Report ACP WG-F/30
|[pic] | |Report |
| |International Civil Aviation Organization |19 March 2014 |
| | | |
| |REPORT | |
| | | |
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)
THIRTIETH MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F
Pattaya, Thailand
13-19 March 2014
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 (WG-F). Mr Jonasson and Mr Biggs both expressed special thanks to the ICAO Asia and Pacific (APAC) Regional Office
for hosting the meeting. Mr Jonasson acted as the Secretary of the meeting, assisted by Mr Li Peng and Mr Frederic Lecat, Regional Officers CNS ICAO APAC.
1.2 The Rapporteur noted with sorrow the passing of Ms Barbara Hanson D'Amato, Assistant Director, Aviation Radio Spectrum, International Air Transport Association (IATA). In recognition of her long and varied support of aviation and aviation spectrum protection in many forums, the meeting held a moment of silence in her honor.
1.3 The meeting was held in English. 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 WG-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.
1.6 IP10 provided a report on the outcome of the 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly (Montreal, 24 September – 4 October 2013) which considered a number of Frequency Spectrum related papers under its Agenda Item 34 (“Air Navigation – Monitoring and Analysis”). Particular note was made of Assembly Resolution A38-6 which reaffirmed the need for Member States to support the ICAO position on aviation requirements for spectrum at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) and updated the ICAO policies on radio frequency matters, previously contained in Assembly Resolution A36-25, taking into account Recommendation 1/12 of the Twelfth Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/12). The Assembly also supported studies of WRC-15 agenda item 1.5, space-based ADS-B and protection of very small aperture terminals (VSAT) used for aeronautical purposes.
2. Agenda Item 2 – Future Work Program
|2.1 No papers were input on Agenda Item 2. In response however to questions, the Secretary provided an oral presentation regarding|
|Panel reorganization efforts in the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). In particular the current plan was to group Panels into broad|
|categories designated as “Integration”, “Operations”, “Enablers” or “Specialty”. In earlier versions WG-F became a Frequency |
|Spectrum Panel under “Enablers”, however in the latest configuration WG-F becomes a working group under a new Communications Panel.|
|That Communications Panel is a combination of the current OPLINK Panel and the Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP). The |
|Secretary stressed however that the final decisions had not been made. After discussion concern was raised about whether WG-F |
|would have to gain additional approvals (e.g., via a Working Group of the Whole meeting) before updates to the ICAO WRC Position |
|could be forwarded to the ANC. |
3. Agenda item 3 – Aviation Safety Margins
3.1 WP19 discussed a method for assessing the level of protection that an aeronautical system required based on the identification of hazards and risk assessment conducted as part of the systems safety case. It was pointed out that such an approach could potentially be adapted to identify the allowable probability of interference to the radio link. The meeting appreciated the suggestion, and suggested that such a structured methodology would be useful if it could be utilized to support necessary safety margin levels.
3.2 IP06 provided a draft document being developed by ITU-R WP5B on protection criteria for aeronautical and maritime systems (ITU-R M.[Protect]). The stated goal of the paper is to review and describe what harmful interference is to radiocommunication and radionavigation systems and outline possible ITU-R publications and spectrum management practices that can help mitigate and suppress those potential interferences. After discussion however the meeting noted that if such a document were to be developed, it should be done in ICAO and then liaised to ITU. The meeting agreed that the best outcome would be for WP5B to stop further development of the material.
4. Agenda Item 4 – Updates to Aviation Frequency Spectrum Strategy
4.1 No contributions were provided on this topic.
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, however the meeting was informed that Volume II is on the ACP website in the Repository section, and the version there includes some redline updates proposed by the Secretary. The meeting was invited to review those proposals and provide inputs for the next meeting.
6. Agenda Item 6 – 5 GHz Band Planning
6.1 WP07 provided information on how the 5 GHz frequency range is utilized by aviation in Japan. Measurements of electromagnetic signals in the 5 030-5 090 MHz band were made in the vicinity of Sendai airport, revealing extensive use of fixed broadband wireless access systems used on a national basis in that band. While impacts from those systems would be minimized by the fact they use directional antennas, they are also currently time-limited and authorized until only 2017. One purpose of the measurement campaign is to determine if those authorizations should continue beyond that date given planned implementation of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) control and non-payload communications (CNPC) and/or AeroMACS in that band.
6.2 IP03 provided a summary of radio propagation measurements made in support of C-Band CNPC testing. The scenario studied focused on an ad-hoc/mobile ground control station communicating to small-sized UAS as part of a disaster mitigation exercise. A small manned aircraft was used to simulate the UAS, and signals transmitted from that aircraft were received at a ground station. The operational range was about 10km, and the goal of the measurements was to develop channel models.
6.3 IP09 presented a description and initial results of flight tests of a second-generation, prototype, CNPC radio developed jointly under a cooperative agreement between the US NASA Glenn Research Center and Rockwell Collins Inc. These tests were intended to support the validation of CNPC air-ground radio system requirements and the development of CNPC standards. The second generation prototype CNPC radio operates in the C-Band (5030-5091 MHz), whereas the first generation radio operated only in L-Band (960-977 MHz). In general the received signal strength performance data from the radio followed the predicted signal strength curve. The CNPC radio sensitivity also allowed measurement data to be collected when the aircraft was operating beyond LOS, thereby demonstrating diffraction effects caused by terrain obstructions. Depending on aircraft altitude and radio transmitter output power, line-of-sight slant ranges of up to 120 nmi were achieved; exceeding the 69 nmi radio design goal.
6.4 WP11 provided status on standards development and research, as well as program activities ongoing to support future system implementation of the AeroMACS system. The paper focused in particular on AeroMACS usage in the United States.
6.5 IP05 provided an AeroMACS status including a SESAR AeroMACS project update. Efforts are actively underway in many fora on many related products including the Wi-Max Forum (IEEE 802.16 standard), Aviation Profile for that IEEE standard, minimum operational performance standards (MOPS), minimum aviation system performance specification (MASPS), ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPS) and Technical Manual, and Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee AEEC (Fit, Form, Function standards). SELEX and Thales prototypes are deployed on Toulouse airport, ready to support airport tests on car, on aircraft and in the Airbus laboratory. Results from those Toulouse area tests will be available last Q 2014, so they should be available for the next WG-F meeting.
7. Agenda Item 7 – Development of material for ITU-R meetings
7.1 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1
7.1.1 WP05 noted that ITU-R WP5B was currently undertaking a revision of Recommendation ITU-R M.1638 which contains the technical and operational characteristics of, and protection criteria for, radars operating in the frequency band 5 250-5 850 MHz. As part of that revision, WP5B is considering whether the current characteristics for weather radars in the 5 350-5 470 MHz band should be retained, as many such radars have migrated to the 9 GHz band. The paper suggests that due to the long timelines for aircraft re-equipage, the technical characteristics should be retained, and that ICAO should send a liaison to WP5B providing that opinion. After discussion, the meeting agreed that the material should be retained, but did not think it necessary for ICAO to send a liaison. If WP5B decides to remove the material, they will send a liaison to ICAO, and at that point ICAO could push to retain it.
7.1.2 WPs 14, 17 and 18 were discussed together as they all dealt with studies of compatibility of possible mobile broadband systems operating in frequency bands adjacent to that used by radio altimeters (i.e., adjacent to 4 200-4 400 MHz). The meeting agreed that were IMT to be introduced in bands adjacent to the altimeters, based on characteristics contained in ITU-R Recommendations, both mobile broadband base stations and handsets would cause interference to those altimeters during approach and landings. Recognizing that such studies had not been accomplished in the ITU-R Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7 (JTG 4-5-6-7), and that it was too late to submit such studies to the JTG, the meeting was invited to discuss the results with their administrations to ensure the risks were recognized. In addition, participants were encouraged to begin discussions with radio altimeter equipment manufactures to determine if mitigations exist or could be implemented to address the expected interference. Any such mitigations would have to be documented.
7.2 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.5
7.2.1 WP02 provided updates to a similar contribution presented to WG-F/29 taking into account comments from that meeting. The paper 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. The meeting reviewed each of the proposals to satisfy the conditions, and provided the author with constructive comments regarding additional material that was required. These comments are shown in Appendix D.
7.2.2 WP13 suggested addressing agenda item 1.5 by making an allocation to the aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) is introduced in any global frequency band that is currently allocated to the fixed satellite service that are not subject to the provisions of Article 30, 30A or 30B. This could either be achieved through table allocations or the use of a footnote. An associated Resolution would also be developed that places the relevant limitations on the use of that AMS(R)S allocation in order to ensure that it does not pre-empt or gain priority over fixed satellite systems during coordination. It is also proposed that the Resolution further restrict any such allocation to the AMS(R)S to systems that have already been co-ordinated as fixed satellite.
7.2.3 After considerable discussion on the two papers, noting that the actual/physical satellite system would likely be the same independent of the radio service under which it operated for UAS CNPC provision, the meeting recognized that there was some convergence on “assignment issues” – that is the mostly technical details that would apply to any UAS CNPC assignment. Regarding “allocation issues” however – that is specific radio service to which those assignments should be made – there were two distinct opinions. One was that the only acceptable radio service would be AMS(R)S, allocations for which, by the agenda item wording, could be made in the referenced “FSS bands”. The other opinion considered that the assignments could be made to the FSS if sufficient other radio regulatory protections and definitions were added. The group agreed that further development on material regarding WRC-15 AI 1.5 at future WG-F meetings would be directed toward (1) technical assignment issues, (2) allocation issues (Method 1 AMS(R)S), and/or (3) allocation issues (Method 2 FSS).
7.3 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17
7.3.1 Noting that WAIC papers WP03, WP04, WP08 and WP20 all addressed regulatory and/or CPM issues, the meeting agreed to present them all together and then have one larger discussion.
7.3.2 WP03 introduced two proposed alternative definitions of Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications (WAIC) for inclusion in the WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17 Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) text.
7.3.3 WP04 provided information on a potential regulatory issue concerning an allocation to the aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) for WAIC applications. In particular the paper noted that WAIC may not meet the provisions of Radio Regulations (RR) No. 40.1, 43.1 and 45.7. Considered most problematic was No. 43.1 as it requires communications in “(R)” bands to be between aircraft and the ground (for AM(R)S) or satellites (for AMS(R)S). In contrast, WAIC will communicate between two stations on the same aircraft.
7.3.4 WP08 provided an update on the current draft CPM text for WAIC. The paper asked that ICAO support the regulatory approach described in option 1 of the Method for the 4 200-4 400 MHz band, agree on a way to define WAIC in the Radio Regulations, and also support the addition of the bands 22.5-22.55 GHz and 23.55-23.6 GHz if studies can show compatibility with incumbent and adjacent-band services.
7.3.5 WP20 summarized the current status of discussions on the preparation of CPM Text for WRC-15 agenda item 1.17 to solicit input on the most preferable way to implement regulatory provisions in support of future WAIC systems.
7.3.6 After discussion the meeting agreed the following points:
a) Two methods could be used to make the necessary allocations to AM(R)S to support WAIC. The first would add the AM(R)S allocation but limit it to WAIC. This approach would require a Radio Regulations Article 1 definition for WAIC (see 7.3.6.b) and any necessary technical in-band restrictions on WAIC could be introduced through footnote wording or incorporating by reference an ITU-R Recommendation or WRC Resolution. The second method would “limit use of the AM(R)S to systems operating in accordance with Resolution [WAIC]”. That Resolution would then include text explaining WAIC (i.e., similar to the considerings in Resolution 423 (WRC-12)) as well as resolves to address any necessary technical in-band restrictions on WAIC.
b) If an Article 1 definition of WAIC is required, the meeting could accept any of the three versions proposed in WP03 and subsequent discussion: “Safety-related communications between two or more aircraft stations located anywhere on single aircraft; supporting only the safe operation of this aircraft and its systems.” or “Radiocommunications between two or more aircraft stations located on a single aircraft; supporting the safe operation of this aircraft and its systems.” It was also noted however that changes to Article 1 could have resultant impacts on National allocation tables.
c) Article 43.1 does not appear to be consistent with the Article 1.32 definition of aeronautical mobile service. It was noted a slight modification (e.g., via WRC-15 agenda item 9.1.4 or though the Director’s Report) ala “Frequencies in any band allocated to the aeronautical mobile (R) service and the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service are reserved for communications relating to safety and regularity of flight between any aircraft stations, or aircraft stations and those aeronautical stations and aeronautical earth stations primarily concerned with flight along national or international civil air routes.” would make them consistent. If such a revision were not made however, care must be taken to remove WAIC from the provisions of the existing Article 43.1.
d) Existing footnote No. 5.438 will require modification including a reference to WAIC (e.g., “Passive sensing in the Earth exploration-satellite and space research services may be authorized in the frequency band 4 200-4 400 MHz on a secondary basis (no protection is provided by radio altimeters or by XXX).”). Depending on the method selected for the actual WAIC allocation (see 7.3.6.d) that XXX reference could simply state “WAIC” (if the Article 1 definition exists), or “AM(R)S” if it does not.
7.3.7 WP09 provided a summary of the WAIC analysis work that has been accomplished in the course of WRC-15 agenda item 1.17 on the aeronautical frequency bands below 15.7 GHz. In particular the paper concludes that the band 4 200-4 400 MHz is considered suitable for accommodating future WAIC systems without impacting the incumbent use of the band. This is due to the available bandwidth, the low number of incumbent systems, and the ability to design WAIC systems such that their RF emissions do not interfere with these incumbent systems and vice versa. Due to less successful compatibility results, the paper also suggests withdrawal of the study documents for the bands 2 700-2 900 MHz and 5 350-5 460 MHz and instead incorporation of an excerpt of the main results and conclusions of both documents into the ITU-R Report M.[WAIC BANDS]. After discussion the meeting agreed with the proposals with, if warranted, slightly more of the 2 700-2 900 MHz and 5 350-5 470 MHz material being retained as annexes to the M.[WAIC BANDS] report.
7.3.8 WP15 provided an update of the studies between WAIC systems and the services in the bands 22.5-22.55 GHz and 23.5-23.55 GHz and between WAIC systems and the passive services in the adjacent bands. It further proposed that ICAO support a Method in the AI 1.17 CPM text that includes changes to the Radio Regulations adding the AM(R)S service to the bands 22.5-22.55 GHz and 23.5-23.55 GHz, if the sharing studies show compatibility between WAIC systems and incumbent systems in these bands and passive services in adjacent bands. After discussion the meeting, while sympathetic to the possible need for additional spectrum to address implementation issues, supported use of the referenced 22/23 GHz bands only on the basis of demonstrated compatibility with incumbent systems.
7.3.9 WP21 solicited discussion within WG- F on the request made by one European Administration to study potential adjacent band interference caused by future WAIC systems. The main concern of this Administration is that WAIC systems operating in the band 4 200-4 400 MHz might cause harmful interference into the Fixed Satellite Service in the adjacent band 3 600-4 200 MHz. While it is common practice that adjacent band interference is studied if the potentially impacted service is a passive or safety service, this is not the case with regards to the Fixed Satellite Service. Therefore, and in particular because WAIC systems employ much lower e.i.r.p. levels than for instance airborne radio altimeters (the primary users of the band 4 200-4 400 MHz) the paper argued that adjacent band studies are not required. The meeting agreed with this assessment, and in particular noted that given the very large power differences between WAIC and altimeters, if the FSS were to be interfered with by WAIC at any given instant, it would have already been interfered with by the radio altimeter.
7.4 Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 9.1 (sub-item 5)
7.4.1 WP22 provided the current draft CPM text for Agenda Item 9.1 (sub-item 5), as well as proposed updates to that material. Because much of the material was new, the meeting was invited to review it and provide comments via correspondence to the Secretary in time for ICAO to provide an input to the next WP4A meeting (scheduled for July 2014)
7.5 Inputs regarding other items
7.5.1 IP01 provided a copy of a liaison statement from ITU-R WP5B to ITU-R WP1B regarding a report being developed by WP1B on “Spectrum Management Principles and Spectrum Engineering Techniques for the use of “White Spaces” by Radio Systems Employing Cognitive Capabilities”. While “white space” is not specifically defined in the WP1B document, it is taken to mean spectrum between channels currently being used in a specific geographic area. The cognitive device would look for that unused spectrum in that area, then use it for its own purposes. WP5B expressed its view that it is “unfeasible for systems using the cognitive radio systems/white spaces concept to operate in the same frequency bands as safety of life radiocommunications and radionavigation services under the remit of WP5B”. After discussion the meeting agreed that an ICAO liaison to WP1B (see Appendix E) regarding identified problems with sharing aviation spectrum was appropriate.
7.5.2 Satellite reception of ADS-B
7.5.2.1 WP23 provided draft revision to preliminary draft new report ITU-R M.[ADS-OCEAN] currently under development in WP5B. That document deals with expanding the operational benefits of ADS-B to oceanic and remote areas without ground infrastructure. The purpose of the document was to revise material such that it could be provided by ICAO to the next meeting of WP5B (May 2014) taking into account that the 38th ICAO Assembly generally supported the issue of space-based reception of ADS-B. The meeting formed a drafting group to further develop WP23, and the resultant text is contained in Appendix F.
8. Agenda Item 8: Development of potential updates to ICAO WRC-15 Position
8.1 WP12 discussed the benefits of satellite reception of ADS-B in enabling global surveillance. Using an example centered on the North Atlantic, the paper indicated the improvements such a capability would present. The paper concluded with a recommendation that the ICAO WRC-15 Position be updated to support satellite reception of ADS-B. After discussion, the meeting agreed to develop the material as an input to the ICAO position on WRC-15 agenda item 10 – Future Conference agenda items. That approach would support addressing the issue at a future WRC, but also allow the material to be present if an opportunity arose at WRC-15 to address the need. Draft text for that update is contained in Appendix G.
9. Agenda Item 9: Interference from non-aeronautical sources
9.1 IP02 provided information on radio frequency interference (RFI) being experienced in Mongolia, and how that interference is addressed. The paper noted that instances of interference are increasing as radio communications spread throughout Mongolia. While there is good cooperation between the Civil Aviation Authority and the spectrum regulator, mitigation of that interference has proven challenging. As a result, the two groups are working closely together to make amendments to the current regulatory framework for the usage of radio frequencies for non-aeronautical purposes in order to reduce frequency interference to aeronautical systems. The paper triggered good discussion in the meeting regarding RFI mitigation experiences in different States, and was much appreciated.
10. Agenda Item 10: Any other business
10.1 IP04 provided update on follow-on work accomplished regarding the above 40 GHz system reported on in WG-F/29 IP01. That system was intended to facilitate broadband wireless communications between air and ground, offering speeds up to 500Mbps. Recognizing that such capability may be useful in for other applications in the airport environment, IP04 reported on channel propagation measurements for ground-to-ground links. The results showed that maintaining communications links was challenging, however it was facilitated by antenna height optimization and by antenna diversity (i.e., multiple transmit/receive antennas). It is expected that further research will be done in the future. The meeting asked to be updated as more information becomes available, and suggested that other issues should be addressed such as: types of communications to be carried (safety vs non-safety given that the current allocation is MOBILE and cannot cause interference to space services); operating range; and whether the system would replace other on-board communications systems or be in-addition to those systems.
10.2 IP07 provided a status on the alignment of ICAO and ITU databases. As reported previously, ICAO maintains database of frequency assignments in the HF, LF/MF and VHF bands, which are allocated to the aeronautical mobile (R) and aeronautical radionavigation services, while ITU maintains the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR); a worldwide database containing assignments for all radiocommunication services including aeronautical ones. Comparison of the two databases showed that only a small part of assignments in the ICAO’s database is recorded in the MIFR. It also showed that the ICAO database is more accurate and up-to-date than the MIFR. Therefore, the alignment of terrestrial aeronautical assignments recorded in the Master Register with the ICAO frequency database was found necessary. First raised at WG-F/27, that meeting decided that the aeronautical frequencies in the MIFR will be updated by ITU administrations. The update would be made on the basis of the ICAO data, which would be made available to the ITU administrations. Following presentation of IP07, a demonstration was provided of a prototype comparison tool which allows administrations to compare information contained in the MIFR with that contained in the ICAO data base, and generate any required ITU Notices. The meeting agreed that the technical tool developed to compare the two data bases was useful, however there was still considerable concern regarding the institutional issues such as ensuring that the ICAO data base remains the “master” when performing aeronautical frequency coordination. It was also highlighted that the decision to update the MIFR to reflect the ICAO data base would have to be made at the administration level, and was beyond the remit of WG-F.
10.3 IP08 informed the meeting regarding the progress of L-Band and C-Band air-ground channel model development based on data gathered through a propagation flight measurements campaign. The L-Band and C-Band frequencies being modelled are intended to support the line-of-sight Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC) for unmanned aircraft systems. The essential elements of the first channel model based on the measured for the specific terrain case of over sea/salt water conditions were described in the paper.
10.4 WP06 highlighted issues encountered in Australia when trying to obtain frequency licenses for Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (ASMGCS). ASMGCS is a surveillance technology that provides radar-like services in the vicinity of an airport. Due to the number of different transmitters comprising the ASMGCS, and the licensing regime in Australia (per transmitter based on the particular frequency band used, the geographical location, the amount of spectrum occupied, and the coverage area), it requires a very high fee to license in Australia. These fees are on the order of 90 times the licensing fee for a typical secondary surveillance radar for example. The purpose of the paper was to solicit information on how aeronautical licensing fees are determined in other States. During discussion it was noted that the licensing regime, and required licensing fees, varied from State to State.
10.5 WP10 discussed spectrum and frequency management issues that will be raised by the introduction of commercial space flight. Noting that a number of companies are exploring the idea of short commercial flights into space for paying customers, the paper noted a number of technical and regulatory aspects that must be addressed. The paper concluded that while launch vehicles could probably use current terrestrial aeronautical systems, the space vehicle would likely have to operate in the space operation service which may necessitate new spectrum allocations. This may require an agenda item for a future WRC.
10.6 WP16 detailed the US Aeronautical Frequency Committee’s (AFC) response to a harm claim threshold whitepaper being considered by the US regulator. The harm claim threshold concept defines a signal strength profile that a receiver must be capable of rejecting before a claim of interference can be made (i.e. an interference limit). Intended to be more of a target than traditional standard, the setting of the threshold would allow manufacturers to make their own choices while not mandating specific receiver standards. The AFC reviewed the whitepaper at its June 2013 meeting, and although the membership recognized that it was an early concept paper, several comments and recommendations were noted and publically filed. Those comments in particular highlighted the unique aspects of aviation that must be considered. The WG-F meeting agreed the effort should be closely monitored.
10.7 A verbal report was provided regarding integration of light UAS in the Netherlands. Four classes have been defined (model, Light Class 1, Light Class 2 and RPAS), and the requirements differ depending on the class. It was noted that future efforts may also address spectrum for UAS payload. The meeting asked to be updated as studies progress.
10.8 WP24 provided information on the progress within the ITU and Europe on earth stations onboard mobile platforms (ESOMPs) and the regulatory response from one Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
10.9 WP25 informed the meeting of a proposal to carry out sharing studies in the UK to identify whether any unused spectrum “white space” could be identified in the frequency range 960-1300 MHz that could be considered for use by “programme making and special event” (PMSE) purposes on a co-ordinated basis. PMSE equipment currently operates in the white spaces between TV transmissions in the frequency range 600-800 MHz, however that frequency band is already earmarked in Europe for future IMT use and hence PMSE will have to find an alternative frequency band in which to operate. The UK radio regulator, Ofcom, has carried out a survey of the frequency use below 2.4 GHz (considered the upper bound of where PMSE can operate) to identify any contiguous 200 MHz frequency band that is not already allocated to the mobile service that might be a candidate for sharing by PMSE. As a result two frequency bands have been identified 1.5 GHz satellite spectrum and the frequency band 960-1300 MHz. To address these and future studies, the paper concludes that aviation needs to develop protection criteria for its radio systems, preferably recorded in an ITU Recommendation, that can be used when a proposal for sharing is received. Such protection criteria should be developed in ICAO (see Section 3.2 above) in a manner that would allow easy conversion to an ITU-R Recommendation at a future date when aviation agrees they are sufficiently mature. The meeting asked to be kept informed of the progress of the studies.
10.10 WP26 provided information on the Sentinel project in the UK to quantify interference to GPS. The project measured interference in the frequency band used by GPS L1, and noted among other things a high correlation between measured interference and work days/work hours. This indicated that there was frequent use of GPS jammers by workers trying to avoid being tracked by their companies. The meeting noted that similar results had been seen in other States and that strict enforcement to remove jammers is needed.
10.11 WP27 provided an in-depth report on efforts in the United Kingdom (UK) to facilitate introduction of IMT systems in frequency bands below 2 690 MHz. The UK found that in order to accommodate such IMT systems, the IMT out of band emissions needed to be improved, the radar systems operating above 2 700 MHz required an additional 60 dB of filtering, and the assigned radar channel could be no lower than 2 740 MHz (i.e., a 50 MHz guardband was required between the IMT channel and the radar channel). The meeting noted with interest the results based on actual implementation which seemed to contradict assertions made in other fora that only a 10 MHz guardband was required. Meeting participants who utilize the 2 700-2 900 MHz (or the similar 1 215-1 400 MHz) band for aeronautical radars were encouraged to make sure their National WRC process participants were aware of their concerns. Participation and support in the Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) meetings was especially solicited to ensure concerns were registered.
11 Date of next meeting
11.1 The next meeting has been tentatively scheduled for 29 September-3 October, 2014 in Montreal, Canada. This meeting would be just a WG-F meeting without a preceding Spectrum Seminar.
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Agenda
Appendix B – List of Working Papers, Information Papers and Flimsies
Appendix C – List of Participants
Appendix D – Comments regarding ICAO Conditions for WRC-15 AI1.5
Appendix E – Liaison to WP1B regarding PDNR SM.[WHITE-SPACE]
Appendix F – Proposed Revisions to Working Document Towards a Draft New Report ITU-R M.[ADS-OCEAN]
Appendix G – draft text for a future conference agenda item on space-based ADS-B
APPENDIX A
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
30TH Meeting of the Aeronautical Communication Panel Working Group F
(ACP WG-F/30)
(Pattaya, Thailand 13-19 March, 2014)
Agenda
1. Opening and working arrangements
• Report on outcomes of 38th ICAO Assembly
2. Future Work Program
• Panel revisions status
• WG-F task review
3. Aviation Safety Margins
• Reference Appendix D WG-F/29 Report
• ITU-R WP5B draft new Report ITU-R M.[Protect]
4. Updates to Aviation Frequency Spectrum Strategy
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
• AeroMACS status
• UAS Study Group status
• Global UAS/RPAS channel plan
7. Development of material for ITU-R meetings
• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1
• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.5
• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.17
• Inputs regarding WRC-15 Agenda Item 9.1 (sub-item 5)
• Other
▪ Space-based reception of ADS-B
8. Development of potential updates to ICAO WRC-15 Position
• If/as required based on studies
9. Interference from non-aeronautical sources
10. Any Other Business
APPENDIX B
List of Papers
List of Working Papers
|Working Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |
|WP1 |Rapporteur |Agenda/Shedule | |
|WP2 | |Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under a Fixed Satellite | |
| |J. Nelsen |Service Allocation |7 |
|WP3 | |Proposal for definition of WAIC for Radio Regulations | |
| |Q. Nguyen | |7 |
|WP4 |Q. Nguyen |Potential regulatory issue concerning an allocation to the AM(R)S for|7 |
| | |WAIC applications | |
|WP5 |Q. Nguyen | | |
| | |Airborne radar in the frequency band 5 350-5 460 MHz |7 |
|WP6 | |Frequency licensing issues for ASMGCS in Australia | |
| |E. D’Amico | |10 |
|WP7 |N. Yonemoto, N. Kanada, A. |Actual utilization in 5 GHz band for future aeronautical |6 |
| |Kohmura, S. Futatsumori, K. |communication services in Japan | |
| |Morioka and Y. Sumiya | | |
|WP8 |J. Cramer |Update and discussion of WRC-15 CPM text for AI 1.17 |7 |
|WP9 |U. Schwark |Summary of analysis efforts for WRC-15 AI 1.17 |7 |
|WP10 |J. Mettrop |Spectrum supportability of space planes |10 |
|WP11 |M. Biggs |AeroMACS |6 |
|WP12 |J. Taylor |Possible update of ICAO position for WRC-15 to include information on|8 |
| | |LEO satellite ADS-B | |
|WP13 |J. Mettrop |Proposed method to address WRC-15 AI 1.5 |7 |
|WP14 |A. Roy |Preliminary study into radio altimeter adjacent band compatibility |7 |
|WP15 |J. Cramer |Update on sharing studies between WAIC and services in the 22 and 23 |7 |
| | |GHz bands for AI 1.17 | |
|WP16 |A. Roy |AFC response to US harm claim threshold concept |10 |
|WP17 |J. Mettrop |Potential level of interference for IMT systems on adjacent band |7 |
| | |radio altimeters | |
|WP18 |J. Mettrop |Potential interference to radio altimeters regulatory implications |7 |
|WP19 |J. Mettrop |Protection of aeronautical systems and the need for a safety margin |3 |
|WP20 |U. Schwark |Considerations on the preparation of CPM text for WRC-15 AI 1.17 |7 |
|WP21 |U. Schwark |WAIC adjacent band discussion |7 |
|WP22 |Secretary |Potential methods for the solution of WRC-15 AI 9.1.5 |7 |
|WP23 |J. Taylor |Proposed ICAO WP5B contribution on space based ADS-B PDNR |7 |
|WP24 |J. Mettrop |Earth Stations on mobile platforms |10 |
|WP25 |J. Mettrop |proposal for proffesional programme making |10 |
| | |and special event sharing in the frequency band 960-1300 MHz | |
|WP26 |J. Mettrop |GPS Jamming |10 |
|WP27 |J. Mettrop |Radar remediation |10 |
List of Information Papers and Flimsies
|Information Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |
|IP1 |Secretary |Liaison statement from ITU-R re development of draft new report | |
| | |ITU-R SM.[White-Space] |7 |
|IP2 |Mongolia |Radio Interference in Mongolia |9 |
|IP3 |K.Takizawa, F. Ono, H. |NICT C-Band channel measurement towards deploying UAS for | |
| |Tsuji, and R. Miura |disaster mitigation |6 |
|IP4 |H. Tsuji, T. Takayama | | |
| | |Over 40 GHz millimeter wave ground based propagation measurement |10 |
| | |for broadband wireless direct communications between air and | |
| | |ground | |
|IP5 |C. Pichavant |AeroMACS status SESAR project Airbus update | |
| | | |6 |
|IP6 |Rapporteur |WP5B working document towards a draft new report ITU-R |3 |
| | |M.[PROTECT] | |
|IP7 | |Status of alignment of ICAO and ITU data bases |10 |
| |ITU | | |
|IP8 |D. Matolak, K. |L-band and C-band air-ground channel measurement and modelling |10 |
| |Shalkhauser and R. |for over-sea conditions | |
| |Kerczewski | | |
|IP9 |K. Shalkhauser, R. |Initial C-band flight test of second generation prototype CNPC |6 |
| |Kerczewski, J. Ishac |radio | |
| |and S. Bretmersky | | |
|IP10 |Secretary |Frequency spectrum related outcomes of the 38th ICAO Assembly |1 |
| |
| |
| |
|FLIMSIES |
|Flimsy |Source |Title |Agenda Item |
|1 |Rapporteur |AI 1.5 – Comments on Civil Aviation Conditions discussed in WP02 |7 |
|2 |J. Taylor |Proposed Revisions to Working Document Towards a Draft New Report|7 |
| | |ITU-R M.[ADS-OCEAN] | |
|3 |A. Roy |Liaison to WP1B regarding PDNR SM.[WHITE-SPACE] |7 |
APPENDIX C
|30TH MEETING OF AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP) |
|WORKING GROUP F (ACP WG/F 30) |
|PATTAYA, THAILAND, 13 - 19 MARCH 2014 |
|No. |State/Org. |Name/Last name |Designation |Address |Tel/Fax/E-mail |
|1 |Australia |Mr. Eddy D'Amico |RF Spectrum Engineer/Projects &|Airservices Australia |Tel: |+61 (2) 6268 5443 |
| | | |Engineering |GPO Box 367 |Fax: |+61 (2) 6268 5191 |
| | | | |Canberra ACT 2601 |E-mail: |eddy.damico@airservicesasustr|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|2 |Australia |Mr. Samir Raghubanshi |RF Networks Engineer/Projects &|Airservices Australia |Tel: |+61 (2) 9339 2538 |
| | | |Engineering |GPO Box 367 |Fax: |+61 (2) 8340 8314 |
| | | | |Canberra ACT 2601 |E-mail: |sam.raghubanshi@airservicesau|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|3 |Bangladesh |Mr. MD. Rafiqul Islam |Deputy Director (Telecom & Ops)|Communications Division |Tel: |+880 155 246 0622 |
| | | | |Civil Aviation Authority of |Fax: |+880 (2) 890 1411 |
| | | | |Bangladesh | | |
| | | | |Headquarters |E-mail: |ddcomops@.bd |
| | | | |Kurmitola, Dhaka 1229 | | |
| | | | | | | |
|4 |Bangladesh |Mr. MD. Foyez Ullah |Senior Communications |Communications Division |Tel: |+880 191 358 4862 |
| | | |Engineering | | | |
| | | | |Civil Aviation Authority of |Fax: |+880 (2) 890 1411 |
| | | | |Bangladesh | | |
| | | | |Headquarters |E-mail: |Foyez111967@ |
| | | | |Kurmitola, Dhaka 1229 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|5 |Brazil |Mr. Waldir Galluzzi Nunes |Communications Expert |DECEA |Tel: |+55 21 2117 7301 |
| | | | |Av. Gen Justo 160 |Fax: | |
| | | | |Rio de Janeiro, Brazil |E-mail: |waldir.nunes@ |
| | | | | | | |
|6 |Brazil |Mr. Gleandro Luiz de |Communications Expert |DECEA |Tel: |+55 21 2101 6665 |
| | |Mattos | | | | |
| | | | |Av. Gen Justo 160 |Fax: | |
| | | | |Rio de Janeiro, Brazil |Email: |geandroluiz@ |
| | | | | | | |
|7 |Cambodia |Mr. Chhun Sivorn |Director of Air Navigation |State Secretariat of Civil |Tel: |+855 12 86 6659 |
| | | |Standard |Aviation | | |
| | | |and Safety Department |#62, Preah Norodom Blvd., Phnom|Fax: |+855 23 224258 |
| | | | |Penh | | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |ansops_ssca@ |
| | | | | | | |
|8 |Cambodia |Mr. Neang To |Officials for Standard and Air |State Secretariat of Civil |Tel: |+855 12 820 811 |
| | | | |Aviation | | |
| | | |Navigation Safety Department |#62, Preah Norodom Blvd., Phnom|Fax: |+855 23 224258 |
| | | | |Penh | | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |neang_to@ |
| | | | | | | |
|9 |Canada |Mr. John Taylor |Aeronautical Spectrum |Transport Canada |Tel: |+1 (613) 993 4061 |
| | | |Regulation | | | |
| | | |Specialist |330 Sparks Street, Ottawa |Fax: | |
| | | | |Ontario, K1A0N8 |E-mail: |john.taylor@tc.gc.ca |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|10 |China |Mr. Kanlin Wang |Engineer |Civil Aviation Administration |Tel: |+86 (10) 6409 2363 |
| | | | |of China | | |
| | | | |155 Donsi Street West, |Fax: | |
| | | | |Dongcheng Beijing | | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |loplod@ |
| | | | | | | |
|11 |France |Mr. Quoc-Dung Nguyen |Spectrum Manager |Direction Generale de l' |Tel: |+33 (0) 562 145 338 |
| | | | |Aviation Civile | | |
| | | | |(DGAC) |Fax: | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |quoc-dung.nguyen@aviation-civ|
| | | | | | |ile.gouv.fr |
| | | | | | | |
|12 |Germany |Mr. Martin Weber | |Federal Network Agency |Tel: |+49 941 4626 230 |
| | | | |Im Gewerbepark A15 |Fax: | |
| | | | |D-93153 Regensburg |E-mail: |martin.weber@bnetza.de |
| | | | | | | |
|13 |Ghana |Ing Frank Kofi Apeagyei |Senior Electronics Engineer |Ghana Civil Aviation Authority |Tel: |+233 2358 16782 |
| | | | |Private Mail Bag, Kotaka |Fax: |+233 302 773293 |
| | | | |International Airport | | |
| | | | |ACCRA |E-mail: |fapeagyei@.gh |
| | | | | | | |
|14 |India |Mr. Nikhil Ranjan Das |General Manager (CNS) |Airports Authority of India |Tel: |+91 (11) 2462 0287 |
| | | | |Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung|Fax: | |
| | | | |Airport | | |
| | | | |New Delhi - 110003 |E-mail: |gmcomchq@aai.aero |
| | | | | | | |
|15 |Japan |Mr. Toshiyuki Obata |Assistant Director Mobile |Ministry of Internal Affairs |Tel: | |
| | | |Satellite |and | | |
| | | |Communication Division |Communications, Radio |Fax: | |
| | | | |Department | | |
| | | | |Telecommunications Bureau |E-mail: |t2.obata@soumu.go.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|16 |Japan |Dr. Naruto Yonemoto |Chief Researcher |Electronic Navigation Research |Tel: |+81 422 41 3174 |
| | | | |Institute |Fax: |+81 422 41 3176 |
| | | | |7-42-23, Jindaiji-Higashi |E-mail: |yonemoto@enri.go.jp |
| | | | |Chofu, Tokyo 182-0012 | | |
| | | | | | | |
|17 |Japan |Mr. Horoyuki Tsuji |Senior Researcher |Wireless Communication Company |Tel: | |
| | | | |NICT, 4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi |Fax: | |
| | | | |Koganei | | |
| | | | |Tokyo |E-mail: |tsuji@nict.go.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|18 |Japan |Mr. Taichi Takayama |Researcher |Mitsubishi Research Institute, |Tel: |+81 3 6705 6039 |
| | | | |Inc. | | |
| | | | | |Fax: |+81 3 5157 2145 |
| | | | | |E-mail: |takayama@mri.co.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|19 |Japan |Dr. Fumie Ono |Senior Researcher |Dependent Wireless Laboratory |Tel: |+81 4684 75094 |
| | | | | |Fax: | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |fumie@nict.go.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|20 |Japan |Mr. Hiroshi Okochi |Project Manager, Satellite |JRANSA, Kaiji Center Bldg |Tel: |+81 3 5214 1353 |
| | | |Engineering | | | |
| | | |Department |4-5 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-Ku |Fax: |+81 3 5214 1359 |
| | | | |Tokyo, 102-0083, Japan |E-mail: |ookouchi@jranasa.or.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|21 |Japan |Mr. Sanshiro Shirahashi |Project Manager |JRANSA, Kaiji Center Bldg |Tel: |+81 3 5214 1353 |
| | | | |4-5 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-Ku |Fax: |+81 3 5214 1359 |
| | | | |Tokyo, 102-0083, Japan |E-mail: |shirahashi@jransa.or.jp |
| | | | | | | |
|22 |Malaysia |Mr. Sahrol Nizal Ab Rashid|Assistant Director |Department of Civil Aviation |Tel: |+603 8871 4278 |
| | | | |Air Traffic Management Sector |Fax: |+603 8881 0530 |
| | | | |No. 27, Persiaran Perdana, |E-mail: |sahrol@.my |
| | | | |Level 4 | | |
| | | | |Block Podium 8, Precint 4, | | |
| | | | |62618 Putrajaya | | |
| | | | | | | |
|23 |Malaysia |Mr. Zulkefli Harun |Senior Deputy Director |Department of Civil Aviation |Tel: |+603 8871 4225 |
| | | | |Air Traffic Management Sector |Fax: |+603 8881 0530 |
| | | | |No. 27, Persiaran Perdana, |E-mail: |zulkefliharun@.my |
| | | | |Level 4 | | |
| | | | |Block Podium 8, Precint 4, | | |
| | | | |62618 Putrajaya | | |
| | | | | | | |
|24 |Mongolia |Mr. Purevsuren Gantugs |Director of Communication |Civil Aviation Authority of |Tel: |+976 (11) 285-050, 9911 9230 |
| | | | |Mongolia | | |
| | | |Navigation Surveillance |Buyant-Ukhaa 10th Khoroo |Fax: | |
| | | |services | | | |
| | | | |Khan-uul District 17120 |E-mail: | |
| | | | |Ulaanbaatar | | |
| | | | | | | |
|25 |Netherlands |Mr. Gerlof E. Osinga |Senior Manager Aviation & |The Netherlands |Tel: |+31 (6) 535 484 95 |
| | | |Maritime | | | |
| | | | |P.O. Box 450 |Fax: | |
| | | | |9700 AL Groningen |E-mail: |gerlof.osinga@agentschaptelec|
| | | | | | |om.nl |
| | | | | | | |
|26 |New Zealand |Mr. Dave Kershaw | |Dave Kershaw Consulting Ltd. |Tel: |+64 (4) 905 6164 |
| | | | |53 Ngarara Rd., Waikanae, 5036 |Fax: | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |dave.kershaw@dkconsulting.co.|
| | | | | | |nz |
| | | | | | | |
|27 |Philippines |Mr. Charlemagne P. Gilo |Acting Division Chief |Civil Aviation Authority of the|Tel: |+63 (2) 879 9282 |
| | | |Aeronautical |Philippines | | |
| | | |Telecommunications Division |Air Traffic Service, MIA Road |Fax: |+63 (2) 879 9259 |
| | | |(AICD) | | | |
| | | | |Pasay City |E-mail: |charlemagne.gilo@ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|28 |Republic of Korea |Mr. Kim Ki Hyoun |Assistant Director |Air Navigation Facilities |Tel: |+82 44 201 4362 |
| | | | |Division | | |
| | | | |Office of Aviation Policy |Fax: | |
| | | | |Ministry of Land, |E-mail: |kimhwalove@ |
| | | | |Infrastructure and Transport | | |
| | | | |#11, Doum-Ro 6, Sejong Special | | |
| | | | |Self-governing | | |
| | | | |City, 339-012 | | |
| | | | | | | |
|29 |South Africa |Ms. Cokisa Lisa Tele |Engineer CNS |ATNS, Block C, Eastgate office |Tel: |+27 11 607 1000 |
| | | | |park, | | |
| | | | |Southern Boulevard, Bruma |Fax: | |
| | | | |Johannesburg, South Africa |E-mail: |LisaT@atns.co.za |
| | | | | | | |
|30 |South Africa |Mr. Takalani R. Tshikalaha|Senior Engineer R & D |ATNS, Block C, Eastgate office |Tel: |+27 11 607 1000 |
| | | | |park, | | |
| | | | |Southern Boulevard, Bruma |Fax: | |
| | | | |Johannesburg, South Africa |E-mail: |takalanit@atns.co.za |
| | | | | | | |
|31 |South Africa |Mr. Bonny Mokoena |Senior Engineer |ATNS, Block C, Eastgate office |Tel: |+27 11 (607) 1375 |
| | | | |park, | | |
| | | | |Southern Boulevard, Bruma |Fax: | |
| | | | |Johannesburg, South Africa |E-mail: |bonnym@atns.co.za |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|32 |Thailand |Mr. Chainan Chaisompong |Engineering Manager |Aeronautical Radio of Thailand |Tel: |+66 (2) 287 8391 |
| | | | |(Ltd.) | | |
| | | | |102 Ngamduplee, Tungmahamek |Fax: | |
| | | | |Sathon, Bangkok 10120 |E-mail: |chainanchaisompong@ |
| | | | | | | |
|33 |UK |Mr. John Mettrop |Spectrum Expert |Civil Aviation Authority |Tel: |+44 (207) 453 6531 |
| | | | |K6, CAA House |Fax: | |
| | | | |45-49 Kingsway |E-mail: |John.Mettrop@caa.co.uk |
| | | | |London WC2B 6TE | | |
| | | | | | | |
|34 |UK |Mr. Stephen Parry |Spectrum Manager |NATS, Corporate and Technical |Tel: |+44 1489 616 454 |
| | | | |Centre | | |
| | | | |4000 Parkway, Whiteley |Fax: | |
| | | | |Fareham, Hamshire, PO 15 7FL. |E-mail: |stephen.parry@nats.co.uk |
| | | | | | | |
|35 |USA |Mr. Michael Biggs |Senior Electronics Engineer |Air Traffic Organization, |Tel: |+1 (202) 267 8241 |
| | | | |Technical Operations | | |
| | | |Spectrum Planning & |Federal Aviation Administration|Fax: | |
| | | |International | | | |
| | | |Team |800 Independence Avenue SW |E-mail: |michael.biggs@ |
| | | | |Washington DC 20591 | | |
| | | | | | | |
|36 |USA |Mr. Robert Kerczewski |Project Manager |National Aeronautics and Space |Tel: |+1 (216) 433 3434 |
| | | | |Administration |Fax: | |
| | | | |NASA Glenn Research Center |E-mail: |rkerczewski@ |
| | | | |21000 Brookpark Road | | |
| | | | |MS 54-1 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | | |
| | | | | | | |
|37 |USA |Mr. Michael Mullinix |Electrical Engineer |Federal Communications |Tel: |+1 (202) 418 0491 |
| | | | |Commission | | |
| | | | |445 12th Street SW |Fax: | |
| | | | |Washington, DC 20554 |E-mail: |Michael.Mullinix@ |
| | | | | | | |
|38 |USA |Mr. Brandon J. Mitchell | |NTIA, 1401 Constitution Avenue |Tel: |+1 (202) 482 4487 |
| | | | |N.W. Washington D.C. 20230 |Fax: | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |bmitchell@ntia. |
| | | | | | | |
|39 |AIRBUS |Mr. Claude Pichavant |Senior Expert Communications & |Communications & Surveillance |Tel: |+33 (6) 2245 2389 |
| | | | |Department | | |
| | | |Surveillance |ICCAIA - Member for ACP |Fax: | |
| | | | |Airbus, 316 Route de Bayonne |E-mail: |claude.pichavant@ |
| | | | |31060, Toulouse Cedex 9, France| | |
| | | | | | | |
|40 |AIRBUS |Mr. Uwe Schwark |Standardisation & Regulation |Airbus Operations GmbH |Tel: |+49 4074 372908 |
| | | |Manager | | | |
| | | | |Kreetslag 10, 21129, Hamburg, |Fax: | |
| | | | |Germany | | |
| | | | | |E-mail: |uwe.schwark@ |
| | | | | | | |
|41 |ASRI |Mr. Andrew Roy |Director, Engineering Services |Aviation Spectrum Resources, |Tel: |+1 (410) 573 3366 |
| | | | |Inc. | | |
| | | | |2551 Riva Road, Annapolis |Fax: | |
| | | | |Maryland 20871, USA |E-mail: |acr@asri.aero |
| | | | | | | |
|42 |ASRI |Mr. Kris Hutchison | |Aviation Spectrum Resources, |Tel: |+1 (410) 266 4386 |
| | | | |Inc. | | |
| | | | |2551 Riva Road, Annapolis |Fax: | |
| | | | |Maryland 20871, USA |E-mail: |keh@asri.aero |
| | | | | | | |
|43 |BOEING |Mr. Joseph Cramer |Regional Director |The Boeing Company |Tel: |+1 (703) 465 3486 |
| | | | |1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington |Fax: | |
| | | | |VA 22209, USA |E-mail: |joseph.cramer@ |
| | | | | | | |
|44 |BOEING |Mr. Mohamed El Amin |Director, Regulatory Policy & |The Boeing Company |Tel: |+44 208 235 5600 |
| | | |International Spectrum |Heathrow House, 6th Floor |Fax: | |
| | | |Management | | | |
| | | | |Bath Road, Hounslow, TW5 9QQ |E-mail: |mohamed.elamin@ |
| | | | |UK | | |
| | | | | | | |
|45 |EUROCONTROL |Mr. Sven Fraenkel |Frequency Spectrum Manager |EUROCONTROL |Tel: |+32 475 307 105 |
| | | | |Rue De La Fusee 96 |Fax: | |
| | | | |1130 Brussels, Belgium |E-mail: |sven.fraenkel@eurocontrol.int|
| | | | | | | |
|46 |IRIDIUM |Ms. Barbara Ramsay | |Iridium Australia |Tel: |+61 (2) 6286 2023 |
| | | | |C/-Bramex Pty Ltd |Fax: |+61 412 6323 519 |
| | | | |147 Hawkesbury Street |E-mail: |ramsay@.au |
| | | | |Farrer ACT 2607, Australia | | |
| | | | | | | |
|47 |IRIDIUM |Mr. Ross Ramsay | |Iridium Australia |Tel: |+61 (2) 6268 2023 |
| | | | |C/-Bramex Pty Ltd |Fax: |+61 412 6323 519 |
| | | | |147 Hawkesbury Street |E-mail: |ramsay@.au |
| | | | |Farrer ACT 2607, Australia | | |
| | | | | | | |
|48 |ITU |Mr. Nikolai Vassiliev |Head, Fixed and Mobile Service |International Telecommunication|Tel: |+41 22 730 530 |
| | | |Division |Union | | |
| | | | |Place des Nations |Fax: | |
| | | | |CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland |E-mail: |nikolai.vassiliev@itu.int |
| | | | | | | |
|49 |ICAO |Mr. Loftur Jonasson |Technical Officer CNS |ICAO Headquarters |Tel: |+1 514 954 8219 ext 7130 |
| | | | |Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7 |Fax: | |
| | | | |Canada |E-mail: |ljonasson@icao.int |
| | | | | | | |
|50 |ICAO |Mr. Li Peng |Regional Officer CNS |ICAO Asia and Pacific Office |Tel: |+66 (2) 537 8189 Ex.158 |
| | | | |251/1, Vibhavadi Rangsit Road |Fax: | |
| | | | |Ladyao, Chatuchak |E-mail: |pli@icao.int |
| | | | |Bangkok 10900, Thailand | | |
| | | | | | | |
|51 |ICAO |Mr. Frederic Lecat |Regional Officer CNS |ICAO Asia and Pacific Office |Tel: |+66 (2) 537 8189 Ex. 155 |
| | | | |251/1, Vibhavadi Rangsit Road |Fax: | |
| | | | |Ladyao, Chatuchak |E-mail: |flecat@icao.int |
| | | | |Bangkok 10900, Thailand | | |
| | | | | | | |
— 51 Participants —
APPENDIX D
1. Civil Aviation Conditions
The ICAO position on agenda item 1.5 includes a set of conditions which would need to be met by any satellite system supporting UAS CNPC. Demonstration of how those conditions could be met by FSS providers would support a positive outcome for agenda item 1.5. A description of those conditions is provided in the sections below along with a description as to how they would be met by the FSS.
1. ICAO Condition: The technical and regulatory actions should be limited to the case of UAS using satellites, as studied, and not set a precedent that puts other aeronautical safety services at risk.
Several unique radio regulatory provisions are expected to be developed for the FSS bands where UAS CNPC application would be provided. These would include a footnote allowing use of FSS by UAS aircraft earth stations, describing the characteristics of service necessary to ensure safe operation, and pointing to a Resolution which provides additional requirements. The Resolution [need to see specific text] would include resolves covering, for example, the following:
• Identification of frequency bands in Nos. 5.DN and 5.UP that may be used by GSO FSS networks for CNPC, provided that they meet the technical requirements contained in an Annex to the Resolution ;
• Frequency bands to be used by unmanned aircraft ( UA) and unmanned aircraft control stations (UACS) limited to UAS CNPC links;
• Transmissions in the UAS CNPC link as comprising UAS telecommand and telemetry data, sense and avoid data from the UA to the associated UACS, and relay of voice communication between the air traffic control (ATC) and the UACS;
• Definition of an earth station on board a UAS.
a. How could this successfully be accomplished? Changing the definition of aircraft earth station or a new definition of an earth station on board a UAS would need to be addressed. [There is the view that aviation should avoid the precedent of proposing to operate a safety service under a non-safety allocation with associated provisions in a Resolution.]
• Article 1.31 addresses the definition of the shipmovement service. Could this be adjusted to establish a new UAS CNPC service?
As these provisions would be limited to UAS CNPC and would only become applicable when such an application was provided, they would not serve as a precedent for other aeronautical applications.
2. ICAO Condition: All frequency bands which carry aeronautical safety communications need to be clearly identified in the Radio Regulations.
An ITU Resolution is being developed which will be referenced in footnotes to the FSS bands concerned. The footnotes should clearly identify the safety applications of UAS in the identified frequency bands. The ResolutionIt will contain the associated regulatory provisions for specific frequency bands to enable their use to support UAS CNPC applications. It is understood that such use must be certified by aviation authorities in accordance with ICAO procedures as meeting ICAO SARPS for UAS CNPC operation. The ICAO SARPS will not address the radio regulatory safety concerns.
3. ICAO Condition: That the assignments and use of the relevant frequency bands have to be consistent with 4.10 of the Radio Regulations which recognizes that safety services require special measures to ensure their freedom from harmful interference .
No. 4.10 of the RR provides that special consideration must be given to frequencies being used for safety services. Further, No. 15.28 of the RR relates to harmful interference into such safety services.
“Recognizing the transmissions on distress and safety frequencies and frequencies used for the safety and regularity of flight require absolute international protection and that the elimination of harmful interference to such transmissions is imperative, administrations undertake to act immediately when their attention is drawn to any such harmful interference.”
Further, an ITU WRC Resolution for CNPC of UAS is being developed indicating that the freedom from harmful interference to UAS CNPC links is imperative to ensure safe operation and administrations shall act immediately when their attention is drawn to any such harmful interference. Specifically, it is envisioned that the regulatory provisions will address RR 4.10 as opposed to ICAO SARPs.
From an operational standpoint, appropriate special considerations will be reflected in the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) specified by ICAO (see # 2.8 below). These SARPs, as well as additional considerations as necessary, to include remediation of any harmful interference, would be incorporated into agreed specifications between the satellite and UAS operators. Administrations would reference these SARPS when authorizing the use of FSS for the CNPC of UAS. If the required performance criteria cannot be met, the system will not be certified by the requisite aviation authorities for use. [The 4.10 link needs to be put in the RR, not in ICAO SARPS]
4. ICAO Condition: Knowledge that any assignment operating in those frequency bands:
- is in conformity with the technical criteria of the Radio Regulations.
- Has been successfully co-ordinated including cases where co-ordination was not completed but the ITU examination of probability of harmful interference resulted in a favourable finding or any caveats placed on that assignment have been addressed and resolved such that the assignment is able to satisfy the requirements to provide BLOS communications for UAS;
- and has been recorded in the International Master Frequency Register.
What are the technical conditions being met and were these conditions satisfied in the coordination process? This needs to be transparent in practice and is not clear from the text below.
In practice the coordination agreements between satellite operators would spell out any specifics as regards the use of frequencies on a particular satellite network, and would impact any satellite/UAS operator agreement. FSS networks or channels which could not meet the necessary performance levels as a consequence of coordination would not be suitable for UAS CNPC communications and would not be certified by requisite aviation authorities for such use. The ITU is conservative in determining coordination requirements under Article 9. [The following statement may need further explanation as it does not completely describe the concern of satellites that are not fully coordinated] In practice, satellites that have not completed coordination may nonetheless be fully capable of providing safe services which are fully compliant with ICAO SARPs applicable in conjunction with providing UAS CNPC services.
When the coordination process is completed, the ITU-BR is notified by the administration proposing the new system pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the RR. After examination by the ITU-BR of the notification information, the frequency assignment is recorded in the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR). If a frequency assignment is recorded in the MIFR under RR 11.41, such an assignment is still required to protect frequency assignments of other networks with which coordination has been successfully completed and entitled to protection from other frequency assignments with which coordination has been successfully completed.
The FSS operator then has to make sure that the outstanding coordination issues are examined to determine if UAS CNPC operations can take place meeting stipulations in footnotes to the RR and provisions in ITU Resolutions related to CNPC of UAS and operate consistent with ICAO SARPS. This would be done, for example, by determining whether the affected network with which coordination has not been achieved is actually in operation and if so what the operational parameters are (e.g. orbital location and filed power levels) to ensure that any resultant impact would be acceptable. Provisions for operation would be incorporated into agreed specifications between FSS and UAS operators and subject to certification for UAS CNPC use by requisite aviation authorities.
5. ICAO Condition: That harmful interference to systems is reported in a transparent manner and addressed in the appropriate time-scale.
Rapid resolution of harmful interference is in the general interest of each satellite operator. Unless harmful interference is of the nature to be reported under Article 15 of the RR there is no day to day reporting mechanism for harmful interference. WP 4A indicates there have been very few reports of harmful interference. However, a regular update on the state of harmful interference could be included in reports to aviation authorities. ICAO SARPS could impose reporting requirements beyond those in the RR. Such ICAO requirements could be a condition of certification for UAS CNPC use by requisite aviation authorities and incorporated into agreements/contracts between FSS satellite and UAS operators.
6. ICAO Condition: That realistic worst case conditions, including an appropriate safety margin, can be applied during compatibility studies.
It is understood that the ITU-R studies being conducted already take this condition into account. WP-5B in a liaison statement to WP-4B (Document5B/Temp/232) has sought advice related to the assessment of performance in relation to the sharing studies that WP-5B is undertaking between FSS and fixed service in connection with agenda item 1.5 of WRC-15. WP-4B reply liaison statement providing guidance to WP-5B (4B/TEMP/60-E) is attached as an attachment to this working paper. Once these ITU-R studies are complete ICAO will be in a more informed position. Any additional safety margins that might be required could be added as specific line items in the yet to be developed SARPS for Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) UAS CNPC.
7. ICAO Condition: That any operational considerations for UAS will be handled in ICAO and not in the ITU.
It is expected that ITU and ICAO will carry out their mutual responsibilities in a cooperative manner, just as they have in areas involving the provision of AMS(R)S. It is important that the respective roles of ICAO and the ITU be fully understood to ensure appropriate separation of regulatory needs to be addressed in the RR and operational issues to be addressed by ICAO processes. In this context, ITU will develop the typical regulatory conditions for the intended operation of CNPC links, and then, if accepted by ICAO, ICAO will develop further technical and operational conditions to ensure safe operation through the development of SARPS. [ICAO sets all the technical requirements, perhaps on an airspace basis, and reflect in the SARPS. Systems then would have technical manuals showing how they meet those requirements using, where appropriate (e.g., approved propagation models) ITU material.]
|APPENDIX E |
|International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) |
|Liaison statement to |
|Working Party 1B (Copied to WORKING PARTY 4A, 4C, 5B, IMO and WMO FOR INFORMATION) |
|WORKING DOCUMENT TOWARDS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT NEW |
|REPORT ITU-R SM.[DYNAMIC ACCESS] |
|Spectrum management principles and spectrum engineering techniques for dynamic access to spectrum by radio systems employing cognitive capabilities |
INTRODUCTION
ICAO has been informed of WP 1B’s work on the PDNR ITU-R SM.[DYNAMIC ACCESS] ‘Spectrum management principles and spectrum engineering techniques for dynamic access to spectrum by radio systems employing cognitive capabilities’[1], and has also taken into account WP 5B’s views (Document 1B/106). Given the current development of Dynamic Spectrum Access Devices (DSAD), ICAO has the following views:
SAFETY OF AERONAUTICAL SERVICES
The protection of aeronautical safety services is critical to the safe operation of aircraft. Even minimal levels of interference can put at risk the safety of operational aircraft. Therefore, ICAO has serious concerns about DSADs seeking to share with aeronautical safety services, and recommends that these devices be excluded from operating in the same frequency bands.
COMPATIBILITY WITH AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION AND RADIOCOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
DSAD compatibility studies assume a transmitter and receiver are at the same location, ICAO notes that this is not generally true for different aeronautical systems. For example several aeronautical navigations aids only transmit information for reception by passive receivers, the majority of which are based on aircraft and are therefore highly mobile at a range of altitudes and with very large radio line of sight. Additionally, new bi-static radar technology is currently under development (see Document 5B/475, Annex 12), that geographically separate the transmitter and receiver.
As another example, some aeronautical datalink communication systems used for the control of aircraft operate on a Carrier Sense-Multiple Access (CSMA) mechanism. These systems detect power in the received channel and will not transmit should it exceed a set level. Even a small level of intermittent interference will make the receiver believe the channel is occupied and dramatically increase the system latency to pass messages to aircraft. This will reduce the system performance beyond the required levels for the safe operation of air traffic control.
CONCLUSION
Given the views expressed above, ICAO is of the opinion that aeronautical safety services used for communications and radionavigation are not compatible with the proposed DSAD concept. Such devices have the potential to cause significant disruption the both radiocommunication and radionavigation aeronautical systems, and this would be an unacceptable risk to aviation safety in ICAO’s view.
ICAO notes that the current draft of PDNR ITU-R SM.[DYNAMIC ACCESS] recommends to exclude frequency bands allocated to the radiodetermination service that are classed as safety of life. Given the above information, ICAO would recommend that the PDNR specifically excludes all terrestrial and satellite radiocommunication and radionavigation frequency bands used for aeronautical safety services.
|Status: XXXXXX | |
|Contact: XXXXXX |E-mail: XXXXXX |
|APPENDIX F |
|ICAO |
|Proposed Revision to |
|Working Document towards a Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R M.[ADS-OCEAN] on EXPANDING the OPERATIONAL BENEFITS OFAutomatic Dependent Surveillance |
|Broadcast TO OCEANIC AND REMOTE AREAS WITHOUT GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE |
| |
[Editor's note: Interference environment, relations of this application with incumbent systems/application need to be clarified. The structure of the report needs to be reviewed to avoid having similar structure to a CPM Text. Should such a report aim to be a candidate for agenda item at future WRCs, careful consideration of the report would therefore be required]
1 Introduction
[No change proposed to Section 1]
2 Types of surveillance
Beyond the traditional form of primary radar surveillance, there are the ground based interrogator and aircraft transponder systems which can provide the air traffic management system with aircraft ident, altitude, ground speed etc. These systems known as secondary surveillance radar are all internationally standardised by ICAO and transmit and receive in the 960 – 1 164 1 030-1 090 MHz band. All transponder equipped aircraft can be interrogated by terrestrial ground stations on 1 030 MHz which requests a reply from the aircraft on 1 090 MHz with standardised information that is used by air traffic management. More recently, ICAO’s vision of enhanced surveillance capabilities has resulted in development of an extended data message system in Mode S transponder, and further in Mode S Extended Squitter that provided an additional data message length capability. These systems operate in conjunction with ground based surveillance interrogators. The ground interrogators must be linked to an air traffic management facility for processing of the received aircraft data that is used to provide appropriate airspace management and separation of aircraft.
A more recent surveillance technology has also been developed and standardised by ICAO that does not require interrogations from a ground based system. The airborne system is known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)
3 Terrestrial Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast concept
Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) is the aircraft broadcast of its position (latitude and longitude), altitude, velocity, aircraft ID and other information obtained from on-board avionics systems. Every ADS-B position message includes an indication of the quality of the data which allows air traffic management to determine whether the data is of sufficient integrity to support the intended function.
The aircraft position, velocity and associated data quality indicators are usually obtained from an on-board GNSS. Current inertial navigation sensors can also provide a portion of the required accuracy and integrity data. ADS-B position messages from an inertial system are therefore usually transmitted with a declaration of lesser accuracy or integrity. However, more recent aircraft installations use an integrated GNSS and inertial navigation system to provide position, velocity and data quality indicators for the ADS-B transmission. These systems have better performance than a system based solely on GNSS, since inertial and GNSS sensors have complementary characteristics that when combined together can mitigate any potential dilution of position accuracy of each system. Altitude is obtained from the pressure altitude encoder (also used as the data source for Mode C replies).
Since ADS-B messages are broadcast on 1 090 MHz, they can be received and processed by a standardized aeronautical receiver. As a result, ADS-B supports both ground-based and airborne surveillance applications. For ADS-B surveillance, ground stations are deployed to receive and process the ADS-B messages. In some countries, there has been deployment of ADS-B ground stations where typical radar station installations are not feasible or possible. The area of coverage required is dependent on the number of ground stations. As an example of the coverage which can be achieved, a remote area not covered by radar, the installation of approximately 5 ADS-B ground stations would provide coverage for over 850,000 square kilometers of aircraft surveillance. In airborne applications, aircraft equipped with ADS-B receivers can also process the messages from other aircraft to determine the location of surrounding traffic in support of applications such as the cockpit display and traffic information (CDTI).
Some of the capabilities of ADS-B are:
a) the ground station is simpler than the stations of primary radar, secondary radar and multi-lateration. For a single ADS-B site, acquisition and installation costs are significantly lower. In many instances, the installation can be accommodated at navigation aid sites or sites with existing communications infrastructure;
b) each position report is transmitted with an indication of the integrity associated with
the data, allowing users to determine which applications the data can support; and
c) ADS-B supports both ground-based and airborne surveillance applications.
A schematic diagram of ADS-B is shown in Figure below for terrestrial use:
[pic]
Similar to radar, a limitation of ADS-B is that aircraft transmissions cannot be received beyond line of sight from a terrestrial station for processing and use by air traffic management. The propagation constraints with a terrestrial system prohibit coverage to much of the oceanic airspace, and makes coverage impractical for transpolar and other remote or underdeveloped regions. Therefore it can be seen that many areas of the world cannot be practically covered using terrestrial ADS-B stations to receive aircraft transmissions and provide the data to air traffic management. There are vast regions of the world that can be reached only by using satellite communications. The concept of ADS-B via satellite has been considered and is the only communications mechanism that has the capability to provide complete global coverage to support ADS-B beyond the present terrestrial limitations.
4 Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast concept via satellite
Currently there is a space-based system under development which could use are satellite based ADS-B receivers capable of operating from on a low earth orbiting (LEO) polar orbiting satellites system tthato would provide the opportunity for true global coverage and overcome the aforementioned limitations of terrestrial ADS-B ground stations. The planned objective is to have ADS-B receivers installed as a hosted payload on each satellite in a LEO constellation. during constellation replenishment of the 66 HIBLEO-2 system. Such a An example LEO system with 66 satellites in 6 planes would provide full global coverage. The altitude of the satellites would be is approximately 780 Km providing making it low earth orbit with lower latency than from geo-stationary satellites.
The program is expected to begin first launch in 2015 and continue until completion of its 66 satellites launch campaign in the 2017 timeframe. The HIBLEO-2 Such a system wouldill complement the land surveillance infrastructure and provide continuous global coverage of the Earth including the Polar regions. The ADS-B data, such as position, velocity and message integrity from aircraft wouldill be received by the satellite ADS-B receivers and will be routed via secure cross-link architecture connecting the satellites then to a terrestrial gateway station, before being transferred to terrestrial data networks for availability to air traffic control for processing.
FIGURE 1
Hibleo-2 global satellite network
[pic]
The above figure is deleted.
[Chairman’s note: need to remove the reference to agi from the above image]
Upon completion of the satellite constellation deployment in the 2017 timeframe Tthe system will receive aircraft positional information embedded in the ADS-B messages for all transoceanic and transpolar regions as well as from aircraft in other remote or underdeveloped regions where terrestrial ADS-B stations do not exist. The aircraft ADS-B data is expected to be transmitted in near real time to area air traffic control facilities. The satellite ADS-B system will be able to extend and augment the air navigation service provider (ANSP) terrestrial network ADS-B systems to oceans and remote regions on a global basis and in a seamless manner.
Space-based automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast architecture
A potential implementation of The proposed implementation of the satellite-based ADS-B capability over the HIBLEO-2 system is described in Figure 12. ADS-B receivers located on each satellite would receive the signals broadcast from each aircraft within line of sight (the low-Earth orbit enables the satellites to reliably detect the ADS-B signals with no modification to the aircraft equipment). The ADS-B data from all aircraft would be routed and down-linked to a Hosted Payload Operations Centre (HPOC) and aggregated. The pre-processed data from the HPOC could be integrated into existing ADS-B ground infrastructure for further processing and analysis, and then forwarded on to the appropriate ATC/ATM centres and airlines.
The Figure 12 below provides a summary of how the satellite ADS-B system could integrate with a typical terrestrial ADS-B system.
Figure 12
Concept of operations
[pic]
Implementation of athe polar orbiting LEO satellite-based ADS-B capability as shown in the above figure wouldill provide total global communications coverage to all points on the earth.).
5 Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast concept summary
[No change to Section 5]
6 Operational environment and mitigation techniques
[No change to Section 6]
7 Receive Status Studies to be performed
[Editor's Note: This section will address the need to perform compatibility studies associated with the satellite reception of ADS-B, if any.]
The satellite component of ADS-B would operate on a receive only basis and thus would not impact incumbent services. Considering that the frequency 1 090 MHz is used allocated exclusively for the use of aeronautical systems, the frequency band is not available for use by non-aeronautical systems. Accordingly, the aeronautical systems operating at this frequency in this portion of the band are standardised by ICAO, compatibility amongst these systems is assured. Further, sSince the aircraft ADS-B transmissions already exist, satellite reception of these signals does not is not anticipated to require any compatibility study.
[Delete all of current Section 8. Replace with the following text.]
8 Operational efficiencies Status from the expanded use of satellite detection of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast in oceanic and remote regions
Using the North Atlantic as an example of the most dense oceanic airspace with an average of 1000 flights per day, procedural aircraft separation standards are used, whilst providing the necessary safety of air traffic, the structured NAT OTS (North Atlantic Tracks Organised Track Structure) is limited due to the lack of positive radar or ADS-B surveillance availability to air traffic management, the end effect of fixed aircraft altitude and mach speed, results in inefficiencies for airlines and other users.
Although a number of fixed trans-Atlantic tracks exist, the bulk of air traffic operates on tracks, which vary from day to day dependent on meteorological conditions and planning. The variability of the wind patterns renders the fixed track system unnecessarily penalising in terms of flight time and consequent fuel usage. Nevertheless, the volume of traffic along the core routes is such that a complete absence of any designated tracks (i.e. a free flow system) would currently be unworkable given the need to maintain procedural separation standards in airspace largely without radar or ADS-B surveillance coverage.
Airlines are requesting more fuel-efficient flight profiles and routes that will reduce operating costs and show a return on operator investment in aircraft and avionics. It is envisioned that applying reduced separation is expected to enhance the provision of fuel-efficient profiles, altitudes and routes with minimal change to the overall NAT operations.
Advancements in aircraft design, avionics and air traffic management flight data processing systems are currently driving analysis of whether the lateral separation standard in the current NAT airspace can be reduced to increase the number of tracks available and therefore increase capacity at optimum flight levels. Under future consideration, is the potential to reduce lateral separation for aircraft operating at the flight levels associated with the NAT airspace, which can be practically achieved by establishing tracks which are spaced by ½ degree of latitude. Satellite reception of ADS-B aircraft surveillance has the capability to fully support this initiative to achieve reduced separation minima, expand capacity, while the required levels of safety are maintained.
From the perspective of traffic management flow, aircraft surveillance coverage in the NAT airspace would also contribute to efficiencies in domestic traffic flow at major airports due to improved traffic sequencing and merging. Moreover, the efficiency benefits to air traffic management in extending ADS-B coverage on a global basis bringing forth fuel savings, better cost predictability to the airlines, reduced GHG’s, shorter flight duration and optimum routing collectively contribute to a more sustainable global aviation system. The benefits described using the NAT as an example, are also anticipated to accrue in other oceanic regions including the Polar regions.
9 Assessment of Operational Efficiencies
Text to be developed:
10 Summary and Conclusions
119 Glossary of abbreviations
To be developed.
APPENDIX G
Draft Text regarding a future conference agenda item on Space-based ADS-B
ADS-B as a proven and standardised technology, supports both ground-based and airborne aircraft surveillance applications. In airborne applications, aircraft equipped with ADS-B receivers can also process the messages from other aircraft to determine the location of surrounding traffic. However in oceanic, Polar and remote regions the installation of ground based facilities is either not feasible or practical, therefore ADS-B data from aircraft operating in these areas is unavailable to air traffic management. Currently a very high percentage of the Earth’s surface is not covered by radar.
Presently at least one space-based ADS-B satellite system is under development that would provide global coverage and overcome the aforementioned limitations of terrestrial ADS-B ground stations. The planned objective is to have ADS-B receivers on these satellites. The satellite network would have the capability of receiving ADS-B position, velocity data and message integrity from aircraft in near real time, and the subsequent availability of the data to air traffic management for processing and display.
Space-based ADS-B has the potential to improve aircraft surveillance coverage of airspace in oceanic, Polar and remote regions globally. By comparison, the operational benefits of using space-based ADS-B in oceanic regions are foreseen vis-à-vis the current structured procedural separation standards using altitude, lateral distance and time separation of aircraft.
Using the North Atlantic as an example of the most dense oceanic airspace with an average of 1000 flights per day, this region of airspace has to use procedural separation standards. Whilst providing the necessary safety of air traffic, the structured NAT OTS (North Atlantic Tracks Organised Track Structure) is limited due to the lack of surveillance data availability to air traffic management, creating inefficiencies.
Although a number of fixed trans-Atlantic tracks exist, the bulk of traffic operates on tracks, which vary from day to day dependent on meteorological conditions. The variability of the wind patterns renders the fixed track system unnecessarily penalising in terms of flight time and consequent fuel usage. Nevertheless, the volume of traffic along the core routes is such that a complete absence of any designated tracks (i.e. a free flow system) would currently be unworkable given the need to maintain procedural separation standards in airspace largely without radar surveillance.
Advancements in aircraft design, avionics and air traffic management flight data processing systems are currently driving analysis of whether the lateral separation standard in the current NAT airspace can be reduced to increase the number of tracks available and therefore increase capacity at optimum flight levels, accordingly space-based ADS-B aircraft surveillance has the capability to fully support such initiatives to achieve reduced separation minima, expand capacity, while continuing the required levels of safety.
Moreover, there are efficiency benefits from extending ADS-B aircraft surveillance via satellite on a global basis that will bring forth the realisation of significant fuel savings, better cost predictability for the airlines, shorter flight times, optimum routing and altitude, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, creating efficiencies that will collectively contribute to a more sustainable global aviation system.
[Develop text regarding compatibility studies … no new work is required.
The ADS-B surveillance application operates on specific frequencies and has global interoperability. The frequency 1 090 MHz is used exclusively for the use of aeronautical systems, this frequency is not available for use by non-aeronautical systems. Accordingly, since the aeronautical systems operating at this frequency are standardised by ICAO, compatibility amongst these systems is assured. Moreover, since the aircraft ADS-B transmissions already exist, satellite reception of these signals does not require any compatibility study.
As the ADS-B application is a terrestrial air-to air and air to ground system that operates under an allocation to the aeronautical mobile route service (AM(R)S ) consideration has been given to the satellite reception of the existing ADS-B signals that would not be included under the same allocation, it is foreseen that the aircraft to satellite reception would be required to have status under an aeronautical mobile satellite route service (AMS(R)S) Earth-space.]
-----------------------
[1] Originally developed as SM.[WHITE-SPACE] “Spectrum management principles and spectrum engineering techniques for dynamic access to spectrum by radio systems employing cognitive capabilities”.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.