Re: [110attendees] E911 position accuracy question
Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr> Mon, 08 March 2021 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
X-Original-To: 110attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 110attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180863A2BEB for <110attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:13:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1sk-qGnOcws8 for <110attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A21C83A2BE9 for <110attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 128FDDr8039222 for <110attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:13:13 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F252070C3 for <110attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:13:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E7E20706F for <110attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:13:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.4.177] ([10.14.4.177]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 128FDCaF032047 for <110attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:13:12 +0100
To: 110attendees@ietf.org
References: <b1caefad-78b7-d33a-5eb7-b46fc9c7adbe@labs.htt-consult.com>
From: Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
Organization: CEA
Message-ID: <4e731ec4-efdc-8a0d-4f61-98c5c50d0389@cea.fr>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 16:13:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b1caefad-78b7-d33a-5eb7-b46fc9c7adbe@labs.htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms060601040406000101040904"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/110attendees/p8pSaVKkfRz9ooC2ewyHiZMu_6I>
Subject: Re: [110attendees] E911 position accuracy question
X-BeenThere: 110attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 110 attendees <110attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/110attendees>, <mailto:110attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/110attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:110attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:110attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/110attendees>, <mailto:110attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:13:19 -0000
Le 08/03/2021 à 15:24, Robert Moskowitz a écrit : > Anyone here knowledgeable about E911 altitude accuracy and how > achieved? > > FAA has decided to copy FCC on altitude accuracy, but for a different > use case. > > As I recall, FCC wanted EMTs to go to the right floor in a building > to find the emergency. > > FAA is using this to find the unmanned aircraft (UA) operator for > whatever reason. Is this the UA operator on the 3rd floor balcony or > the 4th? Please do not start a privacy discuss on this. See my > drip-privacy draft first. > > Thus this is really the Ground Control Station (GCS) location, not > the UA! > > FAA want 3M but will settle for 15' at 95% of the time. I think EASA > also wants similar numbers. > > Our research is this is VERY expensive for cheap GCS (GPS altitude > accuracy is 13M @ 95% according to gps.gov). Well what if the GCS is > a smartphone; it has (supposedly) E911... But how? Is this > information available to general apps (UA command&control app)? I am not sure what you mean by 'GCS' and 'E911'. I can tell that the availability of accurate localization data in GPS chips is not a matter of their price. Actually along the years they struggled a lot to make highest accuracy possible in even the cheapest and smallest devices. In the cases of smartphones, the GNSS (including GPS) localization modules are often part of the 4G/5G cellular modems, or 'SoC's (system on a chip). These modules do provide very high accuracy, in the range of the meter accuracy, when possible. That possibility has to do with the visibility to the satellite. That has to do, ultimately, with the receiver antenna size and obstacles shape and placement between smartphone and satellite. If I remember correctly, there are two parameters available almost in all GPS receivers: HDOP and VDOP (horizontal and vertical 'dillution of precision' for 2D and altitude respectively). These range between 1 and 6, 1 being the best possible accuracy. I.e. if a drone has a good antenna on its top (not belly) and is flying normally (i.e. not flying under a bridge, or in a canyon) there should easily be a comfortable HDOP and VDOP of 1 and meter-level accuracy. At IETF there is this RFC 7459 about Uncertainty and Confidence about localization data. When organisations request a certain level of precision from GNSS data, often they might (just might) be influenced by various intervening intermediaries that promote their particular enhancements to localization technologies. RTK, EGNOS, WAAS and more come to mind; they rely on some base stations situated on the ground. But often times, the best accuracy can be obtained simply with proper antenna size and positioning. Other times,simple GNSS signal repeaters could be more advantageous than RTK, EGNOS, WAAS. For example a tunnel in the Czech republic (Prague!) recently announce plans to equip with such GNSS signal repeaters instead of ground stations. Maybe the same can be planned for drones that fly in difficult to reach satellite areas. In automobile technologies some times organisations require sat-based centimeter-level precision for a use-case such as self-parking. However, in that range (cm-level, centimeter), other technologies could be more appropriate than satellites. What I see as difficulty with drones and their position is the difference in time: a certain lag migh tbe noticed between where the drone is now (very accurately) and what a person might see as the position on the screen. That lag could be in the order of several seconds. That could be a problem. During these seconds many bad things can happen. To give the human time to react (needs one second between brain gives order and arm make action) then one needs a very high performance (very low latency) communication technology. For example, the bluetooth that is used to stream high quality stereo sound might not be the best appropriate. But yes, it is better than no identification at all. Alex > > Please let me know if you have knowledge you can share. > > Bob >
- [110attendees] E911 position accuracy question Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [110attendees] E911 position accuracy question Alexandre PETRESCU