1. NASA A/G Communications Technology Assessment Study Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation Status April 6, 2005 Presented at ICAO ACP WGC-9 Meeting, Montreal Canada NASA Glenn Research Center/James Budinger ITT industries/Glen Dyer, Ron Bruno

2. 2 Briefing Outline Context of the Study Candidate Technologies Families Technology Pre-Screening Process Evaluation Criteria Development Process Impact of Recent Direction Concluding Comments

3. 3 Context of the Study 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; study 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. 4 Technology Identification In order to identify all technologies that may be applicable to aeronautical communications, a three pronged approach was used for technology identification: 1.A survey of widely used and successful commercial and military technologies was conducted to identify technologies that offered potential value to A/G communications 2.NASA released two Requests for Information soliciting technology candidate inputs from industry 3.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

5. 5 Technologies Considered Technology FamilyCandidates Cellular Telephony Derivatives TDMA (IS-136), CDMA (IS-95A), CDMAone (IS-95B), CDMA2000 1xRTT, W-CDMA, TD-CDMA, CDMA2000 3x, CDMA2000 1xEV, GSM/GPRS/EDGE, TD-SCDMA, DECT IEEE 802 Wireless Derivatives IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, IEEE 802.16, IEEE 802.20, 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 BroadbandADL, Flash-OFDM, UAT, Mode-S, B-VHF (MC-CDMA) MilitaryLink 16, SINCGARS, EPLRS, HAVEQUICK, JTRS OtherAPC Phone (Airphone, AirCell, SkyWay)

6. 6 Pre-Screening Process FAA/Eurocontrol Decision Process

7. 7 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 –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

8. 8 Evaluation Criteria Development Process Operational Concepts & Requirements Team Requirements, Technology & Transition Analysis Team (RTTA) Technology Assessment Team ICAO & Other Consensus Documents RTTA Evaluation Criteria ICOCR ICAO & Other Consensus Documents Final Evaluation Criteria Initial Evaluation Criteria Eurocontrol Coordination Eurocontrol Coordination Eurocontrol Coordination Ground Sys Int.Issue Papers System Arch.Issue Papers Aircraft Co-SiteIssue Papers AffordabilityIssue Papers SecurityIssue Papers Safety – Cert.Issue Papers

9. 9 Consensus Evaluation Criteria Technology pre-screening evaluation criteria were derived via a consensus process –Criteria Timeline 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

10. 10 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

11. 11 Future Roadmap VHF DSB-AM / VDL Mode 2 Technology that uses VHF more efficiently and are compatible with in-band transition Current A/G InfrastructureFuture Options for A/G Infrastructure Technology that uses DME spectrum Technology that uses MLS spectrum Technology that uses AMS(R)S (Satellite) Roadmap should indicate how the chosen technologies are matched to the spectrum options

12. 12 Impact of Recent FAA/Eurocontrol Direction Consider expansion into VOR band: –No effect on evaluation criterion for spectrum suitability (#10) –Expect more significant risk in securing communications application in VOR radionavigation spectrum than in DME band –Expect minor change from findings for VHF band only Leverage existing equipage as much as possible: –Direction has impact on ground infrastructure as well; Consider minimizing life cycle cost of equipage and infrastructure –No effect on evaluation criteria for cost of A/G communications infrastructure (#7) and avionics (#8), and technology readiness (#4) –Expect minor change in findings for VHF band, no change in others Consider voice and data requirements separately: –No effect on evaluation criteria for meeting voice (#1), basic data (#2) and expanded data needs (#3) –Expect changes in findings for all bands

13. 13 Concluding Comments NASA/ITTs pre-screening findings have been shared with and closely reviewed by the FAA and Eurocontrol/QinetiQ –Significant agreement was reached on common candidates based on application of all the consensus evaluation criteria The consensus pre-screening findings have been shared with Russ Chew, FAA Chief Operating Officer and Victor Agaudo, Eurocontrol Director General –The findings were based on ability of candidate technologies to meet BOTH voice and data needs –Russ and Victor have requested that FAA and Eurocontrol analyze the voice and data capabilities of the candidates separately –Additional analysis will begin in April 2005 using the existing consensus evaluation criteria with this new direction