Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality Promoting ... · RNSS Radio Navigation Satellite System ARNS Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service. GALILEI REF : DATE : GALI-ASPI-DD-093 30/01/2003

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003

Report on Studies to ICAO ISSUE : 3.0 PAGE: 1

Sustainable Mobility and IntermodalityPromoting Competitive and Sustainable Growth

GALILEI

Report on Studies to ICAO

Written by Responsibility - Company Date Signature

Jean Chenebault Pole Star 10/07/2002

Verified by


Certified by


WBS Code : F.2.AClassification : RE

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED AS ISAND NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY IS GIVEN THAT THE

INFORMATION IS FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE. THE USER THEREOFUSES THE INFORMATION AT ITS SOLE RISK AND LIABILITY.

FURTHERMORE, DATA, CONCLUSIONS ORRECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT ARE PROVIDED ON THE

BASIS THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS SUBSEQUENTLY, ANDPRIOR TO USE, VERIFIED BY THE PARTY WISHING TO USE

THAT INFORMATION.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


CHANGE RECORDS

ISSUE DATE § : CHANGE RECORD AUTHOR

1.A 05/02/02 First issue. J. Chenebault

1.0 18/02/02 SSR delivery J. Chenebault

2.0 10/07/2002 DMR delivery J. Chenebault

3.0 31/01/2003 PMR/LOR delivery J.Chenebault

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: ICAO AMCP GROUP F, NOVEMBER 2001...............................................................4

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................5

2 ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................6

3 AGENDA ITEM RELATED TO RNSS ISSUES..................................................................7

3.1 AGENDA ITEM 16: RNSS IN FREQUENCY BANDS USED BY GNSS.......................73.2 AGENDA ITEM 17: RNSS IN OTHER BANDS............................................................8

PART 2: ICAO GNSS PANEL SPECTRUM SUB GROUP APRIL 2002 ..................................10

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


LIST OF FIGURES

Erreur ! Aucune entrée de table d'illustration n'a été trouvée.

LIST OF TABLES

Erreur ! Aucune entrée de table d'illustration n'a été trouvée.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


Part 1: ICAO AMCP group F, November 2001

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


1 INTRODUCTION

This part one of the document gives the current position of the ICAO Aeronautical MobileCommunications Panel WORKING GROUP F meeting, which was held in Bangkok, fromthe 19th until the 26th of November 2001.The main outputs from this meeting concerned the WRC agenda item 1.15 (RNSS issues)which were discussed under the agenda item 16 and 17 of the AMCP gr F meeting.Agenda item 16 deals with Resolution 605 (RNSS in 1164-1215MHz frequency band).Agenda item 17 deals with Resolution 606 (RNSS in 1215-1300MHz frequency band).

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


2 ACRONYMS

CPM Conference Preparatory MeetingWRC World Radio-communication ConferencePDNR Preliminary Draft New Recommendation

DNR Draft New RecommendationSG Study GroupMLS Micro-wave Landing SystemRNSS Radio Navigation Satellite SystemARNS Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


3 AGENDA ITEM RELATED TO RNSS ISSUES

3.1 AGENDA ITEM 16: RNSS IN FREQUENCY BANDS USED BYGNSS

16.1 All papers presented under this agenda item related to the RNSS allocation in theband 1164-1215 MHz and WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.15. During the presentations it wasexplained that the studies considered in the ITU for this band regarding a pfd limit for RNSSwere the same as those seen in ICAO. The pfd developed within the GNSSP was that whichcan now be found in ITU documents. There were two areas that needed to be considered bythe meeting as these related to a method for calculating an equivalent pfd (epfd) and methodto satisfy the WRC Agenda Item 1.15 on this issue.16.2 With regards to the method for calculating an epfd, there was uncertainty in how thecalculation had actually been derived. If this approach was to be accepted it would appear toresult in different DME antenna gain than that used for the calculation of the pfd. Due to theuncertainty on the calculating the epfd at this moment in time the meeting agreed to considerthis further at the next meeting of WG-F following further enquiry with the developers of theepfd concept.16.3 In respect of methods to satisfy the WRC-2003 agenda item on this subject identifiedin draft CPM text (WP 9), there are 4 main approaches some of which were broken into submethods. After much discussion and consideration of these methods, the general view of themeeting was that:

a) Method A was unacceptable since it does not protect DME and seemsincompatible with Res 605;

b) Method B appeared to meet the ICAO position;c) Method C was unacceptable;d) Method D/b in principle would meet the ICAO position but may limit the growth

of RNSS in this band.

The draft CPM text need to be considered away from this meeting in order to see whetherthere was a need to develop these different approaches further.

16.4 During discussions on this item it also became clear that not allStates had developed a position on what they considered the best method to adopt.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


3.2 AGENDA ITEM 17: RNSS IN OTHER BANDS

17.1 The papers presented under this agenda item were concerned with the band 1215-1300 MHz only (WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.15 Res 606). It became clear from the discussionthat there was still a difference between theoretical calculations and reality. This was notfully understood and a number of studies were being initiated within States to measure theconsider the effect on radars operating within this band from existing RNSS signals. It wasagreed that in order to achieve comparable results a common approach should be used.

17.3 To assist in concluding technical studies under Resolution 606 prior to the next ITUWorking Parties 8B & 8D meetings it was agreed to try and develop a common methodologyon technical measurement and testing. In order to achieve a common approach on testmethodology and test/degradation criteria for radars and presentation/format of results, it wasagreed that there was a need to establish an informal e-mail correspondence group to co-ordinate efforts of the various States before the next WG-F meeting. Eurocontrol stated thatthey might be able to assist in the establishment of such a group.

17.4 During discussions on this item it also became clear that not allStates had developed a position on what they considered the best method to adopt.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


Part 2: ICAO GNSS panel Spectrum sub group April2002

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


1. Introduction

1.1 The meeting of the GNSSP Spectrum Sub-group (SSG) was held from 8th to 12th

April 2002. Mr. John Owen, the Rapporteur of the sub-group, chaired the meeting. Themeeting was held at the Airline Pilots Association in Washington, DC in conjunction with theRTCA SG 159 meetings

1.2 The agenda for the meeting was as follows:

Agenda Item 1: Information on the outcome of the Rio GNSSP WG A/B meeting.Agenda Item 2: Review of Action items in the Report of the previous meeting

(September 2001)Agenda Item 3: Review of results from ITU Working Parties 8B and 8D

Agenda Item 4: Interference from ARNS (in-band and out-of-band) into RNSSAgenda Item 5: GBAS/GRAS operation in the 108-117.975 MHz band:

a) report on compatibility with DSB-AM COM;b) amendments to ITU Recommendation SM(IS)1009; andc) interference into VDL Mode 4.

Agenda Item 6: Interference from Ultra Wide Band systems

Agenda Item 7: Other spectrum issues:a) Galileo;b) report on GNSS interference issues for the 11th ANC (as

required);c) other.

Agenda Item 8: Future work plan

In this report, we will focus on Agenda item 3,4 and 7 for the Galileo issues.

1.3 Review of results from ITU Working Parties 8B and 8D

At its previous meetings in Banff and Montreal, the SSG determined an aggregate power levelin terms of a power flux density (pfd) from RNSS that would protect aviation radio-navigation services, i.e. DME operating in the 1164 to 1215 MHz ARNS band. The aggregatepower was determined to be –116.6dBW/m2/MHz. It had also considered possible methods ofdetermining how the aggregate power could be divided between different RNSS systemsoperating in the band. No clear conclusions had been formed on the latter issue. However theITU WP8D had developed the concept of using an equivalent power flux density (epfd),which was presented to the SSG.

The definition of epfd was based on Article 22.5C of the radio regulations. ‘When an antennareceives power within its reference bandwidth, simultaneously from transmitters at variousdistances, in various directions and at various levels of incident power flux density, the epfd isthat power flux-density that if received from a single transmitter in the far field of the antenna

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


in the direction of maximum gain would produce the same power at the input to the receiveras is actually received from the aggregate of the various transmitters’. It was noted that theepfd methodology would enable a better protection of ARNS from future RNSS including anyGEO satellites operating in the band.

Report of the meeting of ITU-R WP8D (November 2001) on the methodology for assessingthe impact of the RNSS (s-E) on ARNS in the band 1164-1215 MHz has been presented.ITU-R had accepted ICAO’s input of the –116.6 dBW/m2/MHz pfd limit but had preferredthe concept of epfd. The SSG noted that the WP 8D introduced a number of modifications,particularly:- a specific definition of the radiation pattern used was the small aircraft pattern as

defined by the SSG with the maximum gain and its direction;- a protection value with a 1% probability of causing harmful interference (which was

referred for ICAO comment).

The use of epfd and an analysis of a theoretical worst case of an aggregate epfd have beenexamined, assuming that two NGSO RNSS systems are operating at maximum power and arereceived in the victim DME main beam with a worst case 7 dB antenna gain. The epfd isassumed to be the preferred method for determining an aggregate protection level betweenARNS and RNSS.

CEPT position was explained, assessing an epfd limit of –121.5dBW/m2/MHz. The CEPTpaper proposed a reference antenna pattern representing ICAO input to ITU-R Working Party8D RNSS PDNR.

The discussion of the meeting then covered the merits of the pfd vs. epfd. As a result ofdiscussions on the epfd proposal, the SSG agreed to the epfd concept because:

- EPFD takes into account the contribution of GSO satellites in a more realistic mannerthan the pfd limit as the worst case antenna gain towards a GSO satellite is approximately2 dBi, and

- The average receiver antenna gain is a function of user location and varies from theNGSO RNSS system because it is a function of the number of satellites and thesatellite location.

The SSG concluded that the table used in the original pfd calculation should be modified forepfd. Accordingly, Table 1 as shown below should be presented by ICAO to the ITU WP 8Dmeeting.

TABLE 1. EPFD LIMIT TO PROTECT DME INTERROGATOR/RECEIVER

Parameter Value Reference

1 DME RNSS interference threshold(at antenna port) in the DME

−130.9 dBW/650kHz MOPS DO-189, 2.2.16

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


receiver bandwidth of 650 kHz R(CW)=-129dBWR=R(CW) - T

T=0+10log(1000/650)=1.9R-T = -130.9

2 Maximum antenna gain includingpolarisation diversity towardsinterference

3.4 dB ( 5.4dB antenna gain, -2.0dB circular-to-linear

polarisation mismatch)

3 Effective area of 0 dBi antenna at1 176 MHz

−22.9 dB/m2

4 Aggregate interference in theDME bandwidth

− 111.4 dBW/m2/650 kHz Combine 1,2 and 3

5 Conversion to MHz(assumes a 650 kHz DMEbandwidth)

1.9 dB 10 log (1 MHz/DME BW)Industry reference

6 Aggregate interference in 1 MHz -109.5. dBW/m2/MHz Combine 4 and 5

7 Safety margin 6 dB ITU

8 Apportionment of RNSSinterference to all the interferencesources

6 dB X =6 dB See section 1.3

9 Aggregate RNSS (s-E)interference

−121.5dBW/m2/MHz

Combine 6, 7 and 8

The meeting further agreed that, the following antenna pattern should be used as a referenceantenna pattern when calculating the epfd produced by frequency overlapping RNSS systems.This antenna pattern should be provided to ITU WP 8D by ICAO.

TABLE 2. REFERENCE ARNS ANTENNA PATTERNElevationangle in °

Antenna gainincluding circular-

to-linearpolarisationmismatch

Gr/Grmax in dB

Elevationangle in °



Gr/Grmax in dB

Elevationangle in °



Gr/Grmax in dB

-90 -17.22 22 -10.72 57 -15.28

-80 -14.04 23 -10.81 58 -15.49

-70 -10.51 24 -10.9 59 -15.67

-60 -8.84 25 -10.98 60 -15.82

-50 -5.4 26 -11.06 61 -16.29

-40 -3.13 27 -11.14 62 -16.74

-30 -0.57 28 -11.22 63 -17.19

-20 -1.08 29 -11.29 64 -17.63

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


-10 0 30 -11.36 65 -18.06

-5 -1.21 31 -11.45 66 -18.48

-3 -1.71 32 -11.53 67 -18.89

-2 -1.95 33 -11.6 68 -19.29

-1 -2.19 34 -11.66 69 -19.69

0 -2.43 35 -11.71 70 -20.08

1 -2.85 36 -11.75 71 -20.55

2 -3.26 37 -11.78 72 -20.99

3 -3.66 38 -11.79 73 -21.41

4 -4.18 39 -11.8 74 -21.8

5 -4.69 40 -11.79 75 -22.15

6 -5.2 41 -12.01 76 -22.48

7 -5.71 42 -12.21 77 -22.78

8 -6.21 43 -12.39 78 -23.06

9 -6.72 44 -12.55 79 -23.3

10 -7.22 45 -12.7 80 -23.53

11 -7.58 46 -12.83 81 -23.44

12 -7.94 47 -12.95 82 -23.35

13 -8.29 48 -13.05 83 -23.24

14 -8.63 49 -13.14 84 -23.13

15 -8.97 50 -13.21 85 -23.01

16 -9.29 51 -13.56 86 -22.88

17 -9.61 52 -13.9 87 -22.73

18 -9.93 53 -14.22 88 -22.57

19 -10.23 54 -14.51 89 -22.4

20 -10.52 55 -14.79 90 -22.21

21 -10.62 56 -15.05

Note.-The maximum antenna gain (Grmax) is 3.4 dBi taking into consideration the 2 dBcircular-to-linear polarization mismatch. Linear interpolation should be used between thevalue of the elevation angle.

FIGURE 1. REFERENCE ARNS ANTENNA PATTERN TO BE USED IN EPFDCALCULATION

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80-25

-23

-21

-19

-17

-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

elevation angle in °

Gr/GrMax in dB

The SSG further agreed to the following sentence to be added in the PDNR (document8D/255 attachment 6 in annex 2 section 2 instead of the last sentence) and to be taken byICAO to the ITU WP 8D meeting:“Those cumulative distribution functions (CDF) have to always be below the value of –121.5dBW/m2/MHz. However, due to the practical impossibility of performing a simulation inorder to obtain the epfd value, which will never be exceeded (0% of the CDF), the value at1% of the CDF plus 1dB could be considered as an acceptable estimate of the value at 0% ofthe CDF. Therefore, if the result of calculation gives at 1% of the CDF an epfd lower than –122,5 dBW/m2/MHz, the RNSS systems are considered complying with the limit of –121.5dBW/m2/MHz at 0% of the CDF.”

1.4 ARNS interferences on RNSS

Eurocontrol with support from UK NATS reported a measurement campaign that examinedthe interrogation and reply rates for some DME transponders supporting en-route and TMAoperations in the UK. The UK has installed several transponders capable of operating at up to5000 pulse pairs per second (ppps), although their quiescent rate is 750 ppps. Data indicatedthat the X channel DMEs achieved a reply efficiency of 80% at 2700 ppps compared to 70%

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


for the Y channel. Above an interrogation rate of approximately 1000 ppps the output replyrate rises proportionally with the interrogation rate, until 4500 ppps. The work was performedduring a low period in air traffic activity between November 2001 and February 2002. Themeasurements showed en-route DME performing below 1100 ppps (including identificationand monitor replies) and a reply efficiency over 85%. One DME supporting a busy TMAperformed at up to 2500 ppps, however showing enough capacity to support traffic aspredicted up to 2020. It was noted that GNSS operation would benefit if all DME operated inthe variable reply rate mode.

1.5 Galileo issuesEuropean Commission developments with the Galileo RNSS were reported.

A first paper addressed the potential degradation of the Galileo E5a (1176 MHz at a code rateof 10 megachips per second (mcps)) and E5b (1207 MHz at a code rate 10 mcps) from DMEs, TACANs in Europe. Out of band radiation from French civil Radars operating in theadjacent band were included in the simulation as was one JTIDS/MIDs net. The DME wereoperating at the maximum rate of 2700 pps and the TACAN at 3600 pps. A receiver withblanking was studied with different RF/IF filtering options (10, 8 and 6 MHz). The paperconcluded that the worst interference occurred at Fl 400 where a signal degradation of up to 7to 8 dB could be expected. If a 6 MHz filter was employed the degradation fell to 5 dB.Significant less interference was predicted at lower flight levels. In respect of this work theSSG also noted that interference mitigation techniques could be applied to receivers.

Another paper discussed the power link budget for Galileo E5a and E5b and GPS L5. Thepaper used the methodology applied by the RTCA and ITU in the L1 interference analysis toevaluate the margins for the Galileo and GPS signals in the 1151 to 1215 MHz band. Potentialinterference from radars and JTIDS was not addressed at this stage. The results indicated that,in the worst case scenario, a negative margin was present in terms of required signal power athigh FL 400 when previously derived acquisition threshold of 33.7 dB.Hz is used as anassessment criteria. The paper also identified several options to improve this situation. TheSSG was asked to review the methodology and the number used for the various parameters. Ina discussion that followed the need to involve WG A and B was established as the debateconcerned operational considerations and other issues outside of the spectrum domain. It wasalso stated that the issues dealt with in the paper should be harmonized and resolved at theindustry Standards level, particularly in EUROCAE and RTCA Mops. The SSG noted that thepaper would be presented at the forthcoming WG A and B meetings in Brussels. It wasfurther suggested that ITU-R 1318 be considered for use in the assessment methodology.

A third paper presented results concerning the acquisition, tracking and demodulationthresholds for RNSS signals proposed for GPS L5 and Galileo E5a and E5b. Of particularconcern is the acquisition threshold of 33.7 dB-Hz used by RTCA that might be lowered forthe L5/E5 signals considering improvements in receiver techniques.

GPS modernization programme has been presented and drew attention to the new civil signalthat would be available on the L2 band at 1227 MHz from satellite launched after 2003. TheL5 signal is predicted to be available on satellite launched after 2005.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


The Secretary presented a paper on an issue that had arisen in the Rio WGA meetingconcerning the use of the new L2 signal for aviation and forwarded to the SSG. The SSG wasasked to consider the broad issues that would arise if the new L2 signal is to be recognized forinternational civil aviation applications. After a general discussion the SSG concluded thatthere would be advantages in terms of frequency redundancy in the use of a second GPSsignal but that in many States there were conflicting uses of the frequency band that couldprevent its use for safety critical operations. Therefore, standardization could not berecommended unless these other services were discontinued. These considerations did notprevent however the authorization of the use of the new L2 signals on a State by State basis.

The Secretary presented a paper on the issue of a combined interference rejection mask forGPS and GLONASS receivers. The SSG noted that the use of such a mask would result in theGPS and GLONASS signals being susceptible to interference that appeared anywhere in theband. It was also noted that compatibility analysis carried out in the past vis-à-vis services inadjacent bands, such as MSS and fixed service, was conducted with the currently standardizedmasks. Considering the need to provide the maximum protection against interference to theGNSS receivers, the SSG did not agree with the proposed mask and confirmed that individualmasks for the GPS and GLONASS band provide the optimum protection.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


Part 2: ICAO AMCP group F December 2002

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


1 AMCP GROUP F

The ICAO AMCP group F meeting has been held in Mexico from the 11th to the 17th

of December.The RNSS issues for the WRC 2003 (Resolution 605 and 606) have been discussedthe 13th of December.

1.1 RESOLUTION 605:

One contribution has been submitted by France in order to align the ICAOposition with the CPM text. The French proposal has been agreed and the ICAOposition has been changed.

The current ICAO position on Resolution 605 is as follows :

ICAO position on Resolution 605:

“To support an epfd of –121.5 dBW/m2/MHz for the maximum aggregatedinterference of all RNSS systems in the band 1 164 - 1 215 MHz, taking into accountthe reference worst case ARNS system antenna characteristics described in Annex 2of recommendation ITU-R M.[RNSS2], as a necessary protection for the ARNSsystem currently in operation. To support the incorporation of the agreed epfd limitwithin an adequate regulatory framework having full mandatory force.”

1.2 RESOLUTION 606:

On Resolution 606, four input documents have been submitted by USA, France,Germany and UK.

All input documents propose a change in the ICAO position, to reflect the output of allstudies made at ITU level on this subject.

The ICAO strongly supports method B of the CPM text. However, ICAO recognizesthat it has not been possible to reach a firm conclusion on which pfd value isnecessary to protect radars, without unduly restricting RNSS. Therefore, the ICAOposition has been reviewed to support the incorporation of a single regulatorymechanism applicable to RNSS in the whole band 1 215-1300 MHz to protect theradars.

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


This ICAO position has been submitted to the AMCP meeting in February 2003 andhas been approved by AMCP. It is still not an official ICAO position, as it has to beendorsed by ANC.

However, the ICAO AMCP group F secretary will reflect its personal view in favour ofthe application of a pfd limit in, this band.

For the next AMCP meeting, the objective will be to keep the ICAO position as it hasbeen proposed by the study group F.

In Annex, the proposed ICAO position on resolution 606.

ANNEXICAO AMCP group F position on Resolution 606

In the band 1 215 - 1 300 MHz, Resolution 606 calls for studies on the need for, andthe value of, an appropriate pfd limit. The principle of incorporating such a pfd limithas been disputed by some countries at WRC-2000. It is a firmly held view ininternational civil aviation that a single regulatory mechanism in the whole 1215-1300MHz band applicable to current and future RNSS systems is necessary to preventharmful interference from RNSS into radionavigation systems employed to establishand maintain separation between aircraft. .

As a single regulatory mechanism, Aviation has been seeking the incorporation of anagreed pfd limit in the Radio Regulation.Several studies have been submitted in the ITU-R and ICAO framework on the impact ofRNSS emissions on radars; however it has not been possible to reach a firm conclusion onwhich pfd value is necessary to protect radars, without unduly restricting RNSS. One of thereasons is the fact that no international standards for ATC primary radars exist and radarsutilize different operating parameters throughout the world. Furthermore, the application of aninappropriate pfd limit would not guaranty the protection of radars and might not beretroactively applicable to RNSS systems that have been notified prior to WRC-2003.

Regulatory mechanisms other than a pfd limit have been proposed, such as afootnote, to give protection to radars. These mechanisms may not necessarilyprevent harmful interference being caused to RNS systems, which is unacceptable.Furthermore, identification reporting and removal of such interference, wherefeasible, will represent a substantial burden on all administrations and Civil Aviationauthorities involved and on the ITU BR.

As a consequence, administrations operating radars systems used for Civil Aviationpurposes in this band are encourage to address the issues in close consultation with

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


their civil aviation authorities with regards to the best means to achieve protection ofthese systems.

ICAO position

To support the incorporation of a single regulatory mechanism applicable to RNSS in thewhole band 1 215-1300 MHz as a necessary protection for important radars used for civilaviation purposes and to support the incorporation of the agreed mechanism within anadequate regulatory framework having full mandatory force for current and future RNSSsystems

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003


END OF DOCUMENT

GALILEI REF :DATE :

GALI-ASPI-DD-09330/01/2003

Report on Studies to ICAO ISSUE : 3.0 PAGE: i

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION

From : Jean ChenebaultProject Acronym : GALILEIProject Name : Galileo System AnalysisTitle : Report on Studies to ICAOIssue : 3.0

Reference/identification : GALI-ASPI-DD-093Date : 10/07/2002Page Number : 13File : Dd093v3.0Classification : RE

WBS : F.2.AContract : GMA1-42031-2001-SI2.324077Type of Document : DDTemplate Name : deliverables_galilei_v2(light)

To :

Distribution

Company Name N° Ex. Company Name N° Ex.

Documents

Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality Promoting ... · RNSS Radio Navigation Satellite System ARNS Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service. GALILEI REF : DATE : GALI-ASPI-DD-093 30/01/2003