A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O N FCS Technology Investigation Conclusions and Recommendations Presented at ICAO ACP WGT Meeting, Montreal, Canada

A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O N

FCS Technology InvestigationConclusions and Recommendations

Presented at ICAO ACP WGT Meeting, Montreal, Canada

October, 2007

Prepared by:ITT: Tricia Gilbert, Jenny Jin, Steve Henriksen

QinetiQ: Phil PlattNASA: James Budinger

2

Overview

• Background• Approach• Evaluation Criteria• Technology Screening• Technology Studies• Technology Evaluation• Observations• Conclusions and Recommendations

3

Background

• Under EUROCONTROL/FAA Action Plan 17 (AP17), Three themes for Future Communications Study (FCS)(1) Identification of requirements and operating concepts

(2) Identification of enabling technologies

(3) Development of a future communications roadmap

• Joint effort between US team (FAA, NASA, ITT) and European team (EUROCONTROL, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, UK, and QinetiQ) focused on Theme 2– Technology investigation to identify candidate technologies


Approach

5

Approach: U.S. and European Activity

Phase I/ Pre-

Screening

Coordinated Activities

COCR v1

Define Evaluation

Criteria

Assess Technologies

Most Promising

Candidates

Technology Analysis,

Modeling, Test

Develop Harmonized Technology

Recommendations

Define Evaluation

Criteria

Assess Technologies

Technology Shortlist

Technology Evaluation

Phase II

Phase III

Step 1 Step 2

Unites States

Europe

Candidate Technologies


COCR v2

Hig

hly

Sim

ilar

Phase I/ Pre-

Screening

Coordinated Activities

COCR v1

Define Evaluation

Criteria

Assess Technologies

Most Promising

Candidates

Technology Analysis,

Modeling, Test

Develop Harmonized Technology

Recommendations

Define Evaluation

Criteria

Assess Technologies

Technology Shortlist


Phase II

Phase III

Step 1 Step 2

Unites States

Europe

Candidate Technologies


COCR v2

Hig

hly

Sim

ilar

6

Approach: Assessment Methodology

• Step 2 Technology Assessment methodology – Presented and updated with comments from European

ACP participants with respect to proposed assessment criteria

– Two types emerged• Essential

– these must be ‘passed’ to be acceptable

• Desirable– a set of criteria that help rank the candidate technologies

against the key requirements

– Ranking– Common technology description template

7

Approach: ITT Methodology

4. Evaluate

Technologies

1B Define Evaluation Metrics

5.Weight

Evaluation Criteria

6. ScoreTechnologies &

Develop Recommendations

3. Develop

Concept of UseDetails

1A Define Evaluation Criteria

2. Screen

Technologies

StakeholderNeeds/

Direction

Input Candidate

Technologies

Input Candidate

Technologies

ICAOConsensus Documents

ICAOConsensus Documents

COCR for FRSICAO 9759

In-Depth Technology

Studies

In-Depth Technology

Studies

MostPromising

Technologies

PHASE IPHASE ITechnology PreTechnology Pre--ScreeningScreening

PHASE IIPHASE IITechnology Screening & Technology Screening &

InIn--Depth StudiesDepth Studies

PHASE IIIPHASE IIIInIn--Depth Studies & Depth Studies &

Technology EvaluationTechnology Evaluation


Evaluation Criteria

9

Evaluation Criteria – ITT

Cost RiskTechnology ReadinessStandardization StatusCertification Complexity

Ease of Transition

Meet ATS Service RequirementsMeets AOC Service Requirements

Spectrum CompatibilityAuthentication/Integrity

Robustness to Interference

Performance

Avionics CostGround Cost

11 criteria traceable to the COCR and consensus ICAO documents were derived in FCS Phase II

In FCS Phase III, criteria definitions and associated metrics were revised to reflect updates to the COCR and process diagrams to define the evaluation steps were developed

4.0 Does More applicable Domain for Analysis Exist?


A

Yes

yes

1.0 Provide A/G Addressed

Connectivity?


Connectivity?

2.0 Provide A/G Broadcast

Connectivity?


Connectivity?

No

3.0 Identify Applicable Flight Domains (one or multiple)


No more

No

yes

B

START

AssignRed

AssignRed

ENDEND

4.1 Meet HD Capacity Req’ts All Domains?


not all domains

4.2 Meet Low Density Capacity Req’ts?


Yes in at least one domain

None of the domains/ applicable domain

AssignGreen

AssignYellow Assign

Red

In all flight domains/ applicable domain

Criterion 1

Criterion 2Criterion 3

Meets Requirements/Low Risk/Cost

Partially Meets Requirements/Some Risk/Cost Impact

Does Not Meets Requirements/High Risk/Cost Impact

General Metric Definitions

10

Evaluation Criteria: ITT Metrics

This provides a measure of a technology’s ability to provision ATS services within the COCR-defined airspace environment

GREEN: Technology performance in intended channel is characterized by flat/slow fading

YELLOW: Technology can be readily modified to be characterized by flat/slow fading (e.g. physical layer modifications; equalization techniques)

RED: Technology cannot be easily modified to be characterized by flat/slow fading

1-D: Provides ATS A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC) -Environment

MetricsCriteria

This provides a measure of a technology’s ability to provision ATS services within the COCR-defined airspace environment

GREEN: Technology performance in intended channel is characterized by flat/slow fading

YELLOW: Technology can be readily modified to be characterized by flat/slow fading (e.g. physical layer modifications; equalization techniques)

RED: Technology cannot be easily modified to be characterized by flat/slow fading

1-D: Provides ATS A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC) -Environment

MetricsCriteria

AssignGreen

AssignYellow

AssignRed

START

2.0 Is RMS > 1/10th symbol

duration

2.0 Is RMS > 1/10th symbol

duration

Channel is flat for technology

1.0 Identify RMS & Coherence BW for Applicable

Aeronautical Channel

1.0 Identify RMS & Coherence BW for Applicable

Aeronautical Channel

Channel is frequency-selective

for technology

4.0 Is FEC sufficient to overcome?

4.0 Is FEC sufficient to overcome?

3.0 Will equalizer

make channel

flat?

3.0 Will equalizer

make channel

flat?

5.0 Can technology be modified for sufficient

FEC?

5.0 Can technology be modified for sufficient

FEC?

6.0 Is channel BW >

Coherence BW?

6.0 Is channel BW >

Coherence BW?

7.0 Is symbol time <

Coherence time?

7.0 Is symbol time <

Coherence time?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

10.0Can technology be modified for slow fading

performance?

10.0Can technology be modified for slow fading

performance?

8.0 Is channel BW >

Coherence BW?

8.0 Is channel BW >

Coherence BW?

9.0 Is symbol time < Coherence

time?

9.0 Is symbol time < Coherence

time?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Example Metrics

Associated Evaluation Flow Diagram

11

European Evaluation Criteria

• Essential Criteria (Step 2 Assessment)– Spectrum Compatibility

– Openness of Standards

• Desirable Criteria – RF Robustness

– Technical Readiness Level

– Flexibility

– Ground Infrastructure Cost

• Performance Criteria – Capacity

– Integrity

– Availability

– Latency

12

Evaluation Criteria -- European Metrics

• Ranking was seen as the best way to compare technologies– A simple scheme without involving complex scoring techniques

• 4 Classes have been defined each with an acceptance mask

Criterion Value

Security TRL Flexibility Cost Capacity

Integrity Availability Latency

1 2 3 4 5

Criterion Value

Security TRL Flexibility Cost Capacity

Integrity Availability Latency

1 2 3 4 5

Class 3

Class 4

13

Evaluation Criteria -- Comparison

Criteria Category European Criteria US/ITT Criteria

Technical Performance

• RF Robustness• Capacity• Integrity• Availability• Latency

• Meets ATS Service Requirements• Meets ATS&AOC Requirements • Spectrum Compatibility• Authentication/Integrity• Robustness to Interference

Cost • Openness of Standards• Flexibility• Cost

• Avionics Cost• Ground Cost

Risk • Spectrum Compatibility• TRL

• TRL• Standardization Status• Certification Complexity• Ease of Transition

Scale Numerical scale between 1 ~ 5


Technology Screening

15

Technology Inventory

Technology Family Candidates

Cellular Telephony Derivatives

WCDMA (US)/UMTS FDD (Europe), TD-CDMA (US)/UMTS TDD (Europe), CDMA2000 3x, CDMA2000 1xEV, GSM/GPRS/EDGE, TD-SCDMA, DECT

IEEE 802 Wireless Derivatives

IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, IEEE 802.16, IEEE 802.20

Public Safety and Specialized Mobile Radio

APCO P25, TETRA Release 1, TETRAPOL, IDRA, iDEN, EDACS, APCO P34, TETRA Release 2 (TAPS), TETRA Release 2 (TEDS)

Satellite and Other Over Horizon Communication

SDLS, Swift Broadband (Aero B-GAN), Iridium, GlobalStar, Thuraya, Integrated Global Surveillance and Guidance System (IGSAGS), HF Data Link, Digital Audio Broadcast, Custom Satellite System

Custom Narrowband VHF Solutions

VDL Mode 2, VDL Mode 3, VDL Mode E, VDL Mode 4, E-TDMA

Custom Broadband ADL, Flash-OFDM, UAT, Mode-S, B-AMC, LDL, AMACS

Military SINCGARS, HAVEQUICK

Other APC Telephony

• Common Technology Inventory including input from NASA release of RFIs, inputs from ICAO WG-C (now WG-T) ACP members, and literature reviews

16

Common Technology Screening Results

Continental

Oceanic/Remote

Airport

Continental

Oceanic/Remote

Airport

•P34/TIA -902•LDL•W-CDMA

•Inmarsat SBB•Custom Satellite

•IEEE 802 -16e



•IEEE 802 -16e

United States Europe

•B-AMC•AMACS•Custom Satellite

Continental

Oceanic/Remote

Airport

Continental

Oceanic/Remote

Airport



•IEEE 802 -16e



•IEEE 802 -16e

United States EuropeCommon shortlist /Screening Results

•B-AMC•AMACS•Custom Satellite


Technology Studies

18

Detailed Technology Studies -- ITT

In-Depth Study Topic Note1 L-Band Air/Ground Communication

Channel CharacterizationCreated ray-tracing simulation to develop tap-delay line models of the L-band aeronautical channel (960-1024 MHz) supporting evaluation of LDL and P34/TIA-902

2 TIA-902 (P34) Performance Assessment1. OPNET simulation of P34 net entry and data transfer performance2. MATLAB Simulink® model developed to assess P34/TIA-902 physical layer

performance in the defined L-Band A/G channel

3 TIA-902 (P34) Technology Intellectual Property Assessment

Assessment IP impact for patents claimed in P34/TIA-902 standards

4 L-Band Digital Link (LDL) Technology Performance Assessment

MATLAB Simulink® model developed to assess LDL physical layer performance in the defined L-Band A/G channel

5 Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) Functional Assessment

Functional analysis of UMTS/WCDMA network architecture

6 L-Band Technology Cost Assessment for Ground Infrastructure

L-Band business case analysis for an L-Band aeronautical ground infrastructure

7 L-Band Interference Testing UAT, Mode S interference modeling and simulation using SPW modeling tool for P34 and LDL waveforms1.Bench tests conducted to evaluate DME susceptibility to candidate FCS waveforms (based on WCDMA, P34, LDL definitions)

8 Satellite Technology Availability Performance

Evaluation of satellite technology availability performance using fault-tree model of RTCA DO-TBD

9 IEEE 802.16e Performance Assessment in Aeronautical C-Band Channel

MATLAB Simulink® modeling of 802.16e on the surface environment implementing OU aeronautical C-band channel model

19

Detailed Technology Studies -- Europe

• Detailed technology studies were undertaken by various entities in Europe– AMACS was progressed by DSNA (France) and LFV (Sweden).

Support was provided by NATS/Helios on performance evaluation– P34 (TIA-902) was investigated by NATS/Helios in terms of

performance and compatibility– B-AMC studies were funded by EUROCONTROL through the B-

AMC Consortium to define the overall system including performance and compatibility

– Review of previous EUROCONTROL activity on WCDMA– Drew on work carried out in the U.S. for LDL– QinetiQ acted as an overall reviewer and applied the evaluation

criteria and a critique of each system• Produced the final conclusion in the Step 2 report


Technology Evaluations

21

U.S. Technology Evaluations

• Develop Concept of Use for the selected technologies (P34, LDL, WCDMA, B-AMC, AMACS)

• Each Concept of Use includes:

– Applicable technology features/specifications

– Functional architecture

– Deployment concept for common evaluation scenarios

– Deployment frequency band and channelization considerations

Co

ntext

Deactivatio

n

MRC(Aircraft ES)

Co

ntext

Ac

tivation

BRC RFG ATSU ES

Data

Tran

sferA

ccessN

etwo

rk

1. Activate PDP Context Request2. PDP context request

3. PDP context response4. Radio Bearer Setup

5. Update PDP context request

6. Update PDP context response7.PDP context establishment success

1. uplink PDU (DLIC Initiation Message)2. Initiation Message

3. Transfer PDU (DLIC Initiation Response)

1. Deactivate PDP Context Request2. Delete PDP context request

3. Delete PDP context response4. Deactivate PDP Context Request

5. Deactivate PDP Context Accept

6. Radio Access Bearer Release

FNE MM

Reg

istration

1. Register request2. authentication

3.authorization4. Security function

5. Register request granted

1. connection Request

2. Radio connection established

Set R

adio

Co

nn

ection

Find Access Point

Localize MR

4. Update Message5. Update Message

400 nmi

F1S1

F1S2

F1S3

Test Volume 3.4(7) Frequencies/(22) ground stations

Mapping COCR

Services to Technology Elements

Defining Deployment Concept for Common Evaluation Scenarios

960 MHz

961 MHz

962 MHz

963 MHz

964 MHz

965 MHz

965 MHz

1017 MHz

1018 MHz

1019MHz

1020MHz

1021 MHz

1022MHz

1023 MHz

Mobile User Transmit Frequencies Ground Transmit Frequencies

Applicable Frequency Band and Notional

Channelization Plan

22

U.S. Technology Evaluations (2)

• Assess technologies using the process diagrams defined for each evaluation criterion

Authentication & Integrity


Transition

Spectrum

Avionics Cost

Gnd Cost

Certification

Standardization Status

TRL

D Environment

C QoS

B # of Users

A CapacityProvides ATS & AOC Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

D Environment

C QoS

B # of Users

A CapacityProvides ATS Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

Candidate 3Candidate 2Candidate 1



Transition

Spectrum

Avionics Cost

Gnd Cost

Certification


TRL

D Environment

C QoS

B # of Users

A CapacityProvides ATS & AOC Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

D Environment

C QoS

B # of Users

A CapacityProvides ATS Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

Candidate 3Candidate 2Candidate 1

Packet Data Spec2003

Mobility Management5/03

Link Layer Control2/02

MAC/Radio Link Adaptation

2/02

Physical Layer 2/03

Performance RecommendationsChannel Coding Details

Component Specifications

Co

ntext

Deactivatio

n

MRC(Aircraft ES)

Co

nte

xt

Ac

tivatio

n

BRC RFG ATSU ES

Data

Tran

sferA

cc

ess

Ne

two

rk

1. Activate PDP Context Request2. PDP context request

3. PDP context response4. Radio Bearer Setup

5. Update PDP context request

6. Update PDP context response7.PDP context establishment success

1. uplink PDU (DLIC Initiation Message)2. Initiation Message

3. Transfer PDU (DLIC Initiation Response)

1. Deactivate PDP Context Request2. Delete PDP context request

3. Delete PDP context response4. Deactivate PDP Context Request

5. Deactivate PDP Context Accept

6. Radio Access Bearer Release

FNE MM

Re

gis

tratio

n

1. Register request2. authentication

3.authorization4. Security function

5. Register request granted

1. connection Request

2. Radio connection established

Set R

adio

Co

nn

ection

Find Access Point

Localize MR

4. Update Message5. Update Message

400 nmi

F1S1

F1S2

F1S3

Concept of Use Information



A

Yes

yes


Connectivity?


Connectivity?


Connectivity?


Connectivity?

No



No more

No

yes

B

START

AssignRed

AssignRed

ENDEND



not all domains



Yes in at least one domain

None of the domains/ applicable domain

AssignGreen

AssignYellow Assign

Red

In all flight domains/ applicable domain

Evaluation Process Flow Diagrams

Criteria Evaluation Results Table

23

U.S. Technology Evaluations (3)

VOC

TRL

Ground Cost

Moderately Important

Avionics Cost

Meets ATS & AOC Service Requirements

Transition

Certification

Less Important




Meet ATS Service Requirements

Most Important Spectrum

CriteriaWeight

TRL

Ground Cost

Moderately Important

Avionics Cost

Meets ATS & AOC Service Requirements

Transition

Certification

Less Important




Meet ATS Service Requirements

Most Important Spectrum

CriteriaWeight

Quantitative Weights Qualitative Ranking

Rule SetWeight/Rank Criteria (Applying AHP Process)

24

U.S. Evaluation Results

* Gray indicates insufficient information at the time of evaluation

Transition11

Robustness to Interference10

Authentication and Integrity9

Spectrum 8

Avionics Cost 7

Ground Infrastructure Cost6

Certification5

Standardization Status4

Technical Readiness Level3

D - Environment

C - QoS

B - PIAC

A - CapacityProvides ATS AOC A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

2

D - Environment

C - QoS

B - PIAC

A - CapacityProvides ATS A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

1

AMACS B-AMC WCDMA LDLTIA-902 (P34)Evaluation Criterion

Transition11

Robustness to Interference10

Authentication and Integrity9

Spectrum 8

Avionics Cost 7

Ground Infrastructure Cost6

Certification5

Standardization Status4

Technical Readiness Level3

D - Environment

C - QoS

B - PIAC

A - CapacityProvides ATS AOC A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

2

D - Environment

C - QoS

B - PIAC

A - CapacityProvides ATS A/G Data Services within Requirements (sans A-EXEC)

1

AMACS B-AMC WCDMA LDLTIA-902 (P34)Evaluation Criterion

25

European Technology Evaluation: AMACS

• Essential criteria– Compatibility – studies undertaken indicate that co-site

interference may be overcome – affected by duty cycle. Results inconclusive and requires further work

– Open standards– it will be developed in an open manner - passed

• Desirable– Robustness – designed to have robust physical layer– TRL – 3 – still at early stage of development– Flexibility – as several design options– Ground costs – expected to need more ground sites than VHF

hence increased cost – Performance – meets most requirements in APT, TMA, ENR, and

AOA. – Air/air performance needs to be considered further

26

European Technology Evaluation: B-AMC

• Essential criteria– Compatibility – considerable work undertaken and results show

promise as an inlay system. However further work is recommended on the L-band interference models to confirm results - inconclusive

– Open standards - it will be developed in an open manner - passed

• Desirable– Robustness – design shows good robustness– TRL – 4 – Considerable theoretical studies on the design – draws

on earlier B-VHF system– Flexibility – it can be deployed in several ways– Ground costs – estimated as similar to current system– Performance – meets all requirements in APT, TMA, ENR, and

AOA– Air/air performance seems OK but needs to be considered further

27

European Technology Evaluation: LDL

• Essential criteria– Compatibility – similar to all other L-band interference studies.

Results inconclusive and requires further work – inconclusive.– Open standards – expected to be open standard - passed

• Desirable– Robustness – designed to be robust– TRL – 4. Draws on VDLM3 design– Flexibility – several data channel options– Ground costs - estimated as similar to current system– Performance – not comprehensively simulated

28

European Technology Evaluation: P34 (TIA-902)

• Essential criteria– Compatibility - studies undertaken indicate that co-site interference may

be overcome. Results inconclusive and requires further work – inconclusive.

– Open standards – patents apply to some standards but can either be overcome – passed.

• Desirable– Robustness – designed to have good robustness– TRL – 3 – although COTS changes are required– Flexibility – can be deployed with 3 channel bandwidths (50,100, 150

kHz)– Ground costs - expected to need more ground sites than VHF

hence increased cost – Performance – initial results indicate that throughput values can be

achieved in small/medium en route airspace using 100/150kHz channels. Further work needed in other airspace volumes.

29

European Technology Evaluation: WCDMA

• Essential criteria– Compatibility – requires 2x5 MHz ‘clean’ portion of an increasing crowded

band + guard bands. Not practical to deploy based on information available

– Open standards• Passed – standards are available

• Desirable– Robustness – adequate robustness

– TRL – 5 – reasonably mature and can be deployed with little modification

– Flexibility – design options were not finally chosen

– Ground costs – similar cell size to those of VHF so similar costs

– Performance – study showed that performance can be achieved but needs further validation. Different methodology was applied.

– Not recommended for the FCI due to difficulty in introduction into the L-band

30

European Technology Evaluation: INMARSAT SBB

• Essential criteria– Compatibility

• Passed subject to planning meetings and adequate spectrum. Maybe an issue with Iridium

– Open standards – not currently available but assumed would if offer to support ATS.

• Desirable– Robustness – currently not robust for ATS – minimal link margin– TRL – 7 for ATS– Flexibility – some flexibility due options for channel rates with various

antenna gains– Ground costs – not estimated– Performance – performance cannot be guaranteed due to lack of priority

and pre-emption. Little performance information available - failed– SBB will reach the end of its lifetime around 2020– Not recommended for the FCI

31

European Technology Evaluation: IEEE 802.16e

• Essential criteria– Compatibility – introduced into an under utilised band so

compatibility is expected– Open standards – open standards available. Aviation specific

variant needed

• Desirable– Robustness – good robustness with QoS management– TRL – 6 – mature as WiMAX but need tailoring to aviation use – Flexibility – many design options– Ground costs – not currently covered by VHF systems– Performance – studies showed that performance can be

achieved. Needs further validation through practical trials

32

European Evaluation Results

Technology Class Frequency band Application airspace

802.16e 2 C-Band Airport surface

B-AMC 3 L-Band Airport surface, TMA, En-route

P34 (TIA-902) 4 L- Band Airport surface, TMA, En-route

AMACS 4 L-Band Airport surface, TMA, En-route

LDL 4 L-Band Airport surface, TMA, En-route

33

European Evaluation Results (2)

• Two technologies have been removed from further consideration– SBB

• Does not meet performance requirements

• Satellite will reach the end of life by 2020

– WCDMA• Need for large “clean” bands in L-Band makes it impractical to deploy

• New Satellite Systems– They have not been evaluated due lack of maturity– However, emerging systems have been identified that could be

considered as part of the FCI


Observations

35

Observations: General

• The FCI must support ATS and AOC end-to-end communications including air/ground and air/air

• New communication components of the FCI will be supporting primarily data communications

• No single technology meets all requirements across all operational flight domains

• To meet the diverse range of communications the FCI will be a system of systems comprising the minimum number of technologies required to meet the operational requirements

• No COTS technologies have been identified that can be adopted as new components of the FCI without some modification– However, reuse of emerging technology and standards should be

considered to the maximum extent possible to reduce risk and shorten development time

36

Observations: VHF Band

• VHF Band– Existing technologies providing dedicated voice and data services

will be used to their fullest extent– Due to current/planned technologies in the VHF band; future

communication services outside the VHF band must be considered but a long-term strategy for VHF should also be addressed

– The new communication components introduced into the FCI will reuse emerging technology and standards to the maximum extent possible.

37

Observations: Aeronautical L-band (1)

• The aeronautical L-band spectrum is a candidate band for supporting a new data link communication capability

• This spectrum provides an opportunity to support objectives for future global communication systems; however no evaluated technology in L-band (as defined) fully addresses all requirements and limitations of the operating environment

• No one evaluated technology meets all requirements for the defined data link; instead, technology options for an L-band Digital Aeronautical Communication System (L-DACS) have been defined based on evaluations drawing on features of evaluated systems

• High-level evaluation of economic feasibility of implementing a L-band ground infrastructure indicates a positive business case can be achieved

38


• Desirable features for an aeronautical L-band (960-1024 [1164] MHz) technology include:– Existing standard for safety application with some validation work

performed – Multi-carrier modulation (power efficient modulation for the

aeronautical L-band fading environment)– Low duty cycle waveform with narrow-to-broadband channels

(more likely to achieve successful compatibility with legacy L-band systems without clearing spectrum)

– Adaptable/scalable features (improving flexibility in deployment and implementation, and adaptability to accommodate future demands)

– Native mobility management and native IP interface (increasing flexibility and providing critical upper layers compatibility with worldwide data networking standards)

39


– Two options for a L-band Digital Aeronautical Communication System (L-DACS) were identified

L-DACS Options

Access Scheme Modulation Type Originating Technologies

Option 1 FDD OFDM B-AMC, TIA 902 (P34)

Option 2 TDD CPFSK/GMSK type LDL, AMACS

40

Observations: C-band and Satellite

• Aeronautical C-band: [5000 to 5010] MHz, and/or [5010 to 5030] MHz, and/or 5091 to 5150 MHz

• There is capacity not utilized; given path loss constraints, this band is most applicable to airport surface use where communication distances are short– 802.16e is well matched to the aeronautical surface specific to

aeronautical C-band in terms of capability and performance

• Aeronautical satellite systems can be applied to large and/or remote geographic areas to provide supplemental coverage to the terrestrial communication infrastructure– Monitoring of specific satellite service offerings/emerging

requirements to determine need for common global system is on-going

41

Observations: Applicability of Technologies

• The foregoing observations can be summarized to indicate the applicability of technologies against airspace type

Airspace Type Applicable Technology

Airport Surface • IEEE 802.16e• L-DACS may be possible in some areas

Airport, TMA, Enroute • L-DACS• Satellite-based technologies may be possible in some

areas

Oceanic/Remote/Polar • Satellite-based

Air/Air • L-DACS


Recommendations

43

Recommendations: C-band

• Identify the portions of the IEEE 802.16e standard best suited for airport surface wireless mobile communications, identify and develop missing required functionalities and propose an aviation specific standard to appropriate standardisation bodies

• Evaluate and validate the performance of aviation specific standard wireless mobile communications networks operating in the relevant airport surface environments through trials and test bed development

• Propose a channelisation methodology for allocation of safety and regularity of flight services in the band to accommodate a range of airport classes, configurations and operational requirements

• Complete the investigation of compatibility of prototyped C-band components with existing systems in the C-band in the airport surface environment and interference with others users of the band

44

Recommendations: Satellite Band

• Continue monitoring the satellite system developments and assessment of specific technical solutions to be offered in the timeframe defined in the COCR as these next generation satellite systems become better defined

• Update existing AMS(R)S SARPs performance requirements to meet future requirements

• In order to support the new AMS(R)S SARPs, consider the development of a globally applicable air interface standard for satellite systems supporting only safety related communications

45

Recommendations: VHF Band

• In the long term reconsider the potential use of the VHF for new technologies when sufficient spectrum becomes available to support all or part of the requirements

46

Recommendations: L-band (1)

• Define interference test requirements and associated outputs that can be used to determine compatibility of future candidate aeronautical communication technologies with existing aeronautical L-band systems

• Pursue detailed compatibility assessment of candidate physical layers for an L-band aeronautical digital link, including interference testing

• Pursue definition/validation of technology that is derived or adapted from existing standards for use as an L-band Data-link Aeronautical Communications System (L-DACS) that can be used to initiate an aeronautical standardization effort (and meet ICAO requirements for such an effort)

47

Recommendations: L-band (2)

• Complete the investigation of compatibility of prototyped L-DACS components with existing systems in the L-band particularly with regard to the onboard co-site interference and agree on the overall design characteristics

• Considering the design trade-offs, propose the appropriate L-DACS solution for input to a global aeronautical standardisation activity

• Considering that B-AMC, AMACS and TIA-902 (P34) have provisions to support air to air services, conduct further investigation of this capability as a possible component of L-DACS