1 - FAA

Report No. FAA~_.76_.17.,.....6 __
!YA"7'-J.-{)
,BtY'l
TEST AND EVALUATION OF AFEASIBILITY MODEL
ILS GLIDE SLOPE PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MONITOR
FOR THE ANAL APPROACH PATH
Marvin S. Plotka
. '
~.
. .
LL,:'.:.:
~ ..-
.
• 19 '77
December 1976
•
FINAL REPORT
Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Prepared for
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIAliON ADMINISTRATION
Systems Research &Development Service
Wasllington, D.C. 20590
\.

NOTICE
This document is dis seminated under the sponsorship
of the Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Approximate Conversions to Metric Measures '" _ ~ Approximate Conversions from Metric Measures
~
Symbol When You Know Multiply by To Find Symbol =-=----_
Symbol Whon Vou Know Multiply by To Find Symbol
~ '" LENGTH
= ~
LENGTH - - nvn millimeters 0.04 inches in
~ em centimeters 0.4 inches in
-= -­ m meters 3.3 feet it
in inches "2.5 centimeters em ~- 00 m meters 1.1 yards yd
ft feet 30 centimeters em ~ _ __...-I km kilcmeters 0.6 miles mi
yd yards 0.9 meters m
mi miles 1.6 kilometers km ~
in 2
ft2
yd 1
mi 2
square inches
square feet
square yards
square miles
- AREA
AREA :!:
~
6.5
square centimeters cm 1
- -
cm 1
0.09
square meters
m 2
-
~ m 2
square centimeters 0.16
square meters
1.2
0.8
square meters
m 2
_ -
km 1
square kilcmeters 0.4
2.6
square kilometers km 1 _ _
"if' ha
hectares (10.000 m 2 ) 2.5
--­ -
acres 0.4 hectares ha - C"')
MASS (weight)
'"
-
-­
-
-
;:l
MASS (weight)
square inches
square yards
square miles
aCres
=-­ 9 grams 0.035 ounces OZ
oz ounces 28 g~ams g _ ...-I kg kilograms 2.2 pounds Ib
Ib pounds 0.45 kilograms kg ___...-I t tonnes (1000 kg) 1.1 short tons
short tons 0.9 tonnes t - ~'--- _
(2000 Ibl ... - 0
=-­
'"
VOLUME _ - - VOLUME
tsp
teaspoons
5 'liT
m~ ~ ~ters
ml -
~
ml
I
milliliters
liters
0.03
2.1
fluid ounces
pints
fI oz
pt
ClO
Tbsp
tablespoons
15
m~II~I~terc;
ml
(,0;1
_ --
I
liters
fI OZ
fluid ounces
30
milliliters
ml
_
.
1.06
quans
qt
I
c
cups
0.24
liters
I
I
liters
0.26
gall,ons
g~
I'­
t
ints
0.47
liters
I -­
m 3
cubic meters
35
cUb~c feet
ft 3
:t :lI1ans 0.95 Iiters I _ m 3 cubic meters 1.3 cubiC yards yd
gal
gallons
3.8
liters
I
ft 3
yd 3
cubic feet
0.03
cub.c meters
m 3
cubiC yards
0.76
cubiC meters
m 3 '" -
_ _ __
'" TEMPERATURE (exact)
TEMPERATURE (exact) -.. 0c Celsius 9/5 (then Fahrenheit OF
_ temperature add 32) temperature
OF Fahrenheit 5/9 (after Celsius °c _ eo')
temperature subtracting temperature --­ 0 F
321 - - OF 32 98.6 212
_ _
'"
-4f I I'
·1 In : 2.54 (exactly). For other exact converSions ant! more detailed tables, see NBS MISC. Pub!. 286,
~
-
...-I
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Units of Weights and Measures, Price $2.25, SO Catalog No, C13.l0:286. :- _ _ ~ 0C 37 C
'I~
',' ,1 4 ,0 I
' " 8,0"
1'1 ' '~IO, I "I~O'"
112~ ,I
~OO
in 1
yd 1
mi 2

Technical ~eport Documentation Page
1. Report No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
2. Government Accession No.
FAA-RD-76-l76
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
TEST AND EVALUATION OF A FEASIBILITY MODEL ILS GLIDE
SLOPE PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MONITOR FOR THE FINAL
APPROACH PATH
December 1976
6. Performing Organization Code
r--:.----;-:-;---;-;------------------------------! 8. Performing Organ; zotion Report No.
7. Author! s)
Marvin S. Plotka
FAA-NA-76-20
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Federal Aviation Administration
National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center
11. Contract or Grant No.
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08405 076-311-000
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
1-: 1
':'2-.-=S:-p-on-s-o-ri-n-g-A-g-en-c-y-N-a-m-e-a-n:-d-A-d7"Cd-re-s-s--------------------1 Final
U.S. Department of Transportation December 1973 - March 1976
Federal Aviation Administration
Systems Research and Development Service
14. Spansari ng Agency Code
Washington, D. C. 20590
15. Supp lementary Notes
16. Abstract
The second of two test and evaluations was performed at the National Aviation
Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC), Atlantic City, New Jersey, to determine the
feasibility of a ground-based monitoring system to accurately measure the flightpath
of selected aircraft on the final approach path. This tracking information
would provide a data base for statistical analysis of the instrument landing
system (ILS) glide slope performance. This subsystem was tested by comparison of
its measured glide slope angle with the glide slope angle generated by the NAFEC
phototheodolite tracking system {time referenced). The data analysis indicates
this glide slope monitor feasibility model was not adequate to perform as an ILS
performance assurance monitor. The other test and evaluation is reported in
FAA-RD-74-66, dated April 1974.
17. Key Wards 18. Distribution Statement
Independent Altitude Monitor, Monitor,
Performance Assurance, NAVAIDS, Flight
Inspection, Instrument Landing System v /
(ILS), Interferometer, ATCRBS
Document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
:20. Security Clossif. {of thi s pagel
21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 106
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8_72)
Reproduction of completed page authorized

PREFACE
The efforts of the following personnel and organizations are gratefully
acknowledged for their support of this test and evaluation.
Mr. Jerry Cosner, Program Manager, Approach and Landing Division, SRDS, for
his guidance and assistance throughout this evaluation.
Mr. Edward J. Barburski, Electronics Technician, Landing Branch, Communications
and Guidance Division, for his interest and assistance in every phase of the
evaluation.
Mr. Daniel Penrith, Mathematician and Computer Programmer, Data Processing
Branch, Supporting Services Division, for writing and initially executing the
data reduction and statistical analysis computer programs.
Mr. Paul Letzter, Mathematician and Computer Programmer, Data Processing
Branch, Supporting Services Division, for his guidance in completing the writing
of the computer programs and completing the execution of the data reduction
and statistical analysis.
Mr. Russell Spadea, Mathematician and Computer Programmer, Data Processing
Branch, Supporting Services Division, for writing special statistical computer
programs.
Mr. George N. Bagwell, Surveying Technician, Plant Engineering Branch, Supporting
Services Division, for surveying the monitor site and related points.
The personnel of Plant Services Branch, Supporting Services Division, for their
cooperation and assistance in the site preparation and the receiving and
installation of the Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem.
Messrs. William A. Stephens, Alvan T. Bazer, and Kenneth B. Johnson, pilots,
Flight Operations Branch, Aviation Facilities Division, for their cooperation
and assistance as flight crews in the flight tests.
Mr. Joseph Harrigan, Air Traffic Controller, Landing Branch, Communications
and Guidance Division, for his assistance at the local ATC Tower during the
flight tests.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Background
DISCUSSION
Theory of Operation
Description of Equipment
Installation of Equipment
TEST AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Method for Tests
Procedures and Conditions for Tests
Flight Tests
Data Collection
Data Reduction
Data Analysis
RESULTS
Test Results
Experienced Problems
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
10
13
14
14
15
18
18
APPENDICES
A -
B -
Sample Plots of Reduced Data Showing the Individual Flight
Tracks and the Related Error Data
F and t Tests' Results of Each Flight Period, Between
Some Flight Periods of the Same Aircraft and Between
the Aircraft of Some Flight Periods
v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Page
1 Relationship of Subarrays for Monopulse Antenna 19
Measuring
2 Phase Relationship of Wavefronts Received at Monopulse 19
Antenna
3 Basic Block Diagram of Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem 20
4 Exploded View of Glide Slope Monitor Monopulse Antenna 21
5 Monopulse Antenna Response Pattern 22
6 Vector Representation of Monopulse Receiver Phase 23
Measurement
7 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Equipment Block Diagram 24
8 Glide Slope Monitor Sector, Range and Time Gating 25
9 Glide Slope Monitor Site with Collocated Glide Slope 26
Subsystems
10 Glide Slope Monitor Monopulse Antenna Indicating 1°45'11.0" 27
Rotation Towards Runway 13
11 Glide Slope Monitor Monopulse Antenna Indicating 3°00'00.0" 28
Rotation
12 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Cabinet, Front View 29
13 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Cabinet, Upper Left-Hand 30
Close-In Front View
14 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Cabinet, Lower Left-Hand 31
Close-In Front View
15 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Cabinet, Middle Right-Hand 32
Front View
16 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Cabinet, Rear View 33
17 ASR-4 Facility Beacon Pretrigger Signal Conditioning 34
Equipment Located in the Trailer
18 Glide Slope Monitor Receiver Subsystem Block Diagram 35
vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
Page
19 Glide Slope Monitor RF Receiver Block Diagram 36
20 Glide Slope Monitor IF Receiver Block Diagram 37
21 Gulfstream One (N-377) Flight Test Aircraft 38
22 Comanche (N-9093P) Flight Test Aircraft 39
23 Gulf~tream One (N-377) Exposed Nose of Flight Test Aircraft 40
24 Phototheodolite Aircraft Tracking Points and Related 41
Aircraft TRU-l/2 Antenna Location Information (2 Pages)
25 ILS Runway 13 Flight Chart (Experimental Use Only) 43
26 NAFEC Data Collection System Scale Layout 44
27 Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Punched Paper Tape Format 45
28 Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Antenna Discriminator Curve 46
29 December 20, 1974, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 47
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
30 December 20, 1974, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 48
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
31 January 10, 1975, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 49
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
32 January 10, 1975, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 50
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
33 January 30, 1975, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 51
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
34 January 30, 1975, Flight Period of N-377 on the 3° ILS 52
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
35 January 29, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P on the 3° ILS 53
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
36 January 29, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P on the 3° ILS 54
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
37 February 4, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
38 February 4, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
39 February 6, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P
Glide Slope in Term3 of Degree Offset
Page
on the 3° ILS 55
on the 3° ILS 56
on the 3° ILS 57
40 February 6, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P on the 3°
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
ILS 58
41 February 7, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
42 February 7, 1975, Flight Period of N-9093P
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
on the 3° ILS 59
on the 3° ILS 60
43 All Flight Periods of N-377
in Terms of Degree Offset
on the 3° ILS Glide Slope 61
44 All Flight Periods of N-377 on the 3°
in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
ILS Glide Slope 62
45 All Flight Periods of N-9093P
in Terms of Degree Offset
on the 3° ILS Glide Slope 63
46 All Flight Periods of N-9093P on the 3°
in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
ILS Glide Slope 64
47 Flight Period of N-377
Glide Slope in Terms
on the 0.35° below the 3°
of Degree Offset
48 Flight Period of N-377 on the 0.35° below the 3°
Glide Slope in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset
US 65
ILS 66
49 Flight Period of N-377on the 1,508 Feet Level Altitude
Flight along the 3° Final Approach Path in Terms of
Degree Offset
50 Flight Period of N-377 on the 1,508 Feet Level Altitude
Flight along the 3° Final Approach Path in Terms of
Altitude Feet Offset
67
68
viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
Page
51
52
53
All Flight Period3 of N-377 and N-9093P on the 3° ILS
Glide Slope in Terms of Degree Offset
All Flight Periods on N-377 and N-9093P on the 3° ILS
Glide Slope in Term3 of Altitude Feet Offset
The Relative Locations of the Monopulse Antenna and the
Fixed Target/Tower.
69
70
71
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Planned Flight Tests
Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Actual Flight Tests
Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Antenna Discriminator
Measured Characteristics
Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Equipment Integrated
Circuit Chip Failures
Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem Fixed-Tower/Target
Performance
Page
9
9
11
16
16
ix

INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE.
The purpose of this project was to test and evaluate the second of two feasibility
model instrument landing system (ILS) glide slope monitoring subsystems
to determine its aircraft position measuring accuracy along the final approach
path.
BACKGROUND.
Flight Standards Service (FS-l) requested Systems Research and Development
Service (SRDS) on November 21, 1969, to obtain the Aircraft Landing Measurement
System (ALMS) from England, on a loan basis for assessing Category II and
category III operations. The ALMS system was to be installed at Dulles
International Airport for an operational evaluation. The ALMS system was not
an all-weather type and only measured aircraft position at a few points on the
final approach path. The system was never sent to the United States due to its
nonavailability.
ILS facilities provide alignment and descent guidance information during aircraft
landing for the final approach path. During this phase of aircraft
flight, they are operating at near-critical speeds, over decreasing terrain
clearances, and in all-weather conditions. Therefore, it is important that
the quality of these ILS signals be monitored accurately in terms of alignment,
stability, amplitude, and course structure. The quality of the radiated ILS
signal may be adversely affected by terrain interference, man-made obstructions,
taxiing aircraft, and weather. These factors may not all be detected by "nearfield"
monitors which are currently in use. Flight inspection aircraft offer
the best "far-field" monitor system available today. However, these specially
equipped aircraft check the ILS at each airport only every 3 or 4 months,
thereby imposing a serious time lag in the ILS "far-field" monitor system that
is available today as well as being a great financial burden.
In attempting to develop an all-weather final approach path aircraft measuring
system as well as an ILS monitoring system, SRDS distributed a Request For
Proposals (RFP). The RFP was based on the concept of measuring selected user
aircraft trajectories and statistically analyzing these to determine if the
ILS alignment had deviated from an acceptable amount. This technique is valid
provided the sample is large enough to average out random errors. Many
proposals were submitted by private contractors.
Due to the requirements of ILS monitoring and aircraft position measuring
under all-weather conditions and the desirability of not adding additional
avionics equipment to the user aircraft, only the Westinghouse Electric
Company (WE Co.) (DOT-FA72-WA2837) and Airborne IGstruments Laboratory (AIL Co.)
Division of Cutler-Hammer Systems (DOT-FA72-WA2849) proposals were considered
technically acceptable by the proposal evaluation team consisting of representatives
of SRDS, FS-l, Airways Facilities (AF) and the National Aviation ~
Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC). The systems proposed also have the
potential for determining pilot warnings when the aircraft is below a safe
altitude envelope.
1

The AIL Co. system was tested and evaluated at NAFEC: the results were given
in report FAA-RD-74-66, dated April 1974. This report describes only the
WE Co. system test and evaluation. Due to several cost overruns and the
eventual depletion of available contract dollars approved and allocated to
this effort, only the glide slope monitor subsystem was built to completion
by WE Co. and later installed at NAFEC.
DISCUSSION
THEORY OF OPERATION.
The glide slope monitor subsystem employs a monopulse phase comparison concept,
as indicated in figures 1 and 2. The antenna consists of two separate inline
antennas which receive the same radiofrequency (RF) pulse. The phase difference
developed by the two receiving antennas is a measure of the RF signal angle off
boresight for the radiation source (user aircraft transponder antenna). In
figure 2, the phase difference can be seen to be equal to zero for an aircraft
on boresight (approximately 3° for the glide slope).
The overall system block diagram depicting the tie-in between the user aircraft,
the airport surveillance ,radar (ASR), the air traffic control (ATC) tower
(terminal building), and the ILS glide slope monitor subsystem is shown in
figure 3. The glide slope monitor monopulse receiving antenna was installed
adjacent to the commissioned glide slope transmitting antenna but farther offset
from it by approximately 100 feet (30.481 meters), and the monitor antenna
system is tilted back so that the boresight axis is aligned with the ILS glide
slope of approximately 3°. The glide slope monitor antenna is tilted sideways
toward the runway by approximately 1° and 45 minutes (~1.75°) to account for
the sideways offset from the runway centerline, thereby improving the monitor's
close-in measurement accuracy.
The antenna consists of individual distribution networks built of a low
dielectric constant microstrip. The antenna array consists of two subarrays
of 17 dipoles each; one subarray on each side of the antenna array (figur:e 4).
The sum circuit is on one side of the stripline divider board, while the difference
circuit is on the other side of the board. The glide slope monitor
monopulse antenna consists of a collinear array of 34 vertical dipoles. The
antenna is approximately 32 feet (~9.75 meters) long, and its bottom is
approximately 3 feet (~l meter) off the ground. The 17th dipole of each subarray
is physically mounted in an outrigger (extension) of the main antenna.
It was added based on experimental antenna range data of the main antenna. The
outrigger was built because it was the cheaper approach to suppressing the first
difference sidelobe to 42 decibels (dB) below the main lobe sum.
The glide slope monitor antenna has a vertical half-power beam width of 2.5° and
sidelobes which are 30 dB down from the peak of the antenna patterns. The
combination of the narrow vertical beamwidth, low sidelobes and the height of
the antenna above ground minimize ground reflection errors. The antenna array
patterns are shown in figure 5. The sum (~) of the signal from all dipoles is
2

plotted versus the difference (~) from a top array of dipoles minus a bottom
array of dipoles. The monopulse angle measurement is made from the leading
edge of the first pulse of the received aircraft ATC beacon transponder reply
so that the multipath reflections from various objects such as hangars, terminal,
aircraft, etc., cause minimum errors.
To meet the desired system angular accuracy and resolution requirements, the
amplitude ratio between the E and 6 channels is measured by converting to a
phase difference (0) (figure 6). The antenna difference output is then rotated
90 electrical phase degrees and vectorially added to the channel by a commutating
hybrid circuit in the hybrid coupler box. The hybrid coupler also converts
the initial amplitude difference into a phase difference. The system
phase accuracy is preserved and the drift effects are offset by alternately
adding the difference signals at ±90 electrical phase degrees.
The two vector signals are processed by the monopulse receiver (figure 7). The
zero crossings of the intermediate frequency (IF) signal are converted to binary
pulses which are used to start and stop a high-speed binary counter. The binary
count retained by the counter is directly proportional to initial amplitude
ratio between the signal amplitude appearing at the ~ and ~ antenna terminals.
The digital output is fed into two separate zero-crossing detector channels and
by means of a digital-to-analog converter is displayed on a storage oscilloscope.
All of the raw data are time buffered and recorded on a standard punched paper
tape.
The glide slope monitor subsystem has a data burst rate of approximately 4
seconds, based on the ASR scan rate of approximately 15 revolutions per minute
(r/min), that provides data points approximately every 1,000 feet (~304.81 meters)
along the final approach path which corresponds to airspeeds of approximately
150 knots (250 ft/s) (76.2 meters/s) at approximately 8 to 9 nautical miles (nmi)
(~14.82 to 16.67 kilometers) from the runway threshold. Thus, every 4 seconds,
a burst lasting approximately 50 milliseconds, equal to 20 ATC beacon replies,
is received. These individual measurements are digitally recorded on punched
paper tape. Offline and at a later time, the individual measurements are
statistically processed and for each received burst, a single off-boresight
angle measurement is developed; one per ASR scan. Thus, the glide slope
monitor monopulse antenna and receiver would determine the angular deviation of
the user aircraft from the IL5 glide slope. In performance monitoring of the
IL5 glide slope, a statistical analysis of all recorded flights would fill the
data gaps.
In order to reduce interference, the receiver processor is activated only when
the ASR is illuminating the angular sector (309 to 014 0
true) of the glide slope
receiver antenna covering the final approach path from beyond the outer marker
(OM) to the runway threshold as shown in figure 8. The beacon pretrigger (to),
north mark (NM), and azimuth change pulses (ACP) from the ASR-4 are received at
the glide slope monitor site. The NM and ACP are used to establish the glide
slope monitor receiver angle gating times (approximately 1/8 of the ASR-4 scan).
Time gating is also employed which is referenced from the to pulse so as only
to receive replies from threshold to 10 nmi (18.52 kilometers) in range.
3

The receiver has "search" and "track" modes. Upon recelvlng two successive
returns. the receiver shifts from the "search" mode to the "track" mode. In
the "track" mode. the receiver will accept only signals having a normal period
of the interrogating radar with an additional ±125 feet (±38.l meters) timing
gate. The receiver automatically reverts to the search mode for each antenna
scan. Therefore. the first two returns of each ASR-4 scan will always be in
the search mode. The range accuracy is minimized to approximately ±500 feet
(±152.4 meters) if the system is completely aligned in range. The minimum
inaccuracy is due to jitter in the signal of the transponder reply.
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT.
The glide slope monitor site equipment and its relationship to other collocated
equipment is shown in figure 9. In the center of the photograph. the 26-foot
(7.925 meters) long main section of the monopulse antenna is shown supported by
a two piece frangible 26-foot·-long (7.925 meters). 3.000-pound (1360.8 kilograms)
steel I-beam bolted to a NAFEC-constructed concrete pad that was built to contractor
specifications. The antenna outriggers are clearly indicated. with the
bottom outrigger clearing the ground by approximately 3 feet (0.91443 meter).
A standard dual red warning lamp is located at the top of the I-beam.
A steel all-weather enclosure (6 feet x 4 feet x 2 feet) (1.82886 meter x 1.21924
meter x 0.60962 meter) contains the glide slope monitor receiver and recording
equipments. This enclosure has an upper and lower RF and particle-filtered vents
on each side which are open when the subsystem is in use.
The signal-receiving conditioning equipment for the ASR-4 synchronization and
NAFEC range real timing signals that are necessary for the glide slope monitor
subsystem are contained in the trailer. The trailer also provides space for
test personnel to escape the weather.
The category III ILS glide slope system with antenna is located on the righthand
side of figure 9. A microwave landing system (MLS) elevation site is
located between the two aforementioned elevation parameter subsystems.
In figure 10. the monopulse antenna sideways rotation of 1°. 45 minutes.
11.0 seconds (1.75305556°) toward the runway centerline is clearly indicated.
Nearby. toward the right of the photograph. is a portion of a weather transmissometer
system.
In figure 11. the 3°. 0 minutes. 0.0 seconds (3.0°) forward and upward antenna
rotation is shown making the monopulse antenna boresight aligned with the 3° ILS
glide slope. The slightly to-the-rear site offsets from the category III ILS
glide slope for the collocated systems are clearly indicated.
In figure 12. the front view of the all-weather receiver enclosure with front
doors open is shown. Two side-by-side 19-inch (0.48260 meters) racks are
indicated. The right-hand-side rack is radiofrequency interference (RFI)
protected. Further RF shielding and isolation for the RF-IF receiver was
provided by adding a vertical. top-to-bottom. steel bulkhead in the center of
4

the cabinet. On this wall, the angles and brackets were electrically bonded
to the cabinet walls. RF feed-through was incorporated between the two halves
of the cabinet in this wall. Separate thermostatically controlled heaters and
fans were in each of the cabinet halves. Thermal insulation was increased in
the cabinet by cementing 1-inch thick foam rubber on all internal surfaces of
the cabinet walls. The functions of each rack are labeled in figure 12.
In figures 13, 14, and 15, a closeup view of the upper and lower left-hand
quarters and the right-hand center, respectively, of the front view of the
receiver cabinet are shown. The titles to the indicators, switches, test
points and control knobs are readable in most cases.
In figure 16, the receiver cabinet rear view with rear doors open is shown.
The left side is RFI protected. On the right side, at the bottom, the empty
case for the electrical heater unit is shown. Opposite it, there is another
black-colored unit which is the blower.
In figure 17, a 19-inch rack is shown that was located inside the trailer.
It contains the signal conditioning utilized for preparing the ASR-4 to signal
for the glide slope monitor's use. Portions of the video trigger distribution
amplifier (type FA-8927) and the line compensator amplifier (type FA-8926) were
required for final shaping of the to pulse. The NM, ACP, and serial timing
signals were received with 1:1 pulse transformers.
In figure 18, the glide slope monitor receiving equipments are indicated in
a block diagram. Similarly, the RF and IF receiving units are shown in figures
19 and 20, respectively.
INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT.
The contractor delivered all of the glide slope monitor equipment to the NAFEC
site on May 16, 1974. NAFEC heavy equipment operators, with their unloading
equipment, removed the glide slope monitor subsystem from the delivery truck
and placed it on wooden feet on the ground. On May 22 and 23, 1974, under the
guidance of WE Co. personnel, the NAFEC heavy equipment operators and equipment
constructed the physical installation of the glide slope monitor at the site.
The contractor's civil engineer guided the physical alignment of the monopu1se
antenna, and later, surveyed it.
The contractor personnel were at NAFEC from June 25, 1974, to June 28, 1974,
and from July 29, 1974, to August 1, 1974, during which times they mechanically
and electronically checked out and aligned the glide slope monitor subsystem.
During the second time period, static alignment tests were accomplished using
surveyed locations (x,y,z) in the monitor antenna's far field, locations on
runway 13 and its taxiway, and a truck containing a beacon transponder with a
~-axis variable omniantenna attached to a 41-foot (12.4972 meter) mast. On
August 1, 1974, the search/track mode data indicator was determined to be
meaningless. Its effect on data reduction was not yet known.
5

On July 25, 1974, the contractor's antenna experts were at NAFEC, at which time
they inspected and improved the mechanical connections and alignments of the
monopulse antenna on the I-beam support. NAFEC heavy equipment operators and
equipment were utilized by the contractor personnel this day.
From October 21, 1974 to October 22, 1974, the contractor's digital circuit
design experts were at NAFEC at which time they installed and checked out
new search/track mode circuitry.
Later the effect of the search/track mode indicator in the data reduction was
determined to be significantly helpful in the offline data reduction process.
Thus, the new search/track mode circuitry installation completed the contractor's
installation of the glide slope monitor subsystem.
TEST AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
METHOD FOR TESTS.
The test program was divided into two categories, i.e., laboratory test and
flight tests. The laboratory test, monitored by NAFEC program area personnel,
was performed by the contractor during May 7 through May 9, 1974, in Baltimore,
Maryland. The purpose of laboratory testing was for the contractor to demonstrate
hi~ compliance with the procurement specifications and provide a measure
for comparison in the event the contractor equipment deteriorated during the
installation or later during the flight tests.
The flight tests were divided into two phases; namely, contractor-controlled
tests and NAFEC-controlled tests. The contractor required an airborne test
target during his installation work. A minimal number of flights were required.
The NAFEC-controlled tests were made to determine the statistical error values
for the glide slope monitor subsystem. The original NAFEC flight test program
required 27 flight hours on one target aircraft. Two aircraft were actually
flown; a Gulfstream One (N-377) (figure 21) for approximately 15 flight hours
and a Comanche (N-9093P) (figure 22) for approximately 11 flight hours. All
NAFEC tests were performed by NAFEC personnel.
The ILS glide slope flightpath was flown approximately 30 times by each aircraft
because this region of the glide slope monitor antenna pattern was the most ..
accurate. Off-of-the-glide-slope flights and a number of level flights along
the length of the ILS glide slope flightpath were flown by N-377. Additional
flights were planned for N-377; however, the data reduction in the middle of
N-377's flight tests indicated relatively poor performance by the glide slope
monitor subsystem, dictating an analysis of the operation of the equipment on
site, which eventually was accomplished by the contractor. The flight tests
were halted February 20, 1975, until the contractor equipment analysis was
completed on August 16, 1975. At that time, due to the lack of contractual
funds, NAFEC, together with SRDS, decided to discontinue the remaining planned
flight tests, and to complete the data analysis and reporting of the previously
collected data.
6

The glide slope monitor subsystem data were real-time correlated with the
ground-based space position measurements by the phototheodolite facility.­
This facility developed computer-type data, and it had photographic data only
as backup data. The photographic data were not used in this effort. Computer
programs compatible with the IBM 7090 computer were developed by NAFEC that
reduced, merged, and statistically analyzed all the ground-based data.
PROCEDURES AND CONDITIONS FOR TESTS.
The laboratory test was conducted by the contractor, with the NAFEC personnel
only monitoring the test. The test was conducted under controlled laboratory
conditions, which demonstrated the proper operation of the glide slope monitor
subsystem, as stated in the contract 5pecifications.
NAFEC constructed, to contractor specification, two concrete pads at a contractor~requested
and NAFEC-approved site. NAFEC supplied electrical power,
contractor equipment installation assistance and equipment, ASR-4 facility
synchronization signals via landlines, ground-to-air communications, a shelter
for site personnel, and a telephone. The contractor provided additional equipment
necessary for the completion of the installation and debugged the monitor
installation.
NAFEC provided the two target aircraft and aircrews for this effort during the
NAFEC flight tests. The only modification to the aircraft was the minor addition
of an ATC radar beacon system omni aircraft antenna (TRU-l/2) in the nose
(inside the radome) of the N-377 aircraft (figure 23) and the interconnection
of coaxial cable to the aircraft's beacon transponder, all in place of the
plane's antenna.
The nose of N-377 functioned as the phototheodolite facilities tracking point
(figure 24). This aircraft's course deviation indicator was replaced by a
microammeter-scaled indicator. The indicator was clamped to the pilot's steering
yoke during the test flights. The other aircraft, N-9093P, was tracked at
the midpoint between its wingtip landing lights from 7.0 nmi to approximately
1.6 nmi (12.9640 kilometers to 2.96 kilometers) along the flightpath.
Between approximately 1.6 nmi (2.96 kilometers) and runway threshold, the aircraft's
nose wheel was the tracking point (figure 24). Both aircraft used the
4096 code radar/beacon system. They flew the NAFEC runway 13 final approach
path to the runway's threshold (figure 25). The test flights were flown in
time periods varying between 2 and 4 hours. Due to the glide slope monitor
subsystem being installed in the open field and the phototheodolite optical
tracking system (figure 26), the test flights were flown in visual flight rules
(VFR) weather.
The glide slope monitor subsystem was accurately time correlated to NAFEC range
time to the hundredth of a second and recorded in binary coded decimal (BCD)
format on the punched paper tape. The recorded time for each scan was the time
of the first received reply of the scan. This time was slightly adjusted in
the thousandths of a second in the data reduction, depending on the number of
good replies that statistically determined the angular value of the glide slope
monitor's scan measurement.
7

FLIGHT TESTS.
The planned flight tests (table 1) were being carried out from December 20,
1974, through February 20, 1975 (table 2). During February 1975 data reduction
for the first two flight dates (December 20, 1974, and January 10, 1975) was
accomplished. On the first flight date, the glide slope monitor subsystem
mean error was approximately -0.2°. On the second flight date, the mean error
was approximately +0.1°. Thus, a varying bias was seen in the monitor subsystem
which was considered unacceptable and the flight tests were discontinued.
The reduced data were shown to the Gontractor in February 1975, and this
resulted in an onsite test and analysis of the monitor subsystem which was
completed in August 1975. The contractor concluded that the monitor subsystem
probably needs an improved receiver beacon defruiting and filtering equipment.
NAFEC, in conjunction with SRDS, terminated the testing effort at this point,
thus cancelling the balance of the planned flights. SRDS then directed NAFEC
to complete the evaluation based on the previously collected data and to
document the evaluation with a final report.
DATA COLLECTION.
The glide slope monitor subsystem digitally records its receiver output data
on punched paper tape. The punched tape format is shown in figure 27. The
contractor developed and implemented this format with minor modifications
suggested by NAFEC based on its testing experience.
The phototheodolite facility digitally records on magnetic computer tape the
elevation and azimuth tracking angles every 0.5 seconds from each of the three
inuse of the four tracking towers, along with NAFEC range time. A real-time
solution is printed out and plotted of the test target's flightpath to confirm
the aircraft's action during the test. The real-time printout offers Cartesian
track data every second, referenced to the test's theoretical touchdown point
on the runway 13 centerline. The real-time plot offered a three-dimensional
trace (x-y and y-z) of the test aircraft's flightpath. Photographic data were
taken as backup data, but not used.
An ATC specialist assisted the test operations by coordinating the test with
approach control in the NAFEC Airport Tower and by observing the actual flight
test environment on the ASR-4 maintenance monitor in the equipment room of the
airport tower. The test area was defined by extending the runway 4/22 centerline
from its intersection with the runway 13/31 centerline in both directions
for 10 nmi. Extending this 10 nmi (18.5 kilometers) radius in the direction of
the runway 13 final approach path by a full 180 0
rotation set the test area
layout. The NAFEC ATC Tower controlled altitude from zero to 5,000 feet
(1524 meters).
The ATC specialist could then observe all ASR-4-detected targets in the test
area as well as the designated test target. During the tests, nontest beacon
replying aircraft were identified. Through the ATC tower personnel, those
8

TABLE 1.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM PLANNED FLIGHT TESTS
ROUTES FLIGHTS (QUM~TITY) N-377
ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 30
1.8 0 Right of ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
1.8 0 Left of ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
0.35 0 Below ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
0.35 0 Above ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
1.8 0 Right 0.35 0 Below ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
1.8 0 Left 0.35 0 Below ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
1.8 0 Right 0.35 0 Above ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
1.8 0 Left 0.35 0 Above ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5
Level Flight at Middle-Marker Altitude 5
Level Flight at Outer Marker Altitude 5
Flight Trips - 80 Est. Hours/Trip - 0.20 Est. Flight Hours - 26.40
TABLE 2.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM ACTUAL FLIGHT TESTS
ROUTES
FLIGHTS (QUANTITY)
N-377 N9093P
ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 39 47
0.35 0 Below ILS 3.0 0 Glide Slope 5 o
Level Flight at Outer Marker Altitude 8 o
Level Flight at Middle Marker Altitude 7 o
Actual Flight Hours: N-377 - 15 N-9093P - 11
9

targets in the test area were requested to stop their beacon replies (as air
traffic conditions permitted). The glide slope monitor subsystem test personnel
were momentarily anq continually notified by the ATC specialist during the
tests of the presence and status of nontest, beacon replying aircraft.
The test aircraft, phototheodolite facility, ATC specialist and glide slope
monitor subsystem during the tests were all in two-way very high frequency (VHF)
communications with each other on NAFEC test frequencies. These frequencies
were assigned with the test aircraft for the test period. The ground-based
test personnel used the NAFEC phone system for backup communications.
DATA REDUCTION.
The contractor provided the discriminator characteristics (table 3 and
figure 28) of the monopulse antenna. They were computed by the contractor
from the antenna's measurements made on the contractor's antenna range.
The glide slope monitor subsystem's recorded data on punched paper tape were
converted to computer magnetic tape on a General Automation Mini-Computer
System (model SPC-16/45). The entire flight period's data were placed on one
computer magnetic tape. These recorded data were separated flight-by-flight in
an IBM 7090 computer system. Each flight's data were separated scan-by-scan
where there were approximately 15 scans per minute (ASR-4 antenna revolves at
15.5 r/min). The number of beacon replies per scan varied from 10 to 90, and
these replies had to be reduced to one reply (one angle of deviation per scan).
The contractor suggested using the following technique that was, in minor
ways, modified accordingly by NAFEC through its increasing experience in reducing
this type of data. The contractor agreed to the minor modifications of the
technique.
In this technique, the scan of replies comprised a maximum of 16 replies for a
total duration of not more than 47 milliseconds (ms). During this time, an
aircraft flying on the final approach path at 150 knots (67 meters per second)
would traverse approximately 12 feet (3.658 meters) in range and 0.5 feet
(0.152 meters) in altitude. These changes were small enough so that the
average values of the measurements made on all replies of the scan provided
a good measurement characterization for the scan, such that none of these
measurements were interference corrupted.
In order to handle the interference corruption, the bad replies must be rejected
prior to forming the averages. This rejection is based on the deviation that
an interference-corrupted angle measurement reply has from the majority of the
angle measurement replies in the scan. Originally, at least 10 unrejected
measurements must have remained to generate angular output data. This figure
of 10 valid replies was changed to 25 percent of the number of track mode scan
replies after the search mode replies were automatically rejected. This provided
a sufficient number of output data, scan-by-scan, for the flight. Then
the median measurement (or each of the two closest in value to it in the case
of an even number of measurements) must be one of those that remain. The median
value was therefore used as a standard against which the bad measurements were
rejected. The median, itself, may deviate from the majority of good measurements
by the normal measurement tolerance for uncorrupted measurements.
10

TABLE 3.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM ANTENNA DISCRIMINATOR
MEASURED CHARACTERISTICS
Relative to Boresight
Elevation Angle
(Space Degrees)
-2.97
-2.64
-2.31
-1.97
-1.65
-1.32
-0.99
-0.66
-0.33
+0.05
+0.38
+0.71
+1.04
+1.37
+1. 70
+2.03
+2.36
+2.69
+3.02
Measured Receiver Output
Electrical Phase Angle
(Electrical Degrees)*
+144.6+0
+135.7+0
+126.7+0
+117.3+0
+105.7+0
+ 92.0+0
+ 74.4+0
+ 53.7+0
+ 26.7+0
5.8+0
- 36.5+0
- 63.3+0
- 87.4+0
-106.3+0
-121. 9+0
-134.8+0
-144.9+0
-153.9+0
-162.8+0
* 0 is the receiver phase output for an input having zero difference
component such that 0 is nominally 180°.
11

Therefore, the initial rejection criterion was taken as a peviation of more
than twice the maximum measurement error as follows:
Median
Median
< 1°, use test value of 0.0325°
< 1°, use test value of 0.065°.
Another refinement in the rejection process was executed on the unrejected
measurements by rejecting any which deviated excessively from the mean of the
remaining replies. Let the angle measurements remaining after the above
median rejection test was made be the N quantities aI, a2' "" and, with a
mean mN.
Test each of the N measurements by determining the quantities Ck= (mN-ak) where
k = 1, 2, .•. , N.
It is assumed that only one of the N measurements is interference corrupted.
Thus, an appropriate criterion is that Ck ~ N-l times the expected maximum
random error for uncorrupted measurements. N
Mean
Mean
use test value of 0.0163°
use test value of 0.0325°.
Characterization of the angle information in a scan was the statistical average
of the remaining replies after the search mode criteria and the above two tests
were applied. The total number of replies and the unrejected balance were continually
noted in the reduced data printout.
NAFEC surveyed the glide slope monitor subsystem antenna, after its installation,
to determine the antenna's relationships with the NAFEC grid system. This
information was necessary, due to the requirement of coorientation of the
phototheodolite facility track data with the glide slope monitor antenna's zerophase-angle
point and axes. The antenna zero-phase-angle point is:
x
y
Z
112,302.776 feet (34231.00915 meter)
113,591.996 feet (34623.97630 meter)
10,085.574 feet (3074.18381 meter).
The antenna rotation down runway 13 (y, z axes) is 3 degrees, 00.0 minute,
00.0 seconds (3.0°). The antenna rotation toward the runway 13 centerline is
(x, z axes) 1 degree, 45 minutes, 11.0 seconds (1.75305556°).
The average antenna-face rotation (at the zero-phase-angle point) about the z
axis in a counterclockwise direction is 1 degree, 52 minutes, 16.6 seconds
(1.87127778°) •
12

An additional survey point, located the theoretical touchdown point (TD) on the
runway 13 centerline at:
X
Y
Z
111,816.186 feet (34082.69165 meter)
113,697.418 feet (34656.14046 meter)
10,072.987 feet (3070.34717 meter)
The TD point was dependent on where the ILS category III glide scope antenna's
radiated cone meets the ground surface. This point was necessary to properly
orient the phototheodolite facility's real-time data and plots.
The phototheodolite facility's recorded data (azimuth and elevation angles from
three tracking towers plus NAFEC rang~ time) was offline processed in an IBM
7090 computer system. It developed the three tower tracking solution for the
test aircraft in Cartesian and spherical coordinates. These data were translated
to a reference point in the NAFEC grid (the monopulse antenna zero-phaseangle
point). The data were then rotated into the boresight line of the
monitor antenna (x-z axes). This part of the computer programming has been
operational, at NAFEC, since 1964. An additional rotation was made to this
computer program (x-y axes). No y-z axes rotation was necessary, due to the
monitor data having the boresight angle added to it.
The monitor and theodolite data were merged in the IBM 7090 computer system,
where the two-flightpath aircraft tracks were compared and the difference data
in terms of elevation angle degrees and altitude feet were generated. Besides
the merged data computer printout, there was a summary merged data computer
printout. Plots were made on a digital Calcomp plotter (model UNT-7000) of
the track data and difference data (both in elevation angle degrees and in
altitude feet). Samples of the individual flight data plots are shown in
appendix A.
DATA ANALYSIS.
The mean error and two-sigma error variations in both angle (degrees) and
altitude (feet) for each aircraft along each flightpath route, so as to contain
an adequate number of data points, were statistically developed by route bins
which were set at 0.166666 nmi (0.30866543 kilometer) width along the flightpath
routes. The means, and two-sigma plot indicators, were arbitrarily located at
the center of each data bin. If the values of the means or either of the twosigma
values equalled or exceeded the vertical axis limits, the mean or twosigma
plot indicators were shown at the respective axis limits. Just above
the horizontal slant range axis, the number of data points in each bin were
listed. The slant range axis on the plots originated (0.0 nmi) on the runway
centerline at a point parallel to the zero-phase center of the monopulse monitor
antenna. The contractual design goal measurement accuracy of 0.023° (10
times more accurate than the ILS glide slope accuracy) was shown on the error
plots by dashed lines centered about the monitor antenna's boresight in terms
of degrees or feet accordingly.
13

The error data were reviewed and those error data that exceeded 1° in magnitude
when beacon-replying, known nontest aircraft were flying in the test area, were
deleted from the data set. Other error data, less than 1 percent of the total
data, that exceeded 1° in magnitude, were also deleted from the data set. The
assumption was that these error data were caused by beacon replying from unknown
nontest aircraft, either flying above the local ATC controlled altitude in the
test area or in the test area, and beacon replying on a code not used by local
ATC. The remaining error data which were all ~ 1° in magnitude were included
in the test results.
RESULTS
TEST RESULT.
Plots of the statistical data are shown for each aircraft on each of the flight
routes of each flight period. Figures 29 through 34 represent the statistical
error data of the N-377 aircraft flying on the 3° glide slope flightpath for
each flight period. Figures 35 through 42 represent the statistical error
data of the N-9093P aircraft flying on the 3° glide slope flightpath for each
period. Each flight period/route has its own distinctive error, most of which
are negative (where the phototheodolite measurement system indicated the target
aircraft was at a higher altitude than that indicated by the WE Co. measurement
system). It should be noted that for the entire January 10, 1975, flight
period, the error was positive.
Statistical groupings were made to include all flight period data on each route
for each aircraft. Figures 43 and 44 represent the statistical error data of
the N-377 aircraft flying on the 3° glide slope flightpath for all such flight
periods. Figures 45 and 46 represent the statistical error data of the N9093P
aircraft flying on the 3° glide slope flightpath for all such flight periods.
Figures 47 and 48 represent the statistical error data of the N-377 aircraft
flying the -0.35° below the 3° glide slope flightpath. Figures 49 and 50 represent
the statistical error data of the N-377 aircraft flying at a level
1,508 feet (459.654 meter) altitude along the 3° glide slope flightpath intersecting
the glide slope at the OM. No group statistics were developed for the
230 feet (70.106 meter) altitude-level flightpath, since only two of the seven
flights resulted in collected data.
The statistical error data on the test result plots do not fall within design
goal tolerance accuracy limits. The statistical error data group results vary
according to the influences of the individual flight period's statistical error
data biases.
Statistical error data were developed regardless of aircraft type (N-377 and
N-9093P) or flight period for all 3° ILS glide slope flying, as shown in
figures 51 and 52. This statistical grouping accounts for 76 flights of
reducible data.
14

Statistical analysis of the error data by testing to determine that the
variances are from the same population (F tests) and the means are from the
same population (t tests) were accomplished. They are shown in appendix B.
Within each flight period the error data from the earlier to later times were
examined. Also, the error data from flight period to flight period for the
same aircraft and route were examined. A special examination of the error data
from different flight periods and different aircraft for the same flight route
was accomplished.
EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS.
1. The electrical schematics and wire lists provided by the WE Co. on the
glide slope monitor subsystem for the installation debugging period, and later
in fixing the equipment failures, were found not to be completely correct.
Many paperwork errors were uncovered in repairing the equipment. They were
noted and the corrections were shown to WE Co. personnel.
2. A number of integrated circuit chips failed following the installation
completion. They are listed in table 4.
TABLE 4.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM EQUIPMENT INTEGRATED
CIRCUIT CHIP FAILURES."
Failure
Card Position Between
Location in Failed Type No. No. Pins
Digital SN-7404N Hex A-1O 77 5/6
Bucket
Inverter
Digital SN-7404N Hex A-12 18 3/4
Bucket
Inverter
Digital SN-7404N Hex A-OS 26 12/13
Bucket
Inverter
Digital SN-7404N Hex A-OS 97 1/2
Bucket
Inverter
Paper Tape SN-74L98 4 Bit Perfect :r.7
Punch Storage Clock
Register
3. WE Co. provided for the calibration of the glide slope monitor subsystem
to determine if the monitor antenna's boresight angle had electronically
changed by the time of a flight test period. The calibration procedure required
test personnel to climb the monopulse antenna's I-beam support and, at the
height of the hybrid coupler, disconnect the four semirigid coaxial cables from
15

the antenna. Then he had to connect four termination resistive loads to the
hybrid coupler. This ensured only the calibration beacon transponder's replies
being received. This procedure was accomplished only on the first and last
flight test periods. During the other flight test periods, calibrations were
accomplished by using a beacon reply "free" test area with the monopulse antenna
connected to the hybrid coupler. The beacon free test area is fully defined
and explained in the DATA COLLECTION portion of this report. This procedure
was necessary due to the high wind and cold temperature experienced during
each of these flight test periods. The calibrations from these flight test
periods had significant offsets from the boresight angle achieved by the WE Co.
procedures for calibration. These calibration's offset-from-boresight angles
were rejected due to the antenna and, subsequently, the environment being in
the system. It was originally assumed that the beacon reply "free" test area
was equivalent to removing the antenna from the calibration of the receiver.
However, due to the high number of beacon replies per ASR-4 scan (hits/scan)
during the data collection calibrations, there may have been beacon-replying
nontest aircraft using beacon codes not normally used within the data collection
test area that would not show up on the local ATC radar-beacon displays. This
is a realistic possibility, due the high number of hits/scan and the various
indicated angles within a scan of data. Therefore, the assumption was not a
correct one. The two usable calibrations were very close in value and their
average was used in the data reduction for all flight test periods.
The ASR-4 was operated throughout the period of all the tests within its
manufacturer's performance specifications, including the side lobe suppression
(SLS) subsystem, as a commissioned facility of the Eastern Region. The operating
conditions were checked daily at least once during each of two daily shifts
of maintenance personnel. If out-of-operating-tolerances were experienced,
they were noted in the facility log books. During these activity tests, no
out-of-operating-tolerance conditions were recorded in the ASR-4 facility's
log books.
4. A large number of beacon replies (up to 90) were sometimes recorded for
the test target per ASR-4 target scan. This maximally experienced number
greatly exceeds the nominally expected number of 16 to 20 beacon replies for
a single target (not including the effects of multipath). A limited investigation
of the high beacon replies with the assistance of NAFEC beacon experts
was executed. Static tests were accomplished using aircraft beacon transponders
(TRU-l) situated in trucks with their omniantenna (TRU-l/2) on the trucks' mast.
The ASR-4 facility's near-field was investigated for the high number of beacon
replies at that site which was approximately 4,500 feet (1371.645 meters) from
the glide slope monitor subsystem. No unusual number of beacon replies were
observed on an oscilloscope display. Approximately 16-20 beacon replies were
observed on the oscilloscope display of the transponder output at the time of
the test. The ASR-4 facilitity's far-field at the glide slope monitor subsystem
site was similarly investigated with the same results.
During a full monitor subsystem calibration, the ASR-5 and the ASR-7 were
requested to not transmit beacon interrogations. In doing this, there was no
noticeable effect on the monitor's replies as to the number of replies per scan
or to the deviation angle value of the received replies per scan.
16

5. An omnitype TRU-l/2 antenna was installed on a fixed tower in the monopulse
antenna far-field. The TRU-l/2 antenna was connected dnring the tests
via coaxial cable to a TRU-l transponder system aboard a truck positioned at
the tower's base. Basic electrical power for the transponder system was
obtained from a distribution box at the tower's base.
The relative locations of the tower and the Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem are
shown in figure 53. The TRU-l/2 antenna was installed 104 feet (31.70 meters)
up on the tower the base of which was at a surface level of approximately
67 feet (20.4223 meters). The surface level was approximately equal to the
monitor antenna's support base surface level.
The TRU-l/2 antenna was 1.34 0 below the monopulse antenna boresight. The
azimuth sector gate of the monopulse antenna boresight swept the ASR-4
facility from 309 0 true to 014 0 true with the tower on the 359 0 true radial of
the azimuth sector gate. During calibration tests of the entire monitor subsystem,
the entire monitor test area was beacon reply free. The monitor subsystem
performance during the calibration tests utilizing the tower/target
is shown in table 5.
TABLE 5.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM FIXED TOWER/TARGET
PERFORMANCE
Test Date
Test Period
Approx. Avg. Binary
Counts per Scan
Deviation from
Boresight
Equivalent Space
Degrees Below
Monopulse Antenna
Boresight
4-18-75
4-21-75
4-22-75
4-23-75
4-24-75
4-25-75
4-29-75
5-5-75
5-7-75
P.M.
P.M.
P.M.
P.M.
A.M
A.M.
A.M.
P.M.
P.M.
-65
-35
-35
-60
-65
-35
-35
-35
-25
0.56
0.30
0.30
0.52
0.56
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.21
17

CONCLUSIONS
1. The varying-biased mean-angular-deviation measurements from boresight
and the high number of beacon replies per scan were due to multipath effects
and/or the presence of the most minimal beacon defruiting technique in the
glide slope monitor subsystem.
2. The glide slope monitor subsystem d,id not meet the contractural design
goal specification of a statistical accufacy 10 times better (0.023°) than
the ILS glide slope over any part of the, final 6 nmi (11.112 kilometers) of
the final approach path.
3. The glide slope monitor subsystem error measurements were not always
reproducible. All the average mean error values for each of the flight test
periods varied between approximately -0.3° and +0.1°. It should be noted that
the two-sigma value for all flight test periods was typically +0.13°, with a
maximum of ~0.775° over the final 6 nmi (11.112 kilometers) of-the final
approach path.
REFERENCES
1. Proposal for Performance Monitor of Final Approach, Touchdown and Rollout,
Part I (technical), Negotiation No. H-1334, Westinghouse Electric Company,
June 30, 1971.
2. Frey. George W., Jr•• Data Processing Subsystem Performance Specifications,
Revisions A, Band C, pages 24 through 28, Purchase Order No. 86GJ-SB-53384-0S,
Westinghouse Electric Company, November 22, 1972.
3. Basil. I. T., Final Approach Performance Monitor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Final Report. FAA-RD-76-ll7, July 1976.
4. United States Flight Inspection Manual, FAA-Handbook OA-P-8200-l,
May 1963.
5. ICAO Aeronautical Communications, Annex 10, Seventh edition, August 1963.
18

FAR FIELD
ANTENNA PATTERNS
-A-:-:-:N~T"""E""'N--N-A~A~B""'O=R-=E""'S"""I-=G--H--T""""'A~X--IS""""'--~
ANTENNA SYSTEM
------------------- BORESIGHT AXIS
___n
ANTENNA B BORESIGHT AXIS U
A
B 76-20-1
FIGURE 1.
RELATIONSHIP OF SUBARRAYS FOR MONOPULSE ANTENNA MEASURING
SOURCE OF
RADIATION
ANTENNA
SYSTEM BQRESIGHT
76-20-2
FIGURE 2.
PHASE RELATIONSHIP OF WAVEFRONTS RECEIVED AT MONOPULSE
ANTENNA
19

ATC
TERMINAL
BUILDING
~

COVER
76-20-4
.FIGURE 4.
EXPLODED VIEW OF GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR MONOPULSE ANTENNA
21

ANGLE (DEGREES)
-4 -2 +2
/'\
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I,
-J-""""l::~--:;"'~-!-'------jf----------- ~-30
, " I
\ I
11
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I,
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
/"
1'. "
/
/
I
I
I
, I -50
-10
-40
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I'
76-20-5
FIGURE 5.
MONOPULSE ANTENNA RESPONSE PATTERN
22

ep IS THE PHASE ANGLE
MEASURED IN THE
MONOPULSE RECEIVER
+l\
N
W
-l\
76-20-6
FIGURE 6.
VECTOR REPRESENTATION OF MONOPULSE RECEIVER PHASE MEASUREMENT

.
8
STORAGE SCOPE
MONITOR
N
-I::­
ELEVATION
I~
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
HYBRID
-,
L
1'1:
L.....J ZERO
MONOPULSE I I CROSSING DET I ~I
RECEIVER ~r ZERO
CROSSING DET
t RECEIVER GATE
TARGET DETE CTOR
A
B
ANGLE
PROCESSOR
~ I I
ANGLE
OFF
BORESITE
-
PUNCH
BUFFER
TRIGGER
NORTH MARK
ACP FROM
ASR-4
~I SYNCHRONIZER I ~I
t
RANGE
TRACKER
PAPER
TAPE
PUNCH
SYSTEM
OUTPUT
(PAPER TAPE)
76-20-7
FIGURE 7.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER EQUIPMENT BLOCK DIAGRAM

10%.
l ( 18
~-__ ·St?
'\ ........... .k~,
\ ,,~
\ "
\ \
•
\ \
\ SEARCH MODE
9.25 nmi (17.131 km)
\ \ t 2 BOUNDARY
V
\
/1 ,
~
t 1
BOUNDAR Y
I ,
,
I ,
I
TRACK MODE
250 FT.
ASR-4
FIGURE 8.
G. S. MONITOR
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SECTOR, RANGE AND TIME GATING
25
76-20-8

N
(J)
FIGURE 9.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SITE WITH COLLOCATED GLIDE SLOPE SUBSYSTEMS

FIGURE 10. GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR MONOPULSE ANTENNA INDICATING 1°45"11.0"
ROTATION TOWARDS RUNWAY 13
27

FIGURE 11.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR MONOPULSE ANTENNA INDICATING 3°00'00.0"
ROTATION
28

FIGURE 12.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER CABINET, FRONT VIEW
29

w
o
76-20-13
FIGURE 13.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER CABINET, UPPER LEFT-HAND CLOSE-IN
FRONT VIEW

FIGURE 14.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER CABINET, LOWER LEFT-HAND CLOSE-IN
FRONT VIEW
31

o
W
N
'~-'------
FIGURE 15.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER CABINET, MIDDLE RIGHT-HAND
FRONT VIEW

FIGURE 16.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER CABINET, REAR VIEW
33

FIGURE 17.
ASR-4 FACILITY BEACON PRETRIGGER SIGNAL CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
LOCATED IN THE TRAILER
34

----
TEST
STORAGE TUBE
..........I TGT ,.j:r:'/_.....__C;0r-rV~~.:r~_~~ OSCILLOSCOPE I+­
GEN
(GFE)
I
~
COMMUTA TING
HYBRID
I±j ~
I 'f ~~
MONOPULSE
RECEIVER
START
CLOCK
STOP
ANGLE
PROCESSOR
t------; ANGL~
w
VI
MONOPULSE
ANTENNA
.... SYNCHRONIZER
h
DET VIDE,
SEARCH/TRACK PRINTER PAPER TAPE
RANGE GATES !ROCESSOR_ BUFFER ~ PUNCH
~
TIME CODE
I GATE GEN
~I GEN (GFE)
BITE 1-\
READER
SECTOR & RANGE
DESIGNATE
- - ---4 - -------+- -1------ - --- +- - - - - - ­
BEACON TRIGGER (to) ACP NM RANGE
FROM ASR-4 -- FROM ASR-4 TIME
76-20-18
FIGURE 18.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RECEIVER SUBSYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM

CONTROL
MANUAL
PHASE
SHIFT
0·/180· (I ±j~)
~
PHASE
RF
SHIFT
STC
I ~
FROM
90·
MONOPULSE HYBRID I TRIGGER
ANTENNA
I
I±j~
W
0'1
jL-
~ I
TRIGGER
RF
STC
MIXER
TO
IF
RECEIVER
POWER
SPLIT
-
L. O.
76-?n-19
FIGURE 19.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR RF RECEIVER BLOCK DIAGRAM

FROM
PROCESSOR
DIGITAL
PHASE DETECTOR
CHANNELS
"----" ­
MIXER
---
IFAMPL'H H 0.2fJ-s
NARROW
ZERO
30 MHz
&J,.IMITER RANGE BAND CROSSING
LIMITER
FILTER FILTER
- ----
----
GATE DET.
j FR~ RF FROM
~ TO
PROCESSOR
! RECEIVER - ­
PROCESSOR
PHASE
COUNTER
W
'-J
IF AMPL.
&
FILTER
0.2 fJ-s
NARROW
LIMITER RANGE BAND
GATE
FILTER
30 MHz
LIMITER
MIXER
--- ZERO
CROSSING
DET.
DETECTION
CHANNEL
IF AMPL.
&
DET.
THRESHOLD
LOW
FREQ.
OSC.
RESET
FROM
PROC.
DETECTION
TO PROC.
76-2-"-20
FIGURE 20.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR IF RECEIVER BLOCK DIAGRAM

/
I /
, I
I
~
j
E-<
~
U
~
H

w
o
~
o
u
.
N
N
39

FIGURE 23. GULFSTREAM ONE (N-377) EXPOSED NOSE OF FLIGHT TEST AIRCRAFT
40

TRU 1/2 ANTENNA
A -
B -
C -
1.0' (0.30481 METERS)
1.0' (0.30481 METERS)
0.083' (0.02530 METERS)
TRU 1/2 ANTENNA
00
GULFSTREAM ONE (N-377)
76-20-24-1
FIGURE 24-1.
PHOTOTHEODOLITE AIRCRAFT TRACKING POINTS AND RELATED
AIRCRAFT TRU-1/2 ANTENNA LOCATION INFORMATION-SHEET 1 OF 2
41

-''-------JT
....------F--------;r--­
A - 1.5' (0.45722 METERS)
B - 7.34' (2.23731 METERS)
C - 1.0' (0.30481 METERS)
D - 3.84' (1.17047 METERS)
E - 2.5' (0.76203 METERS)
F - 17.5' (5.33418 METERS) .
~~§L~~~~~~~==T:RU 1/2 ANTENNA
~--B---+I
COMANCHE (N-9093P)
76-20-24-2
FIGURE 24-2.
PHOTOTHEODOLITE AIRCRAFT TRACKING POINTS AND RELATED
AIRCRAFT TRU-1/2 ANTENNA LOCATION INFORMATION-SHEET 2 OF 2
42

(CAT lIlA)
EXPERIMENTAL USE ONLY
ILS RWY 13
ATLANTIC CITY APP CON
124.6385.5
ATLANTIC CITY TOWER
118.9239.0 //
GND CON
121.9284.6 //
ASR
~R-IOO
/
1700 NoPT to LOM
via MIV R-J 00 and
LOC cau... (14.4)
\
\
\
\
1600
'0 tv'-1
AL-669 (FAA)
)
NAFEC ATLANl"IC CITY
A TLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSFV
\ \
\
\
/
1400; /
/
\
FIGURE 25.
OM to ILS/DME 6.1 NM
OM to VORTAC 5.2 NM
COLOGNE
Remain LOM
within 10 NM o~
~O'O
- 1~I-l~Bo
1700/ MM
1700
Precision DME at
Localizer Chan 28
GS 3.00·
TCH 55
-3.7NM­ 1518'
ALL AIRCRAFT
S-ILS 13 226/16 150 RA 147
S-ILS 13 I 76 /1 2 100 RA 99
S-ILS 13 RVR 07
MSSED APPROACH
Climb straight ahead to 1000;
then climbing left turn 10 2000
via ACY R-090 10 SmithvHle
Int and hoId.
.~
I...:C=::A::,:TE;:G::::O:;:R::":Y-+_--'-'-:==-,--1;-=-=-~-,---:=":-:c-:-:-=C,----+=-;-=;D=~=-=::-:-:--:-I· 230
S-ILS 13 200 200-'/,) 276120
S-LOC 13 400124 324 400-'/, 400 140 324 400-'/,\
620 1 640-JlI2 640-2 680-2
CIRCLING - 544 (600-1) 564(600-1'/,)564 (600-2) 604 (700-2)
ILS RWY 13
ELEV 76
CATEGORY III AILS-SPECIAL AIRCREW
HIRL Rwys 4-22 and 13-31
& AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED MIRL Rwys 8-26 and 17-35
(CAT IlIA)
PlJ8U$HfO IY NOS, NOAA. TO lAce SPfClflCATlONS
ATlANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
NAFEC ATLANTIC CITY
ILS RUNWAY 13 FLIGHT CHART (EXPERIMENTAL USE ONLY)
76-2.0-25
43

OPM36 o P-8
RUNWAY 13 CENTERUNE
10,000 ft. x 200 It.
I [> -
./
P-29D o P-13
~
~
o
x
y~
x = y =3000 FT. lINCH.
o PHOTO THEODOLITE TOWER
[> GLIDE. SLOPE MONITOR AND
ILS GLIDE SLOPE (loa FOOT APART)
ILS GLIDE SLOPE IS 400 FEET FROM
NEAREST R UNWA Y CENTER LINES
OAIRPORT SURVEILLANCE
RADAR (ASR-4)
76-20-26
FIGURE 26.
NAFEC DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM SCALE LAYOUT

+68 -[
TAPE DIRECTION
J'"
r"V'~
00000-000 -
00000-000
,,-..'"
-
-
--
A
-LSB
:0 ~
- 0
H5H4-H3H2H1 }
SfH9
t : 0H 8H7H6
L MSB
-
+180 -{
0 -0
0 -0 0
-180 -{
0-0
00- 0
- 0
r:
0
0 !
OMSB-LSB
0
eBCD-CODE -
LEVEL 6 ­
TIME
TAG BIT
o ­
-
0
00000-000
FILE MARK ( 2 CONSECUTIVE FILE MARKS)
PRECEDES RECORD GAP
RECORD GAP IS GREATER THAN 2 INCHES OF FILE
MARKS
} HIT NO. 1
HIT NO.2
ETC., UP TO
SIGN BIT
18 HITS
MODE: SEARCH/TRACK
(BLANK/HOLE)
} HIT NO. 17 (TRACK MODE - BINARY CODE)
} HIT NO. 18 (TRACK MODE - 2 f s COMPLEMENT)
HUNDREDTH SECOND
TENTH SECOND
UNITS SECOND
TENS SECOND NAFEC RANGE TIME (FIRST HIT)
UNITS MINUTE
TENS MINUTE
UNITS HOUR
TENS HOUR
FILE MARK
-
76-20-27
FIGURE 27.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM PUNCHED PAPER TAPE FORMAT
45

3.0
2.0
1.0
I....-------t-.I----...1If--­
3.0 2.0 1.0
-1.0 -2.0 -3.0
-2.0
-3.0
FIGURE 28.
GLIDE SLOPE MONITOR SUBSYSTEM ANTENNA DISCRIMINATOR
CURVE
76-20-28
46

o
,D
o
L.D
N
0
.
~
C)
l..J..J
Do
0
0
W
0.­
0
.......JiJ)
(f)N
w9
~ 0
-....I t--i
.......J
DO
If)
l.L •
0
0
I
•
-l -l ~ -l -l ~ _,----, -l ~-l -l -l _J -l ~ ~ :..J -l -l -l ~ -l ~ -l -l ~ -l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -l
•
• •
• • • •
• • • •
¢
I:!:I ~
f9 f9~ ¢
• • ••• • •
•
•• • ••
12/20/74.~UNS 1-18
PROCESSlD DRTE01/30/76
LEGEND
•• • •• • •
•
MER~
+2 SICMR ...
-2 5ICI'lR ~
DE5ICN GaAL TOLERANCE
¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢ ¢
~ ¢
~
¢ ¢
¢ ¢
¢ ¢
a
•
•
0::::
0
0::::
O::::~
w·
0
I
¢
¢
o
NO. OF
SCANS
IN
h~' ~ "'U. ':;U••u, "JI 1::1 A:I· ~~ .lU. ZU. Hi· H!••9. J9. U. ~1. U. 17. 19 !S. is· .i.2. 1'. BINS
I , , I I I , I I , I J
I
'0. ' 1', ' '2'. 3 I 1 I I I 4'. 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1
, .... U' ~ ..... • ...,_ .. .,. "" ':;JI u· ... J J:J ~.
' .
SLANT RANGE (NAUTICAL MIL.ESl
76-20-29
FIGURE 29.
DECEMBER 20, 1974, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

.
~
0
0
0
LD
0
0.
LD
N
1-.
LL O
- - -
- - -
12/20/74.RUNS 1-18
PROCESSEO DATEOl/30/76
LEGEND ..!>.
MEAN ~
+2 SIGMA •
-2 SIGMA ~
DESIGN GOAL TOLERANCE
- - -
- - -
~o
.po
Q:)
O
W
0..... I ..!>.
0
--.Jo
~ l:g ..!>.
(f) c:J
LD ~
WN ~
oj
II-l
--.J
00
0
LL~
OLD
I
0:::
0
0::: 0
0:::0
W·
LD
r-
I
FIGURE 30. DECEMBER 20, 1974, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3 0 ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
...')
o
0
WI
0
.po : .........
1.0 . --.J
OI/ID/75.~UNS 1-14
PROCESSED DRTED2/04/75
LEGEND
MEI1N 6
+2 SIGMR
A",
-2 SIGJ'1'l ~
U)
N
A
DESI ~ GORL TOLERRNCE A -
A
0 A
A A A A A
A
A A A A A A A A
~
A A A A
. A A
A A A
A A
A
0
A
W
00
0
~
0 ~ ~ ~.¢...l ~ ~ -~ -~~~ ~ ;;.
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q... ~
a ~
~
~
--.JlJ)
~
(f)N
°0
lJ)
il.L~
0
1
0::::
a
0::::
O::::~
:W'
0
I
~
o
, I AD. ,l~. J1I••111· .:1 . .Lt). olU • .L) • .a1ll. "tI. J~' l:J. ,,4· J.9. J1. JfII. i5· 17. 19. 17. 16. 14. 16. lO. 7. S. ). fl.. ~. ~. J. 1 2. ), 2. BINS
10. ' I I , I I'. ' , , , 1 2 '. I , , , '3'. I I , , '4', ' I I I , I I I I , I ,
SLRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL MILES)
NO. OF
5CRNS
IN
FIGURE 31.
JANUARY 10, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

.
~
0
0
0
l1)
0
0 .
U)
N
~
LL O
~O
O
W
(L
a
---10
we::
U')
WN
oJ
VI
0
1--1
.-J
Do
0
LL~
aU')
I
0::::
a
0:::: 0
0::::0
W
•
lJ)
r-
J
A
A
A
A
A
D1/10/75.~UNS 1-14
PROCESSED DRTE02/04/76
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ~CEm: II • A
A A A A
- - - _---4-­
A - - - - - ­
t1EAN¢
A +2 SlC-t1A .t.
-2 SICt1G ~
DESIGN GORL TOLERANCE
I I I I I 1-1 r----r- I ~I .----.
¢ ~ ~-
- - - ~
¢ ~ ~ ¢
~ - - ­
~
~
- - - - - ­
~
~
¢
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
a
o
o
~
o
...
~ NO. OF
SCANS
IN
16. 14. 11. ;e. :So 16. 20. 15. II••9. 15. 11. a. 18. 1. 6· 3. b. Z. .;. 1. 3. 2. 3, 2. BINS
10 • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 •
SLANT RANGE (NAUTICAL MILES)
76-20-32
FIGURE 32.
JANUARY la, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
,.I)
o
LO
N
0
J!:,.
~
J!:,.
OI/30/7S.~UNS 1-5.7
PROCESSED OATl01/IS/76
LEGEND
HEAN
e
.2 5 IGHA
""
-2 5 IGHA ~
DESIG~ GnAL TOLERANCE
(j
uJ
DO
0
0
LJJ
J!:,.
----------~~-~----------------------
-,---, ~ ~ -,----,-~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,---,---I ~ -! ~ -! ~ -! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J!:,. J!:,. J!:,. J!:,. J!:,.
0... J!:,. J!:,. J!:,. J!:,. J!:,.
J!:,.
0
J!:,. J!:,.
-leo
J!:,.
(f)N
uJ° ~
1
~ ~ ~ ~, ¢ ~
lJl 0
~
~
I-' ¢' ~ ¢
~
~I
~ ~
~
~ ~
---l
~
~
~
00
L.D
LL. "
00
I
0::::
0
0::::
0::::L.'")
uJr-::
0
I
~
~
J!:,.
~
J!:,.
~
~
I
o
IN
5 5, 6, 6. 7, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6· 6. 7, 6, 6, 6, 6. ~ 5 5, 7. 6, 7. 5, L 5· 5. 5· 5, 5· l 2, 2, I, I. J, BINS
'0', ,-, I I J J ~I i I I 2~,---,----,-'3r:--,---,---,---' I 4'. I i J I lSi, I I I , I 6 1 ,
~C. OF
SCANS
5LRNl RRNGE (NRUl 1CRL M1LE5 1 ,76-20-33
FIGURE 33.
JANUARY 30, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

OI/30/75.~UN5 1-5.7
l> l> 4>.
pP.OC~5~LD DAll01/1~/76
LEGEND
MEAN
.·2 5 IGliR A
-2 51CHA ¢'
DESIGN G~AL lOLERANCL
s
l>
1_,.....
l>
- - - - - ­
- - -
- - -
~I-::~'-='I-=-,~T:-~4~=~~~~~~~-T-,-r'-'-T-T-,-r-"'-T-T-,-----
_A.--~--
-4
- - -
I_I I I I - tr 4 I I I , I I , I I I I I I I , 1 I I I I I , Ii'
4>.
4
l>
- - -
4
4>.
¢.
4
4>. 4
4
.
76-20-34
FIGURE 34.
JANUARY 30, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o I O1l29175. IWNS 1-15
11) IPROCE.S5l0 OATI::02l04176
ol A A LtCE.ND
MEAN -----=
+2 SlOMA
I A
-2 SICI'1~ ~
~ I IDE.5 WN GOAL TOLERI1NCE.
o
I
J
DW A A
DO
A
A
W
~ A A A
o
~ ----£-------------­
o
~~ A A A A A A A A A A~
wcr
~ u ~ ~ ~ ~
W......... ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
---.J ~ ~ ~ ~
dO ~ ~ ~
11)
!L" ~ ~ ~
0
0 ~ ~
1 '" ~
~ v
Ct::
o ~
Ct:: ~
Ct::~
W~ I ~
11 ~
A
o
1b· Z~, ~s . ~~ . Z~ , .!6 l1. Z3 Ztl. ::3. 2'. Z7. 21. 23
10. 2.
SLRNT RRNGE
3 "
(NRUTICRL
OF
~O.
SCANS
IN
BINS
FIGURE 35.
JANUARY 29, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

a
a
LD
f-
LLo.
a
0.
.a
.a
if.)
NI .a .a
.a
~o.
.a
- - -
Ol/29/75.~UNS I-IS
PROC~SSlO DRTE02/04/76
LEG~N[)
MEAN
+2 (j IGHR &
-2 SICMR ~
O~5ICN GORL TOLERRNCE
- - -
wo. .a
Q...
0
if.)
WN 1
V1 0
1
+:- ..........
~
- - -
1----' ---,-----, 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 'I I
---.J a .a - - - ­
(J)C? .a
.a
~
.a .a
~ ~ .a
.a
---.J
Do.
a
LL" ~ .a
055
I
.a
. 0::::
~ ~
0
.a .a
0::::0.
0::::0. .a
.a
W"
LD
r-
,
.a
.a
a
~
~
a
a
a
-<
'0 "
, '2. . 3.
~
SLRNT RRNGE
(NRUTICRL
.a
.a
FIGURE 36.
JANUARY 29, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
Lf)
o
Lf)
N
0
..
02/D4/75.RUNS 1-6
PROCESSED D~TE02/04/7S
LEGEND
t1E~N
+2 SIGMIl 4>
-2 SIGt1!l ~
DESIG~ GO~L TOLER~~CE
e
~
.. ..
0
W
00
0
..
..
W
CL
0
0
-lLf)
(f)N
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.. .. ..
..
.... ....
..
.. ..
lJl
lJl
W~
0
.........
-l
Ci o
Lf)
1..L ..
O~
Ct::::
0
Ct::::UJ
Ct::::r-
W ..
0
,
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢ ¢ ¢
¢
¢ ¢
¢
¢ ¢
¢
¢ ¢ ¢
¢ ¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
o
¢
'a', ' , , , '1', I , , i. ' I· , , 3'. ' f , '4', ' , I
_, ~ ,. ~ 10· Jl. 10· 10· 11 11 ~ ~ Jl il 10. 10 12. ~ 10. il. 10 10· il ,. il ,. 7. 10.
I I I I
I
"10. OF
S[~"IS
IN
il. ~. 5 ~. 5· ,. 7. 5· BINS
'5'. ' , I I I 6',
SLRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL MILES) 76-20-37
FIGURE 37.
FEBRUARY 4, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

0
0
0
i.J)
0
0
i.D
N ~
~
02/04/7S,~UNS 1-5
PRoct55[D Dq T lD2/04/76
lECtNC
t1EI'i'l
a
+2 5ICt1'i A.
-2 SICt1'i ~
DESIC'l GOl'il TOLERA'lCt
~
I-
~
~
LL O
~ ~
- - - - - ­
~o
- - - ­
- - - - - - - -
W
O
(L
0
~ ~
--10
(J)C?
...') ¢
WN
1
VI 0
0­ I---t ~
¢
¢
-'
do
0
- "- ­
~ A
- - -
- - -
l.L~
0 ...') ~
~
I
¢
0::::
~
0 ~
~
0:::: 0
0::::0 ~
¢ ~
W'
i.J) ~
r-- ¢
1
¢
¢
0
0
0
0
-<
10. 1 ' 2.
SLRNT RRNGE
FIGURE 38.
¢ A
¢
~ ~ ~
~
- - - - - -
FEBRUARY 4, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° IL8 GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET
A
A
~
~
~

o
I.f)
o
lJ)
N
0
""
.
~
0
""
W
"" ""
DO
0 "" ""
-~ "" -~
""
0
W
0....
0 ~
---.JlJ) ~
""
~ A-!",,-'~ ­
(f)r:! ~
~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
v ~ ~ ~
0 ~
, WI ~
VI ; LJ
~ ~
"'-J
o---t
---.J
Do
I.f)
l.L •
09
~ ~
~
A
-~
",,­
02/06/75.~UNS 1-7
PROCESSED DATE02/04/76
I1GEND
MEAN
f9
+2 SIGMA .t.
-2 SIG~A ~
DESIGN GOAL TOLERANCE
~
0:::
0
0:::lJ)
O:::r-­
W·
0
I
~
~
o
10,
5. 3 3 j. I. j. BINS
, I I '2'. r , , '3'. ' , , 4 '. ' , , , I S" I , , I I 6',
SLRNT RRNGE (N RUT rCRL MrLES J 76-20-39
~. :0. II. ). ~. 10. ~. ,. ~. ~. ,. ~. ,. ~. S· S· 5 ,. ~. 5 5 5
I I I I
OF
~O.
SCRNS
IN
FIGURE 39.
FEBRUARY 6, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

0 02/06/75.~UNS 1-7
0
PROCESSED DRTE02/04/76
~l $GEND
AN
:~
A
A
I~~
SIC-Mil
SIGMR
SIG~ aOAL TOLERA~CE
A A A A _I_I __ - - -­
A _--e.------­
I­
l..L. O
A A
'-'0
,
~ -A- -A- - - - - - - - -A - - - A
W O
a....
0 ~ - ~... ~ ... - - - - - - - - ~ -A- _A_A_ ~i
-l0
We::
Lf)
WN
1
VI 0
~
00 .........
-l
CJo ~
~
~
~
~
0 ~
~
l..L.'
055 ~ ~
I
t'!( ~
\A
,1- - _
0::: ~
.~ ~
0
~
0::: 0 ~
0:::0
W • ~
~
Lf)
r-­ ~
I
~
~
0 ~
0 ~
. .. NO. OF
~
SCANS
0 IN
0
..... ~. ,. 9 • ,. 9. 5. S. 9. 4. S. B· B. S 3. j. J,. J. BINS
10. 2. 3, 4. 5, 6.
SLRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL MIL.ES ) 76-20-40
----e
""
~
FIGURE 40.
FEBRUARY 6, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
w')
0:
A
I 02/07/75.~UN5 1-16
I PROC[SS[D DRT[02/04/76
: LEC[NG
1 HEI1"l -----=
1 +2 5ICMl1 A.
A
1-2 SIGHR
JJi
~
DES 1eN GDRL TOLERANCE - - ­
A
~~
A
(j
LLJ
00
o A A
~ ~
--- - A----------------------­
~~ -=:r--~ ~ ~ - - - t!r A A + A A A A
o I , , I , I I I IA I S-, 1 I I I I I I I A I ~ r I I I I I I I I
LLJ ,- A = A
0­ I A A AA A A
o A A
~~ A A
---.J L.f)
(jj(J
LLJ~"; ~
C ~ ~
I ~
~
~~~ ~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
Ln
~
\0
----.J
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~o
~
~ ~ ~
w') .
'. 1
LL.o~
0, I
D:::'
D:::'r­ ~lJ)~!
1l.J •
o
I
i
~
~

~
0\
0
I
0 02/07/75.~UNS 1-16
0
PROCtSSlD DATE02/04/76
0
l1J
LECEND
MEAN
+2 SICM';
0 -2 SIGM'l ~
0
DESIGN GOAL TOLERA~CE
iD
N
..!I.
..!I.
..!I.
.
~
..!I.
f-­
..!I.
­
­
­
u.... o
..!I.- - - - - - - - -
- -
~o
..!I.
W O I I I
-~___
I I
..!I.
(L ..!I. - - - - - - -
0 ..!I.
..!I. ..!I. ..!I.
-i:--­
--.JO
..!I.
(f)C::
..!I.
..!I.
l1J
WN ~ _ -JJ:l.-_ ..!I.
1
..!I.
0 ~
....... ~
~ ~
..!I.
..!I.
--.J
..!I.
Do
..!I.
~ !l]
0
..!I.
..!I. ..!I. ..!I.
u....C;;
~
OiD
~
I
~ ~
0:::
~
~
0
0::: 0
~
0::: 0 ~
W' ~
l1J
r-­
I
~
~
~
..!I.
- - -
~ ..!I. ..!I.
0
0 ~
~O. OF
5(11~5
0 IN
0
--< 9. 15· 14. j~. ; 3 iO· I·e 15 13 03 21, J4. J~ ;,.
BINS
I I I I I
,
I I I I I
10. 2',
SLRNT RRNGE
, 3.
(NRUTICRL
e
""
76-20-42
F ]GURE 42.
FEBRUARY 7, 1975, FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-9093P ON THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF DEGREE OFFSET

.~
o
tJ)
o
f LT5 -12/20174 .1 /l0175. 1/30175. ~37';
PROCESSED DR T f02/23/75
A
LECE.NC
I'1ER~
---e--­
+2 Sle,..G .4>
.
U)
N
0
c..J
w
00
0
A
A A A A A
A
A
A A A
A
A
A
A
A A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-2 SlC~C; ~
OESIC~ GORL TOLERR~CE
A
A
A
A
A
A
.,
0\
f-'
0
W
0.....
0
--.J
(f)~
W O I
0
........
--.J
do
L.?
lL •
0 0
I
0::::
0
0:::"
0::::U?
r-
w·
0
I
/'
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~~
~
~
~
~
¢
o
'0, 2. 3.
5LRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL
FIGURE 43.
ALL FLIGHT PERIODS OF N-377 ON THE 30 ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF DEGREE
OFFSET
76-20-43

0
0
~l .!>
:~
.!>
.!>
LL r- O
I
.!>
~o
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!>
.!> .!> .!> .!> .!> .!> .!> .!> .!>.!> .!> .!>
.!>
.!>
fLTS-12/20/74.1/10/75.1/30/75.~371
PROCESSED DATED2/23/76
.!> .!> .!>
ltCEND .!>
MEA'l
+2 s.tC1'"
,-25IGMR .!>
DESIGN GOAL TOLERANCE
- - -
- - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
W O
0­
---------------------- .!>
0
-lo ~ Jll
(f)C? ~
i.J)
WNi 6
0'
0'1 ...........
~
N
-l
Ggi
~
LL"
O~
I
cr::
1 ~
0
° I ~
cr::o
W"
~~
°
~
- - - ­
~'>
~
V \
0
5CQ'l5 NO. OF
0 . IN
0
40 )1·

o
U)
o
,n
N
0
A
Il/2gns.2/41752/C,I7S.217I7S.~gOg'JP
I P~OCfSS[D
ilfSf~[;
DR T f02/23!7C,
!l'lf.R"I ---6
! +2 SICt"C, ~
A
I -2 S I Ct"t;
[10ft S I C"I GDt;L
TOI f Rt;"ICf
~
0'\
W
C)
UJ
DO
0
0
W
0­
0
--.JU)
(f)N
0
WI
0
>--<
--.J
dO
LD
LL "
O~
CL
0
I
0:::' Uj
CL ~_~
UJ
9
,
A
A
A
A
A
A
-- - ~ '" , I 1 I I I I I --1 ,~~~~ Iii
----. A '-----'-1"" , I , '&-J~ A A A A A A
'I-'-'~" , ----- A & A A
-- A A =AAAA AA
L~_~~_~~J~~~
0
~) ~. ~)
~) \!'>

0"­
.l;-­
o
f­
tJ. C
o
Lf)""""':
of
ol
~.;j
~~c'
t!>
11 ,I c:' -: --.~
0...
c
--....:0
If)C
UJ!
l..LJ (,J..J
0' i
~
I
[
~ol
LL~ J
0..0
,
~
~
.!'.
t!>
~ ,/nn t :'/4175.2!5175.~1717'j."l9093~
P~~(tJ~rD D~~t02/23/75 I
Ir1Cf"lC
I
I M£I;~ i'!l I
i +2 ~ 1Ct1c,
,
A
i ·2 ~ICMe, 0
l~~S!~~i GCJ~
,!.
.­ ?
~
~
.!.
'"
'"
'"
~
~
.!.
t!>
'"
~
~
I
'0::::
0
0:::: 0
0::::0
w~
r-­
I
0
0
~~. '50.1. 'j.i. ~J ~o· ':.I~. 'So.A::. ~.;;,. ~~ - ~..,;. \:)'
. , '2,
SLRNT RRNGE
3.
(NRUTICRL
FIGURE 46. ALL FLIGHT PERIODS OF N-9093P ON THE 3 0 IL8 GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE
FEET OFFSET
B,
.76-20-46;

o
w')
01/30175 - - .35 BELa\; BORESICW
P~OCfSSE.D D~ Tt 0111417'3
\
: lEC£.NG
°l I MEN.. a
!"'2 ~ I2t'111
""
i -2 S IC('1'; ¢
col
I oES~C_,",__GCJI1L TOLERI1,",CE _
~1
1
0\
Ln
C)
LLJ
DO
o
o
LLJ
0....
o
.--J w') I
rJ) r--J
I
I
LLJO~ I ,
r-~ .
'---J
~o~: w')
LL ..
00
I
CL
I
=r--'-:=J-:.:J~--=--'-_='-=_T-~~_=:r--=r----=r-::.J-.:.I-='=T--'__::..J ,=r:=-r-_--,-T-...::::r-=_' -.J --.J -.J -.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J -1 -1
'"
'" '" '" '"
'" '" '" '" '"
'" '" '" _.2l
l 1 Q}----f'l ­ '" ,-tJ}-----a- \~
, /
,y/}-~-=----f']-~-fl}~.. '!'
L..J --------c.i _~
'"
'" '" ~
'" '" ,."-' ~.
'" /p~ \
'"
~ L:.i

0 01/30/75·-·35 efl~" BORfSICHT
0
I
P~OCtSSlO
~RTlOI/14/75
o~
I LE.CE.NG
wI
IHff."I ----e
0
0
u')
N
I ~ 1+2 SICMG A
I
-2 SICHe; ¢>
~
OfSION GORL
TaLfRf,~Cl
~
I­
U- o
~o
,- T ,- ,-,- ,--,-----r -,---,- -,---,-,- -,- -,-------,--,--1 -,-, ---.--T I I I I 1 1 I ~
- -
l..1JO
~ - - - ­
ll..­
- -- - -
0
- - -
- - -
~ - ­ -
---.JO
~
(f)~
u')
WN
~> R!
0'
~
0'­ .......... ~~
~>
0'­
---.J ~ ~
~
~
~
L:lo
~
i.' . ~
/La
0
OU) ~
I
0::::'
~
0
0:::'0
0::::'0
~
~
l..1Ju~ ~
r-­
I
~
~ /'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~. J, &. ~ . ~ . ~, ~. ~ .
f I
, , ...... 1 ,
I I
I ~l!> I ~$
10, I ' L.
::l •
SLRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL 76-20-48
FIGURE 48.
FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 0.35° BELOW THE 3° ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
.n
o
.h .h
02120175.~UN5 1-4.9-12
PROCE55£.D DRTED2117175
Lf.G£.NO
--I!I-­
•
~
D
W O
O~
~
n:::
a
n:::
n:::.n
w 0
I
0\ n:::
'-J 0
r­
..-.
Zo
a .
:L.­
• I
.h
.P
4> .h
.h
.h
.h
~
.h
.h~
.h
~
.h ¢'
~ A
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~
.h
.h~ ~
"y'
(f)
D
~
(D
I
.h .h
.h
~ ~
~
o
I
O. 1. 2.
~
~
~
NO. Of
SCRNS
IN
' l 1. l !l. 13· , 1. fl· " IS l 2. J 5 7. :.. _. 1. ,. ,. ,. 7. JI. 6 !to 7. 7. Ii 7. 7. e. Eo. 1. 6 Eo· ~ ). l O. ,i. BINS
3. 4. 6. 6. 7. a.
SLRNT RRNGE
(NRUTICRL MILES)
76-20-49
FIGURE 49. FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE 3°
FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET

0
0
0
ill
-
0
0
0
00 A
......­
X
A
- ,0
t--.C:;
[LO
~lJ)
02120I7S,~UNS 1-4,9-12
PROCE55£.D DATE02l17175
l fe-E.MeJ
~E~~ ~
+2 5IG~G A
-2 51()~~ ~
0­
(Xl
W
n..
;0 A
---l0
(f)C:;
0
A
W
0
A
0-00 ~
---l0
o' 0
~ ~ ~ ~
ill
[L I A A
0
A
0::: 0 A
oC:;
0::: 0
o:::~
WI
A
A A
~
~
0
0
A
0 ~
ill
,. o. ~. ,2. 1 f:I ,. 2 .... 3 OJ, 1. :l i. 7. ,. ,. ~. 7. 11· fi ,. ,. 7. 6· 1. 1. a. ~. 1.
;aI, r I
J, 3. 4 '. ' , , , '5. 6.
SLANT RANGE
[ NAUT I CAL MlL ES l
FIGURE 50. FLIGHT PERIOD OF N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE 3°
FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET
~O.
Of
5(~~5
IN
6. ,. O. J. BIN5
7. B.
76-20-50

c
c ~
Il
1
N U')1
N377 q~c N9093 P FlIC~T~ (O~BINFO
P~O[!S~fD D~T!02/23/75
I
fGE NC
I ~fq'l ----5-­
I I +2 51C~q &
l
-2 SIC~t; ~
~
DfSIC'l GO~l Hli Ffl';"u
._-,------------ -- _..._..._----_._._ ..
~
~ ,!\ ~
•
•
o • • •
~ '" • .L __
., ." .' •• ".L 0-- '"
,,' I , , I ,
.
~O , I """
(")'. • • , 1 • - ,', , , ,., ,
=:0_\ ~ ---' __I _-, ! .' 1 1 ' ....1 I 1 'u .
U.J
CL
G
I
I
I
-.J~;) ! rq .--i

G N377 'it..JC "~'J(";:)3P FL I~IiT~ (~"'B!NED
c
P~Ql~~~ED
8~T~82/23!7~
c_
L,'") j l~~fNC ~
I ~ ,
·2 ~t~~~ ~
~
A ~
01 A
i -2 :: l~f'1c; t!> ~
e· fl.>. ~ 'DE:"::'! DOc;l TULf~c;'JlE
~ fl.>. L_______ .. ~_._. _
~
~J ~ fl.>.
~
t!> ~
C'J i t!> ~
~
I I!. ~
~ t~ 53 ~~ ,,~~ ~ !I BIN::'
, I I 1 I , I I j ! '-,! , I I l::, ! ':( , .. I v I I , I 41 ,- I I , , 'j I I 61
1 . c.... . J • • • ~
'e
SLRNT R1=1 t'! GE (N RUT I CRL MIL ES 1 76-20-52
~
'JD
DF
FIGURE 52.
ALL FLIGHT PERIODS ON N-377 AND N-9093P ON THE 3°ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS
OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

--C--T=- - --~t_- ­
I
/ 500' 1110' 1025'
(152.405 m.)~ (338.339 m.) .. (312.430 Meters)--'"
I d U.s G.S. .
-.L6 G.S. MONITOR
I-­
'J
I-'
1308'
(398.692 Meters)
41
TOWER 76-20-53
FIGURE ·53.
THE RELATIVE LOCATIONS OF THE MONOPULSE ANTENNA AND THE FIXED TARGET/TOWER.

APPENDIX
A
SAMPLE PLOTS OF REDUCED DATA SHOWING THE INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT
TRACKS AND THE RELATED ERROR DATA

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
A-I
Track Data of N-9093P on the 3° ILS Glide Slope in
Terms of Degree Offset from the Monopulse Antenna's
Boresight.
Page
A-2
~2 Track Data of N-9093P on the 3° ILS Glide Slope in Terms
of Altitude Feet Offset from the Monopulse Antenna's
Boresight
~3
~3 Error Data in Terms of Degree Offset for N-9093P
the 3° ILS Glide Slope
Flying ~4
~4 Error Data in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset for N-9093P
Flying the 3° ILS Glide Slope
A-5 Track Data of N-377 0.35° Below the 3° ILS Glide Slope
in Terms of Degree Offsets From the Flight Line
~6 Track Data of N-377 0.35° Below the 3° ILS Glide Slope
in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset From the Flight Line
~5
~6
~7
~7 Error Data in Terms of Degrees Offset for N-377
the 0.35° Below the 3° ILS Glide Slope
Flying ~8
~8 Error Data in Terms of Feet Offset for N-377
0.35° Below the 3° ILS Glide Slope
Flying the ~9
~9 Track Data of N-377 on the 1508 Feet Level Altitude
Flight Along the 3° Final Approach Path in Terms of
Degree Offset
A-IO
A-IO
A-II
Track Data of N-377 on the 1508 Feet Level Altitude
Flight Along the 3° Final Approach Path in Terms
of Altitude Feet Offset
Error Data in Terms of Degree Offset for N-377 on the
1508 Feet Level Altitude Flight Path Along the 3°
Final Approach Path
A-II
A-12
A-12 Error Data in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset for N-377
on the 1508 Feet Level Altitude Flight Path Along the
3° Final Approach Path
A-13 Track Data of N-377 on the 230 Feet Level Altitude Flight
Along the 3° Final Approach Path in Terms of Degree
Offset
A-13
A-14
A-iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
A-14
A-IS
A-16
Track Data of N-377 on the 230 Feet Level Altitude Flight
Along the 3 0
Final Approach Path in Terms of Altitude
Feet Offset
Error Data in Terms of Degree Offset for N-377 Flying
the 230 Feet Level Altitude Flight Path Along the
3 0 Final Approach Path
Error Data in Terms of Altitude Feet Offset for N-377
Flying at the 230 Feet Level Altitude Flight Path
Along the 3 0
Final Approach Path
Page
A-IS
A-16
A-17
A-iv

APPENDIX
A
SAMPLE PLOTS OF REDUCED DATA SHOWING THE INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT
TRACKS AND THE RELATED ERROR DATA
This appendix contains samples of the flight plots developed in the reduction
of the collected data. On the 3° glide path flight's sample plots are shown
in figures A-I, A-2, A-3, and A-4. At -0.35° below the 3° glide path flight's
sample plots are shown in figures A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8 (where the boresight
line of 0.0° is the flight line). At the level altitude of 1508 feet
(459.65348 meters) along the 3° Final Approach Path that intersects this path
at the OM, the flight's sample plots a~e shown in figures A-9, A-IO, A-II,
and A-12. At the level altitude of 230 feet (70.10630 meters) along the 3°
Final Approach Path that intersects this path at the middle marker, the flight's
sample plots are shown in figures A-13, A-14, A-15, and A-16.
A-I

o
"'')
o
RUN 13,G2/07/7S.~9093P
PROCl55l0 ORTf 09/30/75
LECE.NO
THED.
NE5T.
x
"'')
N
0
~
,
(;:)
uJ o
00
0
Z
0
........
I- u')
crC';J
........ 0
>1
uJ
0
1-0
:r
N r"'?
(;:)0
........ 1
(f)
uJ
0:::­
OL.')
m~
0
1
X
X
x
X
x X X X X
X
X
X X X X X X X
X
X
X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
1 I r-- I I I I I I ,-------,
to,OO 1,00 2·00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6,00
SLR~T RR~GE (NRUTICRL MILES)
76-20-Al
FIGURE A-I.
TRACK DATA OF N-9093P ON THE 3 oILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET
FROM THE MONOPULSE ANTENNA'S BORESIGHT.

-0
o
o
0
0
RUN
;3,G2/07/75·~~0~3P
PRO(l~~[D ~~Tl 01/30/75
Lf.CLN[;
THE!) ,
IoIf.~T • x
0
l.t)
~
I­
L.LJ
l.1.J 0
LLo
Z
0
.......... 0
I-~
CI o
.......... u')
>1
l.1.J
» DO
I
w
0
0
1-"
TO
0
U_
.......... I
(j)
l.1.J
n:::g
0,
(Do
u')
o
o
~IJI
-"----"---.,,----",-----"---jr----"---'I-----,-1---'1------,-1-------,'
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
SLANT RANGE [NAUTICAL MIL.ESJ
FIGURE A-2. TRACK DATA OF N-9093P ON THE 3 0 ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET
OFFSET FROM THE MONOPULSE ANTENNA'S BORESIGHT
6.00
76-20-A2

o
N
o
0
-
0
-
D
·
uJo
dc::
~o
RUN 13.02/07/75.~9093P
PROClSSlD DATE 09/30/75
LEGEND
"EAN
---is
+2 SIG"A •
-2 SIG"R
0
DESIGN GOAL TOLERANCE -- -- -­
~
:>
0::
a
0:: 0
0::­
uJ •
0
I
0::
a
I-­
I ...... 0
.j::-.
ZN
a .
:L9
·
(J)
·
D~
0
I
- - - - - - - - - -A--- - - ­
~
A
o
'"'I"
~
9....L'---r-1------.-,--~I------'Ir-----.,
0.00 1,00 2.00
SLANT RANGE
--~I-----'Ir-----'I---..,.1-----,'----,---.1----,1
3.00
(NAUTICAL
4.00
MILES)
5.00 6.00
76-20-A3
FIGURE A-3.
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET FOR N-9093P FLYING THE 3 oILS
GLIDE SLOPE

-0
0 IRUN 13.C2/07/75.N9093P
0 PROClSSlD DATE 09/30/75
~.., LEGlND
I1EFiN
+2 SIGI1A
""
'-2 SIGI1R
~
~I DESIGN GOAL TOLERANCE - -­
0
lJ)
---l!t
>­
~'o
LLo
o
0:::
a
0:::0
o:::c:
W o
lJ)
0:::'
a
I 1- 0
VI ...... 0
Z .
og
L:....
I
en
,0
C,jC:
o
j.J)
....
- - - - -
""
o
o
NI
,~O~O-"---I'~OC~-T'--=--~~~iO---'-----r~:;--,---,~=--r---~'L_JL-------.
.00 I I I I • L:I
I I I I I
1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00­
SLANT RANGE
(NAUTICAL MILES)
FIGURE A-4. ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET FOR N-9093P FLYING THE 3°
ILS GLIDE SLOPE
. \76-20-A4

o
If)
o
1/30/76.~UN 12 .RORE5I~~T-.35
PROCl55lD CRT~ 03/16/76
lEClN~
THf(l,
HE5T.
x
;.n
N
0
~
,
(j
W o
00
'-'
0
Z
0
..........
I-,D
cr:"!
.......... 0
>1
1 I I I I I
x
W x x
> 'I 0
x
x
x
0)
x x x x x
1-0 X
x
x
X X X X X
x X X X
I~
x
X
Clo
X
X
.......... 1 x
x x x X
(J)
x
W
0::::
OU)
COr:
0
1
I
I
I
X
o
.'
....
, ~'wlO--,--'1~o-r-~--=-T~~---r---r-~---r-----,-:--::::--,----.-------,.-----~
0 .00
I I1.00 I
2.00 r i I I I I I
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
76-20-AS, SL AN T RAN GE (NAUTICAL MILES) '
FIGURE A-5. TRACK DATA OF N-377 0.35 0 BELOW THE 3 0 ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF DEGREE
OFFSETS FROM THE FLIGHT LINE

o
o
0
0
1/30/76.~UN
12 .~ORESIOHT-.35
PROCESSlD DRTE 03/16176
lE(:;END
THEO.
WEST.
X
0
In
~
I­
W
W o
l..L..0
~ .
0
z I x
a
...... 0
1- 0
a:~
...... in
>'
W
:>
x x
/1 00 x x x
""-l 0
1-- •
I
O
(j~
...... ,
(f)
W
0::: 0
x x
0
x
a .
1Il 0
in
,
.....
0
x
0
0
0
C\J
x
x
I 0.00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00
SLANT RANGE [NAUTICAL MIL.ESl
x
x
FIGURE A-6. TRACK DATA OF N-377 0.35 0 BELOW THE 3 ILS GLIDE SLOPE IN TERMS OF
ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET FROM THE FLIGHT LINE
x
x
x
0
x
x
x
5.00 6.00
!76-20-A6

o
N
o
RUN 12.01/30/75.~377
PROCE55l0 O~TE O~/23/75
l[~lNC
I1EFtN
+2 51C·I'IF. A
-2 51011'1 ¢
e
0-0
O[510~ GO~L T~LER~NCE
.
~
C)
L.LJO
oC:
~o
0:::'
0
0:::'0
0:::'­
L.LJ
0
I
0:::'
0
> I
l­
00 ' ......... 0
ZN
o·
L.-9
"
if)
c..::>~
0
I
•
o
...
':\ '""

0
0
IRUN 12.01130175,1077
0
0_
PROCESSEO D~Tl 09/23/75
lEC[~O
gl
a
L()
"rf;~ --5
+2 51CI1'i /l.
1-2 51CI1~
OEr, W" GOf,l Tf)lr%~CE.
¢
>­
I
f- o
LLo
o
er
a
ero
erC?
LJ.Jo
..')
er l
a
f- o
I---lo
og
::E._
1
~
z·
(f)
,0
DC?
a
,D
------
- - - - -
~. ~.
o
o
o
o
';l I I I I I I I I I I I I!l i'!I I I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
SLRNT RRNGE (NRUTICRL MILES)
I
76-20-A8
FIGURE A-8.
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF FEET OFFSET FOR N-377 FLYING THE 0.35 BELOW
0
THE 3 oILS GLIDE SLOPE
¢

co
J'-'0
o
'"
RUN 2.02l20175.~377.lEVEI flT.
PROCESSEO O~Tt. 02126176
l ECENG
THEO.
HE~T • x
0 0
UJ u~
o
W
-I
o
ZO
IT';
z
o
)( x
x X
X
X
"> I ~
I'-' ITO
o
> . :::-:==-. I
W "'~X--'-"-'+- I X I I.......... I
....J
W
o
N
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X X
X
X X X X
i
X
X
I
o
o. 1 . 2. 3. 4. 6.
SLRNT RANGE (NMl
8.
176-ZD-A9
FIGURE A-9. TRACK DATA OF N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE 3 0
FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET

0
0
0
lJ)
!RUN 2.02/20I7S·N377 LfVfI
PRaCE~5[O OI1T~ 02/21)/71)
LfGE NC
FLT.
0
0
x
x
THE 0
WE'~T • x
ill
N
x
~
~
f-'
-0
...... 0
X O
f- 0
1.L
~
W O 0
---l •
CJu,)
ZN,
a:
Z
00
.-C:
1-0
a:.J)
>'
W
---J
W O 0
)( )(
X
~
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
I
x
x
-,-------~ I I -----" I
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X
X
X X
lD
I""­
,
X
0
0
0
0-
X
, O. 1 . 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 8.
SLRNT RRNGE (NMJ 76-20-AlO
FIGURE A-IO.
TRACK DATA OF N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE
3° FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET

o
RUN 2.02l20175.11377.l EVEl. FLT.
PROC~55~D DRTE 02/26/76
LEG~ND
~ERN
---&-­
+2 SIG~R ..
-2 SIGM
•
I I I
~ 2. 3. ~. 5. 6. 7. a.
SLANT RANGE (NMJ
76-20-All
FIGURE A-1L
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET FOR N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET ALTITUDE
FLIGHT PATH ALONG THE 3 0 FINAL APPROACH PATH

--0­
o
o
'"
o
o
RUN 2.02l2017S.N377.lf.VEl FLf,
PROn.S5E.O O~Tf. 02/25/7.5
lEGE.~G
----l!I--­
~E~N
+2 ~JlO(~F1 ...
-2 5IC~q ~
a
..-.
X O
f-~
LLCl
lJ)
0:.:
0:::
>"0
'I .: f--O
.............. 0
W
0
o 0
0::: W· I i
zC;;
0",
:L 1
01
I
I
'"T
_+
r~
----~
--I
(/)0
.0
Clo
o-1
o
o
::s
1
I O.
----r;
I ,t, -----r----------r- I ----,--.-'-------~
2· 3. 4. ;:,. 5. 7.
SLA~T RR~GE [NMJ
1
8.
76-20-A12
FIGURE A-12.
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET FOR N-377 ON THE 1508 FEET
LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT PATH ALONG THE 3° FINAL APPROACH PATH

o
LD
~l
i\\
~
:..)01,
-L1 u~ (
::J
1
~ i
~ ,
-.J i !
~ :
zol
:i .; i
1> • 1
'I :z I
~ 'E~ i i
RUNl1.C2I20175.NJ77.lfVEI. 'LT.
PRCJC!: ~~l 0 DI1:l:' 12/22/7S
IOI
> "I \
-L....:t'T)~' '--" f'-'" - _. _._. -.-----_ ... -, -----··--,··X'···x .....-----.. - .. ~.-. ----·X--·X--··--- --,------------- -····-·T·_·--- i
--i IX
.l.J
C?I
N..j
I
I X X
""
I
~L
X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X XX
.X
X
'T ...----.- T' --"'- .-'["'--'-- -T---'-'- I
o. 1 . Z. " .
7. 8·
SLANT RANGE
(NM)
X
L[()(.NC
THEO.
Wr~T.
X
76-20-Al3
FIGURE A-13.
TRACK DATA OF N-377 ON THE 230 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE
3° FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET

~
0
0
0
u')
0
0
I RUNlJ'.G2I20175.~377.lr.V[1
I PROCtSSlO ~~~t 12/22/75
fLT.
!LfC[N:
I TH[1.
Wr. ST_~ . X
u')
N
> I
t'-'
V1
0
---,0
X~
f-·O
LL
~
wg
--.J •
au')
z";J
cr
z
0
0 0
>-< •
f-·o
cr;"')
I
>
Ll.J
-'
u.JO
0
~')
r-
I
1 )(
'­
..·....- ...........f----..·---------,......­
~
x
x
x
x x x
x
x x
.....---..--.-,--..--.......­ ..---.. ,-x....-x--........---.,.,.-..--..-.--x...---..,--.----------,­
x
x x x x
x x
x
x
Xx x x
0
0
0
0- I
o. 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8.
SLANT RANGE (NMl
76-20-A14
FIGURE A-14. TRACK DATA OF N-377 ON THE 230 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT ALONG THE 3°
FINAL APPROACH PATH IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET
-

o
~.,
o
§ol
J
l1'
RUN!J.G2I20I7S.N377.l.EVEI. FLT.
PROCL[,::'l.D ~h TE 12/22/75
=: ~t=-:=:-=-- .-"-'l-.-..=-=---=--.=---=--:;;;:r-c:...---=-=-'-=--=--;::r--=-­ --- --------------------------------
"-'l ..... ~ ~ ~
~ I
0:::: ~'lJ
l.LJ~
0::::'
o
:>­ ~1-- I
~ -z
'~~~
(j) ,
C)
o
CD
I
LEGi.NG
----a-­
HEfo~
+Z 5t~··Mr, ...
-2 ~IC'-Mrl ~
"'?
-I I O.
----------,--­
1.
---,---­
2. 3.
SLRNT
.--_._--_.•. _-­ -
4.
RRNGE
[NMl
S. 6. 7.
J6-20-A15
a.
FIGURE A-IS.
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF DEGREE OFFSET
LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT PATH ALONG THE
FOR N-377 FLYING THE 230 FEET
3 0 FINAL APPROACH PATH

0
0
0
-
~'J
0
0
0
0-
~
0
~o
0
1-.
!.LO
~Lf)
a::::
a
)- f-o
I ........ 0
I-' z~
"'-l
o~')
1:.. I
0:::
a
0::: 0
0::: 0
l..LJ
0
. I ~ - ~- - =r +==t=1====~--­
(f)g
c..'Jo
0-I
RUNI' .02120175 .N'17 .L.EVEl. fL T •
PROCE:SS£:O ORTE 12/22/75
LEOCNO
"ERN - t!t-­
_2 SIOIlr; ...
-2 SIOIlr. ¢'
=-=-=---=---=
0
0
-+--_ ... '-"_.'._-'_._'-'--'_..r- .....,.
0
u'J
r'
I O. 1 3. 4. 5. 6.
SL.ANT RANGE (NM)
I
I
7. 8.
--- -76-20-16!"'"""
I
FIGURE A-16.
ERROR DATA IN TERMS OF ALTITUDE FEET OFFSET FOR N-377 FLYING AT THE
230 FEET LEVEL ALTITUDE FLIGHT PATH ALONG THE 3° FINAL APPROACH PATH

APPENDIX
B
F AND t TESTS' RESULTS OF EACH FLIGHT PERIOD, BETWEEN SOME
FLIGHT PERIODS OF THE SAME AIRCRAFT AND BETWEEN THE
AIRCRAFT OF SOME FLIGHT PERIODS.
This appendix contains all the results of the F and t tests performed on the
reduced error data in this report. The F test concerns the reduced error
data's variances to see if they are from equivalent populations. If the F test
is passed, then the t test is applied to the error data means to determine if
they are from equivalent populations. If both F and t tests indicate
non-significance then that error data were from equivalent populations. The
Westinghouse Electric Company Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem is then said to be
yielding reproducible measurements for those particular error data bins and
the particular data collection periods.
In each of F and t tests, first look at the computed F value. Its magnitude
should be anywhere between the critical upper and lower limits at the desired
confidence of either 0.95 or 0.99. This yields a non-significant (NS) effect
on the data population, which is the desired result, indicating the tested
data are from equivalent populations and further testing should be done.
If a significant (S) determination was made, then no further testing of that
data are necessary and the data are not from equivalent populations.
In applying the t test to NS tested error data, the absolute value of the
computed T value is tested against the critical T values at the respective
0.95 or 0.99 confidence level. If the computed ~ value is less than the
critical T value, the tested error data are determined to be from equivalent
populations and, consequently, NS. However, if the absolute value of the
computed T value is ~ the critical T value; the tested error data are S.
Therefore, they are not from equivalent populations.
The results of the F and t tests were generally mixed along the Slant Range
axis, some data bins had means which were from similar data populations while
other data bins had means which were from dissimilar data populations. Throughout
the F and t test results there was, in general, twice the amount of dissimilar
data means. There was no correlation between the F and t tests relating
to particular Slant Range data bins. The F and t test results show there
is a question as to repeatability in the Glide Slope Monitor Subsystem data.
B-1

TABLE B-1.
F AND t TESTS
A. Results for the December 20, 1974 flight period of N-377 on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED
"'ONTH DAY
12 i5
DATE
YEAR
15
ERROR DF G~IDE
(DEG.)
Runs 7 and 8
SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE
(DEG.I
Runs 9 and 10
SLOPE
b'
I
'"
BIN
$IZE
12/20174 12/20/74
NO. MEAN S~ STD NO.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
OF
MEAN STD
DEV. UF T~TEST
DEV.
SCANS
OF COMPUTED CRITICAL
SCANS CRITICAL COMPUTED
IN
T T
T
IN I'
BIN
VALUE
BIN
VALUE
VA~UE VA~UE
.95 .99
O. "0~99 14 -0.7902 1.822 12 -0.58bO 1.308 24. ~0.323 NS 2 01>4 NS
1.00-1'.99 14 ~0.2345 0.Ob4 14 -0.24(l1 0.Ob5 2b. n.23I NS 2 056 NS
2.00~2~99 14 -0.2140 0.037 13 -0.2410 0.058 25. l.45b NS 2 060 NS
3.00~3~99 14 -0.2345 0.039 12 -0.4529 1.585 24. 0.517 S 2 064 S
4.00~4'99 14 ~0.1924 0.Ob7 11 -0.3939 1.2b5 23. 0.599 S 2 Ob9 S
5.00.. 5.99 11 -0.1922 0.081 10 -0.1812 0.091 19. -(\.293 NS 2.093 NS
B. Results for the January 10. 1975 flight period of N-377 on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
2.797
2.779
2.787
2.797
2.807
2.861
1.941
0.978
0.421
0.001
0.003
0.797
BINS
F·TEST
CRITICAL CRITicAL
I'
P
VALUE VALUE
LOWER UPPER
LIMIT LIMIT
.95 .95
0.29 4 NS 3.19b
0.321 NS 3.i20
0.308 NS 3.244
0.29 4 S 3.19b
0.279 S 3.'88
0.252 NS 3.'&4
CRITICAL
I'
VALUE
LOWER
LIHIT
.99
0.193 NS
0.218 NS
0.20b NS
0.193 S
0.179 S
0.156 NS
CRlllCAL
I'
VALUE
UPPER
LIMIT
.99
'.174
•• 582
4.845
5.174
5.598
6.417
PROCESSED
"\ONTH DAY
12 Ib
DATE
VEAR
75
ERROR OF GLIDE
(DEG.)
SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE

TABLE B-1.
F AND t TESTS (continued)
C. Results for the January 3D, 1975 flight period of N-377 on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED DATE
"1QH'ULOAY . YEAR
12 4 75
ERRm~ of GLIDE SLOPE £RR!JR OF GLIDE S'DPE
(PEG. )
(DE',,)
Runs 2 and 3
Runs 4 and 5
01!30/75 ( 1131'/75 'i- SI';NIFICA"" DIFFeRENCE B[T~EEN BINS
BIN NO. ~1EAN STU ~U. MEAN 510 T-rES I F-TEST
SIZE OF DEV. UF DEV. OF COMPUTED CRITJU, CRITICAL CD:,PUHD (RITICAc (RITICAL CRITICAL cRITICAL
SCANo o'.4NS T T T F F F F F
IN 1 '. VALLE VhLUe VALue VALUE vA LUE"AL UE VA Ll.lf; VALue
BPI !11 ;~ .95 .99 l.OWER UPPER Low~: R UPPER
LIMiT lI~li LIM:T LIMI T
.95 .95 .9

TABLE B-1.
F AND t TESTS (continued)
E. Results for the February 4, 1975 flight period of N-9093P on the 3° 1LS Glide Slope
PROCtSSEf) DATE
~ONTH OAV YEAR
12 18 75
ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE ERRJR OF CLInE SLnPF
(DEG. ) (OEG. )
Runs 2 and 3
Runs 4 and 5
02/04175 02/04175 S- SIGNIFiCANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINS
BIN NO. MEAN STD NO, MEAN Sr(1 T",TEST F-TEST
SIZE OF DEV. OF Of, V. DF COHPUTED CRITICAL CRITICAL COMPUTEO CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL
SCANS SCANS T T T F F F F F
IN IN VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE
BIN BIN .95 .99 LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
LIMIT LIMtT LIMIT LIMI1'
.95 .95 .99 ,99
O. -0.99 14 -0.2224 0.304 18 -0.21~3 0.449 30. -0.043 ~IS Z.042 NS 2.750 0.459 0.358 NS 2.791 0.256 NS 3.912
1.00-1.99 20 -0.2470 0.040 21 -0.49?8 0.512 39. 2.140 S Z.023 S 2.709 0.006 0.402 5 2.486 0,298 S 3.355
Z. OO-Z'. 9Q 2,1 -0.2381 0.071. ?O -0.3090 0.451 39. 0. 7 10 S Z.023 S 2.709 0.026 0.399 S 2.!!09 0.294 S 3,402
3.00-3.99 13 -0.2602 0.052 21 -0.2489 0.069 32. ~0.504 NS 2.038 NS 2.741 0.572 0.37 4 NS 2.~76 0,272 NS 3,678
4.00-4'.99 10 -(\.0000 -0. 20 -O.22~5 0.053 26. 1::\.254 5 2.048 S 2.763 o. 0.347 S 2.88\) 0,247 S 4,043
5.00-5.99 9 -0.0000 -0. 17 -~.2130 0.132 ?4. 4.804 S 2.0/>4 S 2.797 O. 0.320 S 3.i25 0.221 S 4,521
b.00-6~99 ~ -'1.0000 -0. 15 -0.1962 0.' 01; 1.1. 5.184 S Z.090 S 2.631 o. 0.2% S 3.380 0,199 S 5.031
7.00-7.99 3 -0.0000 -0. B -0.0060 0.185 9. 0.054 S 3.Z50
2.Zb2 S O. 00153 S 6.!!41 0.081 S 12,404
! F. Results for the February 6, 1975 flight period of N-9093P on the 3° 1LS Glide Slope
:"lATE
PRnCESSF.r~
"'ONT>-I nAY VEAR
12 19 75
f,RRrJP "iF CL IDE SLOPE ERR'JR 0" r,LIDE ~ L'lP F
(UFG.)
(!:IEG.l
Runs 3 and 4
Runs 5 and 6
02/1)0t?~ '12/;)b 17'5 5- SIG~IFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINS
III " "0. '11:~N STD "IE ,~!'i ~Tn T-TEST F-TEST
SIZE I;F DEV. Ij~ •
DEv. OF CU',PIIHD CRITICAL CRITICAL COMPUTEO CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITiCAL CRITICAL
4 NS 2.797 2.59/l 0.305 NS 3.277 0.204 NS 4.906
5.00-5'.C)" -n. ()A,\O ('. l5R 2 -".1834 n. 1tb 4. _". C ' 3? ~:S 2.716 NS 4.004 0.727 0.001 NS 864.1bO 0,000 NS 615,000
"
c

TABLE B-1.
F AND t TESTS (continued)
G. Results for the February 7. 1975 flight period of N-9093P on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED DATE
"IONTH DAY YEAR
12 21 "5 .
ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE
(DEG.) (DE G. )
Runs 7 and 8
Runs 10 and 11
02/07/75 02/07/75 S- SIGNIFiCANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINS
BIN NO. MEAN STO NO, "lEAN STn T~TEST F-TEST
SIZE OF DEV. OF DEV. DF CO,'IPUTE D CRITICAL CRITICAL COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL cRITICAL
SCANS SCANS T T T F F F F F
IN IN VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VAlUE VALUE VALUE
BIN BIN .95 .99 LOWER UPI"ER LnWER UPPER
LIMIT LI ~IT L1M IT LI MIT
,9~ .95 .99 .99
O· -0'.99 11 -0·1145 0.298 13 0'08 79 2.046 22. _0.324 S 2.074 S 2.619 0.021 0.296 S 3. H4 0.197 S 5.086
1.00-1~99 15 -0.1869 0.226 10 -0.2121 0.151> 23. 0.107 NS 2.069 NS 2.807 2.092 0.2b3 NS 3.802 0.lb4 NS 6.097
2.00-2,99 15 _0.16 42 0.098 12 -0.2099 0.105 25. 1. 164 ~IS 2.0bO NS 2.787 0.867 0.297 NS 3.363 0.196 NS 5. 111
3'00_3.99 14 -0.Z087 0.099 7 -001948 0.079 19 • -0.321 NS 2.093 NS 2.861 1.574 0,181 NS 5.H4 0.100 NS 9.961
4·00.4~99 14 -0·2110 0.161 1 -0.2629 0.140 19 • n.723 NS 2.093 NS 2.861 1.327 0.187 NS 5.334 0.100 NS 9.961
5. OO-!l~ 99 4 -0·2260 0.074 6 -0.2954 0.(\47 8. 1.839 NS 2.306 NS 3.355 2.545 0.129 NS 7.764 O.ObO NS 16.530
6·'00-6.99 0 -0.0000 -0. 2 -0.34?4 0.068 O. n. S 20.71>8 S 102. 8 0 5 O. -0.002 S 647.790 -0.000 S 211.000
I
l.n '"
H. Results for the January 30, 1975 flight period of N-377 0.35° below the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED DATE
'10NTH DAY YEAR
12 B 75
ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE
I DEG. )
(DEG.)
Runs 8 and 9
Runs 10 and 11
01130175 01/30175 S- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 8INS
BIN NO. "lEAN STD ~O. MEAN Sln T-TEST F-TtST
SIZE OF DEV. OF O£V. DF COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITICAL COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITl\AL rRITICAL
SCANS SCANS T T T F F F F F
IN IN VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUF VALUE
BIN BIN .95 .99 LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
LIMIT LIMIT LIM IT LIMIT
.95 .Q5 .99 .99
O. -0.99 13 -1.2533 1.774 12 -0. 731C~ 1.34423. -0.824 NS 2.01>9 NS 2.807 1.743 [.29 2 N~ 3.43C 0.191 NS 5.236
1.00-1.99 12 -0.3669 D.ObO 13 -0.310') 0.052 23. -2.51 6 S 2.0b9 NS 2.807 1.330 ().30] NS 3.325 0.200 NS 4.996
2.00-2.99 11 -0·2170 0.060 12 -0.2658 0.036 21. -0.553 NS 2.080 NS 2.831 2.759 1.284 NS 3.52b O.lH~ NS ·5;418
3.00-3.99 12 -0.29 53 0,050 9 -0.2242 0.121 19. -\.845 S 2.093 NS 2.861 0.lb7 ·u.235 S 4.247 0.141 NS 7.113
4.00-4.99 10 -0.2961 O.O3~ 11 -0.2374 0.104 19. -1. 699 S 2.093 S 2.861 O. III ('.265 S 3.179 0.168 S 5.968
PERMANENT RFAD REDUNDANCY
EXECUTION TERMINATED.
Uill TOB

TABLE B-1.
F AND t TESTS (continued)
I. Results for the February 20, 1975 flight period 0 f N-377 on the 1508 feet level altitude
flight along the Final Approach Path
PROCESSED DHE
"CNTH D~Y YEAR
12 2 15
ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE
(DEG. I
(DEG.)
Runs 3 and 4
Runs 9 and lU
02l2C175 02120115 S- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINS
BIN NO. MEAN STD NO. MEAN STD T-TEST F-TEST
S lLE OF DEV. OF DEV. DF CCMPUTED CR IT ICAL CRITICAL COMPUTEO CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAl CRI TICAL'
SCANS SCANS T T T F F F F F
IN IN VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUI' VALUF VALlJ~
DIN BIN .95 .99 LOWER LPPE R LOWI'R UPPF"
LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT llMtl
.95 .9S .99 .99
o. -0.99 6 25.6128 24.661 9 33.6062 21.012 13. -0.615 !'IS 2.160 NS 3.012 1.317 0.208 NS 4.817 0.170 NS 8.302
1.00-1.99 1 -6.6528 1.258 6 -7.3119 0.976 11. 1.041 !'IS 2.201 NS 3.106 1.661 C.143 NS 6.978 0.069 NS 14.SH
2.00-2.99 8 -403836 2.282 8 - 3.7308 2.928 14. -0.497 NS 2.145 NS 2.977 0.6C8 0.2CO NS 4.995 o. II 3 /l;S 8.88~
3.00-3.99 9 0.0561 0.777 8 -0.5247 0.459 15. 1.844 NS 2.131 NS 2.947 2.861 0.204 NS 4.89~
6.0C-6.99 12 0.3666 0.127 10 0.3356 0.158 20. 0.511 NS 2.086 NS 2.845 0.644 0.255 NS 3.91f> 0.158 NS 6.3;>;;
7.CC-7.99 1 0.1286 -0. 4 0.034 0.048 3. 1.756 NS 3.182 NS 5.841 o. -0. NS -C. -0. NS -0.
I
'"
"" J. Results for different flight periods of N-377 on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED OAF
I10NTH DAY YEAI<
2 21 76
BIN
SIZE
O. -0.99
1.00-1.99
2.00-2.99
3.00-3.99
4.00-4.99
ERRQR Or GLIDE SLuPE [RRDR OF ~ IDf S nPE
(I;EG. l (OF • I
Runs 7 and 8 Runs 4 and 5
12/2,/74
1/ 3 ,/15
"Ill, '1tAN '>TI) • MEAN Sf!)
~) E,,' •
OF
SCA'.S
11\
B1N
11
II,
l4
l4
14
' (1.3 4 \:>
-O.234~
-'1.2\4,:
-0.2345
001 9 24
) • j f< r:
(). Ct'4
O. \)1''­
O.()'I'J
O. 'if, I
,: ANS
N
14
9
,1
J 7
'2
0.1~H9
-o. 1'I ""I )
~O. !(l I:­
-0.27­
- 0.1 4 '
f1 V. OF i.Dr:olll:-O
T
1/ iJ. L t.,J f
').2:

TABLE B~l.
F AND t TESTS (continued)
K. Results for different flight periods of N-9093P on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PROCESSED DATf..
'40NTIof DAY YEAR
L-.L~ . .__.__ •
---- ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE ERROR OF GLIOE SLOPE
_. iIlE.hL . ~.f..G...l '
Runs 10 and 11 Runs 10 and 11
01/Z9(75 2/07/75 S- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINS
BIN NO, MEAN STD NO, MEAN STD T-TEST F-TEST
SIZE OF DEV. OF DeV. OF COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITJC·AL COMPUTED CRITICAL 'cRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL
SCANS SCANS T TTl' --I' II F F
____~I~N'_ .-.l.f'l VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE
BIN BIN .95 .99 LOWER UPPER I.DWER UPPEIt
LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT
.95 ." • 99 ---.-..
O. -0,99 11 -0.31]8 D.188 12 -0.1947 0.193 21. -1.497 NS 2.080 NS 2.131 0.946 0.284 NS 3.'26 0.185 NS '.4\1
1.00-1.99 11 -0.2296 0.103 10 -0.2121 0.156 25. -0.353 NS 2.060 NS 2.'87 0.432 0.267 NS 3.'49 0.167 NS ,."t
2.00-2.99 .15 __=~~ __().._~~_-.!1m~(L,..z.~1. __0.10' 25. -0.492 NS 2.060 NS' 2.787 0.921 0.297 NS 3.'63 0.196 NS J.Ul
3.00-3.99 17 ,-0.22!1 0.093 7 -0.1948 0.079 22. -0.157 NS Z.074 Ns 2.819 1.370 0.191 NS 5.~49 0.102 NS 9.169
.,00-4.99 15 -0.~69L_Q-,-~~_L_-0.2629 _ 0.140 20. -0.092 NS 2.086 NS 2.845 1.204 001 89 NS 5.10'1 0.1-01 NS 9.ln
'.00-5.99 4 -0.2268 0.082 6 -0.2954 0.047 8. 1.102 NS 2.3~6 NS 3.355 3.132 0.129 N5 7.'64 0.060 NS 16.'30
.,00-6,99 0 -0.0000 -0.000 2 -0.3424 0.068 O. O. S 20.768 S 102.B05 O. -0.002 S 647.'90 -0.000 S 211.000
I
.... '"
STANDARO DEVIATION - 2 SIGMA
"
L. ,Results for different flight periods and different aircraft on the 3° ILS Glide Slope
PRl'lCESSEn DATI'
"IONTIoI DAY YEAR
3 2 76
ERRoR DF GLIDE SLOPE ERROR OF GLIDE SLOPE
IDEG.)
IDEG.)
Ruos 7 and B
Run 10 and 11
12/20/74 2/07/75 5- SiGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BeTWEEN BINS"
BIN 1'l0~ MEAI~ STD NO, MEANSTD T-TESf F-TEST
SHE OF DEV. OF DEV. OF COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITICAL COMPUTED CRITICAL CRITfCAL CRITICAL CRIT1CAL
SCANS SCANS T TTl' I' F I' F
_____+l l1 fV_ IN VALUE VALUE VALUE_ VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUe
8IN BIN .95 ~99 LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
LIMIT LIMIT LIMIt LJMIT
.95 .9' .99 .9'J
O. -0.99 11 -0,3415 0,382 12 -0.194~ 0.193 21. -1.180 S 2.090 NS 2.831 3.904 0.284 5 3.526 0.185 NS 5.411
1.00-1.99 14 -0.2345 0.064 10 -0.2121 0.156 22. _0.486 S 2.074 NS 2.819 0.170 0.261 S 3.835 .0.162 NS 6.162
~~ 14 -0.2140 0.037 12 -~.2099 0.10' Z4. -0.136 S 2.064 S 2.797 0.126 0.294 S 3.396 0.193 S ~.174
'.00-3.99 14 -0.2345 0,039 7 -0.1948 0.079 19. -1.565 NS 2.093 NS 2.861 0.237 0.187 NS 5.334 0.100 NS 9.961
t.OO-4.9Q 14~ -0,19 24 0.067 1 _~Q.Z629 0.140 19. 1.582 ~S 2.093 NS 2.861 0.22Q 0.187 NS 5.334 0.100 NS 9.961
.00-5.9? 11 -0.1922 0.081 ~ -0.2954 0.047 15. 2.834 S 2.131 NS 2.947 3.067 O.~51 NS 6.619 0.073 NS 13.618
••00-6.99 4 0.00b7 0,714 2 -0.3424 O.Dbe 4. 0.651 ~IS 2.776 NS 4,604 110.025 O.bOl NS 864.160 0.000 NS 615.000
STANDARD DEViATION -
2 SIGMA