Welcome to the 3rd meeting of the Steering Group for a New Generation Satellite System (NGSS) Eurocontrol, Brussels 30 October 2003

Objectives Major objectives of this meeting are: To increase understand, and get feedback on, the Mission requirements To consider technology options To review the business aspect and consider how to get stakeholder commitment We have left time for discussion - we need your feedback

Item 2 - Acceptance of the Agenda

Agenda Overview Comments ? Welcome and Introduction Acceptance of the agenda Overview of activities since the 2nd meeting Review of Mission Requirements Technology review Roadmap for development and implementation Discussion of future activities Any Other Business Actions Date of future meetings Comments ?

Item 3 - Overview of Satellite Communication Activities since the first meeting

World Radio Conference 2003 (1/2) Successful for aviation retention of spectrum global acceptance for Connexion on secondary basis Resolution 415 - to study, as a matter of urgency, the current satellite frequency allocations that could meet aeronautical requirements to support the modernisation of civil aviation telecommunication systems, especially those in developing countries, and to study in particular those radio frequencies that could be used to support both ICAO CNS/ATM systems and other non-aeronautical telecommunication services this could imply increased use of satellite communication systems

World Radio Conference 2003 (2/2) Resolution 803 to consider results of ITU-R studies in accordance with Resolution 222 (WRC-2000) to ensure spectrum availability and protection for the aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service, and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining the generic allocation for the mobile-satellite service Aviation needs to continue to ensure it has sufficient spectrum in the future in the L-band

ICAO 11th ANC 11th Air Navigation Conference (ANC) looked at all ICAO activity since the last ANC in 1991 many technical systems developed but not all implemented emphasis now on definition of operational concepts need for greater regional harmonisation need for more spectral efficient systems A number of Recommendations related to new technology including satellite communication were formulated.

ICAO 11th ANC Recommendation 7/4 — Investigation of future technology alternatives for air-ground communication. ICAO to a) investigate new terrestrial and satellite-based technologies, on the basis of their potential for ICAO standardisation for aeronautical mobile communications use, taking into account the safety-critical standards of aviation and the associated cost issues; b) continue evolutionary development of existing standardized ICAO technologies with a view to increasing their efficiency and performance; and c) assess the needs for additional aeronautical spectrum to meet requirements for increased communications capacity and new applications, and assist States in securing appropriate additional allocations by the ITU.

ICAO 11th ANC Recommendation 7/5 — Standardisation of aeronautical communication systems…..for new aeronautical communication systems, ICAO will: a) continue to monitor emerging communication systems technologies but undertake standardisation work only when the systems meet all of the following conditions: see next slide

ICAO 11th ANC Conditions for standardisation 1) can meet current and emerging ICAO ATM requirements; 2) are technically proven and offer proven operational benefits; 3) are consistent with the requirements for safety; 4) are cost-beneficial; 5) can be implemented without prejudice to global harmonisation of the CNS/ATM systems; and 6) are consistent with the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc 9750)

ICAO 11th ANC Recommendation 7/5 continued b) include in Annex 10 provisions ensuring that the introduction of mandatory carriage of new equipment be based only on appropriate ICAO regional and inter-regional co-ordination; and c) further limit SARPs for complex aeronautical systems to broad, system-level, functional and performance requirements and better capitalise on the work of other standard-making organisations so as to reduce the complexity/size of technical provisions. The intention is that NexSAT fully complies with these Resolutions For more information see www.icao.int

ICAO 11th ANC ESA has produced a video in association with Eurocontrol and industry The video was shown on the Eurocontrol stand at the ANC encouraging amount of interest shown which is being followed up 10 minute ESA VIDEO ESA has kindly agreed to make copies of video available

ICAO Aeronautical Communications Panel Work on satellite communications is the responsibility of 3 relevant Working Groups of the ICAO ACP Working Group M maintenance of existing AMSS SARPs development of ‘generic’ core NGSS SARPs producing a Technical Manual for the existing AMSS Working Group C reviewing new candidate technologies including NGSSs start to develop Technical Manuals if & when appropriate Working Group F Spectrum aspects

WG-C outcome - last week This was the first meeting to reopen discussion on potential satellite communication systems for several years Many papers on satellite communications systems were presented General feeling was there seems to be potential for future satellite communication systems but more work was needed to understand capabilities of systems and clarify requirements

WG-C outcome - last week Next steps are to progress the work through 4 ‘interest groups’ probably operating mainly by email Technology Interest Group - led by Philippe Renaud Requirements Interest Group - led by Brent Philips, FAA Spectrum Interest Group - led by Mike Biggs, FAA Institutional matters - led by Kors van den Boogaard, IATA Results from the NexSAT project will be fed into these groups

EUROCONTROL activities Since SG 2 Eurocontrol has - Concentrated on revising the Mission requirements Ensured co-ordination with other activities around the world Defined tasks required to carry out business, and institutional analysis Initiated activity with IATA on determining AOC requirements feedback from the last SG was the presented AOC requirement was low it seems difficult to get better information we need your help ! - see next agenda item

Activities in other regions NASA Japanese papers Concept of Self-synchronized ADS using Satellite Efficient preemption method on CDMA system

Item 4 - Review of Mission Requirements

Document Overview Developed in response to the NexSAT Steering Group meeting Document structure sections 1 and 2 - introduction and background to help put NexSAT in context section 3 contains the HLMRs and the Communication Requirements particularly important to dimension system ATM requirements based on Eurocontrol’s MACONDO study AOC will be revised after liaison with IATA and airlines Thank you for your comments

Definitions Mission Requirements used to - to get agreement between stakeholders on requirements provide a link between high level ATM requirements and input to industry to better understand needs list statements of requirements in terms of coverage, performance, types of facilities, etc They should not preclude any solution - current or future They will be used to feed more detailed documents traceable back to requirements

Capturing Requirements

High Level Mission Requirements 21 HLMRs covering coverage area (HLMR1) no change to operational concept - not technology driven (HLMR2) communication types ATS and AOC (HMLR3) no effects on existing users (HLMR4) will be a recognised ICAO system - need ‘buy-in’ from other states and regions (HLMR5) will have security provisions (HLMR6) connection to IpV6 (ground networks), ATN and may support ACARS (HLMRs 7, 8, 9)

High Level Mission Requirements Supports voice services and interfaces to ATS voice networks and PSTN (HLMRs 10 and 11) efficient use of AMS(R)S spectrum (HLMR 12) communication types ATS and AOC (HLMR3) supports priority (HLMR14) supports expected PIAC in coverage airspace types and area - European predictions included but global figures required (HLMR 14 and 15) meets safety requirements using recognised system - in Europe Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory Requirement (ESARR) (HLMR16) Voice and Data Requirements (HLMR 17 to 21)

ATS requirement ATS requirements have been derived from the EUROCONTROL study ‘Operating Concept of the Mobile Aviation Communication Infrastructure Supporting ATM beyond 2015’ - nicknamed MACONDO Compilation of EUROCONTROL Strategies based on ICAO CNS/ATM concepts compatible with ATMCP concepts From the agreed concept of operations the communication requirements were identified independent of technology

Overview of Macondo

Macondo Two main work packages WP1 established the ATM context in Europe in the 2010-2015 by review of Eurocontrol strategies e.g. ATM2000+ and Operational Concept Document differences with non-European regions were identified - all broadly similar WP2 defined requirements on future mobile communication infrastructure to accommodate operational communication needs arising from the ATM operational context. Both voice and data communications were considered including the required Quality of Service Results presented at a Stakeholder Workshop last year and agreed Documents available at http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatmp/work/mobile_comm.html

Homogenous Zones Airspace was characterised in general terms by flight phases, shape/density of traffic, ATM application mix. Each HZ is a portion of airspace within which ATM operational needs in terms of communication are similar The airspace segmentation criteria are: Airspace Density/Traffic Shape Airspace Regime (Managed (MAS), Unmanaged (UMAS), Free Flight Airspace (FFAS)); COSEP status(On/Off).

Homogenous Zones

Voice requirements

Voice Services Hypothesis for voice services No new requirements Decreasing use as primary means No operational evolution is foreseen for voice Same voice operational principles will apply Immediate access to the aircraft under responsibility of the controller Voice is the Baseline media for TACTICAL exchanges in 2015

Voice System Capacity Hypothesis for voice communication traffic estimation In TMA all tactical comms. supported by PARTY-LINE service Communication profiles derived from French VOCALISE project (channel load 60% at 95% upper bound, average contact 11s) Capacity given in number of contacts per hour for the whole ECAC Aircraft traffic profile based on Macondo WP1 inputs (PIAC) Broadcast traffic not taken into account Provision for datalink backup : 5% of nominal load

Mapping Voice Services / ATM Functions 2015 Notes : Voice is primary means for Emergency and Tactic exchanges (*) AFIS aerodromes outside the AFIS service operation or non-controlled airfield

Evolution Scenario Assumptions Hypothesis 2002 : Load of 10 contacts per hour per aircraft (Vocalise study) in the TMA 90% of the traffic is for tactical exchanges (Vocalise study) Scenario 2010 : Same communication traffic in the TMA for tactical exchanges as in 2002 (communication growth linearly linked to traffic growth) 50% of 2002 traffic for Strategic and Information exchanges Scenario 2015 : 10% reduction of the tactical exchanges in the TMA Residual traffic for Strategic and Information exchanges (5%)

Voice Capacity Evolution (Nominal Load)

Voice Capacity Evolution per HZ (2015 vs. 2002)

Voice QoS Parameters Criticality Level (ICAO) : Distress, Tactical, Strategic, Information Time axis : Connection Establishment Time Very Fast (<1s), Fast ( < 10s), Standard (< 20s) Latency (recommendation ITU G114 < 400ms) Integrity axis : Access control (Functional requirement) Jamming resistance (Difficult to specify) Audio Performance (Specifies coding schemes, BER) Service Availability Very High (>99.9..%), High (> 99%), Standard (> 98%)

PARTY LINE Desirable Features Used for Tactical exchanges in TMA Controller managed channel with high speed switch capability Push to Talk operation

SELECTIVE Service Desirable Features Used outside TMA for datalink backup Controller-Pilot exchanges Selective Call (addressed communication)

Data requirements

Data Class of Services ATC Data Exchanges Pilot-Controller Dialog CoS D1-1: Pilot-Controller Emergency Dialog Pilot-Controller Dialog Priority Criticality Availability CoS D1-2: Pilot-Controller Tactical Dialog CoS D1-3: Pilot-Controller Strategic Dialog Pilot-Pilot Dialog CoS D1-4: Pilot-Controller Information Dialog (CoS D2) Size CoS D3-1: Medium Flight Information Exchanges Flight Information Exchanges ATC Data Exchanges CoS D3-2: Long Flight Information Exchanges CoS D4-1: ATM Tactical Exchanges ATM Exchanges Time CoS D4-2: ATM Strategic Exchanges Downlink Information Broadcast Frequency CoS D5-1 : High Frequency Information Broadcast CoS D5-2: Low Frequency Information Broadcast Air-air Surveillance CoS v6-1: Air Surveillance Broadcast Direction & Size CoS 6-2: G/A Surveillance Broadcast

Data Requirements For each concept/airspace scenario I.e. Homogenous Zones the performance requirements have been tabulated See Mission Requirements document - Table 3- 5 page 12 Definition of column headings are in Appendix B - Page 21

Outputs of the study for ATS The resulting requirements are applicable to ANY communications technology I.e. technology independent now there is a need to match satellite communications technology against operational requirements for existing technologies match technology based on demonstrated performance for new technologies these are targets which need to be achieved The aim for new satellite communications is to achieve the as much as possible AT AN ACCEPTABLE COST However the performance of new satellite systems is not fully defined yet

AOC requirements

Confirmation of AOC requirement These seem difficult to determine - initial input based on IATA paper was felt to be very low Aircraft manufacturers have some concepts related to monitoring the airframe Airbus supplied initial information on future AOC requirements Airlines have some concepts for the future Input from airlines via IATA sought But the general feeling is that if the communications channel exists it will be used fully ! Is this a sensible design goal ?

AOC requirements Voice Data Link assumed to continue but decline ? Flight Operations - a few examples of safety and regularity of flight applications ACARS type applications future more graphical information exchange Electronic flight bag, etc Are all the applications really ‘safety and regularity of flight’ applications? Does this matter ?

Summary of ATS requirements The Macondo values for requirements have been included in Mission Requirements for around 2015 + now we have to match technology against requirements so far we do not know what a ‘new’ satellite system can achieve indicative figures from SDLS demonstrator are encouraging and can meet many of the requirement in a trials environment Decision that air to air communications is not appropriate for satellite communications strikethrough in requirements table New requirements in other regions of the world ?

NexSAT versus Requirements We are now trying to match technology against safety (ATS and AOC) requirements ATS requirements seem better known and appear ‘modest’ but AOC requirements are unclear but feedback suggests they are going to grow significantly - no hard numbers NexSAT will be complementary to ground systems but which requirements will it meet ? Decision that air to air communication is not applicable to satellite communications Need performance information of a NexSAT service to complete the matching process - taking into account costs

Discussion Party-line voice is a continuing issue - if voice is only for unusual situations. Is it necessary ? AOC requirements appear difficult to capture airframe manufacturers have plans related to the maintenance of airframe airlines have plans for their own purposes but may be sensitive do they classify applications into AOC and AAC ? Do they care ? Global requirements are expected through ICAO ACP How do we capture longer term requirements ?

Longer term requirements For a ‘new’ system to be viable it has to have a reasonable life time e.g. 10 to 15 years This means considering 2015+ to 2030 + What will this timeframe look like ? ESA has launched a long term study that is hoping to help answer this question

Item 5 - Technology Review

Role of Eurocontrol Working with industry to enable them to understand CNS/ATM requirements to allow industry to develop products to meet the requirements Likely that the greatest demand may result from AOC use Industry has to be ‘comfortable’ with the business needs Eurocontrol will help in understanding and assist co-ordination Mandatory carriage of new technology is rare - the business case for equipage has to be obvious. A good solution will sell itself !

Operational Improvements NexSAT is just enabling technology to allow operation to continue with benefits - when the VHF channel becomes congested new communication systems will be needed to maintain ATS lower cost communications - communication costs could be similar to VHF-based systems greater coverage with lower infrastructure costs - could offer a communication service in areas with limited or no communication coverage

Satellite coverage Assumption NexSAT (NGSS) will use an existing satellite infrastructure 3-15

Possible Data and Voice coverage in Europe

Data link application are transparent Better performance Lower cost Greater coverage Aircraft ATN Router Ground ATN Router Applications AMSS NexSAT VDL M2

Voice communications Voice requirements will reduce in the future but will still be required Should be transparent to users similar operating for ATS with same interface and flexibility AOC should be also be supported

Candidate technologies Existing AMSS (I.e. Aero H (and I)) are being used to support ATS and AOC applications in low density areas but are perceived as costly and low quality of service Other systems Inmarsat Aero systems Swift64, BGAN, etc Boeing Connexion Iridium - Globalstar A new system

Inmarsat systems Aero H,I and L Swift64 BGAN these are being used to offer ATS (and other services) in several regions of the world Swift64 introduced to make better use of Aero H infrastructure for non-safety applications e.g. passenger services BGAN high data rates (up to 432kb/s) but not designed for safety services All systems operate in AMSS L-band Global infrastructure in place now and will continue to be ? Inmarsat presentation

Boeing Connexion High -speed Internet in the sky Only targeted at non-safety communications I.e. AAC and APC Does not operate in ‘protected’ frequency band although obtain global allocation at WRC03 on a secondary basis Trials/service underway several airlines e.g. Lufthansa, British Airways, SAS, All-Nippon Airways,…… Working Paper at ICAO ACP WG-C last week

Iridium & Globalstar Iridium is being used by aviation for AAC and APC applications but also by FAA in Alaska General Dynamics presentation Globalstar avionic product available A product that complies with RTCA DO-262 (NGSS MOPS)

A new system ? From initial considerations it is believed that no existing system meets all the requirements A service that has to have high levels of availability, reliability and continuity required for safety and regularity of flight communications safety must be built into the design process it has to be a world-wide system Therefore do we need to design a ‘new’ system ?

Supporting safety communications What makes supporting aviation safety communications ‘special’ ? based on agreed international standards operates in a privileged radio band - AMS(R)S safety requirements should drive the design process in ground and aircraft systems e.g. avionics have appropriate level of ‘certification’ agreed level of service from the satellite and communications service providers likely to cost more

Narrow or Wide band ATS requirements - assuming they are correct - seem to be meet by a modest throughput AOC requirements are unclear and could be determining factor Do we need to consider AAC and APC requirements ? Can one service support all users ? This was the design philosophy behind the current AMSS. What is your opinion ?

New or existing system? Benefits of a new system Disadvantage tailored to meet the requirements can have new features built in smaller aircraft terminals Disadvantage costly development will take a long time need to find a champion What is your opinion ?

Item 6 - Roadmap for development and implementation

Implementation timescale How is this phase funded ? The service provider has to start rolling out the service but traffic may be low initially Industrial consortium, Public body Inmarsat ?

Discussion Do we agree that there are opportunities for a ‘better’ satellite communication system? Should we investigate new Inmarsat products, Connexion, Iridium, Globalstar ? What would it take to make them ‘acceptable’ for safety communications ? Can they be used now for some applications ? If a new system is needed the development time will be long so we need to start now must be linked to business and institutional aspects

Discussion Do we agree that there are opportunities for a ‘better’ satellite communication system? If a new system is needed the development time will be long so we need to start now ! What is a typical industry approach to review of technology requirements ? What is necessary to start an industrial development ?

Item 7 - Discussion of future activities

Discussion of future activities Eurocontrol has identified task description for priority work on - business model institutional aspects mapping operational requirements to physical airspace Complementary task descriptions being prepared descriptions of work necessary to clarify these areas is being prepared

Business Aspects A ‘new’ Satellite communications system could bring benefits to aviation if it was at an ‘acceptable cost’ Need ‘buy-in’ form a range of Stakeholders airspace users ATS providers Communications Service providers Satellite Service providers Manufacturing Industry

Cost and benefits Traditional C-B analysis will be needed to give indicative figures but may not be sufficient ATSPs tend to use CBAs Need to identify other business drivers e.g. benefits to early equipage, better operational control, etc A range of business options Single or Multiple ATSPs contract directly with SSP Airlines contract directly with SSP ATSPs and Airlines directly with CSP CSP directly with SSP and offer service primarily to support airline operation

Institutional Aspects A number of issues have been identified including - standardisation - ICAO, EUROCAE/RTCA, AEEC, etc AMS(R)S spectrum availability - guaranteed amount of spectrum needed at the right time Service level agreements providers of satellite and communication services - guarantees Arrangement between satellite service providers needed if provided by several providers e.g. global and regional/spot Certification and approval

Item 7 - Any other business

Item 8 - Actions

Round table discussion How can you provide contributions to the work ? What do you consider are the key issues that need addressing ? What have we not considered ? What would you like to consider at the next Steering Group meeting ?

Item 9 - Date of future Meetings

Next meeting Meetings are held at approximately 6 month intervals Proposed next meeting first or second week of June 2004 in Brussels