11/10/13

Account

Avionics Magazine :: MLS: Back to the Future?

Jobs

Shop

Events

Awards

Webinars

White Papers

Videos

Advertise

Advance d
Se arch

Search

Get Avionics Weekly Eletter

Email

Join us on:

A member of the Aviation Today Network

DecisionBriefs

Military

Sign m e up!

Commercial

Business & General Aviation

Unmanned Systems

Air Traffic Management

In-Flight Connectivity Insider

Subscribe
Digital Edition
C hange Address

Like
-T (javascript:void(0);) /

Tw eet

Share

T (javas c ript:void(0 );) / +T (javascript:void(0);) | C omment(s) (#c omments )

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

MLS: Back to the Future?

The microwave landing system has proven to be the on-again/offagain precision approach tool. Right now, MLS is "on" in the UK. What
about the rest of the world?
Brian Evans
To many experts in the United States, the microwave landing system (MLS) is past historyone of
the many highly touted solutions to pressing aviation problems that, despite their promise, never
reached operational maturity. Yet to experts in Europe, MLS only now is gaining the acceptance it
deserves, and its future still lies ahead.
Which experts are correct? We wont know for at least two or three years. By that time British
Airways (BA), the UK National Air Traffic Service (NATS), and the British Airport Authority (BAA)
should be able to determine whether their investments in MLS avionics (by BA) and airport ground
installations (by NATS and BAA) are paying off.
The stakes are fairly high. Although none of the three organizations or Thales, which supplies both
avionics and ground stations, is prepared to discuss costs, independent estimates put the initial
NATS/BAA investment, for four advanced MLS precision landing systems to be installed at Londons
Heathrow airport, at around $20 million. BAs MLS avionics bill for receivers in its 60-plus new Airbus
(/s earc h/? query=A irbus )

A320 variants has been estimated at between $20 million and $50 million. (The

first airplane is scheduled to be delivered to BA in April 2004.)

BA opted for the Thales TLS-755 multimode receiver (MMR), which combines GPS, ILS and MLS
sensors. The Airbus (/s earc h/? query=A irbus ) certification activity, using an MLS ground station at the
companys Toulouse airport, also will cover the manufacturers A318, A319 and A321 aircraft.
Related Stories
Archive
Separately, Rockwell C ollins has recently obtained a technical standard order (TSO) for its Model
GLU-920 GPS/ILS/MLS multimode receiver. Pilots flying an MLS approach, using either unit, will find
Human Factors in Avionics Design
the guidance presentation identical to ILS. Since pilots already should be familiar with ILS, no
transition difficulties are anticipated.
Unmanned, Autonomous and Dependent
Why MLS in Britain?

Avionics for NextGen

Why are the British putting so much money into a landing system that the International C ivil Aviation
Simulating Flight
Organization (IC AO) adopted in the early 1980s for world use but subsequently dropped over 10
years later in favor of satellite landing guidance? Primarily, the British see MLS as a means to
NextGen SwiftBroadband Safety Services
enhance airport capacity or, more specifically, to maintain normal capacity levels during very lowvisibility conditions.

Product Focus: Data Acquisition

The UK has always prided itself

as being
the worlds
leader in very low visibility operations, and
Business
Aviation
and NextGen
Heathrow has provided "hands off" autoland quality landing guidance to appropriately equipped
aircraft for more than 30 years, without a single accident. During this time, the UKs NATS and its
predecessors have operated the most demanding C ategory (C at) III ILS guidance systems on its
runways, allowing landings in near zero-visibility conditions. Last year, Heathrow replaced its C at III
installations with the latest technology ILS units from Norways Navia Aviation.
But even the latest technology cannot overcome multipath reflections of the ILS guidance beam,

www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/807.html#.Un-HqpJi2yU

1/4

11/10/13

Avionics Magazine :: MLS: Back to the Future?

which is an inherent characteristic of the system. As a result, every C at II/III ILS installation
worldwide has a "sensitive area" around the runway it serves.
No aircraft or vehicles may enter this area without air traffic control (ATC ) permission during lowvisibility landing operations, since their presence may reflect the ILS signals and create false
guidance to the landing aircraft. Taxiways to C at II and III runways therefore bear signs showing
"C at II Hold" and "C at III Hold" points well clear of the active runway.
Similarly, the ILS guidance signals received by an aircraft following another aircraft on final
approach can reflect off the aircraft ahead, resulting in false guidance. This is usually not critical if
the pilot of the following aircraft can see the runway ahead, but in low visibility, this can create a
potentially hazardous condition.
A Defining Moment
One MD-80 crew experienced a startling demonstration of this effect at Londons Gatwick airport
years ago. While following a Boeing (/s earc h/? query=Boeing) 737 to land on Gatwicks single runway on
a bright sunny day, the MD-80 crew decided to make a practice "hands off" ILS autoland approach
and touchdown. All went well until the MD-80 was approaching the runway threshold, just as the 737
turned off the runway at its far end. In turning, the 737 placed its vertical fin and rudder squarely in
the beam of the ILS localizer antenna, located tens of feet beyond the runways stop end. The
resulting beam deflection caused the MD-80s autopilot to sense that the aircraft had rapidly drifted
off the beam, and it promptly responded by putting the MD-80 into a steeply banked turn to recover,
just feet above the ground. Only immediate action by the crew in overriding the autopilot prevented
a tragic accident.
Because of this effect, the normal two- to three-mile separation between following aircraft is
effectively tripled during UK C at III ILS operations, resulting in a reduction of runway throughput to
about 10 landings per hour, versus about 30 in normal visibility. It is here that MLS is expected to
pay off handsomely, since the MLS scanning beam ignores reflected signals. It allows MLS-equipped
aircraft to maintain normal operational spacing on their final approach and, therefore, airports to
recover the capacity levels presently lost during low-visibility periods. "Heathrow airport is among
the busiest in the world and MLS is expected to bring benefits to both our airline and airport
customers," says Peter Wilde, NATS airport services director.
C at III MLS installations are now under way at each of Heathrows four main runways. The Thales
ground station contract also includes options for installations at Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester and
all other major, and several medium-sized, UK airports, where they will be collocated with C at II and
III ILS equipment. All told, about 50 UK runways could offer MLS approach and landing guidance by
2010.
French Interest
In France the Service Technique de Navigation Aerienne (STNA) equivalent to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA (/s earc h/? query=FA A ) ) in the United Statesis conducting cost/benefit analysis of
MLS at the Paris C harles de Gaulle and Orly airports and evaluating its use at other sites. Other
European nations are said to be considering MLS installations, with Italy reportedly in the lead.
FAA (/s earc h/? query=FA A ) , however, is solidly committed to the eventual transition to GPS from ILS
and has no future plans for MLS. The agency did install several C at I systems at airports in the
northwest United States and Alaska in the 1980s, but these are being gradually withdrawn.
C anada launched a major MLS development program in the late 1980s, but this was canceled, as
well, following IC AOs policy change in 1995. But MLS development activities continued in Europe
after IC AOs decision.
Interestingly, GPS and its European equivalent, Galileo, will, like MLS, be immune to the multipath
reflections that bedevil ILS for low-visibility operations. This, of course, raises the question of why
the UK has opted for MLS instead of GPS.
The answer is timing. The UKs need to enhance its C at III operations is imminent. But FAA expects
only to achieve C at I GPS certification by 2006. The most optimistic certification date for C at III is
around 2008/2009. However, some agency experts recently have expressed doubts whether GPS
ever can meet C at III technical standards.
Largest MLS User
Nevertheless, the FAAs progress towards GPS C at I and higher certification levels is certainly being
followed closely by the worlds largest MLS user. With almost 40 MLS ground stations and some
1,000 aircraft at last count (and now possibly many more) equipped with MLS avionics, the U.S. Air
Force has for many years been flying the microwave landing system in virtually every part of the
world, from the far north to equatorial jungles. Transportable ground stations, for example, were
used during Desert Storm and the subsequent Afghanistan campaign to guide USAF C -130 and C -17
transportsall equipped with MLS receiversto unprepared landing sites.

www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/807.html#.Un-HqpJi2yU

2/4

11/10/13

Avionics Magazine :: MLS: Back to the Future?

Forecasting the future in avionics is always challenging. But one thing seems like a fairly good bet.
The market for multimode ILS/GPS/MLS receivers looks strong for many years to come.
IC AOs Decision on MLS
The microwave landing system (MLS) came into prominence in the early 1980s. The International
C ivil Aviation Organization (IC AO) recognized the increasing risks of commercial radio interference
to the then-world standard precision approach aidthe 108-to-112-MHz ILScoupled with the growing
pressure on the 40 available ILS channels. It therefore decreed that all airports would convert to
MLS by the mid-1990s.
At 5 GHz, MLS was essentially interference-free, and offered 200 separate channels. ILS also
suffered from occasional guidance beam distortions, or multipaths, when its signals reflected off
intervening objects, such as taxiing aircraft. MLS, on the other hand, was immune to multipath.
The United States had been a driving force behind IC AOs adoption of MLS. But in 1995, the United
States proposed that the transition from ILS to MLS be replaced by a gradual transition to the
satellite-based GPS, which showed promise as a future precision landing aid. IC AO agreed to this
change, though nations that wished to do so could proceed with MLS installations while retaining ILS.
Landing System C ategories
An internationally adopted scale of categories describes landing guidance systems, whether they are
ILS, MLS or GPS. C ategory, or C at, I is the least demanding and C ats II and III are progressively
more demanding of avionics, crew training and the quality of the ground equipment, among other
things.
All categories have assigned decision heights at the runway threshold, below which the pilot may not
descend unless the runway is in clear sight. (Otherwise, the pilot executes a missed approach.)
C ategories also have assigned approach visibility limits, called runway visual ranges (RVR), below
which the pilot must not attempt a landing.
There are three categories, and one is broken down into three subcategories. They break down as
follows:
C at I instrument approaches and landings allow a decision height of 200 feet (60 meters) and
an RVR of 1,800 feet (550 meters).
C at II operations allow approaches and landings down to a decision height of 100 feet (30
meters) and an RVR of 1,200 feet (350 meters).
C at IIIa allows a decision height down to 50 feet (15 meters) and RVR of 700 feet (200
meters).
C at IIIb allows a decision height of 50 feet (15 meters) and RVR of 150 feet (50 meters).
C at IIIc allows a zero-foot decision height with an RVR of less than 150 feet (50 meters).

Generally, C at III operations are flown to touchdown under autopilot control. However, while C at IIIc
operations are well within the capabilities of current automatic flight control systems, relatively few
airports have installed surface movement guidance systems (SMGS) that can accurately lead an
aircraft to the terminal in almost zero visibility.

www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/807.html#.Un-HqpJi2yU

3/4

11/10/13

Avionics Magazine :: MLS: Back to the Future?

1 comment

Leave a message...
Best

Share

Community
P . S . RA MA NI

6 years ago

I would like to know the document which prescribes ground movement control as
mandatory requirement, while using CAT III ILS A / B / C
Reply Share

ALSO ON AVIATION TODAY

WHA T ' S T HI S ?

FAA Furloughs Pose Huge Risk to

Smaller Aviation Companies

F-35 Lightning II Achieves 10,000

Flight Hours

3 comments a month ago

1 comment a month ago

dlwdon If I remember correctly the

K nut Holt Well, the philosophy of this

Republicans submitted a plan without

funding the ACA but Obama and Reid

constructiion is to sacrifice some dynamic

capabilities to obtain stealth. It remains

GAO Reports Concerns on Navy's

Unmanned Aircraft Program
1 comment a month ago

F-35 Program Scraps Alternate Helmet

2 comments a month ago

K nut Holt As I understand the pilot can

B anphot oradar Yeah, keep spending

aim at a target just by looking at it.

China's money.

Su b s cri b e

Ad d D i s q u s to yo u r s i te

www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/807.html#.Un-HqpJi2yU

4/4