Article citation information:
Mrozik, M.,
Kozuba, J., Krasuski, K., Ćwiklak, J., Bakuła, M., Beldjilali, B. New
strategy for the designation of the integrity parameter in SBAS positioning in
air transport. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2024, 122,
239-252. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2024.122.13.
Magda MROZIK[1],
Jarosław KOZUBA[2],
Kamil KRASUSKI[3],
Janusz ĆWIKLAK[4],
Mieczysław BAKUŁA[5],
Bilal BELDJILALI[6]
NEW STRATEGY THE FOR DESIGNATION OF THE INTEGRITY PARAMETER IN SBAS
POSITIONING IN AIR TRANSPORT
Summary. The
article shows the results of a study on the determination of SBAS satellite
positioning integrity parameters as a HPL and VPL protection levels. To this
end, a modified algorithm was developed to determine the HPL and VPL protection
levels from a common aircraft position navigation solution based on EGNOS and
SDCM augmentation systems. The developed mathematical scheme was verified on
real GNSS kinematic data recorded by two onboard Septentrio AsterRx2i and
Trimble Alloy receivers installed on a Diamond DA 20-C aircraft. Based on the
conducted tests, it was found that the HPL parameter does not exceed 12.24 m,
while respectively the VPL does not exceed 18.01 m. In addition, in the course
of the study it was found that the proposed EGNOS+SDCM solution improves the
HPL/VPL integrity determination in relation to the EGNOS solution by
8÷66%. The mathematical scheme used in the study was also applied to
designation the HPL/VPL terms for the UAV platform. The obtained results of the
HPL/VPL values for the positioning of the aircraft and the UAV platform show a
high efficiency of the developed algorithm for improving the integrity
parameter.
Keywords: SBAS,
integrity, EGNOS, SDCM
1.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforcement
of plates by rod systems is widely used in engineering, especially in aircraft Four basic parameters were
applied to assess the quality of GNSS positioning in aviation, namely:
availability, accuracy, integrity, and continuity [1]. For SBAS systems, the
most important and also key parameter is the integrity of aircraft positioning
[2]. According to ICAO Annex 10, integrity term is defined as: a measure of
confidence in the accuracy of the information provided by the system. Integrity
includes the ability of the system to provide the user with timely and
appropriate warnings (alerts) when the system should not be used for a
particular operation (or phase of flight) [3]. There are the following types of
warnings [4]:
-
AL (Alert Limit), denoting that the error must
not be higher than a given value X without issuing a warning,
-
PL (Protection Level) - a statistical error set
to ensure that the probability of an absolute position error exceeding this
figure is less than or equal to the target integrity risk. When the protection
level exceeds the required alert limit during flight, the aircraft may not use
the GNSS system for navigation,
-
time to alarm - maximum permissible time from
the start of the navigation system beyond tolerance until the period when the
device issues a warning,
-
integrity risk - indicates a degree of
likelihood that at any point in time an error in the position will reach an
alert limit.
The integrity
of positioning of augmentation systems is determined on the basis of the
HPL/VPL terms, which express the levels of technical safety using the GNSS
sensor in the conducted flight operations [3, 5]. The HPL parameter relates to
the horizontal plane and is defined by the radius of the circle as the base of
the cylinder figure in which the position of the aircraft in the horizontal
plane is determined at a confidence level of 95% [6, 7]. The VPL parameter, on
the other hand, relates to the vertical plane and determines the height of the
cylinder figure in which the determined aircraft position is located in the
vertical plane for a confidence level of 95% [6, 7]. In addition, limit alerts have been set for both the HPL and VPL
parameters, informing of the acceptable limits for position errors in
the vertical and horizontal planes. A HAL
parameter was defined for the HPL and a VAL parameter for the VPL [8]. In
accordance with the ICAO Annex 10 for the SBAS APV-I approach procedure, a HAL boundary alert is specified of 40 m and
a VAL vertical boundary alert of 50 m. For the SBAS APV-II approach procedure,
the HAL is 40 m and the VAL is 20 m, respectively [9]. Table 1 shows a summary
of the HAL and VAL parameters for both the SBAS APV approach procedures. It is
worth noting that in both SBAS APV approach procedures, the value for the KH
factor equals 6.00 and for the Kv
factor, it is equal to 5.33.
Tab.
1
Values
of HAL and VAL term for both the SBAS APV approach procedures [9]
|
Parameter |
SBAS APV-I |
SBAS APV-II |
|
Integrity |
40 m for horizontal axes |
40 m for horizontal axes |
|
50 m for vertical axis |
20 m for horizontal axis |
2. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ANALYSIS
SBAS
satellite augmentation systems are an essential feature in improving the
quality of GNSS positioning in aviation. By determining the parameters of
quality of the SBAS satellite signal, it is possible to improve the
determination of the aircraft position. These attributes of the augmentation
systems have contributed to a rapid increase of commonly available SBAS systems
in the global market. Chapter Two presents the state of expertise with regard
to determining HPL/VPL protection levels carried out in Poland and abroad.
Experiments
relating to the determination of the HPL/VPL protection levels have been
carried out in air transport. Scientific articles [6, 7] have proposed the use
of EGNOS to define HPL/VPL protection levels during a flight test. In particular,
paper [10] investigates the possibility of determining the HPL/VPL terms using
the SBAS augmentation system for a single GNSS reference station. The research
experiment was conducted for a GNSS reference station mounted in the vicinity
of Rzeszów Airport. The protection levels were calculated in specialist
Pegasus software using GPS observations and differential corrections from EGNOS
satellites. Similar studies were also carried out over a different period of
time at Dęblin and Olsztyn Dajtki airfields [7, 11].
Studies on
the integrity of EGNOS positioning as an SBAS augmentation systems have also
been carried out in Europe and North Africa. Scientific articles [12, 13, 14,
15, 16] deal with aerial research tests on the positioning of the EGNOS augmentation
system over Europe. For example, article [14] investigates the positioning
quality parameters of a GPS+EGNOS solution during an approach procedure in
Amsterdam. Based on the obtained findings, the authors of the study stress that
the integrity requirements have been met for the SBAS APV approach. For studies
conducted in North Africa, research papers [17, 18] analyse EGNOS positioning
in Algeria. Articles [17, 18] observe that by using a GPS+EGNOS solution, there
is a significant improvement in positioning quality parameters, including
integrity. In addition, the implementation of RIMS stations in Algeria has the
potential to significantly improve EGNOS correction coverage across North
Africa. Moreover, paper [17] emphasizes the fact that, for the moment, in
Algeria, the EGNOS augmentation system can be applied to implement the SBAS APV
procedure.
Based on the literature
review, it can be stated that:
-
most of the air research determining the
integrity of positioning in Poland has been conducted using the EGNOS system,
-
the subject of SBAS positioning lies in the
scope of interest of numerous Polish and foreign research institutions,
-
the HPL/VPL protection levels were calculated in
static GPS measurements and kinematic measurements during a flight test.
Therefore,
currently there are insufficient data in research regarding the determination
of HPL/VPL protection levels based on a joint solution from EGNOS and SDCM
systems as a SBAS systems. According to an analysis of the available literature
in Poland and Europe, experiments were conducted which considered only one type
of SBAS augmentation systems, mainly EGNOS. Thus, the paper proposes a
navigation solution to improve the integrity of SBAS positioning through their
interoperability. For this purpose, a modified formula was applied to determine
the integrity of HPL/VPL positioning using a combination of EGNOS+SDCM
navigation solution. The proposed model is a new approach to designation of the
HPL/VPL protection levels. The authors’ contribution to the article is as
follows:
-
development of a modified algorithm for
determining the integrity of HPL/VPL during
a flight test for the needs of air transport,
-
the application of integrity computing strategy
using navigational data from two SBAS systems, not merely on one system as
previously,
-
demonstrating the validity of improving the
integrity determination from the EGNOS+SDCM solution with respect to the EGNOS
results,
-
checking and testing the developed algorithm in
UAV positioning.
The
article is divided into seven chapters, with an attached list of scientific
literature at the end.
3. RESEARCH
METHOD
The basic
mathematical equation for computing the integrity parameters can be expressed
as follows [2, 3, 19]:
where:
Equation
(1) shows only the protection levels determination for a single SBAS system. In
the case of integrity determinations from several SBAS systems, position errors
where:
Equation (1)
can therefore be transformed to its initial form:
and then into its final
form:
The HPL/VPL terms from
equation (4) determine the levels of integrity for performing flight operations
in the horizontal and vertical planes, respectively. HPL and VPL values in
accordance with ICAO requirements are given in metres [2].
4. RESEARCH
EXPERIMENT
The research experiment was
conducted as part of the implementation of a test flight using the Diamond DA
20-C aircraft on the Olsztyn-Suwałki-Olsztyn route. The purpose of the
flight was to determine the quality of SBAS positioning in air transport in the
area of north-eastern Poland. The starting and finishing point of the route was
the civil airport EPOD (Olsztyn Dajtki). The airfield has had GNSS approach
procedures since 2014 [20]. Two dual-frequency geodetic receivers were mounted
on board the aircraft: Septentrio AsterRx2i and Trimble Alloy, with an accuracy
class of 1-2 m for the SBAS positioning module. The onboard receivers recorded
GPS satellite data in RINEX format with an interval of 1 second. The SBAS
corrections from the EGNOS and SDCM systems were downloaded from the real-time
server: ftp://serenad-public.cnes.fr [21]. The acquired GNSS satellite data
were applied to calculate the aircraft coordinates, next to determine the
SBAS positioning accuracy and finally to determine the HPL/VPL integrity
parameters according to equations (1-4). The RTKLIB v.2.4.2 programme [22],
available at http://rtklib.com [23], was used to determine the aircraft
coordinates using the Single Point Positioning method. In turn, the accuracy
and integrity of SBAS positioning was calculated in Scilab v.6.0.0 programming
language [24] using the authors’ own commands in script. It should be
added that navigational calculations were made only for the approach stage of
the aircraft at EPOD airfield. The results for the HPL/VPL parameters
calculated according to the mathematical equations (1-4) will be presented in Chapter
5.
5. RESULTS
Fig. 1.
Integrity of HPL positioning of the solution EGNOS+SDCM from
the Septentrio AsterRx2i receiver
In contrast, Fig. 2 shows the integrity findings in the
form of the VPL parameter during an approach to landing. VPL values ranged
from 2.41 m to 18.01 m, with an average value of 11.63 m. As with the HPL
parameter, the VPL integrity values do
not exceed the VAL horizontal alarm limit, whose values are 50 m for the SBAS
APV-I procedure and 20 m for the SBAS APV-II procedure, respectively [3].
Therefore, the integrity of the SBAS
meets the required standards, making it suitable for supporting approach
operations. In Figures 1 and 2, a rapid change in the HPL/VPL integrity
values can be seen, especially around epoch 42400 s. This is due to the change
in positioning accuracy of aircraft coordinates. According to equation (4), a
change in positioning accuracy affects the level of integrity. Based on Figures
1 and 2, it should be statement that the application of the EGNOS+SDCM
mathematical model made it possible to achieve the highest HPL/VPL values of
approximately 18 m. This means that, with the EGNOS+SDCM mathematical model, it
is possible to increase the level of safety in ongoing flight operations.
Fig. 2.
Integrity of VPL positioning from the solution EGNOS+SDCM from
the Septentrio AsterRx2i receiver
Fig. 3. Integrity of
HPL positioning based on solution EGNOS+SDCM from
the Trimble Alloy receiver
Figure 3
presents the values of the HPL parameters for the EGNOS+SDCM solution during an
approach procedure for the Trimble Alloy receiver. The HPL results ranged from
0.64 m to 12.24 m, with an average HPL of 5.46 m. The obtained HPL integrity
results from the Trimble Alloy receiver are at a similar level to the results
obtained from the Septentrio AsterRx2i receiver.
In turn, Fig.
4 shows the integrity results obtained from the EGNOS+SDCM mathematical
algorithm in the form of the VPL parameter during an approach to landing from
the Trimble Alloy receiver. The VPL values ranged between 0.05 m and 15.04 m,
with an average value of 5.50 m. Comparing the results of the integrity of VPL
positioning for both receivers, it can be concluded that the integrity of
determining the VPL parameter is 51% higher for the Trimble Alloy receiver than
the Septentrio AsterRx2i. This is connected with the fact that the accuracy of
ellipsoidal height determination is higher for the Trimble Alloy receiver than
for the Septentrio AsterRx2i.
In summary,
the HPL/VPL integrity results did not exceed ICAO technical standards for both
SBAS APV procedures. The leaps in the HPL/VPL integrity in Figures 3 and 4 are
due to the change in the aircraft positioning accuracy value according to
equation (2). Furthermore, with reference to equation (2), an increase in the
value of position errors results in an increase in the level of integrity of HPL/VPL.
Fig. 4. Integrity of
VPL positioning based on solution EGNOS+SDCM from
the Trimble Alloy receiver
6. DISCUSSION
Chapter 6 presents a
discussion of the presented research method and the obtained research results.
In the first step of the discussion, the results of the obtained HPL and VPL
protection levels from EGNOS+SDCM solution were compared to a single SBAS
solution, e.g., only to EGNOS system. The HPL and VPL results from the
EGNOS+SDCM mathematical scheme were calculated using equation (4), while the
EGNOS solution used the equation (1) for a single SBAS system. Table 2 lists
the obtained comparative HPL/VPL findings.
Tab. 2
Comparison of HPL/VPL values
based on EGNOS+SDCM and EGNOS solutions only
|
Integrity parameter |
Receiver |
EGNOS+SDCM solution [m] |
EGNOS solution [m] |
Conclusions |
|
HPL |
Septentrio AsterRx2i |
0.55 ÷ 11.71 |
0.88 ÷ 12.74 |
HPL from EGNOS+SDCM positioning model improved by 8÷36%
compared to EGNOS solution |
|
VPL |
Septentrio AsterRx2i |
2.41 ÷ 18.01 |
7.20 ÷ 22.18 |
VPL from EGNOS+SDCM positioning model improved by 18÷66%
compared to EGNOS solution |
|
HPL |
Trimble Alloy |
0.64 ÷ 12.24 |
0.78 ÷ 14.42 |
HPL from EGNOS+SDCM positioning model improved by 15÷18%
compared to EGNOS solution |
|
VPL |
Trimble Alloy |
0.05 ÷ 15.04 |
0.10 ÷ 17.87 |
VPL from EGNOS+SDCM positioning model improved by 16÷50%
compared to EGNOS solution |
The HPL parameter value from the EGNOS+SDCM solution
was improved from 8÷36% for the Septentrio AsterRx2i receiver and from
15÷18% for the second Trimble Alloy receiver with regard to the EGNOS
solution. Furthermore, the VPL value from the EGNOS+SDCM solution was improved
from 18÷66% for the Septentrio AsterRx2i receiver and from 16÷50%
for the second Trimble Alloy receiver relative to the EGNOS solution. The
presented algorithm in equation (4) is therefore valid in the analysis of
positioning integrity using several SBAS systems in navigation. The integrity
results obtained for the HPL and VPL safety parameters enable to formulate a
conclusion that the implementation of the EGNOS+SDCM positioning model is more
efficient than in the case of using an EGNOS solution.
In the following discussion, a summary of the of
HPL/VPL levels based on EGNOS+SDCM solution is presented in relation to an
analysis of the available expertise. The results obtained for the HPL/VPL integrity
parameters are lower or on a similar level as in the research papers [2, 6, 9,
14, 15, 16, 17]. This only proves the correctness of the proposed mathematical
algorithm for equations (2-4). This is of particular significance as the
research papers [2, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17] used a single SBAS, i.e., the EGNOS
augmentation system. In addition, the lower the integrity level of the HPL/VPL,
the higher is the accuracy of SBAS positioning, which translates into position
error values.
The paper also calculates the resultant HPL/VPL integrity
values for the two Septentrio AsterRx2i and Trimble Alloy receivers used in the
discussed air test. For this purpose, the HPL/VPL levels were determined from a
mathematical relationship:
where:
Table 3 presents the results of the resultant protection
levels for the two Septentrio AsterRx2i and Trimble Alloy receivers. Within the
implemented flight test, the resultant integrity value of
Tab. 3
Resultant values of HPL/VPL
integrity based on EGNOS+SDCM solution for
both GNSS receivers
|
Integrity parameter |
Minimum value [m] |
Maximum value [m] |
|
HPLres |
0.59 |
11.98 |
|
VPLres |
1.23 |
16.53 |
The final
discussion focused on the reproducibility of the presented research method.
Therefore, equation (4) was used to determine the integrity levels of HPL/VPL
during a flight test executed with a UAV platform. The flight test was
performed in 2020 nearby Warsaw. An AsteRx-m2 UAS receiver was mounted on
the UAV vehicle to record GNSS navigation data. This made it possible to
implement a mathematical algorithm (2-4) for integrity calculations within the
EGNOS+SDCM positioning method. Figure 5 presents the values of the HPL
parameter for the EGNOS+SDCM solution during the UAV test flight. HPL values
changed between 0.16 m and 9.94 m. The average HPL result was 4.46 m.
Fig. 5. Integrity of
HPL positioning from the solution EGNOS+SDCM for
the AsteRx-m2 UAS receiver
Fig. 6. Integrity of
VPL positioning from the solution EGNOS+SDCM for
the AsteRx-m2 UAS receiver
In turn, Fig. 6 shows the VPL values
for the EGNOS+SDCM solution for the UAV platform. The VPL results changed
between 12.21 m and 36.49 m, and the average VPL value was 19.93 m. For the HPL
parameter, similar results were obtained as in the case of both the GNSS
receivers. In contrast, the VPL values for UAV flight are higher than the
integrity levels obtained for both the GNSS receivers. This is due to the
position errors results for the ellipsoidal height, according to equation (2).
If the positioning accuracy decreases, the level of integrity increases,
according to equation (4).
7. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
The article shows the
values of a study on the determination of the HPL/VPL integrity parameters of
HPL/VPL in an air experiment. The paper modifies the basic algorithm for
determining HPL/VPL parameters based on a combination of a position navigation
solution using two SBAS systems, e.g., EGNOS and SDCM augmentation systems.
This is crucial since the integrity parameters have so far been determined for
a single SBAS augmentation system. The study uses GPS observation and
navigation data recorded by two onboard GNSS receivers: Septentrio AsterRx2i
and Trimble Alloy were installed on board a Diamond DA 20-C aircraft. In
addition, the study makes use of corrections from EGNOS and SDCM satellites.
Based on the performed tests, it was statement that the HPL parameter does not
exceed 12.24 m, while the VPL does not exceed 18.01 m, respectively. In
addition, the study proved that the proposed EGNOS+SDCM solution improves the
HPL/VPL integrity determination rather than the EGNOS solution by 8÷66%.
The paper also calculates the resultant HPL/VPL integrity values for the two Septentrio
AsterRx2i and Trimble Alloy receivers for the discussed air test. The
mathematical algorithm developed for the purpose of the examinations was also
used to determine the integrity of HPL/VPL positioning for the UAV platform.
The obtained findings of the HPL/VPL values enable the potential and practical
use of the developed algorithm to determine the integrity of HPL/VPL for air
transport.
References
1.
Fellner R. 2014. “Analysis of the EGNOS/GNSS
parameters in selected aspects of Polish transport”. Transport Problems 4(4): 27-37.
2.
Ciećko A. 2019. “Analysis of the EGNOS
quality parameters during high ionosphere activity”. IET Radar, Sonar
& Navigation, 13(7): 1131-1139.
DOI: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2018.5571.
3.
International Civil Aviation Organization. 2006. ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPS), Annex 10, Volume I (Radio Navigation Aids). Available at:
http://www.ulc.gov.pl/pl/prawo/prawomi%C4%99dzynarodowe/206-konwencje.
4.
Banaszek K., A. Fellner, P.
Trómiński, P. Zadrąg. 2010. “NPA GNSS essential
step for the LUN implementation and the chance for the air regional
transport”. Archives of Transport System Telematics 3(1): 45-52.
5.
Fellner A., H. Jafernik. 2014. “Airborne
measurement system during validation of EGNOS/GNSS essential parameters in
landing”. Rep.
Geod. Geoinf. 96:
27-37.
6.
Ciećko A., G. Grunwald. 2017. “Examination of Autonomous GPS and GPS/EGNOS Integrity
and Accuracy for Aeronautical Applications”. Periodica Polytechnica
Civil. Eng. 61:
920-928.
7.
Ciećko A., G. Grunwald. 2017. “The comparison of EGNOS performance at the airports
located in eastern Poland”. Tech. Sci. 20:
181-198.
8.
Fellner A., K. Banaszek, P.
Trómiński. 2010. “The implementation of the EGNOS system to APV-I precision approach
operations”. Trans.
Nav. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Safe. Sea Transp. 4: 41-46.
9.
Kaleta W. 2014. “EGNOS Based APV Procedures Development Possibilities
In The South-Eastern Part Of Poland”. Ann. Navig. 21: 85-94.
10.
Fellner A., K.
Banaszek, P. Trómiński. 2012. “The satellite
based augmentation system - EGNOS for non-precision approach global navigation
satellite system”. Transport Problems 7(1):
5-19.
11.
Ciećko A., G. Grunwald, T. Templin, M. Dobek. 2017.
“Aeronautical surveys of Olsztyn airfield and surroundings in order to
develop RNAV GNSS flight procedure”. 17th
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017: 51-58.
ISSN: 1314-2704. DOI:
10.5593/sgem2017/22/S09.007.
12.
Azoulai L., S. Virag, R. Leinekugel-Le-Cocq, C. Germa,
B. Charlot, P. Durel. 2009. “Experimental Flight Tests with EGNOS on A380
to Support RNAV LPV Operations”. In: Proceedings
of the 22nd International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the
Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2009): 1203-1215. Savannah, GA, USA,
22-25 September 2009.
13.
Hvezda M. 2021. “Simulation of EGNOS satellite navigation signal usage
for aircraft LPV precision instrument approach”. Aviation 25: 171-181.
14.
Oliveira J., C. Tiberius. 2008. “Landing: Added Assistance to Pilots on Small Aircraft
Provided by EGNOS”. In: Proceedings
of the Conference 2008 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium:
321-333. Monterey, CA, USA, 5-8 May 2008.
15.
Secretan H., J. Ventura-Traveset, F. Toran,
G. Solari, S. Basker. 2001. “EGNOS System Test Bed Evolution and Utilisation”. In: Proceedings of the 14th International
Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION
GPS 2001): 1891-1900. Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 11-14 September 2001.
16.
Soley S., Farnworth R., Breeuwer E.
2002. “Approaching nice with the EGNOS system test
bed”. In: Proceedings of the ION
NTM 2002, San Diego, CA, USA, 28–31 January 2002; pp 539–550.
17.
Tabti L., S. Kahlouche, B. Benadda. 2021. “Performance
of the EGNOS system in Algeria for single and dual frequency”. International Journal of Aviation,
Aeronautics, and Aerospace 8(3): 1-19.
18.
Tabti L., S. Kahlouche, B. Benadda. 2018. “Improving
availability of the EGNOS system in Algeria for dual frequency”. Coordinate Magazine 14(1): 36-40.
19.
Roturier B., E. Chatre, J. Ventura-Traveset. 2001. “The SBAS
Integrity Concept Standardised by ICAO. Application to EGNOS”. Available
at: http://www.egnos-pro.esa.int/Publications/GNSS%202001/SBAS_integrity.pdf.
20.
Aeroclub of Warmia and Mazury website. Available at:
http://aeroklub.olsztyn.pl.
21.
CNES Service website. Available at: ftp://serenad-public.cnes.fr/SERENAD0.
22.
Takasu T. 2013. “RTKLIB Ver. 2.4.2 Manual,
RTKLIB: An Open Source Program Package for GNSS Positioning”. Available at:
http://www.rtklib.com/prog/manual_2.4.2.pdf.
23.
RTKLIB Website. Available at: http://www.rtklib.com.
24.
Scilab Website. Available at: http://www.scilab.org.
Received 10.10.2023; accepted in
revised form 30.12.2023
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
[1]
Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of
Technology, Krasińskiego 8 Street,
40-019 Katowice, Poland. Email: magda.mrozik@polsl.pl. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4496-8331
[2]
Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of
Technology, Krasińskiego 8 Street,
40-019 Katowice, Poland. Email: jaroslaw.kozuba@polsl.pl. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3394-4270
[3]
Institute of Navigation, Polish Air Force University, Dywizjonu 303 nr 35
Street, 08-521 Dęblin, Poland. Email: k.krasuski@law.mil.pl. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9821-4450
[4]
Institute of Navigation, Polish Air Force University, Dywizjonu 303 nr 35
Street, 08-521 Dęblin, Poland. Email: j.cwiklak@law.mil.pl. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5538-0440
[5]
Institute of Navigation, Polish Air Force University, Dywizjonu 303 nr 35
Street, 08-521 Dęblin, Poland. Email: m.bakula@law.mil.pl. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7180-8483
[6]
Algerian Space Agency, Center of Space
Techniques, Department of Space Geodesy, 1
Av Palestine, 31200 Arzew, Algeria. Email: bbeldjilali@cts.asal.dz. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-8926