Sources
Document GNSS, inertial, visual, acoustic, depth, chart and traffic inputs.
System anatomy · 06
Navigation integrity and sensor disagreement
Design for GNSS loss or spoofing, acoustic uncertainty, turbidity, multipath, drift and conflicting observations.
Evidence statusCross-domain mission framework · vehicle, operation and jurisdiction validation requiredLast reviewed: 15 August 2026
06
FUURAA thesis
Navigation integrity requires detecting when position confidence is insufficient, not only producing a position estimate.
Engineering map
Turn the title into engineering objects that can be observed, measured and reviewed.
Each layer states the boundary to establish and the evidence needed for the next decision.
Integrity
Set uncertainty, consistency and timeliness thresholds for each mission phase.
Response
Define hold, slow, reroute, surface, return or abort when integrity falls.
Verification questions
Write the questions first, then decide whether a demo, test, pilot or operating record can answer them.
Each question needs an object, conditions, denominator, threshold and accountable decision owner.
- 01
How is corrupted navigation detected?
- 02
Which sensors share a common failure?
- 03
Can the vehicle bound its own uncertainty?
- 04
What happens before a geofence is crossed?
Evidence to preserve
Enable the next reader to reconstruct conditions, results, failures and the decision.
A conclusion alone loses reviewability; raw records, configuration and exclusions matter too.
- 01
Evidence package 1
Navigation dependency and threat model
- 02
Evidence package 2
Injected-fault and disagreement results
- 03
Evidence package 3
Integrity alert and response trace
Scope boundary
State what this evidence still cannot be generalised to.
- 01
Nominal waypoint accuracy cannot establish integrity under corrupted, unavailable or conflicting signals.
- 02
This is an engineering reading and decision framework; it does not replace application-specific risk assessment, conformity work, procurement acceptance or professional advice.
Sources and evidence status
Read standards scope, measurement evidence and application conclusions separately.
Source dates and review status remain visible; external sources open in a new tab.
01
ISO · Published 2026-08-07 · Edition 3
↗02ISO 21384-3:2026 — Uncrewed aircraft operational procedures
Specifies requirements for safe commercial UAS operations, including external safety-critical command-and-control services.
International Hydrographic Review / IHO · Published 2020-11-30 · updated 2021-09-21
↗03Hydrographic survey with autonomous surface vehicles
Separates remote piloting from several autonomy levels and links supervision to traffic, hazards, weather, sensors, communications and recovery.
NOAA Ocean Exploration · Updated 2022-04-25 · verified 2026-08-15
↗Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
Describes untethered AUVs executing planned missions, storing payload data, surfacing for communications and requiring later recovery and processing.