DESIGN OF AN

IMAGE RADIATION MONITOR

FOR ILS GLIDE SLOPE
IN THE PRESENCE OF SNOW
A Dissertation Presented to
The Faculty of the
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ
College of Engineering and Technology
Ohio University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

by
Frank Marcum
August, 1995
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank Dr. Roger Radcliff for his

support over the years and his help in organizing this
material. Mr. Joe Shovlin is also recognized for his help in
reviewing the technical papers associated with this material.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF FIGURES
GLOSSARY vii

I. INTRODUCTION
11. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
111. DESCRIPTION OF GLIDE SLOPE AND PARAMETERS
IV. CALCULATION OF FIELD FROM ANTENNA OVER GROUND
A. The Optical Approximation
B. Validity of the Optical Approximation
V. GLIDE SLOPE PERFORMANCE VS. REFLECTION COEFFICIENT
A. Null Reference
B. Sideband Reference
C. Capture Effect
VI. EFFECT OF SNOW OVER GROUND
VII. ANALYSIS OF SNOW EFFECTS
A. Effects on Null Reference Glide Slope
B. Effects on Sideband Reference Glide Slope
C. Effects on Capture Effect Glide Slope
D. Probability of Snow Type
E. Effects of Rough Snow Surfaces and Terrain
VIII. MONITOR DESIGN CONCEPT
A. Monitor Error Budgets and Calibration
B. Monitor Siting Criteria
IX. CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Ohio University Documents
B. FAA Literature
APPENDIX A. Tolerance Limits
ABSTRACT
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Vertical Position of Aircraft Relative to Course
Deviation Indicator. 18
2. Two-Dimensional Geometry of Problem. 21
3. Geometry of Optical Problem.
4. Minimum Distances for Surface Wave and Space Wave
Equality. 26
5. Characteristic Glide Slope Radiation Pattern. 27
6. Antenna Configurations for Glide Slopes. (Ref: Wilcox
Glide Slope Manual.) 29
7. Multiple Reflections from a Multi-layered Image
Plane. 35

8. Example of Reflection Coefficient for Snow of

Increasing Depth over Ground. 39
9. Null Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits. 42
10. 3:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits. 43
11. 2.5:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits. 44
12. 4:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits. 44
13. Capture Effect Cat I Tolerance Limits. 45
14. Capture Effect Cat I11 Tolerance Limits. 46
15. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on Null Reference. Dielectric Constant
= 1.4. 48
16. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on Null Reference. Dielectric Constant
= 2.0. 48
17. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on 3:l Sideband Reference. Dielectric
Constant = 1.4. 49
18. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on 3:l Sideband Reference. Dielectric
Constant = 2.0. 49
19. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on Capture Effect, Cat I. Dielectric
Constant = 1.4. 50
20. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Tolerance
Performance on Capture Effect, Cat 111. Dielectric
Constant = 1.4. 50
21. Conductivity vs. Relative Dielectric Constant for
Dry Snow. 52

22. Roughness Reduction Factor. 54

23. Monitor Block Diagram. 56

 vii
GLOSSARY
Alignment Error - difference between actual mean path angle
and commissioned glide path angle. ~ypicallycaused by
transmitter misalignment, antenna height error, or
failure to account for sloping ground plane.
AM - Amplitude Modulation. The amplitude of a radio frequency
carrier is varied, or modulated in such a way that a
simple detector circuit can receive the information
encoded.
Below Path Clearance - guarantees that the CDI needle will
always be at full scale deflection when the pilot is well
below the glide path and above any obstacles.
Bend - long-duration deviation of the course from the nominal
path angle. Typically caused by scatterer very close to
the glide slope, or slow change in ground plane with
distance.
CDI - Course Deviation Indicator. A cockpit device that
displays ddm scaled by a microamp value. An ammeter is
used to locate the aircraft position relative to the on-
course location, where a zero ddm value is measured. For
example, if the pilot is below the glide path, the needle
is above its centered reading.
CSB - Carrier Plus Sideband. That portion of the ILS signal
that contains 90 Hz and 150 Hz AM sidebands that are
modulated in phase and broadcast vith the RF carrier.
ddm - Difference in Depth of Modulation. For ILS, two audio
 viii
tones (90 Hz and 150 Hz) are space modulated onto the
radio frequency carrier. At different points in space,
varying levels of each tone can be received. An ILS
receiver measures the amplitude of each tone versus the
carrier level; the depth of modulation. The difference in
these modulation levels is converted to a bipolar voltage
that drives a cockpit display for aircraft guidance. In
the case of glide slope, a greater amount of 90 Hz (fly
down) tone indicates that the pilot is too high; a
greater amount of 150 Hz (fly up) tone indicates he is
too low.
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration.
Glide Path Angle - the mean angular path along which a glide
path receiver measures equal amounts of 90 Hz and 150 Hz
tones or 0 ddm.
ILS - Instrument an ding System, the current radio navigation
landing aid. ILS consists of:
1. localizer, for horizontal alignment with a runway
intercept point or runway centerline. It operates
in the frequency range between 108 and 112 MHz;
2. glide slope, for vertical guidance for rate of
descent to a point of decision or touchdown point
on the runway. It operates in the frequency range
between 329 and 336 MHz.

The two combined steer the aircraft to a decision point

at which time the pilot should be able to see the runway
and complete his approach.
Roughness - very short-duration, seemingly random deviations
 ix
of the course from the nominal path angle. ~ypically
caused by scatterers distant to the glide slope.
SBO - SideBand Only. That portion of the ILS signal that
contains only 90 Hz and 150 Hz AM sidebands. The 90 Hz
tone is out of phase with that on the CSB.
Space Modulation - a phased array of antennas can produce
desired maxima and minima in space. The CSB and SBO
signals on the glide slope are space modulated so that
their sum produces a predominance of 150 Hz tone below
the glide path and a predominance of 90 Hz tone above the
path.
Scalloping - medium-duration, cyclical deviations of the
course from the nominal path angle. Typically caused by
scatterer in the vicinity of the glide slope.
Symmetry - a quality factor expressing the amount of equality
of angular excursion above and below the path at the
width points. Equality is defined at 50%.

Width - the angular excursion between specific ddm levels

equal to k0.08875 ddm for glide slope (equivalent to +75

uA) .
 10

I. INTRODUCTION
The problem of monitoring the performance of the Instru-
ment Landing System (ILS) image-type glide slopes has been
investigated for a number of years. Both experimental and
theoretical studies have yielded information about system
performance, but the problem was by no means completely
solved. Major error sources contributing to glide slope
performance were identified as electronic component drifts
and/or failures, scattering from nearby reflective surfaces,
and changes to the ground plane in the vicinity of the glide
slope.
Transmitter signal errors can affect the radiated antenna
signals that form the glide path and course width. Radiated
signal integrity is verified by integral monitoring [I]. An
integral monitor samples the antenna currents, verifying that
the transmitted signals are capable of generating the commis-
sioned path angle and course width. Integral monitors are
calibrated by flight measurements to determine what changes in
transmitter signal cause the path and width to go out of
tolerance. The integral monitor accurately senses transmitter
and antenna changes that affect the far-field, but it cannot
detect changes in the environment that affect the ground-
reflected signal [2].
Reflective objects near the glide slope produce multipath
errors, which cause roughness, course bends, and scalloping in
the approach region. ILS critical areas [3] were estab-
 11

lished to reduce multipath interference from objects such as

structures, vehicles, and aircraft stopped on the ground. The
ILS critical area is a region in front of each radio naviga-
tion antenna system where these objects are restricted. This
procedure reduces certain types of errors to what might be
expected from terrain irregularities.
There are two sources of radiation necessary to form the
glide slope signal. These are the signal radiated directly
from the antenna and its ground-reflected image. Addition of
standing water or snow cover to the path-forming region of the
ground plane in front of a commissioned facility can change
the image radiation characteristics. Changes to the ground
plane are currently addressed by the ILS Maintenance Manual
[4]. This procedure calls for visual inspection of the
critical area or use of a snow depth monitor [5]. The snow
depth monitor is a sonar-like device that sends an alarm to
the system when the ground plane rises due to snow. When the
snow reaches a certain depth, a Notice to Airmen is published,
advising pilots not to use the glide slope (forcing higher
landing minima) until the snow can be removed from the path-
forming region. The FAA does not measure the image radiation
nor the electrical parameters of snow.
One drawback to the snow depth monitor is that the
measurement is highly localized. Only the snow depth near the
monitor is measured. If snow drifts are present throughout the
path-forming region, the effective depth in front of the glide
 12
slope may be different than what is measured by the monitor.
The now-defunct near-field monitor attemptedto determine
the variance of path and width by signal measurements in the
near-field of the antennas. This monitor received the glide
slope signal at a point on the airport and extrapolated it to
the far-field. The monitor was overly sensitive to standing
water and snow and was discontinued because it caused unneces-
sary outages during bad weather and low visibility conditions
[ 6 ] . The monitor went into alarm while the glide slope was

still usable. There are no monitors in use in the United

States that accurately monitor the effects of snow on the
glide slope signal.
This dissertation proposes to:
1. examine the effects of snow on the image-type glide
slopes and to derive a concise description of the
conditions that cause the system to go outside FAA-
designated tolerances;
2. design a simple monitoring scheme that will measure any
change in image radiation from the glide slope. Knowledge

of the direct and ground-reflected signals will allow one

to quantify any change in system performance.
To achieve these goals, a formulation using geometrical optics
for the effects that the reflection coefficient has on image-
type glide slope in the far-field will be developed. The
optical assumptions will be validated by showing that any
other components of the fields are negligible. The effects of
 13

snow cover are then related to the formulation and analyzed.

The theoretical snow types that cause anomalous performance
will be compared against FAA criteria for snow.
A novel monitor designed by the author for measuring the
ground-reflected image radiation will then be discussed. The
data relating reflection coefficient to glide slope perfor-
mance can then be used as a chart for determining when the
monitor should send an alarm.
 14

11. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

There are very few publications on the effects of snow in

the open literature. Most of the work studied has come from
research done by Ohio University for the FAA. The earliest
research at Ohio University [7],[8],[9] involves the
use of physical optics to solve for the currents induced on
the ground plane. Signals were then computed by integration of
these currents for the total electric field in the far-field
and at the near-field monitor. The algorithm is computation-
ally excessive for smooth surfaces because of the enormous
amount of ground plane segmentation. While this technique is
appropriate for computing roughness on the glide path due to
irregular terrain, it is inefficient in computing critical
glide slope parameters.
It was later determined that the effects of snow are more
easily computed using geometrical optics [10],[11].
Reasonable correlation was reported between measurements and
predictions. The conclusion was that the near-field monitor
does not accurately represent the far-field in the presence of
water or snow. This was attributed to proximity effects
[12],[13]. The ray paths for the direct and ground-reflect-
ed signals to the monitor are not parallel as they nearly are
in the far-field. Also, the incident rays to the specular
reflection point in front of the monitor have a higher
incidence angle. Since the reflection coefficient is a
function of angle, the amount of reflected energy is different
 15

than in the far-field. One observation made in these reports

is that wet snow tends to raise the path angle; dry snow might
lower the path angle slightly. It should also be noted that a
plane wave reflection coefficient was used to compute signals
in the near-field. Better correlation with modeled results
might have been obtained by inclusion of the surface wave.
This would have more accurately accounted for the shape of the
wave close to the monitor. Another method would be implementa-
tion of a Fourier integral technique for the ground-reflected
signal, such as the procedure outlined by Redlich [14].
The major drawback to the techniques researched is that
they require precise knowledge of the electrical characteris-
tics of the snow and soil. The snow may be dependent on
temperature, time, and recent climatic changes. Since the
nature of the snow is not measured, and is difficult to
measure, the techniques developed can not lead to a determina-
tion of far-field conditions based on monitor indications.
The remainder of the Ohio University literature matures
into characterizing the effects of snow either by flight
measurement or simple raised ground plane analysis.
The consensus was that the effects of snow were negligi-
ble for depths less than 8-10"; the path angle raised except
in very rare circumstances. As discussed previously, the near-
field monitors were phased out in favor of integral and snow
depth monitors.
Some flight measurements indicated that the path angle
 16

could lower on a sideband reference glide slope with a

truncated ground plane in the presence of snow. A truncated
ground plane is one that is level to at least 1000' in front
of the array, then drops off. In response, Redlich [15]
and Marcum [16] examined the effect of snow on the path
angle of the null reference and sideband reference glide
slopes with truncated ground plane. The Fourier integral
technique outlined in [14] was used, modified by the multi-
layer reflecting ground plane. Contrary to previous beliefs,
it was found that the truncation of the ground plane was not
a factor on the control of path angle for the size of the
ground planes investigated. Multiple reflections between the
air-snow-soil interfaces were the significant contributing
factors.
Walton [17], Walton and Tolley [18], and Lopez
[19] examined the effect of wet snow on the width of the
null reference glide slope. Their primary interest was in
course width with some indication of path angle shift. They
did not explore realistic snow conditions or the other image-
type glide slopes. Lopez went on to say that there is a need
for a monitor that determines the effect snow cover has on the
system.
 17

111. DESCRIPTION OF GLIDE SLOPE AND PARAMETERS

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) is an aircraft
landing aid that has been in existence for nearly 50 years.
ILS uses space modulated radio signals that are detected by an
AM radio. Two tones are modulated onto the carrier. The
receiver measures the modulation depths of each tone and sends
the difference in depth of modulation (ddm) to the cockpit
.
display; the course deviation indicator (CDI) The ILS is made
up of the localizer, which provides lateral guidance, and the
glide slope, which provides vertical guidance. Together, these
systems define a corridor along which the pilot can fly to
safely land an aircraft in low cloud ceilings and limited
visibility conditions.

The glide slope is that part of the ILS that guides the
pilot's rate of descent and determines the location along the
runway of the landing point at the terminal (approach) end of
his flight. The glide slope receiver drives a cockpit display
that informs the pilot how much above or below the path the
aircraft is. The pilot's objective is to fly the aircraft so
that the CDI needle is always centered. If this is done and
all systems are functioning properly, the pilot should travel
very safely to a point near and above the landing strip at
which time he can decide whether he can complete his landing.
This is illustrated in Figure 1.
The image-type glide slope consists of a vertical array
of phased antennas that utilizes the ground plane to form a
 18

pattern null in a part of the amplitude modulated sideband

signal.

Above Glide Paih On Glide Path Below Gl& Path

Figure 1. Vertical Position of Aircraft Relative to Course

Deviation Indicator.

Under ideal conditions, the contours form hyperboloids

whose axis of rotation coincides with the glide slope mast.
The mast must be offset from runway centerline so that it is
not an obstruction to aircraft. The shape of the ddm contour
intersecting the vertical plane containing the runway is then
an hyperbola.
Typical assumptions made about the ground plane are that
it is infinite in extent, homogeneous throughout or perfectly
conducting, the surface is flat and level, and there are no
protrusions through the surface.
If any of these assumptions is not true, the glide path
may have course bends, roughness, or scalloping at various
points in space. If these parameters exceed specified limits,
 19

the system is classified as unflyable and the pilot will not

have the use of this landing aid. These parameters are
discussed in the USFIM [20] and are defined for several
categories of flight quality.
The emphasis of this document will be on Category I (Cat
I) tolerances with the understanding that the input parameters
for higher categories may be extracted from Appendix A of this
document. Since the capture effect glide slope is typically
used at Cat I11 sites, Cat I11 data will be shown for this
system only.
Several of these signal parameters are affected by
varying ground planes. Glide path angle and course width are
set by antenna height and transmitter adjustments. Other
signal quantities such as symmetry, below path clearance,
roughness, bends, and scalloping are often dominated by ground
plane irregularities or reflecting structures, and are
essentially site dependent. Since planar reflecting surfaces
have been assumed, these quantities will not be discussed. The
analysis shall be limited to path angle and course width
effects.
The glide path is defined as the locus of points at which
the measured CDI is 0 uA. At large distances, these points
tend to form a straight line whose projection to the ground
intersects at an angle. This glide path angle, 8,, is chosen
by FAA Flight Procedures so that the aircraft flies safely
above all obstacles it might otherwise encounter while on
 20

approach, yet not so high that the aircraft will descend too
steeply. According to the USFIM [ 2 0 ] , the path angle is not
allowed to drift more than +lo% or -7.5% from the desired path
angle for Cat I tolerances. A path angle that is too low can
cause a pilot to fly lower than he thinks he is, possibly
close to an obstruction. A path angle that is too high causes
the pilot to descend more rapidly, meaning a harder landing.
The course width determines the sensitivity of the
cockpit needle for times when the aircraft is above or below
the intended path. Course width is defined as

where 8 , is the angle above the path at which -75 uA is

measured, and 8, is the angle below the path at which +75 uA
is measured.
The standard course width for glide slope is 0.7" as per
USFIM [ 2 0 ] specifications. This is not allowed to vary by more

than f 0.2O. A course width that is too narrow can cause a

pilot to over-compensate when he drifts off course; it is
rougher and harder to fly. A course width that is too broad
allows the pilot to fly further off course than he thinks he
is.
 21

IV. CALCULATION OF FIELD FROM ANTENNA OVER GROUND

The ground plane in front of the array plays an important
part in forming the space modulated signals on a glide slope.
The total field Etr from an antenna over ground can be written
as

the sum of E,, the source field component and E,, the image

field component reflected from the image plane. In the above,

k is the wave number in free space, and j indicates the
argument of the exponential is a complex number. The other
parameters are illustrated by the geometry in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Two-Dimensional Geometry of Problem.

 22

The value for k in free space will be assumed to be 2.1208 m-'

throughout this document.

A. The Optical Approximation

If one is interested only in far-field effects, and it is
assumed that the ground plane is flat, level, and homogeneous,
the use of image theory and geometrical optics applies. The
solution for the field, normalized by exp(-jkD)/D, can be
simplified to

where the first term on the right is the normalized source

field, and the second term is the normalized ground-reflected
image field. R is the reflection coefficient (complex ratio of
reflected to direct signal), h is the height of the antenna
above the image plane, and the other quantities are defined as
shown in Figure 3.
Although the image plane is simply defined at the air-
snow surface, it is desirable to translate the image plane to
the coordinate origin. This allows one to compare the effects
of varying depths of snow to the no-snow conditions. When the
reflecting surface is raised above a fixed coordinate system
by a height d, (3) becomes
 -
Et -
jkdsine [ ej k ( h - d ) sine + ~ ~ - j k ( h -sine
d )
I
- jkhsine + ~ ~ ~ - j k h s i n e

&s pt.
Souce

D.
h a g e Plane

moge

Figure 3. Geometry of Optical Problem.

Since the antenna and observation point have not moved with
respect to the coordinate origin, the first term on the right
remains unchanged. The reflected field has been altered by

B. Validity of the O~ticalA~~roximation

The charts presented in this document will be calculated
using the Fresnel reflection coefficient, f,. Fresnel reflec-
tion coefficients determine exact scattered fields for plane
 24

wave incidence or for perfectly conducting ground planes. When

the ground plane is other than perfectly conducting and the
source wave is spherical, more terms must be included in the
solution for the total field. The field from the Fresnel
reflection coefficient is known as the space wave and the
extra terms are known as the surface wave.
Stratton [23] shows how Weyl represented a spherical wave
using a Fourier-Bessel technique to obtain a sum of plane
waves integrated over ( A = k sin 6) . The reflection coeffi-
cient, R, may then be calculated exactly as

where J, is the zeroth order Bessel function of the first

kind. r is the horizontal distance between the source and
receive antennas, z, is the height of the source antenna above
the ground plane, z is the height of the receive antenna above
the ground plane, and the distance between image and receive
points is

The Fresnel reflection coefficient is part of the integrand

because it is a function of A. One may write f, when the
ground plane is an infinite half-space as

This equation has not been solved in closed form and is

difficult to integrate numerically. Jordan and Balmain
[ 2 1 ] write the first order terms of the scattered horizon-

tal field from an infinite half-space. One may then calculate

the reflection coefficient as

where the first term on t h e r i g h t yields t h e space wave and

the second term is the surface wave. G is

and

where 6 is the angle of incidence and u = k,/k,, the ratio of

wave numbers for air and reflecting surface.
 It is clear that when the space wave is much greater than
the surface wave, the reflection coefficient is equal to the
Fresnel reflection coefficient. The above equations can be
solved for the smallest distance, D,, where the space wave is
greater than the surface wave. For an angle of 3 O and k, real,
Figure 4 shows that the critical distances are very small.

Figure 4 . Minimum Distances for Surface Wave and Space Wave

Equality.

The optical method used in this document is therefore

accurate for all practical glide slope applications. The only
requirement that must be made is that the antennas must remain
above the snow layer. If the snow should exceed the antenna
height, the space wave would be quenched, and the surface wave
would dominate.
 27

V. GLIDE SLOPE PERFORMANCE VS. REFLECTION COEFFICIENT

Two signals combine in space to produce the AM signal
received by the glide slope receiver, the CSB and SBO. The CSB
is that portion of the ILS signal that contains 90 Hz and 1 5 0

Hz AM sidebands that are amplitude modulated and broadcast

with the RF carrier. The SBO is that portion of the ILS signal
that contains only 90 Hz and 1 5 0 Hz AM sidebands. The 9 0 Hz

SBO tone is modulated out of phase from that on the CSB tone.
Radiation patterns characteristic of a glide slope are shown
in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Characteristic Glide Slope Radiation Pattern.

These signals are combinations of total fields as

calculated in (2) or (3). As the relative phase of these
signals vary, the amplitudes of the 90 Hz or 150 Hz tones will

vary in such a way that the total modulation will remain

essentially a constant. The receiver detects the modulations,
 28

then measures the signal strength of the tones and compares

them against the signal strength of the carrier. The sum of
these two quantities is the total modulation of the signal;
the difference is the ddm. The ddm is displayed for the pilot
on a needle indicator by converting it to a scaled microamp
value known as CDI. When there is sufficient modulation, the
CDI can be calculated as

CDI = A-Real (-1SBO

CSB

where A is the voltage scaling factor between SBO and CSB

required to generate a certain course width about the path.
The Real function must be included because only the vector sum
of the 90 Hz and 150 Hz sidebands with respect to the carrier
contribute to the ddm measurement.
There are 3 types of image-type glide slopes in use in
the United States. These are the null reference, sideband
reference, and capture effect. Illustrations of these systems
are given in Figure 6 [22].

In subsequent discussions, the reflection coefficient

shall be written as a phasor

R = M& (13)

where M is the magnitude, and $I is the phase of the reflection

coefficient.

e l
," *
-3
URE E C F E C T
1GbRATl0hl
<L
- -3
NULL REFERELC
CONF'GURA?.' 3 N
,a
SIDEB-ND R E F E R E N C E
;--CONFGJQATION

-3
.3 -d
-3
L ,-L
. A
-2

Figure 6. Antenna Configurations or Glide Slopes. (Ref:

Wilcox Manual [22].)
 30

A. Null Reference
The null reference glide slope consists of two antennas,
each with its own signal. The SBO antenna is placed at a
height above ground where it will produce a signal minimum on
path. The CSB antenna is placed at a height above ground where
it will generate a signal maximum on path. The expressions for
CSB and SBO are written as

CSB = f (h,,d),
SBO = f(h2,0).

Combine (3), (12), and (14) with (13) to write the CDI as

( 1 + ~COS
~ )(X2-X,)+ ~ M C O S (X2+X,-@)
CDI = A
( 1 + ~ +~ ~
) M C O (2X,-@)
S

where X, has been introduced for kh, sine. Under ideal ground
plane conditions,

where is the wavelength of the carrier frequency, and 0, is

the desired glide path angle.
The magnitude of the reflection coefficient can be solved
 31

in terms of its phase. The form of the equation is a root of

the quadratic

where

cCDIo s (2X1-r#l)
- cos (3X1-r#l)
G, =
n
CDI
- - cos (X,)
A

when (16) is incorporated into (15). Since the image plane is

a passive reflector, onlymagnitudes of reflection coefficient
between 0 and 1 are realizable.

B. Sideband Reference
The sideband reference glide slope also consists of two
antennas. The SBO is generated from equal and oppositely
phased signals on both antennas. The heights are chosen to
produce a signal minimum on path. The CSB antenna is broadcast
on the lower antenna. The expressions for CSB and SBO are
written as

CSB = f (hl,6),
SBO = f(h,,6) - f(hl,6).

Combine ( 3 ) , (12), and (19) with (13) to write the CDI as

 ( 1 + ~[COS
~ ) (X2-X1)- 11 + 2M [COS (X2+X,-@) - cos (2X1-@)]
CDI = A
( 1+ M ~ )+ 2M cos ( 2X1-@)
(20)

where X, has been introduced for kh, sin8. One can rewrite (20)
as

~ ) (p-l)Xl)-11 + 2M [COS( (p+l)Xl-@)-cos(2X,-@) 1

( 1 + ~[COS(
CDI = A
( 1 + ~ +~ ~
) M C O (2X,-@)
S
(21)

where p is the height ratio between the upper and lower

antenna. Typical values for p are between 2.5 and 4. Most of
the analysis will be done assuming a height ratio of 3, since
this system is the most widely used. Under ideal ground plane
conditions,

where X is the wavelength of the carrier frequency, and 8, is

the desired glide path angle.
Again, the magnitude of the reflection coefficient can be
solved in terms of its phase. The form of the equation is a
root of the quadratic
where

CDI
(T+1)cos(2X,-@) -cos( (p+l)X,-@)
n
G, =
CDI
(--el) -cos( (p-l)X,)
A

when (22) is incorporated into (21). Again, since the image

plane is a passive reflector, only magnitudes of reflection
coefficient between 0 and 1 are realizable.

C. Capture Effect

The capture effect glide slope is a two-frequency array

that relies on a phenomenon known as capture effect to reduce
roughness due to non-ideal ground plane conditions. The
parameters of this system are often controlled by the terrain
at a particular site. The capture effect glide slope will be
examined with the understanding that the data only describe
trends in the presence of snow. It will become evident later
that although the capture effect glide slope is designed to
cancel energy at low angles, it is not a cure-all for problems
with snow cover.
There are two groups of signals present; course and
clearance. These signals are separated by several kHz, yet
both fit within the passband of an ILS receiver. The receiver
has a tendency to lock onto the stronger of the two signals
 34

and extract its information over that of the weaker signal.

Three antennas are required for this system. The course
array is known as the M-array. Like the null reference, the
SBO signal is generated by forming a pattern null with its
image using the middle antenna. The upper and lower antennas
also form a null on path but both are out of phase with the
middle to provide signal reduction at low angles. This pair is
similar to the sideband reference except that while the
antennas are in phase with each other, they have an extra 180
degree path-length difference to produce a null on path. The
CSB is generated as in the null reference by applying signal
to the lower antenna, except a small amount of anti-phased CSB
is also placed on the middle antenna for signal reduction
below path.
The area below path is dominated by the clearance signal.
It is typically displaced from the carrier frequency by 8 kHz
and has only the 150 Hz tone modulated on it. Its signal is
generated similar to the second half of the SBO. Wherever the
clearance carrier signal is comparable to or greater than the
course carrier signal, the C D I rolls off strongly into the 150
Hz. The clearance signal does not normally contribute to
guidance when the pilot is in the course region and will be
ignored for computational simplicity. The techniques developed
for the previous glide slopes can be used, but the expressions
are long. Data will be presented, but not the expressions.
 VI. EFFECT OF SNOW OVER GROUND
The effect of snow over ground can be developed by
considering the multiple reflection problem of a dielectric
slab separating two media. The geometry of the problem is
shown in Figure 7.

1 Obr Pt. 1

Sol (medium #3)

Figure 7. Multiple Reflections from a Multi-layered Image

Plane.

Stratton [ 2 3 ] solves for the bulk reflection coeffi-

cient for normal incidence by summing all rays reflected and
transmitted from the surface of the slab (snow cover) in the
direction of the observation point (the aircraft), then
applying an identity for the infinite series. His method can
be extrapolated for oblique incidence as
 36

where k2 and d are the wave number and depth of the snow, and
0, represents the angle from the tangent of the surface that

the wave refracts into the snow layer. r,,, and r, denote the
reflection and transmission coefficients at the boundary
separating the incident medium, m, from the reflecting medium,
n. For smooth surfaces, r,, -
- -r, and r, = l+r, so that

The reflection coefficient at each boundary is calculated

using the Fresnel reflection coefficient written as

sin~m-\l~2,,,,,-cos28,
r,,,=,,
sin^,+/-

where ,Z is the ratio of characteristic impedances in medium

m divided by that in medium n, and 8, is the angle that the
wave propagates through medium m with respect to the tangent
at the boundary surface.
The expression for the reflection coefficient has the
complication that it is defined at the air-snow interface and
not at the coordinate origin. As was demonstrated previously,
translating the image plane to the coordinate origin modifies
where k, is the wave number in air, and 8, is the observation
angle.
k, and 8, are related to k, and 8, by maintaining continu-
ity of field components at the interface

Two phenomena are at work as illustrated by the following

special cases. Assume the snow is wet and a good conductor
(reflective and highly attenuating). The exponential terms
involving k, tend to zero and (28) reduces to

Addition of wet snow advances the phase of the reflection

coefficient. Examination of equations (15) and (20) indicate
that under these conditions, increasing d will raise the path
angle and broaden the course width. This phenomenon will be
referred to as the raised ground plane effect.
 38

The second case occurs when reflections at the air-snow

interface are negligible compared to those from the soil.
These conditions occur when the snow is dry, or icy. rI2is
negligible compared to r2, and the expression reduces to

k, and 8, are greater than k, and O,, so the phase moves in the
opposite direction for increasing d. Since propagation through
the snow is slower than in air, the phase of the reflection
coefficient is delayed, tending to lower the path angle and
narrow the course width for small d. As d increases, the path
angle increases to a maximum, then returns to normal before
starting the cycle over. This shall be referred to as the
path-length difference phenomenon.
Also note that because the argument in the exponential of
(31) is typically greater than that in (30), path lowering

occurs first. The path lowering is not as pronounced because

its magnitude is typically less. The total reflection coeffi-
cient can be described as a phasor with origin at the center
of a unit circle whose vector moves slowly counterclockwise
while making fast small clockwise circles. Refer to Figure 8
for an example where r2, is assumed to be a better conductor
than r,,.
 -1
Figure 8. Example of Reflection Coefficient for Snow of
Increasing Depth over Ground.

Anomalous reflection coefficients should be expected when

the phase of r, is inverted by the complex exponential in
(26). This occurs for snow depths of

where E, is the relative dielectric constant, and n is any

non-negative integer. In the above, conductive currents are
assumed negligible, the angle of incidence is assumed small,
and the identity in (29) is applied. This conclusion concurs
with that drawn by Redlich [15].
 40
VII. ANALYSIS OF SNOW EFFECTS
Reflection coefficients that cause out of tolerance path
angle and/or course width can be computed by application of
(17) and (18) for null reference, or (23) and (24) for
sideband reference, or by deriving the expressions for capture
effect. These results have been submitted for publication in
the IEEE-AES Transactions [24]. Since the magnitude of the
reflection coefficient is known in terms of its phase, one can
concisely describe the locus of reflection coefficients that
cause out of tolerance conditions by graphing the contours as
a phasor on a polar plot.
Path angle criteria are determined by setting the CDI to
0 and computing X, at each tolerance angle. The X, take on the
form

for path high (H) and path low (L), respectively under Cat I
tolerances.
Width criteria are computed by first selecting A for a
system such that the 75 uA points are 0.7" apart under nominal
conditions (such as R = -1). One must then find values for M
and @ so that they simultaneously meet the conditions that xnH
and :X have an angular difference equal to either the broad
 41

or sharp course widths at their respective 75 uA points.

For example, insert the value for A into the null
reference expression and CDI = -75 uA and let

into (17). 6 is either the broad or sharp course width. Then,

insert CDI = +75 uA and let

Solve (17) under the two sets of conditions simultaneously for

@ and allow 8 to vary around the path angle. Insert the value
of C#J into (17) for M. The width contour is now generated.

A. Effects on Null Reference Glide Slope

The null reference glide slope is examined first. A
nominal 3.0" path angle is chosen along with Cat I tolerances
and a value for A of 0.30466. The shaded area in Figure 9
shows the allowable reflection coefficients for which the null
reference glide slope performs under Cat I tolerances. If one
were to graph the system for other practical path angles, one
would find that the shaded portions are virtually identical,
provided the value of A is modified to provide a nominal 0.7"
course width. This statement will prove accurate for all
systems.
Note that the out of tolerance sharp course widths are
not graphed. In all systems, the path angle is already out of
tolerance for all values of reflection coefficient at which
the sharp course width occurs. The upper boundary yields out
of tolerance path too low conditions; the lower boundary
yields out of tolerance path too high conditions. The ellipse
in the middle yields out of tolerance course width too broad
conditions.

Figure 9. Null Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits.

B. Effects on Sideband Reference Glide Slope

-

A 3:l sideband reference glide slope is examined next. A

nominal 3.0" path angle is chosen along with Cat I tolerances
and a value for A of 0.30467. The shaded area in Figure 10
 43

shows the allowable reflection coefficients for which the

sideband reference glide slope performs under Cat I toleranc-
es.

-1

Figure 10. 3:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits.

Again, the upper boundary yields out of tolerance path

too low conditions; the lower boundary yields out of tolerance
path too high conditions. The third curve is the boundary for
widths that are too broad. Again, the sharp course width is
not graphed since the path angle is already out of tolerance.
The 2.5:l (A = 0.38085) and 4:l (A = 0.22288) sideband
reference glide slopes are also graphed in Figure 11 and
Figure 12.
Note that the shaded area is larger for lower height
ratio, or when the lowest antenna is higher. The system can be
said to be more robust to the effects of snow as the shaded
area becomes larger.
 -i

Figure 11. 2.5:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits.

-i

Figure 12. 4:l Sideband Reference Cat I Tolerance Limits.

C. Effects on Capture Effect Glide Slope

Last, the capture effect course array is examined. A

nominal 3.0° path angle is chosen along with Cat I tolerances
 45
and a value for A of 0.30467. The shaded area in Figure 13
shows the allowable reflection coefficients for which the
sideband reference glide slope performs under Cat I toleranc-
es.
Again, the upper boundary yields out of tolerance path
too low conditions; the lower boundary yields out of tolerance
path too high conditions. The third curve is the boundary for
widths that are too broad. Again, the sharp course width is
not graphed since the path angle is already out of tolerance.

Figure 13. Capture Effect Cat I Tolerance Limits.

Figure 14 shows the same capture effect system under Cat

I11 tolerances. The allowable reflection coefficients are

restricted significantly because of the tighter tolerances on

path angle.
 -j

~ i g u r e14. Capture Effect Cat I11 Tolerance ~imits.

The intersections of these curves with the reflection

coefficient expression from ( 2 8 ) allow the determination of
critical snow depths for any type of snow provided conductivi-
ty and dielectric constant can be determined. Depending on the
electrical character of the snow, there can be regions of snow
depth that cause out of tolerance conditions. These are the
shaded regions in Figure 1 5 and Figure 1 6 for null reference,
Figure 17 and Figure 1 8 for the 3 : l sideband reference,
Figure 1 9 for Cat I capture effect, and Figure 20 for Cat I11
capture effect.
There are certain trends that are common to all graphs.
At relatively small depths of dry snow, one or more shaded
regions appear where the path-length difference phenomenon
occurs. These typically occur as specified in ( 3 2 ) . The early
portions of these areas are dominated by path low conditions,
 47

the later portions by path high conditions. Selected portions

in the middle, top and bottom, have width broad conditions.
The large shaded area to the right indicates where the
raised ground plane effect caused by wet snow dominates.
Unlike the path-length difference regions, the critical snow
depths for raised ground plane conditions are independent of
dielectric constant, provided the conductivity is high enough.
The type of system and the path high tolerances for a given
Category are the prime factors in raised ground critical
depths. Note the small unshaded areas at the bottom where the
reflection coefficient contours sweep briefly through the
allowable region.
FAA criteria for glide slope facilities state that 18-24''
of snow must be present for null reference and capture effect,
and 6-8" for sideband reference before snow in front of the
array must be plowed [ 4 ] . The data clearly indicates that snow
with certain electrical parameters can possibly take each
glide slope out of tolerance before FAA specifications for
depth have been met. Note that because of the raised ground
plane effect, any type of snow is sufficient to put the
capture effect out of tolerance under Cat I11 conditions.
All snow reflection coefficient calculations presented
are made at 3 O . Since the reflection coefficient for snow over
ground is angle dependent, the shaded regions in the graphs
will expand or contract slightly for increasing or decreasing
observation angles, respectively.
 1 E-05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Snow Depth in Inches

Figure 15. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on Null Reference. Dielectric Constant = 1.4.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Snow Depth in Inches

Figure 16. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on Null Reference. Dielectric Constant = 2.0.
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Snow Depth In Inches

Figure 17. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on 3:l Sideband Reference. Dielectric
Constant = 1.4.

Snow Depth In Inches

Figure 18. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on 3:1 Sideband Reference. Dielectric
Constant = 2.0.
 1 E-05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Snow Depth in Inches

Figure 19. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on Capture Effect, Cat I. Dielectric Constant
= 1.4.

Figure 20. Critical Snow Parameters that Cause Out of Toler-

ance Performance on Capture Effect, Cat 111. Dielectric
Constant = 1.4.
 51

D. Probabilitv of Snow Tvwe

Tiuri [ 2 5 ] provides semi-empirical equations for the
loss tangent of dry snow based on measured values. When the
snow is wet, the dielectric constant and conductivity increase
rapidly. The expression for dry snow is written as

where E,'E, and E,"E~ are the real and imaginary parts of the
dielectric constant, E, is the dielectric constant of free
space, f is the frequency in MHz, T is the temperature in
Celsius, and p, is the density of the snow.
The conductivity, a, for dry snow can be solved from the
loss tangent as

because the expression E,' in terms of p, is also included in

the paper, provided p, < 0.5 (or E,' < 2). In order to write

the conductivity in terms of the relative dielectric constant,

rewrite p, in terms of E , ' . For a temperature of -10°C and a
frequency of 332 MHz, conductivity can be written in terms of
relative dielectric constant. his is shown in Figure 21.
 It is seen that for dry snow, the expected conductivity
passes through the path-length difference areas. The probabil-
ity of the combination of snow depth and electrical parameters
that cause the path-length difference phenomenon should be
considered possible. This discussion does not apply to the
raised ground effect found for high conductivity wet snow. The
raised ground plane is the upper limit when the system will be
out of tolerance.

Relative Dielectric Constant

Figure 21. Conductivity vs. Relative ~ielectricConstant for

Dry Snow.

E. Effects of Rouqh Snow Surfaces and Terrain

Based on the monographs of Beckmann and Spizzichino
[26], the effect of statistically rough snow or terrain is

to reduce the magnitudes of the reflection coefficients, r

,
that contribute to the total reflection coefficient such that
A rough surface scatters the wave randomly, causing it to be
less coherent. This is observed as a reduction in the reflec-
tion coefficient. This reduction factor, ,p is written as

where a, is the statistical deviation of the nth surface, k,,,

and 8, are the wave number and angle in the mth medium. This
equation is graphed in Figure 22 for an incidence angle of 3
degrees where it is assumed that if &, = 1, then a, refers to
roughness at the snow surface. Any other value means that the
reduction factor is computed for roughness at the ground plane
or the underside of the snow layer. Since the electrical
length and angle increase with E,, use is made of (29) in
order to compute 8 for k.
If one assumes that the transmission coefficient for a
rough surface is also modified in the same manner as ( 3 8 ) ,
namely,
 54

then the bulk reflection coefficient calculated from (25) is

modified as

-2jk,dshB2
R =
p 1 2 ~ 1 2+ p1 2 p 2 1 p 23r23e
-2jhd sin 0,
+ P 2 1 p 2 3 ~ 1 2 ~ 2 3 ~

after simplification into the form of (26).

0 3 6 9 12
o in inches

Figure 22. Roughness Reduction Factor.

The wave passing through the snow and reflecting from the
ground plane is affected more by rough surfaces than the wave
reflecting from the snow surface. The path-length difference
phenomenon has a tendency to be quenched by rough surfaces.
Anomalous effects of snow over ground may be reduced by rough
terrain and snow drifts.
 55

VIII. MONITOR DESIGN CONCEPT

As has been shown, when certain conditions are met, it is
possible that snow cover can cause each system to go out of
tolerance before the criteria for snow removal have been met.
The out of tolerance condition goes undetected by the current
monitor system.
Under wet snow conditions (the expected majority of
cases), the FAA policy is too restrictive; the system is shut
down unnecessarily. The author asserts that by accurately
measuring changes in the ground-reflected image, in conjunc-
tion with the existing integral monitor (or the Mark 20
electronics) and continuation of ILS critical areas, the
length and number of outages caused by snow cover can be
reduced. In addition, any monitoring scheme employed should
detect the more unusual dry snow phenomena that cause out of
tolerance performance.
The remainder of this document examines a novel system of
antennas which can be used for monitoring the image radiation
from an antenna over ground. This monitor has been submitted
for publication in the IEEE-AES Transactions [27]. The
monitor scheme employs an antenna system that transmits a
continuous-wave signal to a calibrated receive antenna. The
bulk reflection coefficient is then calculated from the total
(direct plus ground-reflected) signal. The reflection coeffi-
cient is then compared against charts derived earlier in this
document to determine if the glide slope is in tolerance.
 56

Calibration and error budgets are also discussed.

A monitor based on principles from image theory is
proposed. In the presence of a flat, level, reflecting ground
plane, a stand-alone antenna sends a signal to a receiving
monitor antenna. The antennas are assumed to be high enough
that ground waves are negligible, yet low enough so as to
approximate an angle of incidence comparable to the designed
path angle of the glide slope. See Figure 23 for a block
diagram of the monitor.

V V M
RCV Ant

Zm

Figure 23. Monitor Block Diagram.

The voltages at the terminals of the two antennas are

sampled and measured with a phase sensitive device, such as a
vector voltmeter. The relative voltage at the terminals of the
monitor antenna can be computed from (3) as

where V, is the voltage at the monitor antenna, V, is the

voltage at the source antenna. The first term on the right is
the source field, and the second term is the ground-reflected
image field, R is the reflection coefficient (complex ratio of
reflected to direct signal), k is the wave number in free
space, D S f is the distance from the source antenna to the
monitor antenna, and D I f is the distance from the image of the
source antenna to the monitor antenna. D s r and D I r are written
as

Since the locations of the source and monitor antennas

are known and the total field can be represented by the
voltage measured at the monitor antenna terminals with respect
to that at the source, the reflection coefficient can be
deduced from (42) as
This formulation, in conjunction with a look-up chart derived
earlier in this text, tells when the image radiation combines
with the direct signal to produce a glide slope that is out of
tolerance.

A. Monitor Error Budqets and Calibration

In general, knowledge of the locations of the antennas is
not exact. An inch displacement of antenna position can mean
a phase error of 10 degrees at glide slope frequencies. In
addition, cable length errors can also produce a bias in the
measurement. In this section, an attempt is made to set bounds
on errors in the measurement of reflection coefficient.
The above errors appear as

where Ds and D, contain antenna positional errors, L1 and L2

are the cable lengths (which might not be known) between
antenna and phase meter as in Figure 23, and y is the wave
number in the cable.
Assume for the moment that cable errors are negligible.
 59

One can then solve for position errors by defining two-

dimensional position vectors for each antenna as

which are best guesses at the horizontal and vertical posi-

tions of the monitor, the source, and image antennas, respec-
tively.
Next, define the two-dimensional vectors for errors in
position of the respective antennas as

the position errors for the monitor, the radiating source, and
the image source. The actual position vectors are then

Now calculate actual and approximate lengths for use in

(45) as
It can be assumed that the 6 are bounded by some value much
less than either Dsf or D,'. These lengths can then be expanded

in a Taylor series and written in terms of Ds or Dl.

where

The path-length difference between direct and ground-reflected

paths is

where the horizontal errors tend to cancel when the antennas

are far enough apart. This will be discussed further in the
 61

section on siting criteria. For glide path angles, the

vertical error terms in (49) will be small and can also be
neglected. Since displacement errors are typically much
smaller than the distance between antennas, assume that only
phase terms are affected and rewrite (45) as

where

Now include the cable length errors and solve for R in

the form of (50)

where a = exp(y(L2-L1)-jkp). If the antenna locations are

known to some accuracy, the error introduced by using these
quantities in place of their actual values can be removed with
a single measurement under nominal conditions where the
reflection coefficient is known. a is a quantity that can be
determined in a single calibration measurement. This term is
solved as
where E, is the calibration value of EN at some known value of
the reflection coefficient, q.
If the reflection coefficient is unknown, the author
suggests wetting the ground between the antennas. The reflec-
tion coefficient should tend to a value of -1, provided the
terrain is not altered by the addition of standing water.
It is important to note that all values except EN are
fixed until the system is altered and in need of recalibra-
tion; D, and D, are fixed by the antennas and do not change. To
illustrate this point, write (52) as

where A and B are constants.

B. Monitor Sitinq Criteria

It is important that the measurement of fields at the
monitor correlate with the fields received in the far-field by
the aircraft. Considerations are now given to monitor place-
ment that will aid the monitor in accurately representing any
changes in the image radiation.
The snow covering the ground may not be uniform. In order
 63

to ensure that the monitor is representative of glide slope

far-field performance, it is essential that the Fresnel zone
of the monitor coincide with that of the glide slope as much
as possible. The source antenna for the monitor might be
placed on the glide slope tower, so long as there is no
interference from (or to) the glide slope antennas. The
receiving antenna should be placed near the edge of the ILS
critical area, and far enough from the runway so as not to be
an obstruction to landing or taxiing aircraft.
Reflections from nearby stationary or moving objects may
cause biased or varying fields at the receive antenna which
may affect the measurements. If the monitor is placed in the
ILS critical area, interference from structures and aircraft
should be minimized to a degree comparable to that of the
glide slope. A directional antenna, such as a log-periodic
dipole antenna, may be required to reduce stray signals.
When discussing errors, it was stated that the antennas
had to be sufficiently far apart so that the horizontal errors
in the second term cancel. The author suggests that the
horizontal spacing should place the monitor antenna in the
Fraunhofer (far-field) region. The horizontal spacing, r,
should be at least
 64

so that this condition is true. For example, if the antenna

height is chosen to be 2 wavelengths (about 6 feet), r should
be at least 95 feet.
Reflection coefficients are dependent on incidence angle.
The angle between the ground-reflected image antenna and the
receiving antenna should approximate the glide slope path
angle. If the monitor angle is different, the phase variance
with snow depth will change proportionately. The monitor
height requirement can be written as

where 8, is the designated glide slope path angle, Z, is the

height of the monitor antenna, and Z, is the height of the
source antenna. Remember that the heights should be chosen so
that ground waves are negligible. If the snow rises above the
heights of the antennas, there will be significant ground
waves.
Surface waves tend to decay rapidly with distance for
horizontal dipole antennas. The question then arises whether
the close proximity of the monitor antennas to a poorly
conducting snow layer will cause the system to measure a
reflection coefficient different from what an observer in the
far-field might measure. As indicated in Figure 4, the
required spacing is small. Other considerations in the
 65

placement of the monitor force the antennas to be greater than

this distance.
 66

IX. CONCLUSIONS
Data has been presented showing the necessary conditions
for a uniform layer of snow over a reflective ground plane to
cause an image-type glide slope to go outside USFIM toleranc-
es. The data indicate two phenomena causing out of tolerance
conditions:
1. wet, conductive snow cover effectively raises the
reflecting surface, which causes a reduction in the
effective size of the antenna array. This causes an
increase in path angle and broadening of the course
width.
2. dry, poorly conducting snow delays the reflected signal,
caused by transmission of the signal through a low-loss
snow having a wave number higher than that of the ambient
medium (in this case, air). This can produce a depth
critical condition which can cause path lowering,
raising, and/or width broadening.
The raised ground plane effect is more noticeable for highly
reflective, wet snow cover. Critical snow depths for Cat I
image-type glide slopes are: at least 34" for null reference
and capture effect, and at least 17" for sideband reference
glide slope. Capture effect under Cat I11 tolerances requires
only 13.5" of wet snow cover to go out of tolerance.
In general, the capture effect glide slope is about as
robust as the null reference glide slope. The path angle
robustness of a system is related to the ratio of the lowest
 67

height antenna to the designed path angle. The sideband

reference, in particular the greater height ratio systems, are
more sensitive to snow since the antennas are lower. The
critical depth for the raised ground plane effect is propor-
tional to the ratio of path-high angle to path angle for a
particular system. Width conditions are a function of path
angle, in addition to the conditions previously discussed.
FAA procedures [4] state that the system cannot be used
when snow cover of 18-24" for null reference or 6-8" for
sideband reference exists. Under wet snow conditions, FAA
procedures are overly conservative for Cat I systems because
the system is shut down before it is out of tolerance. Current
FAA procedures appear to require revision under Cat I11
tolerances since the capture effect can go out of tolerance
with less than 18" of snow cover.
The dry snow phenomenon can cause each system to go out
of tolerance in an unstable condition that typically migrates
from path low, to width broad, to path high. As the snow depth
increases, the system may return to normal until the raised
ground effect becomes significant. The shape of the curves
varies such that the loss tangent is nearly a constant for a
particular system. The critical snow depth is reached when the
electrical distance through the snow adds an extra 180 degrees
to the path-length of the reflected signal. Although high
dielectric snow requires less snow cover for outages, the
range of snow depths that can cause anomalous performance is
 68

reduced. At a minimum, current FAA snow removal guidelines

appear to require revision since the system can go out of
tolerance before the criteria are met.
The paper by Tiuri [25] indicates that nominal measured
values of dry snow tend to have the values of conductivity
required to meet the conditions outlined in this document for
the path-length difference phenomenor, to occur. The possibili-
ty of a combination of snow depth and electrical parameters
that cause the phenomenon should be classified as likely.
A rough surface scatters the incident wave randomly,
causing the received wave to be less coherent. This is
observed as a reduction in the magnitude of the reflection
coefficient. Anomalous effects, in particular, the path-length
difference phenomenon, may be reduced by rough terrain and
snow drifts, based on equations from Beckmann and Spizzichino

[261

As stated previously, FAA procedures appear to require

revision in guaranteeing nominal system performance in the
presence of snow. Current systems do not monitor the image
radiation that contributes to the formation of the path, nor
do they measure the electrical parameters of snow to determine
if out of tolerance conditions exist. Only the now-defunct
near-field monitors could observe glide slope anomalous
performance caused by snow, but they were prone to be too
conservative in alarming the system. No existing monitor can
 69

accurately determine glide slope anomalous performance due to

snow.
A novel glide slope monitor that measures the effects
that ground plane changes have on image radiation has been
presented. This monitor, in conjunction with the charts
already presented, allows one to quantify the effect the
ground plane has on glide slope far-field performance.
The defunct near-field monitor measured CDI in the
vicinity of the glide slope. To stay on airport property, the
monitor antenna had to be placed so that the path-length
difference between upper and lower glide slope antennas was
180 degrees shorter than in the far-field (inside the Fraunho-
fer region). This gave accurate measurements for correlating
width and path angle shifts due to transmitter faults.
The system became inaccurate whenever the environment
changed, such as in the presence of standing water or snow
accumulation. Under these conditions, the 180 degree point
migrated away from the monitor antenna. There was no way to
recalibrate the monitor without yet another system to deter-
mine the changes in the ground plane. The near-field monitor
would no longer give an accurate representation of the far-
field performance of the glide slope.
The proposed monitor has many advantages over the near-
field monitor. It measures only the ratio between direct and
ground-reflected radiation. The monitor antenna can be placed
in the far-field and still stay on airport property. Since it
 70

does not require the glide slope signal, it does not confuse
transmitter faults and ground plane changes. The monitor can
work in tandem with the integral monitor (or the Mark 20
electronics), thereby determining what combination of trans-
mitter and ground plane faults cause the glide slope to go out
of tolerance. Cumulative errors caused by a combination of
transmitter imbalances and the ground plane can then be
obtained.
Unlike previous systems, the new monitor does not need to
know what the snow composition is, or if standing water is
present. It only concerns itself with changes in the image
radiation; this is the bottom line in measuring changes in
system performance based on ground plane.

Recommendations for future work would include verifying

the phenomena by experiment. The raised ground plane effect
has been well validated over the years, but the path-length
difference phenomenon will probably require scale-modeled
laboratory testing to confirm. Difficulties associated with
in-situ measurement of electrical parameters of snow and
surface roughness may make the phenomenon difficult to
observe.
While these conditions may make the phenomenon difficult
to measure, it also would make its probability of occurrence
small. The odds that snow cover can cause the image-type glide

to go out of tolerance need a good statistical basis to be

 71

computed. Use of the proposed monitor will help to determine

the probability of outages in the future.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. J. Battistelli, !#The Design and Testing of a Glide
Path Integral MonitorIt, No. 35, Avionics Engineering
Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, May 5, 1972.
Morehart, Jack B., R. H. McFarland, David C. Hildebrand,
ItSnow Effects on Image Glide Path Systemst1,Report No.
FAA-RD-72-85, EER 5-13, Avionics Engineering Center,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, Final Report, July 1972.
ItsitingCriteria for Instrument Landing Systemtt,
DOT-FAA
Order 6750.16B, June 17, 1985.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, FAA Order 6750.49, "Maintenance of
Instrument Landing System (ILS) Facilities, Chg 16,
Chapter 5, Section 3, Sub-section 3, 5297 - Snow Removal
Procedure, Oct. 1991
R. H. McFarland, I1Rationale for Locating the Field
Sensors for Snow Depth Monitors at a Sideband Reference
Glide Slope Siten, Precis 118, Avionics Engineering
Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, August 6, 1990.
R. H. McFarland, J. T. Gorman, D. A. Hill, D. K. Lutter-
moser and D. A. Miller, "Earth Cover and Contour Effects
on Image Glide PathsM,FAA-RD-68-60, 1, EER 5-7, Avionics
Research Group, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, September,
1968.
McFarland, R. H., D. A. Hill, D. K. Luttermoser, "Earth
Cover and Contour Effects on Image Glide Paths, Phase
IIIt,FAA-RD-65-30, EER 5-1, Avionics Research Group, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, May 21, 1965.
Luttermoser, Donald K., "The Effects of a Ground Covering
of Snow Upon the Image-Type Null Reference Glide Slope
Monitorw, Technical Report 5-3, Avionics Research Group,
Department of Electrical Engineering, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio, June, 1966. (Also submitted as Master's
Thesis January, 1966.)
McFarland, R. H., J. T. Gorman, D. A. Hill, D. K.
Luttermoser, D. L. Miller, "Earth Cover and Contour
Effects on Image Glide Paths, Phase IIn, FAA-RD-66-39,
EER 5-5, Avionics Research Group, Department of ~lectri-
cal and Computer Engineering, Ohio University, Athens,
 Ohio, July 10, 1966.
[lo] Miller, David A., ftComparisonof Near and Far-Field Snow
Effects on Image Glide Pathsff,Master's Thesis, Avionics
Research Group, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, August 27, 1966.
[ll] Gilchrist, Thomas A., "Investigation of Changes in the
Near and Far-Field Glide Path Angle due to Layers of Snow
on the Ground-Planeff,Technical Report 5-9, Avionics
Engineering Center, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, June,
1970.
[12] Smith, G. E., "A Worst Case Approach to Glide Path Errors
Caused by Snow Cover on the Ground PlaneN, Technical
Memorandum 18, Avionics ~ngineeringCenter, Ohio Univer-
sity, Athens, Ohio, March 8, 1971.
[13] Smith, G. E., "The Effect of Varying Depths of Uniform
Snow Cover on Glide Slope Angle of Null-Reference,
Sideband-Reference, and Capture-Effect Image Glide
Slopesn, Technical Memorandum S-37, Avionics Engineering
Center, Ohio University, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Athens, Ohio, March, 1977.
[14] Redlich, Robert W., lfImageRadiation from a Finite Ground
Plane in Two Dimensionsu, IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, Vol. AP-16, No. 3 , May, 1968.
[15] Redlich, Dr. Robert, "Effects of Snow on Glide Slope
Signals: The Mathematical Formulationtt, Technical
MemorandumOU/AEC 91-63TM00006/45-1,Avionics Engineering
Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, February, 1992.
[16] Marcum, Frank, "Effects of Snow on Glide Slope Signals:
Mathematical Modelingw, Technical Memorandum OU/AEC 91-
64TM00006/45-2, Avionics Engineering Center, Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio, March, 1992.
[17] Walton, Eric K., '!Effect of Wet Snow on the Null-Refer-
ence ILS Systemff,IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, Vol. 29, No. 3, July 1993.
[18] Walton, Eric K. and Peter Tolley, lfThe Effects of Wet
Snow on the Null-Reference ILS SystemN, Proceedings of
the 23rd International Seminar of the International
Society of Air Safety Investigators, Vol 25, No 4,
Dallas, TX, November 1992.
[19] Lopez, Alfred R., t8Commentson 'Effect of Wet Snow on the
Null-Reference ILS Systemrw, IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 30, No. 4,
October, 1994.
[20] United States Standard - Flight Inspection Manual, FAA
Handbook OA P 8200.1, chg 46, January 1991.
[21] E. C. Jordan and K. G. Balmain, Electromagnetic Waves and
Radiating Systems, chapter 16, Prentice-Hall Inc., New
Jersey, 1968.
[22] Wilcox Instruction Manual - Glide Slope Antenna, Manual
704180-0300, Wilcox Electric Inc, Kansas City, MO, June
1976.
[23] J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory, p. 511-2, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, 1941.
[24] Marcum, Frank, utEvaluationof Image-type Glide Slope
Performance in the Presence of Snow Coverut.Technical
paper submitted to IEEE ~ransactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems.
[25] M. E. Tiuri, A. H. Sihvola, E. G. Nyfors and M. T.
Hallikaiken, "The Complex Dielectric Constant of Snow at
Microwave Frequenciestt,IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineer-
ing, Vol. OE-9, No. 5, Decercber 1984.
[26] P. Beckmann and A. Spizzichino, "The Scattering of
Electromagnetic Waves from Rough Surfacestt,
Artech House,
Inc., Norwood, MA, 1987.
[27] Marcum, Frank, ItDesignof an Image Radiation Monitor for
ILS Glide Slopew. Technical paper submitted to IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.
 RELATED MATERIAL
A. Ohio University Documents
1. McFarland, R. H., @@Effectsof Snow on Image Glide Paths
with Suggestions for Improved Monitoringff Technical
Memorandum Number 13, Avionics Engineering Center,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, July, 1970.
2. Battistelli, J. J. and R. H. McFarland, IfResults of
Measurements of Far-Field Glide Path Angles at Sites
Possessing Heavy Snow Covern@,Technical Memorandum Number
23, Avionics Engineering Center, Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio,
February 19, 1971.
3. McFarland, Richard H., @nInvestigationto Provide Improved
Glide Slope Operation During Periods of Ground-Plane Snow
Cover - Summary and Conclusions@@,RD-74-69, I, EER 5-17,
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, April 1974.
4. Battistelli, J. J. and R. H. McFarland, @fInvestigationto
Provide Improved Glide Slope Operation During Periods of
Ground-Plane Snow Cover, Volume I1 - Details of 1972-1973
Investigationsn@, RD 74-69, 11, EER 5-18, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio, April 1974.
5. McFarland, R. H., nInvestigation of Effects of Ground-
Plane Deep Snow Cover on Image Glide Slope 1974-1975",
FAAReport RD-75-210, Report EER 24-1, Avionics Engineer-
ing Center, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, August 1975.
6. "Glide Slope Site Classifications Based on Depth of
Ground-Plane Snow Coversoo,Technical Memorandum S-13,
Avionics Engineering Center, Ohio University, Athens,
Ohio, April, 1976.
7. Mitchell, Lawrence H., and R. H. McFarland, @@ThePerfor-
mance of the Null-Reference Glide-Slope System in the
Presence of Deep Snow 1975-1976@@,FAA Report Number RD-
77-24, EER 29-1, Avionics Engineering Center, Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio, January 1977.
8. Smith, G. E., @@AGlide Slope Monitor System for Snow
Siteslf,Technical Memorandum S-45, Avionics Engineering
Center, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, June, 1977.
9. Mroz , Mark, "Glide Slope Facility Snow Data Compilationn@,
Technical Memorandum Number M-1, Avionics Engineering
 Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, September, 1977.
10. Chamberlin, Kent, "Capture-Effect and Sideband-Reference
Glide Slope Performance in the Presence of Deep Snow,
1977-1978tt,FAA-R-6750.1, AAF-420, EER 36-1, Avionics
Engineering Center, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, Final Report,
July, 1978.
11. McFarland, R. H., ttAnomalousSnow Effects on the ILS
Glide Slopew, Precis No. 2, Avionics Engineering Center,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, February 23, 1979.
12. Longworth, Joe D., "Instrument Landing System Critical
Area Studies: Phase I, Theoretical and Experimental
Investigations of Boeing 747 Dual Frequency LocaliZer
Scattering for CAT I11 Critical Area Determinationtt, EER
59-3, Avionics Engineering Center, Department of Electri-
cal and Computer Engineering, Ohio University, Athens,
Ohio, November 1982 (revised August 1983).
13. McFarland, R. H. , ItAReview of Image Glide Slope Perfor-
mance with Ground Plane Snow Covern, Technical Memorandum
OU/AEC 53-87TM-80789/1, Avionics Engineering Center,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, November 1987.
14. McFarland, R. H., "Flight Data on SBR Glide Slope
Responses at Asheville, NC, with Ground Plane Snow
Coverm, Precis 73, Avionics Engineering Center, Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, January 12, 1988.
15. Edwards, Jamie S., "Evaluation of the Cheyenne, Wyoming
SBR Glide Slope with Ground Plane Snow Covertt,Precis
113, Avionics Engineering Center, Department of Electri-
cal and Computer Engineering, Ohio University, Athens,
Ohio, March 12, 1990.
16. Edwards, Jamie S., "Flight Evaluation of the Null-
Reference Glide Slope Serving Runway 31 at the Houghton,
Michigan Airport in the Presence of Ground Plane Snow
Covertt,Precis 140, Avionics Engineering Center, Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, January 6, 1992.
17. Edwards, Jamie S., ttFlightEvaluation of the Sideband-
Reference Glide Slope Serving Runway 32 at the Bradford,
Pennsylvania Airport in the Presence of Ground Plane Snow
Covertt,Precis 144, Avionics Engineering Center, Depart-
 ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio, January 6, 1992.
18. Edwards, Jamie S., "Effects of Snow ILS Glide Slope
Signalstt,T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m O U / A E C 92-65TM00006/45-FR,
Avionics Engineering Center, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio,
October, 1992.
19. Edwards, Jamie S., "Flight Evaluation of the Sideband-
Reference Glide Slope with a Snow Covered Ground Plane,
Runway 16, Binghamton, NYtt, Precis 157, Avionics Engi-
neering Center, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, February 22,
1993.
20. Edwards, Jamie S., "Flight Evaluation of the Sideband-
Reference Glide Slope with a Snow Covered Ground Plane,
Runway 04, Schenectady, NY", Precis 158, Avionics
Engineering Center, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, March 3,
1993.

B. FAA Literature
1. Tech Report DOT/FAA/PM-86-7.1, p.128.
2. Jackson, ~illiamE., ed., "The Federal Airways SystemN,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Washington DC, 1970.
3. "Instrument Landing System Concepts: Student Texttt,FAA
Academy Training Manual, Catalog No. 40233, US Department
of Transportation Federal via ti on Administration, March
1986.
4. "Installation Instructions for the ILS Glide Slopett,
Bureau of Facilities, 1st ed., June 1, 1959.
5. "Instrument Landing System Glide Slopett,
CAA Aeronautical
Center Training Series, Facilities Branch Manual 206, US
Department of Commerce, Civil Aeronautical Administra-
tion, Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
6. '*Terminal Instrument Proceduresw, FAA 8260.3A1 2nd ed.,
February, 1970.
APPENDIX A. Tolerance Limits
There are three categories of approaches. Each category
guarantees levels of signal quality and limits of coverage.
The limit of coverage is defined from the edge of the service
volume to the pilot's decision height. Category I provides
coverage to ILS Point B (the middle marker, typically about
3500 feet from runway threshold) and 200 feet above ground.
Category I1 provides coverage to ILS Point C, typically about
1000 feet from runway threshold and 100 feet above ground.
Category I11 provides coverage to runway threshold and 50 feet
above ground.

Parameter Reference Tolerance/ Limit

Width 217.3306b 0.7O _+ 0.2'

Angle 217.3306a(l) +10.0% to -7.5% of the commissioned

angle
CAT I11 Within 4% of commissioned
angle
Symmetry 217.3306~ CAT I 67%-33%. *
CAT I1 58%-42%. *
CAT I1 67%-33%.
(Broad sector below path only)
CAT I11 58%-42%. *
Clearance
Below the
Path 217.3307 Adequate obstacle clearance at 180
uA or greater of fly-up signal in
normal (150 uA or greater in any
monitor limit condition).

* Broad sector either above or below path