1  475  310  MIC LBE OSN DOM NOR GMH ROBEG MIC 
2  410  310  AMICH HAM OSN RKN FOXTO BAM AMICH 
3  345  310  AMICH DLE WERRA WRB OSN AMICH 
4  390  310  ALS SWG WTM HOP ARKON DOM ALS 
5  340  310  TALSA DHE JUIST MCH HOP LBE TALSA 
6  245  310  TUSKA MCH DHE OBG TUSKA 
7  450  310  TUSKA MCH RKN HMM BIGGE WERRA LBE TUSKA 
8  455  310  HLZ DLE HOP WTM TUSKA EKERN HLZ 
9  405  310  HLZ WRB NOR RKN OBG LBE HAM HLZ 
10  485  310  WRB LBE LUB EKERN TUSKA MC4 WRB 
11  500  310  LAU WERRA HAM LUB EKERN IND JUIST LAU 
12  495  310  NOR DOM OSN LBE EKERN TUSKA WELGO NOR 
13  495  310  WSK TB1 BIGGE GMH NOR LLK WSK 
14  495  310  NOR TR10 LCK EKERN LUB DLE NOR 
15  430  310  IND DHE LBE HLZ WERRA BAM IND 
16  450  310  LAU LBE EKERN TUSKA WELGO LAU 

Table 3. "En-route" Benchmark Flights for Tracking System Accuracy Measurements
Target  Speed  Level  Banking  Start Position 
(kts)  (FL)  Angle 

(deg) 

Lat (North)  Long (East) 
1  240  310  15  53.20.59  6.35.22 
2  240  310  30  52.19.33  5.53.13 
3  240  310  45  51.51.40  6.29.50 
4  240  310  60  51.11.00  5.27.00 
5  360  310  15  50.39.00  5.51.00 
6  360  310  30  50.50.31  6.41.42 
7  360  310  45  51.42.48  7.35.20 
8  360  310  60  52.12.06  8.17.12 
9  480  310  15  53.20.56  8.52.36 
10  480  310  30  54.09.15  8.00.00 
11  480  310  45  52.14.00  9.16.45 
12  480  310  60  51.24.20  8.23.00 
13  600  310  15  51.24.17  4.21.59 
14  600  310  30  50.54.15  3.38.00 
15  600  310  45  53.09.54  6.40.02 
16  600  310  60  52.08.03  6.45.53 

Table 4. High Manoeuvring Benchmark Flights for Tracking System Accuracy Measurements
A4 Results Of The Benchmark Tests
The resulting state variables of every system track are every track update cycle (4.8 seconds) submitted to the MADAP simulator.
The simulator compares the state variables obtained from the tracker to the true values for the same point in time. Statistical analysis is performed per individual flight and in addition for the total population of flights of a particular category.
Within Tables 5 through 8 results are given for both the "Dynamic Track Selection" and "Track Fusion" techniques. For both techniques the same scenario was executed.
Table 5 depicts the aggregate results for the set of sixteen "en-route" flights, whereas the same results for the group of constant manoeuvring flights may be obtained from Table 7.
Table 6 and 8 provide for every state variable the measured frequency that the error on the estimated variable is inferior to a corresponding threshold value.
Separate thresholds are applied during the uniform straight motion and the manoeuvring flight phases. It has to be emphasised here that the decision to compare either against the one or the other threshold is taken by the simulator according to the real mode of flight. The transition phase from a manoeuvring phase to straight uniform motion is therefore integrally compared to the "straight" thresholds.
　
中國航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ECAC RADAR SEPARATION(33)