FCS Technology Investigation Conclusions and Recommendations

1. 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 Platt NASA: 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

4. Approach

5. Approach: U.S. and European Activity

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

8. Evaluation Criteria

9. Evaluation Criteria – ITT 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

10. Evaluation Criteria: ITT Metrics

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 -- EuropeanMetrics • 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 Class 3 Class 4

13. Evaluation Criteria -- Comparison

14. Technology Screening

15. Technology Inventory • 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

17. Technology Studies

18. Detailed Technology Studies -- ITT

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

20. 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

22. U.S. Technology Evaluations (2) • Assess technologies using the process diagrams defined for each evaluation criterion

23. VOC U.S. Technology Evaluations (3) Weight/Rank Criteria (Applying AHP Process) Rule Set Qualitative Ranking Quantitative Weights

24. U.S. Evaluation Results * Gray indicates insufficient information at the time of evaluation

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

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

34. 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. Observations: Aeronautical L-band (2) • 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. Observations: Aeronautical L-band (3) • Two options for a L-band Digital Aeronautical Communication System (L-DACS) were identified

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

42. 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