UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

UAT SWG09/WP-02

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP) WORKING GROUP C Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Subgroup

Summary of Eighth Meeting DFS Facilities, Langen, Germany January 31-February 2, 2005

1. Introduction

1.1 The UAT Subgroup held its eighth meeting at DFS facilities in Langen, Germany, on January 31- February 2, 2005. Meeting participants were as follows:

George Ligler UAT Subgroup Rapporteur Torsten Jacob ICAO Secretariat David Andreu Ineco Larry Bachman Johns Hopkins APL Mike Biggs Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Gary Furr Titan Corporation Rich Jennings FAA Chris Moody Mitre Corporation Tom Mosher Garmin Tom Pagano FAA Stephen Peach NATS Bob Saffell Rockwell Collins Corporation Armin Schlereth DFS

1.2 The agenda for the meeting was as follows:

1. Introductory Remarks and Introduction of Attendees 2. Review of the Draft Meeting Report of the Seventh UAT Subgroup Meeting in Montreal, November 16-18, 2004 (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-08). 3. Discussion of Revision 4.0 of the UAT Draft SARPs and Revision 3.0 of the UAT Technical Manual (Papers UAT SWG08/WP-10, UAT SWG08/WP-11, UAT SWG08/WP-05, and UAT SWG08/WP-20) 4. Information Paper on SASP and OPLINKP Activities (UAT SWG08/WP-04) 5. Updates on UAT Validation Testing Activities (Papers UAT SWG08/WP-07, UAT SWG08/WP-14, UAT SWG08/WP-15, UAT SWG08/WP-16, UAT SWG08/WP-17, UAT SWG08/WP-21, UAT SWG08/WP-22, UAT SWG08/WP-23) 6. Discussion of Revision 3.2 of the Validation Cross Reference Index for the UAT SARPs and Technical Manual (Paper UAT SWG08-WP09) 7. Review of Revision 1.1 of the UAT Implementation Manual (Papers UAT SWG08/WP- 02, UAT SWG08/WP-03, UAT SWG08/WP-19) 8. Review of Revision 1.2 of the Validation Report for the Draft UAT RF SARPs (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-12, UAT SWG08/WP-06) 9. Review of Revision 0.3 of the Validation Report for the UAT Technical Manual (Paper UAT SWG08-WP13, UAT SWG08/WP-18, UAT SWG08/WP-24) 10. Review of Remaining Assigned Action Items 11. Scheduling of Further Subgroup Meetings 12. Adjournment

1 UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

1.3 The meeting’s host, Dr. Armin Schlereth, welcomed everyone and reviewed logistical arrangements, including those for a tour of the DFS laboratory in which UAT equipment was being tested. The meeting reviewed and agreed to the agenda for the meeting, given in Paper UAT SWG08/WP-01. The meeting was informed by the Secretary that review of the draft UAT SARPs, Technical Manual, and further documentation was on the provisional agenda for the June 2005 ACP Working Group of the Whole (WGW) meeting.

2. Review of the Draft Meeting Report of the Seventh UAT Subgroup Meeting in Montreal, November 16-18, 2004 (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-08)

2.1 The draft meeting report for UAT-7 was reviewed by the meeting and approved without change. The finalized meeting report was designated as Paper UAT SWG08/WP-08bis, and Gary Furr agreed to forward the report to the Secretary for posting on the ACP web site.

2.2 In the context of the discussion of WP-08, Tom Pagano indicated that while the final sentence of paragraph 3.3 of the draft meeting summary was accurate, the bench tests discussed in that sentence had not been run. Alternatives for running these tests were discussed, including introducing distortion at the output of the UAT signal generator.

3. Discussion of Revision 4.0 of the UAT Draft SARPs and Revision 3.0 of the UAT Technical Manual (Papers UAT SWG08/WP-10, UAT SWG08/WP-11, UAT SWG08/WP-05, and UAT SWG08/WP-20)

3.1 Torsten Jacob presented paper UAT SWG08/WP-20, which had been prepared by the Secretariat and which suggested changes to Revision 4.0 of the UAT Draft SARPs (Paper UAT SWG08/WP- 10). The suggested changes were indicated to be oriented not only toward technical matters but also toward the eventual publication of the SARPs with translation into several languages. Mr. Jacob additionally indicated that similar papers were in preparation by the Secretariat for the UAT Technical Manual and Implementation Manual.

3.2 The meeting carefully reviewed all non-editorial changes suggested by the paper and made a number of improvements to the draft SARPs, as well as moving Appendix A of the Revision 4.0 draft SARPs to the UAT Technical Manual (as a new Section 4 of that Manual) and actioning additional text to be inserted into the UAT Implementation Manual. The Rapporteur announced an editorial meeting of the Subgroup, to be held in Montreal March 14-16, 2005, to deal with the editorial changes in UAT SWG08/WP-20 as well as any editorial changes to the UAT Technical Manual and Implementation Manual proposed by the Secretariat or any other member of the Subgroup. All Subgroup members were invited to the editorial meeting, which would consider the editorial changes and would also implement any “ripple-through” effects of accepted editorial changes into other documents being prepared by the Subgroup for Working Group C/WGW review.

3.3 WP-20 suggested that the Subgroup develop material to amend Annex 10, Volume I (the DME channel table and DME guidance material on DME/UAT frequency planning). Mike Biggs developed draft material for the meeting to review, and the Subgroup approved this material for submission by Mr. Biggs to the upcoming meeting of the NSP Spectrum Subgroup in Bangkok.

3.4 WP-20 suggested that timing requirements might be considered for inclusion in the draft SARPs. After discussion, the meeting agreed that the SARPs need not include this material until operational use of UAT for passive ranging was contemplated.

3.5 The meeting asked Larry Bachman to prepare further material for Section 7.2 of the UAT Implementation Manual concerning additional values of DME/TACAN transmitter power at 979 MHz. Dr. Bachman agreed to provide draft material for UAT-9.

2 UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

3.6 The meeting agreed to insert a section into the draft SARPs for mandatory carriage requirements. Additionally, it was agreed that the multiple power levels of UAT airborne transmitters should be reflected in the draft SARPs, and the validation of resulting additional SARPs requirements using test data for two of the power levels (corresponding the equipage classes A1H and A3 (highest power)) was agreed. Chris Moody, Mike Biggs, and Torsten Jacob consulted to develop appropriate text, which was approved by the meeting for insertion into the draft SARPs.

3.7 Mr. Jacob and the Rapporteur accepted an action item to discuss further the suggestion in WP-20 that equipment classes/ranges be discussed in the draft SARPs and to present a recommendation at UAT-9 in this regard.

3.8 Warren Wilson introduced, by teleconference, Paper UAT SWG08/WP-05, “Continued Investigation of the Ground Uplink Eye Diagram Requirement in SARPs Section 12.4.3.b”. Based upon the Sensis ground station uplink eye diagram supplied by Ed Valovage, Mr. Wilson proposed a revised requirement for Section 12.4.3.b. Armin Schlereth requested BER curves consistent with the analysis presented in WP-05, and Mr. Wilson forwarded that information to the meeting (designated Attachment 1 to WP-05) for a second teleconference. After discussion of RC/Nyquist filter designs and consideration of UAT airborne receiver variations, the meeting agreed to reinstate the Ground Uplink modulation distortion and eye diagram requirements that had been present in Revision 2.0 of the draft UAT SARPs, which entailed a 2 parts-per-million timing accuracy and the specification of eye diagram openings over the entire Ground Uplink message. The meeting agreed that these requirements could be validated using a combination of the analysis presented in Mr. Wilson’s papers and information from factory acceptance testing of the Sensis ground station along with an estimate of additional costs required for the ground station to meet the 2 ppm timing requirement.

3.9 A number of additional non-editorial changes suggested in WP-20 were agreed by the Subgroup, and an update to the draft SARPs, designated Revision 4.1, was agreed by the meeting as reflecting the discussions of the meeting under Agenda Item 3. Gary Furr agreed to distribute this revision to the meeting during the week of February 7. Warren Wilson was asked to develop a definition of “pseudorandom payload data” for the definitions section of the draft SARPs.

4. Information Paper on SASP and OPLINKP Activities (UAT SWG08/WP-04)

Torsten Jacob introduced Paper UAT SWG08/WP-04 as providing information for the Subgroup in its development of UAT SARPs and related documents. Mr. Jacob particularly directed the attention of the meeting to Sections 8.5.4.2 (call sign requirement) and 8.5.5.1 (geometric height not to be used for separation) of the document.

5. Updates on UAT Validation Testing Activities (Papers UAT SWG08/WP-07, UAT SWG08/WP- 14, UAT SWG08/WP-15, UAT SWG08/WP-16, UAT SWG08/WP-17, UAT SWG08/WP-21, UAT SWG08/WP-22, UAT SWG08/WP-23)

5.1 Armin Schlereth presented Papers UAT SWG08/WP-14 and UAT SWG08/WP-15 on Level A3 receiver and transmitter measurement results, respectively. With regard to WP-14, Dr. Schlereth reported difficulties in testing a Garmin UAT receiver modified with a receiver filter intended make the unit generally in compliance with class A3 receiver requirements. It was noted that the modified receiver did not receive its own transmissions properly. Tom Pagano reported that the FAA Technical Center had been able to run tests on a second modified receiver from Garmin, and that that second receiver had passed all tests except that for dynamic range. The configurations of the receiver used for the DFS and FAATC tests were seen to be different (for example, the FAATC tests involved having a GPS fix and single antenna operation, while the DFS tests were with a dual antenna configuration and did not always provide test scenarios with an active GPS fix).

3 UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

5.2 At the meeting’s request Dave Thomas ran several tests using a configuration similar to that used by DFS on the modified Garmin receiver at the FAATC (Reference Paper UAT SWG08/WP-23). When a GPS fix was present, receiver sensitivity was reported as approximately –94 dBm. Without a GPS fix, the FAATC modified Garmin receiver would not operate appropriately—Tom Mosher provided the meeting with an explanation of why these non-production units would exhibit such behavior. The meeting concluded that the modified unit at DFS was not working properly and was somehow desensitized. Dr. Schlereth suggested, and the meeting agreed, that the test results from the FAATC be accepted. The meeting drafted and agreed to appropriate text to describe the modified A3 receiver testing in the Validation Report for the UAT SARPs.

5.3 With regard to Working Paper 15, on Level A3 Transmitter measurement results, Dr. Schlereth reported that the Rockwell Collins prototype A3 transmitter at DFS (“Unit #2” of 3 prototypes) had passed all transmitter tests with the exception of not meeting the skirts of the spectrum mask, particularly at a -3.25 MHz frequency offset, where the unit failed meeting the mask by approximately 4 dB. Comparison of the DFS measurements with those taken on all 3 prototype units by Rockwell Collins and on “Unit #1” by the FAATC confirmed Dr. Schlereth’s results, notwithstanding the fact that the different testing laboratories had used somewhat different “sweep times” for measurement collection. The meeting noted that Units 1 and 3 had passed the spectrum test, although with little margin for Unit #1 at the -3.25 MHz frequency offset (Reference Papers UAT SWG08/WP-16, UAT SWG08/WP-21, UAT SWG08/WP-22). The meeting agreed to accept the validation of the transmission spectrum requirement on the basis of 2 of 3 prototype units meeting the mask and the increased margin on the requirement that would be expected in a production design. Appropriate text was drafted and agreed by the meeting for the requisite section of the draft Validation Report on the UAT SARPs.

5.4 The meeting toured DFS laboratory facilities and noted with appreciation the UAT testing platforms in those facilities.

5.5 Tom Pagano presented UAT SWG08/WP-16, summarizing test results from further FAATC testing on a variety of UAT requirements, including the spectrum testing of A3 transmitter prototype “Unit #1” discussed in paragraph 5.3 above. The meeting noted the test results and accepted them for appropriate inclusion in the Validation Reports for the UAT SARPs and Technical Manual.

5.6 Mr. Pagano also discussed WP-16 results concerning UAT Ground Station performance. Mr. Pagano agreed to provide a paper at UAT-9 on further analysis for the updated modulation distortion requirements in the SARPs for FIS-B messages (Paragraph 3.8 above). Moreover, Mr. Pagano indicated that the tests summarized in Section 2.2.5 of WP-16 (Receiver Tolerance to Pulsed Interference) would be rerun because of his concern that the tests may not have been conducted with appropriate calibration.

5.7 As noted in Paragraph 5.1 above, Mr. Pagano reported that the modified A3 receiver tested at the FAATC passed all appropriate tests, as configured at the FAATC, with the exception of that for dynamic range (Paragraph 2.3.2 of WP-16). The meeting agreed that a production A3 receiver could meet this requirement and drafted and agreed to appropriate text for the Validation Report for the draft UAT SARPs.

5.8 Bob Saffell presented Papers UAT SWG08/WP-21 and UAT SWG08/WP-22, summarizing Rockwell Collins test reports on A3 prototype transmitters “Unit #1” and “Unit #3” (the test report on “Unit #2 had been submitted as UAT SWG07/WP-12). The spectrum of “Unit #3” was seen to be cleaner, particularly at the +/- 3.25 MHz frequency offset, than that of “Unit #2” (8 dB better at –3.25 MHz). Mr. Saffell indicated that Unit #3 represented a more mature design than did the first two prototypes, and that further improvements should be expected in a production transmitter design.

4 UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

5.9 Tom Pagano then presented Paper UAT SWG08/WP-17, which provided test results indicating that both certified class A1-High and the modified Garmin “class A3” receivers performed, with regard to self-interference, better by several dB than necessary to justify the UAT system performance projections for the Core Europe 2015 scenario in Appendix B of the UAT Implementation Manual.

5.10 Mr. Pagano then presented Paper UAT SWG08/WP-07, which provided further flight test data from FAA testing of the UAT system in Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska. The meeting agreed to use these flight tests as further validation of the message fields transmitted by the flight-tested equipment as specified in the draft UAT Technical Manual.

6. Discussion of Revision 3.2 of the Validation Cross Reference Index for the UAT SARPs and Technical Manual (Paper UAT SWG08-WP09)

The meeting reviewed in detail the VCRI in conjunction with agenda items 8 and 9, reported below. Gary Furr agreed to provide an updated revision of the VCRI, Revision 3.3, reflecting the discussions of the meeting during the week of February 7.

7. Review of Revision 1.1 of the UAT Implementation Manual (Papers UAT SWG08/WP-02, UAT SWG08/WP-03, UAT SWG08/WP-19)

7.1 Larry Bachman presented Paper UAT SWG08/WP-03, an updated Appendix B to the UAT Implementation Manual. Dr. Bachman asked for guidance from the Subgroup on what specific information the Appendix should contain.

7.2 The meeting agreed that analysis of TIS-B coverage for radar targets should be included, as should TIS-B “hot spot” analysis. Projected reception rates for target state report information was also asked to be included. The meeting noted that the “Eurocontrol criteria” referred to in WP-03 were in fact included in the UAT Requirements and Desirable Features document, and that document should be referenced appropriately.

7.3 Dr. Bachman agreed to provide an updated Appendix B reflecting the guidance provided by the meeting for UAT-9.

7.4 The meeting then reviewed Paper UAT SWG08/WP-19, presented by Tom Pagano. The meeting agreed to several changes proposed by Mr. Pagano, and deemed the Appendix complete with the exception of providing text for Section D.3.1.

8. Review of Revision 1.2 of the Validation Report for the Draft UAT RF SARPs (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-12, UAT SWG08/WP-06)

8.1 The meeting modified appropriate portions of Revision 1.2 of the Validation Report for the Draft UAT RF SARPs (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-12) per the discussions in Paragraph 3.6 and Section 5 above.

8.2 Tom Mosher introduced Paper UAT SWG08/WP-06, a test report on data obtained during the TSO approval process for Garmin’s GDL-90 class A1H UAT transceiver. The reported test data had been requested by the Subgroup to validate specific draft SARPs and Technical Manual requirements. The meeting reviewed WP-6 in detail, and accepted its data as validating draft SARPs Revision 4.0 requirements 12.1.2.6, 12.3.2.3, 12.4.1, and 12.4.3, as well as Technical Manual Revision 3.0 Requirements 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.2, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 4.1.4.

8.3 Gary Furr agreed to distribute, during the week of February 7, an updated Revision 1.3 of the Validation Report for the Draft UAT RF SARPs reflecting the results of the meeting. The meeting observed that almost all SARPs requirements had had their validation completed.

5 UAT Subgroup Meeting Draft Report: January 31-February 2, 2005

9. Review of Revision 0.3 of the Validation Report for the UAT Technical Manual (Paper UAT SWG08/WP-13, UAT SWG08/WP-18, UAT SWG08/WP-24)

9.1 The meeting reviewed Revision 0.3 of the Validation Report for the UAT Technical Manual, Paper UAT SWG08/WP-13, on a page-by-page basis, in concert with a requirement-by- requirement review of the Technical Manual portions of the VCRI. Gary Furr agreed to distribute, during the week of February 7, an updated Revision 0.4 of the Validation Report for the UAT Technical Manual to reflect the discussion of the meeting.

9.2 It was agreed that the validation of the large majority of the requirements of the UAT Technical manual was complete. Tom Pagano undertook to request factory acceptance test data from Sensis Corporation for validation of the requirements of Section 3.2 of the Technical Manual. Mr. Pagano further agreed to provide a paper as soon as possible with regard to the validation of Successful Message Reception requirements for the UAT Ground Station in the new Section 4 of the Technical Manual. Finally, Mr. Pagano agreed to provide at UAT-9 a paper on validation testing of UAT message fields not transmitted by class A1-High equipment.

9.3 Tom Mosher agreed to supply, for UAT-9, a test report similar to paper UAT SWG08/WP-06 for the Technical Manual Section 4 avionics requirements for Successful Message Reception.

9.4 FAA Specification FAA-E-2973 for UAT Ground Equipment was designated Paper UAT SWG08/WP-24 and was agreed to be an additional source to be cited in the Validation Report for the UAT Technical Manual. Paper UAT SWG08/WP-18, prepared by Tom Pagano, was reviewed and was agreed to be referenced in the Validation Report as providing an appropriate rationale for the mutual suppression requirements in the UAT Technical Manual.

10. Review of Remaining Assigned Action Items

These (very few) action items were agreed to be taken up at UAT-9.

11. Scheduling of Further Subgroup Meetings

11.1 Further Subgroup meetings were agreed to as follows:

UAT-9 February 28 to March 2, 2005 ICAO Headquarters, Montreal Editorial Meeting March 14 to 16, 2005 ICAO Headquarters, Montreal.

11.2 The meeting further noted that the draft UAT SARPs, Technical Manual, and other materials were scheduled for review at WGC/9, to be held April 4-8, 2005 in Montreal, and at the WGW meeting in late June in Montreal.

12. Adjournment

After thanking Armin Schlereth for his excellent hosting of the meeting, the Rapporteur adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. on February 2, 2005.

Respectfully,

George Ligler, Rapporteur

6