Final report
|[pic] | | Report |
| |International Civil Aviation Organization |30 April 2010 |
| | | |
| |REPORT | |
| | | |
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)
TWENTY SECOND MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F
Mexico City, Mexico 26 – 30 April 2010
REPORT
1. Introduction
1.1 The meeting was preceded by a Regional Preparatory Group (RPG) meeting for ITU WRC-12 (21-22 April 2010) and a warm welcome was personally made to the participants of WG-F by Loretta Martin, ICAO Regional Director, Mexico City. 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 Mexico City. Mr Alessandro Capretti from the ICAO Secretariat, Montreal acted as the Secretary of the meeting.
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 WP9 presented a proposal for some initial text to be included in development of Volume 2 of the ICAO Frequency Spectrum Handbook. The proposal covered VHF communications planning criteria with an aim to provide general planning guidance that could be used on a global level. During the presentation of the working paper there was a request that WG-F participants check the detail of the separation table in particular and feedback any comments back to the documents author. Additionally, during the presentation it was stated that there may be a need to consider revision and the necessity to some parts of Annex 10 and in particular Volume V Attachment A. The working paper was very much appreciated by the meeting who felt that this was a very good start in the process of developing of Volume 2 of the ICAO Frequency Spectrum Handbook.
3. Agenda item 3 – Development of material for ITU-R meetings
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.3
3.1 At WG-F/21 the meeting produced a temporary document (Attachment G to WG-F /21 meeting report) for further work and consideration at this meeting of WG-F. WP5 presented details of proposed modification of this document which was intended to form part of a proposed ICAO contribution to the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B. During the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised and in particular those related to the status of the links that were needed. In further development of the document the meeting produced Appendix D which the meeting recommended to the ICAO Secretariat should form the basis of any input into ITU-R Working Part 5B. One participant of the meeting did not agree with the full contents of the document produced.
3.2 WP11 presented details on a proposed UK paper that was intended as an input into the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B. The paper was concentrating on the type of services that the various UAS links needed to operate under now that a decision on the amount of spectrum required had been reached and was fully in line with the ICAO Position for WRC-12. The author of the paper requested that any feedback on the proposed UK input be made available during the meeting.
3.3 Although already partially addressed in ICAO, WP12 presented details of the review undertaken with the ICAO NSP Spectrum Subgroup (SSG) on the proposed sharing between MLS and AMS(R)S. A number of changes were proposed by the NSP to the ITU-R document 5B/417 Annex 18 and in addition raised two questions. These questions were adequately addressed during the WG-F meeting (TMP3) and it was therefore recommended to the ICAO Secretariat that the proposed changes contained in Appendix E of this meeting report be sent to ITU-R Working Party 5B.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4
5GHz wireless LAN
3.4 WP4 presented a limited study on the potential use of an airport surfaced based aeronautical 5GHz wireless LAN currently under development within the aeronautical community. The paper highlighted the work currently ongoing within RTCA, EUROCAE and ICAO and also that current evaluation of the system by radio regulatory administrations seemed to be considering old data based on pre WRC-07 data. During its introduction it was stated that a realistic model as possible had been used in trying to determine the spectrum requirements for such a system and that the conclusion was that the current AM(R)S allocation of 59 MHz is unlikely to meet the AM(R)S requirements for the proposed system. In the resulting discussion as to whether ICAO should make a contribution to the ITU-R on this issue a number of participants felt that some of the applications identified were not part of the AM(R)S and also that some double system accounting may be taking place with other aeronautical developments. Equally, given the way that the wireless LAN system is developing there were views expressed that ICAO should make a contribution to the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B to highlight this problem.
3.5 WP7 provided further background material on the work to date on developing the 5GHz aeronautical wireless LAN and also included proposals for the preliminary draft new ITU-R Report titled “Spectrum requirements for surface applications at airports in the 5 GHz range”. In the presentation of this paper it was made clear that since the previous ITU-R Report M.2120 was completed, a number of new AM(R)S applications had become known and these were part of the current spectrum requirements contained in the preliminary draft report. It was also stated that that the most efficient methods of delivering the data throughput had been used but still the spectrum requirements exceeded the 59 MHz currently allocated. A number of participants that while a spectrum demand in excess of 59 MHz was being identified they were not convinced that they were all AM(R)S requirements. Equally, a number of other participants believed that this was important information and representative examples of applications were needed to be considered by administrations in order to avoid a future WRC agenda item being generated since this particular item had been considered at both WRC-07 and WRC-12.
3.6 The meeting agreed to attempt to draft a possible paper that the ICAO Secretariat to consider presenting at the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B. After consideration of an initial draft the differences expressed in the meeting made it difficult to find a unified approach and therefore it was left with the ICAO Secretariat to decide whether an ICAO contribution should be presented at the ITU-R. For information the initial draft generated in the meeting can be found as Appendix F to this report.
NOTE: After further consideration and discussion outside of the meeting, the ICAO Secretariat felt that an ICAO contribution on this issue, and based upon WP4 and WP7, to the ITU-R was necessary. The ICAO Secretariat subsequently generated a contribution which was presented at the ITU-R Working Party 5B meeting held in May 2010.
1 GHz AM(R)S
3.7 WP8 addressed a liaison statement that has been sent from the March 2010 meeting of ITU-R Working Party 4C to ITU-R Working Party 5B. The paper addresses compatibility between AM(R)S operated in the frequency band 960 – 1164 MHz and RNSS operating in the frequency band 1164 – 1215 MHz. It was stated in the paper that in the liaison statement the element of AM(R)S out of band (OOB) emissions had not been taken into account and the paper contained details of a proposal going into ITU-R Working Party 5B from an administration that is aimed at rectifying this. During the discussion a question was raised as to why the % used for the OOB emissions was different to that used for other interfering sources. It was explained that this % was fairly standard for OOB emissions due to the other in-band interference sources that need to be taken into account in the apportionment of interference. The meeting were requested to take the information into consideration when addressing the issue within the ITU-R.
WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7
3.8 WP10 presented information on the discussions that had taken place at the March 2010 meeting of ITU-R Working Party 4C, areas for further consideration and proposals for changes to the CPM text. During its introduction it was stated that within the ITU-R discussions there was still a disagreement between different administrations on whether there is really a problem to be solved and therefore on what method to agree to. In the ensuing discussion there remained a majority view that the ORM process still needed to be more transparent and that ICAO could still have a role to play in any co-ordination process. One participant disagreed with these views stating that the ORM had not been fully understood and that in the past legitimate requests for AMS(R)S spectrum had been met and are likely to be met in the future.
3.9 The presentation in WP13 provided a view from a global MSS/AMS(R)S satellite operators perspective on how the co-ordination process had satisfied AMS(R)S spectrum requirements to date and were expected to in the future, why the existing provisions of the of the Radio Regulations were adequate and hence why there was no need to make any changes to these provisions. During the presentation it was stated that the ORM was a technical based efficient process for frequency co-ordination and that any new forum may unnecessarily complicate the process. It was further stated that that there may be a valuable roll for ICAO to play in the co-ordination process without creating another forum. The discussions that took place following the presentation were very similar to those that took place for WP10.
3.10 IP17 provided a presentation relating to the whole subject of WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 and Resolution 222. The presentation had previously been made at the regional spectrum seminar that had immediately preceded this meeting of WG-F and was felt to be useful background material for the WG-F discussions. In addition for background material IP17, IP18 and IP20, which were documents from the March 2010 of ITU-R Working Party 4C, were given a brief introduction.
3.11 The meeting agreed that ICAO should make further contributions to the ITU-R particularly relating to a proposed co-ordination process and the CPM text for WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7. Copies of the material developed during the meeting can be found as Appendix G and Appendix H of this meeting report. It was also recommended that this material be further refined through correspondence outside the meeting which the ICAO Secretariat agreed to facilitate.
NOTE: In order to obtain a response from a large an audience as possible, a wide ACP invite was sent to offer anybody with any comments to make an opportunity to provide them via correspondence. The correspondence session started immediately after the meeting with a completion date of 31 May 2010.
ITU-R Working Party 4C
MLS/RNSS compatibility
3.12 IP19 provided details of an ongoing ITU-R Working Party 4C sharing study between MLS and RNSS at 5 GHz. One of the issues highlighted during the introduction of this paper was the inability of RNSS to tolerate the emissions received from MLS operating near to the adjacent band edge of 5030 MHz. It was further stated that this may mean that MLS could not operate on all its available channels and in particular those at the lower edge of its range. Conversely, anther view stated was that this meant that RNSS might not be able to operate at airports where a MLS was in use. The ICAO Secretariat explained that the ICAO NSO SSG had already part reviewed this document with regards to the characteristics of the MLS as requested by the ITU-R but the consequences had not been considered. The Secretariat also stated that given short timescales it was unlikely that ICAO could make a contribution on this issue to ITU-R Working Party 5B. It was recommended by the meeting therefore that the ICAO NSP SSG review the document in more detail with an aim to provide an ICAO contribution to the next meeting of ITU-R Working Party 4C.
ITU-R Working Party 5B
Liaison statements
3.13 At the last meeting of WG-F (December 2009) the meeting considered a liaison statement from ITU-R Working Party 5B regarding Man Overboard (MOB) devices. At that time the meeting agreed that the liaison statement needed be considered by the Search and Rescue experts within ICAO. WP2 contained the results of these considerations within ICAO along with useful background material. During the presentation of WP2 it was suggested that any ICAO response to the ITU-R should specifically address the questions raised in the liaison statement. The meeting agreed with this approach and a copy of the proposed contribution to ITU-R Working Party 5B can be found as Appendix I to this report. IP16 which was related to this issue was already contained in WP2 and was therefore not considered separately in this meeting.
PLT
3.14 IP15 contained details of a proposed State input into ITU-R Working Party 5B relating to the protection of aeronautical systems from Power Line Technology (PLT). It was stated during its presentation that the approach being proposed was similar to that introduced into the UWB discussions and that the author was seeking comments. In the ensuing discussion only two comments were received but were of a similar nature i.e. that using intra system protection criteria for non aeronautical systems was not necessarily the best approach for protecting aeronautical systems.
4. Agenda Item 4 – Development of material for regional telecommunication
organization meetings
There were no papers for this agenda item.
5. Agenda item 5 - Interference from non-aeronautical sources
5.1 IP12 provided information on an FCC decision and potential aeronautical problems associated with the introduction of the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) (known as Complementary Ground Component (CGC) in Europe) by the MSS community in the frequency bands where AMS(R)S operates. The MSS proponents of CGC wish the system to be included into the co-ordination procedure associated with the satellite frequencies. These terrestrial systems have the potential to cause interference to the receiver fitted on board the aircraft and is therefore a serious concern for aviation. The meeting was reminded work on CGC is currently underway in RTCA with work due to complete during 2010 and that material relating to the development of the systems had been seen by WG-F over a number of years. In order to ensure that aviation interests are taken into account participants were encouraged to actively become involved in their States on this MSS terrestrial component issue.
5.2 IP14 was presented for information as an update to the work ongoing in the UK on the introduction of mobile communications in the frequency band adjacent to the 10 cm radar band at 2.7 GHz and contained details of a proposed contribution to ITU-R Working Party 5B. During the ensuing discussion it was stated that in most States studies still need to be completed but given that the decision to implement mobile systems in this frequency band has been made at a European level then perhaps a European approach is necessary. WG-F will continue to monitor the studies and work being undertaken in this area.
6. Agenda Item 6 – Any Other Business
6.1 WP3 presented results and frequency planning criteria for ILS, VOR and GBAS to VDL-4 in the frequency band 112 – 117.975 MHz. These details are part of the ongoing work to complete frequency planning criteria in relation to VDL-4 with VDL-4 to ILS, VOR and GBAS still to be completed within the ICAO NSP before final review by the ICAO ACP. It was explained during the presentation that the results had been obtained by using a previously agreed test set-up and available avionics. The meeting agreed and approved the results however one participant stated there was an outstanding issue regarding potential interference from VDL-4 into ILS and VOR monitors. It was explained that work is planned for later in 2010 to test ILS/VOR susceptibility to interference and another participant stated that this is not just an interference problem relating to VDL-4 but a general problem due to poorly designed wideband ILS/VOR monitors.
6.2 WP6 contained details of a possible spectrum mask for the 5GHz aeronautical wireless LAN. During its introduction it was stated that the mask in the paper related to that approved by the United States FCC for WiMax systems. In order to find a more representative option with a more realistic rate of decay the presenter requested further information from participants. Participants with any views on the mask to be used should contact Mike Biggs (FAA) as soon as possible.
6.3 WP14 raised the issue that with the ever increasing demand for radio frequency spectrum both for radio and cable based systems how aviation should address interference from non-aeronautical sources. The paper raised a number of questions which the meeting agreed could be useful in developing a procedure for considering this issue at future meetings of WG-F. In addition, the meeting also agreed that given the recent problems suffered in Europe due to the volcanic activity in Iceland and the costs calculated due the disruption, it may be possible to develop costs relating directly to interference.
6.4 IP13 was provided for information and contained the ICAO response to the UK radio regulator’s (Ofcom) consultation on the proposed introduction of Administrative Incentive Pricing (AIP) for the aeronautical VHF communications band. AIP has the potential to significantly increase the cost of radio spectrum used by ANSPs and at the close of the consultation over 230 responses had been received.
6.5 The date of the next meeting is scheduled for the 19 – 27 September 2010 at the ICAO regional office in Cairo. The first two days will be part of a regional spectrum seminar with the remaining days dedicated to WG-F.
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Agenda
Appendix B - List of Working Papers
Appendix C – List of Participants
Appendix D – WRC AI 1.3 Spectrum requirements
Appendix E – WRC AI 1.3 MLS/AMS(R)S sharing
Appendix F – WRC AI 1.4 5GHz wireless LAN draft
Appendix G – WRC AI 1.7 Co-ordination of AMS(R)S requirements
Appendix H – WRC AI 1.7 Draft CPM text
Appendix I – Man Overboard Devices
APPENDIX A
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
22ND Meeting of THE
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL WORKING GROUP F (WG-F/22)
(Mexico City, 26 – 30 April 2010)
Agenda
1. Opening and working arrangements
2. Review, update and development of the ICAO Frequency Spectrum
Handbook
WP9
3. Development of material for ITU-R meetings
ITU-R 5B liaison statements
Man over board - WP2
WRC-12 AI 1.3 – WP5, WP11, WP12
WRC-12 AI 1.4 – WP4, WP7, WP8
WRC-12 AI 1.7 – WP10, WP13, IP7, IP17, IP18, IP20
PLT – IP15
MLS/RNSS (4C) – IP19
4. Development of material for regional telecommunication organization
meetings
5. Interference from non-aeronautical sources
IP12, IP14
6. Any Other Business
WP3, WP6, WP14, IP13, IP16 (see WP2 AI3)
-------------------
APPENDIX B
List of Working Papers
|Working |Source |Title |Agenda |
|Paper | | |Item |
|1 |Rapporteur |Agenda | |
|2 |Secretary |ICAO SAR comments on the Liaison Statement from ITU-R WP-5B to the International Maritime |3 |
| | |Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). | |
|3 |L.Johnsson |Use of the band 112 – 117.975 MHz by VDL Mode 4 - Results of tests and frequency assignment |6 |
| | |planning criteria | |
|4 |S. Mitchell |5GHZ RLAN |3 |
|5 |B. Mitchell |Proposed edits to APPENDIX G of the ACP WG F 21ST Meeting Report (UAS SPECTRUM ISSUES) |3 |
|6 |M. Biggs |Spectral mask for 5 GHZ airport surface local area network |6 |
|7 |M. Biggs |Spectrum requirements for surface applications at airports in the 5 GHz range |3 |
|8 |M. Biggs |Proposed further RNSS-related revisions to Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R |3 |
| | |M.[AMRS_1GHZ_SHARING] | |
|9 |Secretary |HANDBOOK ON RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CIVIL AVIATION PART II _ Frequency |2 |
| | |assignment planning | |
|10 |Y. Mikuni |Preparation to develop contributions to the ITU-R WP 4C on WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 |3 |
|11 |J. Mettrop |UK contribution to ITU Working Party 5B on UAS |3 |
|12 |Secretary |NSP Spectrum Subgroup review of ITU WP5B output entitled: "Sharing in the band 5 030-5 091 MHz |3 |
| | |between the international standard microwave landing system (MLS) and a satellite system of the | |
| | |aeronautical mobile-satellite (route) service (AMS(R)S)" | |
|13 |Inmarsat |WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 |3 |
|14 |J. Mettrop |Interference threat response |5 |
List of Information Papers
|Information |Source |Title |Agenda |
|Paper | | |Item |
|1 |Secretary |Meeting work programme (in Spanish, with administrative information in English and Spanish) | |
|2 |Secretary |Aviation Frequency Spectrum & the ITU World Radiocommunication Conferences | |
|3 |S. Mitchell |ICAO Position for ITU WRC-12 | |
|4 |J. Siu |Asuntos de coordinación de gestión de asignación de frecuencias en las Regiones CAR/SAM | |
|5 |Mexico |Administración del espectro aeronáutico en México | |
|6 |Secretary |ICAO Radio Frequency Handbook DOC 9718 - Fifth edition | |
|7 |E. Allaix |WRC-12 A.I. 1.7 | |
|8 |M. Biggs |ITU-R WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4 | |
|9 |J. Taylor |WRC -12 Agenda Item 1.3 on UAS | |
|10 |J. Cramer |Update on Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications (WAIC) Issues - Update on WRC-12 AI 1.12 | |
|11 |Secretary |Handbook on Radio Frequency Spectrum Requirements for Civil Aviation including Statement of | |
| | |Approved ICAO Policies - Fifth Edition — 2009 (unedited) | |
|12 |C. Pichavant |Sky Terra /Inmarsat Spectrum concerns |5 |
|13 |Secretary |ICAO Response to the UK Ofcom consultation: Applying spectrum pricing to the aeronautical |6 |
| | |sector - a second consultation | |
|14 |J. Mettrop |Co-existence of S-Band radars with future mobile communications systems around 2.7 GHz |5 |
|15 |J. Mettrop |Protection of aeronautical systems from Power Line Technology |5 |
|16 |Secretary |Liaison statement to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International |6 |
| | |Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on specifications of “Man Overboard” devices | |
|17 |Secretary |Potential role of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements under Resolution |3 |
| | |222 (Rev.WRC-07) | |
|18 |Secretary |Review of results of ITU-R studies conducted under Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) |3 |
|19 |Secretary |Working Document towards a Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R M.[MLS_RNSS] Potential |3 |
| | |interference between the ICAO standard microwave landing system (MLS) operating above 5 030 | |
| | |MHz and planned radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) in the band 5 000- | |
|20 |Secretary |Draft CPM text 1.7 |3 |
APPENDIX C
|List of Participants |
|Name / Position |Administration / Organization |Telephone / E-mail |
|ARGENTINA |
|Víctor Hugo Polegritti |Administración Nacional de Aviación |Tel. + 54 11 4317 6000 int. 15152 |
|Jefe Departamento Comunicaciones – |Civil (ANAC) |E-mail vpolegritti@.ar |
|Dirección CNS | |vhpolegritti@.ar |
|AUSTRALIA |
|Edmondo D’Amico |Air Services Australia |Tel. + 61 2 6268 5443 |
|Manager, RF Spectrum | |E-mail |
| | |eddy.damico@ |
|BOLIVIA |
|Jaime Yuri Álvarez Miranda |Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil|Tel. + 591 2 2374142 int. 2661 |
|Jefe de la Unidad CNS | |E-mail jalvarez@.bo |
|BRAZIL |
|Geandro Luiz de Mattos |DECEA – Brazilian Air Space Control |Tel. + 55 21 2101 6213 |
|Technical Consultant |Department |E-mail geandroluiz@.br |
|Waldir Galluzi Nunes |DECEA – Brazilian Air Space Control |Tel. + 55 21 2101 6392 |
|Technical Consultant |Department |E-mail ddte4@.br |
|CANADA |
|John Taylor |Transport Canada |Tel. + 613 993 4061 |
|Civil Aviation Inspector | |E-mail john.taylor@tc.gc.ca |
|ECUADOR |
|Luis David Minango López |Dirección General de Aviación Civil |Tel. + 59 3 2250 4530 |
|Jefe Sección | |E-mail davidminango@.ec |
|Héctor Fabián Samaniego |Dirección General de Aviación Civil |Tel. + 593 22 526 343 |
|Asesoría Jurídica | |E-mail fabian_samaniego@.ec |
|FRANCE |
|Eric Allaix |Direction Générale de l’Aviation |Tel. + 33 6 1316 5223 |
|Head of Radio Spectrum and Frequencies |Civile |E-mail |
|Management Office | |eric.allaix@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |
|Hugues de Bailliencourt |ANFR |Tel. + 33 298 34 1232 |
| | |E-mail bailliencourt@anfr.fr |
|GERMANY |
|Martin Weber |Federal Network Agency |Tel. + 49 941 462 6230 |
| | |E-mail martin.weber@BNetzA.de |
|JAPAN |
|Yoshio Suzuki |Japan Radio Air Navigation Systems |Tel. + 81 3 5214 1353 |
|Project Manager, Satellite Engineering |Association (JRANSA) |E-mail suzuki@jransa.or.jp |
|Department | | |
|Yoshiyuki Mikuni |Civil Aviation Bureau of Japan |Tel. + 81 3 5253 8742 |
|Special Assistant to the Director | |E-mail mikuni-y2bd@mlit.go.jp |
|MEXICO |
|Héctor Abraham García Cruz |Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil|Tel. + 52 55 5723 9300 / 5420 6700 ext. 18074 |
|Inspector Verificador de Navegación | |E-mail hgarcicr@sct.gob.mx |
|Aérea | | |
|Jaime Llanes Echevverría |Servicios a la Navegación en el |Tel. + 52 55 5789 5525 |
|Oficina de Sistemas de Comunicaciones, |Espacio Aéreo Mexicano (SENEAM) |E-mail jaimellanes@ |
|Dirección de Ingeniería | | |
|NETHERLANDS |
|Gerlof Osinga |Radio Communication Agency |Tel. + 31 6 535 484 95 |
|Senior Manager Aviation & Maritine | |E-mail gerlof.osinga@at-ez.nl |
| | | |
|NEW ZEALAND |
|Alan R. Jamieson |Added Value Applications Ltd. |Tel. + 64 9 575 6100 |
|Managing Director | |E-mail ajamieson@ava.co.nz |
|PHILIPPINES |
|Luciano R. Macuse |Civil Aviation Authority of the |Tel. + 632 879 9155 / 632 879 9161 |
|Chief, Air Traffic Planning Division |Philippines |E-mail irmcuseacom1986@ |
| | |xrm_010760@ |
|SWEDEN |
|Robert Witzen |LFV, Sweden |Tel. + 1 514 426 7654 |
| | |E-mail r.witzen@videotron.ca |
|UNITED KINGDOM |
|Steven Mitchell |NATS |Tel. + 44 1489 444646 |
|Spectrum Manager | |E-mail Steve.mitchell@nats.co.uk |
|John Mettrop |Civil Aviation Authority |Tel. + 44 (0) 20 7453 6531 |
|Technical Manager | |E-mail john.mettrop@caa.co.uk |
| | | |
|UNITED STATES |
|Michael Biggs |Federal Aviation Administration |Tel. + 1 202 267 8241 |
|Senior Engineer | |E-mail michael.biggs@ |
|Dante Ibarra |Federal Communications Commision |Tel. + 1 202 418 0610 |
|Senior Engineer | |E-mail dante.ibarra@ |
|Joseph Cramer |The Boeing Company |Tel. + 703 465 3486 |
|Regional Director | |E-mail joseph.cramer@ |
|AIRBUS |
|Claude Pichavant |Airbus |Tel. + 33 5 6193 5788 |
|ICCAIA Member for ACP |France |E-mail claude.pichavant@ |
|BOEING |
|Marcella S. Ost |The Boeing Company |Tel. + 1 613 668 9838 |
|Directora Regional | |E-mail marcella.s.ost@ |
|ESA |
|Tony Azzarelli |Azzurra Telecom Acced |Tel. + 44 7879 690 167 |
|Managing Director & | |E-mail tony@azzura- |
|Consultant for European Space Agency | | |
|INMARSAT |
|Jonas Eneberg |Inmarsat |Tel. + 44 20 7728 1475 |
|Senior Manager, Spectrum Regulatory | |E-mail jonas_eneberg@ |
|Affairs | | |
|THALES |
|Christine Mengelle |Thales Alenia Space |Tel. + 33 5 3435 6046 |
|Regulatory Affairs |France |E-mail |
| | |christine.mengelle@ |
|ICAO |
|Alessandro Capretti |ICAO Headquarters |Tel. + 514 954 8219 |
|Technical Officer, Communications, | |E-mail acapretti@icao.int |
|Navigation and Surveillance | |Web icao.int |
|Julio César Siu |North American, Central American and |Tel. + 52 55 5250 3211 |
|Regional Officer, Communications, |Caribbean Office |E-mail jsiu@mexico.icao.int |
|Navigation and Surveillance | |Web mexico.icao.int |
|Radiocommunication Study Groups |APPENDIX D |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| | |
| | |
|Received: |Document 5B/-E |
| |April 2010 |
| |English only |
|ICAO |
|Spectrum requirments for unmanned aircraft systems |
|WRC-12 AGENDA ITEM 1.3 |
| |
1 INTRODUCTION
WRC-12 agenda item 1.3 calls for the consideration and possible regulatory actions needed to address the command and control/sense and avoid/air traffic control (ATC) relay needs of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). A study has now been completed that has identified the need for 34 MHz of terrestrial and 56 MHz of satellite spectrum to support these needs, noting that the 56 MHz of satellite spectrum includes both the link between the Unmanned Aircraft (UA) and the satellite as well as the UA control station and the satellite.
2 Discussion
ICAO in it’s position to WRC-11 clearly indicates that any “allocation used, in particular, for UAS command and control, ATC relay and sense and avoid in non-segregated airspace are in the AM(R)S, AMS(R)S and/or ARNS…”. ICAO sees no reason to change it’s position, however some clarification is perhaps required as to how this applies to links provided via a satellite.
ICAO is currently working on the definition of Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs) for the operation of UA in non-segregated airspace. These SARPs will include operational and technical considerations including defining the performance and interoperability of UAS. These SARPs will ensure the overall end-to-end performance of the links between the UA control station and the UA in order to ensure they meet the relevant safety requirements.
In the view of ICAO the links between the UA pilot and the UA consists of two bi-directional elements. The links between the UA and the satellite as well as the links between the satellite and the UA control station. The links between the UA and the satellite must be provided in an AMS(R)S allocation as per the stated ICAO position.
The links between the satellite and the UA control station could either be provided directly under an AMS(R)S allocation or via an FSS allocation as currently used for existing AMS(R)S systems. In either case the SARPs will ensure that the end-to-end performance meets the relevant safety requirements.
One contribution to ICAO ACP WGF has suggested that another service such as FSS could be used for the links between the UA and the satellite provided that there is an associated ITU-R Resolution that ensures such links meet a comparable level of safety as an AMS(R)S link. The view of the majority of the meeting however was that this approach would not be acceptable for civil UA.
APPENDIX E
ICAO input #1 to WP5B (cleared by ACP WGF 22)
Proposed modifications to Annex 18 to Working Party 5B Chairman’s Report (Working document towards a preliminary draft new report ITU-R M.[MLS-AMSRS])
Page 6, Section 5.1, second paragraph. Modify as follows:
MLS system provides coverage within an azimuth [+40°, −40°, possible extension to +60°,-60°] and an elevation [0.9°, 15°]. Moreover, the MLS AZ coverage area is limited longitudinally to 22.5 nm (41.7 km) and vertically to 20 000 ft (6 000 m). The Back Azimuth coverage is limited longitudinally to 10 nm (18.5 km) from the opposite threshold and vertically to 10000 ft (3000 m).This is illustrated on following figures, which give a horizontal view and a vertical view of the MLS coverage area.
Page 7, Section 5.1, fifth paragraph. Modify as follows:
However, as no frequency plan is available for these requirements, for the time being sharing studies are based on this worst-case scenario. Let us note finally that, each MLS channel is paired with a DME channel and for a limited amount of channels with an ILS/VOR VHF frequency.
Page 11, Section 5.3, third paragraph. Modify the first two lines as follows:
As specified in reference [Annex 10], MLS receiver minimum required sensitivity is –100 dBm for DPSK signals (at receiver input). Actual MLS receiver designs achieve a sensitivity of –107 dBm.
Pages 27-28, Section 7.3.3, Scenarios A and B.
Replace “aircrafts” with “airspace” (twice)
Page 42, Section 8, third paragraph. Modify as follows:
However, even when using these worst case assumptions, studies show that i) the protection criteria for MLS (in-band level below –130 dBm/150 kHz and out-of-band levels compatible with MLS receiver rejection performances) is met for all interference scenarios and ii) UA spectrum requirements as derived from preliminary draft new Report ITU-R M.[UAS-SPEC] can be accommodated in the band 5 030-5 091 MHz.
APPENDIX F
ACP WGF 22 Flimsy 4
1. Introduction
1.1 Resolves 1 of Resolution 420 (WRC-07) states “that ITU-R investigate, with priority, AM(R)S spectrum requirements for surface applications in the 5 GHz range, in order to determine if they can be fulfilled in the band 5 091-5 150 MHz “. As a result spectrum requirements studies have been underway within ITU-R Working Party 5B. This contribution provides the result of debates on this topic at the April 2010 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Working Group F (WG-F) meeting.
2. Discussion
2.1 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07) studies regarding its Agenda Item 1.6 resulted in Report ITU-R M.2120, providing an “Initial estimate of new aviation AM(R)S[1] spectrum requirements”. In that report, it was noted that there was a requirement for spectrum to support surface AM(R)S applications at airports including data links which were distinguished by a high data throughput, however only moderate transmission distances. The conclusion of that report was that “it is expected that the total aeronautical spectrum requirement for the surface domain will be on the order of 60-100 MHz”.
2.2 Follow-on work under WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.4 refined those studies, and the results are being captured in a new Report under development by WP5B entitled “Spectrum requirements for surface applications at airports in the 5 GHz range“. Initial inputs to that Report were based on a study performed by the United States and presented to the October 2008 meeting of WP5B, (see document 5B/130).
2.3 A contribution to the April 2010 ICAO WG-F meeting () suggested that the assumptions made in that initial October 2008 study may be overly optimistic, and using more realistic parameters it is clear that the 5 091-5 150 MHz band would not be sufficient to accommodate the identified representative applications. This is especially true taking into account that the spectrum available for AM(R)S in that band will be impacted by the fact that the band 5 091-5 150 MHz is also allocated and intended for use by the airport security system, which per the terms of ITU-R Recommendation M.1827 cannot share spectrum with the airport surface system; the fact that channelization limits within the airport system standard result in a granularity such that only 50, or 40 MHz is actually useable for the system depending on whether 10 or 20 MHz system channels are used; and that guard bands may be required in order to control out-of-band emissions.
2.4 A separate contribution to that Working Group F meeting indicated that receiver/system performance requirements activities for the airport surface network (previously known as ANLE, currently termed as AeroMACS) have begun within RTCA, Inc and the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE), and planning has also started for an ICAO technical working group to develop standards (ACP WG-S). These new efforts have introduced additional applications for the AeroMACS beyond those presented in the October 2008 study (). Under the assumptions of that contribution the conclusion is that the 5 091-5 150 MHz band would not be sufficient to support the identified representative applications.
3. Conclusion
3.1 While future studies will continue to refine the exact amount of spectrum necessary and the applications that will be supported by airport surface local area network, it is clear that based on the contributions provided, the 5 091-5 150 MHz band is not sufficient to satisfy the AM(R)S spectrum requirements for that system.
|Radiocommunication Study Groups |APPENDIX G |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| | |
| | |
|Received: 2010 |Document 4C/xxx-E |
|Subject: WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 | |
|Source: | |
| | 2010 |
| |English only |
|International Civil Aviation Organization |
|coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements under Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) |
| |
1 Introduction
1.1 One of the proposed Methods in the current draft CPM text for WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Method B) calls for the involvement of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.
1.2 The present document is intended to propose a practical way forward for the implementation of Method B.
1.3 The document contains some background on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Section 2); a discussion of some of the related issues (Sections 3); and a proposal for the implementation of the Method (Section 4). Conclusions are provided in Section 5.
2 Background
2.1 Frequency coordination in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands for the GSO/MSS networks is conducted under Article 9 of the Radio Regulations. Two multilateral coordination fora (one for ITU Regions 1 and 3 and one for ITU Region 2) have been established by the notifying Administrations of MSS networks, to facilitate coordination and spectrum sharing between these networks. The overall coordination process conducted in these fora will be referred to in the following as the “MLM/ORM” (multi-lateral meeting/operator review meeting) process.
2.2 Although RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) stipulate priority access to spectrum and protection for AMS(R)S communications in 1.5/1.6 GHz bands, current practice in the MLM/ORM process has been reported as not satisfying the spectrum requirements of at least one AMS(R)S operator. Furthermore, as the two multilateral coordination fora operate independently, frequency assignments obtained in the two fora may be incompatible for some satellite systems.
2.3 Taking into account some of these issues, WRC-07 adopted WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, in order to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum necessary to meet requirements for the AMS(R)S in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.
2.4 It also requested ITU-R to conduct appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the AMS(R)S in accordance with Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). The study of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 is being conducted by ITU-R WP 4C.
3 Other elements of the proposed modification of Resolution 222 under Method B of the Draft CPM text
3.1 The current arrangements related to the coordination processes in the 1.5/1.6 GHz MSS band are subject to confidentiality under the current MoU agreement. The confidentiality, even if it is a common practice in frequency coordination satellite meetings, and the associated lack of transparency of these arrangements are problematic for the specific usage in aviation community and also it is not clear why AMS(R)S spectrum requirements requested by an AMS(R)S operator may objected and not accommodated by the ORM participants..
3.2 This is reflected in the “Views of some administrations” in Section 5/1.7/2 of Annex 14 to Document 4C/338 (“the ORM assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU of the MLM are not available in the public domain. This makes it very difficult for the aviation community to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their safety communication needs”).
3.3 Issues of commercial confidentiality have been invoked by the MSS community to justify the lack of transparency with regard to the assignments agreed in the MLM/ORM process and with regards to why spectrum requirements are objected and not satisfied.. However, this justification does not seem valid, as the information on the agreed assignments is freely available to all operators involved in the MLM/ORM process, whose commercial interests are often conflicting (ORM participants may be direct competitors in the same MSS/AMS(R)S market).
3.4 There is a major source of concern by the user community on the fact that the satellite operators are not obliged to provide information, on the AMS(R)S assignments made at the ORM meeting, to the user community.
3.5 Therefore under Method B of the Draft CPM text the proposed modification of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency regarding AMS(R)S assignments by having an instruction to the Director of the BR to publish annually the AMS(R)S assignments covered by RR No. 5.357A.
3.6 For the user community (e.g. airlines, ANSP, ICAO) as well as satellite operators participating in ORM, the lack of transparency to the reasons for the decisions made at the ORM on AMS(R)S assignments is also a source of concern.
3.7 Therefore under Method B of the Draft CPM text the proposed modification of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency regarding decisions made at the ORM on AMS(R)S assignments by requesting ORM, only when AMS(R)S is not accommodated, to send to ITU BR a summary of the decisions regarding only AMS(R)S assignments and the reasons of those decisions and asking the Director of the BR to publish this summary.
3.8 The proposed modifications to Res. 222 seems to be a reasonable way forward described in the following section.
4 Proposal for the implementation of Method B of the Draft CPM text
The proposal is based on a modification of Resolution 222 which will describe the procedure in 7 steps. These steps are defined as follow:
Step 1 : Aviation Communications needs : these are developed by ICAO (e.g. traffic information, …), possibly also with the aide of the AMS(R)S satellite operators and provided as input to the consultation meeting in Step 2 below.
- The derivation of these communication needs may also require the development of a methodology by the aviation community so that these can then be used appropriately in Step 2 below.
- The output will not be mandatory to step 2.
Step 2 : Worldwide consultation Meeting under ITU umbrella.
- completely transparent to all ITU members
- Inputs based on Step 1;
- Other inputs from members of the consultation meeting (e.g. recognized AMS(R)S satellite system characteristics);
- Only inputs respecting ORM procedures will be take into account in the calculation of the spectrum requirements.
- Develops outputs documents of the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system respecting the milestones defined in the modified Res. 222, calculated by an agreed methodology (short term < = [2] years) developed by the ITU-R. This should translate aviation communications needs into spectrum requirements.
- Possibility to develop under non mandatory basis, recommended spectrum assignment plan to propose to the ORM in Step 4.
- Publish results of the meeting by ITU BR
Step 3 : The outputs of step 2 as published, become inputs to the different ORM fora. The AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system, agreed by consultation meeting, will be mandatory to the ORM.
Step 4 : ORM
- Consider, as appropriate, the recommended spectrum assignments plan developed in step 2.
- Shall accommodate the complete mandatory spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator as identified in step 2 :
o by making frequency assignments to the AMS(R)S operators prior to those of other operators;
o by ensuring that the AMS(R)S assignments are compatible with AMS(R)S assignments in the other ORM region;
o that any MSS assignment shall be compatible (shall not cause interference) to any AMS(R)S assignment of other region;
- Shall accept the participation of AMS(R)S operators whose assignments are impacted by the two regions;
Step 5 : Report
- The outputs of the ORM, i.e. (1) the total spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator defined in step 2 have been fulfilled and (2) the corresponding AMS(R)S assignments, have to be sent to the ITU BR, the other ORM and all the notifying administrations of MSS systems in both ORM/MLM fora.
Step 6 : If all the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in step 2 are not fulfilled by the ORM in step 5, then the ITU RR are not respected, and the ORM shall have a new meeting, with the operator’s notifying administrations, within [3 months] to satisfy the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements defined in step 2.
Step 7 : If after [3 months] from the end of step 4, the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements are not satisfied then appropriate notification of this status to the ITU BR and ICAO shall be made by the notifying Administrations of the AMS(R)S operators whom shall seek aide from the ITU BR and ICAO to resolve this issue.
Figure explaining the proposed process:
[pic]
5 Conclusions
5.1 The process introduced in Section 4 of this document is intended to support Method B of the current draft CPM text.
5.2 The approach outlined in Method B in the current draft CPM text is welcomed by ICAO as a novel approach that offers at least some hope for a way forward on a topic on which little substantial progress has occurred since WRC-97.
ANNEX
Definitions:
- Aviation Communication Needs: these are specific details on useful data, for example in terms of information volume per given airspace appropriately defined, that could be used for conversion to spectrum requirements for each satellite operator. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed set of data format for these requirements which are useful for the conversion to spectrum requirements.
- Spectrum Requirements or Spectrum Needs: these are the total and specific amount of spectrum needed by each satellite system to provide and serve the aviation communication needs with a given safety performance and quality of service. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed method for converting the Aviation Communication Needs to spectrum requirements for each satellite system.
- Accommodate Spectrum: The total amount of spectrum that has been assigned to an MSS operator, for the provision of a given service, as agreed by a given ORM meeting.
- Spectrum or Frequency Assignments: These are the actual frequencies given to a satellite operator used to provide a particular service.
- ORM: Operators Review Meeting, which is a multilateral frequency coordination meeting between MSS operators and operating under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) developed by Administrations forming part of the Multi-Lateral Meeting (MLM) Process. There exist two organized ORM, one for Region 2 and one for Region 1 and 3.
_______________
(ЦЗ 4С.ЦЗ 5Сб (ЦЗ 4И)б (ЦЗ 7И)б (ЦЗ 7С)б (ЦЗ 7В))
|Radiocommunication Study Groups |APPENDIX H |
| | |
| |[pic] |
| | |
| | |
|Source: Document 4C/436 Annex16 |Document 4C/YYY-E |
|Reference: | |
|Subject: WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, | |
|Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) | |
| |2010 |
| |English only |
|International Civil Aviation Organization |
|Working document toward draft CPM text |
|on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 |
|AGENDA ITEM 1.7 |
1.7 to consider the results of ITU-R studies in accordance with Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) in order to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum necessary to meet requirements for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service, and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz;
Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07): Use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite service, and studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service
5/1.7/1 Executive summary
[Text of the executive summary, not more than half a page.]
5/1.7/2 Background [Text of the background section, not more than half a page.]
Before WRC-97, the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz (Earth-to-space), were exclusively allocated to the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S). To allow flexibility in frequency coordination and to achieve spectrum efficiency, WRC-97 changed this allocation into a generic mobile-satellite service (MSS) subject to the provision RR No. 5.357A to prioritize access and protect AMS(R)S messages with priority 1 to 6 as per Article 44 of the Radio Regulations. For AMS(R)S priority access to the sub-bands 1 555-1 559 MHz and 1 656.5-1 660.5 MHz, see also RR No. 5.362A.
WRC-2000 adopted Resolution 222 (WRC-2000) resolving that, in frequency coordination of MSS systems in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 is accommodated. Also administrations shall ensure the use of the latest technical advances, in order to achieve the most flexible and practical use of the generic allocations. [Editor’s Note: Use the wording of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-2000)]. This could be achieved in advance through the coordination process, and when necessary and where feasible, through prioritization and real-time pre-emptive access. However, studies included in Report ITU-R M.2073 have concluded that prioritization and real time inter-system pre-emption between different mobile-satellite systems is not practical and, without a significant advance in technology, is unlikely to be feasible for technical, operational and economical reasons.
WRC-07 revised Resolution 222 to remove the request for studies to determine the feasibility and practicality of prioritization and real-time pre-emptive access issues, and invited ITU-R to carry out a number of additional studies towards ensuring long term spectrum availability for AMS(R)S. Currently, there are two systems that provide AMS(R)S in the 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz bands: the UK Inmarsat system offers AMS(R)S globally and the Japanese MTSAT system offers AMS(R)S over Japan and Asia-Pacific airspace. In addition, the Russian VOLNA system offers AMS(R)S for national use. Moreover, there are other systems being planned (See section x.x.x).
In coordinating MSS systems under the procedure of RR Article 9, the notifying administrations for MSS systems in the above bands have adopted two multilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) to facilitate the coordination process: one MoU involves the administrations providing MSS over North America (i.e. ITU Region 2) and a second MoU involves administrations providing MSS over ITU Regions 1 and 3. Under these MoUs, assignments across the bands 1 525-1 559/1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz are coordinated and reviewed usually on an annual basis at so called Operator Review Meetings (ORM) so as to ensure fair and efficient use of the radio spectrum. This multilateral process recognises the communications needs of GMDSS and AMS(R)S and the resulting spectrum needed to accommodate their requirements, in accordance with the Radio Regulatory provisions. By adopting the MoUs process, administrations have increased the efficiency of the coordination process. Additional coordination also takes place outside of the MoU process, where necessary.
One notifying administration of one AMS(R)S operator stated encountering difficulties since 2003 in satisfying its spectrum requirements through the MLM/ORM since this administration thinks that their spectrum requirements are treated on an equal basis with the other MSS operators, despite the priority stated in RR No. 5.357A. In particular, this administration stated that in the framework of one MLM/ORM group (Regions 1 and 3) no more than 70% of the spectrum requested by that operator was made available and, when then considering the additional constraints on spectrum reuse due to the other operators in Region 2, the overall resulting spectrum freely accessible for that AMS(R)S network was less than 50% of the requested amount.
Due to the above statements, the view of some Administrations is that the current provisions of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) have not resulted in practice to achieve the objectives mentioned by No. 5.357A and in order to resolve such matter, Agenda item 1.7 was adopted by WRC-07.
However, most of other notifying administrations of MSS operators (including AMS(R)S) are of the view that neither the subject AMS(R)S operator, nor its sponsoring administration have invoked the provisions of RR No. 5.357A within the ITU framework. These administrations are further questioning these statements since no evidence has been presented to show that traffic demand has not been satisfied.
Under the current provisions of the MoU (Regions 1 & 3), it is possible that, when there is no agreement in assigning the spectrum for the ORM, the previous year’s assignments would be retained. In such case, some administrations are of the view that this may cause problems to new AMS(R)S systems joining the MLM process. Even if such case occurred (i.e. one MSS operator didn’t sign the spectrum plan), this didn’t prevent assignment of additional spectrum to other MSS operators (including AMS(R)S operators) than the operator that didn’t agree to the spectrum plan, nor prevent the provision of AMS(R)S communication by MSS operators. This reflects the latest agreement of the MoU. [Editor’s Note: Text will be provided to clarify the situation with regards of the relation between the operators would have not sign the agreements and other operators of the ORM who respect the assignment.]
It is noted that the spectrum assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU are confidential and not available in the public domain. Such confidentiality is the normal practice in frequency coordination for all types of satellite networks. This is a concern to some administrations and the aviation community as they are of the view that this makes it very difficult for administrations and AMS(R)S operators to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their aviation safety communication needs. Other administrations are however of the view that administrations can obtain information about the provision of AMS(R)S services through their national (ATC) service providers, who would be the organisations signing the service level agreements (SLA) with the satellite operators. Administrations can also obtain AMS(R)S spectrum assignments information through the AMS(R)S operators themselves, as they have the freedom and flexibility to disclose their own spectrum assignments and thus allow them to develop long-term plans for spectrum access.
[Editor’s Note: What is the current AMS(R)S spectrum usage?]
Through the coordination process Administrations and operators agree on the appropriate interference criteria for each system and develop spectrum sharing methods that ensure the compliance with these criteria. This approach enables operators, in most cases, to avoid unacceptable interference between the systems. If interference should nevertheless occur, operators and administrations work together to remove the interference. Over the many years that MSS systems have been in operation in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 646.5 MHz and have been coordinated through the ORM process, some cases of interference have occurred, but they have been satisfactorily resolved.
The current coordination process includes a validation process of requested spectrum assignments in order to justify the spectrum requirements and achieve efficient use of the spectrum.
[Editor’s Note: Sections 5/1.7/3 and 5/1.7/4 below have not been discussed during March 2010 WP 4C and have thus note been modified from Document 4C/338 (Annex 14).]
5/1.7/3 Summary of technical and operational studies and relevant ITU-R Recommendations.
3.1 Long term AMS(R)S spectrum requirements
Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) invites the ITU-R to study, as a matter of urgency, and among other things, the existing and future spectrum requirements of the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service. For that purpose, spectrum requirements have been estimated using certain methodologies. The results, contained in the draft new Report ITU-R M.[AMS(R)S SPECTRUM ESTIMATE], are derived from the aviation needs and existing and future satellite systems characteristics.
3.1.1 Aviation needs
Flight movements
Information on flight movements is required to evaluate the number of aircraft located within a given airspace at any given time. The information can be based on the actual air traffic statistics, and/or on forecasts of future air traffic over a given airspace. Such statistics and trends are normally compiled by the relevant aviation authorities, e.g. by ICAO, IATA for worldwide data and by Eurocontrol for the European region (e.g. Eurocontrol compiles long-term statistics of flight movements for 20 years ahead). A copy of the Eurocontrol long-term forecast (2008-2030) is provided in the following link .
Communication needs of a single aircraft
The AMS(R)S communication needs of a single aircraft will in general depend on several factors, such as the airspace, operational concept, air traffic services provided for each different aircraft flight phase and position.
The identification and quantitative characterization of these communication needs is a complex matter. The ICAO Aeronautical Communication Panel (ACP) has recommended as guidance for the assessment of future communication requirements the “Communications operating concept and requirements for the future radio system” (COCR, currently in Version 2), developed by Eurocontrol and FAA. The COCR describes in detail the aviation communication services required by single aircraft in each airspace domain and flight phase, and is a suitable basis for the purpose of the assessment of the needs of multiple aircraft. A copy of this document can be found at the following link .
The COCR does not however define some important elements of the system design, for example whether the communication requirements are carried by satellite or terrestrial means. Factors such as the determination of the communication requirements by satellite, whether point-to-multipoint transmission mode is used and the satellite system design will impact the spectrum requirements.
Communication needs of multiple aircrafts
The cumulative communication needs over a given airspace and a given time frame can be obtained by combining the information on flight movements in that area and time frame with the information on the communication needs of a single aircraft.
Two procedures were agreed by ICAO for assessing spectrum needs using a combination of the above information. One based on a simulated statistical approach which derives aviation requirements and then adapts these to satellite technologies and the second a deterministic approach based on a Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count (PIAC) also adapted to satellite technologies. The difference between these two procedures occurs at the level of derivation of aviation requirements inputs, i.e. one considers a flight by flight and time iterated simulation and the other relies on estimation of the maximum number of aircraft over a given airspace and the average communication information volume per aircraft.
The statistical simulated model works at a lower level of detail and should ensure that the specified message priority and latency of safety communication messages are taken into consideration.
3.1.2 Satellite system characteristics and methodology
In order to derive the spectrum requirements from the aviation needs, a set of satellite characteristics are needed for the calculation. Some of these are the beam configuration (number and size of beams), the service area configuration per beam, the capacity per carrier, the data delay, the carrier separation, the band efficiency, the access scheme, the protocol inefficiencies, modulation, the satellite/terrestrial split of avionics traffic and so on.
The methodology to estimate the spectrum requirement over an airspace is in four general steps as follows:
1) Gather the information on aircraft statistics and communication needs for the chosen area and calculate from all aircraft the maximum communication needs in bits/second.
2) From 1) calculate for the chosen area the spectrum requirements for a satellite beam, taking into account the satellite characteristics (one beam may not cover the complete area).
3) Calculate the total spectrum requirement for the satellite system taking account of all beams over the chosen area.
4) Calculate the global spectrum requirements using frequency re-use between the different satellite networks.
3.1.3 AMS(R)S requirements
It is noted that the estimation of AMS(R)S spectrum can be performed separately for the satellite forward link and for the satellite return link. The two components are in general different because of the different communication needs and protocols in both links.
The spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S vary depending on the area being considered, assumptions for the overall system design (e.g. how much traffic is carried by terrestrial means, and how much by satellite means), and the characteristics of the AMS(R)S system.
[Editor’s Note: The table which is in Annex 2, summarizing the estimated spectrum requirements studies needs to be captured here.]
[The European airspace can be seen as a worst case in regards of the number of planes, and related communication requirements in 2025. For this area, the spectrum requirements for the year 2025 are estimated in the forward link at between [2.9] MHz and [3.3] MHz and not more than [1.3] MHz in the return link. The larger number is based on an assumption and use of a satellite system with six spot beams over the European airspace region, the smaller number of an alternative satellite system design with 26 spot beams over the European airspace region.
Enhanced analysis based on other assumptions, would lead to smaller spectrum requirements of between [0.4 and 0.7 MHz] in particular, that more traffic is carried by the terrestrial link, that there is the use of point-to-multipoint transmission mode and enhanced terminal performance.
When we consider a global Earth airspace the spectrum requirement is going to be slightly more, driven by the European requirements. European studies have shown that the global spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S in year 2025 will not exceed 5 MHz in the forward link and 2 MHz in the return link.]
As the studies called by invites ITU-R (i) of Res. 222 have been performed and concluded. Hence, it is proposed to close the invites ITU-R (i) of Resolution 222.]
3.2 Assessment whether the long-term requirements of the AMS(R)S can be met within the existing allocations with respect to No. 5.357A[ responding to invite ITU-R ii]]
[TBD
1) Long-Term Spectrum Fits in 2 x 10 MHz
The results of the studies show that the total worst case long term spectrum requirement is well below 2x10 MHz (in particular 4.2 MHz in the forward-link and 2.4 MHz in the return-link).
Hence, this covers the first part of invites ITU-R (ii) of res. 222 (WRC-07).
2) Long-Term Spectrum Does Not Cause Undue Constraints
The second part of invites ITU-R (ii) talks about “undue constraints”.
ICAO’s understanding of the words “undue constraint” is that this does not mean that the victim service will be free of constraints, instead it means that reasonable constraints to a victim service may be caused and accepted, and it is a matter of defining or understanding what these reasonable constraints are. The constraints may become “undue” or may become extremely detrimental such that the victim service may find it difficult to continue its operations. Hence, it does not mean that the victim must be “constraint free”.
As the global worst case long-term spectrum requirements of AMS(R)S will be small, i.e. less than 10% of the available MSS spectrum in L-band (i.e. 40 MHz), and as future MSS satellite systems (e.g. year 2025) will likely be more spectrum efficient, thus improving themselves the current spectrum congestion situation, then it is believed that AMS(R)S long-term needs will not cause undue constraints to the MSS.
Taking into account the results of the previous sections, it is believed that invites (ii) of resolution 222 (WRC07) has been fulfilled and can be deleted.
3.3 Feasibility and practicality of technical or regulatory means to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements[ responding to invite ITU-R iii]]
[TBD
(1) Regarding “regulatory means”
ICAO supports modifying Method B of draft CPM text to modify Resolution 222 to improve the regulatory aspects that ensures access to spectrum to AMS(R)S to close this invites ITU-R (iii) of Res. 222 (WRC-07) (currently considered in Method B, Annex 14 of 4C/338). The modification of resolution 222, will have to take into account the new approach proposed by ICAO in its other contribution to WP4C ().
(2) Regarding “technical means”
ICAO believes that an improvement in the efficient use of spectrum of current MSS and AMS(R)S satellite systems will greatly improve the sharing situation between these two types of networks and reduce the current congestions in the 1.5/1.6 GHz band.
Taking into account the results of the previous sections, by the enforcement of the proposed modifications of Resolution 222 as given in another ICAO contribution, it is believed that invites (iii) of resolution 222 (WRC07) has been fulfilled and can be deleted.]
3.4 Study of existing MSS allocations or possible new allocations only for satisfying the requirements of the AMS(R)S[ responding to invite ITU-R iv]]
[TBD
Taking into account that invites ITU-R (i) and (ii) have been fulfilled and that the long-term spectrum requirements of AMS(R )S can be met in the existing frequencies bands 1545-1555 MHz and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz. Hence, no studies are required to propose existing or new frequency allocations for AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44. As a consequence, ICAO proposes that invites ITU-R (iv) of Res. 222 (WRC-07) can be deleted.]
3.25 Other considerations
[Furthermore, NGSO systems in a part of the 1 610-1 626.5 MHz band may deploy AMS(R)S services (subject to RR No. 9.21) which could also be used to satisfy the overall demand for the use of AMS(R)S spectrum.
The estimated spectrum requirement for AMS(R)S resulting from the ITU-R studies did not take into account the potential AMS(R)S traffic carried by NGSO systems
From this perspective the current estimation for the RR No. 5.357A bands may [slightly] over estimate the spectrum estimation.]
[The estimated spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S resulting from some of the ITU-R studies did not take into account that most of the AMS(R)S traffic is currently carried out by terrestrial systems. This leads to the resultant spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S being over estimated).]
Regarding UAS spectrum requirements
Under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, the studies have assumed that unmanned aircraft operating in Unmanned Air Systems (UASs) will fly and appear as normal aircraft. The AMS(R)S communication estimate in WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 studies have included all communications from air traffic control centres to air vehicles, including those related to UASs. This assumption was identified as necessary for the separation of study of spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S between the Working Parties responsible for WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 and WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3.
[The Working Parties also identified that the study of spectrum requirements under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 include the separate two way link from the individual UAS to its remote pilot which may be part of the AMS(R)S. Therefore, studies under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 may determine that some of these specific UAS spectrum requirements fall within AMS(R)S priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 for this part of the communication link. If these specific two way UAS remote pilot and UAS link requirements were to be used within the bands given in RR No. 5.357A, after WRC-12 then the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 would have been under estimated and the AMS(R)S inclusive total may exceed the available 2 x 10 MHz. If WRC-12 agrees that this possibility exists, then UAS requirements should be considered outside of the provisions of RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). {Editor’s note: further explanation of post WRC RR may have to be moved into other considerations paragraph.}]
The future spectrum requirements for command and control, Air Traffic Control (ATC) data relay and sense and avoid communication needs of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are discussed under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3.
3.36 List of relevant ITU-R Recommendations and Report
Relevant ITU-R Recommendations:
[Editor’s Note: Only the Recommendations than have been used in the studies are needed.]
Relevant ITU-R Reports:
M.2073 − Feasibility and practicality of prioritization and real-time pre-emptive access between different networks of mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz.
M.[AMS(R)S SPECTRUM ESTIMATE] − AMS(R)S communication requirements forecasts and estimated future spectrum requirements.
5/1.7/4 Analysis of the results of studies
The results of studies under this Agenda item show that long term AMS(R)S spectrum requirements [will be less than 2 x 10 MHz and would fit into the frequency bands defined by provision RR No. 5.357A. In that case, Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) invites the ITU-R to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements in those bands.]
The bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz are currently also used for other MSS operations by several MSS operators. RR No 5.357A requires that those operators yield capacity to meet the requirements of AMS(R)S systems. However, the impact on existing MSS operations would be dependant on the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S.
The existing provision RR No. 5.357A together with the resolves of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) imposes explicit priority for aeronautical communications. This includes a requirement that AMS(R)S communication needs have priority access to spectrum. Therefore, assuming that the total AMS(R)S spectrum needs of all MSS operators (1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5MHz) are less than 2 x 10 MHz, MSS operators should ensure they yield spectrum to new validated AMS(R)S [spectrum requirements covering messages of categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 in coordination meetings having a workable mechanism] (i.e. new or existing MSS operators that support AMS(R)S communications). This will ensure AMS(R)S safety communications are met. The current regulations require that the priority afforded to AMS(R)S is taken into account in the coordination process. This allows for the requirements of AMS(R)S within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 to be reviewed and assessed by the [notifying administrations of the MSS and AMS(R)S operators.]
[Some administrations are of the view that in the event of MSS assignments having to be removed to satisfy [5.357A/A.I. 1.7] in meeting the long term requirements of AMS(R)S to provide for AMS(R)S communications needs/assignments, more MSS users would be required to use the remaining reduced spectrum which may increase the levels of congestion and therefore may reduce the quality of existing service to existing customers or even cease provisions of some services.][Editor’s Note: Candidate to be moved elsewhere, copied in other section, to be improved by additional contributions to the next meetings.]
[One notifying administration of one AMS(R)S operator stated encountering difficulties since 2003 in satisfying its spectrum requirements through the MLM/ORM since this administration thinks that their spectrum requirements are treated on an equal basis with the other MSS operators, despite the priority stated in RR No. 5.357A. In particular, this administration stated that in the framework of one MLM/ORM group (Regions 1 and 3) no more than 70% of the spectrum requested by that operator was made available and, when then considering the additional constraints on spectrum reuse due to the other operators in Region 2, the overall resulting spectrum freely accessible for that AMS(R)S network was less than 50% of the requested amount.
However, some other notifying administrations of MSS operators (including AMS(R)S) are of the view that neither the subject AMS(R)S operator, nor its sponsoring administration have invoked the provisions of RR No. 5.357A within the ITU framework. These administrations are further questioning these statements since no evidence has been presented to show that traffic demand has not been satisfied.
Under the current provisions of the MoU (Region 1&3), it is possible that, when there is no agreement in assigning the spectrum for the ORM, the previous year’s assignments would be retained. In such case, some administrations are of the view that this may cause problems to new AMS(R)S systems joining the MLM process. Even if such case occurred (i.e. one MSS operator didn’t sign the spectrum plan), this didn’t prevent assignment of additional spectrum to other MSS operators (including AMS(R)S operators) than the operator that didn’t agree to the spectrum plan, nor prevent the provision of AMS(R)S communication by MSS operators. This reflects the latest agreement of the MoU. Editorial Note: text will be provided to clarify the situation with regards of the relation between the operators would have not sign the agreements and other operators of the ORM who respect the assignment.
It is noted that the spectrum assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU are confidential and not available in the public domain. Such confidentiality is the normal practice in frequency coordination for all types of satellite networks. This is a concern to some administrations and the aviation community as they are of the view that this makes it very difficult for administrations and AMS(R)S operators to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their aviation safety communication needs. Other administrations are however of the view that administrations can obtain information about the provision of AMS(R)S services through their national (ATC) service providers, who would be the organisations signing the service level agreements (SLA) with the satellite operators. Administrations can also obtain AMS(R)S spectrum assignments information through the AMS(R)S operators themselves, as they have the freedom and flexibility to disclose their own spectrum assignments and thus allow them to develop long-term plans for spectrum access.
Editorial Note: what is the current AMS(R)S spectrum usage?
Through the coordination process Administrations and operators agree on the appropriate interference criteria for each system and develop spectrum sharing methods that ensure the compliance with these criteria. This approach enables operators, in most cases, to avoid unacceptable interference between the systems. If interference should nevertheless occur, operators and administrations work together to remove the interference. Over the many years that MSS systems have been in operation in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 646.5 MHz and have been coordinated through the ORM process, some cases of interference have occurred, but they have been satisfactorily resolved.
The current coordination process includes a validation process of requested spectrum assignments in order to justify the spectrum requirements and achieve efficient use of the spectrum.]
[Editor’s Note: Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods in sections 5/1.7/5 (except for the advantages of Method A) below have not been discussed during March 2010 WP 4C and have thus note been modified from Annex 14 to Document 4C/338.]
5/1.7/5 Methods to satisfy the agenda item
It is noted that methods suggesting a return to an exclusive AMS(R)S allocation within the 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz bands would be inconsistent with the mandate of this agenda item. No such methods are therefore included here.
[Editor’s Note: For each method, it is reminded that advantages and disadvantages should be limited to a maximum number of three, reflecting the real facts and figures relating to the advantages and disadvantages of each method, while avoiding overlapping and repetitions.]
5.1 Method A – No Change to the regulatory provisions of the Radio Regulations
No Change to Articles 5 and 9 of the Radio Regulations. Resolution 222 would only require “consequential changes” to resolves 3 to remove the reference to “invites ITU-R studies” and to remove the invites themselves to denote that WRC-12 has adequately considered addressed the matters.
Brief description of the Method:
Until now there is no evidence that any existing AMS(R)S system has failed to satisfy its traffic requirements within the spectrum assignments made in the coordination process. Although one AMS(R)S operator has claimed at the ORM/MLM meeting that its spectrum requirements have not been satisfied, no dissatisfaction with the coordination outcome for an AMS(R)S network has been raised to the level of the notifying Administrations resulting in an administration invoking the priority provision of RR No. 5.357A.
The long term AMS(R)S worst case spectrum requirements up to the year 2025 have been estimated as less than the available 2 x 10 MHz (i.e. [tbd] MHz space-to-Earth and [tbd] MHz Earth-to-space). These spectrum requirements can be accommodated in the frequencies bands identified in RR No. 5.357A.
The existing Radio Regulation provision (RR No. 5.357A, Article 9 and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07)) provide sufficient priority for current and future AMS(R)S requirements. Under these provisions, notifying administrations of the AMS(R)S systems should identify required spectrum for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 in order that validated ASM(R)S requirements are provided through the coordination process.
Therefore, Resolution 222 would only require “consequential changes” to resolves 3 to remove the reference to “invites ITU-R studies” and to remove the invites themselves to denote that WRC-12 has adequately considered addressed the matters.
Advantages
– priority access to spectrum for AMS(R)S systems is ensured along with flexible and efficient use of the band and no undue constraints are placed on existing systems operating in the band;
– avoid developing and implementing unnecessary new regulatory provisions as the current procedures appear to have been adequate, and generic MSS networks are currently able to share with AMS(R)S networks;
– the coordination process for these bands conducted between operators at regular annual multilateral coordination meetings for more than 12 years has been able to accommodate all the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements.
Disadvantages
– [since no additional procedures will be included in the Radio Regulations, the problems that have led to the adoption of A.I. 1.7 will not be solved;]
– [meeting the AMS(R)S needs in these bands means existing (non AMS(R)S) MSS operations in the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz may have to yield spectrum causing a reduction in the quality of service for some users] [Editor’s Note: More contributions are needed to explain it.]
5.2 Method B – Modification to Resolution 222 (WRC-07) to implement additional procedures supporting the provision of RR No. 5.357A without any modification to Articles 5 and 9 of the Radio Regulations
No Change to Article 5 and 9 of the Radio Regulations. However, modification to Resolution 222 (WRC-07) by WRC-12 should aim at include additional procedures to ensure long-term availability of AMS(R)S including coordination procedure which provide priority access to AMS(R)S spectrum in the bands that are under provision RR No. 5.357A.
Brief description of the Method:
The long term AMS(R)S worst case spectrum requirements up to the year 2025 have been estimated as less than the available 2 x 10 MHz (i.e. [tbd] MHz Space-to-Earth and [tbd] MHz Earth-to-Space). These spectrum requirements can be accommodated in the frequencies bands identified in RR No. 5.357A.
[Editor’s Note: Description of the procedures should be better explained.]
Modification to Resolution 222 (WRC-07) by WRC-12 should aim at implementing additional procedures to ensure the coordination process will provide priority access to AMS(R)S spectrum in the bands that are under provision RR No. 5.357A in facilitating the implementation of RR No. 5.357A and also add transparency to the current multilateral coordination process.
This Method proposes the modification of the Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) could require notifying administrations of both MSS and AMS(R)S networks involved in the current multilateral coordination process to consider necessary spectrum requirements for the AMS(R)S networks, coordinated in advanced with ICAOin an ITU-R consultation meeting as proposed below, for the year concerned, and to assign spectrum to AMS(R)S networks prior to other MSS network.
Prior to the MSS multilateral coordination meetings (ORM), an ITU-R consultationcoordination meetings would be held between AMS(R)S operators with ICAO, also involving all interested ITU administrations and the MSS operatorsall interested parties. These meetings would provide to the ORM estimated AMS(R)S communication and spectrum requirements related to the categories 1 to 6 of Article 44 with the appropriate justifications, including traffic projection and current spectrum usage
The Resolution should also include provisions to ensure transparency whether the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements have been accommodated, or not, by the multilateral MSS coordination meeting.
[The Resolution should also include provisions to review the impact of the growth of the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements on the other MSS systems]
The Resolution should also include provisions to review the impact of the growth of the MSS spectrum requirements on AMS(R)S systems in the 2x10 MHz allocations RR No. 5.357A.
Consequentially, editorial modifications to RR No. 5.357A may be needed.
Advantages
– Priority access to justified spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S systems is ensured, along with flexible and efficient use of the band, fulfilling the provisions of footnote RR. 5.357A and maintain the current multilateral coordination process.
– Transparency of the discussions and results of the multilateral frequency coordination meetings concerning AMS(R)S spectrum requirements and assignments is ensured;
– Long term spectrum requirements of AMS(R)S systems in the 1.5/1.6 GHz band will not place undue constraints on existing MSS systems operating in the band;
– [This method is an efficient use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by AMS(R)S;] [Editor’s Note: More explanation regarding this advantage is necessary as its intent is not clear.]
– [Priority access to AMS(R)S communications is ensured, and generic MSS networks are able to share with AMS(R)S networks.]
– [This method would not result in placing undue constraints to the existing systems.] [Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
– [This method would result in efficient use of spectrum] [Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
Disadvantages
– [Additional worldwide administrative meetings need to be held.]
– [Implementation of priority access for AMS(R)S in the 1.5/1.6 GHz band would result in placing undue constraints to the existing systems.] [Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
– [This method would result in inefficient use of spectrum] [Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
5.3 Method C – Existing MSS/AMS(R)S allocations, other than [1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz] or possible new allocations only for satisfying the long-term requirements of AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 in RR Article 44
Modification to Article 5 (to satisfy long-term AMS(R)S requirements in existing MSS/AMS(R)S allocations, other than [1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz] or possible in new allocations). No change to Article 9 is needed. Modification of Resolution 222.
Brief description of the Method:
This Method is relevant only as per invites iv) of Resolution 222 and conditioned by studies relevant to invites i) and ii) of Resolution 222 which have not been completed yet. Studies also need to be done on the affect of undue constraints on AMS(R)S while:
– retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz;
– without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations;
– without the necessity of periodically coordinating access to the spectrum needed to accommodate AMS(R)S requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings.
This method proposes existing MSS allocations or possible, new allocations other than the
[1 525-1 559 MHz and the 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz] bands solely for satisfying the long-term requirements of AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 in RR Article 44.
It can be satisfied within either new or others existing allocations (other than [1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz]) for AMS(R)S. In case of new allocations to AMS(R)S appropriate sharing studies need to be conducted.
Regulations for new or existing AMS(R)S allocations should be put in place for assuring AMS(R)S the same condition or better with respect to footnote 5.357A.
Advantages
– [Undue constraints are not imposed on existing MSS systems operating in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations.]
– [No need for AMS(R)S operators to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum needed to accommodate AMS(R)S requirements within the MSS requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings.]
– [AMS(R)S spectrum requirements can be satisfied for a long-term period.]
[Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
Disadvantages
– This will cause heavy cost to airlines for the installation of multiple AMS(R)S equipage (which is not interoperable) on board aircraft and unnecessary burden to the air navigation service provider for the operation of multiple incompatible systems.
– [Undue constraints are imposed on existing AMS(R)S systems operating in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations. Other administrations are of the view that AMS(R)S will be able to continue operating in this band.]
– [Regulatory certainty by AMS(R)S will be lost.]
– [AMS(R)S technology in L-band will be lost.]
– [No possibility for AMS(R)S operators to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum needed to accommodate AMS(R)S requirements within the MSS requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings.]
[Editor’s Note: To be assessed to the next meeting.]
5/1.7/6 Regulatory and procedural considerations
6.1 Method A
– No Change to the regulatory provisions in Article 5 of the Radio Regulations and the resolves of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07).
– Modification to Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) to remove the reference to the invites ITU-R in the resolves part of the resolution and WRC-12 should delete all remaining clauses of the invites ITU-R (i.e. consequential modifications), as per Annex 1.
6.2 Method B
– Modify Resolution 222 (Rev. WRC-07) as per Annex 2.
– Retain provision of RR No. 5.357A with consequential amendments, as appropriate.
6.3 Method С
– There are other bands already allocated to AMS(R)S and satisfaction of future long term AMS(R)S spectrum requirements within these bands will require a modification of Article 5 of the Radio Regulations or new Regulatory procedures to be put in place for ensuring AMS(R)S the same condition or better with respect to RR No. 5.357A.
Annex 1
MOD
RESOLUTION 222 (Rev.WRC-0712)
Use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite service, and studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability
for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service
[…]
resolves
1 that, in frequency coordination of MSS in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed for distress, urgency and safety communications of GMDSS, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, in the bands where No. 5.353A applies, and for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44 in the bands where No. 5.357A applies is accommodated;
2 that administrations shall ensure the use of the latest technical advances, in order to achieve the most flexible and practical use of the generic allocations;
3 that administrations shall ensure that MSS operators carrying non-safety-related traffic yield capacity, as and when necessary, to accommodate the spectrum requirements for distress, urgency and safety communication of GMDSS communications, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, and for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44; this could be achieved in advance through the coordination process in resolves 1, and, when necessary, through other means if such means are identified as a result of studies in invites ITU-R,.
invites ITU-R
to conduct, in time for consideration by WRC-11, the appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) including:
(i) to study, as a matter of urgency, the existing and future spectrum requirements of the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service;
(ii) to assess whether the long-term requirements of the AMS(R)S can be met within the existing allocations with respect to No. 5.357A while retaining unchanged the generic allocation for the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations;
(iii) to complete studies to determine the feasibility and practicality of technical or regulatory means, other than the coordination process referred to in resolves 1 or the means considered in Report ITU-R M.2073, in order to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements as referenced in resolves 3 above, while taking into account the latest technical advances in order to maximize spectral efficiency;
(iv) if the assessment identified in invites ITU-R (i) and (ii) indicates that these requirements cannot be met, to study existing MSS allocations or possible, new allocations only for satisfying the requirements of the aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44, for global and seamless operation of civil aviation taking into account the need to avoid undue constraints on existing systems and other services,
invites WRC-11
to consider the results of the above ITU-R studies and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz,
invites
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), administrations and other organizations concerned to participate in the studies identified in invites ITU-R above
Annex 2
MOD
RESOLUTION 222 (Rev.WRC-1207)
Use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite service, and studies means to ensure long-term spectrum
availability access for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service
The World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 201207),
considering
a) that prior to WRC-97, the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) were allocated to the maritime mobile-satellite service and the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) were allocated on an exclusive basis to the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) in most countries;
b) that WRC-97 allocated the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) to the mobile-satellite service (MSS) to facilitate the assignment of spectrum to multiple MSS systems in a flexible and efficient manner;
c) that WRC-97 adopted No. 5.353A giving priority to accommodating spectrum requirements for and protecting from unacceptable interference distress, urgency and safety communications of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) in the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz and No. 5.357A giving priority to accommodating spectrum requirements for and protecting from unacceptable interference the AMS(R)S providing transmission of messages with priority categories 1 to 6 in Article 44communications in the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz;
d) that AMS(R)S is an essential element of ICAO CNS/ATM to provide safety and regularity of flight in the civil air transportation,
further considering
a) that coordination between satellite networks is required on a bilateral basis in accordance with the Radio Regulations, and, in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz (Earth-to-space), coordination is partially assisted by regional multilateral meetings;
b) that, in these bands, geostationary satellite system operators currently use a capacity-planning approach at multilateral coordination meetings, with the guidance and support of their administrations, to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum needed to accommodate their requirements;
c) that spectrum requirements for MSS networks, including the GMDSS and AMS(R)S, are currently accommodated through the capacity-planning approach and that, in the bands to which Nos. 5.353A or 5.357A apply, this approach, and other methods may assist in accommodating the expected increase of spectrum requirements for GMDSS and AMS(R)S;
d) that Report ITU-R M.2073 has concluded that prioritization and inter-system pre-emption between different mobile-satellite systems is not practical and, without a significant advance in technology, is unlikely to be feasible for technical, operational and economical reasons. It summarized that prioritization and intersystem real-time pre-emption would not necessarily increase the efficiency of spectrum use compared to the current situation, but it would certainly complicate substantially the coordination process and network structure;
e) that there is existing and increasing demand for spectrum for AMS(R)S and non-AMS(R)S by several mobile satellite systems in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and that the application of this Resolution may impact the provision of services by non-AMS(R)S systems in the mobile satellite service;
f) that future requirements for AMS(R)S and GMDSS spectrum may require additional allocations,;
g) that the long term AMS(R)S worst case spectrum requirements up to the year 2025 have been estimated as less than the available 2 x 10 MHz identified by footnote 5.357A (i.e. [3.3] MHz space-to-Earth and [1.3] MHz Earth-to-space),
recognizing
a) that absolute priority to all telecommunications concerning safety of life at sea, on land, in air or in outer space is given by No. 191 of the ITU Constitution;
b) that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has adopted Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) addressing satellite communications with aircraft in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation;
c) that all air traffic communications as defined in Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation fall within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44;
d) that Table 15-2 of Appendix 15 identifies the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) for distress and safety purposes in the maritime mobile-satellite service as well as for routine non-safety purposes,;
e) that ICAO has knowledge of aviation communications requirements,
resolves
1 that, in frequency coordination of MSS in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed for distress, urgency and safety communications of GMDSS, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, in the bands where No. 5.353A applies is accommodated;
2 that, prior to the frequency coordination of MSS in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed and for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44 in the bands where No. 5.357A applies is accommodated with priority over any other service as stipulated in No. 5.357A;
32 that administrations shall ensure the use of the latest technical advances, in order to achieve the most flexible, efficient and practical use of the generic allocations;
3 that all administrations providing and planning AMS(R)S networks should hold coordination meetings, involving ICAO and all interested ITU Administrations and the MSS operators, to estimate AMS(R)S communication and spectrum requirements related to the categories 1 to 6 of Article 44 of the Radio Regulations with the appropriate justifications, including traffic projection and current spectrum usage;
4 the results of the meeting mentioned in resolves 3 should be used by notifying Administrations of AMS(R)S networks with respect to No. 5.357A in coordination meetings (e.g. the multilateral coordination meetings referred to in further recognizing b));
543 that administrations shall ensure that MSS operators carrying non-safety-related traffic yield capacity, as and when necessary (in particular at the multilateral coordination meetings), to accommodate the spectrum requirements for distress, urgency and safety communication of GMDSS communications, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, and for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44; this could be achieved in advance through the frequency coordination process in resolves 1 and based on justified AMS(R)S spectrum requirement defined in resolves 32, and, when necessary, through other means [Editorial Notes: 1. Some explanations are needed on the meaning of other means – 2. More information is needed on the need to yield spectrum from one AMS(R)S operators to another AMS(R)S operator]if such means are identified as a result of studies in invites ITU-R,;
4 that, AMS(R)S assignments specified in resolves 1and 3 above shall be accommodated and administrations operating or planning to operate AMS(R)S systems shall agree cooperatively their spectrum requirements with all necessary administrations, through a consultation meeting held on a regularly basis (e.g. yearly) under the provisions defined in Annex 1 to this Resolution;
5 that administrations, in carrying out their obligations under resolves 1, 3 and 4 above, shall take into account only those AMS(R)S systems that have met all the criteria listed in the Annex 2 to this Resolution;
[Editor’s note: there is a need to address the difference between AMS(R)S and GMDSS.]
6 that the notifying administrations of MSS systems taking part in the frequency coordination process in resolves 1:
i) shall recognise the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements estimated under Resolves 3;
ii) shall ensure that these AMS(R)S spectrum requirements are accommodated in priority to ensure that the provision No. 5.357A is enforced;
iii) shall actively coordinate so that any AMS(R)S assignment overlapping two geographical areas where different coordination processes are in place can be effectively implemented;
iv) shall send a joint statement to the ITU after each coordination meeting, stating that AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as per Resolves 3 have been accommodated [and listing the corresponding assignments],
[Editor’s Note: Resolves 6 i) and ii) may be repetition from text in other Resolves above. This need to be checked.]
5 in case that unacceptable interference is caused to AMS(R)S, in application of this Resolution, the unacceptable interference shall be immediately eliminated upon the seek of advice,
instructs the Secretary General
to bring this Resolution to the attention of ICAO,
invites ICAO to
to make appropriate arrangements to assist with the implementation of this Resolution
instructs the Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau
1. to participate in consultation meetings mentioned in resolves 4;
2. to publish in the International Frequency Information Circular (BR IFIC), the information referred to in annex 1
,
invites ITU-R
to develop a methodology which translate aviation communications needs into spectrum requirements that, when available, shall be used by the consultation meeting mentioned in resolves 4;
to publish the joint statement as referred to in Resolves 6.(iv). annually the assignments made to AMS(R)S covered by No. 5.357A, identifying portion of such spectrum devoted to ASM(R)S and to general MSS respectively,
invites ICAO to
i) carry out necessary coordination, with consultation of the concerned Administrations, for the process based on which the [spectrum][communication] requirements of AMS(R)S networks are determined and submitted to the coordination meetings [and justified];
instructs concerned Administrations of MSS systems taking part in the multilateral coordination meetings to [Editor’s note: this should be a resolve]
i) recognise the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements from ICAO;
ii) ensure that AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as coordinated by ICAO are given priority access to spectrum in respect to ensuring that No. 5.357A is fulfilled;
iii) make spectrum available for AMS(R)S in case that no agreement is reached at such multilateral meetings.
invites ITU-R
to conduct, in time for consideration by WRC-11, the appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) including:
(i) to study, as a matter of urgency, the existing and future spectrum requirements of the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service;
(ii) to assess whether the long-term requirements of the AMS(R)S can be met within the existing allocations with respect to No. 5.357A while retaining unchanged the generic allocation for the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations;
(iii) to complete studies to determine the feasibility and practicality of technical or regulatory means, other than the coordination process referred to in resolves 1 or the means considered in Report ITU-R M.2073, in order to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements as referenced in resolves 3 above, while taking into account the latest technical advances in order to maximize spectral efficiency;
(iv) if the assessment identified in invites ITU-R (i) and (ii) indicates that these requirements cannot be met, to study existing MSS allocations or possible, new allocations only for satisfying the requirements of the aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44, for global and seamless operation of civil aviation taking into account the need to avoid undue constraints on existing systems and other services,
invites WRC-11
to consider the results of the above ITU-R studies and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz,
invites
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), administrations and other organizations concerned to participate in the studies identified in invites ITU-R above.
Annex 1
This annex presents the process (described in the following steps and figure 1) to ensure the mandatory accommodation of the AMS(R)S assignments specified in resolves 1and 3 of the resolution.
Step 1 : Aviation Communications needs : these are developed by ICAO (e.g. traffic information, …), possibly also with the aide of the AMS(R)S satellite operators and provided as input to the consultation meeting in Step 2 below.
- The derivation of these communication needs may also require the development of a methodology by the aviation community so that these can then be used appropriately in Step 2 below.
- The output will not be mandatory to step 2.
Step 2 : Worldwide consultation Meeting under ITU umbrella.
- Completely transparent to all ITU members
- Inputs based on Step 1;
- Other inputs from members of the consultation meeting (e.g. recognized AMS(R)S satellite system characteristics);
- Only inputs respecting ORM procedures will be take into account in the calculation of the spectrum requirements.
- Develops outputs documents of the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system respecting the milestones defined in the modified Res. 222, calculated by an agreed methodology (short term < = [2] years) developed by the ITU-R. This should translate aviation communications needs into spectrum requirements.
- Possibility to develop under non mandatory basis, recommended spectrum assignment plan to propose to the ORM in Step 4.
- Publish results of the meeting by ITU BR
Step 3 : The outputs of step 2 as published, become inputs to the different ORM fora. The AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system, agreed by consultation meeting, will be mandatory to the ORM.
Step 4 : ORM [Note: refrain to use “ORM” unless it is necessary]
- Consider, as appropriate, the recommended spectrum assignments plan developed in step 2.
- Shall accommodate the complete mandatory spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator as identified in step 2 :
o by making frequency assignments to the AMS(R)S operators prior to those of other operators;
o by ensuring that the AMS(R)S assignments are compatible with AMS(R)S assignments in the other ORM region;
o that any MSS assignment shall be compatible (shall not cause interference) to any AMS(R)S assignment of other region;
- Shall accept the participation of AMS(R)S operators whose assignments are impacted by the two regions;
Step 5 : Report
- The outputs of the ORM, i.e. (1) the total spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator defined in step 2 have been fulfilled and (2) the corresponding AMS(R)S assignments, have to be sent to the ITU BR, the other ORM and all the notifying administrations of MSS systems in both ORM/MLM fora.
Step 6 : If all the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in step 2 are not fulfilled by the ORM in step 5, then the ITU RR are not respected, and the ORM shall have a new meeting, with the operator’s notifying administrations, within [3 months] to satisfy the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements defined in step 2.
Step 7 : If after [3 months] from the end of step 4, the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements are not satisfied then appropriate notification of this status to the ITU BR and ICAO shall be made by the notifying Administrations of the AMS(R)S operators whom shall seek aide from the ITU BR and ICAO to resolve this issue.
Figure 1 explaining the proposed process:
[pic]
APPENDICE to ANNEX 1
Definitions:
- Aviation Communication Needs: these are specific details on useful data, for example in terms of information volume per given airspace appropriately defined, that could be used for conversion to spectrum requirements for each satellite operator. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed set of data format for these requirements which are useful for the conversion to spectrum requirements.
- Spectrum Requirements or Spectrum Needs: these are the total and specific amount of spectrum needed by each satellite system to provide and serve the aviation communication needs with a given safety performance and quality of service. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed method for converting the Aviation Communication Needs to spectrum requirements for each satellite system.
- Accommodate Spectrum: The total amount of spectrum that has been assigned to an MSS operator, for the provision of a given service, as agreed by a given ORM meeting.
- Spectrum or Frequency Assignments: These are the actual frequencies given to a satellite operator used to provide a particular service.
- ORM: Operators Review Meeting, which is a multilateral frequency coordination meeting between MSS operators and operating under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) developed by Administrations forming part of the Multi-Lateral Meeting (MLM) Process. There exist two organized ORM, one for Region 2 and one for Region 1 and 3.
ANNEX 2
Criteria for AMS(R)S system considered in the consultation meeting
All the following milestones shall be met by those AMS(R)S systems seeking spectrum access in the 1.5/1.6 GHz MSS frequency allocation, whom provide AMS(R)S communications under footnote No. 5.357A.
All the information identified in the criteria given below shall be duly submitted to the consultation meeting.
1 Submission of appropriate Advance Publication information.
2 Entry into satellite manufacturing or procurement agreement, entry into earth station deployment or procurement agreement and entry into satellite launch agreement.
The AMS(R)S system operator possess:
i) clear evidence of a binding agreement for the manufacture or procurement of its satellites; and
ii) clear evidence of a binding agreement to launch its satellites.
The manufacturing or procurement agreement shall identify the contract milestones leading to the completion of manufacture or procurement of satellites required for the service provision, and the launch agreement, shall identify the launch date, launch site and launch service provider.
3 As an alternative to satellite manufacturing or procurement and launch agreements, clear evidence of guaranteed funding arrangements for the implementation of the project would be accepted.
Attachment 1
Summary of results of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements studies for WRC-12 A.I. 1.7
Doc.
N° * |Target year |Airspace |Messages |Domains |Satellite type |Satellite architecture |Methodology |Comments |Spectrum requirements | |394 |2027 |Middle East and Africa, and surrounding oceanic regions |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP, TMA |NAVISAT planned satellite |6 spot beams, 1 global beam |PIAC |Satcom and VHF (where coverage available) usage | | | | | | | | | |No frequency reuse |2 000 kHz (
1 600 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Frequency reuse |1 500 kHz (
1 200 kHz ( | |239 |2025 |North Atlantic Oceanic |ADS-A, CPDLC |Oceanic region |Inmarsat-3 | |PIAC |100% satcom |1 080 kHz ( | |279 |2025 |Brazilian |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP |Inmarsat-like |One single beam |PIAC
(670 aircrafts) |100% satcom |648 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | | |715 kHz ( | |318 |2025 |Asia Pacific |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP, TMA |Special |One global beam |PIAC (5 845 aircrafts) |50% satcom
Shared by 3 satellite networks |2 231 kHz ( | | | |Asia Pacific/
Worldwide | | |I-4 like |250 beams in 7 clusters | | |2 428 kHz ( | |
Doc.
N° * |Target year |Airspace |Messages |Domains |Satellite type |Satellite architecture |Methodology |Comments |Spectrum requirements | |326 |2025 |European |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP, TMA |Inmarsat-4 |Multiple beams | | | | | | | | | | | |PIAC |100% satcom |3 300 kHz (
800 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Assumption 1: multicast weather information |800 kHz (
700 kHz( | | | | | | | | | |Assumption 2: 1 + 20% TMA by satcom |800 kHz (
700 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Assumption 3: 2 + 70% aircrafts equipped |500 kHz (
500 kHz( | |334 |2025 |European |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP, TMA |ESA planned satellite |6 beams |Simulation |No frequency reuse |4 000 kHz (
1 600 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Frequency reuse |3 300 kHz (
1 300 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Weather multicast and no frequency reuse |2 500 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Weather multicast and frequency reuse |2 100 kHz ( | |
Doc.
N° * |Target year |Airspace |Messages |Domains |Satellite type |Satellite architecture |Methodology |Comments |Spectrum requirements | |333
423 |2025 |Worldwide |ATS, AOC |ENR, ORP,
TMA |Multi GSO systems |9 airspace areas |Simulation |Frequency reuse
Weather unicast |4 800 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Frequency reuse
Weather multicast |3 000 kHz ( | | | | | | | |21 airspace areas
With
21 beams
34 beams | |Frequency reuse
Weather unicast |21 beams:
3 400 kHz (
34 beams:
3 300 kHz ( | | | | | | | | | |Frequency reuse
Weather multicast |21 beams:
1 400 kHz (
34 beams:
1 350 kHz | |* Document number refers to the contribution received by WP 4C.
ADS-A Addressed Automatic Dependent Surveillance.
CPDLC Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications.
ATS Air Traffic Services.
AOC Aeronautical operational control.
ENR En Route.
ORP Oceanic Remote and Polar.
TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area.
PIAC Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count.
APPENDIX I
ICAO input #2 to WP5B (cleared by ACP WGF 22)
Reply to the Liaison Statement to the international maritime organization (IMO) and the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on specifications of “man overboard” devices (Annex 31 to Working Party 5B Chairman’s Report)
Introduction
ICAO views Man Overboard Devices (MOB) as localized alerting devices, i.e. MOB are not designed primarily to alert the International SAR System but rather to alert the parent vessel/platform of an emergency man overboard situation and instigate self help to alleviate the problem. Urgent recovery action should be undertaken by the parent vessel/platform. The use of 121.5 MHz would be of assistance if the situation expanded beyond the capabilities of the parent vessel and required the assistance of SAR assets. To this end ICAO SAR would not object to 121.5 MHz being used for the purpose of MOB beacons. However ICAO is of the view that there may be more appropriate frequencies to use, which could not only assist SAR assets in homing situations, but also allow for support from nearby vessels, e.g. marine channel 16.
Furthermore, ICAO is of the view that under no circumstances should the use of distress and safety frequencies by MOB devices interfere with aeronautical distress and safety system.
Views of the advantages and disadvantages of using 121.5 for a MOB device
In reply to the invitation to inform WP 5B on its views on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of the frequency 121.5 MHz in handling man overboard incidents, ICAO would like to present the following view of the advantages and disadvantages of using 121.5 MHz for a MOB device:
Advantages:
• 121.5 MHz signal could be used by direction finder equipped SAR aircraft/vessels to locate MOB should parent platform/vessel be unsuccessful in locating and recovering the person. (One would assume that the parent platform/vessel has been unable to locate or assist the MOB for whatever reason and the SAR system has been activated to assist.)
Disadvantages:
• No satellite detection of the 121.5 MHz signal to assist with position information and drift.
• Inadvertent activations, in coastal regions particularly, is likely to add to the already high rate of false alerts detected by overflying aircraft on the Emergency Channel. This will add to the cost of providing SAR, as determination of a genuine emergency, or not, cannot be concluded unlike with current 406 beacons, until after the beacon is found and turned off.
• If multiple MOB beacons are activated from a single vessel/platform then the ability to DF to the beacons by SAR assets is seriously compromised due to the known limitations with direction finding equipment where multiple signals are radiating in a small area.
• 121.5 MHz is not a frequency routinely carried by maritime vessels, this limits support assistance that may be provided by nearby vessels to the MOB event.
Finally, if such devices are to be produced, then ICAO would request that they are built with a similar level of requirement for integrity and reliability as current ELTs in order to minimise the number of false alerts.
-----------------------
[1] Aeronautical mobile (R) service (AM(R)S).
-----------------------
Step 5
No
Yes
Spectrum requirements fulfilled
Step 6
Only one time
Step 1
Send a joint statement that AMS(R)S requirements are accommodated ITU BR, the other ORM and all the notifying administrations of MSS systems in both ORM
Provide mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements for each AMS(R)S system
ORM meeting
Provide communications needs
ICAO
ITU-R consultation meeting
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 7
Notification and seek of the aide to the ITU BR and ICAO
Step 5
No
Yes
Spectrum requirements fulfilled
Step 6
Only one time
Step 1
Send a joint statement that AMS(R)S requirements are accommodated ITU BR, the other ORM and all the notifying administrations of MSS systems in both ORM
Provide mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements for each AMS(R)S system
ORM meeting
Provide communications needs
ICAO
ITU-R consultation meeting
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 7
Notification and seek of the aide to the ITU BR and ICAO
................
................
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.