- 1 -AMCP/WGA-WP/666b
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS PANEL
Working Group A Meeting No. 16
Kobe, Japan
25 January - 3 February 2000
Agenda Item 11Report of the Meeting
Report of the 16th Meeting, AMCP Working Group A on AMSS
Presented by the Rapporteur
1Meeting opening and associated administrative matters
1.1Mr. Takafumi Nakada, JCAB Member of the AMC Panel, welcomed WG-A to Kobe, Japan, and introduced Mr. Kiyoshi Moue, Director, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) Radio Engineering Division. Mr. Moue gave a welcoming address to the working group, recalling that it had met in Kobe in 1994 as part of an AMCP/WGW meeting. He provided background on the importance of aeronautical satellite communications in JCAB's CNS program, and expressed his hope for a productive meeting of AMCP/WG-A.
1.2JCAB, Japan Radio Air Navigation Systems Association (JRANSA), Ship and Ocean Foundation and MELCO kindly provided the facilities and supporting staff necessary for the meetings of the group, and sponsored several additional events. Mr. Nakada introduced the secretarial staff who would be supporting the meeting, provided an orientation of the local and surrounding areas, and provided a schedule for the planned events. Messrs. Capretti and Pickens expressed the working group's appreciation to Japan for the kind invitation for AMCP/WGA/16 and its anticipation of experiencing some of the culture as well as completing the scheduled work in the excellent facilities.
1.3Mr. Pickens introduced WP/642 containing the WGA/16 Agenda, Schedule and other pertinent information. He advised that the Schedule had been adjusted to accommodate the restricted schedules of some members and also to allow for additional material that would be part of the meeting's work. The Agenda and Schedule were agreed as follows:
Agenda
16th Meeting of AMCP/WG-A
Agenda Item / Topic1 / Meeting opening and associated administrative matters
2 / Review progress of AMSS SARPs and Inmarsat/MTSAT interoperability
3 / Development and validation of NGSS SARPs
4 / Plan for development of system-specific "annexes"
5 / Investigate potential incompatibility issues among AMSS networks and other CNS systems
6 / AMS(R)S spectrum and interference issues
7 / Review of Annex 10 radiotelephony procedures
8 / Consideration of AMSS voice networking issues study
9 / Review of ATN Panel communiqués and other AMS(R)S performance issues
10 / Future work program
11 / Report of WG-A/16
12 / Closing of the meeting
Agenda Schedule
Sun / Mon / Tue / Wed / Thu / Fri / Sat23 Jan 00 / 24 Jan 00 / 25 Jan 00 / 26 Jan 00 / 27 Jan 00 / 28 Jan 00 / 29 Jan 00
AM / --- / --- / 1, 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / T2
PM / --- / --- / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3, 4 / T2
Sun / Mon / Tue / Wed / Thu / Fri / Sat
30 Jan 00 / 31 Jan 00 / 1 Feb 00 / 2 Feb 00 / 3 Feb 00 / 4 Feb 00 / 5 Feb 00
AM / --- / 5 / 6, 7 / 9 / 11, 12 / --- / ---
PM / --- / 6 / T1 / 8, 10 / --Z-- / --- / ---
Notes:1. "T1" and "T2" denote daytime tours in accordance with Mr. Nakada's
events schedule.
2."--Z--" denotes the intention to close the meeting by noontime, Thursday, 23 September.
1.4The participants in WGA/16 were introduced, and were as listed in Attachment A. Working papers and flimsies contributed to the meeting are listed in Attachment B.
1.5Mr. Capretti, as Secretary of the meeting, presented WP/659, the invitation letter to AMCP/7 that has been distributed to the Members of the Panel. WGA-related items of the Panel's agenda were Agenda Item 3, Development and validation of draft SARPs for next-generation satellite systems; and Agenda Item 6, Development of relevant material for the ITU WRC-2000 (May 2000). The prospective schedule for AMCP/7 was provided as Flimsy 30.
2Review progress of AMSS SARPs and Inmarsat/MTSAT interoperability
2.1Mr. Capretti informed the meeting that the amendments to the Chapter 4 AMSS SARPs, previously accepted by AMCP/6, had been accepted by the Aeronautical Navigation Commission (ANC) and sent to States for comment. State comments had been received and were submitted to the ANC by the Secretariat on 2 December 1999. The ANC has accepted these comments and decided that the resultant amendments would form part of Amendment 75 to Annex 10 which will ne circulated to States. It is anticipated that Amendment 75 will become applicable in November 2000.
2.2Mr. Matsunaga presented WP/658 on JCAB's plan to launch a new MTSAT-1 in fiscal 2002 (April 2002-Mar 2003). MTSAT-2 will be launched in fiscal year 2004, providing MTSAT with the functions of dual operation with hot-standby after 2005.
2.3Mr. Hiesler presented WP/655, providing an update on work being carried out by JCAB and Inmarsat to ensure interoperability between the MTSAT and Inmarsat systems. Due to the unfortunate loss of the MTSAT-1 satellite during launch last November, execution of the planned tests will be delayed.
3Development and validation of NGSS SARPs
3.1Mr. Biggs presented WP/652, reminding the meeting of the “roadmap” developed by WGA/13 outlining the process for the work of the group. He noted that it appeared that all parties appeared to have come to WGA/16 with the goal of completing core SARPs as a work product. One member observed that he expected that the group should work toward an ICAO Circular on a specific system prior to working to complete core SARPs. Others felt that a completed high-level (core) SARPs document was necessary for the development of any system-specific material. The group decided that the NGSS goal of WGA/16 would be completion of core SARPs for presentation to AMCP/7.
3.2Mr. Capretti introduced WP/655, outlining the various ways system-specific information could be related to the NGSS “core” (or high-level performance requirements) SARPs. The alternatives ranged from addition of detailed material to a "monolithic" SARPs, to the avoidance of any additional material in ICAO documentation of any sort. The former alternative was "classic SARPs", but was no longer desired as evidenced by the ANC and Council actions to eschew such detail and bulk. The latter alternative might be desirable because of the saving of ICAO work for material that would be substantially covered by other standards and provider documentation. The group agreed to work on the core SARPs first, and reserve decision on the "other" material until full comprehension of the core SARPs content was clear in the context of this question.
3.3Mr. LaBerge introduced WP/645 (report of 16-17 December 1999 SARPs Drafting subGroup (SDG) meeting in Montreal, including the resultant Draft NGSS SARPs) and WP/646 (validation status of NGSS SARPs). The working group accepted his proposal to review each item of the Draft SARPs and its corresponding entry in the validation material at the same time. Mr. Biggs's comments (WP/648) on several items would be considered when that item arose. Mr. Hobby led the review of the papers, supported as necessary by Mr. LaBerge for SARPs material and Mr. Zemrowski for the validation material.
3.4The most extensive discussions centered on the opening sections of the draft SARPs containing the title, scope of the document, definitions, and basic regulatory material. The group agreed on definition of a next-generation satellite system (NGSS) as:
A satellite communications system that provides AMS(R)S in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter. These services can be voice, data, or both. An NGSS may also provide non-AMS(R)S communications. An NGSS includes AESs, satellites, GESs, and network control system facilities that perform administrative and technical management functions.
3.5The document's title was agreed as, "Alternate Provisions for AMS(R)S", establishing a relationship with the Volume III, Part I, Chapter 4 AMSS SARPs. Other related material then fell into place.
3.6Review of the remainder of the draft proceeded item by item with the corresponding validation of each item. A key decision taken by the SDG Montreal meeting was to reflect in the quantitative performance requirements the expectations of NGSS systems, as contrasted with simply replicating the values of Chapter 4. Each such item was validated by reference to previous requirements developed by WGA (which may have been validated by analysis, simulation or test data), or by data newly provided and agreed by Boeing and Iridium (prospective service providers who were active participants in SDG and WG-A proceedings). In the latter case, papers reviewed included WPs 649, 650 and 656. Of the 12 such factors, 10 showed improvements in the range of 20 to 50%. The remaining two, mean and 95% transfer delay factors, were worse in one direction (to-aircraft), but showed a net 50% improvement when viewed on a two-way transaction basis as is being defined in ADS Panel work.
3.7One performance factor that had not been validated by the SDG was a statement giving precedence to voice communication when contending voice and data messages otherwise had equivalent priority. While several members expressed strong support for the statement, based on knowledge of pilot and controller preferences, no validating requirement could be identified. Consequently, the draft SARP was deleted, and Mr. Coulson drafted a communiqué to the ADS Panel requesting advice on the matter (Flimsy 15).
3.8Regarding WP/645 paragraph 12.7.1.1, which recommends that NGSSs offer 100% global service coverage, a significant majority of the technical experts expressed support for it as a valid goal. The rationale centered on the benefit to aviation with regard to limiting required equipage, as well as supporting the original intent of ICAO SARPs (i.e., standardize signal in space so aircraft wouldn’t have to re-equip for different regions of the world). The Secretary reminded the group that the Chapter 4 AMSS SARPs have no mention of global coverage (either Standard or in a Recommendation), for the good reason that no individual contracting State (or regional planning group) can reasonably endeavor to achieve coverage of all of the Earth's surface, as would be necessary in order for that State to act on the Recommendation. Consequently, the recommendation could not be deemed as validated.
3.9At the completion of the Draft SARPs and validation review, the working group deemed all requirements and recommendations as having been validated, with the exception of the voice/data relative priority question pending advice from ADSP. Cleanup of references, paragraph numbering, etc., would be accomplished within the next two weeks.
3.10Attention then returned to the issue of supplementary NGSS-specific material, considering each of the options outlined in WP/655. The group agreed that such material was necessary as an aid to States and that the most useful form to States appeared to be as individual sections of a Technical Manual. With this decision made, it was agreed to add the following note at the beginning of the Draft SARPs – "Note.– Additional information and guidance is provided in the Manual for Alternate Provision of AMS(R)S."
3.11Mr. Capretti volunteered to consolidate the Draft Chapter 12 SARPs document and its validation report, as completed by WGA/16, for presentation to AMCP/7, with a recommendation that the Panel accept the material as complete and validated and recommend its adoption to the Commission. [The resultant SARPs and Validation Report, as will be presented to AMCP/7, are contained in Attachment C and Attachment D, respectively.]
4Plan for development of system-specific “annexes”
4.1Mr. LaBerge presented WP/647 as a draft representation of such material for the Iridium system, and which included a proposed pro forma outline of a Manual's contents. The working group agreed to the pro forma as its expectation for the level and organization of manual material. Messrs. Coulson and Delrieu volunteered to provide relevant material (e.g., Flimsy 23) developed within their administrations as check lists for possible enhancement of the pro forma.
4.2It was also agreed that work on an Iridium-specific manual would proceed at the next WG-A meeting. Mr. Chong stated that Boeing would not be in a position to support detailed material until the license is issued. Decisions regarding the degree to which referencing to standards material outside ICAO would be considered were deferred until that time.
5Investigate potential incompatibility issues among AMSS networks and other CNS systems
5.1Mr. Pickens reminded the working group that WGA/15 was informed of the planned study of AMSS interference issues through joint meetings of RTCA SC-165 and the AEEC Air/Ground Subcommittee. The study was to consider various potential interference scenarios involving Inmarsat, Iridium, GNSS (GPS and GLONASS), other CNS systems, Radio Astronomy and non-AMS(R)S aircraft equipment. The first meeting, in November 1999, agreed on a methodology based on the recent work of WG-B and expanded as appropriate for AMSS. A number of scenarios were examined quantitatively with results generally as expected. A paper describing a detailed analytical model and recalculations is in process for the February 2000 joint meeting, and will subsequently be made available to WG-A.
5.2WP/649, embodying a correction to last year's WG-A work on defining AES emission limits in consideration of GNSS receivers, was briefly reviewed again as part of this agenda item. There was no further substantive discussion.
5.3Mr. Hiesler reported on Inmarsat emission activities via Flimsies 20, 21 and 22. Flimsy 20 was a draft new recommendation from the ITU Radiocommunication Study Group 8 (document 8/128-E) on essential technical requirements of mobile Earth stations (MESs) of GEO MSS systems that are implementing the Global Mobile Personal Communication System (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding arrangements in parts of the band 1-3 Hz. Mr. Hiesler highlighted Table 2B therein which stipulated carrier-on and carrier-off EIRP limits in various bands ranging from 1 GHz to 12.75 GHz. The assessment was limited to the impact of MES uplink emissions to GMPCS satellites. The limits were considered by SG8 as also applicable to the cases of AES interference with uplinks to satellites, and hence should be brought to the attention of ICAO. The information has been sent to CEPT SE28 who have been investigating similar interference issues.
5.4An interesting footnote in Flimsy 20 states, "In the case where MSS [AESs] are operating in AMS(R)S, ICAO SARPs applies. Applicability of ICAO SARPs to MESs that are not operating in the AMS(R)S has not been studied and therefore such MESs are not to be used aboard aircraft. Compliance with this Recommendation does not imply compliance with SARPs."
5.5Flimsy 21 was an Inmarsat input paper to CEPT SE28. The harmonics, spurious and noise EIRP limits of the SDM, ICAO AMSS SARPs and RTCA draft DO-210D (all currently aligned) were quoted. The paper reported that the Committee on Radio Astronomy Frequencies (CRAF) has been satisfied with statistically-based analyses provided by Inmarsat. The analyses demonstrated achievement of 2.63% fraction of time that interference in adjacent RA frequency bands would exist, which is close to the 2% desired by CRAF. Inmarsat will undertake action to generate new diplexer specifications for next-generation AESs, which should allow compliance with the 2% value.
5.6Flimsy 23 is a liaison statement from SE28 to ETSI/TC-SES in regard to protection of the RA band 1 660 – 1 670 MHz. from AESs operating in 1626.5 – 1660.5 MHz. SE28 recommended changes in power output levels in that RA band to -49.5 dBW for a reference bandwidth of 20 kHz; and -39.5 dBW, for a reference bandwidth of 1 MHz. SE28 also pointed out that complete statistical analyses had not yet been performed for the assessment of unwanted emission levels in the RA band 1610.6 – 1613.8 MHz and that, consequently, the value of -80 dBW/MHz previously proposed to TC-SES might be unduly constraining.
6AMS(R)S spectrum and interference issues
6.1Through WP/643, Mr. Biggs informed the working group of the final CPM text for WRC-00 Agenda Item 1.10 (the AMS(R)S/generic MSS spectrum issues). The working group observed that few of the weaknesses and deficiencies it had previously identified were adequately addressed, and that none of the proposed improvements had been introduced. In fact, there was some new material that was even less satisfactory from aviation's perspective. For example, "capacity planning" (the procedure currently being used for extra-ITU coordination, previously deemed unacceptable by WG-A) was presented as an option that would satisfy AMS(R)S requirements in the short and intermediate time frames. However, the group recognized that no further modification could be made to the CPM material. The introduction of any further material supportive of aviation's interests would have to progress through individual States or regional agreements.
6.2Mr. Biggs's WP/651 and Flimsy 17 provided a compendium of draft administration proposals regarding Agenda item 1.10. Among those proposals, there was common agreement that the post-WRC-97 situation was not satisfactory, and that a reversion to exclusive AMS(R)S spectrum allocation appeared not to be feasible. However, there were many different proposed methods of improvement, including revisions to existing footnote language and/or revisions to Resolution 218. The Australian proposal was considered to be particularly strong in its positive effects for aviation.
6.3In WP/664, Messrs. Nakada and Suzuki reported on the efforts of Japan regarding Agenda item 1.10. Of particular note was the recommendation that a number of ITU-R recommendations be revisited and possibly updated, and an expectation that WRC-2000 would modify S5.357A to ensure AMS(R)S spectrum availability and the continuation of Resolution 218 with some modifications for future improvements. The working group expressed its interest in seeing the proposals (the proposed modifications were subsequently presented in Flimsy 19; see 6.4 below).
6.4Mr. Nakada informed the group that JCAB and Mr. Suzuki were planning to participate more heavily in AMCP and ITU activities related to spectrum matters. WG-A expressed its encouragement.
6.5JCAB presented Flimsy 19, outlining the Japanese proposal on Agenda Item 1.10 as input to the 4th Asia-Pacific Telecommunication Preparatory Group Meeting. The proposal included revisions to footnote S5.357A and Resolution 218. Of particular note were the removal of the "within a network" wording in the footnote, the support of a strengthened Resolution which would contain instructions to the ITU to develop standards to ensure a capability to provide priority and preemption between mobile satellite networks. The group expressed strong support for the approach and wished Japan well in its efforts.
6.6Mr. Ordas cautioned that there was probably little this group could do to change WRC positions for WRC 2000, at least as far as CEPT goes. They already have a European common proposal on Agenda Item 1.10, and it is very unlikely to have it modified. However, aviation will make a last attempt in the March 2000 Istanbul meeting.
6.7Mr. Delrieu introduced Flimsy 24, a draft letter from the EUROCAE Secretary/Working Group 55 Rapporteur (A. Delrieu), on the subject Aeronautical SATCOM RF Spectrum Defense. The letter urged States and CAAs to support ICAO and aviation during preparations for, and deliberations at WRC 2000. He also suggested that aviation initiate concrete development programs for utilizing AMS(R)S, even on a small scale, as an indication that aviation actually intends to use AMS(R)S spectrum -- a "credibility gap filler". Mr. Coulson commented on some of the proposed uses for SatCom, noting that there would be a number of operational challenges to be overcome. Mr. Pickens observed that the letter was an innovative contribution to the working group's task of recommending actions aimed at improvement of the situation created by WRC-97; i.e., in addition to simply trying to change the regulatory language (e.g., S5.357A), aviation could show concrete examples of its developing use of the spectrum.