The receiver output may be evaluated using the PFE and CMN filters, if desired. 2.5.2.4.2 Second, this standard receiver is used to measure the total system instrumentation error by operating the ground equipment on an antenna range or in some other reflection-free environment. Since the receiver centring error has been made negligible, the measured PFE can be attributed to the ground equipment. The ground equipment CMN is obtained by subtracting the known standard receiver CMN variance from the CMN variance of the measurement. The average error over a 10-second measurement interval is considered to be the PFE, while twice the square root of the differential variances is considered to be the instrumental CMN. 2.6 Power density 2.6.1 General 2.6.1.1 Three criteria establish the angle power budgets:

Source: https://magyarkozlony.hu/hivatalos-lapok/7e70cec03f34e3c2efd8610b865b65591eafd701/dokumentumok/a55dc160549d57fa4db0035e37c6a6a98dd1a0b9/letoltes