Draft Terms of Reference for UAT Subgroup

Draft Terms of Reference for UAT Subgroup

AMCP WGC5/ WP12

AERONATUCIAL MOBILE COMMUNICATION PANEL

(AMCP)

WORKING GROUP C

MEETING 5

Kobe, Japan

October 15-25, 2002

Report of Initial Teleconference for UAT Subgroup

21 June 2002

(Presented by the Subgroup Rapporteur)

AERONAUTICAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (AMCP)

WORKING GROUP C

Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) SUBGROUP

Summary of Initial Teleconference

June 21, 2002

  1. Introduction

1.1The UAT Subgroup held an initial teleconference on Friday, June 21, 2002. The participants in the teleconference were as follows:

Robert WitzenAMCP Secretary

George LiglerUAT Subgroup Rapporteur

Larry BachmanJohns Hopkins APL

David BowenQinetiQ

Nikos FistasEurocontrol

Rich JenningsFederal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Brent PhillipsFAA

Phil PlattQinetiQ

Armin SchlerethDFS

1.2The agenda for the teleconference was as follows:

  1. Introduction of Participants and Preliminary Remarks
  2. Discussion of Terms of Reference
  3. Development of Work Plan for UAT SARPS, detailed technical specifications and guidance material
  1. Identification of requirements and desirable features for UAT
  2. Development of RF SARPS and other material relating to compatibility with DME/TACAN
  3. Comparative analysis of ADS-B data links
  1. Sub-group Organization (agenda, dates and location) of the next meetings
  2. Discussion on Report to Working Group C in October
  3. Adjournment

1.3After the teleconference participants introduced themselves, the agenda for the teleconference was outlined, and no changes to the agenda were proposed.

  1. Agenda Item 2: Discussion of Terms of Reference

The need for development of Terms of Reference for the UAT Subgroup was discussed. It was agreed that the Rapporteur would distribute draft Terms of Reference for the consideration by Subgroup members two weeks prior to the initial Subgroup meeting September 25-27 (see Paragraph 4 below). The minutes of AMCP/4 were indicated to provide an exemplary format for this document. These draft Terms of Reference would be discussed at the initial Subgroup meeting, revised as appropriate, and submitted to Working Group C for discussion and subsequent approval at the upcoming Working Group C meeting in Kobe, Japan October 15-24, 2002.

  1. Agenda Item 3: Development of Work Plan for UAT SARPS, detailed technical specifications and guidance material

3.13a. Identification of requirements and desirable features for UAT

The Rapporteur introduced the need for the Subgroup to develop, in a format appropriate for consideration by ICAO (e.g., self-contained), a document articulating the operational requirements to which UAT has been designed as well as desirable features of the link. The AMCP Secretary suggested that similar material developed for VDL Modes 2, 3, and 4 be used to provide guidance for the structure and content of this document. The Rapporteur undertook to develop an initial draft of this document, with Nikos Fistas agreeing to review the draft to facilitate incorporation of criteria developed by Eurocontrol and others for, e.g., the ADS-B Package 1 initiative. The resulting document would be circulated to Subgroup members two weeks in advance of the Subgroup’s September 25-27 meeting and reviewed at that meeting so that an updated document might be presented to Working Group C in Kobe in October. The AMCP Secretary indicated that the document would then be reviewed by AMCP/8 and might eventually be an input to the Air Navigation Commission (ANC), with liaison with ATMCP and the Oplink Panel likely. The Secretary indicated that he would check with Secretaries of appropriate panels on coordination of the UAT requirements and desirable features document to determine whether liaison statements from these Panels might be available as inputs to AMCP/8.

3.23b. Development of RF SARPS and other material relating to compatibility with DME/TACAN

3.2.1The teleconference agreed that the development of initial RF SARPS material should be commenced, and the Rapporteur indicated that he would ask Chris Moody to develop a draft of this material for distribution two weeks prior to the Subgroup’s September 25-27 meeting. While this material need not be of any particular predetermined length, it was indicated that typically a 10-20 page document might be expected. The AMCP Secretary indicated that this material should, after Subgroup review, take the form of an information paper for coordination with other Panels and presentation at AMCP/8. The Subgroup was referred to work done for VDL Modes 2 and 4 for exemplary format and structure for this document. The Secretary further indicated that initial RF SARPS material developed by the UAT Subgroup would likely be input to AMCP Working Group F for its consideration.

3.2.2While the teleconference discussed the eventual need for a Technical Manual for UAT and that the development of this Manual would be a work item for the Subgroup, it was agreed that the focus of near-term activities should be on initial RF SARPS materials.

3.2.3The teleconference discussed material relating to compatibility of UAT with DME/TACAN. Armin Schlereth indicated that DFS was interested in performing measurements in this area additional to those already done as part of the RTCA UAT MOPS effort. Eurocontrol also indicated interest in performing further compatibility measurements, especially on the airport surface. This testing might commence in early 2003. The meeting agreed that such additional DME/TACAN compatibility testing was highly desirable, and the parameters of this testing would be definitized at the Subgroup’s September 25-27 meeting. One participant requested that Tom Pagano of the FAA Technical Center, who had performed compatibility testing for the RTCA UAT MOPS, be present at the September Subgroup meeting so that his work might be discussed in detail. The Rapporteur agreed to request Mr. Pagano’s attendance and to begin the necessary coordination for loans of UAT equipment to DFS and Eurocontrol. It was understood that DFS and Mr. Pagano would begin coordination informally prior to the September Subgroup meeting.

3.33c. Comparative Analysis of ADS-B data links

3.3.1The AMCP Secretary informed the teleconference of recent discussions at the ANC concerning the addition of an agenda item to AMCP/8 concerning Comparative Analysis of ADS-B data links. While the minutes of the ANC discussion regarding this topic were not yet available, the Secretary suggested that the Subgroup should plan actions supportive of such an AMCP/8 agenda item, given its likelihood. The teleconference was advised that work done for AMCP/5 by David Farncombe might be considered as a starting point, with updates from both TLAT and post-TLAT activities.

3.3.2The teleconference was informed that the Rapporteur and ICAO Secretariat planned to meet informally on July 22 in Montreal to discuss the AMCP/8 Comparative Analysis topic, particularly with regard to the support of that topic by the UAT Subgroup. The Secretary indicated that it was likely that Working Group C would be asked to take responsibility for the Comparative Analysis topic at AMCP/8, coordinating with Working Group M and SCRSP. The Secretary suggested the possibility of including multi-link considerations in the Comparative Analysis work leading up to AMCP/8.

3.3.3Under the working assumption that the UAT Subgroup would need to provide inputs with regard to UAT for the Comparative Analysis agenda item at AMCP/8, Larry Bachman agreed to provide, two weeks prior to the September meeting of the subgroup, a self-contained analysis of UAT performance based upon the equipment modeling and link simulation work done for the RTCA UAT MOPS. Dr. Bachman also agreed to provide a working paper for the September meeting (also to be provided two weeks in advance of the meeting) on the potential use of flight testing for additional UAT model validation.

  1. Agenda Item 4: Sub-Group Organization (agenda, dates and location) of the next meetings

4.1After discussion, the teleconference agreed that the next meeting would be held in Europe September 25-27, 2002, with an agenda in conformance with the topics and actions described in Paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Nikos Fistas was asked to determine whether Eurocontrol might be able to host this meeting. Post-teleconference note: DFS has kindly offered to host this Subgroup meeting in Langen, Germany. Local arrangement information is being provided under separate cover.

4.2A second meeting of the Subgroup was scheduled for October 15-18 in conjunction with the meeting of Working Group C in Kobe, Japan. These meeting dates will be coordinated with the Working Group C leadership prior to final confirmation. A third meeting was agreed for the week of December 9, 2002 in Montreal, with particular dates to be established as soon as possible.

4.3The AMCP Secretary encouraged the Subgroup to meet as many days as necessary, given the significant amount of work needed to be performed in preparation for review by Working Group C and for AMCP/8.

5.Agenda Item 5: Discussion on Report to Working Group C in October

The teleconference agreed that its Report to Working Group C in October would contain the following, in accordance with the above discussions:

Draft Terms of Reference

Draft UAT Requirements and Desired Features Document

Initial UAT RF SARPS Material

Draft UAT Performance Analysis for AMCP/8 Comparative Analysis Agenda Item

UAT Subgroup Work Plan.

6.Agenda Item 6: Adjournment

The teleconference then adjourned, with best wishes expressed to all for a good summer.

Respectfully,

George Ligler, Rapporteur

1

Top View