Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation

1. Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation Presented at ICAO ACP WGW Meeting, Montreal Canada June 27, 2005 Prepared by: FAA ATO/Brent Phillips, Eurocontrol/Jacky Pouzet NASA/James Budinger, ITT/Glen Dyer, Ron Bruno, QinetiQ/Phil Platt

2. Briefing Outline • Context of the Study • Candidate Technologies Families • Technology Pre-screening Process • Evaluation Criteria Development Process and Criteria • Common Findings of Pre-screening • Action Request

3. ato A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O N Context of the Technology Pre-screening • Aeronautical air-to-ground VHF channel capacity for Air Traffic Management (ATM) is reaching saturation • Most severe in Europe and parts of the United States • Various proposals to address this problem have been offered and approved independently; none has achieved global endorsement • ICAO is seeking a common, global solution through the Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP) • The FAA and Eurocontrol initiated a bi-lateral study of the problem with the support of NASA to provide major input to ICAO ACP in its search for a global solution • Action Plan 17 (AP-17) provides the study terms of reference and outlines a research plan • This Technology Pre-screening Study is Task 3.1 as defined in AP-17

4. FAA/Eurocontrol Joint Study CCOM FAA/EUROCONTROL Coordination Committee • FAA/Eurocontrol 3 year joint study* • Objectives: • Identification of requirements and operating concepts • Investigation into new mobile communication technologies • Investigation of a flexible avionics architecture • Development of a Future Communications Roadmap • Creation of industry buy-in • Improvements to maximise utilisation of current spectrum * Federal Aviation Administration/EUROCONTROL , Cooperative Research and Development Action Plan 17: Future Communications Study (AP 17-04)

5. Technology Identification • In order to identify all technologies that may be applicable to aeronautical communications, a multi-faceted approach was used for technology identification: • A survey of widely used and successful commercial and military technologies was conducted to identify technologies that offered potential value to A/G communications • NASA released two Requests for Information soliciting technology candidate inputs from industry • Eurocontrol received input from European manufacturers • Technology candidates previously identified by the ICAO ACP WG-C were included in this study • In all, over 50 technology candidates were identified in this process

6. Technologies Considered

7. Meets Minimum Threshold Requirements? Characterize Technologies No Identify Technology Not Considered Further (WG - C Templates) and Candidate Conduct Analysis Technologies These technologies provide no unique value for aeronautical communications within the scope of their family Exclude inappropriate technologies, e.g. direct broadcast video Yes Evaluate Technology Common and Calculate Evaluation Relative Score Criteria Conduct Comparative/ Sensitivity Analyses Task 3.1 AP17: Pre - Screening Identification, Characterization, Evaluation Is Technology No one of the Technology Not Considered Further “ Best ” Solutions? These technologies provide no unique value for aeronautical communications within the scope of all candidate solutions Yes Bring Candidate Forward FAA/Eurocontrol Decision Process Task 3.2 AP 17: Technology Investigation Detailed Technology Analysis and Selections Pre-Screening Process

8. Minimum Threshold Criteria • A very large number of technologies were identified in the study and, of necessity, some were culled from further consideration without a detailed analysis being performed. • The culling rules were: • A proprietary technology was eliminated if an another technology in the family that is based on an open standard provides comparable value • An immature technology was eliminated if a more mature technology in the family offered comparable value [Note: Assumed 2015 in-service date] • An older (near end of life) technology was eliminated if a successor mature technology in the family provided equal or greater value with no expected cost impact • A technology that inherently relies on unprotected spectrum [i.e., not AM(R)S or AMS(R)S] was eliminated • A technology was eliminated if another technology in the family provided comparable value and was more widely implemented (sparse implementation) • A technology was eliminated if it could not support a practical transition

9. Evaluation Criteria Development Process FAA/Eurocontrol Operational Concepts & Requirements Team ICAO & Other Consensus Documents ICOCR FAA/Eurocontrol Technology Assessment Team ICAO & Other Consensus Documents Initial Evaluation Criteria Final Evaluation Criteria Safety – Cert. Issue Papers FAA Requirements, Technology & Transition Analysis Team (RTTA) Security Issue Papers RTTA Evaluation Criteria Affordability Issue Papers Aircraft Co-Site Issue Papers System Arch. Issue Papers Ground Sys Int. Issue Papers

10. Consensus Evaluation Criteria • Technology pre-screening evaluation criteria were derived via a consensus process during 2004 July – ITT Synthesizes evaluation criteria from 11th ICAO Air Navigation Conference (Sept/Oct 2003) recommendations August – ITT and QinetiQ work towards refining the evaluation criteria, and developing a consensus set of criteria. In parallel, the FAA RTTA team is developing a set of evaluation criteria September – A mapping between the ITT and QinetiQ consensus criteria and the independently developed RTTA criteria is developed and presented to the FAA. Mapping shows substantial overlap, and highlights missing criteria in the ITT and QinetiQ set, which are adopted. Evaluation criteria are baselined, and the FAA RTTA team begins work of defining evaluation metrics October – Through two rounds of FAA comments, ITT and QinetiQ replies, and then a round table discussion between ITT, NASA and the FAA RTTA team, evaluation metrics are decided and harmonized. In the process, some of the evaluation criteria are modified. An additional criteria, transition is adopted, and one criteria, COTS Leveraging, is eliminated. The evaluation criteria and metrics are placed under configuration control on October 7, 2004.

11. Evaluation Criteria Overview

12. Criteria Detail

13. Criteria Detail – Concluded NOTE: Further details and associated metrics for use in evaluation of candidates are provided in Tables 3 and 4 in paper

14. Future Roadmap Current A/G Infrastructure Future Options for A/G Infrastructure VHF DSB-AM / VDL Mode 2 Technology that uses VHF more efficiently and is compatible with in-band transition Technology that can co-exist in DME spectrum Technology that can co-exist in MLS spectrum Technology that can co-exist in AMS(R)S (Satellite) Roadmap should indicate how the chosen technologies are matched to the spectrum options

15. Preliminary Findings of Technology Pre-screening VHF DME MLS AMS(R)S

16. Eurocontrol/QinetiQ Possiblecandidates for evaluation B-VHF Aero-BGAN VDL-3 in another band Wideband & Broadband Public Service Radio technologies Issues for further consideration Provision of Party-Line on 3G Aeronautical VoIP services Performance of 3G & WLAN at aeronautical velocities Preliminary Findings of Technology Pre-screening – Concluded NASA/ITT • Technologies applicable for provision of communications over enroute, terminal and surface airspace domains • Primary: VDL3/VDLE in VHF; P34 in DME; VDL3 in DME (XDL3); B-VHF in DME • Secondary: WCDMA in DME • Technologies applicable for provision of communications over specific airspace domains • Oceanic: Aero-BGAN; Iridium in AMS(R)S • Surface: IEEE 802.16 in MLS

17. Action • The Working Group is requested to: • provide comments on paper • approve the pre-screening process (Figures 1 and 2 in paper) • approve the evaluation criteria for use in the further assessment and selection of future candidate technologies to support Air Traffic Service voice and data communications (Tables 2, 3 and 4 in paper)