Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation"— Presentation transcript:

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

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
Technology Family Candidates Cellular Telephony Derivatives TDMA (IS-136), CDMA (IS-95A), CDMAone (IS-95B), CDMA2000 1xRTT, W-CDMA (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 , IEEE , IEEE , IEEE , ETSI HIPERPAN, ETSI HIPERLAN, ETSI HIPERMAN Public Safety and Specialized Mobile Radio APCO P25 Phase 1, APCO P25 Phase 2, TETRA Release 1, TETRAPOL, IDRA, IDEN, EDACS, APCO P34, TETRA Release 2 (TAPS), TETRA Release 2 (TEDS), Project MESA Satellite and Other Over Horizon Communication SDLS, Connexion by Boeing, Swift Broadband (Aero B-GAN), Iridium, GlobalStar, Thuraya, Integrated Global Surveillance and Guidance System (IGSAGS), HF Data Link Custom Narrowband VHF Solutions VDL Mode 2, VDL Mode 3, VDL Mode 3 w/SAIC, VDL Mode E, VDL Mode 4, E-TDMA Custom Broadband ADL, Flash-OFDM, UAT, Mode-S, B-VHF (MC-CDMA) Military Link 16, SINCGARS, EPLRS, HAVEQUICK, JTRS Other APC Phone (Airphone, AirCell, SkyWay)

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

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
Category Evaluation Category Description Criteria Communications Capabilities Communication capabilities needed to support current and emerging ICAO ATM concepts 1 Meets Voice Needs 2 Meets Basic Datalink Needs 3 Meets Expanded Datalink Needs Maturity for Aeronautical Environment Technical maturity as well as the recognition for the safety assurance required for aeronautical standardization and certification 4 Technology Readiness Level 5 Standardization 6 Certification Cost Cost of infrastructure used by the service provider as well as the cost of aircraft avionics equipage 7 A/G Communications Infrastructure 8 Avionics Other Availability of suitable AM(R)S spectrum, support for security, and practical accommodation of transition 10 Spectrum Protection 11 Security 12 Transition

12 Criteria Detail Candidate Evaluation Sub-Item Sub-Elements 1
Meets Voice Needs A. Functional Requirements: Supported Voice Services 1. Pilot-Controller Talk Group 2. Pilot-Controller Selective Addressing 3. Direct Pilot-Pilot 4. Broadcast capability B. Capacity Requirements 1. Capacity provided 3. Number of users supported C. Performance Requirements for Pilot Controller Voice Services 1. Aircraft Mobility Management 2. End-to-end Latency 2 Meets Basic Data Link Needs A. Functional Requirements: Supported Data Services 1. A/G, G/A Addressed Data Transport 2. G/A Basic Data Transport 1. Aggregate Data Rate 2. Number of Users C. Performance Requirements for Data Transport 1. Uplink/Downlink Priority Levels/QoS 2. End-to-end latency 3 Meets Expanded Data Link Needs Including Air-to-Air requirements 1. ADS-B 2. Pilot-Pilot Data Transport 1. Aggregate data rate C. Performance Requirements 1. None beyond basic data

13 Criteria Detail – Concluded
Candidate Evaluation Description 4 Technical Readiness Level Provides an indication of the technical maturity of the proposed technology. 5 Standardization Status Indicates the relevance and maturity of a proposed technologies standardization status. 6 Certifiability Provides a relative measure of the candidate complexity. 7 Ground Infrastructure Cost Estimates cost to service provider to provide coverage to a geographically large sector. 8 Cost to Aircraft Estimates relative cost to upgrade avionics with new technology. 10 Spectrum Protection Gauges the likelihood of obtaining the proper allocation of the target spectrum. 11 Security Assesses whether authentication and data integrity are provided . 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
Spectrum Under Consideration Common Candidates Eurocontrol/QinetiQ Unique NASA/ITT Unique None VDL3/VDLE B-VHF, XDL3, P34, WCDMA ADL 802.16 Aero-BGAN Iridium VHF DME MLS AMS(R)S

16 Preliminary Findings of Technology Pre-screening – Concluded
Eurocontrol/QinetiQ Possible candidates 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 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 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)

Download ppt "Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google