Report ACP WG-F/29



|[pic] | |Report |

| |International Civil Aviation Organization |13 November 2013 |

| | | |

| |REPORT | |

| | | |

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)

TWENTY NINTH MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F

ICAO ESAF Regional Offices, Nairobi, Kenya

5-12 September 2013

REPORT

1. Introduction

1.1 The meeting was opened by Mr Loftur Jonasson from the ICAO Secretariat, Montreal and Mr Mike Biggs, the Rapporteur of Working Group F. Mr Jonasson and Mr Biggs both expressed special thanks to the ICAO Eastern and Southern African (ESAF) Regional Office

for hosting the meeting. Mr Jonasson acted as the Secretary of the meeting.

1.2 The meeting was informed that the main goals for this WG-F meeting were to 1) advance the ICAO position on aviation safety margin, and 2) develop material to assist ICAO in ITU-R studies. The meeting was held in English.

1.3 After the opening of the meeting the agenda was approved by the group. The agenda is contained in Appendix A.

1.4 The list of papers submitted for consideration by Working Group F is contained in Appendix B. The list of participants is in Appendix C.

1.5 The material in this report is organized by meeting agenda item number, and does not necessarily reflect the order of discussions.

2. Agenda Item 2 – Future Work Program

|2.1 IP3 provided information on proposals for modernization of Panels of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). The proposals were |

|developed by the ANC Ad Hoc Working Group on Procedural Matters for the Modernization of Panels in close cooperation with the Air |

|Navigation Bureau. Consideration was given to the broader question of expert groups with one objective being to reduce the number |

|of expert groups overall. The structure is designed to better support the complete air navigation work program, including work |

|related to the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and the modules, threads and technology roadmaps of the Global Air Navigation |

|Plan (GANP). |

2.2 As currently planned, ACP WG-F will become a new Frequency Spectrum Management Panel. The Frequency Spectrum Management Panel will be closely associated with the Panels responsible for Communication, Navigation and Surveillance systems.

2.3 Other tasks currently carried by the ACP as well as OPLINKP tasks will be taken over by the new Communications Panel (CP). Similarly it is also expected that NSP will be combined with its operational counterpart. The change is expected to occur in the 2015-2016 timeframe. In general it is expected that the tasking and membership of the new Frequency Spectrum Management Panel would be very similar to that of WG-F. It should be noted that the future role of the NSP Spectrum Subgroup has not yet been defined.

2.4 The meeting was informed that a nearer term tasking for WG-F would be to develop “Job Cards” to outline the tasking for the new Panel. Draft versions may be provided to WG-F/30 for consideration.

3. Agenda item 3 – Aviation Safety Margins

3.1 WP9 discussed the concept of the aviation safety margin (ASM) in aeronautical radiocommunications and radionavigation safety systems, and suggested further development for ICAO. In particular suggestions regarding ASM definition and changes to the Handbook on Radio Frequency Spectrum Requirements for Civil Aviation (RF Handbook) were provided.

3.2 WP10 discussed how aviation carries out spectrum protection, what that protection is intended to achieve, the shortfalls in the methodologies applied and how those shortfalls might be addressed in the future. The paper in particular suggested that instead of the current practice of protecting aviation systems through a combination of system protection criteria and ASM, in the future integrated approaches utilizing required navigation performance (RNP), required communications performance (RCP), ands required surveillance performance (RSP) may be utilized.

3.3 After discussion the meeting agreed on a draft definition for ASM, as well as revised text for specific paragraphs of the RF Handbook. The latter may be included in the next RF Handbook update, however timelines are tight. That material, plus questions to assist with further refinement, is contained in Appendix D.

4. Agenda Item 4 – Aviation Frequency Spectrum Strategy

4.1 No inputs were provided on this topic, and the meeting was informed that the current spectrum strategy material – basically that developed by WG-F/28 with some minor editorial improvements – had been approved by the ANC and as such was not subject to modification by WG-F/29. The meeting was invited however to begin review of the material for subsequent updates to the RF Handbook. To facilitate that effort the existing text was briefly reviewed and the meeting was invited to review the GANP and aviation system block upgrades (ASBU’s). The goal for the next revision of the strategy is to include not just near and mid-term, but also to address strategy – perhaps via coordination with other ICAO Panels – to meet long-term aviation objectives for communications, navigation and surveillance.

5. Agenda Item 5 – RF Handbook Volume II (Doc 9718 Vol II), Frequency Assignment Planning

5.1 No contributions were provided regarding the RF Handbook Volume II.

6. Agenda Item 6 – 5 GHz Band Planning

6.1 IP4 provided detail on the progress and development of Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC) radios for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). As previously briefed to WG-F, the prototype system being developed was the result of trade studies and is not necessarily the final technology to be approved for UAS line-of-sight CNPC systems in the future, but is intended to provide the best possible test platform for developing the required supporting technical information for CNPC link standards. It should be noted that the LDACS-1 and LDACS-2 systems identified during the ICAO Future Communications Study were considered in the UAS CNPC trade studies, but were not selected for prototyping. The contribution identified the basic waveform architecture for the physical layer of the selected technology, addressing issues such as duplexing and multiple access techniques. Interference issues, including compatibility with other on-board systems, have not yet been addressed.

6.2 IP5 provided update on the status and progress of L-Band and C-Band channel propagation measurements and the development of channel models for those bands that will support the development of UAS CNPC links. Flight testing has been performed using the channel sounding equipment, and a considerable amount of data has been collected. Software to extract and assess the data is being developed.

6.3 IP6 provided detail on flight testing that has been accomplished to-date to assess the performance of the UAS CNPC radios discussion in section 6.1 above. The tests are intended to support the validation of CNPC air-ground radio system requirements and the development of CNPC standards. The contribution reported that the flight test campaign for the radios consisted of seven separate flights. Each flight test consisted of multiple, pre-planned aircraft manoeuvres and flight path segments. The objective of the flight test campaign was to operate the radios in an air-ground flight environment to determine possible limitations to communications range and data throughput performance. Though those tests utilized a radio operating only in the L-Band, a limited amount of testing was performed using a prototype C-Band radio. Test flights using the Generation 2 radio sets are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2014. The Generation 2 radio system will include both L-Band and C-Band capabilities, and will also be able to demonstrate cell-to-cell hand-off of a communications channel using a single aircraft and multiple ground stations. This can only be accomplished through a comprehensive “ground” network and secure hand-off algorithms. Flight tests will first demonstrate and characterize range performance of the C-band radios, then progress into acquisition, hand-off, and release tests.

7. Agenda Item 7 – Development of material for ITU-R meetings

7.1 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1

7.1.1 IP11 provided detail on a UK study of possible coexistence of broadband mobile systems and radars in the frequency band 1300-1350 MHz. Currently that band is used by air traffic control (ATC), defence and meteorological radars. The study was based on the relevant ITU-R Recommendations where necessary supplemented by other freely available data, and should be seen as complimenting existing studies that have already been presented within the Joint Task Group (JTG). The study concludes that compatibility is not feasible and given that the spectrum available within the frequency band is required by the various radiodetermination services there is no possibility for frequency band segmentation.

7.1.2 IP12, similar to IP11, provided detail on a UK study for input to the JTG, however this contribution dealt with possible coexistence of broadband mobile systems and radars in the frequency band 2700-2900 MHz. Like IP11, the study concludes that compatibility is not possible unless radars can be removed from significant portions of the frequency band.

7.1.3 During discussion it was suggested that, if possible, meeting participants look into their use of those frequency bands for radar as it was likely the JTG would conclude the bands could be used for either IMT or radar, but not both. Regarding the lower band it was also noted that radionavigation satellite service (RNSS) signals from the Galileo and COMPASS signals occur nearby so impacts to those systems should be considered.

7.1.4 The meeting discussed concerns expressed about whether broadband mobile transmissions in frequency bands adjacent to that used by radio altimeters could cause interference to those altimeter systems. Based on preliminary calculations it appeared there was a risk, however due to a lack of concrete information on altimeter operating parameters, the meeting was not able to conclude on the topic. The meeting noted that studies on the altimeters were being hampered by a lack of response from altimeter manufacturers.

7.2 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.5

7.2.1 IP10 provided an overview of the results of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity discussions on WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.5. In particular the paper noted that there were differing views from participants as to whether studies should proceed at all. Also presented were questions, in addition to those posed by the ICAO Conditions, that should be answered if studies do continue.

7.2.2 WP6 and WP7 were discussed together, and were updates to similar contributions presented to WG-F/28 taking into account comments from that meeting. WP6 described the type of information to be considered in UAS CNPC contracts to ensure safe operation in non-segregated airspace under a Fixed Satellite Service Allocation. The companion paper, WP7, addressed each of the “conditions” on satellite UAS CNPC links contained in the draft ICAO WRC-15 Position on Agenda Item 1.5 and attempted to indicate how they would be satisfied by a system operating in the fixed satellite service.

7.2.3 The meeting reviewed each of the proposals to satisfy the conditions, and provided the author with constructive comments regarding additional material that was required. Suggestions were made that perhaps the requirements for safety margins etc. could be contained in ICAO SARPS, resulting in the possibility that while some interference sources may be considered not a problem to FSS by ITU-R studies, they might be deemed unacceptable when assessing the use of that FSS for UAS CNPC. Suggestions were also made to the author to specifically address how interference to FSS used for UAS CNPC could be addressed by the radio regulators with the same priority that is given to interference to safety services (see for example RR 15.28).

7.2.4 IP7 provided information from the North Atlantic Communication Navigation and Surveillance Group on the measured performance of satellite data link communication. The paper concluded that from the data provided current mobile satellite systems do not currently meet the defined latency requirements for system efficiency, and the minimum latency equates to approximately 20 seconds. During discussion it was pointed out that it appeared VHF communications did not meet the requisite requirements either, so further study was required.

7.2.5 IP8 provided an update on the required communication performance for an air traffic control system, highlighting the implications for the command and non-payload communication requirements for a remotely piloted aircraft system. While in previous contributions it was suggested that the communication element of the safety requirements should be based on the Manual on Required Communication Performance (RCP), this paper explained how the Global Operational Data Link Document (GOLD) version 2 further elaborated on the concepts and the requirements of that document – in particular by apportioning the time criteria to the various elements of system.

7.2.6 WP8 explained that the required communications performance levels that will enable UAS to operate safely and efficiently and in a manner compatible with the use of current non-segregated airspace are yet to be determined by ICAO. In parallel however, the ITU is developing a Report which contains, in part, availability performance for FSS systems to help determine if those systems are suitable for UAS. Since the decision on suitability cannot be made until the requirements are completed, the paper suggested limiting the ITU responsibility to simply cataloguing the FSS performance and that ICAO liaise that suggestion to ITU-R WP5B. The meeting agreed to that approach and suggested that ICAO utilize the material in the Annex to WP8 (see Appendix E) as a basis for such a paper.

7.3 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17

7.3.1 IP9 provided information on the progress since WG-F/28 of Agenda Item 1.17 regarding WAIC technical and operational characteristics, sharing studies, papers and other inputs. It also provided the authors’ belief regarding future action by companies participating in the Aerospace Vehicle Institute effort.

7.3.2 WP11 provided the results of studies that have been undertaken addressing further interference geometries/scenarios and also the potential impact radio altimeters might have onto WAIC systems. As reported, all results indicated that both, low and high data rate WAIC systems located within the aircraft structure (LI and HI WAIC systems), are compatible with all types of radio altimeters embraced within Draft New Recommendation ITU-R M.[RadAlt], including pulsed radio altimeters.

7.3.3 WP12 provided discussion of a technical concept for a significant reduction of interference power radiated into the direction of the victim radio altimeter receiver, which has the potential to prove, that also WAIC systems employing transmit antennas outside the aircraft structure (i.e., LO and HO WAIC systems) can be implemented such that they are compatible with the incumbent radio altimeters in the band 4 200 – 4 400 MHz.

7.3.4 As a result of the discussions regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17, the meeting agreed to support a liaison from ICAO to ITU-R WP5B concluding that “WAIC systems in accordance with the Draft New Report ITU-R M.[WAIC_CHAR_SPEC] and Radio Altimeters in accordance with the Draft New Recommendation ITU-R M.[RadAlt] can be integrated by implementing certain measures such that they are mutually compatible”. Text elements for such a liaison are contained in Flimsy2 (rev2).

7.3.5 IP13 provided information about a measurement campaign recently launched by Airbus aiming at determining Interference Path Loss (IPL) between exemplary measurement points inside the aircraft cabin of an Airbus A321 and the radio altimeter receive antenna. The minimum interference path loss is an important aspect to know in particular for the integration of WAIC and radio altimeters onboard the same aircraft to allow for an assessment of potential mutual effects between these systems. Test signal transmissions were made from the radio altimeter antenna, and the received power measured at a number of points within the cabin. A first set of measurements carried out suggests a minimum IPL of around 75 dB for measurement locations in the aft cabin area and the aircraft being in a typical parking location in front of an airport terminal building. IPL can reach up to105 dB for measurement locations in the forward cabin area and the aircraft being situated in a location without any large electrically reflective objects in its vicinity. During discussion it was clarified that the values may be different for other aircraft types.

7.4 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 9.1 (sub-item 5)

7.4.1 WP4 reproduced Annex 31 to the ITU-R WP4A Chairman’s Report, containing draft CPM text in response to WRC-15 Agenda item 9.1, Issue 9.1.5, based on an ICAO contribution. The meeting spent considerable time discussing the two methods presented for satisfying the agenda item. Regarding the first, the meeting observed that footnote No. 5.430A included provisions for cross-border protection, so removal of a countries name from the footnote would solve all of the IMT incompatibility issues in that country. A third method, making IMT secondary instead of primary, was suggested, however it was pointed out that secondary systems do not need to coordinate and as such may actually cause more interference. Meeting participants were asked to provide examples of IMT interfering with aeronautical FSS, together with specific corroborating evidence. That material could then be used by ICAO to assist in efforts on this agenda item.

7.4.2 WP13 provided such examples of interference experienced from the IMT and /or WIMAX at several airports. The material is intended to help support the need for technical and regulatory measures to ensure protection of VSATs used for the transmission of aeronautical and meteorological information in the 3 400 – 4 200 MHz frequency band. The meeting expressed its appreciation for the contribution and asked participants to catalog additional examples to assist ICAO in their protection efforts.

7.5 Inputs regarding other items

7.5.1 Agenda Item 1.7

7.5.1.1 Though no specific contribution was received, based on discussion during the Regional Spectrum Workshop, the draft Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) text for Agenda Item 1.7 was discussed. After discussion of the two options for improving AM(R)S flexibility, the meeting endorsed Option A2 as being preferable. That Option allows AM(R)S improved sharing conditions in the absence of ARNS, however puts no restrictions on ARNS if systems operating in that service are developed. For reference, the two methods are further described in Appendix F.

7.5.2 AMS(R)S

7.5.2.1 The group noted the retirement of Mr Suzuki, the chairman of the correspondence group dealing with AMS(R)S spectrum issues. In particular his long and varied contributions to the safe operation of aviation were noted, and the meeting expressed its appreciation for his efforts and wished him well in his future endeavours. The meeting also expressed thanks to Mr Wakamatsu for taking over as chairman of the Correspondence Group.

7.5.2.2 WP5 provided the third interim report of the Correspondence Group noting that it had considered its objectives and terms of reference, and maintained them. The work plan of the group was updated based on the discussions in the WG-F/28 meeting. The group developed papers regarding the ICAO procedures to respond to Resolution 222 (Rev. WRC-12), and also a paper to improve the method of calculation of spectrum requirements for the AMS(R)S communications called for by Resolution 422 (WRC-12). Those papers are intended for presentation to the 4th WP 4C meeting scheduled from 25th September, 2013. WG-F membership was invited to actively participate in that meeting and support the developed material.

7.5.2.3 Following discussion the meeting agreed that the WG-F AMS(R)S correspondence group had completed its assigned work and could be disbanded. Mr. Suzuki and Mr. Wakamatsu were thanked for their efforts and leadership in the completion of that work.

7.5.3 Liaison from ITU-R Working Party 3K

7.5.3.1 WP2 was a liaison from WP3K to WP5B, Study Group 7 and ICAO asking for measured data regarding a number of specific topics. In particular, ICAO was asked for measured data regarding propagation path losses between an airborne platform and a satellite, ground terminal or another airborne platform. After discussion the meeting concluded that no material was currently available, however efforts such as the UAS CNPC measurement campaign (see Section 6 above) may provide useful results. Meeting participants were invited to determine if other efforts were on-going which could provide additional information.

7.5.4 Satellite reception of ADS-B

7.5.4.1 WP3 provided a liaison from ITU-R WP5B noting that they had commenced work on a draft new report on terrestrial Automatic Dependent Surveillance –Broadcast (ADS-B) and the operational benefits of expanding ADS-B through its incorporation into satellite systems with the capability to provide such coverage. ICAO was asked for its views in that regard, including the type of frequency allocation necessary for that operation.

7.5.4.2 Following discussion the meeting concluded that the proper allocation would be AMS(R)S (Earth-to-space). Furthermore future development of regulatory conditions should include that use of such an AMS(R)S Earth-to-space allocation be limited to reception of signals centered at 1090 MHz transmitted by international aeronautical standard ADS-B systems. It was also noted that a further issue that will be examined by ICAO is the manner in which the data received by the satellites will be routed back to the ground. Text elements for a liaison to WP5B are contained in Flimsy1 (rev1).

8. Agenda Item 8: Interference from non-aeronautical sources

8.1 No contributions were received on this agenda item.

9. Agenda Item 9: Any other business

9.1 Millimeter wave broadband wireless direct communication between air and ground

9.1.1 IP1 provided information regarding feasibility studies on using above-40 GHz frequency range systems to facilitate broadband wireless communications between air and ground. The systems are expected to offer benefits such as low-cost communication, light weight, high antenna gain, etc. The above-40 GHz frequency range is not currently heavily used in commercial applications and is expected to facilitate broadband communication systems at speeds up to 500Mbps. The meeting asked to be updated as the effort progresses.

9.2 Proposed update to Assembly Resolution A36-25

9.2.1 IP2 replicates a Secretariat paper to the 38th Assembly proposing draft updates to Assembly Resolution A36-25 “Support of the ICAO Policy on Radio Frequency Spectrum Matters”, as developed by the ICAO Secretariat in light of Recommendations by the 12th Air Navigation Conference, and further refined by WG-F/28. The meeting supported the revisions, and participants were encouraged to ensure their delegation to the 38th Assembly also supported the provisions.

10 Date of next meeting

10.1 The next meeting has been tentatively scheduled for 11-19 March, 2014. Given the short study cycle in preparation towards WRC-15, WG-F recommends that this meeting be held in the Bangkok ICAO Regional Office, in conjunction with a frequency spectrum workshop regarding WRC-15 issues on the first two days.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Agenda

Appendix B – List of Working Papers, Information Papers and Flimsies

Appendix C – List of Participants

Appendix D – Aviation Safety Margins

Appendix E - Elements for an ICAO Liaison to ITU-R Working Party 5B

Appendix F – CPM Methods for WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.7

APPENDIX A

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

29TH Meeting of the Aeronautical Communication Panel Working Group F

(ACP WG-F/29)

(ICAO Regional Offices, Nairobi, Kenya 5-12 September 2013)

Draft Agenda

1. Opening and working arrangements

2. Future Work Program

• Panel revisions; job cards; etc.

3. Aviation Safety Margins

• Reference Appendix G WG-F/28 Report

4. Aviation Frequency Spectrum Strategy

• Reference AN-Conf/12 Recommendation 1/12

5. RF Handbook Volume II (Doc 9718, Vol. II), Frequency Assignment Planning

• Further development in preparation for a second edition

6. 5 GHz Band Planning

• Notional band plan from WGF/27 paper #19

• Propagation models/propagation considerations

• Parameters in ITU/Eurocae/RTCA?

• Deadline dates (e.g., launch dates, administration-imposed dates, etc)

• Information on lessons-learned as administrations try to integrate UAS into their airspace (e.g., is there going to be a need for emergency channel(s))

7. Development of material for ITU-R meetings

• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1

• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.5

▪ Certification of equipment operating in disparate frequency bands

• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17

• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 9.1 (sub-item 5)

• Other

▪ AMS(R)S Correspondence Group

▪ Liaison from WP5B regarding working document M.[ADS-B]

8. Interference from non-aeronautical sources

• Proposals regarding ITU Report 927-2 “General Considerations Relative to Harmful Interference from the Viewpoint of the Aeronautical Mobile Services and the Aeronautical Radionavigation Service”

9. Any Other Business

APPENDIX B

List of Papers

List of Working Papers

|Working Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |

|WP1 |Rapporteur |Agenda | |

|WP2 | |Liaison Statement from ITU-R WP 3K | |

| |Secretary |REQUEST FOR MEASURED DATA IN CONNECTION WITH QUESTION ITU-R 233/3 AND|7 |

| | |RECOMMENDATION ITU-R P.528 | |

|WP3 | |Liaison Statement from ITU-R WP 5B | |

| |Secretary |Working document on a Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R M.[ADS-B] |7 |

|WP4 |Secretary |Draft CPM text in response to WRC-15 Agenda item 9.1, Issue 9.1.5 |7 |

|WP5 |Hirofumi Wakamatsu | | |

| |(Coordinator Correspondence |Third Interim Report of the Correspondence Group Dealing with AMS(R)S|7 |

| |Group AMS(R)S) |Spectrum Issues | |

|WP6 | |Types of information to be Considered in Control and Non-payload | |

| |John Nelsen |Communications of UAS to Ensure Safe Operation in the Non-Segmented |7 |

| | |Air Space | |

|WP7 |John Nelsen |Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under a Fixed Satellite |7 |

| | |Service Allocation | |

|WP8 |Mike Biggs |ITU Inputs Regarding FSS Performance |7 |

|WP9 |Andrew Roy |Development of Aviation Safety Margin for Aeronautical Services |3 |

|WP10 |John Mettrop |Protection of Aeronautical Systems |3 |

|WP11 | |Update on Compatibility Studies between WAIC Systems and Radio | |

| |Uwe Schwark |Altimeters in the Frequency Band 4 200 – 4 400 MHz |7 |

|WP12 |Uwe Schwark |Use of Directional Antennas for Outside WAIC Systems – Discussion of |7 |

| | |Concept – | |

|WP13 |Bissa SOUGUE, AFI/FMG |Contribution to studies called upon by Resolution 154 WRC-12 for | |

| |Rapporteur |WRC-15 Agenda item 9.1, Issue 9.1.5 |7 |

List of Information Papers and Flimsies

|Information Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |

|IP1 |Koki Inoue (prepared by|Millimeter wave broadband wireless direct communication between | |

| |NICT, Japan) |air and ground |9 |

|IP2 | |Assembly (A38) Paper proposing an update to Assembly Resolution | |

| |Secretary |A36-25 "ICAO POLICY ON RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM MATTERS" |9 |

|IP3 | |AN-WP/8735 on "Modernization of Panels of the Air Navigation | |

| |Secretary |Commission" (Paper was agreed in principle on 29 May, subject to |2 |

| | |further refinement this autumn) | |

|IP4 |Angelo Ruggeri, Bruce | | |

| |Hammell and Robert |Update on Command and Non-Payload Communication Development and |6 |

| |Kerczewski |Experimentation | |

|IP5 |Kurt Shalkhauser, David| | |

| |Matolak and Robert |NASA L-Band and C-Band Air-Ground Channel Measurement and |6 |

| |Kerczewski |Modeling | |

|IP6 |Kurt Shalkhauser, James| | |

| |Griner and Robert |Flight Tests of First Generation Prototype CNPC Radio |6 |

| |Kerczewski | | |

|IP7 | |CURRENT SATELLITE DATA LINK COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE AND IT’S | |

| | |IMPLICATION FOR REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT COMMAND AND NON-PAYLOAD|7 |

| |John Mettrop |COMMUNICATION VIA SATELLITE | |

|IP8 | |REQUIRED COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE UPDATE & ITS IMPLICATION FOR | |

| |John Mettrop |REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM COMMAND AND NON PAYLOAD |7 |

| | |COMMUNICATION | |

|IP9 |Joe Cramer |Update on Agenda Item 1.17 – Efforts at ITU-R Working Party 5B |7 |

| | |and other Groups | |

|IP10 |Eddy D’Amico |APT Views on FSS for CNPC in Non-Segregated Airspace |7 |

|IP11 | |ITU-R JTG 4-5-6-7 Input paper | |

| |John Mettrop |STUDY INTO THE CO-EXISTENCE OF MOBILE BROADBAND SYSTEMS AND |7 |

| | |RADARS IN THE FREQUENCY BAND 1 300–1 350 MHz | |

|IP12 |John Mettrop |ITU-R JTG 4-5-6-7 Input Paper | |

| | |STUDY INTO THE CO-EXISTENCE OF MOBILE BROADBAND SYSTEMS AND |7 |

| | |RADARS IN THE FREQUENCY BAND 2 700–2 900 MHz | |

| |

| |

| |

|FLIMSIES |

|Flimsy |Source |Title |Agenda Item |

|FLIM01 | |Draft REPLY LIAISON STATEMENT FROM ICAO to ITU-R WP5B | |

| |John Taylor |Working document on a Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R |7 |

| | |M.[ADS-B] (rev1) | |

|FLIM02 | |Draft LIAISON STATEMENT FROM ICAO to ITU-R WP5B | |

| |Quoc Dung NGUYEN |Compatibility Studies between WAIC Systems and Radio Altimeters |7 |

| | |in the Frequency Band 4 200 – 4 400 MHz (rev1) | |

APPENDIX C

Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP/WGF-29)

Nairobi, Kenya 5-12 September, 2013

Attendance List

|STATE |NO. |NAME |OFFICIAL TITLE |EMAIL |

| | | |/ DESIGNATION | |

|Angola | |Marcelina Sapalo (Ms) |Chief, Section of Communications of Luanda |msapalo@enana-; |

| | | |Airport, Aeroporto Internacional “4de |sapmarce@ |

| | | |fevereiro”, | |

|Angola | |Domingos Cristóvão de |Chief, Division of Studies and Technical |dadocas@ |

| | |Araújo |Support of Air Navigation, | |

| | | |Aeroporto Internacional “4de fevereiro” | |

|Australia | |Edmondo John D’Amico |RF Spectrum Manager, Airservices Australia |eddy.damico@airservicesaustralia|

| | | | |.com |

|Botswana | |Samuel Chilwa Mbaakanyi |Chief CNS Inspector, Botswana Civil |s_mbaakanyi@; |

| | | |Aviation Authority |smbaakanyi@caab.co.bw |

|Botswana | |Bame Olatihegile Rachai |Chief Telecommunications Engineer |brachai@caab.co.bw; |

| | | |CAA Botswana, Gaborone |rachaibame@ |

|Brazil | |Geandro Mattos |Technical Consultant, |geandroluiz@ |

| | | |Brazilian Air Space Control Department | |

|Brazil | |Waldir Nunes |Technical Consultant, |waldir.nunes@ |

| | | |Brazilian Air Space Control Department | |

|Canada | |John Taylor |Aeronautical Spectrum Regulations |john.taylor@tc.gc.ca |

| | | |Specialist, Transport Canada | |

|China | |Kanlin Wang |Engineer, Civil Aviation Administration of |loplod@ |

| | | |China | |

|France | |Quoc Dung Nguyen |Spectrum Manager, DGAC, France |quoc-dung.nguyen@aviaiton-civile|

| | | | |.gouv.fr |

|France | |Jerome Andre |Spectrum Engineering, Agence Nationale des |andre@anfr.fr |

| | | |Frequences | |

|Ghana | |Prince Bismarck Boateng |Director, Air Traffic Safety Engineering, |pbboateng@yahoo.uk |

| | |(Ing.) |Ghana Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Ghana | |Frank Kofi Apeagyei (Ing.)|Senior Engineer, Ghana Civil Aviation |fkapeagyei@ |

| | | |Authority | |

|Japan | |Naruto Yonemoto |Chief Researcher, Electronic Navigation |yonemoto@enri.go.jp |

| | | |Research Institute | |

| | |Hiroyuki Tsuji |Senior Researcher, National Institute of |tsuji@nict.go.jp |

| | | |Information and Communications Technology | |

| | | |(NICT), Wireless Network Research Institute| |

|Japan | |Taichi Takayama |Researcher |takayama@mri.co.jp |

| | | |Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. | |

|Japan | |Hiroshi Okochi |Project Manager, Satellite Engineering |ookouchi@jransa.or.jp |

| | | |Dept., Japan Radio Air Navigation Systems | |

| | | |Association | |

|Japan | |Hirofumi Wakamatsu |Special Assistant to the Director, CNS |wakamatsu-h48cd@mlit.go.jp |

| | | |Planning Office, ATS Dept, Civil Aviation | |

| | | |Bureau (JCAB) | |

|Kenya | |Shadrack Wesechere |Manager, Engineering Services, |swesechere@kcaa.or.ke |

| | | |Kenya Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Kenya | |Paul Wambua Mwongela |Chief Technical Officer, |pmwongela@kcaa.or.ke |

| | | |Kenya Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Kenya | |Nicholas Odwar |Chief Technical Officer, |nodwar@kcaa.or.ke |

| | | |Kenya Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Kenya | |Francis Mwangi |Senior Technical Officer, |fk.mwangi@kcaa.or.ke |

| | | |Kenya Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Kenya | |Joel Nyambaka |Senior Technical Officer, |janyambaka@kcaa.or.ke |

| | | |Kenya Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Netherlands | |Gerlof Osinga |Senior Manager Aviation and Maritime, RCA |gerlof.osinga@agentschaptelecom.|

| | | | |nl |

|Philippines | |Charlemagne Gilo |Air Traffic Management Officer V, |charlemagne.gilo@ |

| | | |Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines| |

|Somalia-CACAS | |Moses Ukang’a Lusambili |Maintenance Engineer, Civil Aviation |moses.lusambili@icao. |

| | | |Caretaker Authority for Somalia | |

|Somalia-CACAS | |Jackson Nzioki |Chief Aerocom Officer, Civil Aviation |jackson.nzioki@icao. |

| | | |Caretaker Authority for Somalia | |

|Somalia-CACAS | |Jama Ahmed Muse |NAV-COMM Technician, Civil Aviation |musej@icao. |

| | | |Caretaker Authority for Somalia | |

|South Africa | |Jacobus (Koos) Pretorius |Manager, CNS, |pretoriusk@caa.co.za |

| | | |South African Civil Aviation Authority | |

|South Africa | |Cokisa Monica (Lisa) Tele |System Engineer, |lisat@atns.co.za |

| | |(Ms) |Air Traffic and Navigation Services | |

|Uganda | |Ronny Barongo |Manager, Communication, Navigation, |rbarongo@caa.co.ug |

| | | |Surveillance, | |

| | | |Uganda Civil Aviation Authority | |

|Uganda | |Gerald Agaba |Senior CNS Inspector, Uganda Civil Aviation|gagaba@caa.co.ug |

| | | |Authority | |

|Uganda | |Peter Asiimwe |Technical Officer, Uganda Civil Aviation |pasiimwe@caa.co.ug; |

| | | |Authority |asiimwepx1@yahoo.co.uk |

|United Kingdom | |John Ernest Mettrop |Technical Manager, UK Civil Aviation |john.mettrop@caa.co.uk |

| | | |Authority | |

|United Kingdom | |Michael Thompson |Advisor, UK / IRIDIUM |mike@ |

|United Kingdom | |Stephen John Norman Parry |Spectrum Manager, UK / NATS |stephen.parry@nats.co.uk |

|United Republic of| |Valentina Kayombo (Ms) |Chief Air Navigation Engineer, |vkayombo@tcaa.go.tz |

|Tanzania | | |Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority | |

|United States of | |Michael Biggs |Senior Electronics Engineer, |michael.biggs@ |

|America | | |Federal Aviation Administration | |

|United States of | |Robert Kerczekski |Project Manager, National Aeronautics and |rkerczewski@ |

|America | | |Space Administration | |

|United States of | |Jonathan Williams |Telecommunications Specialist, |jwilliams@ntia. |

|America | | |US Department of Commerce / NTIA | |

|United States of | |John Nelsen |Vice President, Spectrum Management |john.nelsen@ |

|America | | |Development, SES | |

|United States of | |Andrew Charles William Roy|Director of Engineering, Aviation Spectrum |acr@asri.aero |

|America | | |Resources Inc | |

|Zimbabwe | |Blessing Ngwarai |Technical Services Manager, |bngwarai@caaz.co.zw |

| | | |Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe | |

|AIRBUS | |Uwe Schwark |Standardization and Regulation Manager, |uwe.schwark@ |

| | | |Airbus Operations GmbH | |

|AIRBUS | |Claude Pichavant |ICCAIA Member for ACP, |claude.pichavant@ |

| | | |AIRBUS France | |

|ASECNA | |Theodore N’Dong |ATM Expert, ASECNA |thendong1@yahoo.fr; |

| | | | |ndongthe@ |

|ASECNA | |Bissa Sougue |Aeronautical Telecommunications Manager, |souguebis@; |

| | | |ASECNA |sougue@voila.fr |

|BOEING | |Marcella Ost (Ms) |Regional Director, Regulatory Policy & |marcella.s.ost@ |

| | | |International Spectrum Management, The | |

| | | |Boeing Company, Canada | |

|BOEING | |Mohamed El Amin |Director, Regulatory Policy & International|mohamed.elamin@ |

| | | |Spectrum Management, The Boeing Company, UK| |

|BOEING | |Joseph Cramer |Regional Director, The Boeing Company, USA |joseph.cramer@ |

|EURO- CONTROL | |Sven Peter Gunnar Eugen |International Spectrum Mangement, |sven.fraenkel@eurocontrol.int |

| | |Fraenkel | | |

|ITU | |Xingguo Zhou |Radiocommunication Engineer, |Xingguo.zhou@itu.int |

| | | |International Telecommunications Union | |

|Roberts FIR | |Buya Mansaray |Radio Engineer, Roberts FIR |bsmansaray9@ |

|Secretariat | |Loftur E. Jónasson |Technical Officer, CNS, ICAO HQ |ljonasson@icao.int |

|Secretariat | |Prosper Zo’o Minto'o |Regional Officer, CNS, ICAO ESAF |pzoomintoo@icao.int |

— 55 Participants —

APPENDIX D

Material on Aviation Safety Margin

Proposed Definition

The aviation safety margin is to mitigate the additional risk from radio frequency interference that is real but not quantifiable in the system protection criteria. To support safety-of-life applications and achieve the availability/integrity/continuity required by ICAO, all sources of interference and system disruption must be taken into account.

Summary points on application of an ASM

• Aviation safety margin accounts for unknown aspects that cannot be included in RF propagation or sharing models.

• The safety margin is applied as an extension to the system protection criteria. (i.e., it is not part of the protection criteria)

• Applied value takes the same form as the protection criteria. (i.e., if the protection requirement is D/U of x dB, ASM is applied so the regulatory D/U = x + ASM dB)

• Aviation expert qualitative assessment should decide on the value, and should be supported by measured data where feasible. (no single level ala “ASM = 6 dB”, case-by-case basis.)

Modifications to RF Handbook

1. Replace paragraph 9.2.22 with the following text:

9.2.22 Aeronautical safety applications are required to have continued operation through worst case interference, so all factors which contribute to harmful interference should be considered in analyses involving those applications. An aviation safety margin is included in order to address the risk that some such factors cannot be foreseen (for example impacts of differing modulation schemes). This margin is applied to the system protection criteria to increase the operational assurances to the required level. Traditionally for aviation systems/scenarios an aviation safety margin of 6-10 dB is applied. Until established on the basis of further study on a case-by-case basis, an aviation safety margin of not less than 6 dB should be applied.

2. Modify paragraphs 9.4.1-9.4.3 as follows:

9.4.1 Interference from any source, or of any type, ismay not result in recognizable by a change in the receiver output signal. Quantification is not necessary for it to be harmful, and many types of interference, e.g. pulse, are not easily quantified but nevertheless are indisputably harmful. In this regard, pParticular care is necessary with systems in which the output is neither aural nor visual, such as modern digital systems or systems where the output is used to operate control systems, and detectionwhere interference may go unnoticednot be detected for some time. The task of assessing the threat posed by other signals so as to make a decision of acceptability, for example in allocation sharing, must however have a basis which is logical and amenable to analysis.

9.4.2 For the theoretical assessment of compatible sharing with other radio services (a situation becoming more common), or where the threat is unwanted emissions from a known non-aviation system, a quantitative criterion has to be stated and used as a reference for decision making. For this purpose, a maximum interference threshold limit is normally chosen which has been selected on the basis of acceptable degradation, taking into account all other environmental conditions. In the absence of other data, the usual planning ratio for wanted-to-unwanted signals within the aviation service should be enhanced to give a margin for uncertainties which cannot be quantified (see paragraph 9.2.22). An increase of not less than 6 dB is often taken to be appropriate for this safety factor.

9.4.3 At higher frequencies in the GHz ranges, and for wide-band low signal services, a more appropriatethe criterion often used is the acceptable increase in the noise floor, or the noise temperature, of the receiving system. Antenna gains or losses are a necessary inclusionincluded to replicate real-life conditions. The final approach and landing phase is accepted as being the most important of the safety-critical services. The model described below is recommended for this analysis.

Further questions:

• What factors should be taken into account in deciding on a safety margin?

• What level of assurance is required to accurately represent the unknown factors being incorporated into a safety margin value?

• What existing sources of information may support an analysis of an airborne RF environment?

• Should a more general safety case process be incorporated into ICAO process to support the safety margin?

• Is a default value considered a viable policy?

• Is it possible, in conjunction with the other relevant groups within ICAO, to identify the required availability/reliability/continuity or equivalent for each system, taking into account redundancy where applicable and the consequences of interference to that system. The goal would be to replace the current “system protection criterion plus aviation safety margin” with a new protection criteria that accounts for both components.

• Continue to using worst case analysis and the addition of a safety margin in studies within the International Telecommunication Union until work on the previous bullet point has been completed.

• Interference interaction scenarios should be traceable to applicable RNP/RCP/RSP requirements for specific airspace.

APPENDIX E

Elements for an ICAO Liaison to ITU-R Working Party 5B

The following text elements are provided as a basis for an ICAO liaison to WP5B on FSS performance characteristics.

The required communications performance (RCP) levels that will enable UAS to operate safely and efficiently and in a manner compatible with the use of current non-segregated airspace are yet to be determined by ICAO. The key question that ICAO will have to answer is what RCP Type (a combination of Transaction Time, Integrity, Availability and Continuity) will be required for safe and efficient operation for each category of UAS, and in each class of airspace. After this determination ICAO will then be able to assess if unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) command and non-payload communications (CNPC) links using applicable allocations can provide this level of RCP under the conditions required.

Working Party 5B, as the responsible group for World Radiocommunications Conference 2015 Agenda Item 1.5, is developing a Report which includes material dealing with “ITU Availability” for various FSS link parameters and operating conditions (see Preliminary Draft New Report (PDNR) ITU-R M.[UAS-FSS]). Questions have arisen as to how to determine if the documented FSS performance is suitable for UAS CNPC. As noted above however, performance requirements necessary to ensure suitability have yet to be developed by ICAO.

To resolve this situation it is proposed that, regarding the issue of availability provided in PDNR ITU-R M.[UAS-FSS], ITU tasking be limited to adding Fade Duration and Interfade Intervals using the methods described in ITU-R P.1623 to PDNR ITU-R M.[UAS-FSS]. Once ICAO has determined the RCP Type (levels of Availability, Continuity, Integrity and Transaction Time) required for CNPC links it will then be able to use the ITU Report to assess the suitability and/or necessary mitigations to allow the use of FSS for UAS CNPC links.

APPENDIX F

CPM Methods for WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.7

(text current as of WG-F/29,

Source Annex 24 to document 4A/242)

…

This method has two regulatory options, A1 and A2. The two options are identical as far as the proposed modifications to RR No. 5.444A [and Resolution 114 (Rev.WRC-12)] are concerned, but they differ with regard to the way in which the intended improvement of the flexibility for AM(R)S is obtained:

– Option A1 establishes a new limit of 5% for the cumulative contribution of AM(R)S and ARNS to the increase in noise temperature of the FSS satellite (i.e. (Ts/Ts). This improves the flexibility for AM(R)S by enabling its contribution to (Ts/Ts to increase beyond the current hard limit of 2% laid out in Recommendation ITU-R M.1827 and referenced in Resolution 748 (Rev.WRC-12), as long as the ARNS contribution remains below 3%. Conversely, if the ARNS contribution is above 3%, the AM(R)S contribution must remain below 2%.

– Option A2, consistent with the existing Radio Regulations, does not limit the ARNS contribution to (Ts/Ts. Instead, it achieves the desired improvement in flexibility for the AM(R)S by allowing its contribution to (Ts/Ts to increase beyond the 2% limit whenever the ARNS contribution is below 3%. When the ARNS contribution is above 3%, the current hard limit of 2% on the AM(R)S contribution still applies.

The differences between the two options are reflected in the proposed modifications to Resolution 748 (Rev.WRC-12) and to Recommendation ITU-R M.1827.

….

Option A1 (excerpt of Annex 1 to Recommendation ITU-R M.1827)

The pfd defined in this section is based on ensuring that the increase in noise temperature of the FSS satellite (i.e. (Ts/Ts) due to operation in the 5 091-5 150 MHz frequency band of the AM(R)S plus any ARNS does not exceed 5% (i.e. –13 dB). To accomplish this, first the (Ts/Ts of the ARNS is calculated, then that value is subtracted from the allowed aggregate 5%. The remaining (Ts/Ts is then allocated to the AM(R)S.

Option A2(excerpt of Annex 1 to Recommendation ITU-R M.1827):

The pfd defined in this section is based on ensuring that the increase in noise temperature of the FSS satellite due to operation of the AM(R)S (i.e. ((Ts/Ts)AM(R)S) does not exceed the greater of the following two values:

1) 2%

2) 5% - ((Ts/Ts)ARNS

where ((Ts/Ts)ARNS is the increase in noise temperature due to the ARNS in the same band.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download