Final Report - ICAO
|[pic] | | Report |
| |International Civil Aviation Organization |27 September 2010 |
| | | |
| |REPORT | |
| | | |
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)
TWENTY THIRD MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F
Cairo, Egypt 19 – 27 September 2010
REPORT
1. Introduction
1.1 The meeting was preceded by a Regional Preparatory Seminar (RPS) meeting for ITU WRC-12 (19-20 April 2010). Mr. Steve Mitchell, the Rapporteur of Working Group F officially opened the meeting and expressed the gratitude of the group to the ICAO regional office for arranging the meeting facilities and for being given the chance to hold WG-F once again in Cairo. Mr Loftur Jonasson from the ICAO Secretariat, Montreal acted as the Secretary of the meeting. The papers considered in the RPS were IPs 1- 8 and IP24 with the conclusions of the RPS being found as Appendix F.
1.2 After the opening of the meeting the agenda was approved by the group. The agenda is contained in Appendix A
1.3 The list of working papers submitted for consideration by Working Group F is contained in Appendix B. The list of participants is in Appendix C.
2. Agenda Item 2 – Review, update and development of the ICAO Frequency
Spectrum Handbook
2.1 WP7 provided details from the EUR Frequency Management Group (FMG) on initial consolidated regarding the ICAO Frequency Spectrum Handbook (ICAO Doc 9718). In looking at the comments overall there appears to be two main areas of confusion:
1. The process for developing and publishing the handbook;
2. Differences in frequency planning criteria between Doc 9718 and that in use
within Europe.
Given that the next update to Doc 9718 will be in approximately 2013 and that more comments are expected, it was agreed that this paper will be considered further at future WG-F meetings.
3. Agenda item 3 – Development of material for ITU-R meetings
General
3.1 IP19 contained the draft CPM Report for WRC-12 which had been produced by the CPM Management Team towards the end of July 2010. During its presentation it was indicated that the the document identified a number of issues and concerns which the CPM management team had found. It was also stated that the draft CPM text will be considered by the ITU-R Special Committee in November 2010 who are only able to comment on the appropriateness of the text and not the content. The meeting agreed that they would use the draft CPM text for reference when considering any contribution that ICAO may wish to make to the CPM.
3.2 Also under this agenda item the meeting considered all the WRC-12 Agenda Items in order to identify any issues that may be of concern to the aeronautical community. A copy of these findings can be found as Appendix H to this report.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.3
3.3 WP2 provided a response from the ICAO Navigation Systems Panel Spectrum Sub Group (NSP SSG) to the Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R M.[UAS-bands-new alloc] being developed in ITU-R Working Party 5B. The issue of concern relates to the compatibility of AM(R)S and MLS and the NSP SSG raised a number of points that they believed needed to be addressed. After discussion within the meeting it was agreed that WG-F should review and document the individual points raised by the NSP SSG and propose changes to the draft ITU-R preliminary report which was recommended should be provided by the ICAO Secretariat to the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B. The WG-F review of the points raised can be found in Appendix D of this report and the proposed changes in Appendix E.
3.4 Directly related to section 3.1 above, IP11 provided an analysis of the regulatory requirements identified in the draft CPM Report. During its introduction, it was stated that while Methods A1, A4, A5, B1 and B2 appear in line with the ICAO Position and would help in the generation of SARPs, A2 and A3 appeared to be more of a problem. Discussion on the A3 method is considered later in this report under section 3.6.
3.5 IP12 provided a collection of relevant articles from the Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO Convention) relating to aeronautical systems, UAVs and the generation of ICAO SARPs and was intended to show how ICAO works in terms of generating SARPs. In the ensuing discussions a question was raised on whether the Control and Command of UAVs would require SARPs and it was stated by the ICAO Secretariat that it has already been identified by the UASSG that Annex 10 will be affected, and that high level SARPs describing minimum communication requirements will be required.
3.5.1 One of the main areas of discussions around IP12 concerned the role of the ICAO UASSG. Concerns were raised regarding whether the UASSG are addressing the use of UAS by State aircraft and whether they are aware of the spectrum and ITU-R work. It was confirmed that by the ICAO Secretariat that State aircraft are being addressed as part of the whole and they are aware of the spectrum related issues.
3.5.1.1 The meeting was reminded that the work of the UASSG is long term work program from the perspective of aeronautical safety, and is not necessarily in line with the work progressed to date within the ITU-R. In addition the UASSG are addressing the Convention issues first since these are the area that will allow other UAS issues to be addressed within ICAO. The meeting was reminded that the UASSG is currently putting together a document outlining the way forward for the UAS work within ICAO.
3.5.2 The meeting expressed there appreciation for IP12 since it helped provide a clearer understanding as to what was required in ICAO. One participant felt that this would make a useful contribution to the ITU however it was stated that the ITU are aware of this even if it’s not clear to the broader radio regulatory community.
3.6 IP13 provided details on the possible use of the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) to meet the some of the control link spectrum requirements for UAS. It was stated during the presentation that although an AMS(R)S allocation may guarantee regulatory priority in the resolution of interference it did not guarantee freedom from interference and that given the perceived shortfall in AMS(R)S spectrum the option to provide links using alternative regulatory means via the FSS may be a possibility. In the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised including the statement that the full 56 MHz of AMS(R)S spectrum will not be required in the short term and therefore it is likely this could be met with current AMS(R)S allocations albeit with a new system. In addition the meeting re-iterated the view that spectrum used for satellite-UA needed to be in “safety”, i.e. AMS(R)S in this case, related spectrum.
3.7 WP8 considered the radio links necessary to support UAS and under which radio regulatory service definition these should operate. During its presentation it was also stated that there is a need to be clear that the spectrum being discussed within the ITU-R is for UAS operating in non-segregated airspace as clearly identified in Resolution 421 (WRC-07) and a proposal was made for the modification of draft Resolution relating to Method A5 of the draft CPM text for WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.3. Some of the issues raised during the ensuing discussion related to the possible use of FSS instead of AMS(R)S and difficulty in maintaining the link budget for a 5GHz AM(R)S system use. Whilst it was understood that not all the UAS spectrum issues are likely to be addressed at WRC-12, WG-F/23 agreed in general with the conclusions of the paper that:
1. That the ICAO Position on WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.3 should not be changed;
2. That the proposed modification to the draft resolution in the CPM text should include
words related to non-segregated airspace;
3. That spectrum and frequency managers are encouraged to be proactive in ensuring that
the ICAO Position is agreed within States.
It was stated that the proposed modification identified in 2 above will be provided as a contribution to CPM-2 for WRC-12 as either a regional or administration contribution.
NOTE Some participants stated that they may want to revisit conclusion 1 above at a later WG-F meeting.
3.8 IP25 provided details of a recent presentation made by the European Defence Agency (EDA) on spectrum at the recent CEPT CPG PTC meeting. The meeting noted that there are a number of inconsistencies with the EDA work and participants to the meeting were requested to provide any feedback they may have to Stephen Parry (UK) asap.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4
5GHz wireless LAN (AeroMACS)
3.9 WP6 identified an approach that will allow consideration of mobile applications for the AeroMACS and whether the application is AM(R)S or not but not the spectrum requirements. During the presentation of the paper it was stated that since the responsibility for the safety and regularity of international civil aviation lies within the auspices of ICAO, then ICAO are best placed to determine whether an application is AM(R)S or not by considering which priority category it falls into under Article 44 of the Radio Regulations. It was also explained that within ICAO, the determination of whether an application is AM(R)S does not necessarily lie with the CNS Secretariat and a more universal view will be sought. During the ensuing discussion it was stated that this may cause some problems within the ITU although it was felt the concept was useful. The ICAO Secretariat stated that he take the approach forward within ICAO and look at the applications more broadly than the few initial examples in the paper. A number of participants at the meeting stated that they would endeavour to seek a view from colleagues in their States on the applications.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7
3.10 IP15 presented information on work undertaken within Egypt on spectrum requirements under WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7. During the presentation of IP15 it was shown that using the Classic Aero type system and based upon regional requirements the spectrum requirements previously identified for AMS(R)S appear to be low but still falling within the bandwidth currently identified for AMS(R)S within the Radio Regulations. During the ensuing discussion it was agreed that although this information is useful to show regional variations, the underlying point is that the spectrum requirements are still within the 2 x 10 MHz already identified. It also became clear from the presentation and discussion that support within the ICAO MID region for AMS(R)S was limited and therefore the group agreed to consider generating an output to support AMS(R)S within the Arab Spectrum Management Group regional preparations. A copy of this output can be found as Appendix G to this report.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.25
3.11 WP5 presented information on three frequency bands of direct concern to aviation that are being considered under Resolution 231 (WRC-07) as part of WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.25. In the meeting discussion it was stated that the bands under consideration, 5150 – 5250 MHz, 13.25 – 13.4 GHz and 15.43 – 15.63 GHz, are at various stages of study. It was further stated that studies on the 13 GHz and 15 GHz bands are either incorrect or very immature with further work being required. The meeting agreed to develop a possible ICAO contribution to CPM-2 for consideration by the ICAO Secretariat for submission to the CPM. The proposed contribution can be found as Appendix I to this report.
WAIC
3.12 IP8 presented details on WAIC and was similar to that presented at the RPS. The reason for the presentation was to inform the meeting regarding WAIC applications for those who were unable to attend the seminar and to enable discussion of the spectrum regulatory challenges. There was discussion regarding potential ITU-R definitions for WAIC i.e. AM(R)S and the meeting was reminded that a Radio Regulation provision exists for vessel onboard communication in the maritime environment (RR 1.79). In the resulting discussion it was felt that since a precedent had already been set, it may be possible to generate a similar definition for communication onboard an aircraft.
4. Agenda Item 4 – Development of material for regional telecommunication
organization meetings
4.1 IP9 was presented for information and contained details of the current CITEL Position for WRC-12. Most positions still need to be developed but one particular area to note was that under WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4 Resolution 420 a proposal had been made to allocate the frequency band 5000 – 5010 MHz to AM(R)S limited to surface applications.
5. Agenda item 5 - Interference from non-aeronautical sources
PLT
5.1 IP 20 was provided to the meeting for information and contained a brief on a theoretical study undertaken for a radio regulator which identified the risk of interference that may be experienced by VHF AM(R)S and ARNS in the presence of PLT systems currently being developed. The study noted that without modification of the PLT systems the risk to AM(R)S and ARNS is high. It was also noted that although the newer PLT systems are intended for static location use there is consideration being given to their use within vehicles. During the discussion it was noted that a number of States are looking at their policy framework with regards to interference due to the introduction of new technologies.
2.7 – 2.9 GHz radar
5.2 IP22 contained an update on the ongoing work within the UK on testing between mobile services below 2.7 GHz and radars operating above 2.7 GHz. The meeting noted that although little progress had been made since the last WG-F meeting a way forward has now been agreed the details of which can be found in IP22. It was also noted that a questionnaire had been sent out to administrations by the European Commission through their Radio Spectrum Committee in order to gauge the magnitude of the problem. In the ensuing discussion the meeting noted that the issue is far greater than the UK and that a number of States are now undertaking studies. It was further noted that broadband systems are in general causing interference within States and which need to be addressed by radio regulatory bodies.
LDACS
5.3 IP17 provided an update on the interference studies that are ongoing between UMTS900/DME/LDACS. During the presentation it was stated that the work is being undertaken within the CEPT as a direct mandate from the European Commission. It was also stated that to date two reports, 41 and 42, of direct interest to aviation are being produced. The meeting noted that Report 41 is addressing adjacent band issues from the mobile services operating below 960 MHz and Report 42 is addressing the mobile impact of mobile base stations to DME airborne receivers. The meeting noted the results of work completed to date and in the discussion a number of participants felt that some of the information and assumptions used in the studies may be useful for other ongoing work.
CEPT work
5.4 IP27 identified a number of groups within the CEPT where work is ongoing and which may have an impact on aviation use of spectrum. The presentation highlighted the key points of interest that could affect aviation the details of which can be found in IP27.
6. Agenda Item 6 – Any Other Business
6.1 WP3 provided details of a Canadian input paper to the ICAO Assembly currently being held in Montreal. It was explained during the presentation that the aim of the assembly paper is to obtain support for the ongoing spectrum work through Assembly Resolution A36-25. It was emphasised that this is even more important in an ever changing spectrum world particularly with the implementation of Administrative Incentive Pricing (AIP) changing the licensing cost structure for spectrum usage. The paper also introduced the notion of a long term spectrum strategy in the context of future AIP implementation. Participants of WG-F were encouraged to consult with their State representatives at the ICAO Assembly with an aim to obtain their support to the ongoing spectrum work and representation.
6.2 WP4 provided details of a further Canadian contribution to the ICAO Assembly regarding the identification of spectrum for the radio transmission of flight data from aircraft. It was explained that obtaining the data now had more emphasis due a fairly recent air disaster. Additionally it was noted by the meeting that work has been ongoing within ICAO on the issue of flight data although it is not currently mandatory to transmit this information. During the ensuing discussion although there was general support for the proposal it was felt that nothing could be done in identifying suitable spectrum until the operational requirement had been further developed. Once this was complete it was felt that the quantity and quality of spectrum could be determined to meet this need.
6.3 IP18 provided details of a European contribution to the ICAO Assembly on the requirement for a long term spectrum strategy. It was stated during its presentation that the contribution was complimentary to Assembly WP35 from the ICAO Council and identified a number of areas where a long term spectrum strategy would be beneficial such as demonstrating efficient management of spectrum used by aviation, improvements in the design aspects for aircraft and reductions in operating costs for aircraft. Concerns were raised regarding the proposed way forward particularly as it is unclear which path is driving the spectrum strategy, ATM concepts or technology. Any strategy therefore had to be very flexible to accommodate change. An issue was raised as to whether there really was a global issue or whether it is regional. A number of meeting participants stated that it clearly is a global issue since aircraft fly worldwide. Equally, a number of participants stated that there had to be a regional dimension to any strategy since the requirements for each region are different particularly with regards to concepts and costs.
6.4 WP9 contained some initial calculations on the availability and continuity requirements for UAV command and control links. It was stated during the presentation that one of the reasons for looking at the numbers was to ascertain whether the 99.8% being proposed by RTCA was the right number to use. The initial calculations in WP9 suggest that this value is not high enough with an initial figure of 99.998995% being required for continuity and 99.999975% for availability. It was also stated that further work is necessary to verify the numbers and this will be developed further by the author.
6.5 IP10 concerned proposals underway to identify 500 MHz of additional spectrum for broadband wireless access in the USA and one of the bands identified as a possible contributor to this spectrum requirement is a portion of 4200 - 4400 MHz. It was stated that it has been recognised in the USA that any change to the use of this band will require international agreement. Additionally it was also stated that a program of testing radio altimeters will take place but the lead time for obtaining the test equipment is 6 months and the aim of bringing this contribution to WG-F was to solicit help in obtaining any information participants my have already on radio altimeter characteristics and how they are used on different aircraft types. A large number of comments were made by participants of the meeting with a number being noted by the presenter of IP10. A request was made that any further information be sent to Mike Biggs (USA).
6.6 IP21 was provided for information as a summary of discussions within the EUR Frequency Management Group (FMG) on a number of points that may be of interest to WG-F. A number of points and noted by the meeting but one of specific interest was the issue of frequency congestion in the VHF Communications band. A point was raised as to why within the current SESAR work the potential increased use of VHF datalinks are being considered but are not identifying spectrum shortages. It was explained that from work undertaken within the FMG all VHF communications spectrum will reach saturation in 2020 even with the introduction of 8.33 kHz operation. The ICAO Secretariat suggested that an input to the next ACP Working Group of the Whole meeting of the VHF congestion issue would be useful.
6.7 IP26 was provided in order to assist participants understand the co-ordination process for the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and how it may provide another option/flexibility for the UAV Command and Control links. During its presentation a number of issues were covered including transponder details, leasing & back up capability, adjacent satellite interference and atmospheric degradation. In the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised particularly on FSS co-ordination, the necessity of ICAO SARPs and the communications performance requirements. The meeting agreed that these and other issues are all things that will need to be addressed in the future discussion on the use of FSS.
6.8 IP28 was a contribution dealing with issues directly affecting aviation in the AFI regions. The particular areas of concern were the availability of the software based frequency planning tool, the issue of charging for spectrum, interference and the availability of HF propagation planning software. In addition the meeting noted the active role being undertaken by aviation representatives in the region in the preparation for WRC-12 at both a national and international level.
6.8.1 With regards to the software based frequency planning tool it was stated that within the region the prototype version was being used and it was not clear as to whether this was acceptable. The ICAO Secretariat stated that this was acceptable as further updates to the tool related to more user friendly operation. It was also stated that within the next month or so a copy of the updated tool will be presented to CNS regional officers for their evaluation.
6.8.2 Concerning spectrum charging it was stated during the presentation that the AFI States are resisting charging for any aviation use for spectrum. In the discussion it was stated that a number of ANSPs are commercial companies now and some form charging is fairly common practice. The meeting was also given a brief indication in the way the UK was moving with charges.
6.8.3 On the issue of interference it appears that a number of problems relate to cross border interference. It was stated that the ICAO regional office is involved in the process in trying to achieve resolution of any issues. From the ensuing discussion it was stated that the use of the ICAO MID regional office in trying to resolve interference issues had proved very successful. Furthermore, the ICAO Secretariat stated most regional offices are carrying out a co-ordinated action across States to successfully solve interference issues.
6.8.4 With respect to the availability of HF propagation planning software, the ICAO Secretariat stated that he was personally aware of a number of HF propagation software packages and he will attempt to provide this information to the presenter of IP28.
6.9 The meeting had a brief review of IP14 which contained the report of the NSP SSG. The ICAO Secretariat had identified a number of areas that may be of interest to the meeting in the report and after considering these areas further the meeting noted that they had all been addressed.
6.10 During the meeting a short discussion took place on the potential for LTE harmonic interference to GNSS. The problem appears to be when reverse duplex FDD is used for LTE and when frequencies around 790 MHz are used by the mobile terminals. This could have implications for the use of GNSS onboard aircraft and possibly any use of GNSS for timing. The meeting agreed that the use of reverse duplex for LTE needs to be monitored and in particular at a regional/State level. It was pointed out to the meeting that some regions have already chosen to implement reverse duplex for their mobile services in the band 790 to 862 MHz. Also indicated was the potential for the harmonic issue to be a problem if TDD were to be implemented for mobile services around 790 MHz, although it is understood that this has not been studied to the same extent.
6.11 The next meeting is scheduled to take place in approximately March 2011 although the location has yet to be agreed. A decision on location is expected before the end of October 2010.
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Agenda
Appendix B - List of Working Papers
Appendix C – List of Participants
Appendix D – Consideration of WP2
Appendix E – Proposed input on AMS(R)S/MLS
Appendix F – Conclusion of Regional Preparatory Seminar
Appendix G – AMS(R)S in ICAO MID region
Appendix H – WRC-12 Agenda Item considerations
Appendix I – Proposed input on WRC-12 AI 1.25
APPENDIX A
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
23RD Meeting of THE
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL WORKING GROUP F (WG-F/23)
(Cairo, 21 – 27 September 2010)
Agenda
1. Opening and working arrangements
2. Review, update and development of the ICAO Frequency Spectrum
Handbook
WP7
3. Development of material for ITU-R meetings
CPM text - IP19
WRC AI 1.25 – WP5
WRC AI 1.4 – WP6
WRC AI 1.3 – WP2, WP8, IP11, IP12, IP13, IP25
WRC AI 1.7 – IP15, (IP16 not presented)
WAIC – IP8
4. Development of material for regional telecommunication organization
Meetings
IP9
WRC AI 1.25 – (WP5 not presented)
5. Interference from non-aeronautical sources
PLT – IP20
S band radar – IP22
LDACS – IP17
Aeronautical spectrum – IP27
6. Any Other Business
WP3, WP4, WP9, IP10, IP14, IP18, IP21, IP26, IP28
-------------------
APPENDIX B
List of Working Papers
|Working Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |
|WP1 |Rapporteur |Agenda (r1) | |
|WP2 |Gerlof Osinga |AM(R)S-ARNS/MLS compatibility analysis in the 5030 – 5091 MHz band |3 |
|WP3 |John Taylor |Support of the ICAO policy on radio frequency spectrum matters |6 |
|WP4 |John Taylor |Radio Transmission of Flight Data from aircraft and Radio Spectrum |6 |
| | |requirements | |
|WP5 |Secretary |WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.25 |3, 4 |
|WP6 |Steve Mitchell |Mobile uses of AeroMACS |3 |
|WP7 |John Mettrop |Comments on new text in ICAO Doc 9718 concerning Frequency Assignment|2 |
| | |Planning | |
|WP8 |John Mettrop |Unmanned Aircraft Systems – Appropriate Service Definitions |3 |
|WP9 |John Mettrop |Unmanned Aircraft Systems – Availability and Continuity (rev1) |6 |
List of Information Papers
|Information Paper |Source |Title |Agenda Item |
|IP1 |Secretary |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |Aviation Frequency Spectrum & the ITU World Radiocommunication | |
| | |Conferences | |
|IP2 |Steve Mitchell |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |ICAO Position for ITU WRC-12 | |
|IP3 |Mohamed Soliman |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |Arab Spectrum Management Group (ASMG) PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-12 | |
| | |AGENDA ITEMS | |
|IP4 |Navisat |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 | |
|IP5 |Secretary |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |ICAO Radio Frequency Handbook DOC 9718 – Fifth edition | |
|IP6 |Mike Biggs |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |ITU WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4 | |
|IP7 |John Taylor |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |ITU WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.3 | |
|IP8 |Joe Cramer |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS, 3 |
| | |Update on WAIC Issues | |
|IP9 |John Taylor |CITEL PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-12 AGENDA ITEMS |4 |
|IP10 |Mike Biggs |Initiation of Studies Regarding Portions of the 4 200-4 400 MHz Radio|6 |
| | |Altimeter Band | |
|IP11 |Secretary |A short analysis of the draft regulatory text examples on WRC-12 |3 |
| | |Agenda Item 1.3, contained in ITU-R Document CPM11-2/1-E (13 August | |
| | |2010), Draft CPM REPORT | |
|IP12 |Secretary |Excerpts from the |3 |
| | |CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION | |
| | |relevant to frequency spectrum requirements for aeronautical systems,| |
| | |including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and the development of SARPs| |
|IP13 |Mike Biggs |Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under The Fixed Satellite |3 |
| | |Service Allocation | |
|IP14 |Felix Butsch |REPORT OF THE ICAO NSP SPECTRUM SUB-GROUP MEETING |6 |
|IP15 |Navisat |ITU-R WP4C (June 2010) input paper: |3 |
| | |WRC-12 AGENDA ITEM 1.7 GLOBAL ESTIMATED SPECTRUM REQUIREMENTS FOR | |
| | |AMS(R)S (r1) | |
|IP16 |Navisat |ITU-R WP4C (June 2010) input paper: |3 |
| | |WRC-12 AGENDA ITEM 1.7 PROPOSALS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF METHOD B | |
| | |AND FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT CPM TEXT | |
|IP17 |Eric Allaix |On going studies regarding UMTS900/DME/LDACS issue |5 |
|IP18 |John Mettrop |Requirement for a Long Term Radio Frequency Spectrum Strategy |6 |
|IP19 |John Mettrop |DRAFT CPM TEXT |3 |
|IP20 |John Mettrop |POWER LINE TELECOMMUNICATION |5 |
|IP21 |John Mettrop |EUR Frequency Management Group Meeting – Summary of Discussions |6 |
|IP22 |John Mettrop |S-Band Radar Compatibility with 2.6 GHz Mobile Services Update on |5 |
| | |Progress Made | |
|IP23 |ITU Secretariat |WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS |
| | |WRC-12 Preparations | |
|IP24 |Frequency Spectrum Seminar|WRC-12 Regional Planning Seminar Presentation: |RPS Outcome |
| | |Outcome from Seminar | |
|IP25 |Stephen Parry |European studies on military UAS spectrum requirements |4 |
|IP26 |Abdolmajid Khalilzadeh |FIXED SATELLITE SERVICE and UAS |6 |
|IP27 |John Mettrop |Aeronautical Spectrum- Current ECC Studies on Issues Outside of the |5 |
| | |WRC Process | |
|IP28 |Omodele Arowolo |WACAF/ESAF BRIEF REPORT |6 |
APPENDIX C
List of Participants
|NAME |TITLE & ADDRESS |
|STATES | |
|AUSTRALIA | |
|Mr. Eddy D'Amico | |
| |Manager RF Spectrum |
| |Airservices Australia |
| |GPO Box 367 |
| |Canberra ACT 2601 |
| |AUSTRALIA |
| |Fax: (61-2) 6268 5191 |
| |Tel: (61-2) 6268 5443 |
| |Mobile: (61) 427 706 887 |
| |Email:eddy.damico@ |
|BAHRAIN | |
|Mr. Ebrhaim Heji | |
| |Computer Analyst |
| |Civil Aviation Affairs |
| |P.O.Box 586 |
| |KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN |
| |Fax: (973-17) 329 966 |
| |Tel: (973-17) 329 903 |
| |Mobile: (973) 3946 3363 |
| |Email: ehiji@.bh |
|BRAZIL | |
|Mr. Geandro Luiz de Mattos | |
| |Technical Consultant |
| |Brazilian Airspace Control Department |
| |Av. General Justo, |
| |160-Centro-Rio de Janeiro |
| |RJ-BRAZIL 20021-130 |
| |Fax: (55-21) 2101 6099 |
| |Tel: (55-21) 2101-6213 |
| |Email: geandroluiz@.br |
| | |
|Mr. Wadir Galluzzi Nunes |Technical Consultant |
| |Brazilian Airspace Control Department |
| |Av. General Justo, |
| |160-Centro-Rio de Janeiro |
| |RJ-BRAZIL 20021-130 |
| |Fax: (55-21) 2101 6099 |
| |Tel: (55-21) 2101-6392 |
| |Mobile: (55-21) 8181 6005 |
| |Email: ddte4@.br |
|CAMEROON | |
|Mr. Ntongmo Pierre Olivier | |
| |Chief of Service of CNS |
| |P.O.Box 6998 |
| |Yaoundé, |
| |CAMEROON |
| |Fax: (237) 2230 3362 |
| |Tel: (237) 2230 3090 |
| |Mobile: (237) 9997 6382 |
| |Email: ntongmo@yahoo.de |
|CANADA | |
|Mr. John Taylor | |
| |Aeronautical Regulations and Spectrum Specialist |
| |Transport Canada |
| |4th Floor TWR C |
| |Place De Ville 330 Sparks St. |
| |Ottawa, Ontario K1A0N8 CANADA |
| |Fax: (1-613) 998 7416 |
| |Tel: (1-613) 993 4061 |
| |Email: john.taylor@tc.gc.ca |
|EGYPT | |
|Ms. Heba Mostafa Mohamed | |
| |Supervisor AIS Unit and Technical Coordinator |
| |Ministry of Civil Aviation |
| |Cairo Airport Road |
| |Cairo - EGYPT |
| |Fax: (202) 2268 5420 |
| |Tel: (202) 2417 5389 |
| |Mobile: (2014) 7222 395 |
| |Email: heba.mostafa1@ |
| | |
|Ms. Laila Abdel Haliem El Sheikh |General Manager of Communication |
| |National Air Navigation Services Company |
| |Ministry of Civil Aviation |
| |Cairo Airport Road |
| |Cairo - EGYPT |
| |Fax: (202) 2267 7100 |
| |Tel: (202) 22677100 |
| |Mobile: (20-10)169 5220 |
| |Email: laila_elsheikh@ |
| | |
|Mr. Mohamed Medhat M. Mokhtar |CEO Consultant/NAVISAT |
| |Ministry of Civil Aviation |
| |Cairo Airport Road |
| |Cairo - EGYPT |
| |Fax: (202) 2268 1351 |
| |Tel: (202) 2696 9668 |
| |Mobile: (20-12) 2476 962 |
| |Email: medhat_mokhtar@.eg |
| | |
|Mr. Mohamed Sayed Khalil |Frequency Coordination Department/NAVISAT |
| |Ministry of Civil Aviation |
| |Cairo Airport Road |
| |Cairo - EGYPT |
| |Fax: (202) 2268 1351 |
| |Tel: (202) 2696 0668 |
| |Mobile: (20-11) 084 6480 |
| |Email: ms_khalil@.eg |
| | |
|Mr. Sameh Mohamed Hussein Mohamed |Manager of Extended Range Communication Dept |
| |National Air Navigation Services Company |
| |Ministry of Civil Aviation |
| |Cairo Airport Road |
| |Cairo - EGYPT |
| |Fax: (202) 2267 7100 |
| |Tel: (202) 2265 7941 |
| |Mobile: (20-10) 381 5137 |
| |Email: sameh.mohamed@ |
| |s_mahdali@ |
|FRANCE | |
|Mr. Eric Allaix | |
| |Head of Radio Spectrum and Frequency Management Office |
| |DSNA |
| |50 Rue Henry Farman |
| |75015-Paris |
| |FRANCE |
| |Fax: (33-1) 5809 4820 |
| |Tel: (33-1) 5809 4812 |
| |Mobile: (33) 613 165223 |
| |Email: eric-allaix@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |
|Ms. Christine Mengelle |Engineer |
| |Thales Alenia Space |
| |26 avenue J.F. Champollion BP 33787 |
| |31037 Toulouse Cedex 1 |
| |FRANCE |
| |Fax: (33-5) 3435 6866 |
| |Tel: (33-5) 3435 6046 |
| |Mobile: (33-6) 8053 3316 |
| |Email: |
| |christine.mengelle@ |
| | |
|Mr. Claude Pichavant |ICCAIA Member for ACP |
| |AIRBUS |
| |316 Route de Bayonne BP M01 141/2 |
| |31060 Toulouse Cedex |
| |FRANCE |
| |Tel: (33-5) 6193 5788 |
| |Mobile: (33-6) 2245 2389 |
| |Email: claude.pichavant@ |
|IRAQ | |
|Mr. Anmar Yousif Mahdy | |
| |Engineer Assist |
| |Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Baghdad International Airport |
| |Baghdad - IRAQ |
| |Mobile: (964-770) 255 1161 |
| |Email: anmarfr@ |
| | |
|Mr. Fouad Ahmed Salman |Technical Supervisor |
| |Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Baghdad International Airport |
| |Baghdad - IRAQ |
| |Mobile: (964-770) 349 3984 |
| | |
|Mr. Hayder Akram Ibrahim |Engineer Assist |
| |Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Baghdad International Airport |
| |Baghdad - IRAQ |
| |Mobile: (964-770) 252 3146 |
| |Email: hayder.iraqcaa@ |
|ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN | |
|Mr. Ali Haji Mohammad Hasan Ashtiani | |
| |Aviation Frequency Expert |
| |Iranian Airports Company |
| |Mehrabad International Airport |
| |Tehran - ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN |
| |Fax: (9821) 4454 4001 |
| |Tel: (9821) 4454 4013 |
| |Email: ashtiani59@ |
| |a.hajimohammad@airport.ir |
| | |
|Mr. Mojtaba Chatrrooz |Aviation Frequency Expert |
| |Iranian Airports Company |
| |Mehrabad International Airport |
| |Tehran - ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN |
| |Fax: (9821) 4454 4001 |
| |Tel: (9821) 4454 4013 |
| |Email: majtaba.chatrrooz@ties.itu.int |
| |m.chatrrous@airport.ir |
|KUWAIT | |
|Eng. Fahad Albaloushi | |
| |Superintendent of Communication Equipments |
| |Directorate General of Civil Aviation |
| |P.O. Box 17 Safat 13001 |
| |State of KUWAIT |
| |Fax: (965-2) 431 9232 |
| |Tel: (965-2) 431 2977 |
| |Mobile: (965) 6607 2288 |
| |Email: ned-comm@kuwait-.kw |
| | |
|Mr. Saud Ali Al Mutairi |Director, Navigational Eq. Department |
| |Directorate General of Civil Aviation |
| |P.O.Box 17 |
| |Safat, 13001 |
| |State of KUWAIT |
| |Fax: (965-2) 431 9232 |
| |Tel: (965-2) 476 0421 |
| |Mobile: (965) 9904 0805 |
| |Email: ned@kuwait-.kw |
|LIBYA | |
|Mr. Meloud E. Omar | |
| |Chief of Communication Unit |
| |Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Tripoli International Airport |
| |LIBYA |
| |Fax: (218-21) 5630 446 |
| |Tel: (218-21) 5630 446 |
| |Mobile: (218-92) 519 4677 |
| |Email: meludomar@ |
| | |
|Mr. Mohamed M. Etwer |Navaids Engineer |
| |Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Tripoli International Airport |
| |LIBYA |
| |Fax: (218-21) 5630 215 |
| |Tel: (218-21) 5630 215 |
| |Mobile: (218-92) 519 4678 |
|NETHERLANDS | |
|Mr. Gerlof Osinga | |
| |Senior Manager Aviation and Maritime |
| |P.O.Box 450 |
| |9700 Al Groningen |
| |THE NETHERLANDs |
| |Tel: (31-6) 353 484 95 |
| |Email: gerlof.osinga@at-ez.nl |
|NEW ZEALAND | |
|Mr. Alan R. Jamieson | |
| |Managing Director |
| |Added Value Applications Ltd (AVA) |
| |P.O.Box 25692, St. Heliers, |
| |Auckland 1740, |
| |NEW ZEALAND |
| |Tel: (64-9) 575 6100 |
| |Mobile: (64-21) 420 941 |
| |Email: ajamieson@ava.co.nz |
|NIGERIA | |
|Mrs. Omodele Adesola Arowolo | |
| |Deputy General Manager (CNS) |
| |Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority |
| |Aviation House, Head Quarters |
| |P.M.B 21029, 21038, Ikeja |
| |Lagos, NIGERIA |
| |Fax: (234) 1278 0438 |
| |Tel: (234) 1683 94131 |
| |Mobile: (234-80) 5709 9623 |
| |Email: omodelearowolo@ |
|OMAN | |
|Mr. Ali Humaid Al-Adawi | |
| |Superintendent Standards |
| |Directorate General of Meteorology & Air Navigation (DGMAN) |
| |Muscat International Airport |
| |P.O.Box 1 - Code 111 |
| |Muscat, SULTANATE OF OMAN |
| |Fax: (968-24) 519 930 |
| |Tel: (968-24) 519 699 |
| |Mobile: (968) 9943 3003 |
| |Email: alialadawi@.om |
| | |
|Mr. Saleh Abdullah Al-Harthy |Chief Air Communication Network |
| |Directorate General of Meteorology & Air Navigation (DGMAN) |
| |Muscat International Airport |
| |P.O.Box 1 - Code 111 |
| |Muscat, SULTANATE OF OMAN |
| |Fax: (968-24) 519 930 |
| |Tel: (968-24) 519 789 |
| |Mobile: (968) 9520 5073 |
| |Email: saleh@.om |
|UNITED KINGDOM | |
|Mr. John Mettrop | |
| |Technical Manager |
| |Civil Aviation Authority |
| |CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway |
| |London WC2B 6TE |
| |UNITED KINGDOM |
| |Tel: (44) 20 7453 6531 |
| |Email: john.mettrop@caa.co.uk |
| | |
|Mr. Mohamed El Amin |Director, Regulatory Policy & Int’l Spectrum Management |
| |The Boeing Company |
| |Heathrow House, Bath Road, Hounslow Middlesex TW5 9QQ |
| |UNITED KINGDOM |
| |Fax: (44) 208235 5608 |
| |Tel: (44) 208235 500 |
| |Mobile: (44) 7739 499 583 |
| |Email: mohamed.elamin@ |
| | |
|Mr. Stephen Parry |Spectrum Manager |
| |NATS Corporate and Technical Centre |
| |4000 Parkway, Whiteley |
| |Fareham, Hampshire |
| |PO15 7FL UNITED KINGDOM |
| |Fax: (44-1) 489 444 013 |
| |Tel: (44-1) 489 61 6454 |
| |Mobile: (44) 7909 877 494 |
| |Email: stephen.parry@nats.co.uk |
| | |
|Mr. Steve Mitchell |NATS Spectrum Manager (ACP WG-F Rapporteur) |
| |Corporate and Technical Centre, 4000-4200 Parkway, |
| |Whiteley, Fareham |
| |Hampshire PO15 7FL |
| |UNITED KINGDOM |
| |Fax: (44-1) 489 444013 |
| |Tel: (44-1) 489 444646 |
| |Mobile: (44) 777 1811626 |
| |Email: steve.mitchell@nats.co.uk |
| | |
|Mr. Tony Azzarelli |Director- Azzurra Telecom Access |
| |European Space Agency (ESTEC) |
| |27 Queens Walk, |
| |W5 1TP London |
| |UNITED KINGDOM |
| |Tel: (44-20) 8997 2987 |
| |Mobile: (44) 7879 690 167 |
| |Email: tony@azzurra- |
|UNITED STATES | |
|Mr. Abdolmajid Khalilzadeh | |
| |Senior Principal Engineer |
| |INTELSAT |
| |3400 International Drive, N.W. |
| |Washington D.C. 20008-3006 |
| |UNITED STATES |
| |Fax: (1-202) 944 7870 |
| |Tel: (1-202) 944 7679 |
| |Email: abdolmajid.khalilzadeh@ |
| | |
|Mr. Dante Ibarra |Senior Engineer |
| |Federal Communications Commission |
| |445 12th St. |
| |Washington DC 20554 |
| |UNITED STATES |
| |Fax: (1-202) 418 0398 |
| |Tel: (1-202) 418 0610 |
| |Mobile: (1-202) 230 1983 |
| |Email: dante.ibarra@ |
| | |
|Mr. Joseph Cramer |Regional Director |
| |The Boeing Company |
| |1200 Vilson Blvd. |
| |Arlington, VA 22209 |
| |UNITED STATES |
| |Tel: (1-703) 465 3486 |
| |Mobile: (1-540) 409 1071 |
| |Email: joseph.cramer@ |
| | |
|Mr. Michael Biggs |Senior Engineer, |
| |FAA Spectrum Engineering Services |
| |800 Independence Ave Sw, |
| |Washington DC 20591 |
| |UNITED STATES |
| |Fax: (1-202) 267 5901 |
| |Tel: (1-202) 267 8241 |
| |Mobile: (1-202) 236 3544 |
| |Email: michael.biggs@ |
| | |
|Mr. Brandon Mitchell |Telecommunications Specialist |
| |1401 Constitution Ave. N.W |
| |Washington D. C. 20230 |
| |UNITED STATES |
| |Fax: (1-202) 501 8189 |
| |Tel: (1-202) 482 4487 |
| |Mobile: (1-571) 217 0330 |
| |Email: bmitchell@ntia. |
|ORGANISATIONS | |
|EUROCONTROL | |
|Mr. Christian Pelmoine | |
| |Spectrum Manager |
| |EUROCONTROL |
| |96 Rue de la fusée |
| |Brussels, |
| |BELGIUM |
| |Tel: (32-2) 729 3375 |
| |Email: christian.pelmoine@eurocontrol.int |
|ICAO | |
|Mr. Loftur Jonasson | |
| |Technical Officer |
| |999 University Street, Montreal, |
| |H3C 5H7, Quebec |
| |CANADA |
| |Fax: (001) 514 954 6759 |
| |Tel: (001) 514 954 8219 Ext. 7130 |
| |Email: ljonasson@icao.int |
|ITU | |
|Mr. Wolfgang Frank | |
| |Chief Terrestrial Services, Radiocommunication Bureau |
| |International Telecommunication Union (ITU) |
| |Place des Nations |
| |CH-1211 Geneva 20 |
| |SWITZERLAND |
| |Fax: (41-22) 730 5785 |
| |Tel: (41-22) 730 5062 |
| |Mobile: (41) 79 249 4875 |
| |Email: wolfgang.frank@itu.int |
APPENDIX D
This aim of this flimsy is to explain to WGF member the material take into account in the contribution to next 5B meeting on the AM(R)S-ARNS/MLS compatibility analysis in the 5030 – 5091 MHz band.
The ACP WGF is invited to: Correct equation (1) section 3 and verify the consequent tables.
Action made: correction of the equation has been done in the annex 1 of the PDNR. Calculation were made with the new equation and no consequence was needed in table 3. However some impact can occurs in others tables since this equation is used throughout this annex to establish the subsequent equations in order to derive numerical results in distance and frequency separations. A note 9 has then been added at the end of equation (1)
Concur with the NSP recommendation to ICAO not to endorse the WP 65 findings in terms of decreased distance and frequency separations proposed therein to ensure AM(R)S-MLS compatibility using the afore mentioned reduced alternative MLS interference threshold
Action made: the corresponding section in the annex 1 of the PDNR has been deleted (just below table 2) The corresponding values in Tables 3 and 6 have been also deleted.
To note that Table 3 is not consistent with previous studies that ICAO submitted to ITU that for the co-channel protection of MLS receiver it requires a separation distance to be over the horizon. See Annex 10 Volume I, Attachment G paragraph 9.3.1.
As this statement related to another study, it can’t be reflected in the annex 1 of the PDNR. No action is then needed at this stage to ITU level. The coordination issue will be addressed in ICAO.
To note that Table 4 implies that the freedom of ICAO to re-assign MLS channels in an ICAO region , as is the case in Europe with in the COM-3 assignments table, will be lost and that since part of the MLS band would have to be assigned exclusively to the proposed UAV AM(R)S ]
See section 3.6 below
To update the WP65 Annex 1 equation (10) calculation assuming a w.c. MLS DPSK/OCI gain of 8 dBi, i.e. with an MLS EIRP of 51 instead of 43 dBm.
Action made: Equation (10) has been updated and the consequent table 7 aligned in the annex 1 of the PDNR. It is also proposed to add a note below the table to underline the inconsistency of the propagation model retained in this specific calculation.
To take into account the capacity constraints as given in section B2 of this paper.
Taken by the addition of section 3.2 at the end of annex 1 of the PDNR. A section 3.1 was also added adequately.
To note the comments as provided by a manufacturer of UAV systems with respect to the data-link requirements.
As approved during Tuesday discussions, this material was not included in the ICAO contribution to ITU.
APPENDIX E
Proposed ICAO’s modifications to the PDNR ITU-R M.[UAS-BANDS-NEW-ALLOC], including NSP comments, in the reply to 5B liaison statement on the sharing in the band 5 030-5 091 MHz between MLS and a possible new aeronautical mobile-(route) service (AM(R)S) to support UA terrestrial component.
The modifications made are highlighted in blue.
|Radiocommunication Study Groups |[pic] |
| | |
| | |
|Received: |Document 5B2b-3-E |
|Source: 5B/417 annex 23, 5B/480, 5B/489, 5B/503 and 5B/504 | |
|Subject: WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 | |
|Resolution 421 (WRC-07) | |
| |18 May 2010 |
| |English only |
|5B2b |
|PRELIMINARY DRAFT NEW REPORT ITU-R M.[UAS-BANDS-NEW-ALLOC] |
|FREQUENCY BAND STUDY TO SUPPORT CONTROL LINKS |
|FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) |
| |
EDITOR’S NOTE : CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO KEEP THIS REPORT AS A WHOLE OR THE NEED TO PREPARE A SEPARATE REPORT FROM THE MATERIAL CURRENTLY CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT TO BE PROCESSED SEPARATELY DEALING WITH NEW ALLOCATIONS FOR UAS COMMUNICATIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE A MORE COMPLETE STATUS THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE REPORT.
1 Introduction
Significant growth is forecast in the unmanned aircraft (UA) systems (UAS) sector of aviation. The current state of the art in UAS design and operation is leading to the rapid development of UAS applications to fill many diverse requirements. [Current and future UAS operations may include scientific research, search and rescue operations, hurricane and tornado tracking, volcanic activity monitoring and measurement, mapping, forest fire suppression, weather modification (e.g. cloud seeding), surveillance, communications relays, agricultural applications, environmental monitoring, emergency management, and law enforcement applications.]
Though UA have traditionally been used in segregated airspace where separation from other air traffic can be assured, some administrations expect broad deployment of UA in nonsegregated airspace shared with manned aircraft. If UA operate in nonsegregated civil airspace, they must be integrated safely and adhere to operational practices that provide an acceptable level of safety comparable to that of a conventional manned aircraft. In some cases, those practices will be identical to those of manned aircraft. Thus it is envisioned that UA will operate alongside manned aircraft in nonsegregated airspace using methods of control that could make the location of the pilot transparent to air traffic control (ATC) authorities and airspace regulators.
Because the pilot is located remotely from the UA, bandwidth will be required to support, among other things, UA telemetry data, telecommand messages, and the relay of ATC communications. Since this bandwidth will be used to ensure the safety of life and property, the service using it is therefore a safety service. It is also expected that the characteristiUA Control Station (UACS) cs of the information and associated safety considerations will necessitate user authentication, and interference resilience. Even for autonomous UAS operations, some bandwidth will be required for emergencies as well as for selected operating conditions. If the spectrum requirements of UAS operations cannot be accommodated within existing aviation spectrum allocations, additional safety communication links such as aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S), aeronautical mobile satellite (route) service (AMS(R)S), or both may be necessary to support UAS operations.
The goal of airspace access for appropriately equipped UAS requires a level of safety similar to that of an aircraft with a pilot onboard. The safe operation of UAS outside segregated airspace requires addressing the same issues as manned aircraft, namely integration into the air traffic control system. Because some UAS may not have the same capabilities as manned aircraft to safely and efficiently integrate into nonsegregated airspace, they may require communications link performance that exceeds that which is required for manned aircraft. In the near term, the most critical component of UAS safety is the communication link between the remote pilot’s control station (UACS) and the UA.
Radiocommunication is the primary method for remote control of the unmanned aircraft. Seamless operation of unmanned and manned aircraft in nonsegregated airspace requires high-availability communication links between the UA vehicle and the UA control station (UACS). In addition, radio spectrum is required for various sensor applications that are integral to UAS operations including on-board radar systems used to track nearby aircraft, terrain, and obstacles to navigation.
The objective of this study is to identify spectral potential new allocations bands in which the control and non-payload communications (CNPC) links of future UAS can operate reliably without causing harmful interference to incumbent services and systems.
The technical information given in this paper is not relevant for operational purposes.
2 Terminology
2.1 Radiocommunication definitions
Control and non-payload communications (CNPC): The radio links, used to exchange information between the UA and UACS (UA Control Station), that ensure safe, reliable, and effective UA flight operation. The functions of CNPC can be related to different types of information such as : telecommand messages, non-payload telemetry data, support for navigation aids, air traffic control voice relay, air traffic services data relay, target track data, airborne weather radar downlink data, non-payload video downlink data.
Unmanned aircraft (UA): designates all types of aircraft remotely controlled.
UA control station (UACS): facilities from which a UA is controlled remotely.
Sense and avoid (S&A): S&A corresponds to the piloting principle “see and avoid” used in all air space volumes where the pilot is responsible for ensuring separation from nearby aircraft, terrain and obstacles.
Unmanned aircraft system (UAS): consists of the following subsystems:
• unmanned aircraft (UA) subsystem (i.e. the aircraft itself);
• control station (UACS) subsystem;
• air traffic control (ATC) communication subsystem (not necessarily relayed through the UA);
• sense and avoid (S&A) subsystem; and
• payload subsystem (e.g. video camera…)[1].
Control and non-payload communications (CNPC): The radio links, used to exchange information between the UA and UACS, that ensure safe, reliable, and effective UA flight operation. The functions of CNPC can be related to the following types of information that are exchanged:
Or
Control and non-payload communications (CNPC): The radio links, used to exchange information between the UA and UACS, that ensure safe, reliable, and effective UA flight operation.
Forward Link: Communication from the UACS to the UA through a satellite (see Figure 1).
Return Link: Communication from the UA to the UACS through a satellite (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Definition – Forward link & Return link
[pic]
UA-control station (UACS): facilities from which a UA is controlled remotely.
Sense and avoid (S&A): S&A corresponds to the piloting principle “see and avoid” used in all air space volumes where the pilot is responsible for ensuring separation from nearby aircraft, terrain and obstacles.
Unmanned aircraft (UA): designates all types of aircraft remotely controlled
Unmanned aircraft system (UAS): consists of the following subsystems:
• Unmanned aircraft (UA) subsystem (i.e. the aircraft itself);
• Control station (UACS) subsystem;
• Air traffic control (ATC) communication subsystem (not necessarily relayed through the UA);
• Sense and avoid (S&A) subsystem; and
• Payload subsystem (e.g. video camera…)[2].
3 Review of radiocommunication spectrum requirements
In order to ascertain the amount of spectrum needed for UAS control links, it is necessary to estimate the non-payload UAS control link bandwidth spectrum requirements for safe, reliable, and routine operation of UAS. The estimated throughput requirements of a single generic UA and long-term bandwidth spectrum requirements for UAS non-payload control link operations through 2030 have previously been studied and can be found in ITU-R Report M.[UAS-SPEC].
The report provides the analyses for determining the amount of spectrum required for the operation of a prospected projected number of UAS sharing non-segregated airspace with manned air vehicles as required by Resolution 421 (WRC-07) and in response to Agenda item 1.3 (WRC-12).
The Report estimates the total spectrum requirements covering both terrestrial and satellite requirements in a separate manner. Deployment of UAS will require access to both terrestrial and satellite spectrum.
The maximum amount of spectrum required for UAS are:
– 34 MHz for terrestrial systems,
– 56 MHz for satellite systems.
[Note: New text need to be developed to introduce the Figures 3-1 and 3-2]
Doc 5B/504 proposed to move the text between the 2 “*”after the principles below
Figure 2 illustrates the kinds of terrestrial line-of-sight links in the system.
*Figure 3-12
Links involved in LOS (line-of-sight) communications
[pic]
For LOS links:
– the remote pilot stations satisfy the definition No. 1.81 (aeronautical station) of the Radio Regulations (RR);
– the UA corresponds to definition No. 1.83 (aircraft station) of the RR.
Therefore AM(R)S, the aeronautical-mobile service (AMS) and the mobile service (MS) could be considered for links 1 and 2. *
[Editorial note: The following principles summarize the discussion during the debate at the November 10 Meeting. The Text below may need to be revised. Contributions to the May 10 Meeting of WP 5B are invited.]
The following principles apply to service allocations and the use of frequencies for the satellite component of UAS radiocommunications within the scope of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3:
1) Under No. 191 of the ITU Constitution, international telecommunications must give absolute priority to all telecommunications concerning safety of life.
2) All radiocommunications directly with an unmanned aircraft within the scope of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 are radiocommunications to support the safe operation of unmanned aircraft.All UA radiocommunications within the scope of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 are radiocommunications concerning safety of life.
3) No. 1.59 of the RR states that any radiocommunication service used permanently or temporarily for the safeguarding of human life and property is a safety service.
4) No. 4.10 of the RR states that Member States recognize that the safety aspects of radionavigation and other safety services require special measures to ensure their freedom from harmful interference and that it is necessary therefore to take this factor into account in the assignment and use of frequencies.
5) It is recognized that the aeronautical safety of life aspects need to be treated within ICAO in cooperation with other national and regional civil aviation organizations through the development of new standards and recommended practices (SARPs) and new minimum operational performance standards (MOPS), as appropriate.
6) Regulatory matters that may affect other non-aeronautical radio services are matters to be addressed by administrations within the ITU framework.
67) Any special measures as referred to above must be clear, and implementable in practice and designed to avoid creating difficult regulatory situations.
78) Taking No. 1.59 of RR into account, provided existing allocations to services described hereafter and in frequency bands listed in Section 5 can support safety of life UAS radiocommunications, existing allocations should be considered before considering the need for new allocations.
9) Administrations may utilize non-AMS(R)S satellite allocations to support UAS control link communications utilizing an appropriate ITU-R Resolution or Recommendation to achieve a level of protection equivalent to that of an AMS(R)S allocation. Under such circumstances, the system operator would be required to comply with the technical and non-technical requirements specified in the ITU-R Resolution or Recommendation. Such operation would not confer any additional priority or rights upon the UAS control link communications vis-à-vis other primary allocations.
Figure 3 depicts the various kinds of satellite links in the system.
Figure 3-2
Links involved in BLOS (beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) communications via satellite
[pic]
For BLOS links, three cases need to be considered.
Case 1: Mobile control stationUACS
– the UA corresponds to definition No. 1.84 (aircraft Earth station) of the RR;
– the satellite corresponds to definition No. 1.64 (space station) of the RR;
– the UAmobile UACS (case of mobile remote pilot station) corresponds to definition No. 1.68 (mobile Earth station) of the RR.
Therefore, from the Radio Regulations point of view, the services AMS(R)S, the aeronautical-mobile satellite service (AMSS), and the mobile-satellite service (MSS) for links 2 and 3 could be considered if the allocation is on a Primary basis. The service MSS for links 1 and 4 could also be considered if allocated on a Primary basis. In the case of mobile UACSa remote pilot station located on the Earth’s surface, MSS except aeronautical for links 1 and 4 could be considered if the allocation is on a Primary basis.
Case 2: Fixed control stationUACS
– the UA corresponds to definition No. 1.84 (aircraft Earth station) of the RR;
– the satellite corresponds to definition No. 1.64 (space station) of the RR;
– the remote pilot stationfixed UACS (case of fixed remote pilot station) or the gateway station corresponds to definition No. 1.63 (Earth station) of the RR.
Therefore, from the Radio Regulations point of view, the services AMS(R)S, AMSS and MSS for links 2 and 3 could be considered. The service FSS f For links 1 and 4, the fixed-satellite service (FSS) could be considered.
Case 3: Control station providing feeder link station functions
– the UA corresponds to definition No. 1.84 (aircraft Earth station) of the RR;
– the satellite corresponds to definition No. 1.64 (space station) of the RR;
– the UACS remote pilot station or the gateway station corresponds to definition No. 1.82 (aeronautical Earth station) of the RR.
Therefore, from the Radio Regulations point of view, the services AMS(R)S, AMSS and MSS for links 2 and 3 could be considered. The services FSS, AMSS, AMS(R)S for links 1 and 4 could be considered.
4 Criteria for evaluating candidate frequency bands
Current UAS use a wide range of frequency bands for control of the UA in segregated airspace. Systems operate on frequencies ranging from VHF (72 MHz) up to Ku-Band (15 GHz) for both line-of-sight (LOS) and beyond line-of-sight (BLOS). None of these bands currently have has the safety aspect required to enable UA flight in non-segregated airspace. In certain situations, the UA communications are carried via satellite services within FSS frequency bands. This has proven to be very effective, due to the availability of wideband FSS spectrum, in promoting advancement of UAS technology. In choosing bands for reallocation as UAS safety spectrum, tThe following criteria should be considered when evaluating frequency bands for UAS operation:
Or
The following criteria have been considered:
Controlled-access spectrum: Each of the potential solutions should be evaluated on whether they will operate in spectrum that has some type of controlled access to enable the limitation and prediction of levels of interference.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) position on AM(R)S and AMS(R)S spectrum: To date, the ICAO position is to ensure that allocations used for UAS command and control, ATC relay and S&A in non-segregated airspace are in the AM(R)S, AMS(R)S and/or aeronautical radionavigation service (ARNS).
There are four levels for AM(R)S and AMS(R)S allocations:
1) Spectrum that is or could be explicitly and exclusively allocated to AM(R)S or AMS(R)S.
2) Spectrum that is or could be explicitly allocated to AM(R)S or AMS(R)S but shared with other “aviation services” managed by civil aviation authorities.
3) Spectrum that is or could be allocated explicitly to AM(R)S or AMS(R)S but shared with other services than those managed by civil aviation authorities.
4) Spectrum that is or could be allocated to AM(R)S or AMS(R)S through an MS, MSS, AMS or AMSS allocations and shared with other services than those managed by civil aviation authorities.
The first two levels identified above concern frequency bands managed exclusively by civil aviation authorities, while the last three two concern those whose management is shared with other entities.
Spectrum obtainability: The essence is the ease or difficulty of gaining access to certain bands based on compatibility with incumbent services, the amount of negotiation required in individual countries, or the number of regulatory bodies involved in the decision on allowing UAS to use the particular spectrum. Therefore, each potential solution should be evaluated on whether the spectrum would be obtained through the WRC process and how much coordination would be needed relative to the host nations to allocate UAS operations in the frequency range.
Worldwide spectrum allocation: It will be advantageous if global harmonization is achieved and the equipment needed by a UA could thus be the same for operation anywhere in the world.
Potentially available bandwidth: Under this criterion a favourable rating is more likely to be awarded to a candidate band whose incumbent RF systems currently leave a substantial amount of spectrum unoccupied, and have technical and/or operational characteristics UACS that would facilitate appear to suit them for coexistence with future in-band UAS control systems. Many BLOS systems share the control link and the payload return link on one common carrier so the wide bandwidth needs of the payload return link may drive this choice more than the lower data rate needs of the control link.
Link range: This criterion evaluates the distance in which the unmanned aircraft can fly away from its control station without the support of additional control stations.
Link availability: Weather-dependent availability of the link is also a very important evaluation criterion. Therefore, each candidate band should be evaluated according to the approximate availability associated with the frequency of operation. Higher frequency ranges are more susceptible to signal degradation due to rainfall and therefore receive less favorable ratings. The markedly different transmission characteristics of terrestrial and satellite paths must be taken into account when performing comparative analyses of LOS and BLOS systems (see “Satellite transmission characteristics,” below).
Doc 5B/504 proposed to delete the text between the 2 “*”
*Satellite transmission characteristics: In order to determine whether satellite systems can provide the integrity and reliability needed to satisfy the link availability required for communications through satellite platforms to and from the UAS certain transmission characteristics need to be defined in sufficient detail. The following is a list of such information that is needed to make this determination.
1) The frequency band to be used.
12). Minimum and maximum antenna sizes, and the corresponding transmitting and receiving antenna gains of the Earth station and of the airborne station.
23). Maximum Minimum and maximum effective isotropically radiated powers (EIRPs) capability and EIRP densities of the Earth station and of the airborne station.
34). Minimum ratio of receiving-antenna gain to receiver thermal noise temperature in Kelvins (G/T) of the receiving Earth station and of the airborne station.
45). The rain conditions (i.e. rain rates) in which the link must operate. A, and any other propagation conditions that need to be considered.
56). Minimum required availability for the total (up and down) link (both outbound and inbound). A; or, alternatively, the minimum required availability in the uplink and the minimum required availability in the downlink. Note should be also taken of certain double-hop links (e.g. ATC-to-UA communications relayed through a UA-to-UACS link).
7) Off-axis gain patterns of the transmitting and receiving antennas of the Earth station and the airborne station.
8) Pointing accuracies of the antennas of the control station and the airborne station.
9) Geographical coverage area where the UAS requirements will have to be met.
610). Carrier characteristics
a). Information rates
b). Occupied bandwidth
c). Allocated bandwidth
d). Modulation type
e). Forward Error error Correction correction rate
f). Minimum required C/(N+I) for the satellite satellite-to /UA link and the Satellite satellite to /control control-station link.
g). The minimum and maximum acceptable latency in the transmission to and from the UA and UACS*
Co-site compatibility: This metric evaluates the relative feasibility of operating future UAS control-link radios in the band under consideration, without causing unacceptable interference to the collocated receivers of incumbent systems in the same UA or UACS.
Airborne equipment size, weight, and power: The driving factor for applying this criterion is the size of the antennas on board the unmanned aircraft. Credit should be given to frequency bands in which control links could operate using omnidirectional antennas.
5 Frequency bands under consideration
The frequency bands listed below are considered for the use of UAS provided the safety aspects are ensured. In the context of the criteria outlined in Section 4 these bands have been suggested for further detailed analyses.
• 5000-5150 MHz and 15,4-15,5 GHz for terrestrial component
• [13,25-13,4 MHz, 15,4-15,7 GHz, 22,50-22,55 GHz and 23,55-23,60 GHz] for satellite component
These bands are evaluated separately in the following subsections.
SUBSECTIONS
TBD
Annex 1
Sharing Study for Terrestrial Line-of-Sight UAS Communications
in the band 5 000–5 150 5 030-5 091 MHz Band
1 Introduction
The Table of Frequency Allocations of the Radio Regulations lists the aeronautical radionavigation service (ARNS) and the aeronautical-mobile satellite (route) service (AMS(R)S) as primary services from 5 000 to 5 150 MHz. Figure 1 provides an overview of services in throughout this band, with examples of systems using those services. The band comprises three principal sub-bands:
– The 5 000-5 030 MHz sub-band, which is currently allocated to the radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) and is also being considered, under 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-12) Agenda item 1.4, for an additional allocation for the aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) on the airport surface. Due to the existing allocations in this sub-band, coordinating the use of unmanned aircraft (UA) system (UAS) control link spectrum in this sub-band will not be an easy task.
– The 5 030-5 091 MHz sub-band currently used (although not heavily) by the Microwave Landing System (MLS).
– The 5 091-5 150 MHz sub-band, which was originally reserved as an expansion band for MLS but now is also allocated to the fixed-satellite service (FSS) for use by mobile-satellite service (MSS) Earth-to-spaceEarth-to-space feeder links, and has an AM(R)S airport-surface allocation as well as an allocation for the aeronautical-mobile service (AMS). Existing and planned systems in the band include low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite feeder uplinks, the Airport Network and Location Equipment (ANLE), aeronautical flight telemetry, and aeronautical security systems. Because of the existing allocations and users in this sub-band, coordinating the use of UAS control link spectrum in this sub-band would not be an easy task.
Figure 1
Aeronautical, RNSS, and satellite frequency use in the 5 000-5 150 MHz band
[pic]
The 5 000-5 010 MHz band is allocated to RNSS (Earth-to-space) and the 5 010-5 030 MHz band is allocated to RNSS (space-to-Earth) for systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Galileo, and so they would not be suited for UAS control link use. Radio Regulation (RR) No. 5.444 gives precedence to the MLS from 5 030 to 5 091 MHz. The 5 091-5 150 MHz band is designated as the MLS expansion band, although MLS is unlikely ever to need the 5 091–5 150 MHz band, and MLS no longer has precedence in this band.
Feeder links of mobile-satellite systems in non-geostationary orbits - e.g. LEO systems - are also primary in the 5 091–5 150 MHz band until 2018 and under International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Resolution 114, this allocation must be reviewed prior to 2018 and could continue beyond 2018.
In the U.S., radio astronomy has an exclusive passive primary allocation in the adjacent 4 990-5 000 MHz band, and a primary worldwide ITU allocation shared with active services. That band is extensively used by Radio Astronomy observatories throughout the world.
The US is moving forward with the use of the 5 091–5 150 MHz sub-band (and possibly also the 5 000-5 030 MHz sub-band, depending on the outcome of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.4) for the future ANLE system. ANLE is visualized as a high-integrity, high-data-rate wireless local area network (LAN) for the airport surface, with terminals on the ground and on taxiing aircraft. The IEEE 802.16e WiMAX standard is the candidate architecture for ANLE. Other applications now being considered for the 5 091-5 150 MHz sub-band include aeronautical flight telemetry and a new aeronautical security system. An AM(R)S designation for the 5 091-5 150 MHz sub-band was secured at the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07), and WRC-12 Agenda item 1.4 calls for consideration of a similar designation for the 5 000-5 030 MHz sub-band. The AM(R)S designations are prerequisites for the use of those sub-bands for ANLE.
The compatibility of a US-wide 802.16e-based ANLE system, with HIBLEO-4FL and [LEO-F] feeder links in the 5 091-5 150 MHz band, has been analysed. ANLE was assumed to be using a single 20 MHz channel at all 497 towered civilian airports in the US.
Each ANLE transmitter was assumed to have an omnidirectional antenna radiating the minimum power (1.66 W) necessary to close the link at an assumed maximum distance of 3 km. The 497 ANLE transmitters’ aggregate interference power in the passbands of HIBLEO-4FL and [LEO-F] satellite feeder-link receivers was computed at 2° latitude and longitude increments at orbital altitudes. The maximum aggregate interference power was found to be 0.9 and 2.8 dB below the interference threshold for HIBLEO-4FL and [LEO-F], respectively. These interference margins could be improved by perhaps 4 dB if three 20 MHz channels were made available to ANLE, so that no satellite receiver would need to be exposed to co-channel interference from more than one-third of the total population of ANLE transmitters. These results indicate that if ANLE is implemented throughout the US in the 5 091-5 150 MHz band, it will be compatible with LEO satellites, but relatively little interference margin would remain to accommodate an additional nationwide system of UAS control links in the channel(s) used by ANLE. The proposed telemetry and security applications, if implemented, would probably use up the entire remaining margin.
Even if UAS control links operated in a 20 MHz channel separate from ANLE and the telemetry/security applications, UA control link implementation beyond the near vicinity of the control station would still be problematic, since links longer than 3 km would require far more power (e.g. about 30 dB greater for 100 km links) and potentially pose a much greater threat to the LEO receivers. Reducing the control link bandwidth would help. A reduction to 1.25 MHz (the minimum for 802.16e) would reduce the power requirement by only about 12 dB, but a control link bandwidth of 20 kHz could reduce it by 30 dB. Still, the need to protect the incumbent satellite service in the 5 091-5 150 MHz band, with or without the potential introduction of ANLE and other proposed services into the same band, might impose unacceptable constraints on the introduction and subsequent growth of any future UAS control link system placed in the same band. The downlink power requirements at long ranges might also be impracticably large for some classes of UA. Moreover, airframe shadowing is more intense in this band than at lower frequencies and might necessitate the use of multiple antennas on the UA to provide the required diversity.
The only UAS control link applications for which 5 091-5 150 MHz might be a viable candidate band are those requiring short-range, high-bandwidth communication at short ranges - e.g., pilot control of a low-autonomy UA during takeoff and landing. During those crucial phases of flight, a short-range system using this band might be useful as a backup for a “primary” control link operating in a less encumbered band such as 960-1 164 MHz. At ranges less than 3 km, the power levels necessary for the 5 091-5 150 MHz link would probably be consistent with the need to protect incumbent satellite services and with UA power constraints. It is likely that relatively few UA would be taking off or landing at any given time within any airspace, thus minimizing the interference threat to satellite uplinks. The guard times necessary at such short ranges would be small enough that the UAS control links might be able to employ the IEEE 802.16e standard, whose growing acceptance for vehicular applications may eventually drive down the unit costs of lightweight IEEE 802.16e devices that would be suitable for UA use. However, it is not yet clear that 802.16e links will perform well at UA takeoff and landing speeds. Some degradation of 802.16e’s higher-order modulations might result, adversely affecting link capacities. Measurement and/or analysis would be needed to quantify this effect, as well as compatibility with other services and systems allocated to the band.
It may also be feasible to develop a satellite based system for the UAS control link in the 5 030-5 091 MHz part of this band, which is currently used exclusively by MLS. Radio Regulations footnote 5.367 says AMS(R)S has a primary allocation from 5 000 to 5 150 MHz. Since RR No. 5.444 states that the requirements of MLS take precedence over other uses of the 5 030-5 091 MHz frequency range, any 5 030-5 091 MHz AMS(R)S system would have to operate to give precedence to MLS, which can mean operation on a non-interference basis with respect to MLS. Moreover, the (R) designation might limit the use of any such system to controlled airspace.
A proposal to develop an MLS-compatible satellite-based UAS control and non-payload communications (CNPC) system within the 5 030-5 091 MHz sub-band has recently been introduced in the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) and other forums. (See Annex 4.)
In the three decades since its adoption by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as an international standard, the growth of MLS has been stunted (especially in the US) by competition from GPS and the well-established ILS, and has never needed more than a small fraction of its exclusive 5 030-5 091 MHz frequency allocation. Complete abandonment of MLS would greatly facilitate establishment of an AMS(R)S system in its place. However, many aircraft are MLS-equipped, and some Civil Aviation Authorities (especially in Europe) are reluctant to abandon a system that is technically far superior to ILS and less vulnerable than a satellite navigation system to widespread outages. The disappearance of MLS cannot be taken for granted.
Alternatively, it might be possible to partition the 5 030-5 091 MHz band into separate MLS and AMS(R)S segments, with the MLS portion sized to reflect realistic estimates of future MLS growth. However, subsequent MLS frequency assignments and reassignments might then be seriously impeded by the need to observe standard rules of frequency pairing with collocated Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR), and Instrument Landing System (ILS) stations. A better approach would be for the AMS(R)S system to share spectrum locally with MLS. Frequency-assignment criteria could be developed that would ensure sufficient frequency separation between each satellite spot beam and each MLS in or near that spot beam.
A terrestrial LOS UAS CNPC system could also be developed to operate in the 5 030-5 091 MHz band. A new AM(R)S allocation for the band would be necessary to enable this. Like its proposed AMS(R)S counterpart, an AM(R)S UAS CNPC system in this band would need to follow appropriate frequency-assignment criteria, to prevent the UAS CNPC links from interfering with nearby MLS receivers. Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) analyses of MLS and future UAS CNPC systems in the 5 030-5 091 MHz band appear in the following subsections.
2 MLS characteristics
MLS is a precision approach and landing guidance system that provides position information and various ground-to-air data from ground transmitters to airborne receivers at altitudes up to 20 000 feet and ranges out to 22.5 nmi. The system’s functions may be divided as follows: approach azimuth, back azimuth (missed approach and departure), approach elevation, range, and data communications. All the functions except ranging use the 5 030-5 091 MHz band.
Azimuth guidance equipment is normally located at each end of the runway. The azimuth antenna facing the approaching aircraft is configured as the approach azimuth transmitting antenna, while the opposite antenna becomes the back azimuth transmitting antenna. The approach azimuth transmitter is used to guide the aircraft during an instrument (non-visual) approach to the runway. The azimuth coverage extends to 62 degrees (normally 40 degrees) on either side of the runway.
As viewed by the pilot of an aircraft on final approach to the runway, the azimuth beam is swept from the rightmost coverage angle to the leftmost in the "to" scan and is then returned from the left to right coverage angle in the "fro" scan after a specified delay at the leftmost limit. The time difference between receptions of the signals during the to and fro scans is determined. Information derived from the data words transmitted to the aircraft by the MLS gives the aircraft MLS receiver specific information with regard to site geometry. This information is used along with beam timing to determine accurately the azimuth angle of the aircraft.
The elevation station transmits signals on the same frequency as the azimuth station. The elevation beam originates at an angle near horizontal (minimum elevation angle), scans to the upper elevation angle limit of 29.5 degrees (normally 15 degrees) in an upward direction (the to scan), and then returns (the fro scan). The time interval between the to and fro scans is measured in the receiver and based on the data transmitted from the ground (concerning site geometry and configuration) the elevation angle of the aircraft is determined.
The range signal is produced by the DME, which operates in the 960–1215 MHz band. The DME is the MLS ranging element, and is responsible for providing the aircraft's slant range to a specified ground position. Precision DME distance measuring equipment (DME/P) provides for two modes of operation for approaching aircraft. The initial approach (IA) mode is active in the region from 7 nmi to 22 nmi from the DME/P transponder. The final approach (FA) region is from the transponder to a range of 7 nmi. The FA mode has enhanced precision and tolerances when compared to the IA mode. The narrow-spectrum distance measuring equipmentDME (DME/N) is compatible with the IA mode. DME transponders operate on assigned frequencies that are paired with specific frequencies of the MLS angle transmitters.
MLS data communications include station identification and location, DME channel and status, waypoint coordinates, runway conditions, and weather.
A preamble is transmitted using differential phase shift keying (DPSK) modulation. It is followed by azimuth, elevation, and back azimuth unmodulated continuous wave (CW) signals and data (DPSK) as depicted in Figure 2[3].
Figure 2
MLS transmission sequence
[pic]
The MLS angle and data functions operate on any one of the 200 channels that are spaced 300 kHz apart between 5 031 and 5 090.7 MHz. (The expansion band up to 5 150 MHz is not currently used.) Each MLS channel is paired with a DME channel. Forty MLS channels paired with DME X and DME W operate between 5 031 and 5 042.7 MHz. One hundred sixty MLS channels paired with DME Y and DME Z operate between 5 043 and 5 090.7 MHz. MLS channels paired with DME W and DME Z are currently not used.
The distance between co-channel MLS stations must be at least 205 nmi, and the desired/undesired (D/U) received-signal ratios must be at least +26.5 dB. The ground stations operating on the first and second adjacent channels are sited beyond the radio horizon distance from the coverage volume to avoid ground/air intra-MLS interference.
The emission attenuation in decibels of a DPSK-modulated MLS transmitter is plotted in Figure 3 and described [4] by 10 log(2π2∆f 2/Bfd), where:
fd = modulation rate = 15.625 kHz
B = bandwidth = 150 kHz
∆f = frequency offset (kHz); 75 kHz or more from centre frequency
For │∆f│ < 75 kHz, attenuation is assumed to be 0 dB.
Figure 3
MLS/DPSK out-of-channel emission mask
[pic]
Essential MLS parameters[5],[6],[7] appear in Table 1. The conservative assumption, also stated in the table, of a 6 dBi MLS receiving-antenna gain in the direction of the potential interferer is taken from a related ITU Recommendation[8].
Table 1
MLS characteristics
|Frequency range (MHz) for non-DME functions |5 030-5 091 |
|Frequency range (MHz) for DME functions |960-1 215 |
|Power (dBm) |43 (all signals) |
|Preamble and data antenna gain (dBi) |2 to 8; 0 outside coverage region |
|Azimuth and elevation antenna gain (dBi) |up to 23; 0 outside coverage region |
|Airborne antenna gain (dBi) toward MLS ground station |0 |
|Airborne antenna gain (dBi) assumed toward potential interferer |6 |
|Azimuth antenna beamwidth (degrees) |Less than 4 |
|Azimuth scan limits (degrees) |−40 to +40 (typical), −62 to 62 (max) |
|Azimuth scan duration (ms) |15.9 |
|Elevation antenna beamwidth (degrees) |Less than 2.5 |
|Elevation scan limits (degrees) |0.9 to 15 (typical), 0.9 to 29.5 (max) |
|Elevation scan duration (ms) |5.6 |
|Polarization |vertical |
|Longest continuous DPSK data sequence (ms) |9.3 - 15 |
|Duty factor |25% (DPSK) |
|DPSK emission bandwidth (kHz) |150 |
|Max Maximum tolerable unwanted emissions PFD at 840 kHz offsetpower flux density |−94124.5 (DPSK) |
|of unwanted emissions (dBW/m²) | |
|Receiver bandwidth (kHz) |150 |
|Receiver sensitivity (dBm) |−112 |
|Interference threshold at MLS receiver input (dBm/150 kHz) |−130 |
3 EMC analysis of MLS and in-band AM(R)S UAS CNPC system
3.1 Single interferer analysis
Figure 4 shows potential mutual interference between MLS and a UAS terrestrial CNPC uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) operating in the 5 030-5 091 MHz range. The MLS receiver and the UA links operate within specific service volumes (SVs). The UAS ground radio (GR) operates from the UAS control station.
Figure 4
Potential interference between MLS and UAS CNPC terrestrial links
[pic]
Four potential interference cases exist:
1) UAS downlink CNPC transmitter to MLS receiver
2) MLS transmitter to UAS uplink CNPC receiver
3) UAS uplink CNPC transmitter to MLS receiver
4) MLS transmitter to UAS downlink CNPC receiver.
All four interference cases are analyzed below, although Cases 1 and 2 are the only cases explicitly indicated in Figure 4.
Case 1: Potential RFI from UAS terrestrial downlink transmitter to MLS receiver
In order to avoid harmful interference, the undesired UA signal at MLS receiver should not exceed MLS interference threshold TMLS. This can be described by the following (in which the UAS DL is assumed to be vertically polarized):
Puas – 10 log (4000() + GMLS − 20log(f 1852dmin) − 38 − FDR − LPOL = TMLS (1)
Puas + 20 log [(4π 1852)/300 ] − 20log(f dmin) − FDR − LPOL = TMLS[9] (1)
where:
Puas = UA transmitter’s effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP) (dBm)
GMLS = MLS Rx antenna gain (dBi) toward the UA = 6 dBi
f = frequency (MHz) = 5 060 MHz
dmin = minimum required distance separation (nmi)
FDR = frequency-dependent rejection (dB)
LPOL = cross-polarization loss (dB) = 0 dB
TMLS = MLS interference threshold = −-130 dBm -124.5 (dBW/m²)130 dBm
On the basis of the maximum 320-kbps single-UA throughput requirement of the CNPC downlink in the manual mode during the terminal arrival phase[10], we can assume a 300-kHz channel will suffice for the UAS DL just as it does for MLS. (Data rates would be much lower with the video downlink not in use, but then multiple UA could share a single downlink channel.) The UA EIRP (Puas) can be estimated as follows:
Puas + Gr(UAS) – 20 log (f dmax) – 38 = Sr + M (2)
where:
Gr(UAS) = receiving antenna gain = 28 dBi
f = 5 060 MHz
dmax = maximum UA downlink distance (nmi)
Sr = receiver sensitivity (dBm) = −114 + 10 log B + N + (Eb/No)req
B = channel width = 0.3 MHz
(Eb/No)req = minimum allowable (Eb/No) = 6 dB
N = receiver noise figure (5 dB)
M = margin (20 dB)
If we assume maximum UAS link distance to be 25 nmi, Puas = 24 dBm (250 mW).
The UA CNPC downlink emission spectrum postulated for this analysis is shown in Figure 5. FDR can be expressed as follows:
FDR (Δf) = 10 log10 [pic] (3)
where:
S ( f ) is the transmitter power spectral density
R (f ) is the receiver selectivity with the receiver tuned to the transmitter frequency
Δf is the difference between tuned transmitter and receiver frequencies.
Calculated FDR values of the postulated UAS DL emission spectrum convolved with an assumed MLS receiver selectivity curve (Figure 6) are shown in Table 2 .
Figure 5
Postulated terrestrial UAS downlink transmitter emission mask
[pic]
FIGURE 6
Postulated MLS receiver response curve
[pic]
Table 2
FDR of UAS terrestrial downlink transmitter and MLS receiver
|∆ Channels |
Case 2: Potential RFI from MLS to UAS terrestrial uplink receiver
The maximum UAS uplink data rate (during the terminal arrival phase) is about 10 kbps, but multiple UA uplinks could be multiplexed onto a single carrier, so that a UL bandwidth of 75 kHz is possible. The emission mask and receiver response curve for the UAS uplink are assumed to be identical, and are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Postulated terrestrial UAS uplink transmitter emission mask
and receiver response curve
[pic]
A potential worst-case interference situation would seem to arise when the UA is within the coverage angle of the unmodulated MLS azimuth and elevation transmissions that have antenna gains of up to 23 dBi. However, those high-gain antennas scan continuously throughout the coverage volume and so will appear as brief pulses (( 0.5 ms) with repetition intervals of 5.6-15.9 ms to any UA receivers they illuminate; the average received power would be 10-15 dB less, affording protection to UA receivers with sufficiently long integration times. Moreover, the emission spectrum of the unmodulated signal is much narrower and falls to –70 dB referred to the carrier (dBc) much faster than the MLS/DPSK emission mask shown in Figure 3.
Accordingly, this analysis instead considers the DPSK-modulated signal, whose antenna gain is only 8 dBi, as the actual worst-case interferer. The CNPC uplink signal, like the downlink signal, is assumed to be vertically polarized.
PMLS + Gt(MLS) + Gr(UAS) – 20 log(fdmin) – 38 – FDR – LPOL = Prd – Rdu, (5)
where:
PMLS = MLS transmitter power = 43 dBm
Gt(MLS) = MLS transmitter antenna gain (dBi) = 8 dBi
Gr(UAS) = UAS UL receiver antenna gain (dBi) = 0 dBi
f = frequency (MHz) = 5 060 MHz
dmin = minimum required distance separation (nmi)
FDR = frequency-dependent rejection (dB) based on the MLS emission mask
LPOL = cross-polarization loss (dB) = 0 dB
Prd = UAS UL signal at UA receiver (dBm)
Rdu = minimum allowable D/U ratio of UAS UL (10 dB assumed).
If the EIRP of the UAS UL transmitter is equal to 50 dBm, the UA is 25 nmi away from that transmitter, and the desired signal undergoes 20 dB of excess attenuation (including fading) in addition to free-space loss, then the strength of the desired signal at the UA receiver is:
Prd = 50 − 20 log (5060*25) − 38 – 20 = −110 dBm. (6)
It follows that the UA and MLS ground transmitter need to be separated by approximately the distances obtained from the following formula and tabulated in Table 4.
dmin = antilog ((43 + 8 – 20log(5060) – 38 – FDR – LPOL – Prd + 10)/20) = 883 x 10–FDR/20 (7)
Table 4
Minimum distance between MLS transmitter and
UAS terrestrial uplink receiver
|∆ f (kHz) |
Case 4: Potential interference from MLS to UAS terrestrial downlink receiver
The expression used in Case 2 above can be applied in this case as well:
PMLS + Gt(MLS) + Gr(UAS) – 20 log(fdmin) – 38 – FDR – LPOL = Prd – Rdu (9)
However, several parameters are different here:
Gt(MLS) = MLS transmitter antenna gain (dBi) = 0 8 dBi (since MLS high gain antenna can be used to suppress multi-path occurrences, the UAS terrestrial downlink receiver can be sited in a place where it will not be illuminated by the MLS antenna beam)
Gr(UAS) = UAS DL receiving antenna gain = 28 dBi
Prd = UA DL signal at UAS receiver (dBm)
Rdu = minimum allowable D/U ratio of UAS downlink (10 dB assumed)
If the EIRP of the UA DL transmitter is equal to 24 dBm and the ground control station receiver is 25 nmi away from that UA, and the desired signal undergoes 20 dB of excess attenuation (including fading) in addition to free-space loss, then the strength of the desired signal at the UA receiver is:
Prd = 24 + Gr(UAS) - 20 log (5060*25) - 38 – 20 = −108 dBm.
The minimum distance separation can be expressed as follows:
dmin = antilog ((43 + 8 + 28 – 20log(5060) – 38 – FDR – LPOL – Prd + 10)/20)
dmin = 17 6147 012 x 10–FDR/20 (10)
FDR values and the minimum distance separations are tabulated in the table below.
Table 7
Minimum distance between MLS transmitter
and UAS terrestrial downlink receiver
|∆ f (kHz) |0 |
|1.1 |No comment |
|1.2 |Still unclear how this AI will be addressed – requires close monitoring |
|1.3* |See meeting report |
|1.4* |See meeting report |
|1.5 |There is a need to monitor this AI as any changes to the RR provisions and not just allocations may |
| |impact civil aviation |
|1.6 |No comment |
|1.7* |See meeting report |
|1.8 |No comment |
|1.9 |No comment |
|1.10 |No comment |
|1.11 |No comment |
|1.12 |Need to maintain an aeronautical allocation but current regional positions reflect different views |
|1.13 |No comment |
|1.14 |Bands currently being proposed are outside of those used for ARNS but further monitoring is required |
|1.15 |Bands currently being proposed are outside of those used for ARNS but further monitoring is required |
|1.16 |No comment |
|1.17 |No comment |
|1.18 |No comment |
|1.19 |Still unclear how this AI will be addressed – requires close monitoring |
|1.20 |No comment |
|1.21 |The protection issues for ARNS are the same as those that need to be considered under AI 1.3 and 1.25 |
|1.22 |Need to monitor |
|1.23 |Concern in some ICAO regions and in particular the Asia Pacific area where NDBs use some parts of the |
| |proposed band |
|1.24 |No comment |
|1.25* |See meeting report |
|2 |Need to monitor |
|4 |Need to monitor |
|8.2 |There will be a requirement for the AI 2.1 of Resolution 806 (WRC-07) in order to address UAV Sense and |
| |Avoid spectrum. In addition, a new AI should be introduced to consider the introduction of WAIC. |
APPENDIX I
|Radiocommunication Study Groups |[pic] |
| | |
| | |
|Received: 2011 |Document CPM/xxx-E |
|Subject: WRC-12 Agenda item 1.25 | |
|Source: | |
| | 2011 |
| |English only |
|International Civil Aviation Organization |
|icao COMMENT ON DRAFT cpm TEXT A.I.1.25 (WRC-12) |
|DRAFT cpm TEXT SECTIONS 5/1.25/4.5.2 AND 5/1.25/4.1 |
1 Introduction
ICAO has reviewed the Draft CPM text under WRC-12 agenda item 1.25 and has developed some observations concerning the studies between the mobile-satellite service and the aeronautical radionavigation service in the frequency bands 13.25-13.4 GHz and 5150-5250 MHz. ICAO wishes to bring these observations to the attention of Administrations attending the Conference Preparatory Meeting.
2 ICAO Views
ICAO comment on section 5/1.25/4.5.2
Section 5/1.25/4.5.2 references the sharing studies between mobile satellite service and the aeronautical radionavigation service in the band 13.25-13.4 GHz.
In the two preliminary studies under consideration, it has to be noted that only the incident effect of the MSS downlink signal to the ARNS antenna back lobe or side lobe are taken into account.
ICAO is of the view that the case of the MSS signal reflexion on the ground can also have an important interference effect on the ARNS antenna main lobe and should be taken into account in future studies.
ICAO has also observed that studies using a single interferer are not sufficient and that aggregate interference scenarios must be considered. The result of this is likely to increase the levels of harmful interference given that more interferers should be taken into account
ICAO is proposing not to make any conclusion on the feasibility of the sharing studies without the completion of the impact of the ground reflexion MSS signal on the existing ARNS equipments and completing consideration of aggregate interference scenarios.
ICAO comment on section 5/1.25/4.1
Section 5/1.25/4.1 presents the sharing studies between mobile-satellite service with services in the band 5 150-5 250 MHz in the Earth-to-Space direction. This band is currently allocated to the AMS on a primary basis for aeronautical telemetry transmissions from aircraft stations under footnote 5.446C.
Taking into that the corresponding uplink band will be the 8400-8500 MHz which is also under consideration in section 5/1.25/4.3, ICAO is also of the view that no new allocation to MSS in the band 5150-5250 MHz should be done without successful conclusion of studies for an associated uplink band.
_______________
-----------------------
[1] UAS payload communications are not covered by WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3.
[2] UAS payload communications are not covered by WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3.
[3] Unwanted Emission Characteristics in the 5 010-5 030 MHz Band from the ICAO Standard MLS, ICAO Working Paper, Montreal, Canada, 24 March - 3 April, 2009.
[4] International Civil Aviation Organization, Aeronautical Communications Panel, MLS DPSK Unwanted Emissions Modelling, ACP-WGF21/WP10, December 2009.
[5] International Civil Aviation Organization, Annex 10, Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume 1: Radio Navigation Aids, International Standards and Recommended Practices, Sixth Edition, July 2006.
[6] Aeronautical Communications Panel, Fifteenth Meeting of Working Group F, ACP-WGF15/IP03 Rev.1, June 2006.
[7] Federal Aviation Administration, Spectrum Management Regulations and Procedures Manual, Order 6050.32B, November 2005.
[8] International Telecommunication Union, Method for determining the necessary geographical separation distances, in the 5 GHz band, between the international standard microwave landing system (MLS) stations operating in the aeronautical radionavigation service and transmitters operating in the aeronautical mobile service (AMS) to support telemetry, Rec. ITU-R M.1829, 2007.
[[9] Note : Since this equation is used throughout this Annex to establish the subsequent equations in order to derive numerical results in distance and frequency separations, these results in subsequent tables should be checked after reformulation of these equations]
[10] ITU-R Working Party 5B, Characteristics of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and spectrum requirements to support their safe operation in non-segregated airspace, Document 5/177, 3 December 2009.
[11] A. Delrieu et al., Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP), Seventeenth Meeting of Working Group F, Definition of the MLS aggregate in-band interference protection limit based on recent analytical and test results, ACP-WGF17- /WP 15, September 2007.
-----------------------
SYSTEMS
LEO SATELLITE FEEDS
MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS)
FUTURE RNSS LINKS
WRC-2012 Agenda Item 1.4
SERVICE
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
*
-
-
FIXED-SATELLITE SERVICE (Earth-to-space)*
Forward link:
1: Remote Pilot to satellite
2: Satellite to UA
Return link:
3: UA to satellite
4: Satellite to Remote
Control Station
Satellite
2
3
4
1
UA Control Station, see section 2
(mobile or fixed) or Gateway station (to which remote pilots are connected)
UA
ATC
2
1
Remote Pilot to UA
1. Remote Pilot to UA
UA to Remote Pilot
2. UA to Remote Pilot
Control Station
ATC
AIRPORT NETWORK AND LOCATION EQUIPMENT (ANLE)
AERONAUTICAL FLIGHT TELEMETRY
AERONAUTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM
POTENTIAL UAS SPECTRUM
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE SATELLITE (ROUTE)
–
CURRENT AM(R)S
MLS EXPANSION BAND
AMS
* This allocation is limited to MSS feeder links.
5000 MHz
5030 MHz
5091 MHz
5150 MHz
NOTE - This chart does not completely depict all systems or allocations in this band.
Proposed ANLE
Desired UL Signal
Undesired MLS
Signal
Undesired UA DL Signal
UA
MLS Tx
GR
Desired MLS Signal
CNPC SV
MLS SV
Desired DL Signal
................
................
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.
Related searches
- final comments on performance reviews
- final comments for annual review
- final year project topics
- advanced financial management final exam
- mba financial management final exam
- icao airport codes list download
- final cost report nysed
- project final report template
- project final summary report template
- final grant report sample
- final grant report example
- final evaluation report example