Antenna-based Multipath and Interference

Mitigation for Aeronautical Applications:

Present and Future
O. Esbri-Rodriguez, DLR German Aerospace Center, Germany
M. Philippakis, ERA Technology (Cobham PLC), U.K.
A. Konovaltsev, DLR German Aerospace Center, Germany
F. Antreich, DLR German Aerospace Center, Germany
C. Martel, ONERA, France (formerly with ERA Technology (Cobham PLC), U.K.)
D. Moore, Cobham- ERA Technology (Cobham PLC), U.K.

BIOGRAPHY Cédric Martel joined the antenna department of ERA

Oriol Esbrí-Rodríguez was born in Barcelona, Spain. He
received the M. Sc. degree in Telecommunications
Engineering from the Technical University of Catalonia
(UPC, Barcelona). Since 2003, he is with the German
Aerospace Center. In 2004 he spent a year in the Galileo
project office (European Space Agency / ESTEC, The
Netherlands).
Technology (UK) in 1997. In 2002, he received the PhD
degree following a part-time research programme in
collaboration with ERA Technology and the University of
Surrey. Since January 2006, he works as an antenna
research engineer in the department of electromagnetism
and radar (DEMR) of ONERA in France. His current
research interests include low profile and multifunction
antennas.

Mike Philippakis received the Dipl-Eng from NTU-
Athens Greece (84) in Electrical Eng. He also holds MScs
in Telecommunication Eng and Marine Defence Eng from
the U. of Essex-UK (86) and UCL-UK (87) respectively
as well as the PhD in Antenna Eng from QMC-UK (93).
He initially worked in the Hellenic Naval Research Est.
and the UK Academia. From 1994 he is with ERA (UK)
and currently holds the position of Technical Executive at
the Antenna Systems Dept. ERA is a technology provider
for the Cobham PLC Group of Companies
Andriy Konovaltsev received the Ph.D. in Radio
Engineering from the Kharkov State Technical
University, Ukraine, in 1996. He joined the Institute of
Communications and Navigation of the German
Aerospace Center (DLR) in 2001. His research interests
include multipath and interference mitigation methods by
using antenna arrays techniques, optimisation of GNSS
signal acquisition performance.
Felix Antreich was born in Munich, Germany. He
received the Dipl. -Ing. degree in electrical engineering
from Munich University of Technology (TUM) in 2003.
Since Juli 2003 he is with the German Aerospace Center
(DLR). He is PhD candidate at the TUM.
David Moore joined the Antenna Systems department at
ERA in 1998 after completing a degree in Electronic and
Electrical Engineering at the University of Surrey. In
early 2006 he became a Chartered Engineer (CEng).
Since joining ERA, he has specialised in airborne antenna
technology including GNSS applications.
ABSTRACT
Vulnerability to radio interference and multipath is a well-
known drawback of satellite-based navigation systems.
This is widely accepted as a critical issue for safety-of-life
applications such as precision approach operations in
aviation. Interference and multipath signals enter the
navigation receiver through the antenna which, in order to
minimise such signals, can be used as a spatial- and
frequency-domain filter provided that some critical
antenna parameters are controlled. The most important
parameters are the shape of the antenna pattern with
associated cross-polar levels and polarisation purity as
well as an appropriate in and out-of-band frequency
response. This paper aims at giving an overview of
existing and future antenna technologies to be used with
satellite navigation receivers. Also, we will consider some
auxiliary technologies like resistive or high impedance
ground planes which can be used in combination with
antenna methods for both the above mentioned categories.
Firstly, interference and multipath encountered by an
aviation receiver of a Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS) are briefly discussed. The objective is to set the
scene and to identify the most significant sources of radio
interference, like DME (Distance Measuerment
Equipment) and TACAN (Tactical Air Navigation)
systems, and multipath for which some antenna solutions
may be provided. The critical antenna parameters for each
type of interference will be identified. Secondly, existing
antenna solutions and techniques used nowadays with an
airborne GPS receiver are reviewed. The majority of
existing GNSS antenna solutions are single element
based, which usually provide low costs and low
implementation complexity. We summarise the main
technologies used with single antennas including helical
antennas, patch antennas, stacked patch antennas and
cavity backed antennas. The compatibility of the reviewed
structures with the requirements to critical antenna
parameters determined above will be discussed in detail.
Advanced antenna systems including antenna arrays and
auxiliary technologies will be presented in the paper.
Such technologies are based on the use of absorbing
materials or borrow from the concept of choked antennas
commonly used in ground based geodesy applications.
These will be discussed and assessed in view of
combating interference and multipath. Array system
methodologies currently used in GNSS anti-jam systems
will be described and assessed. Array GNSS systems
offer advanced capabilities to overcome interference at
the expense of size, cost and manufacturing complexity.
They are mostly used in military applications to combat
intentional interference by shaping the antenna radiation
pattern and placing nulls in the direction of interference.
These types of antennas are commonly called CRPA´s
(Controlled Radiation Pattern Arrays) due to their abilities
to tailor their radiation patterns as a function of the
interference threats. In this paper, we will analyse
conformal array geometries with rectangular and circular
grids adjusted to the airframe curvature.
1. INTRODUCTION
Global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) like the
existing U.S. GPS and the coming European Galileo are
foreseen to be central elements of the future navigation
architecture in aviation. Such systems can provide global
coverage and used with their augmentations and inertial
sensors they can also support precision approach
operations without the need for costly ground
infrastructure. Nowadays, the aviation use of GPS is
limited to specific flight phases, up to Non Precision
Approach. The reason is that until now the satellite-based
navigation can offer only a part of the whole performance
envelope required by civil aviation. While the
modernization of GPS and the advent of Galileo will
provide significantly improved satellite navigation
services, there are still a number of operational issues to
be addressed. One of these issues addressed here is poor
GNSS robustness to radio frequency interference and
short-range multipath threats.
The particular feature of satellite-based navigation
systems is that the received signal at the Earth surface has
an extremely low power level. The GNSS signals can lie
down to 25dB below the noise level in outdoor
applications. GNSS spread-spectrum modulating
technique provides some inherent interference rejection
capability but this rejection can easily become inadequate
to remove the effects of strong radio frequency
interference (RFI). The interfering radio signals can be
generated intentionally, like in jamming situations, or
unintentionally by systems such as on-board or ground
aeronautical equipment. The RFI effect on a GNSS
receiver can be effectively modelled as an increase of the
effective noise floor and the corresponding decrease of
the equivalent carrier-to-noise C/N0 ratio of received
navigation signals. In the worst case, the GNSS receiver
encountering strong interference might not be able to
track sufficient number of satellite signals to obtain the
navigation solution. But even if the navigation solution is
available, the navigation accuracy of the victim receiver is
degraded due to RFI and might not be sufficient to meet
the requirements. This raises continuity and integrity
issues for safety-critical aviation applications.
Multipath is another significant error source in high
precision GNSS applications. In aviation, multipath is
widely adopted as a potential threat in such challenging
navigation scenarios like precision approach and landing.
The multipath error is highly localised, it cannot be
removed by differential processing and is hard to be
handled. Especially hard to remove is the effect of very
short delayed multipath echoes originated in the
receiver’s antenna neighbourhood.
2. AERONAUTICAL GNSS SIGNAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Future airborne multi-frequency GPS/Galileo aviation
receivers will have to cope with strong in-band and out-
of-band pulsed radio interference in L5/E5a and E5b
frequency bands caused by DME/TACAN system.
Another in-band interference source on L5/E5 is the
military JTIDS/MIDS system.
Additionally, because of extremely low power of GNSS
satellite signals airborne avionics might potentially
interfere with the GNSS receiver by generating high-order
harmonics or producing out-of-band emissions. The
potential interference sources include: HF and VHF air-
ground transceivers, air-ground radiotelephone and some • to have sufficient RF/IF filter rejection of near-
others. Additional interference can be potentially band and out-of-band pulsed interferences of on-
produced by the aggregate effect of unwanted emissions board DME/TACAN interrogator;
of portable electronic devices used in aircraft.
• to mitigate effect of narrow-band radio
The pulsed in-band DME/TACAN interference caused by interference that can be potentially produced by
ground beacons is considered to be the most severe RFI high-order harmonics of on-board avionics,
threat that appears in all identified interference scenarios. ground aeronautical systems and TV and radio
This interference depends strongly on geographical broadcast;
location and the flight level of an aircraft. The worst case
interference is expected when the airplane flies at level
40000 ft over so called “hot spots” where a large number Table 1 presents the importance of the main antenna
of strong DME/TACAN signals are within the radio parameters in relation to specific interference threats
horizon of the victim GNSS receiver. There are three such Co- X-
Interference Co-
polar X-polar polar Shape of
hot spots in USA and one in Europe where the C N 0 sources / polar
at at at spectral
antenna at
degradation of the GNSS signals in the receiver can reach parameters zenith
horizo zenith horizo response
10 dB value. At lower flight heights, the number of n n
“visible” DME/TACAN beacons decreases which results DME/TACAN ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
in less interference effect. However, in-band VHF radio (on-
DME/TACAN is still expected to be the main interference
board and ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
ground-based)
contributor. Satcom emitters ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
Military JTIDS/MIDS system would not be itself a great Ground based
radar ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
source of interference as long as its signals pass through
the receiver front end properly. Since JTIDS/MIDS TV harmonics ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
Broadcast radio
emitters do not exceed 200W, saturation effects inside
harmonics ¯ 9 ¯ 9 9
GNSS receivers due to high power pulses are expected to
result in less degradation compared to the DME emitters Table 1: Interference sources versus antenna parameters
radiating with a maximum of 2kW on board and up to
20kW in ground site emitters. Additionally, the duty cycle
Concerning multipath errors, results presented in [2] for
of JTIDS/MIDS is strongly regulated in peace time.
the case of the aeronautical final approach scenario using
However, in presence of the DME/TACAN interference,
the channel model in [1] show that the major error
the JTIDS/MIDS signals contribute to the aggregate
contributor is the fuselage reflection, although it has a
pulsed interference and if pulse blanking is already
very short delay (1.5 ns). When close to the ground or
implemented as mitigation method countering
during taxiing, the GNSS signal echoes reflected off of
DME/TACAN, JTIDS/MIDS will add its part to the
the ground or diffracted by objects on the ground become
overall blanking duty cycle. A combined test scenario can
a significant error component. The main multipath
be proposed mixing DME/TACAN and JTIDS/MIDS
sources in different flight phases are summarized in Table
pulsed interference sources for an advanced realistic
2.
testing approach.
The continuous interference sources in L5/E5 and
partially in L1 are high-order harmonics and unwanted
out-of-band emissions of on-board avionics and some Large
ground aeronautical equipment (ATC Mode S scale
Aircraft Large
Main natural
transponders, HF and VHF air-ground transceivers, air- multipath
body
featu-res Ground Buildings
vehicles
ground radiotelephone, ILS localizer and some others) (Wings, and
sources (moun-
Tail) aircraft
and high-order harmonics of TV and radio broadcast. tains,
cliffs)
Based on types of identified unintentional radio En route 9 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
interference threats it can be concluded that for reliable
operation the multi-frequency GPS/Galileo receiver
Approach 9 9 ¯ ¯ ¯
Landing/
should be able: Take-off 9 9 9 9 9
• to mitigate effect of pulsed in-band (L5/E5) Taxiing 9 9 9 9 9
interference of DME/TACAN and JTIDS/MIDS
Table 2: Multipath scenarios and sources.
systems;
3. STATE-OF-THE-ART ANTENNA-BASED
TECHNIQUES FOR MULTIPATH AND
INTERFERENCE MITIGATION

Existing state-of-art antennas include single element

antennas, arrays and others electromagnetic structure
solutions. Single element antennas are usually low cost
and easy to make. A variety of single element antennas
exists:
• Helical antennas
• Patch antennas
• Stacked patch antennas
• Cavity antennas
• Crossed structure antennas Figure 2: Radiation pattern of the air-filled QHA
• Intelligent antennas without ground plane
The form of the antenna is directly linked to its properties.
For instance, patches are usually planar structures, having
good pattern characteristics at zenith but not so good at Patch antennas (see Figure 3) are planar structures that
low elevation angles. inherently radiate in the forward hemisphere and have a
directivity value of 5 dBiC or more. They are less able to
Helical antennas, single or quadrifilar (see Figure 1), are keep LOS of near horizon satellites (see Figure 4) but are
well known for their excellent circular polarisation (CP) more immune to multipath from low angles. Although
properties. They exhibit good CP for a broad range of not as good as helical antennas in terms of polarisation,
angles. In addition, they have broad radiation patterns (as patch antennas can achieve suitable CP for a broad range
shown in Figure 2) suitable for omnidirectional of directions. The frequency response of a typical patch
requirements. Generally, quadrifilar helix antennas antenna is usually a single band. Circular polarisation can
(QHA) are mounted vertically and have good radiation be achieved with a single feed by intentionally destroying
characteristics along the horizon. As a consequence, they the symmetry of the patch structure. Alternatively, a
are suitable for keeping Line-of-Sight (LOS) of satellites symmetrical structure (square, circular patch or annular
positioned near the horizon. At the same time, they are ring) is excited with 2 or 4 orthogonal feeds.
likely to pickup co-polar multipath from these directions,
even though they severely attenuate the predominant
cross-polar owing to their excellent polarisation properies.
Due to the antenna geometry, there is a noticeable Truncation
protrusion above the aircraft structure. Hence, they are
not low profile, but there are ways to blend these antennas
into the overall airframe structure.

Feed position
~30 mm

Truncation
~ 50 mm

Figure 3: Truncated patch geometry

Figure 1: Quadrifilar helix antenna

 Figure 5: Photo of the ERA dual band open cavity GPS
antenna

The frequency response of the prototype cavity backed

Figure 4: Radiation pattern of the truncated patch antenna can be seen in Figure 6. The curves show the
return loss at the two input ports. In addition, the
isolation between the ports is represented. It can be seen
Cavity antennas usually consist of one or more cavities. that the operational bandwidth of the antenna is 20 MHz
The side of the cavity may be closed or opened. Closed at L2 and 40MHz at L1. The isolation is about -40 dB at
cavity configurations can potentially be very thin and easy L2 and -13 dB at L1.
to conform to the curved surface of aircraft. The
bandwidth of the antenna is dependent on the volume of
the cavity. Larger cavities have the capability to generate
larger bandwidth. However, the operational bandwidth of
the antenna may be compromised if the height of the
cavity is too small. The basic closed cavity antenna is a
single band antenna.
The open cavity antenna is an alternative configuration to
the closed cavity antenna. It is based on the same
principle except that the sides of the cavity are not fully
closed. Instead, the sides of the cavity are left
predominantly opened. Because the sides of the cavity
are left open to radiation, the antenna can radiate from the
top and from the sides of the cavity, improving the
antenna efficiency. The main advantage of the open
cavity antenna is its large operational bandwidth
performance as compared to the closed cavity antenna for
a given element size. The prototype of triple-band open Figure 6: Return loss and isolation of the ERA dual band
cavity antenna developed by ERA can be seen in Figure open cavity GPS antenna
5. The antenna operates predominantly in the GPS L1 and
L2 frequency bands. The lateral dimensions of the
antenna are approximately 40 mm × 40 mm and the
Stacked patches are planar structures. They have similar
height is < 20 mm.
properties to the single patch antennas except that they are
arranged and fed in such a way as to provide a multi-band
response. Typically, the GPS/Galileo frequency
requirements may be satisfied with 2 levels of stacked
patches. The first level of patch provides a resonance at
the L1 band, while the second level provides a resonance
at the E5 band, covering both the E5a and the E5b bands.
Figure 7 shows a prototype antenna consisting of two
stacked patches excited by four probes. The antenna is
made of low cost epoxy and glass loaded substrates. The Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the investigated
antenna is compact and compatible with the current structures.
ARINC 743A (Aeronautical Radio INCorporated, see [3]) Co- X- X-
envelope. The antenna size is 63 mm × 63 mm × 11 mm. Co- Shape of
polar polar polar
polar at spectral
The frequency response of this antenna covers the at
horizon
at at
response
GPS/Galileo bands with a VSWR (Voltage Standing zenith zenith horizon
Single
Wave Ratio) better than 1.5 (see Figure 8). The antenna
QHA 9 9 9 9 ?
possesses good CP characteristic where the axial ratio on Stacked
axis is better than 2 dB in the frequency bands of interest. patches 9 ? 9 9 9
The antenna provides also good coverage over a broad Cavity
range of angles. The pattern presents omnidirectional backed 9 ¯ 9 ¯ ¯
antenna
properties in azimuth. Stacked
annular 9 ? 9 9 9
patches
Cross
dipoles
(Droopy 9 ¯ 9 ¯ ?
or
straight)
Cross
slots 9 9 9 ? ?
Table 1: Antenna options versus performance parameters

The antennas have been categorised into the following

qualities: the ARINC 743A compliant antennas, the dual
band antennas and the miscellaneous antennas. Stacked
Figure 7: Full size probe fed stacked patches antenna patches remain the most common type of GNSS antennas
for avionics platforms due to their low-profile
characteristics.
The antennas offer a range of capabilities including single
and dual band operability, broadband circular
polarisation, and high or low pattern sensitivity near the
horizon.
Stacked patches remain the most common type of GNSS
Multi-standard antenna: Mk1 antennas for avionics platforms due to their low-profile
6
characteristics. More expensive antenna systems such as
5.5
arrays offer enhanced interference and multipath
5 mitigation capability.
4.5
4
4. NOVEL TECHNIQUES
3.5
VSWR

3 The novel antenna-based mitigation strategies essentially

2.5 1.211 GHz focus on controlling the antenna pattern such that it is not
1.166
2 GHz 1.5 receptive to spurious signals, i.e. those reflected from the
1.2
1.5 airframe or transmitted directly from other antennas. The
1 1.565 GHz 1.585 GHz cross-polar pattern is as important as the co-polar pattern
0.5 1.2 1.1 in this respect and is often affected far more significantly
by the presence of scattering sources such as the airframe
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8
itself or ground based structures.
Frequency (GHz) A number of promising antenna structures that could be
Figure 8: VSWR over GPS/Galileo frequency bands used to control the antenna pattern and therefore should
be the subject of further investigation have been
identified:
Fixed Beam Antennas: Primarily it is necessary to
develop fixed beam antennas that are fully compatible
with multi-standard specifications. The specifications
reflect the minimum mitigation required for acceptable
operation. Hence providing compatible yet simple and
low cost structures is the first step required to achieve.
High Impedance Ground Planes: These are essentially
low profile alternatives to the commonly used choke
planes. They can be used as a means to mitigate both the
interference and multipath in a GNSS antenna system.
HIS usually operate over a limited frequency range,
however, it is feasible to assume that different designs can
be blended for more broadband operation. In antenna
design, ground planes are commonly placed below the
radiating structure to redirect the energy into the upper
half-space. This has the effect of improving the antenna
gain and the front to back ratio of the radiation pattern.
High impedance surfaces have two important
characteristics. First, they reflect incident waves with
zero phase shifts and secondly, they suppress surface
waves propagating on the ground plane. Current work
focused on these structures with the following aims:
• Development of Low profile realistic structures
• Detailed evaluation of performance figures
• Assessment of installation and through life
maintenance issues
Adaptive Arrays: Anti-jam arrays are primarily used in
military applications as a means to combat interference.
CRPA’s (Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas) can
mitigate intentional and non-intentional interference by
shaping the antenna beam and placing nulls in the
direction of the interference source. An all-digital
approach offers the greatest flexibility and robustness in a
wide range of interference scenarios.
In order to assess the interference and multipath
mitigation performance of antenna arrays in a typical
aviation application, a conformal array structures of 4 and
7 antenna elements adapted to the airframe curvature are
designed (see Figure 9 for the 7-element conformal
array).
Figure 9: Seven element conformal array
In order to compare the performance of the conformal
antenna array structures with the same array
configurations on planar structures, they have been
simulated using two array processing techniques: the
Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR)
beamforming, and the Space-Alternating Generalized
Expectation Maximization (SAGE) algorithm,which is an
iterative method to calculate the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator (MLE) for jointly estimating signal parameters
as time delay, complex aplitude, and the spatial signature
or direction-of arrival (DOA) of superimposed signal
components (LOS signal and a number of multipath
signals). Both techniques have been applied already for
navigations signals in [5] and [4].
MVDR beamforming techniques are generally able to
provide good trade-off between performance and
complexity. When adapting the weights of the digital
beamformer, the algorithm minimises the output power of
the beamformer subject to a linear constraint which
preserves that the desired line-of-sight signal is not
disturbed. The obtained simulation results for MVDR
show that antenna arrays can improve the multipath and
interference mitigation for GNSS receivers by increasing
the ratio between signal power and multipath (or
interference) power..For a fixed number of elements, the
performance of conformal and planar arrays is
comparable (see Figure 10 and Figure 11)
In Figure 12 the performance of the SAGE algorithm
using a 4-element planar or conformal array, and a 7-
element planar or conformal array is compared to the
performance of the Maximum Likelihood one path
estimator (ML-P1) which gives the performance of a
conventional navigation receiver using a single antenna.
In Figure 12 the root-mean square (RMS) estimation error
of the delay of the LOS signal versus the relative delay of
the multipath signal is depicted for a GPS C/A code signal
with a one-sided bandwidth of 1.023 MHz. We assume a
static channel with C N 0 = 45 dB-Hz and a signal-to-
multipath ratio (SMR) of 5 dB. The azimuth angles of the
LOS signal and the multipath are 102° and 26°
respectively and the elevation angles are 60° and 18°
respectively. The LOS signal and the multipath are
assumed to be in-phase, which can be considered as one
of the worst cases. Correlation is coherently averaged
over 200 code periods, which means that the pre-
correlation integration time is 200 ms. Figure 12 clearly
shows that the SAGE algorithm is capable of significantly
reducing the RMS estimation error of the delay of the
LOS signal compared to a conventional navigation
receiver. However, the 4-element conformal array design
gives the worst performance of the four array
configurations for the simulated scenario.
 90° [dB]

90°
180° 0°
60°

30°

0°
270°
Figure 10 : Radiation pattern of the planar 7-element Figure 12 : Root-Mean Square (RMS) estimation error
array after applying the MVDR beamformer. Elevation for the delay of the LOS signal for different array
angles in white, azimuth angles in black. configurations and the ML-P1
[dB]
90°
Although promising, it is not felt at this moment that
adaptive arrays are sufficiently mature solutions for
commercial applications. Besides the large number of
technical issues that need to be addressed in order to
develop a GPS/Galileo compatible solution (no military
system actually meets these broad band requirements) one
180° has also to clearly demonstrate that this solution and this
90° 0° alone can enable challenging navigation tasks such as a
precision approach. Only then, perhaps the financial
60° implications of adaptive arrays can be tolerated.
Other Novel Antenna Structures: Other solutions can
30° open new avenues in mitigating interference problems. A
number of promising and potentially low cost structures
0° exist that could be considered. For instance consider a
simple element antenna with the capability of selectively
270° adjusting its polarisation characteristics. In this case the
Figure 11: Radiation pattern of the conformal 7-element polarisation can be varied so as to offer maximum
array. MVDR beamformer. Elevation angles in white, mismatch to the dominant interfering mode while
azimuth angles in black. presenting acceptable polarisation state for the desired
direct satellite signals.
Generally, every mitigation methodology has to be
assessed not only from the narrow view of the
incremental antenna benefits but from the view of the real
system improvement and in particular what these benefits
really mean to the commercial aviation industry in terms
of the new navigational options that these antenna
technologies will translate to.
5. CONCLUSIONS
[2] Macabiau, C., Moriella, L., Raimondi, M., Dupouy,
In general, interference and multipath can be mitigated C., Steingaß, A., Lehner, A.: GNSS Airborne Multipath
with an antenna featuring some low back lobe levels, Errors Distribution Using the High Resolution
good polarisation purity, and a dedicated tailoring of the Aeronautical Channel Model and Comparison to SARPs
in and out-of-band frequency response. Error Curve. Institute of Navigation National Technical
Meeting ION NTM 2006, Monterey, USA, January 18-20,
Existing state-of-art antennas include single element
2006.
antennas, arrays and others electromagnetic structure
solutions. Single element antennas are usually low cost
[3] ARINC Characteristic 743 Airborne Global
and easy to make. A variety of single element antennas
Positioning System Receiver, March 1990
have been presented. The considered antennas offer a
range of capabilities including single and dual band
[4] Antreich, F.; Esbri-Rodriguez, O.; Nossek, J.A.;
operability, broadband CP, high or low pattern sensitivity
Utschick, W. (2005): Estimation of Synchronization
near the horizon. The compatibility of the structures has
Parameters using SAGE in a GNSS-Receiver, ION GNSS
been discussed in detail and specific practical examples
2005, Long Beach CA, USA, September 123-16, 2005.
have been presented. A review of the state-of-art
commercial antennas has also been carried out. Stacked
[5] Konovaltsev, A., Belabbas, B., Denks, H., Hornbostel,
patches remain the most common type of GNSS antennas
A.: Adaptive Antenna Against Multipath?. 8th European
for avionics platforms due to their low-profile
Navigation Conference GNSS 2004, Rotterdam, The
characteristics.
Netherlands, Mai 2004, Netherlands Institute of
The antenna array technology is obviously Navigation (NIN), Proceedings of the GNSS 2004.
computationally intensive and can be high in cost and
power consumption using currently available devices.
The potential of this method has been established, yet it
remains to be seen if the adaptive array methodology is
compatible with cost targets for commercial avionics
applications. This includes not only the cost of the
equipment but also installation, maintenance as well as
volume, weight and power consumption constraints.
However, the continual improvements in device
technology offer the potential for dramatically lower
power and cost modules in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported by the European

Commission, under the ANASTASIA project (Airborne
New and Advanced Satellite Techniques & Technologies
in A System Integrated Approach). The European project
ANASTASIA aims at carrying out research, evaluation
and cost benefit analysis of potential future aeronautical
communication and navigation technologies (please visit
the web page http://www.anastasia-fp6.org for more
information).

REFERENCES

[1] Steingaß, A., Lehner, A., Pérez-Fontán, F., Kubista,

E., Martín, M.J., Arbesser-Rastburg, B.: The High
Resolution Aeronautical Multipath Navigation Channel.
Institute of Navigation National Technical Meeting ION
NTM 2004, San Diego, USA, January 26-28, 2004.