VISTA Vision of Integration Satellite Technologies into Aviation

1. VISTAVision of Integration Satellite Technologies into Aviation Presentation to ICAO ACP WG-C08 Munich, September 20th to 24th Dr. Jens Federhen

2. 0 Introduction

3. 250K€, 6 months Very long time horizon Assume that a paradigm shift in ATM will have taken place by 2020 Assumption that specifications valid or under development today will no longer applicable Holistic (“systemic”) approach Consider operational, technical, economical, and political issues Consider not only space, but also terrestrial and airborne world Consider C, N, and S Integrated approach Include “all” stakeholders concerned (Airlines, Air Traffic Service Providers, Manufacturing industry, Research bodies; others: Airports, Standardisation bodies, Legal institutions, ...) Consequences: “Free-minded environment” High level considerations only, i.e. broad but not detailed High degree of uncertainty ESA Study “ATM Systems for 2020+:The expected role of satellites” • To be considered when using the word “vision” • Nevertheless: • Long time period required for development, validation and deployment • Now is an opportunity not to miss for injecting views (because of e.g. Single European Sky, SESAME etc.)

4. Consortium European Space Agency Customer Eurocontrol Advisor Air Traffic Alliance EADS Astrium Co-Prime Provide Space Know-How Thales ATM Co-Prime Provide ATM/CNS Know How DLR Provide Research Views Alcatel Space SDLS Review Lufthansa Cargo Provide Airlines Views DFS Provide ATSP Views

5. TN 1 TN 2 TN 3 FinalRept. Study logic • Broad Study Topic, Need to include representatives of various stakeholder groups • Short duration, Low budget • Study centred around a series of workshops with all experts around one table 03/04 MAR 04 11 SEP 03 17/18 NOV 03 10/11 DEC 03 Role of satellites in ATM systems for 2020+ WS #3 KOM WS #1 WS #2 Task 1: ATM Methodology & Systems Baseline until 2012 ATM 2000-2012 Task 2: Potential contributions of Space Systems ATM 2012-2020+ Trade-Offs,Integr. Solutions, Standards & Reqs. Task 3: Vision of an ATM System for 2020+ Vision & scenario skeletons Transition schemes, Impact assessment

6. 1 ATM Methodology & Systems Baseline until 2012 Task 1

7. 2 Potential contributions of Space Systems Task 2

8. 2a Long-term developments in space systems for ATM Task 2

9. Long-term developments in space systems for ATM Typical design variables Issues Messages • Imperatives • Cheaper, smaller, lighter, … • Limit number of antennas on aircraft • Avionics-specific design issues • Certifiability & Standardisation • Integration with other aircraft systems • Avionics roadmap is dependent on: • Availability of in orbit satellites and their services • Assessment of airlines and business jet operators wanting those services • AES drives satellite system design! Aircraft avionics (AES) • GEO vs. Non-GEO • No ideal solution • GEO shortcomings: propagation delay (conceivable for voice, thus need for extra training; danger of long waiting times for data services, e.g. if protocol requires handshake), echo, no coverage on polar caps • NGSO shortcomings: very few piggyback options, need for many satellites, poor commercial performance of existing satcom constellations, difficulties to realise regional solutions Satellite orbits & constellations • Most critical: User link • Bandwidth • Rain attenuation • Global accessibility (Radio Regulations) • Technology maturity • Very difficult regulatory situation! • Only bands <10MHz suitable if service is to be used below clouds • HF/VHF/UHF (<1GHz): either technically not suited or not accessible • L (1-2GHz): well suited but high density of other services • S (2-4GHz): very similar to L band but little spectrum available for aero satcom • C (4-6GHz): MLS band • X (6-10GHz): blocked by military Frequencies Satellite payload • Satellite antenna • Digital on-board processor • Technologies are mature • No ATM-specific modifications needed • ATM will simply benefit from improvements that happen steadily Satellite platform Launch considerations

10. Service Antenna HPBW MHz MHz Gain 45,00 1500 1500 Fixed Ku-Band (11000 MHz) 2.4° 37.7dBi 40,00 11000 11000 Land Mobile L-Band (1500 MHz) 80° 7.3dBi 35,00 30,00 Difference: Ca. 30 dBi 25,00 Antenna Gain [dBi] (Factor 1000 In power!) 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 (Antenna efficiencies: 55%) 0,00 160,00 140,00 120,00 100,00 HPBW [°] 80,00 60,00 40,00 20,00 0,00 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5 Diameter [m] Impact of mobility requirement on link performance • Mobility requirement: • Aircraft cannot stop for data transmission • Manoeuvrability of aircraft (banking) must be maintained without interrupting satellite link • Low antenna gain cannot simply be compensated by increased RF power or lower receiver system noise temperatures • High-gain tracking antenna • Antennas with mechanical pointing mechanisms are large and expensive • Electrical phase array antennas need more R&D to lower prices • Mobility has impact on network, too (e.g. handover) Mobility requirement costs 30dBi in link margin (factor 1000 in power)!

11. Availability issues • ATM is particularly sensitive to satellite availability • Single most important issue when considering SatCom for ATM • A defective satellite in orbit can only be replaced, not repaired. • Satellites are built according to very demanding standards • Experience of the past 20+ years: • If the satellite begins its operational life satisfactorily it will continue operating satisfactorily for years with none or few service outages. • Redundancy scenarios • No spare satellite • Ground spare satellite • Cold in-orbit spare satellite • Hot in-orbit spare satellite Trade-off between cost and dependence on the satellite system

12. Cabin communications • Assumption: By 2020, cabin communications systems can be made sufficiently reliable to be used for ATM communications • physically robust lower network link layers • operational means (firewalls, prioritisation) • Pro: • Large bandwidth • No additional antenna on-board the aircraft • Cost paid by passengers • Contra: • Shared business case (Example: Iridium) • Remaining safety & security concerns (however: Current VHF-AM comms are not secure at all) • Not all aircraft equipped with passenger comm’s: Cargo aircraft, small aircraft • If “Ku-Band”: not working in all weather conditions • Proprietary standards

13. Inmarsat: History & apparent trends • Higher antenna gain, higher satellite power level • Physical limit for satellite antenna diameter: about 30 m • More complex digital processors • Regenerative payload? • On-board re-modulation of signals prior to onward transmission • Additional 3 dB on link budget • Increased power and added complexity • Introduction of data (instead of voice) services • Inmarsat 1 (late 1970s) • Low-gain antenna • Transparent transponders • Power: ca. 1kW • Service outages due to platform • Inmarsat 2 (1980s) • Major advances in platform (1st Eurostar) • Phased array antenna (diameter: 1m) • Still backup for Inmarsat 3 • Inmarsat 3 (1990s) • Major advances in payload • 8 spot beams • Higher data rates • Inmarsat 4 (from 2006+) • 200+ spot beams • Digital processor • High-gain antenna (reflector diameter 9m)

14. 2b Long-term developments in ATM Task 2

15. Procedure ATM Functional Blocks *) Trends Potential Contribution of Space Technologies More integration More flexibility More dynamism • Flexible and dynamic airspace organisation require additional communication • Integration requires uniformity of CNS infrastructure • Satellite technologies appear well-suited for en-route traffic, particularly in oceanic and remote areas but possibly in high-density airspace, too • Terrestrial technologies suggested around airports Airspace Organisation Emphasis on capacity “Gate to Gate” More collaboration 4D Trajectories • Strategic rather than tactical (i.e. before rather than during the flight) • > No direct impact on satellite technologies (except possibly FSS for ground-ground) • Interface to traffic management (4D trajectory negotiation) Demand & Capacity Mgmt. More automation More collaboration 4D Trajectories ADS • Trajectory negotiation, ADS, and clearances require a data link • Satellite technologies appear well-suited for en-route traffic, particularly in oceanic and remote areas but possibly in high-density airspace, too • Terrestrial technologies suggested around airports Traffic Mgmt. Reduced separation minima Re-Distribution of responsibilities Increased automation Air/air communications • Greater navigation accuracy enabled through satellite navigation • Highly reliable air/air communications not so well suited for satellite(better: line-of-sight communications) • Ground-to-air broadcast services to assist separation (e.g. TIS-B) are very well suited for satellite Separation Mgmt. Increase capacity Integration with air transport network Collaborative processes All weather capabilities Better guidance and control • Augmented (GBAS) satellite navigation • Most changes on and around airports will not be enabled through satellite technologies • Terrestrial communications means appear better suited (satellite may be backup) • Airport should not be the driver for satellite systems engineering Airport Throughput More integration (SWIM) More collaboration “Better data” • Possibility of new information broadcasting services (traffic situation, NOTAMS, weather, …) • Common & distributed databases updated and synchronised by fixed satellite systems in some regions of the world Information Mgmt. *) Source: Eurocontrol/AECMA “ATM Master Plan”

16. 3 Vision skeletons of a satellite-enhanced ATM System for 2020+ Task 3

17. Today's stakeholder groups likely to still exist in 2020+, yet some will dramatically change the way they operate: Trend towards application of commercial rules, corporatisation, privatisation Trend towards internationalisation Users Airlines (passengers & cargo) Military aviation Business aviation General aviation Service providers ANSPs / ATC service providers C, N & S Infrastructure operators Airports Legal bodies Intergovernmental organisations National legislation National authorities Standardisation bodies ATM stakeholders in 2020+

18. ATM/CNS infrastructure for 2020+ • Will still comprise C, N, and S • Dependent surveillance is using C & N • Primary surveillance still required (infrastructure possibly thinned out) • Will still comprise various C/N/S systems • Interoperability would have positive effect on safety, too • Some systems may be reliable enough to be “sole” means (depends on RCP, RNP, RSP, RTSP) • Choice of “primary” means dependent on airspace type and traffic situation • For political reasons, various world regions will not accept to be dependent on others • Technically, no system is equally suited for different airspaces & traffic patterns

19. Communications (1) • Various candidate communications media • VHF (today sole comm’s means) • SatCom • Mode S • Possibly others, but only as requested by users (airlines) • No HF any more? • Polar caps • “Seamless communications” • Transparent & automatic choice of • Communications media • Frequency • Pilot and controller should not perceive any difference between the various communications means ATN-Bild

20. Communications (2) • Work Share between terrestrial and satellite communications: • SatCom primary means for basic load air/ground communications • Oceanic and remote airspace • VHF air/air as backup instead of HF ? • En-route • Terrestrial = primary means for air/ground communications in “hot spots” (TMA) • Less range and faster access to communication required • Terrestrial (line-of-sight) = primary means for air/air communications • Possibly not the same conclusion for voice and data link

21. Communications (3) • Voice will remain, but used less often than today • Should voice be provided over satellite? • Why not? • If satellite is there, it could provide a (digital) voice service, too • Should voice service comprise party line feature? • Technically feasible, user community needs to formulate the requirement

22. Commercial trade-offs • Aviation must ensure reasonable data traffic volume for SatCom to reach “critical mass” and ensure commercial viability. • SatCom system must ensure that operational benefits of satellite technologies must be quantifiable and big enough to justify airline investments in SatCom. • Further incentives for introduction of satellite services? Strict safety requirements High cost pressure Niche market particularities

23. Satellite Operators ServiceProviders Users HardwareManufacturers NGSS ? Difficulty of open standard for ATM SatCom • Open standard ensures • Interoperability • Competition amongst service providers and hardware manufacturers • Choice and attractive prices to end customers • Particularities of ATM SatCom market • Small • Demanding (technically as well as commercially) Big differences amongst current SatCom systems ! choice? choice choice

24. 4 Transition issues

25. 5 Conclusions

26. Will satellites play a role in ATM systemsfor 2020 and beyond? • Yes! • Navigation: No doubts that GNSS will be used • Communications: Some important questions still open, but: • New operational concepts will require additional (data) communications • Satellites are particularly well-suited for those concepts requiring • Global seamless coverage • Additional bandwidth • Broadcast capabilities • Surveillance: ADS will create additional communications demand • Well-balanced integration of terrestrial and satellite technologies is needed • Must make sense to ATM stakeholders as well as satellite community More work is needed: (1) define demand and (2) prepare the grounds(systems engineering, standardisation, regulation, commercial …)

27. What needs to happen next? • Space community to participate in current and future initiatives to define the ATM system for 2020+ • Find most suitable business model • Find optimum technical solution • Secure spectrum • Advance standardisation • Demonstrate satellite capabilities (e.g. in-flight trials)

28. Thank you for your attention! Any Questions? Dr.-Ing. Jens Federhen Marketing Manager Air Traffic Alliance c/o EADS Astrium GmbH D-81663 München Tel : ++ 49 (0) 89 / 607 - 29476 Fax : ++ 49 (0) 89 / 607 - 21023 Mobile: ++ 49 (0) 175 / 57 38 678 E-Mail: jens.federhen@airtraffic-alliance.com jens.federhen@astrium.eads.net