This work reviews an ionospheric activity indicator useful for identifying disturbed periods affecting the performance of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). This index is based in the Along Arc TEC Rate (AATR) and can be easily computed from dual-frequency GNSS measurements. The AATR indicator has been assessed over more than one Solar Cycle (2002–2017) involving about 140 receivers distributed world-wide. Results show that it is well correlated with the ionospheric activity and, unlike other global indicators linked to the geomagnetic activity (i.e. D_ST or Ap), it is sensitive to the regional behaviour of the ionosphere and identifies specific effects on GNSS users. Moreover, from a devoted analysis of different Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) performances in different ionospheric conditions, it follows that the AATR indicator is a very suitable mean to reveal whether SBAS service availability anomalies are linked to the ionosphere. On this account, the AATR indicator has been selected as the metric to characterise the ionosphere operational conditions in the frame of the European Space Agency activities on the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS). The AATR index has been adopted as a standard tool by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for joint ionospheric studies in SBAS. In this work we explain how the AATR is computed, paying special attention to the cycle-slip detection, which is one of the key issues in the AATR computation, not fully addressed in other indicators such as the Rate Of change of the TEC Index (ROTI). After this explanation we present some of the main conclusions about the ionospheric activity that can extracted from the AATR values during the above mentioned long-term study. These conclusions are: (a) the different spatial correlation related with the MOdified DIP (MODIP) which allows to clearly separate high, mid and low latitude regions, (b) the large spatial correlation in mid latitude regions which allows to define a planetary index, similar to the geomagnetic ones, (c) the seasonal dependency which is related with the longitude and (d) the variation of the AATR value at different time scales (hourly, daily, seasonal, among others) which confirms most of the well-known time dependences of the ionospheric events, and finally, (e) the relationship with the space weather events.

Single-frequency users of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) must correct for the ionospheric delay. These corrections are available from global ionospheric models (GIMs). Therefore, the accuracy of the GIM is important because the unmodeled or incorrectly part of ionospheric delay contributes to the positioning error of GNSS-based positioning. However, the positioning error of receivers located at known coordinates can be used to infer the accuracy of GIMs in a simple manner. This is why assessment of GIMs by means of the position domain is often used as an alternative to assessments in the ionospheric delay domain. The latter method requires accurate reference ionospheric values obtained from a network solution and complex geodetic modeling. However, evaluations using the positioning error method present several difficulties, as evidenced in recent works, that can lead to inconsistent results compared to the tests using the ionospheric delay domain. We analyze the reasons why such inconsistencies occur, applying both methodologies. We have computed the position of 34 permanent stations for the entire year of 2014 within the last Solar Maximum. The positioning tests have been done using code pseudoranges and carrier-phase leveled (CCL) measurements. We identify the error sources that make it difficult to distinguish the part of the positioning error that is attributable to the ionospheric correction: the measurement noise, pseudorange multipath, evaluation metric, and outliers. Once these error sources are considered, we obtain equivalent results to those found in the ionospheric delay domain assessments. Accurate GIMs can provide single-frequency navigation positioning at the decimeter level using CCL measurements and better positions than those obtained using the dual-frequency ionospheric-free combination of pseudoranges. Finally, some recommendations are provided for further studies of ionospheric models using the position domain method.

This work presents recent and ongoing updates to the free and open-source advanced interactive multi-purpose package for processing and analysing Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data, named GNSS-Lab Tool suite (gLAB). The updates have been performed in the framework of two projects funded by the European Space Agency (ESA), namely, the “gLAB upgrade for European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) Data processing” and “Upgrade of gLAB Tool for Double Frequency Multi-Constellation (DFMC)”. We examine various sets of results obtained with actual data using the Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) corrections and the Differential GNSS (DGNSS) mode. Specifically, we introduce the Global Monitoring System (GMS) that routinely assesses the performance of the SBAS and DGNSS solutions using multiple station networks. That is, the Stanford-ESA integrity diagram, the Worst Integrity Ratio (WIR) maps, continuity risk, among other types of performance monitoring. Lastly, we present the ongoing update to the gLAB tool that focusses on the implementation of multi-frequency and multi-constellation data processing capabilities.

The present contribution evaluates how the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) meets the International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements established in its Resolution A.1046 for navigation in harbor entrances, harbor approaches, and coastal waters: 99.8% of signal availability, 99.8% of service availability, 99.97% of service continuity and 10 m of horizontal accuracy. The data campaign comprises two years of data, from 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2018 (i.e., 730 days), involving 108 permanent stations located within 20 km of the coast or in islands across the EGNOS coverage area, EGNOS corrections, and cleansed GPS broadcast navigation data files. We used the GNSS Laboratory Tool Suite (gLAB) to compute the reference coordinates of the stations, the EGNOS solution, as well as the EGNOS service maps. Our results show a signal availability of 99.999%, a horizontal accuracy of 0.91 m at the 95th percentile, and the regions where the IMO requirements on service availability and service continuity are met. In light of the results presented in the paper, the authors suggest the revision of the assumptions made in the EGNOS Maritime Service against those made in EGNOS for civil aviation; in particular, the use of the EGNOS Message Type 10.

Users of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) operating with a single-frequency receiver must use an ionospheric correction algorithm (ICA) to account for the delay introduced on radio waves by the upper atmosphere. Galileo, the European GNSS, uses an ICA named NeQuick-G. In an effort to foster the adoption of NeQuick-G by final users, two implementations in C language have been recently made available to the public by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC), respectively. The aim of the present contribution is to compare the slant total electron content (STEC) predictions of the two aforementioned implementations of NeQuick-G. For this purpose, we have used actual multi-constellation and multi-frequency data for several hundreds of stations distributed worldwide belonging to the Multi GNSS Experiment (MGEX) network of the International GNSS Service (IGS). For each first day of the month during year 2019, the STECs of the two NeQuick-G versions were compared in terms of accuracy, consistency, availability, and execution time. Our study concludes that both implementations of NeQuick-G perform equivalently. Indeed, in over 99.998% of the 2125 million STECs computed, the output is exactly coincident. In contrast, 0.002% of the whole set of STECs for those rays are tangent to the Earth, the behavior of both implementations differs. We confirmed the discrepancy by processing radio-occultation actual measurements from a COSMIC-2 low Earth orbit satellite. We selected the JRC version of the Galileo ICA to be integrated into the GNSS LABoratory (gLAB) tool suite, because its open license and its processing speed (it is 13.88% faster than the ESA version). NeQuick-G outperforms the GPS ICA in STEC residuals up to 12.15 TECUs (percentile 96.23th) and in the 3D position errors, up to 5.76 m (percentile 99.18th) for code-pseudorange positioning.