Meeting Report - ICAO



ICAO ACP Working Group C-7 meeting

Montreal, 19-23 April 2004

REPORT

Introduction: The seventh Meeting of the ACP-WG C was held from 19-23 April 2004 at ICAO HQ in Montreal, Canada. The meeting expressed its gratitude to the ICAO secretary for the preparations. The participants (see attachment A) in attendance introduced themselves and agreed on the Agenda (see attachment B). The list of working papers is contained in Attachment C.

Agenda Item 1: Results from Toulouse meeting

1.1 Those action items from the Toulouse meeting were discussed which were not on the Agenda of the meeting with the following results;

• The secretary didn’t receive any comments on the new text for the AMS(R)S SARPs to be submitted to WG-C.

• No feedback has been received from WG-F on the proposed role of WG-C in the preparation for WRC 2007 by WG-F.

Agenda Item 2: Update related ICAO, ITU and Industry Activities;

1.2 The panel received an update on the following activities:

• WG-F met recently in Nairobi and has developed a draft ICAO position for WRC 2007. Of particular interest to WG-C is the position on Agenda 1.6, which is discussed under Agenda Item 4. It is expected that WG-F will finalize the draft ICAO position at its next meeting in August of this year.

• WGC7/WP14 contained the memorandum sent by WG-N, initiating a survey on the use of TCP/IP internetworking for aeronautical communications.

• The secretary of the OPLINK panel provided an update on the Panel’s work on RCP and ADS-B requirements. He explained that the RCP work is mainly directed to the aspect of aircraft separation and therefore there won’t be many if any detailed communications requirements resulting from this work. For WG-C to obtain more detailed communication system requirements he advised to consider the work of RTCA SC189 and EUROCAE WG53

• WGC7/WP21 informed the meeting on a draft IATA position seeking exemption from the ICAO Annex 6 requirements for data link recording in relation to Link 2000+.

2.2 WGC7/WP 25 was presented by the Secretariat as a report of the 2nd meeting of ITU-R Task Group 1/8 (Geneva, 27 – 31 October 2003) dealing with Ultra Wide Band (UWB) issues. UWB technology could potentially integrate into very many applications and therefore in certain areas a high density of UWB devices may be expected in the future. UWB devices are intended to operate across numerous frequency bands and may affect existing and future aeronautical radio services. TG 1/8 is addressing, inter alia, compatibility issues between UWB devices and different radio services. The developments in that area need to be monitored since it may also affect future aeronautical communications systems.

2.3 WGC7/WP24 reviews the output of ITU-R Working Party 8B (WP8B) which was held in Geneva from 25 November to 2 December 2003. WP8B is responsible for radio determination, maritime and aeronautical radio services. The meeting was informed that no contributions were made to WP8B concerning WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.6 and hence no work was progressed in that area.

2.4 The meeting was also provided with a brief oral report on the output of the ITU-R Working Party 8D meeting held in Geneva from 25 November to 3 December 2003.

2.5 The meeting was informed of recent RTCA activities concerning ADS-B. RTCA Special Committee 186 (ADS-B) had met in Plenary session on April 8, 2004 and had approved a new revision of the UAT Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS), to be designated, subsequent to approval of the document by the RTCA Program Management Committee, as RTCA DO-282A. RTCA DO-282A was reported to have been developed because of 1) feedback from the work of the ICAO UAT Subgroup; 2) feedback from manufacturers, particularly from the certification process for UAT equipment; 3) feedback from further operational use of ADS-B in Alaska and pre-operational use in Australia; and 4) further requirements inputs from the operational community. For example, DO-282A included a requirement for the transmission of Mode 3/A (“4096”) codes in UAT Mode/Status messages (alternating with the Aircraft Call Sign) at the request of FAA Air Traffic.

2.6 The meeting was further informed of activities of the joint FAA/RTCA/Eurocontrol Requirements Focus Group (RFG) in developing harmonized requirements for initial ADS-B applications (e.g., Package 1). The RFG had held working group and plenary sessions in early April 2004 and continued to make progress in its task.

Agenda Item 3: VHF spectrum congestion

3.1 Since the VHF spectrum congestion is likely to be the driving force behind the implementation for a new air-ground communication system the FAA and Eurocontrol were requested to keep WG-C informed on the future date that requirements for a new frequency couldn’t be satisfied.

3.2 WGC7/WP19 and WGC7/WP 26 provided an update of the situation in the European and US airspace, respectively. Both papers indicated that by 2015, there would be a real congestion problem if no alternatives to the already identified measures were to be found. To have a better understanding of the parameters being used to determine the saturation date for the European Region, the meeting invited Eurocontrol to provide a presentation of the SENSI software.

3.3 WGC7/WP17 presented the status of the study on the CLIMAX/8.33 kHz operation. The study has started and is scheduled for completion in November 2004. In case the CLIMAX operation on 8.33 kHz channels is feasible it could provide some relief to the VHF channel congestion in the European core area

Action:

1 Provide regular updates on the VHF radio spectrum congestion.

2 Provide a presentation on the SENSI at WG-C8.

Agenda Item 4: WRC 2007 AM(R) S and AMS(R)S

4.1 The Secretary introduced WGC7/WP 4 containing the draft ICAO position on WRC 2007 Agenda 1.6. In its discussion it was agreed that there is no direct role for WG-C in relation to resolution 415. With respect to the MSS requirements it was noted that this would be addressed through the assessment of the candidate technologies.

4.2 Resulting from an Action of WG-C6, WGC7/WP 3 introduced an initial approach of the WG-C strategy to address WRC 2007 Agenda Item 1.6. It was agreed not to look for a separate document but basically to address the strategy as an integral part of the technology assessment, including the plan of action for a new communication systems deployment. WGC7/WP20 provided specific considerations in the usage of the target bands. It was stressed that it would not be necessary to finalize the selection of candidate technologies before WRC 2007, in order to provide appropriate contribution in the WRC preparation process, as the communication operating concept and the traffic volume would be more of a determining factor.

4.3 In conclusion of this Agenda Item the agreement of the Toulouse meeting on the role for WG-C regarding resolution 414 was confirmed as follows:

WG-C will be the focal point for the establishment of the operational scenarios, the identification of the ATM services/applications and the resulting traffic of communication. It shall also identify a limited number of most appropriate technologies, which are directly related to the band selection and are dimensioned for the quantity of spectrum to be required. Identification of the upper layer mechanisms is not relevant in this process. The signal form, including the modulation type is essential for spectrum capacity and radio compatibility with a focus on the WG-F recommended bands 960-1164 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz. Based on proposals from ACP WG-F, the WG C has to consider which spectrum allocation seems the most appropriate to comply with the identified scenario (considering issues such as coverage, capacity, and propagation characteristics). Based on evaluation of traffic WG-C shall define the volume of spectrum within the bands identified by WG-F.

4.4 The reason why WG-C is looking at new technologies i.e. to cater for traffic growth and new applications should be the general approach to justify an additional AM(R)S allocation.

4.5 In discussing the ICAO position on WRC Agenda 2007, the meeting noted some discrepancy in the official WRC 2007 Agenda Title with the draft ICAO position. Also the desire was expressed to bring two specific matters to the attention of WG-F with regard to the studies to take into account the capacity available in the existing AM(R)S allocation. It was decided to write a liaison statement from ACP WG-C to WG-F, which is contained in Attachment D.

.

Action:

3. To compile WGC7/WP 20 and WGC7/3 into one document for inclusion in the report of the Technology Assessment Group.

Secretary to send the liaison statement in Attachment D to ACP-WG-F

Agenda Item 5: UAT

1. The Rapporteur of the UAT Subgroup provided the meeting an overview of recent activities of the Subgroup. The fifth meeting of the Subgroup was held March 1-4, 2004 at ICAO Headquarters in Montreal. The draft RF SARPs, UAT Technical Manual, Validation Cross Reference Index (VCRI), and UAT Implementation Manual were reviewed, with a small number of changes incorporated into the draft RF SARPs and Technical Manual. The VCRI was updated to include use of Flight Tests as a validation technique, per the action set at WG-C6 in Toulouse. Finally, a significant portion of the Implementation Manual was reviewed in detail.

2. The UAT Subgroup Rapporteur further briefed the meeting on coordinative activities of the Subgroup with the OPLINKP, SCRSP, and NSP. It was reported that the OPLINKP had provided detailed comments on the UAT Requirements and Desirable Features document that had been reviewed at AMCP/8. An updated draft of this document, reflecting the OPLINKP comments, would be provided to the UAT Subgroup at its next meeting and, subsequently, to WG-C8. Coordination with SCRSP on UAT compatibility with SSR and TCAS had occurred on two occasions, with a third briefing to be provided to the SCRSP Technical Subgroup and WG-B later in April 2004. Compatibility testing of the sharing of transponder antennas using a passive diplexer had been completed, and the UAT Subgroup had formed the view that such antenna sharing could be employed in a manner compatible with the operation of the UAT and SSR/TCAS systems. A draft input for April 2004 meetings prepared by the leadership of the SCRSP Technical Subgroup reflected agreement with this view. With regard to coordination with NSP, the meeting was informed that UAT/DME compatibility had been assessed. At the suggestion of DFS, in an additional terminal/approach scenario in future high density airspace was added, presuming that a full complement of DME assignments at 979 MHz (the first adjacent channel to the proposed UAT frequency of 978 MHz) would be operational. Mike Biggs reported that this compatibility assessment had yielded favorable results and was in the process of being coordinated with the DFS, Eurocontrol, and the NSP Spectrum Subgroup.

3. TSO-certificated UAT equipment was anticipated to be available by mid-May 2004, with production UAT ground stations undergoing factory test in early May and an air-transport class UAT transmitter being ready for bench testing at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) and at DFS by the end of August. Further meetings of the UAT Subgroup had been scheduled for 15-17 September in Madrid, Spain (hosted by AENA), November 16-18 at ICAO Headquarters in Montreal, and 25-27 January 2005 at a location yet to be determined. The Subgroup’s schedule remained targeted toward presentation of a completed validation of the draft UAT SARPs and Technical Manual at WG-C9 in 2005.

4. The meeting then reviewed the draft RF SARPs, Revision 2.2, dated March 3, 2004 (WGC7/WP10). Changes to the draft SARPs since WG-C6 were highlighted in the draft, and the meeting reviewed each such change. The Rapporteur of the UAT Subgroup informed the meeting that one change reflected in the recently updated RTCA UAT MOPS (RTCA DO-282A) that would affect Figure 2 of the draft SARPs had not yet been reviewed by the Subgroup, and that this change, after such review, would be brought to WG-C8 in Munich. The meeting approved the designation of the draft RF SARPs as Revision 3.0.

5. The meeting subsequently reviewed the updated draft UAT Technical Manual, Revision 1.2, dated March 3, 2004 (WGC7/WP11). Again, changes to the Technical Manual made since WG-C6 were highlighted in the draft, and the meeting reviewed each such change, approving each one. Additionally, the Subgroup accepted an action, to be designated “Action 4” in the draft Technical Manual, to consider what codings should be used for transmitted accuracy and integrity parameters to reflect RNP-5. An additional correction to the nomenclature of the “CDTI Traffic Display Capability” was made in Table 3-1 of the draft. Moreover, the Rapporteur of the UAT Subgroup informed the meeting that one changed reflected in RTCA DO-282A concerning the duration of suppression pulses output by the UAT equipment had not yet been reviewed by the UAT Subgroup, and that this change, after such review, would be brought to WG-C8 in Munich. The meeting approved the designation of the draft Technical Manual, with reflection of these comments, as Revision 2.0.

6. The meeting was informed that the UAT Validation Plan had not changed since WG-C6.

7. The meeting then reviewed the VCRI for the UAT draft SARPs and Technical Manual, Revision 1.2, dated 2 March 2004 (WGC7/WP12). Changes to the VCRI made since WG-C6 were highlighted in the draft, and the meeting reviewed in particular the changes associated with the use of Flight Tests as a Validation Method, asking the Subgroup to add Flight Testing to the validation of requirement 2.1.5.6.1. A validation method was added for requirement 2.1.4.2, the Subgroup accepted an action to fill in validation methods for requirements 2.1.5.1.3.3 through 2.1.5.1.3.6, and corrections were made to validation methods incorrectly specified in three places as being “I”. The meeting was informed that the WJHTC was currently reviewing certification test results from a manufacturer of UAT equipment to determine which of such results could be used, with the manufacturer’s permission, in the validation. The meeting approved the designation of the VCRI, with reflection of the comments provided by the meeting, as Revision 2.0.

8. A brief discussion was subsequently held of the draft Implementation Manual for the UAT, Revision 0.3, 4 March 2004, which without its Appendices was paper WGC7/WP13. The meeting was informed that further review of this document by the UAT Subgroup was necessary before WG-C would be asked to designate a draft as Revision 1.0. The Subgroup accepted an action to post the entire draft Manual, including Appendices, on the ACP website. The Subgroup was also requested to add material to the Manual on how UAT fits into the ATM environment, as well as further informative material on aircraft L-band suppression circuitry.

9. The UAT Subgroup was asked to provide a 30-minute overview of UAT under the UAT agenda item at WG-C8.

Action:

5 Prepare presentation on UAT at WG-C8.

Agenda Item 6: New Technologies

6.1 WGC7/WP7 introduced the work on the concept of a Self-synchronized ADS using satellite, which has the potential to improve significantly the ADS satellite-based performance. The ADS service is likely to become a significant application to be supported by a new communication system. An introduction of this concept, if appropriate, could be beneficial.

6.2 WGC7/WP27 provided a status overview of the FAA NEXCOM programme. From the original program some elements will be finalized, including the certification of the vocoder. Since it is likely that digital voice will be an integral part of a future aeronautical communication systems and considering the long and costly qualification and certification the use of this vocoder should be taken into consideration

6.3 WGC7/WP8 and WGC7/WP9 introduced a new concept in air traffic voice communications taking advantage of the inherent packet nature of push-to-talk two-way voice communications to significantly improve the efficiency of network bandwidth. The present voice operation was characterized in comparison with the proposed packet voice concept. In its discussion on this paper the meeting agreed on the need to develop a concept of voice operation before considering new voice communication techniques. Operational experts should then validate this concept and whether it will satisfy their needs. WGC7/WP 8 contained some elements that should be taken into consideration in this concept.

6.4 WGC7/WP5 and WGC7/WP6 provided an overview with an emphasis on the technology being used for the B-VHF concept. The question was raised whether the additional capacity obtained in a highly congested VHF band would justify a possible implementation. It was noted that this specific issue was an integral part of the study. It was agreed that the system should be included in the technology assessment report as a candidate technology.

6.5 WGC7/WP2 informed the meeting on a project initiated to study the DS-CDMA technique, which is the underlying technology in both the UMTS and IS-95 system. The project has started in November 2003 and is expected to be finished in December 2005. The author of the paper was requested to coordinate with Eurocontrol the submission of the necessary information for the technology to be considered in the assessment.

6.6 WGC7/WP15 contained an inventory of the candidate technologies identified thus far. It was noted that for some of the candidates the information was not complete enough to make a full assessment of the technology concerned. The meeting agreed that there is a need of a closure date for the submission of new candidates, but that it is premature to agree on a specific date. The updated version of WGC7/WP 15 is contained in Attachment E.

6.7 Before WG-C can initiate the assessment, not only the communication requirements have to be established but also higher level ‘Assessment Parameters” to categorize the candidate technologies.

6.8 In its discussion the meeting made a preliminary inventory of potential parameters and identified the following:

• Modulation technique

• Cellular Structure

• Scalability

• Terrestrial/ Satellite

• Narrow- / wide- /broad-band

• Operating band

• Industry standards

• Aircraft Integration

• Cost

Action:

6 Develop a draft concept of voice operation

7 Comments on assessment parameters

8 Send formal request to proponents of specific technology for additional information

Agenda Item 7: Communication requirements

7.1 WGC7/WP18 introduced proposed high-level requirements for a future aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service. These requirements were developed to support a safety and regularity of flight communication service in high-density airspace such as in Europe. This work has been carried out as part of the EUROCONTROL NexSAT activity and draws on work underway in Europe, which may be typical of high-density airspace throughout the world. WG-C is requested to review the attached document, confirm that its content is consistent with requirements in other similar airspace types, and consider the proposed next steps. WG-C is also requested to consider providing expertise, which is outside Eurocontrol's mandate, related to AOC requirements.

7.2 WGC7/WP 28 introduced preliminary requirements, being a compilation of various existing documents. It was noted that the requirements were mainly directed to terrestrial systems and also largely based on the traditional concept of operation. The meeting agreed that it would be useful to merge the requirements in WGC7/WP 18 and WGC7/WP 28 as the first step towards a full set of requirements in the to be developed new concept of communication.

Action:

9 Merge WP 18 and 28 communication requirements.

10 Challenge questionable or archaic requirements.

11 Provide comments to ensure global applicability of communication requirements

12 Provide information on AOC traffic

Agenda Item 8: Institutional considerations

8.1 WGC7/WP22 was a first draft addressing the institutional elements, which are of important weight in the implementation process for a new system. It was noted that the security element was missing and that input is required on pending security requirements, which might have a bearing on a new communication concept above the already being in progress development of ATN security. Since the paper was submitted during the meeting, more comments are invited before the end of June in order to timely circulate a new version before WG-8C. The majority of the elements will be related to the assessment parameters, therefore it was agreed that the new version should form an integral part with the “Assessment Parameters”

.

Action:

13 Comments on WGC7/WP 22, institutional elements by the end of June

14 Circulate new version of institutional element before WG-8C

15 Investigate the source to obtain the relevant security requirements.

Agenda Item 9: WG-C8 workplan

9.1 WGC7/WP 16 presented a FAA/NASA/Eurocontrol common action plan to progress the investigation of new Air/Ground Communication systems in support of the ICAO ACP work. The tasks are divided in two main streams, the technical and business aspects. It is expected that the work is completed at the third quarter of 2007

9.2 WGC7/WP 23 introduced a road map for consideration by WG-C to use as a guide for the implementation of a new communication concept. The suggestions made during WG-C7 were included and it was agreed to invite further comment on the draft, which is contained in Attachment F

9.3 In summary of the meeting the following task were identified which need completion before WG-C8

|Number |Task |Date |Lead |

|WGCT_1 |Provide regular updates on the VHF radio spectrum congestion |WG-C8 |Eurocontrol/FAA |

|WGCT_2 |Provide a presentation on the SENSI |WG-C8 |Philippe Renaud |

|WGCT_3 |To compile WGC7/WP 20 and WGC7/3 into one document for |31/05/04 |Mike Biggs |

| |inclusion in the report of the Technology Assessment Group | | |

|WGCT_4 |Secretary to send the liaison statement in Attachment D to |31/05/04 |ICAO Secretary |

| |ACP-WG-F | | |

|WGCT_5 |Prepare presentation on UAT. |WG-C8 |George Ligler |

|WGCT_7 |Comments on assessment parameters |31/07/04 |All |

|WGCT_6 |Develop a draft concept of voice operation |31/08/04 |FAA/Eurocontrol |

|WGCT_7 |Comments on assessment parameters |31/07/04 |All |

|WGCT_8 |Send formal request to proponents of specific technology for |30/06/04 |Philippe Renaud |

| |additional information | | |

|WGCT_9 |Merge WGC7/WP 18 and WGC7/28 communication requirements |31/05/04 |Gregg Anderson |

|WGCT_10 |Challenge questionable or archaic requirements |31/08/04 |All |

|WGCT_11 |Provide comments to ensure global applicability of |31/08/04 |All |

| |communication requirements | | |

|WGCT_12 |Provide information on AOC traffic |WG-C8 |Van den Boogaard |

|WGCT_13 |Comments on WGC7/WP 22, institutional elements |31/06/04 |All |

|WGCT_14 |Circulate new version of institutional element |31/07/04 |Van den Boogaard |

|WGCT_15 |Investigate the sources to obtain the relevant security |WG-C8 |Van den Boogaard |

| |requirements | | |

|WGCT_16 |Comments on Attachment F |31/07/04 |All |

9.4 Meeting schedule: 20-24 Sept 2004, Munich

11-15 April 2005, Montreal (tentative, relate to ACP/1 date)

3 or 4 Quarter 2005, TBD

Action

ATTENDANCE AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATION PANEL

Montreal 19-23 April 2004

|Name |First Name |Organization |e-mail Address |

|ABUDAOWD |Hazim |PCA |hazim123@ |

|ANDERSON |Gregg |FAA |gregg.anderson@ |

|ATTIAH |Khalid |PCA |attiah@ |

|BIGGS |Michael |FAA |michael.biggs@ |

|BURGEMEISTER |Alvin |B-twelve Associates |al@ |

|CAPRETTI |Alessandro |OACI |acapretti@icao.int |

|CASTRO |Luiz Antonio |DECEA |lantocastro@.br |

|DABIN |Matthieu |ALCATEL SPACE |Matthieu.dabin@space.alcatel.fr |

|DELRIEU |Alain |DNA |alain.delrieu@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

|DESCAILLOT |Jocelyn |SITA |jocelyn.descaillot@sita.aero |

|ECK |James |FAA |James.eck@ |

|ESTEBAN |Eleuterio |AENA |eesteban@aena.es |

|JACOB |Torsten |ICAO |tjacob@icao.int |

|JAMIESON |Alan |Added Value |ajamieson@ava.co.nz |

| | |Applications Ltd | |

|LIGLER |George |PMEI |gligler@ |

|LOISY |Claude |ESA |claude.loisy@esa.int |

|MOODY |Christopher |MITRE/CAASD |cmoody@ |

|NAGOWSKI |Victor |ARINC |vjn@ |

|PHILLIPS |Brent |FAA |brent.Phillips@ |

|POZESKY |Martin |NASA |mpozesky@ |

|RENAUD |Philippe |Eurocontrol |philippe.renaud@eurocontrol.int |

|REVELL |Diane |ICCAIA |diane.b.revell@ |

|SCHNELL |Michael |DLR |michael.schnell@dlr.de |

|SHUJI |Takahashi |JCAB |Takahashi-s28g@mlit.go.jp |

|SUMIYA |Yasuto |ENRI |sumiya@enri.go.jp |

|TAYLOR |John |Transport Canada |taylorj@tc.gc.ca |

|VAN DEN BOOGAARD |Kors |IATA |kors@ |

|VROSTSOS |Pete |NASA |Pete.A.Vrostsos@ |

ICAO ACP Working Group C meeting

Montreal, 19-23 April 2004

Agenda

Introduction:

Agenda Item 1: Results from AMCP/8

Agenda Item 2: Update related ICAO, ITU and Industry Activities

Agenda Item 3: VHF spectrum congestion

Agenda Item 4: ICAO guidelines on standardization

Agenda Item 5: UAT

Agenda Item 6: New Technologies

Agenda Item 7: Communication Requirements

Agenda Item 8: Institutional Considerations

Agenda Item 9: WG-C workplan

| |

|LIST OF WORKING PAPERS |

| | | | |

|WP’S |AGENDA ITEM |TITLE |PRESENTED BY |

| | | | |

|1 | |Draft Agenda | |

| | | | |

|2 |6 |Research on future Aeronautical Communication Systems based on DS-CDMA |Eleuterio Esteban |

| | | | |

|3 |4 |ACP WGC Strategy for Addressing WRC-07 |Mike Biggs |

| | | | |

|4 |4 |Draft ICAO position on WRC 2007 |Secretary |

| | | | |

|5 |6 |Overview on B-VHF |Michael Schnell |

| | | | |

|6 |6 |B-VHF System Concept |Michael Schnell |

| | | | |

|7 |6 |Concept of self-synchronized automatic dependent surveillance using |Yasuto Sumiya |

| | |satellite | |

| | | | |

|8 |6 |Packetized Voice: A new communications concept for air traffic control |Alvin Burgemeister |

| | | | |

|9 |6 |Packet Voice Radio |Alvin Burgemeister |

| | | | |

|10 |5 |Draft RF SARPs for UAT (Revision 2.2) |George Ligler |

| | | | |

|11 |5 |Technical Manual on the UAT (Revision 1.2) |George Ligler |

| | | | |

|12 |5 |Draft validation cross reference index for the UAT SARPs and Technical |George Ligler |

| | |Manual (Revision 1.2) | |

| | | | |

|13 |5 |Implementation manual for the UAT (Revision 0.3) |George Ligler |

| | | | |

|14 |2 |Survey about the use of TCP/IP internetworking for aeronautical |Rapporteur |

| | |communications | |

| | | | |

|15 Rev.1 |6 |Report of the Technology assessment Group |Philippe Renaud |

| | | | |

|15 |6 |Report of the Technology assessment Group |Diane Revell |

|Rev.1 | | | |

|Adden. | | | |

| | | | |

|16 |9, 10 |Common FAA/NASA/EUROCONTROL action plan for investigating new |Brent Philips & |

| | |communication systems |Philippe Renaud |

| | | | |

|17 |3 |Information paper on CLIMAX/8.33 Study performed by EUROCONTROL |Philippe Renaud |

| | | | |

|18 |6, 7 |Requirements for a world-wide Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (R) Service |Philippe Renaud |

| | | | |

|19 |3 |VHF AM (R) S spectrum evolution in Europe |Philippe Renaud |

| | | | |

|20 |4 |Some considerations regarding the future WRC-2007, agenda point 1.6 and |Alain Delrieu |

| | |specially its first part dealing with the need for additional spectrum | |

| | |allocations to the aeronautical mobile service (route) | |

| | | | |

|21 |2 |Data communication recording requirements |Kors van den Boogaaard |

| | | | |

|22 |8 |An inventory of institutional elements |Kors van den Boogaaard |

| | | | |

|23 |10 |The Road Map |Kors van den Boogaaard |

| | | | |

|24 |2 |Results of ITU-R WP 8B meeting 25 November - 2 December 2003 |Secretary |

| | | | |

|25 |2 |Report of the Second Meeting of Task Group 1/8 |Secretary |

| | | |Mike Biggs |

|26 |3 |Assessment of radio spectrum depletion in the U.S. in the VHF Comm Band | |

| | | | |

|27 |6 |Status NEXCOM |James Eck |

| | | | |

|28 |7 |Communications requirements |Brent Philips |

LIAISON STATEMENT FROM ACP/WGC TO WGF

Re :Draft ICAO position on WRC 2007 Agenda Item 1.6

Working Group C, in their 7th meeting reviewed the draft "ICAO position for WRC-2007" as elaborated by the Working Group F, 11th meeting in Nairobi, 19-27 February. As the result WGC have the following comments to offer on the Agenda Item 1.6 element of that position , specifically on the textual part preceding the boxed position:

a) editorial : insert words "additional" and "satellite" in the Agenda Title

– To consider additional allocations for the aeronautical mobile (R) service in parts of the bands between 108 MHz to 6 GHz, in accordance with Resolution 414 (see Appendix E), and to study current satellite frequency allocations that will support the modernization of civil aviation telecommunication systems, taking into account Resolution 415 (WRC-03)

b) matter of substance with respect to Res 414 part:

– Same paragraph : .." Further studies will take into account the capacity available in the existing AM(R)S allocation "

– Question : 1) Will those studies concern only the aeronautical HF and the 118-137 MHz bands?

2) Would it be beneficial to make the band 108-118 MHz more generic (currently AM(R)S limited to ICAO-standard NAV + surveillance )?.

– Clarification is requested regarding “the additional AM(R)S allocations” in the last paragraph of section entitled "Res 414 which can be interpreted possibly as:

o a) “Preliminary studies indicate that additional frequency allocations to AM(R)S to meet the above requirement may be considered available in the bands with existing aeronautical allocations, including, but not limited to the 960 – 1164 MHz and 5091 – 5150 MHz”or,

o b)” that additional AM(R)S allocations, other than the afore-mentioned, may be available to meet the above requirement, …....

– At the moment the draft position may be interpreted as restricting itself to supporting studies needed to assess new systems’ communication capacity and to protect aeronautical systems already operating, solely within current aeronautical allocations . Is this intent of Working Group F?

– Note: the band 5091-5150 MHz, as part of the band 5000-5150 MHz is also allocated under R.R. 5.367 to the AMS(R)S on a primary basis…

Report of the Technology assessment Group

Change Record:

|Ed |Localisation |Modifications |Reason for change |

|1.0 |All |Original |N/A |

|2.0 |New section 3.4 |Addition of “Connexion By Boeing” information |The information provided by the |

| | | |Author was lost by the document |

| | | |co-ordinator |

|2.0 |New section 3.6 and 3.7|Modification of “Max. number of simultaneously supported|Editorial |

| | |users per sector/cell” (UMTS), and | |

| | |Remarks in “Standardisation” (CDMA2000) | |

| | |(identified in red highlighted yellow in Ed 2.0 | |

|2.1 |Section 3.4 |Information on Connexion by Boeing |Correction and addition |

Introduction

As resulting from ANC11 7/4 recommendation, ACP WG C has started the investigation of future mobile communication systems which could be integrated in the communication infrastructure circa 2015 to support the aeronautical traffic evolution and the ATM system enhancement.

To progress this work, WG C has formed during its 6th meeting four groups of interest in charge of dedicated items i.e.:

1. Requirements,

2. Technology,

3. Spectrum, and

4. Institutional matters.

This paper is related to the second item, i.e. Technology assessment.

It is a co-operative contribution whereby volunteer organisations are describing the main characteristics of potential candidates according to a pre-agreed form.

Section 2 summarises the technologies which have been felt valuable to be evaluated in the view of enhancing the future mobile communication infrastructure.

Section 3 provides a description of each of these proposed technologies.

Potential technologies

|Technology |organisation contributing to the assessment |

|B-VHF |German Aerospace Center (DLR) (M Schnell) |

| |B-VHF Consortium represented by DLR |

|ADL (Advanced Airport Data Link), i.e. data link especially |German Aerospace Center (DLR) (M Schnell) |

|designed for the use in the high density airport environment | |

|including arrival and take-off | |

|SDLS |ESA (C Loisy) |

|Connexion By Boeing |Boeing (W Estermann) |

|Aero B-GAN |Inmarsat (G Colledge) |

|3GPP UMTS (FDD) |Eurocontrol (L Lommaert) |

|CDMA2000 1xRTT |Eurocontrol (L Lommaert) |

Table 1 – Technologies considered as potential candidate for the future aeronautical mobile communication infrastructure

Technology description

B-VHF

Development and design of B-VHF has started on January, 1st 2004, within the FP6 European research project B-VHF (“Broadband VHF Aeronautical Communications System Based on MC-CDMA”). Since the system design of B-VHF is not yet finalized, the system description is preliminary and subject to changes.

|B-VHF |

|Author: B-VHF Consortium |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme |FDD or TDD (T.B.D within B-VHF project) |

|Multiple-access scheme |CDMA, FDMA |

|Modulation types |QPSK and QAM, adjustable to channel conditions |

|FEC Coding |Separate FEC schemes for each service type (voice, different data service classes). |

| |Details on FEC schemes T.B.D within the B-VHF project. |

|Diversity techniques |Yes, inherent frequency diversity due to spread-spectrum transmission based on |

| |multi-carrier technology. |

|System bandwidth |About 1 MHz (T.B.D within the B-VHF project) |

|Supported data rates per user |Up to 128 kbps. In addition, channel aggregation possible. |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per |Up to 128 |

|sector/cell | |

| | |

|Remarks |B-VHF is based on the multi-carrier technology and, therefore, highly flexible with |

| |respect to exchanging data rate per user and user capacity. Moreover, the multi-carrier|

| |technology enables to realize B-VHF as an overlay system in the VHF band, since |

| |frequency gaps can be easily utilized. |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types |Voice |

| User throughput |4800bps |

| User interface |PTT + analogue voice interface to vocoder. |

| Connection topology |Air/Ground, Air-air |

| Type of QoS |Real-time voice operation, 250 ms max. end-to-end delay, FEC as provided by the 4,8 |

| |kbps vocoder. |

|Service 2 | |

| Types |Addressed data link |

| User throughput |Up to 128 kbps, dependent on the transition phase. |

| User interface |IP, option for integration as an ATN subnetwork |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point |

| Type of QoS |Time-critical data operation, estimated 10 s typical 95% end-to-end transmission delay,|

| |detailed integrity mechanisms (e.g. FEC) T.B.D within the B-VHF project. |

|Service 3 | |

| Types |Broadcast (T.B.D. within B-VHF project) |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |Cellular terrestrial |

|Range |200 NM from the ground station |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status |Spectrum occupied by the legacy narrowband VHF systems (or a dedicated sub-band of the |

| |VHF spectrum) |

|Propagation |Degradation due to broadband channel effects |

|Frequency Band |VHF band, alternatively also MLS band |

|Available spectrum bandwidth |Currently, no spectrum is assigned to B-VHF |

|Remarks |VHF spectrum is intended to be used by B-VHF together with legacy VHF systems. |

| |Compatibility between B-VHF and legacy VHF systems is guaranteed due to overlay |

| |concept. |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |Anticipated as a replacement of -/ extension to the VDR 750 radio. ATN compatibility |

| |also requires CMU modifications. |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |Co-location problems with other VHF radios |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |Anticipated as a replacement of ground voice and VDL2 radios, with external interfaces |

| |similar as today. |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model |Voice part could remain in the ANSP domain, data link part may be delegated to |

| |communications service providers. |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |Target is an overlay concept, where B-VHF system would locally re-use – without |

| |interference - spectrum ressources that are currently used by the distant narrowband |

| |VHF systems. As a fallback, sub-banding may be used. |

|Allow incremental deployment |With an overlay option, incremental per-sector deployment would be possible. |

|Inband transition |Yes, due to overlay concept. |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |B-VHF system will be designed to support encryption and other security applications. |

| |Multi-carrier technology combined with CDMA offers a robust physical layer. |

|Jammer suppression |Narrowband jammers are suppressed due to the CDMA transmission (several narrowband |

| |multicarriers are used for the transmission of a single bit of information). |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |B-VHF underlying MC-CDMA technology is being developed for the telecommunication |

|by the industry |industry (4G) |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status |No standards available yet. |

|Remarks | |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| | |

|High level description |

| |

ADL

The system design for the ADL is not yet finalized, thus, the system description is preliminary and subject to changes.

|ADL (Advanced Airport Data Link) |

|Author: DLR |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme |FDD / TDD |

|Multiple-access scheme |CDMA (Ground/Air) and FDMA (Air/Ground) |

|Modulation types |QPSK, QAM |

|FEC Coding |Adaptable FEC depending on data or voice service. FEC based on convolutional coding. |

| |Additionally, CRC check for data. |

|Diversity techniques |Yes, inherent frequency diversity due to spread-spectrum transmission based on |

| |multi-carrier technology. |

|System bandwidth |8,192 MHz |

|Supported data rates per user |From 128 kBit/s to 2 MBit/s |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per |128 |

|sector/cell | |

| | |

|Remarks |ADL is based on the multi-carrier technology and, therefore, highly flexible. Data rate|

| |per user and user capacity can be exchanged in a simple way allowing to easily adopt |

| |transmission to the current requirements. |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types |Data (connection-oriented and connection-less) |

| User throughput |Up to 2 MBit/s |

| User interface |IP, option for integration as an ATN subnetwork |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point, point-to-multipoint |

| Type of QoS |Different priority levels, guaranteed assigned user data rates |

|Service 2 | |

| Types |Voice |

| User throughput |Configurable, e.g. 4800 bps |

| User interface |PTT + analogue voice interface to vocoder |

| Connection topology |Air/Ground, Ground/Air |

| Type of QoS |Real-time voice operation, 250ms max. end-to-end delay |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |Cellular terrestrial |

|Range |30 NM from the ground station |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status |Shared spectrum with microwave landing system (MLS) |

|Propagation |Degradation due to multipath propagation mitigated by frequency and time diversity with|

| |propagation channel estimation and equalization |

|Frequency Band |5 GHz (MLS band) |

|Available spectrum bandwidth |56 MHz |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |5 GHz antenna and new radio equipment necessary |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |Shared with MLS |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |5 GHz antenna and new radio equipment necessary |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model |Future ATC/ATM, A-SMGCS, airport/airline data link services |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |Part of the MLS spectrum has to be migrated to ADL |

|Allow incremental deployment |Yes, airport-based |

|Inband transition |Yes, use unoccupied part of the MLS spectrum |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |Encryption |

|Jammer suppression |Narrowband jammers are suppressed due to CDMA transmission |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |Ground/Air link designed, evaluated and implemented in demonstrator |

|by the industry |Air/Ground link under development |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status |Standardisation planned |

|Remarks | |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| | |

|High level description |

| |

SDLS

|SDLS |

|Author: ESA |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme | FDD |

|Multiple-access scheme | CDMA (Synchronous and quasi-synchronous) |

|Modulation types | QPSK. |

|FEC Coding | Yes |

|Diversity techniques | AES receives from two satellites and transmit through the one it receives best. Two |

| |AESs per aircraft would likely be required. |

|System bandwidth | 900 KHz |

|Supported data rates per user |From 6.4 Kb/s in global beam to 30 Kb/s in narrower beams |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per | |

|sector/cell | |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types |Voice |

| User throughput |4800bps or 2400bps (oceanic) |

| User interface | |

| Connection topology |Air/Ground |

| Type of QoS |Communication establishment < 5 s |

| |Voice latency < 400ms |

| |Residual error rate 10-3 |

|Service 2 | |

| Types |ATS and AOC Data services |

| User throughput |Up to 20Kbps |

| User interface |Packet service |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point |

| Type of QoS | |

| |QoS 1 Transit delay 5s, RER 10-8 Priority 1 Short Data Service |

| |QoS 2 Transit delay 5s, RER 10-8 Priority 1 CPDLC high (ACL) |

| |QoS 3 Transit delay 10s, RER 10-7 Priority 2 CPDLC medium (ACM.) |

| |QoS 4 Transit delay 30s, RER 10-6 Priority 3 CPDLC low (DFIS, AOC…) |

|Remark |Short Data Service is to be used for down-linking of on-board parameters |

| . . . | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |Geosynchronous satellite: global beam (ocean), regional beams (cont) |

|Range from GES |Determined by satellite coverage |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status |AMS(R)S Allocation (priority access) |

|Propagation |Line of sight. Less than 1dB attenuation by rain in service band |

|Frequency Band |L-Band 1.5 and 1.6 GHz. |

|Available spectrum bandwidth |Up to 10 MHz ? |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |Antenna and RF building blocks currently available. Modem to be developed |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |Compatible with AMSS |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |Existing compatible satellite and GES RF front end infrastructure |

|Remarks |Dedicated infrastructure to be deployed in a longer term on continents as traffic |

| |builds up. |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model |Investment in AESs (# 20.000 $ per unit) is the dominating cost item |

|Remarks |Low capacity system dedicated to safety communications |

| |Only limited capacity transponders are needed for ATS and AOC data traffic. Voice usage|

| |is expected to diminish with time |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |Status of the AMS(R)S L-Band to be improved in the future |

|Allow incremental deployment |Geosynchronous satellites are ideal for incremental deployment |

|Inband transition |Only sharing with non priority users in MSS is an issue. |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |Could be added |

|Jammer suppression |CDMA techniques are naturally protected from narrow band interference in particular for|

| |non fully loaded systems. Satellite diversity also provides protection |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |Synchronized and quasi synchronized CDMA are commonly used in military tactical |

|by the industry |communication systems |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| | |

Connexion By Boeing

|Connexion By Boeing |

|Author: Boeing |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme |FDD |

|Multiple-access scheme |CDMA |

|Modulation types |O-QPSK |

|FEC Coding |Turbo coding |

|Diversity techniques |None |

|System bandwidth |Less than or equal to 32.4 MHz |

|Supported data rates per user |Forward link - up to 5 Mbps per receiver card (up to 4 receiver cards), Return link up |

| |to 1 Mbps; assumes a "user" is an airplane |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per |Aggregated users to remain below regulatory limits on return link.  Typical maximum |

|sector/cell |would be 25 airplanes. |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service | |

| Types |voice and data |

| User throughput |Forward Link (E-s) up to 20 Mbit/s (with 4 receiver cards) – Return Link (s-E) up to 1 |

| |Mbit/s |

| User interface |IP |

| Connection topology |Air/Ground, Point-to-point |

| Type of QoS |BER > 10-6 |

|Remark |Availability > 99.9% |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |GSO satellite regional beams |

|Range from GES | |

|Remarks |Up to 75o N & S and oceanic major air routes |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status |Shared spectrum, currently secondary |

|Propagation |Possible degradation due to rain effects below 10,000 feet which includes rain effects |

| |in equatorial regions. |

|Frequency Band |Ku – band 14-14.5 GHz (E-s) 11/12 GHz (s-E) |

|Available spectrum bandwidth | |

|Remarks |Propagation Delay: > 250 milliseconds for GSO satellites |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |No issues envisaged with integration |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |N/A |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |Evolution of ground infrastructure to accommodate IP protocols is required |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |None |

|Allow incremental deployment |Considered to be the most practical solution |

|Inband transition | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |Encryption |

|Jammer suppression | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |Technology was initially developed for the telecommunication industry but has been |

|by the industry |adapted successfully for the AMSS |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status |Compliant with ETSI and ARIB |

|Remarks | |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| | |

|High level description |

| |

Aero-BGAN

|Aero-BGAN |

|Author: INMARSAT |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme |FDD |

|Multiple-access scheme |FDMA/TDMA |

|Multiple-access interference |N/A |

|Intersymbol interference |Yes (an appropriate allowance is made in the Link Budget design) |

|Modulation types |O-QPSK, π/4-QPSK, 16-QAM; |

|FEC Coding |Yes – turbo coding |

|Diversity techniques |No |

|Symbol duration |60, 30, 15, 6.7μs (16.8, 33.6, 67.2, 151.2 kbps) |

|Frame duration |5, 10, 20, and 80 ms |

|Supported data rates per user |Up to 432 kbps (average data throughput) per channel |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per |Aggregated up to maximum capacity per spot beam. (Approximate maximum of 10% of |

|sector/cell |satellite capacity to a spot beam.) |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types |Voice |

| User throughput |4800bps AMBE voice codec |

| User interface |4 wire analogue, and CEPT E1 |

| Connection topology |Point to point (and Point to Multipoint capability) |

| Type of QoS |(target GoS of 4% for APC) Priority and Pre-emption for non-APC |

|Service 2 | |

| Types |ISDN Connection based |

| User throughput |64 kb/s |

| User interface |H.323 |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point |

| Type of QoS |(target GoS of 4% for APC) |

|Service 3 | |

| Types |IP based Connectionless data |

| User throughput |User defined up to 432 kb/s |

| User interface |IETF standard (Ethernet based) |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point, Unicast, Multicast |

| Type of QoS |User request |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |GEO Satellite global, regional and spot beams |

|Range |N/A |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status | Shared L band MS(R)S spectrum |

|Propagation | Line of sight down to 5 degrees elevation to satellite |

|Frequency Band | L band (1525MHz-1559MHz RX and 1626.5MHz – 1660.5MHz TX) |

|Bandwidth | Shared co-ordinated Inmarsat Spectrum |

|Remarks |For BGAN the spectrum is subdivided in 200kHz channels |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |Integration with Aero-H/H+ using common RF infrastructure (HPA and antenna) |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |As per ICAO AMSS SARPs and RTCA DO-210D |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |Ground infrastructure for Aero-H/H+ is independent from Aero-BGAN. Inmarsat is |

| |procuring and deploying BGAN ground infrastructure. (Infrastructure operational |

| |mid-2005) |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model |TBD |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |Parallel integrated operation of Aero-H/H+ services and Aero-BGAN services. |

|Allow incremental deployment |Yes |

|Inband transition |Yes |

|Remarks |The integrated nature of the equipment will allow transition from Aero-H/H+ to |

| |Aero-BGAN based services as the user base requires. |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |User defined encryption |

|Jammer suppression |No |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |Technology has been developed for the telecommunication industry (3rd Generation UMTS |

|by the industry |with defined satellite interface) |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status |(Land mobile service development leads) |

|Remarks |Co-ordinating with AEEC to incorporate Aero-BGAN into existing characteristics |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| |TBD |

|High level description |

|To be completed |

3GPP UMTS (FDD)

|3GPP UMTS (FDD) |

|Author: EUROCONTROL |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme |FDD |

|Multiple-access scheme |CDMA |

|Modulation types |Data : BPSK uplink , QPSK downlink. |

| |Spreading : QPSK up and downlink |

|FEC Coding |Low data rate ( 14,4 kbps a turbo coder ( ½ -1/3 – ¼ ) has been specified for |

| |the supplemental channel SCH. |

| | |

| |Note2: A forward link RS1/RC4 exists also with other data rates and for convolutional |

| |encoder R=1/2 and K=9 |

|Diversity techniques |Yes : BTS transmit diversity on 2 antennas(TD). Space diversity. |

|System bandwidth |1,25 MHz (3dB) 1,2288Mcps ( Associated spreading Rate 1) |

|Supported data rates per user |RS1/RC3 : 1,2-2,4-4,8-9,6kbps (EVRC-QCELP) for voice |

| |Data : as per voice + 19,2-38,4-76,8-153,6kbps with R=1/4 |

| | |

| |RS2/RC5(F)4(R) : 1,8-3,6-7,2-14,4kbps(ACELP) for voice |

| |Data : as per voice + 28,8-57,6-115,2-230,4kbps with R=1/4 |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per |Pole capacity = 27 users/cell (voice channels) within an omni directional cell. |

|sector/cell | |

| | |

|Remarks |Within this doc only CDMA20001xRTT has been considered as it is the only FDD narrow |

| |band CDMA version available. This is important as during WRC07 not enough spectrum may |

| |be allocated for a future terrestrial ATC com system based on UMTS. |

| | |

| |RC = radio configuration as specified in 3GPP2 (C.S0002-C) and is f (data rate, channel|

| |encoding & modulation parameters supported on traffic channel). |

| | |

| |RS = Rate Set and determines voice vocoder basic data rate. |

| | |

| |SR = Spreading Rate : 1 means 1,228 Mcps / 3 means 3,6864 Mcps |

| | |

| |CDMA2000 has in some Forward RC as option CCSH (Code Combining Soft Handover) together |

| |with TD. |

| | |

| |The traffic channel can have any data rate from 750 bps up to 14,4 kbps. |

| | |

| |In case higher data rates are needed 1 or 2 supplemental channels can be added with |

| |data rates as defined above and in function of RC. |

| | |

| |CDMA2000 1xRTT standard uses the same word “MULTIRATE” for indicating the use of |

| |variable data rates. However CDMA2000 does not allow the transmission of ANY data rate |

| |as in UMTS but only allows the insertion of 1-2 supplementary channels in addition to |

| |the fundamental one. |

| | |

| |All CDMA2000 BTS need to be synchronised by GPS in order to be able to make a soft |

| |handover. |

| | |

| |CDMA is an interference limited system. Its cell capacity limit is sooner reached by |

| |its interference level limit rather than by its code availability limit. Hence CDMA is |

| |said to have a SOFT capacity. |

| |CDMA radios normally transmit at much lower power levels compared to narrow band and/or|

| |TDD radios. While analogue (digital) narrow band radios need a SINAD of +12 dB (C/I of |

| |+9 up to +11 dB) a wideband radio operates on negative SIR levels of around -15 dB! The|

| |actual SIR value being determined by CDMA processing gain which is function of |

| |spreading factor. |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types |voice on traffic channel |

| User throughput |Vocoder either based on 9,6 or 14,4 kbps depending Rate Set 1( EVRC-QCELP) or 2 (ACELP)|

| User interface |Microphone – Earpiece |

| Connection topology |Air/Ground - Normally Circuit switched - Packet switched ( VOIP) possible |

| Type of QoS |Real Time conversation class ( low delay-low latency) |

|Service 2 | |

| Types |Connection oriented data (fixed) on traffic {and supplemental channel} |

| User throughput |RS1/RC3 : 1,2-2,4-4,8-9,6-{ 19,2-38,4-76,8-153,6}kbps |

| |RS2/RC5(F)4(R) : 1,8-3,6-7,2-14,4-{ 28,8-57,6-115,2-230,4}kbps |

| User interface |TBD |

| Connection topology |Point-to-point : Circuit or Packet switched (PDSN) |

| Type of QoS |Real Time Conversational class , Real Time streaming class |

|Service 3 | |

| Types |Packet Data - Connectionless on traffic {and supplemental channel} |

| User throughput |RS1/RC3 : 1,2-2,4-4,8-9,6-{ 19,2-38,4-76,8-153,6}kbps |

| |RS2/RC5(F)4(R) : 1,8-3,6-7,2-14,4-{ 28,8-57,6-115,2-230,4}kbps |

| User interface |TBD |

| Connection topology |Point to Point – Point to multipoint – Broadcast / Packet switched (PDSN) / IP ( |

| |simple IP or mobile IP ) |

| Type of QoS |Interactive and background class / best effort |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage |Cellular terrestrial |

|Range |150-200 NM from the ground station but pilot modification needed. |

|Remarks |CDMA2000 uses a single unique PN code as PILOT which is always broadcast by each BTS. |

| |BTS differentiation (needed for soft handover) is enabled by providing a different time|

| |offsets (PILOT_INC) to the PILOT of each individual BTS. This concept leads to serious|

| |cell range limitations. E.g. Cell ranges of 100 km result in the deployment of maximum|

| |8 cells/sectors only. To avoid this problem and be able to deploy a large amount of |

| |large CDMA2000 cells L1 has to be modified. |

| | |

| |Eurocontrol has studied this issue already and can propose a simple way with minimum |

| |modifications to the standard. |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status |Spectrum allocation to be requested at WRC07. |

| |Preference given to VHF/UHF band |

|Propagation |VHF/UHF is not degraded due to rain effects |

|Frequency Band |TBD |

|Available spectrum bandwidth |At least 2x (1,25 MHz + guard band) should be allocated for a single forward/backward |

| |link. |

| |Note : No guard band is needed in between 2 or more forward / backward links. |

|Remarks |CDMA2000 is an FDD system so forward/backward links need to be isolated in the |

| |frequency domain. Relative FDD frequency separation should be at least 10% preferable |

| |15%. |

| | |

| |In order to avoid silence areas in between large cells a second forward/backward |

| |frequency pair is needed (see UMTS). |

| | |

| |Eurocontrol proved in 2001 that 18 simultaneous channels could be set up with a |

| |prototype. This should allow the simultaneous connection of at least 12 voice channels |

| |within a cell dealing with approach, tower, ground, upper airspace, vhf2,….etc within |

| |that cell. |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics |As CDMA always operates in FDD mode the TX is always on. Fortunately CDMA emits far |

| |less power (< 3W) than any existing airborne radio. Existing radios emit > 15 W but all|

| |have a small duty cycle. |

| |CDMA TX and RX simultaneously on the same antenna. Hence the need of a duplexer behind |

| |the antenna. |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility |Because CDMA behaves as AWGN any interference on narrow band systems would lead to a RX|

| |sensitivity increase. A guard band must be foreseen between any narrowband analogue and|

| |digital radio. |

|Remarks |CDMA needs an ultra linear amplifier. The concept of e.g pre-distortion amplifiers is |

| |that linearity increases dramatically while at the same time the amplifier size |

| |decreases dramatically as well ( less cooling needed and PA operation in class AB). |

| |However within a 3MCU unit the duplexer should be integrated as well. |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution |CDMA 1xRTT ground infrastructure evolves to an all-IP network. |

|Remarks |Mainly ANSI-IS-41 or GSM-MAP or all-IP connectivity |

| | |

| |Ground infrastructure consists of BTS/BSC and MTSO. MTSO might be circuit switched/ |

| |packet switched based or a combination of both. |

| | |

| |The RF Front end of a BTS needs to be converted from auctioned RF spectrum towards ICAO|

| |COM spectrum. |

| | |

| |CDMA2000 1xRTT needs GPS synchronised BTS. |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model |CDMA2000 could not only supply safety-of-life services but AOC and APC as well. APC |

| |service will however consume scarce spectrum resources. In addition a connection to a |

| |public network and the installation of an expensive billing system is needed. |

| |Pls note that the CDMA capacity is only 1/3 of UMTS |

|Remarks |Prime service should be ATC. AOC could be supported but with low priority. |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue |Implementation phase can only take place when additional spectrum is granted. Seen the |

| |CDMA20001xRTT bandwidth and the heavily used VHF band no big bang operation can ever |

| |work out. |

|Allow incremental deployment | |

|Inband transition |Only possible with green field spectrum. |

|Remarks |WRC07 spectrum allocation process is determining all future com systems for ATC. States|

| |are requested their full support in order to obtain enough spectrum at WRC07. |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported |CDMA is already secured natively by its 2^42 PN Long code (Backward link) and Walsh |

| |code + 2^15scrambling code( forward link) for data and voice. |

| | |

| |CDMA uses standardized CAVE to generate 128 bit SSD. The 64 bit A-Key, ESN and network |

| |supplied RANDSSD are input to CAVE generating the SSD. |

|Jammer suppression |Yes inherently linked to CDMA systems. Narrow band jammers are suppressed at the RX |

| |side after dispreading. |

|Remarks |See UMTS : Security functions are overdone and should be simplified for ATC. |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components |Standard is evolving continuously due to pressure from service providers having |

|by the industry |deployed IS95A/B. |

|Remarks |CDMA2000 standards are not obvious to read due to the many radio configurations and 2 |

| |different vocoders. Its origin is linked with the use of CDMA at 2G (IS95A&B) level in |

| |the USA. The backward compatibility needed is leading to a lot of overhead in the |

| |standards. |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status |Standard approved by 3GPP2 committee & ANSI/TIA/EIA |

|Remarks |Standards as EV-DO and EV-VD are recently developed but are not to be considered for |

| |ATC as in our case high data rate forward ( BTS-A/C) are not needed. Within ATC the |

| |backward link (A/C-BTS) is expected to carry most of the data volume. |

| | |

| |Last in the row of standards is CDMA2000 1xRTT. The 3xRTT has not been finalised yet. |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| |Using existing standards has large benefits : |

| |ICAO standardisation procedure can rely on existing standards. CDMA2000 standard |

| |modification for ATC operation needs adaptation of frequency bands, power classes, |

| |X-tal accuracy and MODIFICATION OF LAYER ONE FOR PILOT AND PILOT ACQUISTION ISSUES |

| |CDMA 2000 is mainly driven by Qualcomm who owns most of the patents (even on wave |

| |shape). As it is based on 2G communications IS95 A and B many intermediate standards |

| |exist. |

| |As newer standards such as 4G, UWB all concentrate on higher data rates this has as |

| |consequence that modulation schemes (64 -256 QAM) become more complex. Because these |

| |complex modulation schemes have smaller Eucledian distances between symbol |

| |constellation points - leading to a very efficient spectrum use- this has as a |

| |consequence that only small cell areas ( 0,5-2 km) can be covered.. |

|High level description |

|The reader is requested to read all info provided in the UMTS proposal because it is also applicable to this “narrowband” CDMA version. |

| |

|In case WRC07 assigns enough spectrum to ATC, UMTS CDMA should be preferred. The wider a signal can be spread the better it is protected |

|against jamming , the higher the processing gain and the larger the eventual user capacity will be. |

| |

|In case ACP would opt for CDMA2000 1xRTT than the audience should be aware that some additional standardisation is needed at layer 1 level|

|in order to be able to support large cell ranges. In addition to the outcome of a study let by Eurocontrol some more simulation work is |

|needed. After a positive outcome a more detailed acquisition procedure should be investigated and standardised. |

DS-CDMA

|DS-CDMA |

|Author: AENA |

|ITEMS |DESCRIPTION |

|AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY | |

|Duplexing scheme | |

|Multiple-access scheme | |

|Modulation types | |

|FEC Coding | |

|Diversity techniques | |

|System bandwidth | |

|Supported data rates per user | |

|Max. number of simultaneously supported users per | |

|sector/cell | |

| | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GENERIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE | |

|Service 1 | |

| Types | |

| User throughput | |

| User interface | |

| Connection topology | |

| Type of QoS | |

|Service 2 | |

| Types | |

| User throughput | |

| User interface | |

| Connection topology | |

| Type of QoS | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|TOPOLOGY | |

|Geographical coverage | |

|Range | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SPECTRUM | |

|Current spectrum status | |

|Propagation | |

|Frequency Band | |

|Available spectrum bandwidth | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|AIRBORNE INTEGRATION | |

|Avionics | |

|Mutual spectrum compatibility | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|GROUND INTEGRATION | |

|Infrastructure evolution | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SERVICE PROVISION | |

|Possible model | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|MIGRATION/TRANSITION | |

|Identified issue | |

|Allow incremental deployment | |

|Inband transition | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|SECURITY | |

|Security function supported | |

|Jammer suppression | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|INDUSTRIAL MATURITY | |

|Status of development of the necessary components | |

|by the industry | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

|STANDARDISATION | |

|Standardisation status | |

|Remarks | |

| | |

| | |

|OTHER IMPORTANTS ASPECT | |

| | |

|High level description |

| |

-----------------------

WRC 2007

bandwidth

requirements

2020-2025 Full implementation

2016 Initial implementation

2010 Adoption of standards

2009 Validation of standards

1st Quarter 2007 Initiation of standards

2nd Quarter 2006Decision on technology

1st Quarter 2006 Alternatives Assessment

2nd Quarter 2005 Selection from Alternatives

Established communication requirements

1st Quarter 2005 Inventory of Alternatives

Inventory of assessment parameters

Timeline Towards 2020

Communication system

Basic Technology

Research

Technology Development

& Demonstration

Research to

Prove Feasibility

System/Subsystem Evaluation

System Implementation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

System Implementation

Patents

resolved

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

Process Towards

new Communication system

Operation of Certified System

Certification Approved

Cert. Standard Developed

Equipment prototype

RTCA/EUROCAE/AEEC/ICAO Stds develop

Industry R&D Funding Committed

Technology Transfer Initiated

Basic Technology

Research

Technology Development

& Demonstration

Research to

Prove Feasibility

System/Subsystem Evaluation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

[pic]

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download