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

Technology Pre-Screening: Process and Evaluation

Presented at ICAO ACP WGW Meeting, Montreal CanadaJune 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

4

FAA/Eurocontrol Joint Study

– 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)

CCOMFAA/EUROCONTROL

Coordination Committee

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: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. Eurocontrol received input from European manufacturers

4. 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 ConsideredTechnology 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 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 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

Technology Not Considered Further

No

Conduct Comparative/

Sensitivity Analyses

Characterize Technologies(WG-C Templates) and

Conduct Analysis

Common Evaluation

Criteria

No

Task 3.1 AP17: Pre-ScreeningIdentification, Characterization, Evaluation

Yes

Task 3.2 AP 17: Technology InvestigationDetailed 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 DecisionProcess

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

FAA Requirements, Technology &

Transition Analysis Team

(RTTA)

FAA/EurocontrolTechnologyAssessment

Team

ICAO & Other Consensus Documents

RTTAEvaluation

Criteria

ICOCR

ICAO & Other Consensus Documents

FinalEvaluation

Criteria

InitialEvaluation

Criteria

Ground Sys Int. Issue Papers

System Arch. Issue Papers

Aircraft Co-Site Issue Papers

Affordability Issue Papers

Security Issue Papers

Safety – Cert. 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 OverviewCategory

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

CostCost 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 DetailCandidate 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

B. Capacity Requirements 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

A. Functional Requirements: Supported Data Services

1. ADS-B

2. Pilot-Pilot Data Transport

B. Capacity Requirements 1. Aggregate data rate

C. Performance Requirements 1. None beyond basic data

13

Criteria Detail – ConcludedCandidate 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

VHF DSB-AM / VDL Mode 2Technology that uses VHF more efficiently and is compatible with in-band transition

Current A/G Infrastructure Future Options for A/G Infrastructure

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

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

None 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 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)