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)