SJU VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis

November 2015 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 1. Introduction: The objective of this paper is to deliver the background and results of the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) study on VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis. 2. Background: High quality data communications capabilities, consistent and dependable, are essential enablers to support the implementation of efficiency and capacity improvements required by the Single European Sky. The mandated solution in Europe, Regulation (EC) No29/2009 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310, is based on VDL mode 2 technology. However, as the operational use of VDL mode 2 for ACARS and CPDLC using ATN was progressively reaching the intended operational usage, certain performance degradation issues were observed that raised concerns on the overall usability of the system. These concerns led the European Commission to request EASA to investigate into the observed performance issues of this technology. The resulting EASA report included a ten point Action Plan involving proposals for simulations, performance assessment campaigns, flight trials and deployment planning needed before an informed decision on the future of VDL 2 implementation could be done. In this context, the SJU launched two projects focusing on VDL Mode 2: The “VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis” is an SJU initiative launched prior to the EASA investigation. It was conducted between June 2014 and July 2015. The main objective of the study was the identification of the time horizon by which VDL Mode 2 (assuming usage of up to 4 frequencies) should reach its operational limits in Europe. The study was performed by a consortium led by ENAV depicted in figure 1. Figure 1: "VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis "Consortium The results and conclusions are detailed in section 3 whilst the final report is available in the attachment (section 4). The strategic aim of this study was to assess the capability of VDL2 to support SESAR services on the long term and to determine the point in time by which the next generation datalink technology should be available. The “VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis, Testing and Simulation Campaign” (also referred to as the ELSA Consortium study) was launched by the SJU further to a European Commission request. It addresses the EASA recommendations 1 to 6 related to the identification of the problem root cause and the provision of potential fixes. It aims at further analyzing the end to end VDL Mode 2 issues experienced today (through simulation and flight testing campaigns), defining potential technical solutions for multi-frequency deployment and VDL Mode 2 potential improvement (protocol optimization, etc.). The project started in February 2015 and is due to deliver the final report mid-2016. It is performed by a consortium led by NATS and actively involving a wide representation of stakeholders. The consortium is depicted hereafter in figure 2. Figure 2: ELSA Consortium 3. Main findings of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis: This section gives an overview of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis. It aims at and providing guidance on the interpretation of the results. How to read the results: The results of the capacity study are based on assumptions, detailed within the document, proposed by the consortium as representing the most realistic scenarios until 2040. The VDL Mode 2 protocol considered was the one currently used by many European ANSPs/CSPs and required by the European Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 requirements on data link services for the Single European Sky. MultiFrequency options are proposed by the consortium, in terms of frequencies usage for better utilization of the four VDL Mode 2 channels. The ongoing ELSA study is expected to further develop the MultiFrequency options and to conclude within its report on the final Multi-Frequency solution. It should be noted that the results of the study are valid within these assumptions. Dates where the VDL2 should reach the capacity limits highly depend on implementation options and on technical configurations. Changes to these assumptions (e.g., change of topology, introduction of more than 4 frequencies, and use of a complementary media to VDL2) are likely to impact the results. The main findings: Looking to a time window from “2015” until “2040” and considering various traffic growth expectations in Europe, the study defined the expected growth of ATS and AOC datalink traffic over that period. Based on in depth modelling of all the Air and Ground components, the simulation determined the VDL Mode 2 performance at the network level and also at each individual Ground Station level. The results enabled conclusions on where and when the VDL Mode 2 link would suffer from quality degradation making it no longer usable especially for ATS purposes. The main conclusions and recommendations that emerge from this report are summarized hereafter. o VDL2 over one single frequency would already reach its capacity limits in 2015. Therefore, Multi-frequency deployment in Europe is a “MUST” as of today (2015). o A 4 frequencies implementation is a minimum requirement to support VDL2 deployment until 2025 in high density area. o Further optimisation options under investigation by ELSA may extend the viability of VDL2 over 4 frequencies beyond 2025 in high density area. o It is highly recommended to anticipate the evolution of the European datalink infrastructure in the ATM masterplan and to prioritize the development of the next generation datalink technology within SESAR. These conclusions represent the main outcome of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis study and do not represent formal recommendations to the European Commission on the next steps. November 2015 4. The report: The detailed report of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis is available hereafter. VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Document information Project Title VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Project Number SESAR_CFT_0096 Project Manager ENAV Deliverable Name VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Deliverable ID SESAR_CFT_0096 Edition 00.01.06 Template Version 03.00.00 Task contributors ENAV (Project Manager of the consortium), University of Salzburg, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and supported by: DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus. Abstract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³RQHVLQJOHIUHTXHQF\´DVZHOODV ³PXOWLIUHTXHQF\ XS WR D PD[LPXP RI IRXU IUHTXHQFLHV´ 7ZR DUHDV RI LQWHUHVW ZHUH GHHSO\ DQDO\VHG UHSUHVHQWLQJKLJKDQG PHGLXPWUDIILF ORDGDQGSHUIRUPDQFHVRI9'/0RGH*URXQG 6WDWLRQVZHUHXVHGWRLGHQWLI\WKH9'/0RGHGDWDOLQNEHKDYLRXU SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Authoring & Approval Prepared By - Authors of the document. Name & Company Position & Title Date Michele Carandente / ENAV Project Manager 26/05/2015 Carl-Herbert Rokitansky / Uni of Salzburg Project Member 26/05/2015 Name & Company Position & Title Date Michele Carandente / ENAV Project Manager 26/05/2015 Carl-Herbert Rokitansky / Uni of Salzburg Project Member 26/05/2015 Jan Stibor / LFV Project Member 26/05/2015 Jerome Condis / Airbus Project Member 08/05/2015 Marc Speltens / SITA Project Member 08/05/2015 Luc Rochard / AirFrance Project Member 22/05/2015 Alan Pirovano / ENAC Reviewer 10/07/2015 Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project. Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date Michele Carandente / ENAV Project Manager 26/05/2015 Carl-Herbert Rokitansky / Uni of Salzburg Project Member 26/05/2015 Raphael Pascal / Airbus Project Member 05/06/2015 Mario Garcia / ENAIRE Project Member 03/06/2015 Armin Schlereth / DFS Project Member 08/06/2015 Jan Stibor / LFV Project Member 26/05/2015 Marc Speltens / SITA Project Member 28/05/2015 Alan McNab / NATS Project Member 08/06/2015 Document History Edition Date Status Author Justification 00.00.03 28/04/2015 Draft M.Carandente Monofrequency outputs 00.00.04 29/04/2015 Draft M.Carandente Refinement of the strawman 00.00.08 12/05/2015 Draft C.-H. Rokitansky Summary of Results 00.00.14 20/05/2015 Draft C.-H. Rokitansky Multi-Frequency results and Update 00.01.00 26/05/2015 Draft M. Carandente Proposed Final 00.01.01 08/06/2015 Final 00.01.03 06/08/2015 Final M. Carandente M. Carandente Max Ehammer C.-H. Rokitansky 00.01.04 07/08/2015 Final M. Carandente Added reviews from partners Resolution of external comments (EASA, ECTL, ENAC, etc.) General review of the document 00.01.05 07/09/2015 Final M. Carandente Acknowledgement 00.01.06 09/10/2015 Final M. Carandente Added details on chapter 6 2 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 11 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 13 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY (OBJECTIVES) ........................................................................................ 15 2.1 3 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................. 13 INTENDED READERSHIP....................................................................................................................... 13 INPUTS FROM OTHER PROJECTS......................................................................................................... 13 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 13 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 15 SIMULATION SETUP ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND VARIANTS ............................................................................................................ 19 3.2.1 Assumptions on air traffic growth............................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Assumptions on topology ............................................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 Assumptions on network subscription rate ............................................................................... 22 3.2.4 Assumptions on simulation time period .................................................................................... 23 3.2.5 Assumptions on aircraft equipage rate ..................................................................................... 23 3.2.6 Assumptions on frequency management ................................................................................. 24 3.2.7 Assumptions on alternative communications means .............................................................. 27 3.2.8 Assumptions on AOC and ATS Traffic Load ............................................................................ 27 4 SIMULATION SCENARIOS DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 34 4.1 4.2 5 SIMULATION SCENARIOS SINGLE FREQUENCY .................................................................................. 35 SIMULATION SCENARIOS MULTI-FREQUENCY.................................................................................... 36 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 37 5.1 VDL MODE 2 CAPACITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA................................................................................ 37 5.2 SINGLE-FREQUENCY DEPLOYMENT .................................................................................................... 39 5.2.1 High traffic area ............................................................................................................................ 39 5.2.2 Medium traffic area ...................................................................................................................... 47 5.3 MULTI-FREQUENCY DEPLOYMENT ...................................................................................................... 59 5.3.1 High traffic area ............................................................................................................................ 59 5.3.2 Medium traffic area ...................................................................................................................... 71 6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 109 6.1 6.2 7 HIGH TRAFFIC AREA (LILLE) ............................................................................................................. 109 MEDIUM TRAFFIC AREA (ROME)....................................................................................................... 115 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 120 APPENDIX A PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 121 A.1 W ORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE..................................................................................................... 121 A.1.1 WP1 Management ..................................................................................................................... 122 A.1.2 WP2 Characterization of Applications..................................................................................... 122 A.1.3 WP3 Scenario Definition ........................................................................................................... 124 A.1.4 WP4 Simulation and reports ..................................................................................................... 125 A.2 DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................................. 127 A.3 SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................................... 127 APPENDIX B SIMULATION MODELS DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 128 B.1 MOBILITY MODEL .............................................................................................................................. 129 B.1.2 Air Traffic data file .......................................................................................................................... 131 B.2 TOPOLOGY MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 132 B.2.1 Area of interest ........................................................................................................................... 132 B.2.2 Ground Station characteristics ................................................................................................. 134 3 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 B.2.3 Link Budget Model ..................................................................................................................... 135 B.2.4 Mobility Management ................................................................................................................ 137 B.2.5 Deployment Options .................................................................................................................. 137 B.3 DATA APPLICATION MODEL .............................................................................................................. 139 B.3.1 ATS data traffic ........................................................................................................................... 140 B.3.2 AOC data traffic .......................................................................................................................... 142 B.3.3 End-to-End TRTD estimation ................................................................................................... 145 B.4 PROTOCOL SIMULATION ................................................................................................................... 147 APPENDIX C DETAILED SIMULATION RUNS ................................................................................... 150 4 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 List of tables Table 1 - SITA Ground Stations ............................................................................................................ 21 Table 2 - ARINC Ground Stations ......................................................................................................... 22 Table 3 - ENAV Ground Stations .......................................................................................................... 22 Table 4 - Network subscription rate assumptions ................................................................................. 22 Table 5 - Aircraft equipage rate assumptions ....................................................................................... 23 Table 6 - Frequency management assumptions................................................................................... 24 Table 7 - Equipage rate with respect to all simulated flights................................................................. 27 Table 8 - Alternative communication means assumptions ................................................................... 27 Table 9 - Brief resume of main assumptions ........................................................................................ 34 Table 10: Summary of parameter settings for simulation stream 01 – as discussed previously. ......... 35 Table 11: Single Frequency (SF) Scenario compilation ....................................................................... 35 Table 12: Summary of parameter settings for simulation stream 02 – as discussed previously. ......... 36 Table 13: Multi Frequency Scenario compilation .................................................................................. 36 Table 14 - Capacity Limitations values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 15 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ................ 40 Table 16 - Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area .............. 40 Table 17 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area..................................................................................................................... 41 Table 18 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 19 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 20 - Capacity Limitations values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area .............................................................................................................................................................. 43 Table 21 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area ................... 44 Table 22 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area ................ 44 Table 23 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area..................................................................................................................... 45 Table 24 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 25 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 46 Table 26 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 27 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area .......... 48 Table 28 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ....... 48 Table 29 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................. 49 Table 30 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 50 Table 31 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 50 Table 32 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 33 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area ............. 52 Table 34 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area .......... 52 Table 35 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................. 53 Table 36 -TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 37 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 38 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 39 – TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ................ 60 Table 40 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ............. 61 5 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Table 41 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area..................................................................................................................... 63 Table 42 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Table 43 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 44 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area .............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Table 45 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area .................... 66 Table 46 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area ................. 67 Table 47 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area..................................................................................................................... 69 Table 48 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 69 Table 49 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 70 Table 50 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 51 – TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area .......... 72 Table 52 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ........ 73 Table 53 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................. 75 Table 54 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................. 75 Table 55 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 76 Table 56 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area ....................................................................................................................................................... 78 Table 57 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area .............. 78 Table 58 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area ........... 79 Table 59 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................. 81 Table 60 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 61 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................. 82 Table 62: Expected number of flights of mobility scenarios from 2015 to 2040 ................................. 132 Table 63: Evaluated SITA network relevant for area of interest with high data link usage ................ 134 Table 64: Evaluated ARINC network relevant for area of interest with high data link usage ............. 134 Table 65: Evaluated SITA & ARINC network relevant for area of interest with low data link usage .. 135 Table 66: Parameters used for link budget calculation. ...................................................................... 137 Table 67: Frequency Option 1: Single frequency. .............................................................................. 137 Table 68: Frequency Option 2: Multi frequency deployment with two frequencies. ........................... 138 Table 69: Frequency Option 3: Multi frequency deployment with three frequencies. ......................... 138 Table 70: Frequency Option 4: Multi frequency deployment with four frequencies. ........................... 138 Table 71: ATS Communication profile B2 / B3 ................................................................................... 142 List of figures Figure 1 - Existing and possible future communication systems aligned with SESAR deployment ..... 15 Figure 2 - High Level view of simulation tool chain ............................................................................... 17 Figure 3 - Traffic Growth within ECAC Area ......................................................................................... 19 Figure 4 - European VDL Mode 2 GS topology and simulated reference area .................................... 20 Figure 5 - Number of flights within selected areas of interest ............................................................... 21 Figure 6 - Peak instantaneous aircraft count (PIAC) for the ECAC region ........................................... 23 Figure 7 - ATS and AOC data – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic.. 27 6 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 8 - AOC percentage (%) – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 9 - AOC with migration % – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 10 - ATS and AOC data – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ........................... 28 Figure 11 - AOC percentage (%) – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ........................ 29 Figure 12 - AOC with migration % – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ..................... 29 Figure 13 - ATS and AOC data – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) .................. 29 Figure 14 - AOC percentage (%) – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ............... 30 Figure 15 - AOC with migration % – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ............. 30 Figure 16 - ATS and AOC data – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic.... 30 Figure 17 - AOC percentage (%) – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic . 31 Figure 18 - AOC with migration % – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 19 - ATS and AOC data – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) .................. 32 Figure 20 - AOC percentage (%) – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) ............... 32 Figure 21 - AOC with migration % – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) ............ 32 Figure 22 - ATS and AOC data – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) ......... 33 Figure 23 - AOC percentage (%) – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC)....... 33 Figure 24 - AOC with migration % – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) .... 33 Figure 25 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ... 39 Figure 26 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 27 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area ...... 43 Figure 28 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 29 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 30 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 31 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area 51 Figure 32 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 33 –VDL Mode 2 ground station network performance - Single Frequency scenarios – years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 .............................................................................................. 56 Figure 34 –VDL Mode 2 ground station network performance - Single Frequency scenarios – years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 .............................................................................................. 58 Figure 35 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area .... 59 Figure 36 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ..................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 37 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area ....... 65 Figure 38 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 39 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area .... 71 Figure 40 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 41 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area . 77 Figure 42 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 43: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2015 .................................................................... 84 Figure 44: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 .................................................................... 85 Figure 45: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 .................................................................... 87 Figure 46: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 .................................................................... 88 Figure 47: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 .................................................................... 89 7 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 48: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 .................................................................... 90 Figure 49: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 ...................................................................................... 91 Figure 50: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 ...................................................................................... 92 Figure 51: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 ...................................................................................... 93 Figure 52: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 ...................................................................................... 94 Figure 53: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 ...................................................................................... 95 Figure 54 - VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2015 .................................................................... 97 Figure 55: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 .................................................................... 98 Figure 56: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 .................................................................... 99 Figure 57: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 .................................................................. 100 Figure 58: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 .................................................................. 101 Figure 59: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and MultiFrequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 .................................................................. 103 Figure 60: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 .................................................................................... 104 Figure 61: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 .................................................................................... 105 Figure 62: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 .................................................................................... 106 Figure 63: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 .................................................................................... 107 Figure 64: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 .................................................................................... 108 Figure 65 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 66 - Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area .......... 110 Figure 67 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area .................................................................................................. 110 Figure 68 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ........................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 69 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth, high traffic area ........................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 70 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area .............. 111 Figure 71 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area .......................................................................................................... 112 Figure 72 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ........................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 73 - High Traffic Area - ARINC Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 ......................................... 113 Figure 74 - High Traffic Area - SITA Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 ............................................. 113 Figure 75 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 76 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ..... 115 Figure 77 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................ 116 Figure 78 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................. 116 Figure 79 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth, medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................. 116 8 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 80 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area ........ 116 Figure 81 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area .................................................................................................... 117 Figure 82 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ........................................................................................................................................... 117 Figure 83 – Comparison of Offered Load for various scenarios – High traffic vs. Medium traffic area ............................................................................................................................................................ 118 Figure 84 - Medium Traffic Area - ENAV Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 ..................................... 118 Figure 85 - Work Breakdown Structure ............................................................................................... 121 Figure 86 - GANTT of the project ........................................................................................................ 127 Figure 87: High Level view of simulation tool chain ............................................................................ 128 Figure 88: Number of Flights within ECAC Area (peak day 2014; 2015 to 2050 (forecast)) .............. 132 Figure 89: Number of flights on reference day (Aug. 29th 2014). ........................................................ 133 Figure 90: Simulated area including areas of interest with high and low data traffic. ......................... 134 Figure 91: Interference ........................................................................................................................ 136 Figure 92: Possible trigger events of a simulated flight. ..................................................................... 139 Figure 93: Application instance and corresponding dialogues. .......................................................... 140 Figure 94: Calculation of maximum execution time for a dialogue ..................................................... 140 Figure 95: AOC application message exchanges for different subscriber levels. .............................. 143 Figure 96 - AOC messages assumed to be exchanged between air and ground for the years 2020 to 2040 .................................................................................................................................................... 145 Figure 97: Markov Model to estimate Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) for end-to-end data traffic. ............................................................................................................................................................ 147 Figure 98: Simulation protocol stack of VDL Mode 2 performance and capacity study ..................... 149 dŚĞs>ϮĐŽŶƐŽƌƚŝƵŵͲĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚďǇEsǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŝƌďƵƐ͕&^͕E/Z͕>&s͕Ed^͕ĂŶĚ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ ŽĨ ^ĂůǌďƵƌŐ Ͳ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĂŶŬ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĐŽŵƉĂŶŝĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞŝƌ ǀĂůƵĂďůĞ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐ͗^EĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͖ŝƌ&ƌĂŶĐĞ͕ĞƵƚƐĐŚĞ>ƵĨƚŚĂŶƐĂĂŶĚĂƐǇ:ĞƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƉƵƚŽŶ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ d^ ĂŶĚ K ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͖ ^/d ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ s>Ϯ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůǇ ŽŶ 'ƌŽƵŶĚ ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ;'^ͿĂŶĚKĚĂƚĂ͖Z/EƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ 'ƌŽƵŶĚ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ;'^Ϳ͖ƵƌŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůͬ ED ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƚŚĞ Ăŝƌ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ĚĂƚĂ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ĚĂǇ ƵŐ͘ ϮϵƚŚ͕ ϮϬϭϰ ĨƌŽŵ ǁŚŝĐŚ Ăůů ĨƵƚƵƌĞ Ăŝƌ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐƵƉƚŽǇĞĂƌϮϬϰϬͲƚĂŬĞŶŝŶƚŽĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶƚŚĞs>ϮƐƚƵĚǇͲŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ͖^͕ ƵƌŽĐŽŶƚƌŽů͕ /d͕ E ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƵĚǇ͖ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ^:h ĨŽƌ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ 9 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 10 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ([HFXWLYHVXPPDU\ High quality data communications capabilities, consistent and dependable, are essential enablers to support the implementation of the Single European Sky. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, which lays down the requirements on Data Link Services for the Single European Sky (also known as the Data Link Regulation), entered into force on 6 February 2009, became applicable from 7 February 2013 and has subsequently been amended in February 2015. Its essential objective was to increase Air Traffic Control capacity by supplementing voice communication by air-ground data link communications. It addresses both the airborne and ground environment with obligations of data link capability for both operators of aircraft and air navigation service providers (ANSP's). The mandated solution is based on VDL mode 2 technology. However, as the use of VDL mode 2 for ACARS over AVLC (AOA) and CPDLC using ATN has become more widespread, certain performance issues were observed that raised concerns on the usability of the system. These concerns led the European Commission to sponsor an EASA investigation into the observed performance issues of this technology. The resulting final report included a ten point Action Plan involving proposals for simulations, performance assessment campaigns, flight trials and deployment planning. SJU launched two studies focussing on VDL Mode 2: the first one “the Capacity and Performance Analysis”, covered by this document, is dealing with the identification of the time horizon by which VDL Mode 2 should reach its operational limits in Europe, while the second study “VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis” aims at further analysing the end to end VDL Mode 2 issues experienced today (through lab and flight testing campaigns) and to define potential technical solutions for multifrequency deployment and VDL Mode 2 improvement (protocol optimization, etc). Both studies are complementary coordinated together. The objective of the “VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis”, presented here, is the identification of the limits of the operational performance of VDL Mode 2 in terms of the Comparison Throughput to Offered Load and its operational usage for ATS purposes. Since the VDL mode 2 technology provides neither the mechanisms for separation of ATS and AOC traffic nor a prioritization scheme for messages with respect to parameters such as safety criticality, it is an accepted consensus that in its current implementation, the technology will at some point reach the limit of its usefulness as a technology from an ATC point of view. Air Traffic Management requires a robust, responsive and trustable datalink technology to help offload traffic off existing voice R/T channels whilst at the same time increasing the overall level of air safety. Currently VDL Mode 2 is operating over one single VHF frequency. From a technical viewpoint, the study sought to reveal whether and if so, at what point, the VDL Mode 2 link, operating on up to 4 VHF frequencies, will reach a performance level commensurate with degradation of service that would objectively be judged as unacceptable for the purposes of the provision of ATC services. The reference document used for this evaluation is CFC/Datalink/PMP "Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements", Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014. Looking to a time window from “2015” until “2040” and considering various traffic growth expectations in Europe, the study defined the expected growth of ATS and AOC datalink traffic over that period. Based on in depth modelling of all the Air and Ground components, the simulation determined the VDL Mode 2 performance at the network level and also at each individual Ground Station level. The results enabled conclusions on where and when the VDL Mode 2 link would suffer from quality degradation making it no longer usable especially for ATS purposes. 11 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 A cross-year analysis has also been detailed, to provide an understanding of how the VDL Mode 2 datalink performances will decrease in comparison to increases of usage. Two areas of interest have been deeply analysed, one representing the busiest airspace in Europe (including London, Paris and Brussels airports and centred on Lille) and an area with medium traffic (centred around Rome). The topology model for this simulation reflects the existing geographical location of the Ground Stations (GS) in Europe. Although, the simulation did not consider the geographical redistribution of the stations, performance details per antenna are provided and the GS that are not performing well can clearly be identified for further investigation. The simulations produced a considerable wealth of technical data, amounting to thousands pages of simulation run results and available on SJU extranet for reference and detailed study. The key findings of the study are that: On the high density area, single frequency implementation is insufficient to service contemporary (2015) bandwidth demand. Progressive extension of VDL2 implementation to the four frequencies already allocated will alleviate the negative trend and postpone the bandwidth exhaustion horizon until 2025, or even later if a suitable network load balancing policy is implemented. On the medium density area, single frequency implementation will support service demand for another few years but not beyond 2020. Multi-frequency implementation, utilizing dedicated channels per traffic type (Airport, TMA/En-route) as well as dual squitter solution now pioneered by ENAV will postpone the sunset date to at least 2030, perhaps more if a suitable network load balancing policy is implemented. 12 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 1.1 Purpose of the document In order to anticipate the evolution of the European datalink infrastructure, considering the expected ATS and AOC traffic growth from 2015 until 2040, this study identifies the time horizon by which VDL Mode 2 should reach its operational limits in Europe. Simulation scenarios considered the use of “one single frequency” as well as “up to four frequencies”. The aim of this document is to summarize the results of the study and main findings. It provides clear evidences of the identified operational VDL Mode 2 limits, based on results coming from simulations. 1.2 Intended readership The complete ATM community will be interested to check result of this study, so to better understand VDL Mode 2 limits and drive future investments. Institutions can also identify well in advance which appears to be communication future needs for the European airspace, identifying perhaps which may be new technologies that may complement the VDL Mode 2 link and their required performances. 1.3 Inputs from other projects This study has been done on such a way that is really not strictly related to any other study done in the past on this matter. Anyway, in order to identify the criteria that allowed us to determine VDL Mode 2 operational limits; we have used as reference some documents: Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements, edition 1.3 – Eurocontrol Requirements for monitoring through VDL Mode 2 channels edition, 0.4 - Eurocontrol 1.4 Acronyms and Terminology Term Definition ATM ACARS ACSP AOC APT ATN ATS CPDLC CSC DLS ENR FANS GS i4D LME MF OI PA SESAR Air Traffic Management Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System Air/Ground Communications Service Provider Aeronautical Operational Communications Airport Domain aeronautical telecommunications network Air Traffic Services Controller-Pilot Datalink Communications Common Signalling Channel Data Link Service En-Route Future Air Navigation System VDL Mode 2 Ground Station Initial 4D trajectory Link Management Entity Multi Frequency Operational Improvements Provider Abort Single European Sky ATM Research Programme The programme which defines the Research and Development activities SESAR Programme and Projects for the SJU. SF Single Frequency SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission) SJU Work Programme The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint 13 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Term TMA TRTD USBG VDL Mode 2 Edition 00.00.006 Definition Undertaking Agency. Terminal Area Technical Round Trip Delay University of Salzburg VHF Data Link mode 2 14 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 2 &RQWH[WRIWKHVWXG\ 2EMHFWLYHV Figure 1 - Existing and possible future communication systems aligned with SESAR deployment Figure 1 depicts the SESAR communication infrastructure roadmap which is reflected in the European ATM master plan. This roadmap clearly shows the need to progressively transition from the existing infrastructure towards new datalink solutions. This transition is related to when the current (also called legacy) communication systems will become saturated and new communication systems need to be developed and deployed. Therefore, it is important to identify when data link systems and especially VDL Mode 2 becomes saturated with respect to growing air traffic and new data based operations for ATM. 2.1 Objective of the study The aim of this study is to match aircraft future ATS and AOC traffic requests with foreseen traffic growth, and so to determine when the VDL Mode 2 technology, on monofrequency or multifrequencies, will reach performances that are such to let the link considered as not usable for ATS purposes, that has more stringent requirement than AOC traffic. Simulations provided an incredible amount of data that will be available as annex of this report. Other technical material will be uploaded on SJU extranet. On the main body of this document, main results are summarized, with the help of graphs that give a clear understanding of when the study will foresee this VDL Mode 2 capacity limit. The scope of the study address the capability of mono and multi-frequency VDL Mode 2 to support Datalink services across a number of scenarios. In particular, the analysis determines the capability (capacity and performance) of VDL Mode 2 to support the implementation of evolving datalink services within increasing traffic scenarios. It clearly demonstrated the point at which VDL Mode 2 will no longer be able to support the operational usage of ATS services foreseen within the SESAR Concept. The results enable then the determination of the time horizon by when the introduction of more advanced datalink services will require greater datalink capacity & performance that VDL Mode 2 can offer. This addresses the evolution of traffic and datalink implementations. Datalink services considered are: • Existing datalink Services (including Link 2000+ …) 15 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • Airline Operational Communication (AOC) • ATN Baseline 2 (including initial 4D …) Edition 00.00.006 The analysis addresses the time period 2015 through to 2040, with 5 year intervals. The study is giving evidence of technical system loads/key parameters on typical aircraft, operating in dense continental airspace as well as a less busy continental airspace, in line with SJU call for tender requirements and KoM agreement. The following metrics are monitored (always minimum, maximum, average, 95 percentile, 99 percentile, standard deviation, sample count): • • • • • Application Layer o User Data Rate o User Success Rate o Application Delay o Application Loss / Drop Rate Management Layer (VME) o Logged on Aircraft o Link Establishment Delay o Hand Offs o Broadcast Message Receivers Data Link Services (DLS) o Roundtrip Time o AVLC Frames Medium Access Control (MAC) o MAC Delay o TM2 Occurences o N2 Occurences o T1 Occurences Physical Layer o Channel Occupancy o Offered Load o Throughput o Loss o Transmission Delay o Transmission Distance o Signal Quality Parameter o Collisions o Cause of Failure Taking account of services, link budgets, data volumes and timing, the predicted utilisation analysis clearly show how the evolution and take-up of services will drive utilisation and performance. The analysis indicates clearly when VDL Mode 2 reaches its limitations, the consequence of reaching them and the assumptions being made. 16 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 3 6LPXODWLRQVHWXS Within this section we briefly describe the simulation methodology, assumptions and variants taken to assess the VDL Mode 2 capacity breakeven point – more detailed descriptions about the simulation modules and parameters used can be found in the annexes. 3.1 Methodology During the introduction of new standards for data communication in aviation (i.e. mainly VDL mode 2, mode 3, and mode 4) a lot of research on the topic of VDL Mode 2 has been published; a paper 1 called “characteristics and capacity of VDL Mode 2, 3, and 4 sub-networks” gave a good overview of the performance of each of those systems. Also, Eurocontrol conducted a study called “VDL Mode 2 Capacity Simulations” and published results in late 20062; USBG was part of this study. Air Traffic Growth Reports Air Traffic in ECAC Area GroundStation Information Topology Configuration Data Scenario Configuration Application Data Profiles .xls .mdb .txt .txt .txt .xls Mobility Model .xml Topology Model VDL2 Protocol and Channel Simulator .xml .xml .xml .xml .xml .xml .xml D 2.1 D 2. 2 D 2.X Seed 1 Seed 2 Seed n .doc VDL2 Report Generator Input Data Final Report D3 .doc MS Word Report D 2.X Figure 2 - High Level view of simulation tool chain 1 Steven C. Bretmersky, Robert R. Murawski, and Vijay K. Konangi. "Characteristics and Capacity of VDL Mode 2, 3, and 4 Subnetworks", Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, Vol. 2, No. 11 (2005), pp. 470-489. 2 http://www.icao.int/safety/acp/ACPWGF/ACP-WG-M9/WGM09WP05_VDL2_Capacity%201%20Channel%20Oct04.ppt 17 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 The approach of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis is based on a simulation tool chain where each element provides input to the next element of the chain. Each tool is based on a discrete event based simulation. 3 4 The first tool (NAVSIM : Air Traffic Calculation) provides the mobility of aircraft of a complete day (i.e. 24 hours). The information of each aircraft is updated in discrete steps of 3 seconds5. Thereby, important aspects such as position (i.e. longitude, latitude, and altitude), vertical intent, current domain (i.e. APT, TMA, ENR, or ORP), and current sector information are provided. Aircraft are generated for the core area of Europe. The amount of aircraft is extrapolated to the desired scenario (i.e. year and growth scenario). The second tool (VDL Mode 2 Topology Calculation) takes this information and calculates distances of individual aircraft to neighbouring aircraft and visible ground stations. The distances are updated in the same discrete steps as the granularity of the aircraft mobility model. Neighbouring aircraft are all aircraft which are within the radio horizon. The same is true for visible ground-stations. The second tool requires input data such as ground-station positions (latitude, longitude, and altitude), operating frequency, and parameters necessary for link budget calculation such as transmission power or antenna gain. Due to the geographical areas that have been assessed we did not consider any digital elevation model as obstacles are not expected within the evaluated area. The third tool (VDL Mode 2 Protocol and Channel Simulation) takes the mobility, topology, data model, and additional scenario configuration parameters and produces VDL Mode 2 performance data. Each simulation scenario is simulated with multiple different initial seed settings, thus providing confidence intervals for all results. The gained performance data is stored for each seed in a separate xml file. The fourth and final tool (VDL Mode 2 Report Generator) takes all performance data of a single scenario setup and calculates performance figures. These figures are then provided in separate simulation reports. These reports are auto-generated. For concluding comparisons the “VDL Mode 2 Report Generator” keeps data of interest for the final report. 3 NAVSIM ATM/ATC/CNS Simulation Tool developed by Mobile Communications R&D (MCO) in close co-operation with University of Salzburg (USBG) 4 based on data provided by Eurocontrol/NM (former CFMU) for a reference day (whole ECAC area) 5 might be simulated or derived (interpolated) from time steps of about 1 minute (e.g. Consolidated Position Report (CPR) data) 18 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 3.2 Assumptions and variants This subsection presents briefly the assumptions and variants taken to compile a representative set of scenarios. The following main simulation variants are taken into account: • Air traffic growth • Topology • Network subscriber rate • Simulation time period • Equipage rate & data traffic • Frequency deployment & management • Alternative AOC communications means 3.2.1 Assumptions on air traffic growth The air traffic reference (mobility) data has been provided on courtesy by Eurocontrol/NM. The following describes the main characteristics of the reference air traffic data: Ͳ Reference Day: August 29 , 2014 (last Friday in August; high/peak day of year 2014) Ͳ Type of Flights: All IFR Flights (within / to / from) ECAC area on reference day Ͳ Number of Flights: 32.817 (within 24 hours) th EƵŵďĞƌŽĨ&ůŝŐŚƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƌĞĂ;ƵŐ͘ϮϵƚŚϮϬϭϰ͖ϮϰŚͿ ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϵϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ŽƉƚŝŵŝƐƚŝĐͿ ϴϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ŵĞĚŝĂŶͿ ϳϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ƉĞƐƐŝŵŝƐƚŝĐͿ ϲϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϱϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϰϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϯϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϮϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ ϭϬ͘ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬ Ϭ͕ϬϬ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϮϬϰϱ ϮϬϱϬ Figure 3 - Traffic Growth within ECAC Area Main data provided for each flight: Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Callsign / Operator Type of Aircraft Departure and Destination Aerodrome ETD, CTD, ATD (Estimated, Calculated, Actual Time of Departure) ETA, CTA, ATA (Estimated, Calculated, Actual Time of Arrival) Flight Route by Point Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude and Altitude / FL) Flight Route by Air Space Profile (Entry / Exit Time) 19 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 3 shows the expected number of flights within the whole ECAC area for the years 2014 to 2050; Scenarios A, C, and D) based on the reference day (August 29th) of year 2014. While scenario A is assumed to be optimistic, scenario C seems to be a realistic growth model for the coming years. Consequently, we decided to investigate those two scenarios. Variants Baseline Scenario: Year 2015 Air Traffic Growth Scenario A (years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040) Air Traffic Growth Scenario C (years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040) 3.2.2 Assumptions on topology Figure 4 - European VDL Mode 2 GS topology and simulated reference area Figure 4 gives an overview of the simulated reference area and the involved data link topology. The black lines indicate simulated air traffic tracks. The red ellipses show the areas of interest for a high data link usage environment (High density area) and a medium data link usage environment (Rome area), respectively. These areas are represented as ellipses as the Mercator projection distorts the circular area of interest with a radius of roughly 150 nautical miles. Each available VDL Mode 2 ground station within the simulated reference area is simulated, however, evaluated are only those which are located within the areas of interests for high and low data link usage, respectively. These ground station positions are represented as orange circles – the remaining ground stations are represented as green circles. The areas of Lille and Rome have been selected to represent high and medium data link usage environments, respectively. The area with high air traffic density is the area with roughly 150 nautical miles (nm) radius around Lille, France. All major airports within the capital areas of London, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam lay within this area. Figure 5 highlights the number of flights within selected 20 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 EƵŵďĞƌŽĨ&ůŝŐŚƚƐŽŶZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĂǇ;ƵŐ͘ϮϵƚŚ͕ϮϬϭϰͿ ϭϮϬϬϬ ϵϬϰϯ ϳϳϰϬ ϳϬϭϭ ϳϯϴϭ ϯϭϵϰ ϮϭϵϮ ϭϭϯϲ ϯϬϯϬ ϯϳϲϬ ϭϰϯϵ ϯϰϱϬ Ϯϴϴϳ ϭϴϴϯ Ϯϲϱϳ ϭϵϭϮ ϵϴϬ ϰϲϯ ϴϴ ϮϬϰ ϮϬϳ Ϯϯϵ ϴϬ ϰϬϬϬ ϰϮϱϰ ϰϯϬϮ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϵϬ ϴϬϬϬ ϮϵϮϮ ϭϴϵϬ Ϯϲϳϲ ϭϵϯϵ >ŝůůĞƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚ>&YYͿ ZŽŵĞƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚ>/Z&Ϳ ƌƵƐƐĞůƐƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚZͿ &ƌĂŶŬĨƵƌƚƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚ&Ϳ >ŽŶĚŽŶƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚ'>>Ϳ WĂƌŝƐƌĞĂ;ϭϱϬŶDĂƌŽƵŶĚ>&W'Ϳ ϭϬϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϭϮϭϭ areas of interest. This figure clearly shows that the High density area contains most flights across Europe while Rome reflects an area with comparably low air traffic. Ϭ ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐ ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƌĞĂͿ ĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞƐ ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƌĞĂͿ ƌƌŝǀĂůƐ ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƌĞĂͿ KǀĞƌĨůŝŐŚƚƐ ;ŽǀĞƌĂƌĞĂͿ dŽƚĂů Figure 5 - Number of flights within selected areas of interest NOTE: Details on the link budget calculation is given in ANNEX B Evaluated ground stations of SITA network in high data link usage environment: Code AMS7 BRU7 CDG7 CDX DUS7 LCY7 City Amsterdam Brussels Paris Paris Düsseldorf London LGW7 LHR7 NWI7 ORY7 London London Norwich Paris PAR7 Paris PARU Paris Airport Schiphol National CDG CDG Int’l City Airport Gatwick Heathrow Int’l Paris Orly No Airport No Airport Country Netherlands Belgium France France Germany UK OWNER SITA SITA SITA SITA SITA SITA FRQ 136,975 136,975 136,975 136,975 136,975 136,975 Power 20 W 20 W 20 W 10 W 20 W 20 W UK UK UK France SITA SITA SITA SITA 136,975 136,975 136,975 136,975 5W 20 W 20 W 20 W France SITA 136,975 20 W France SITA 136,975 10 W Table 1 - SITA Ground Stations Evaluated ground stations of ARINC network in high data link usage environment: Code City Airport Country OWNER FRQ Power AMS Amsterdam Netherlands ARINC 136,975 20 W BRU Brussels Belgium ARINC 136,975 20 W CDG Paris France ARINC 136,975 20 W LGW London UK ARINC 136,975 20 W LTN London UK ARINC 136,975 20 W ORY Paris France ARINC 136,975 20 W 21 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Code STN City Paris Airport - Country France Edition 00.00.006 OWNER ARINC FRQ 136,975 Power 20 W Table 2 - ARINC Ground Stations NOTE: for all SITA and ARINC VDL Mode 2 ground station antennas a loss attenuation of -3dB is assumed. Evaluated ground stations of SITA/ARINC network in low data link usage environment: Code City Ciampino Fiumicino ATCR-33S Fiumicino SMR-B Napoli Airport - Country Italy Italy OWNER ENAV ENAV FRQ 136,975 136,975 Power 10 W 10 W - Italy ENAV 136,975 50 W - Italy ENAV 136,975 50 W Table 3 - ENAV Ground Stations NOTE: for all VDL Mode 2 ground station antennas in Italy a loss attenuation of -4.5 dB is assumed. NOTE: In Italy all ground stations are operated by ENAV and have been manufactured by Selex-ES. Those ground stations have adopted criteria named “Dual Squitter”: The MGS Multi-Squitter is able to manage traffic for all the supported services (ATS and AOC) and for all the aircraft connected regardless the ACSP they belong, on a single VDL Mode 2 radio channel. This will reduce concurrency/collisions and hidden terminals by factor of 2 (more or less). This is achieved thanks to the serialization of the uplinks (ATS, AOC ACSP1 and AOC ACSP2) over the same AVLC links, using a single radio and antenna. The MGS is configured to broadcast different GSIF in using the same VDL Mode 2 radio in order to reach and connect all the aircraft. The simulator has been setup in a way to consider this particular behaviour of ENAV antenna. NOTE: The transmit power level of the VDL Mode 2 ground stations in Italy are either significantly higher (50 Watt for Fiumicino SMR-B and Napoli) compared to the transmit power level of maximum 20 Watt (for ARINC and SITA stations in the high traffic area (Lille)) or are at the low end (10 Watt for Ciampino). Variants No variants for the topology with respect to ground station positions and ground station transmission characteristics have been investigated. 3.2.3 Assumptions on network subscription rate In Europe SITA and ARINC have different subscriber rates that have been considered in the following way, based on info received by SITA and with the assumptions that the difference between CSP subscriptions will evolve in the future. SITA Subscribers ARINC Subscribers 2015 70 % 30 % 2020 68 % 32 % 2025 66 % 34 % 2030 64 % 36 % 2035 62 % 38 % 2040 60 % 40 % Table 4 - Network subscription rate assumptions Table 4 shows an expected slight shift of the market share of about 2% every 5 years up to the year 2040 with a share for SITA and ARINC of 60% and 40% respectively in year 2040. Due to the fact that we have not taken additional ARINC ground stations into account, the impact on the study is a further slight degradation of the VDL2 link performance for those stations. The VDL2 performance 22 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 could be improved - especially for the multi-frequency scenarios - if additional ARINC VDL2 ground stations will be available in the future. Variants No variants for different subscriber rates of ARINC and SITA users have been investigated 3.2.4 Assumptions on simulation time period Figure 6 shows the peak instantaneous aircraft count (PIAC) for the ECAC region based on data as described previously. The figure shows maximum aircraft counts for different time frames during the day. It shows that the time frame between 10:00Z and 12:00Z is the one with most aircraft and the one with least variance. Therefore, this time frame has been selected to evaluate the performance and capacity demands of VDL Mode 2. Figure 6 - Peak instantaneous aircraft count (PIAC) for the ECAC region Variants No variants for the evaluation time frame have been investigated. 3.2.5 Assumptions on aircraft equipage rate The aircraft equipage rate reflects the relative amount of aircraft that are equipped with VDL Mode 2 transceivers. This does not mean that these aircraft are actively using the VDL Mode 2 equipment as communication means. Year VDL Mode 2 EQ 2015 80 % 2020 100 % 2025 100 % 2030 100 % 2035 100 % 2040 100 % 2025 100 % 2030 100 % 2035 100 % 2040 100 % Table 5 - Aircraft equipage rate assumptions Variants No variants for the VDL Mode 2 equipage rate have been investigated 23 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 3.2.6 Assumptions on frequency management Because there is not a standard yet on how to use the 4 frequencies assigned to VDL Mode 2 datalink, the consortium have elaborated options that came from a consultation of experts, as well as workshops done in Eurocontrol. The idea to use the frequencies “shared”, means based on domains, appears to be the most optimized way to use such frequencies. So, in order to address multi frequency options 4 different possibilities are assumed (together with the option of the single frequency): Channel FRQ Option16 FRQ Option 2 7 FRQ 1 FRQ 1 FRQ 2 FRQ 1 FRQ Option 38 FRQ 2 FRQ 3 FRQ 1 FRQ Option 4 9 FRQ 2 FRQ 3 FRQ 4 FRQ 1 FRQ Option 5 10 FRQ 2 FRQ 3 FRQ 4 Data traffic carried by frequency Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain and Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain and Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain and Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Table 6 - Frequency management assumptions The algorithm for Frequency Options 2 to 4 to select one of the (up to 4) VDL Mode 2 frequencies in the Multi-Frequency (MF) scenarios is implemented as follows: 6 marked as SF (Single Frequency) in the VDL Mode 2 results charts (Chapter 5) marked as FO2 (CSC/APT/TMA/ENR + APT frequency) in the VDL Mode 2 results charts (Chapter 5) 8 marked as FO3 (CSC/APT/TMA/ENR + APT + TMA/ENR frequencies) in results charts (Chapter 5) 9 marked as FO4 (CSC/APT/TMA/ENR + APT + TMA/ENR + APT frequencies) in charts (Chapter 5) 10 marked as MF4 (CSC/APT/TMA/ENR + 3 APT/TMA/ENR frequencies) in results charts (Chapter 5). This option is purely theoretical and is based on observations that University of Salzburg have done during simulation runs. 7 24 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 An airborne VDL Mode 2 station (aircraft) always logs into the VDL Mode 2 network via the Common Signalling Channel (CSC; 136.975 MHz) responding to the periodically transmitted Ground Station Information Frames (GSIF). Then the VDL Mode 2 ground station decides on which frequency the further communication data exchange is carried out. For all aircraft in the airport domain (APT) either the CSC or one of the APT frequencies is chosen. This selection is based on the lowest number of aircraft11 allocated to a specific ground station. In case that the airborne VDL Mode 2 station (aircraft) is within the TMA/Enroute domain during the initial establishment of the VDL Mode 2 connection via the Common Signalling Channel (CSC) - on request of the VDL Mode 2 ground station – the aircraft is either handed over to the VDL Mode 2 frequency foreseen to handle TMA/Enroute data traffic or stays on the CSC. As explained above, this decision is based on the current lowest number of aircraft allocated to the VDL Mode 2 ground stations in question. In case that the domain in which an aircraft is already in (either airport (APT) domain or TMA/Enroute domain) changes, that is either from APT domain to TMA/Enroute domain (initial phase of a flight) or from TMA/Enroute domain to APT domain, the VDL Mode 2 ground station decides whether a handover has to be carried out as follows: Current domain APT APT TMA/ENR Next domain TMA/ENR TMA/ENR APT Current frequency CSC APT CSC Next frequency CSC or TMA/ENR CSC or TMA/ENR CSC or APT TMA/ENR APT TMA/ENR CSC or APT Remark APT could be one of two APT frequencies APT could be one of two APT frequencies The decision which VDL Mode 2 frequency to choose (CSC, APT or TMA/ENR) again depends on the lowest number of aircraft currently allocated to the target (next) frequency. Variants SF Single Frequency – Frequency deployment option 1 FO2 – Frequency deployment option 2 FO3 – Frequency deployment option 3 FO4 – Frequency deployment option 4 MF4 – Frequency deployment option 5 3.2.6.1 VDL Mode 2 Multi-Frequency Selection with load balancing In addition to the VDL Mode 2 Multi-Frequency allocation and selection strategy described above, it has also been considered whether a different VDL Mode 2 Multi-Frequency approach would show benefits: This consideration is based on the following: if an aircraft starts from some departure aerodrome and is landing on some destination aerodrome it would carry out communications over VDL Mode 2 during each phase of the flight: • Start phase: comms at departure gate, during taxiing and take-off • TMA/Enroute phase: during climb phase (TMA), enroute and arrival phase (TMA) 11 further investigations (outside the scope of this study) could use the lowest data traffic load (or other parameters) as a criterion 25 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • Edition 00.00.006 Final phase: during final approach, landing, taxiing and comms at destination gate. By applying any of the VDL Mode 2 Multi-Frequency allocation and selection strategies described 12 above (Frequency Options FO2, FO3 and FO4), the following frequency handovers would occur, during the flight phases mentioned above: • Frequency Options FO2: Ͳ during start phase: possible transition from Common Signalling Channel (CSC) to APT frequency Ͳ during transition from start phase to TMA/enroute phase: from APT frequency to CSC Ͳ during transition from TMA/enroute phase to Final phase: from CSC to APT • Frequency Options FO3 and FO4: Ͳ during start phase: possible transition from Common Signalling Channel (CSC) to APT frequency Ͳ during transition from start phase to TMA/enroute phase: from APT frequency to TMA/ENR frequency Ͳ during transition from TMA/enroute phase to Final phase: from TMA/ENR frequency to APT frequency Conclusions: for all frequency options FO2, FO3 and FO4 a maximum of 3 frequency hand-offs are likely and will often occur: CSC > APT > TMA/ENR (or CSC) > APT Instead of using the VDL Mode 2 Multi-Frequency selection strategy described above the following Multi-Frequency hand-off strategy (= Frequency Option 5) could be applied: One (instead of up to three) frequency transition (if any) only from the CSC to any other of the available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (based on random selection or load balancing) is carried out; a reasonable number of VDL Mode 2 frequencies (2,3,4 or more13) could be made available, e.g.: • MF2: possible transition (if any) from CSC to the other available frequency; • MF3: possible transition (if any) from CSC to one of the other two available frequencies; • MF4: possible transition (if any) from CSC to one of the other three available frequencies. In addition to the Frequency Options FO2, FO3 and FO4 described above, this Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with "load balancing" have been simulated for the high traffic area (Lille) and the medium traffic area (Rome) and the promising results are presented and discussed in Chapter 5 of this study. 3.2.6.2 ATS datalink program equipage rate Current air traffic control is based on voice exchanges between aircraft crew and air traffic controllers. In order to introduce data link communication for air traffic control purpose, aircraft and air traffic control centres need to be equipped in terms of hardware and software. Currently the vision is that data link will be introduced for air traffic control in 3 phases. These phases are realized through programs called “ATN B1”, “ATN B2”, and “ATN B3”. Assumptions with respect to ATS datalink program: • 100 % ground equipage rate. That is, if aircraft are capable to use ATN B 1/2/3 data link message exchanges, they is able to use it at any time. • If aircraft are capable to use ATN B2 they will use only the defined set of message for ATN B2. • If aircraft are capable to use ATN B3 they will use only the defined set of message for ATN B3. 12 Note: there is always a chance, that a frequency handover does not occur and the VDL Mode 2 airborne station stays on the Common Signalling Channel CSC. 13 Note: Only 4 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies have been simulated; larger numbers of available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (e.g. 6, 8, etc.) could be considered but are outside the scope of this study. 26 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 The following table indicates the equipage rate with respect to all simulated flights assumed for the different simulated years: 2015 2020 2025 80 % 100 % 100 % 0% 0% 20 % 0% 0% 0% Table 7 - Equipage rate with respect to all simulated flights ATS ATN B1 ATS ATN B2 ATS ATN B3 2030 100 % 80 % 0% 2035 100 % 100 % 20 % 2040 100 % 100 % 80 % Variants No variants for the VDL Mode 2 datalink program equipage rate have been investigated NOTE: The ATS & AOC communication profiles have been described in the Annex. 3.2.7 Assumptions on alternative communications means It has to be considered that alternative communications means to VDL Mode 2 may be used for AOC communications in the future. Especially at airports alternatives may arise. So for scenario 2025-2030-2035-2040 simulations have been conducted considering this AOC migration as well as no migration at all. The following table lists assumptions for alternative AOC communications means users with respect to all simulated flights. 2025 2030 2035 10 % 20 % 30 % 5% 7,5 % 10 % Table 8 - Alternative communication means assumptions Year AOC APT alternatives AOC TMA/ENR alternatives 2040 40 % 20 % Variants No AOC communication alternative AOC communication alternative as of the assumption above 3.2.8 Assumptions on AOC and ATS Traffic Load On this paragraph, ATS and AOC traffic load is detailed, with the assumptions considered for the 2015 scenario as well as all the futuristic ones. ϮϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϲϬϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬϬ d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬϬ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 7 - ATS and AOC data – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic 27 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 8 - AOC percentage (%) – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 9 - AOC with migration % – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Optimistic Traffic ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬϬ d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 10 - ATS and AOC data – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) 28 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϮϬ Figure 11 - AOC percentage (%) – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 12 - AOC with migration % – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ϰϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 13 - ATS and AOC data – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) 29 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 14 - AOC percentage (%) – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 15 - AOC with migration % – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Optimistic Traffic (ScA) ϮϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϲϬϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬϬ d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬϬ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 16 - ATS and AOC data – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic 30 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 17 - AOC percentage (%) – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 18 - AOC with migration % – whole simulation zone (30N010W – 60N025E) – Median Traffic 31 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬϬ d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 19 - ATS and AOC data – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϮϬ Figure 20 - AOC percentage (%) – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 21 - AOC with migration % – High Traffic Area (Lille) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) 32 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ϰϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ Edition 00.00.006 d^;ďŝƚͬƐͿ K;ďŝƚͬƐͿ KǁŝƚŚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 22 - ATS and AOC data – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 23 - AOC percentage (%) – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϬ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ KWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;йͿŽĨdŽƚĂů Figure 24 - AOC with migration % – Medium Traffic Area (Rome) – Median Traffic Growth (ScC) 33 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 4 6LPXODWLRQVFHQDULRVGHVFULSWLRQ A simulation scenario is a combination of the aforementioned models. Thereby, different input parameters may be varied. In this section we elaborate the baseline scenario and scenarios that are conceivable for future deployments. Important aspects of a simulation scenario are: • Data load (ATS & AOC): Currently Link 2000+ applications are being rolled out and are used by isolated aircraft. • VDL Mode 2 equipage rate of aircraft: Today not all aircraft are VDL Mode 2 equipped. However, it is anticipated that all aircraft are VDL Mode 2 equipped within the next 5 years. • Aircraft using/not using other communication means than VDL mode 2: Today, alternative communication means to VDL Mode 2 are discussed. An airport communication system such as AeroMACS may be introduced at large airports in the upcoming years. • Aircraft communication service provider: SITA is the predominant used communication service provider in Europe. However, it is anticipated that ARINC will catch up in the coming years. • Deployment scenario: Today, only a single frequency is used for VDL Mode 2 communication. In order to support growing communication demand multi-frequency deployments are conceivable in the future. ATN baseline Equippage rate Traffic growth Frequency VDL Mode 2 traffic ATS+AOC traffic 2015 B1 80% Real traffic Single Multi 100% SITA 70% ARINC 30% 2025 B1 100% B2 20% M Single O Multi 100% 90% APT 95% TMA/ENR SITA 66% ARINC 34% 2035 B1 100% B2 100% B3 20% M O Single Multi 100% 70% APT 90% TMA/ENR SITA 62% ARINC 38% Table 9 - Brief resume of main assumptions The simulation scenario setup is organized into 2 main streams Ͳ Single Frequency Scenarios (evaluations for air traffic growth scenarios A and C) o No alternative AOC communication means considered o Alternative AOC communication means considered Ͳ Multi Frequency Scenarios (evaluations for air traffic growth scenarios A and C) o 2, 3, and 4 Frequencies – no AOC alternative communications means o 2, 3, and 4 Frequencies – Alternative AOC alternative communications means considered For all scenarios the application data load is kept stable according to the growth rates for ATS and AOC as described above. Furthermore, the ATS datalink program equipage rate is kept stable. 34 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 4.1 Simulation Scenarios Single Frequency ^/D^ƚƌĞĂŵϬϭ͗^ŝŶŐůĞ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ͕ŶŽĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞKĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂŶƐ Year 2015 VDL Mode 2 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 ATS ATN B1 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B2 equipped flight 0% 0% 20% ATS ATN B3 equipped flights 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% AOC APT alternative communication means 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AOC TMA/ENR alternative communications means 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SITA subscribers 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ARINC subscribers 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2030 2035 2040 Frequency Option 80% 100% 100% ^/D^ƚƌĞĂŵϬϭ͗^ŝŶŐůĞ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ͕ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞKĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂŶƐ Year 2015 2020 2025 VDL Mode 2 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B1 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B2 equipped flight 0% 0% 20% ATS ATN B3 equipped flights 0% 0% 0% 0% AOC APT alternative communication means 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% AOC TMA/ENR alternative communications means 0% 0% 5% 7,5 % 10% 20% SITA subscribers 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ARINC subscribers 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frequency Option 80% 100% 100% 20% 80% Table 10: Summary of parameter settings for simulation stream 01 – as discussed previously. Frequency deployment Topolgoy evaluation High data link usage environment (Lille) Single Frequency deployment option SF Low data link usage environment (Rome) Alternative AOC COM Air Traffic Growth Scenario Years No AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 No AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 Table 11: Single Frequency (SF) Scenario compilation 35 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 4.2 Simulation Scenarios Multi-Frequency ^/D^ƚƌĞĂŵϬϮ͗DƵůƚŝƉůĞĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐ͕ŶŽĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞKĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂŶƐ Year 2015 VDL Mode 2 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 ATS ATN B1 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B2 equipped flight 0% 0% 20% ATS ATN B3 equipped flights 0% 0% 0% 80% 100% 100% 0% 20% 80% AOC APT alternative communication means 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AOC TMA/ENR alternative communications means 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SITA subscribers 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ARINC subscribers 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% Frequency Option 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2035 2040 ^/D^ƚƌĞĂŵϬϮ͗DƵůƚŝƉůĞĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐ͕ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞKĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂŶƐ Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 VDL Mode 2 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B1 equipped flights 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ATS ATN B2 equipped flight 0% 0% 20% ATS ATN B3 equipped flights 0% 0% 0% 0% AOC APT alternative communication means 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% AOC TMA/ENR alternative communications means 0% 0% 5% 7,5 % 10% 20% SITA subscribers 70% 68% 62% 60% ARINC subscribers 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% Frequency Option 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 66% 80% 100% 100% 64% 20% 80% Table 12: Summary of parameter settings for simulation stream 02 – as discussed previously. Frequency deployment Topolgoy evaluation High data link usage environment (Lille) Multi Frequency deployment options FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 Low data link usage environment (Rome) Alternative AOC COM Air Traffic Growth Scenario Years No AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 No AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 AOC alternative communications means optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 2015 - 2040 median air traffic growth (ScC) 2015 - 2040 Table 13: Multi Frequency Scenario compilation NOTE: For reasons of simplicity Table 13 is compressed to one single table. Each deployment option would result in a separate table. However, this also reflects the structure of the presented results later within this document. 36 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5 6XPPDU\RIWKHUHVXOWV This chapter provides firstly a brief overview of the capacity assessment criteria, which indicate how gained results are interpreted and evaluated. After that, the results for the two simulation streams single-frequency and multi-frequency are elaborated and discussed in detail. 5.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity assessment criteria The very detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study were used as a basis to provide an estimation of the VDL Mode 2 capacity limits. Thereby, single and multi-frequency scenarios were considered14. For each scenario and for each ground station within the area of interest, important performance parameters were produced. Amongst others, most important parameters are offered load, user data throughput, user data success rate, user data loss rate, round trip delay, medium access control (MAC) delay, transmission delay, and "one-way" uplink/downlink delay (MAC delay + transmission delay). These simulation results were used to conduct a performance analysis to determine the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations using different deployment options. For each scenario (i.e. deployment option, assumed air traffic growth, and simulated year) a high level overview about the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is given. Thereby, two criteria have been defined: 1. VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation – VDL Mode 2 “Comparison Throughput to Offered Load15” 2. ATS application performance – Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) 16 The “User Data Offered Load” is the amount of data an application wants to transmit and the “User Data Throughput” is the amount of data that is successfully received by the communication peer17. The representation of the results is expressed as relative value of “User Data Offered Load” to “User Data Throughput”. A coloured categorization has been applied to the results in order to support a quick and comprehensive understanding of the output: • >= 95%: very good (dark green) – PASS • >= 90% up to 95%: good (light green) – still PASS 14 In each scenario the default VDL2 parameters were used (e.g. persistence value p = 5/256; no parameter variations were applied; such parameter variations are proposed for further VDL2 optimization studies and evaluations. 15 Offered load corresponds to the load demanded to be transferred over the VDL Mode 2 network. 16 c.f. Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements", Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014 17 Please note that VDL2 messages are still considered to be successfully transmitted, if not more than N2 number of retries (N2 = 6; default value) are used, otherwise the message is considered to be "lost". However the VDL2 message could still be finally successfully delivered to the end user, if end-to-end retransmissions are taken into account (see "Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) of ATS/CPDLC messages" below for details). Recently VDL2 measurements were carried out by Eurocontrol (ECTL). The numbers received from ECTL seem to be reasonable. However, it has to be considered that we are stressing the communication system a lot more with almost every aircraft transmitting data messages. This has a significant impact on radio interference and medium access control protocols. It is known that VDL Mode 2 as such is not behaving deterministically - i.e. the more airspace users are utilizing the communication link concurrently the more unpredictable VDL Mode 2 becomes. Additionally the radio propagation model assumes rather worst case than best case assumptions, causing rather more than less interference on the radio channel. In our initial simulation runs we were assuming a free space loss model (which is the absolute worst case) which caused severe message loss due to increased interference. From our point of view the gained simulation results are perfectly in line with the performance of the VDL Mode 2 radio link. 37 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • >= 85% up to 90%: becoming critical (yellow) – BORDERLINE • >= 80% up to 85%: critical (orange) – definitely BORDERLINE • < 80%: (red) - definitely FAIL. Edition 00.00.006 The Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) of ATS/CPDLC messages has been assessed through a VDL Mode 2 Markov model18 where two categories were considered – i.e. either pass or fail: • PASS (green): TRTD 95th percentile <= 16 seconds and TRTD 99th percentile <= 20 sec.; • FAIL (red): otherwise The combined overall result of both VDL Mode 2 capacity assessment criteria has been defined as follows: 18 • PASS (dark green): Through/Offered >= 90% AND both TRTD percentile target values are fulfilled; • almost PASS (light green): Through/Offered >= 90% AND one of the two TRTD percentile target values are fulfilled; • FAIL (red): otherwise (i.e. Through/Offered < 90% AND both TRTD percentile values failed. c.f. Annex B for details on the VDL Mode 2 Markov model 38 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2 Single-Frequency deployment The main conclusion that can be drawn for the single frequency deployment scenarios is that already today and for the near future VDL Mode 2 capacity limits are reached in high density area. That is particularly true, for that area, in combination with high air traffic growth assumptions (ScA), while on medium traffic area the single frequency seems to work fine for 2015 scenario, but not on 2020. However, this is also true for all other assumptions taken for simulation scenarios conducted with a single frequency deployment. The single frequency deployment considers a single channel operated at 136.975 MHz used for both Common Signalling Channel (CSC) and user data exchanges. Details are elaborated in the following sub-chapters according to the structure presented in Table 11. In order to clearly show the results of the study, we will separate high traffic area and medium traffic area, and on each area we will consider optimistic and medium traffic growth, together with or without AOC traffic migration, as defined on Table 8. 5.2.1 High traffic area 5.2.1.1 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 5.2.1.1.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation ϯϱϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 25 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area From this graph it can be concluded that the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" is only close to each other for the baseline year 2014/15. For all further years the gap between the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" increases. As expected, the gap is even larger in this optimistic traffic growth scenario than in the median traffic scenario presented below. This indicates that we have reached the capacity limit for the Single-Frequency scenarios already today or in the near future, respectively. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^Đ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϯ͘ϭ ϱϬ͘ϭ ϱϲ ϱϬ͘ϴ ϰϴ͘ϵ Table 14 - Capacity Limitations values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 39 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.1.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: th • 95 percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99 percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds th ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 15 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are not even fulfilled for 19 th the today's (year 2015) scenario ; for all years beyond, the requirements (95 percentile <= 16 th seconds; 99 percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2020 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.1.1.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. >ŝůůĞ^Đ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 16 - Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Lille ScA scenario) are reached today. 19 Note: the values for the year 2015 are close to the requirements 40 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.2 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) – alternative AOC COM 5.2.1.2.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϯϬϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 26 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area In this scenario AOC migration to other communications technologies from the year 2025 onwards is taken into account and simulated. Similar to the optimistic traffic scenario discussed above, from the graph shown here it can be concluded, that from 2025 onwards - as can be expected - the overall traffic load (offered load) increase is smaller compared to the scenario without AOC migration (see figure 8 above), however the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is reached already today or in the near future, because the gap between offered load and user data throughput is already significantly high for the year 2020, remains about the same for the years 2025 and 2030 and further increases for the year 2035. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϯ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϵ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϬ͘ϴ Table 17 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 41 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.2.2 ATS application performance For those scenarios, the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 18 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Similar to the scenario without AOC migration, from this table it can be concluded that the 20 ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are not even fulfilled for the today's (year 2015) scenario ; for all th th years beyond, the requirements (95 percentile <= 16 seconds; 99 percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red)21. It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2020 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.1.2.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 19 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA – AOC Migration scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Lille ScA – AOC migration scenario) are reached today. 20 Note: the values for the year 2015 are close to the requirements Note: A "0" (zero) is shown in the TRTD tables as result from the VDL Mode 2 Markov model, if the average round trip delay (as result from the simulations) is greater than the target values for the TRTD 95th percentile (16 seconds) or the TRTD 99th percentile (20 seconds). 21 42 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.3 Median air traffic growth (ScC) 5.2.1.3.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϯϱϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 27 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area From this graph it can be concluded that the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" is close to each other for the baseline year 2014/15 only. Although the data traffic load is lower than in the optimistic traffic scenarios presented above, for all further years the gap between the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" increases. This indicates that we have reached the capacity limit for the Single-Frequency scenarios already today or in the near future. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^Đ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘ϵ ϱϴ͘ϰ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϱϬ͘Ϯ Table 20 - Capacity Limitations values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 43 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.3.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 21 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are not even fulfilled for the today's (year 2015) scenario22; for all years beyond, the requirements (95th percentile <= 16 seconds; 99th percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2020 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.1.3.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. >ŝůůĞ^Đ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 22 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Lille ScC scenario) are reached today. 22 Note: the values for the year 2015 are close to the requirements 44 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.4 Median air traffic growth (ScC) – alternative AOC COM 5.2.1.4.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 28 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area In this scenario AOC migration to other communications technologies from the year 2025 onwards is taken into account and simulated. From the graph shown here it can be concluded, that from 2025 onwards – as can be expected - the overall traffic load (offered load) increase is smaller compared to the scenario without AOC migration (see Figure 27 above), however the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is reached already today or in the near future, because the gap between offered load and user data throughput is already significantly high for the year 2020, remains about the same for the years 2025 and 2030 and further increases for years 2035 and 2040. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϯ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϵ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϬ͘ϴ Table 23 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, high traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 45 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.1.4.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 24 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Similar to the scenario without AOC migration, from this table it can be concluded that the 23 ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are not even fulfilled for the today's (year 2015) scenario ; for all th th years beyond, the requirements (95 percentile <= 16 seconds; 99 percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2020 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.1.4.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 25 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC – AOC migration scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Lille ScC – AOC migration scenario) are reached today. 23 Note: the values for the year 2015 are close to the requirements 46 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2 Medium traffic area At least from the year 2025/2030 onwards the VDL Mode 2 capacity limits for the medium traffic area (Rome), assuming a median traffic growth (scenario ScC), is reached. Considering a high traffic growth (scenario ScA) this VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is reached already for the year 2020 onwards. The reasons for these limitations are outlined in the paragraphs below. 5.2.2.1 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 5.2.2.1.1 VDL Mode 2 Capacity Limitations ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϲϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 29 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area From this graph it can be concluded that the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" is only close to each other for the baseline year 2014/15. For all further years the gap between the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" increases. As expected, the gap is even larger in this optimistic traffic growth scenario than in the median traffic scenario presented below. This indicates that we have reached the capacity limit for the Single-Frequency scenarios already today or in the near future. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϲϳ͘ϭ ϲϵ͘ϰ ϲϭ͘ϴ ϱϴ͘ϳ Table 26 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 47 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.1.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ Ϭ ϯϰ ϰϮ͘ϱ ϯϯ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϵ ϯϰ ϰϮ͘ϱ ϯϯ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ Table 27 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are fulfilled ("PASS"; green) for the today's (year 2015) scenario only, but for all years beyond, the requirements (95th percentile <= 16 seconds; 99th percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2015 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.2.1.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 28 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA scenario: SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015; "FAIL"s from the year 2020 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Rome ScA scenario) will be reached before the year 2020. 48 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.2 Optimistic air traffic growth – alternative AOC COM 5.2.2.2.1 VDL Mode 2 Capacity Limitations ϴϬϬϬ ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϯϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 30 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area Similar to the optimistic traffic scenario discussed above, from the graph shown here it can be concluded, that from 2025 onwards – as can be expected - the overall traffic load (offered load) increase is smaller compared to the scenario without AOC migration (see Figure 35 above), however the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is reached already today or in the near future, because the gap between offered load and user data throughput is already significantly high for the year 2020, remains about the same for the years 2025 and 2030 and further increases for the year 2035. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϲϵ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϲϯ͘ϵ ϲϰ͘ϴ Table 29 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 49 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.2.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϵ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϰϴ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϯϳ͘ϭ Ϭ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϰϴ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϯϳ͘ϭ Table 30 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are fulfilled ("PASS"; th green) for the today's (year 2015) scenario only, but for all years beyond, the requirements (95 th percentile <= 16 seconds; 99 percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2015 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.2.2.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 31 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA – AOC migration scenario: SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015; "FAIL"s from the year 2020 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Rome ScA – AOC migration scenario) will be reached before the year 2020. 50 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.3 Median air traffic growth (ScC) 5.2.2.3.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϵϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬ ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϯϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 31 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area From this graph it can be concluded that the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" is close to each other for the baseline year 2014/15 only. The gap increases for the year 2020, however, even for the year 2025, it shows only a small gap; from the year 2030 onwards it shows a significant gap between the "offered load" and the "user data throughput" and for all further years this gap increases. Therefore it should be concluded that from the year 2030 onwards the capacity limitation is reached. In general, as can be expected, the results for the high traffic area (Lille) show a larger gap between "offered load" and "user data throughput" than for the medium traffic area (Rome). ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϳϬ ϳϯ͘ϵ ϲϲ ϲϭ͘ϴ Table 32 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 51 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.3.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϱ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϴ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϵ Ϭ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϴ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϵ Table 33 - TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are fulfilled ("PASS"; green) for the today's (year 2015) scenario only, but for all years beyond, the requirements (95th percentile <= 16 seconds; 99th percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2015 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.2.3.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 34 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC scenario: SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015; "FAIL"s from the year 2020 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Rome ScC scenario) will be reached before the year 2020. 52 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.4 Median air traffic growth (ScC) – alternative AOC COM 5.2.2.4.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 32 - Capacity Limitations, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area In this scenario AOC migration to other communications technologies from the year 2025 onwards is taken into account and simulated. From the graph shown here it can be concluded, that from 2025 onwards – as can be expected - the overall traffic load (offered load) increase is smaller compared to the scenario without AOC migration (see Figure 31 above), however the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation is reached already today or in the near future, because the gap between offered load and user data throughput is already significantly high for the year 2020, remains about the same for the years 2025 and 2030 and further increases until the year 2035. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϳϭ͘ϵ ϳϳ ϲϵ͘Ϯ ϲϳ͘ϴ Table 35 - Capacity Limitation values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area The scenario "passed" only for the year 2015, but "failed" for all years at and beyond year 2020. 53 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.4.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϱ ϰϭ͘ϱ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϰϮ͘ϵ ϰϬ͘ϲ Ϭ ϰϭ͘ϱ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϰϮ͘ϵ ϰϬ͘ϲ Table 36 -TRTD values, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area From this table it can be concluded that the ATS/CPDLC TRTD requirements are fulfilled ("PASS"; th green) for the today's (year 2015) scenario only, but for all years beyond, the requirements (95 th percentile <= 16 seconds; 99 percentile <= 20 seconds) are not met ("FAIL"; red). It should also be noted that the capacity limitation expectation values presented above correspond for all years 2015 to 2040 - with the ATS/CPDLC Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) criteria. 5.2.2.4.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^& ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Table 37 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), median traffic growth with AOC Migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC – AOC migration scenario: SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015; "FAIL"s from the year 2020 and all years beyond. The capacity and performance limitations for a single VDL Mode 2 frequency (for the Rome ScC – AOC migration scenario) will be reached before the year 2020. 54 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.2.2.5 Single Frequency deployment summary Based on the two assessment criteria, namely the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitation and the ATS application performance the Single Frequency deployment option clearly shows that VDL Mode 2 capacity limits do not support a proper ATS communication performance right from the beginning. This is particularly true for the High traffic area; however, it is also true for the Medium traffic area. The High traffic area provides a solid VDL Mode 2 communication performance for the baseline scenario. However, this performance does not suffice to provide the required ATS application performance. Consequently it is no surprise that all subsequent years do not fulfil any of the desired performance criteria. A similar picture results for the Medium traffic area. The figures indicate a good VDL Mode 2 communication performance that is sufficient to support ATS application performance requirements for the baseline scenario. Nevertheless, all sub-sequent years do not support any of the required performance figures considering single frequency deployment. As such the concluding remark for single frequency deployments is that a quick adoption to multifrequency deployments is necessary in order to achieve the desired ATS application performance. 5.2.2.5.1 High traffic area The following contains a graphical overview showing the main capacity performance of the various VDL Mode 2 ground stations forming the VDL Mode 2 network. The capacity limitation results of the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations are expressed as relative value of “User Data Offered Load” to “User Data Throughput”. A coloured categorization has been applied to the results in order to support a quick and comprehensive understanding of the output: In the maps below, each VDL Mode 2 ground station is marked with a circle, which indicates the performance of the specific station: • >= 95%: very good (dark green) – PASS • >= 90% up to 95%: good (light green) – still PASS • >= 85% up to 90%: becoming critical (yellow) – BORDERLINE • >= 80% up to 85%: critical (orange) – definitely BORDERLINE • < 80%: (red) - definitely FAIL. 55 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged Figure 33 –VDL Mode 2 ground station network performance - Single Frequency scenarios – years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 5.2.2.5.2 Medium traffic area The following contains a graphical overview showing the main capacity performance of the various VDL Mode 2 ground stations forming the VDL Mode 2 network. The capacity limitation results of the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations are expressed as relative value of “User Data Offered Load” to “User Data Throughput”. A coloured categorization has been applied to the results in order to support a quick and comprehensive understanding of the output: In the maps below, each VDL Mode 2 ground station is marked with a circle, which indicates the performance of the specific station: • >= 95%: very good (dark green) – PASS • >= 90% up to 95%: good (light green) – still PASS • >= 85% up to 90%: becoming critical (yellow) – BORDERLINE • >= 80% up to 85%: critical (orange) – definitely BORDERLINE • < 80%: (red) - definitely FAIL. Figure 34 –VDL Mode 2 ground station network performance - Single Frequency scenarios – years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 5.3 Multi-Frequency deployment In order to clearly show the results of the study, we will separate high traffic area and medium traffic area, and on each area we will consider optimistic and medium traffic growth, together with or without AOC traffic migration, as defined on Table 8. 5.3.1 High traffic area 5.3.1.1 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 5.3.1.1.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϰϬϬϬϬ ϯϱϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 35 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area In this scenario - which is the highest data traffic scenario in the whole context of this study - user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Multi-Frequency Options (FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 357 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this highest data traffic scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient already for the year 2020 and certainly for the years beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2030, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2020 onwards. The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2035, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2025 onwards. SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the options FO4 or MF4 option, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2020/2025. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^Đ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϯ͘ϭ &KϮй ϵϲ͘ϱ ϴϬ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϯ &Kϰй ϵϳ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϱϬ͘ϭ ϱϲ ϱϬ͘ϴ ϰϴ͘ϵ ϳϱ͘ϭ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϲϳ͘ϴ ϲϮ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϴ ϴϭ͘Ϯ ϳϵ͘ϰ ϳϭ͘Ϯ ϳϬ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘ϴ ϵϯ͘ϭ ϵϬ͘ϴ ϴϰ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϵϲ͘ϰ ϵϰ͘Ϯ ϵϭ͘Ϯ ϴϳ͘ϵ Table 38 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "BORDERLINE" for the year 2020 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2025. • FO3: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2020 and 2025 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2030. • FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030 (but "FAIL" with regard to the TRTD values below), "BORDERLINE" for the year 2035 and "FAIL" for year 2040. • MF4: "PASS" for the years 2015 to 2025 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "PASS" for the years 2030 and 2035 (but "FAIL" with regard to the TRTD values below), and "BORDERLINE" for the year 2040. 5.3.1.1.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: th • 95 percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϭ͘ϰ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϰϴ͘ϴ ϱϭ͘ϰ ϰϭ͘ϵ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϬ͘ϲ ϱϵ͘ϰ ϱϵ͘Ϯ ϰϲ͘ϰ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϬ͘ϲ ϱϵ͘ϰ ϱϵ͘Ϯ ϰϲ͘ϰ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϲ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϲ͘ϵ ϳϬ͘ϭ ϱϴ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϲ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϲ͘ϵ ϳϬ͘ϭ ϱϴ͘ϵ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϳϲ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϵϰ͘ϲ Table 39 – TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area 60 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Lille ScA scenario: The Single-Frequency (SF) option "FAIL"s for all years 2015 and beyond. All Multi-Frequency Options (FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" for the year 2015, but FO2 and FO3 "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015, 2020; almost24 "PASS" for the years 2025; but "FAIL" for the years at and beyond year 2030. MF4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2025, but "FAIL"s for the year 2030. It should also be noted, that the ATS application performance results based on the TRTD values correspond well with the capacity limitation results presented above (except for SF for year 2015). 5.3.1.1.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ͕ϱ Ϭ Ϭ͕ϱ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ >ŝůůĞ^Đ Table 40 – Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. FO2, FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020; almost "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. MF4: "PASS" for the year 2015 up to 2025; almost "PASS" for the years 2030 and 2035; "FAIL" for the year 2040. Note: For this highest data traffic scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2030 onwards. 24 The 99th percentile with a value of 98.3% is close to the target value of 99%. 61 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.1.2 Optimistic air traffic growth – alternative AOC COM 5.3.1.2.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϯϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϱϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 36 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area In this scenario user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Multi-Frequency Options (FO2 – FO and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 18 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient already for the year 2020 and certainly for the years beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2030, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2020 onwards. The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2035, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2020 (FO4) or 2030 (MF4) onwards. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the multi-frequency options FO4 or MF4, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2025/2030. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 62 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϯ͘ϭ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϵ ϱϮ͘ϯ ϱϬ͘ϴ &KϮй ϵϲ͘ϱ ϴϬ ϳϳ͘ϳ ϳϳ͘ϳ ϳϭ͘ϯ ϳϬ͘ϭ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϴ ϴϯ͘ϰ ϴϮ͘Ϯ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϳϱ͘Ϯ &Kϰй ϵϳ ϵϱ͘ϴ ϵϯ͘ϵ ϵϮ ϴϴ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϯ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϭ ϵϱ͘ϰ ϵϯ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϰ Table 41 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA with AOC migration scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), but "BORDERLINE" for the year 2020 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2025. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2020 to 2030 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2035. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled), but "BORDERLINE" for the years 2035 and 2040. • MF4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to year 2030 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), and "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled). 5.3.1.2.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϲ͘ϲ ϰϳ͘ϯ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϱϯ͘ϲ ϱϲ͘ϲ ϰϳ͘ϯ ϰϰ͘ϳ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϬ͘ϲ ϲϰ͘ϲ ϲϰ͘ϲ ϱϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϬ͘ϲ ϲϰ͘ϲ ϲϰ͘ϲ ϱϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϲ ϵϴ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϳϳ͘ϳ ϳϯ͘ϰ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϲ ϵϴ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘ϳ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'ͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϴ ϵϱ ϵϮ͘ϵ Table 42 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area 63 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Lille ScA with AOC migration scenario: The Single-Frequency (SF) option "FAIL"s for all years 2015 and beyond. All Multi-Frequency Options (FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" for the year 2015, but FO2 and FO3 "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020; almost for the years at and beyond year 2035. 25 MF4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2035; almost "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030; but "FAIL" 26 "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. 5.3.1.2.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Table 43 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScA - Migration scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. FO2, FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020; almost "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. MF4: "PASS" for the year 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. The scenario shows advantages with regard to the MF4 frequency option compared to the Lille ScA scenario without AOC migration: MF4 can fulfil the requirements up to the year 2030. Note: for this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2035 onwards. 25 The 99th percentile with values of 98.8% and 97.7% is close to the target value of 99%. 26 The 99th percentile with values of 98.4% and 98.0% is close to the target value of 99%. 64 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.1.3 Median air traffic growth (ScC) 5.3.1.3.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϯϱϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬϬ ϮϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ >ŝůůĞ^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ >ŝůůĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 37 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area In this scenario user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Multi-Frequency Options (FO2 – FO and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 37 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient already for the year 2020 and certainly for the years beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2030, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2020 onwards. The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2030, but it should be noted that TRTD requirements are not met (at least) for the year 2020 (FO4) or 2035 (MF4) onwards. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the multi-frequency options FO4 or MF4, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2025/2030. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 65 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^Đ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘ϵ ϱϴ͘ϰ ϱϮ͘ϴ ϱϬ͘Ϯ &KϮй ϵϲ͘ϱ ϴϬ͘Ϯ ϳϲ ϳϳ͘ϵ ϳϬ͘ϯ ϲϳ͘ϯ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϴ ϴϯ͘ϱ ϴϮ͘Ϯ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϳϬ͘Ϯ &Kϰй ϵϳ ϵϲ ϵϯ͘ϳ ϵϭ͘ϴ ϴϳ͘ϰ ϴϯ͘ϵ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϳ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϱ ϵϭ Table 44 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), but "BORDERLINE" for the year 2020 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2025. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2020 to 2030 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2035. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled), but "BORDERLINE" for the years 2035 and 2040. • MF4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to year 2030 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), and "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled). 5.3.1.3.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: th • 95 percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϲ͘ϴ ϰϱ͘ϴ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϲ͘ϰ ϱϬ͘ϲ ϱϲ͘ϴ ϰϱ͘ϴ ϰϬ͘ϵ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϭ͘Ϯ ϲϰ͘ϴ ϲϰ͘ϰ ϱϮ ϰϰ͘Ϯ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϭ͘Ϯ ϲϰ͘ϴ ϲϰ͘ϰ ϱϮ ϰϰ͘Ϯ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϳϲ͘ϭ ϲϵ͘ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϳ ϵϳ͘ϲ ϵϰ͘ϯ ϲϵ͘ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϵϵ͘Ϯ ϵϴ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϭ Table 45 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area 66 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Lille ScC scenario: The Single-Frequency (SF) option "FAIL"s for all years 2015 and beyond. All Multi-Frequency Options (FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" for the year 2015, but FO2 and FO3 "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020; almost for the years at and beyond year 2035. 27 MF4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030; but "FAIL" 28 "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. 5.3.1.3.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^Đ Table 46 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC - scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. FO2, FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 and 2020; almost "PASS" for the years 2025 and 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. MF4: "PASS" for the year 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. The overall VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results are identical to the Lille ScA with AOC migration scenario. The scenario shows advantages with regard to the MF4 frequency option compared to the Lille ScA scenario without AOC migration: MF4 can fulfil the requirements up to the year 2030. Note: for this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2035 onwards. 27 The 99th percentile with values of 98.7% and 97.6% is close to the target value of 99%. 28 The 99th percentile with values of 98.1% and 97.1% is close to the target value of 99%. 67 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.1.4 Median air traffic growth (ScC) – alternative AOC COM 5.3.1.4.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϮϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 38 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area In this scenario user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Multi-Frequency Options (FO2 – FO and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 20 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient already for the year 2020 and certainly for the years beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2030; TRTD requirements are fulfilled up to the year 2025 (FO4) and year 2030 (MF4) and are almost fulfilled from 2030 (FO4) and 2035 (MF4) onwards. The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2030. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the multi-frequency options FO4 or MF4, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2025/2030. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 68 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^&й ϵϮ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ ϱϰ͘ϯ ϲϬ͘ϳ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϱϰ͘ϲ &KϮй ϵϲ͘ϱ ϴϬ͘Ϯ ϳϴ͘ϵ ϴϬ͘ϵ ϳϰ͘ϳ ϳϯ͘ϯ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϴ ϴϱ͘ϰ ϴϰ͘ϵ ϳϵ͘Ϯ ϳϴ &Kϰй ϵϳ ϵϲ ϵϰ͘ϲ ϵϮ͘ϵ ϵϬ͘Ϯ ϴϵ͘ϰ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘ϵ ϵϰ͘ϯ ϵϰ Table 47 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015 (but refer also to the TRTD values below), "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), but "BORDERLINE" for the year 2020 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2035. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2020 to 2030 and "FAIL" for all years at and beyond the year 2035. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2025 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2030 up to 2040 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled).. • MF4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to year 2030 (TRTD requirements are also fulfilled), and "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040 (TRTD requirements are also almost fulfilled). 5.3.1.4.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϴϳ͘Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ Ϭ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϲ͘ϰ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϱ ϱϮ͘Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϴ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϭ͘Ϯ ϲϴ͘ϱ ϲϵ͘ϵ ϱϵ͘ϴ ϱϳ͘ϱ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϭ͘Ϯ ϲϴ͘ϱ ϲϵ͘ϵ ϱϵ͘ϴ ϱϳ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϵ͘ϭ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϵϲ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϳ ϵϵ͘ϭ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϵϲ >ŝůůĞͺ^ĐͺD/'ͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϴ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϴ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϴ Table 48 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area 69 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Lille ScC with AOC migration scenario: The Single-Frequency (SF) option "FAIL"s for all years 2015 and beyond. All Mulit-Frequency Options ( FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" for the year 2015, but FO2 and FO3 "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2025; almost 29 "PASS" for the years 2030 to 2040. MF4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030; almost30 "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. 5.3.1.4.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Table 49 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area Conclusions for Lille ScC – AOC migration scenario: SF: "FAIL"s already from the year 2015 and all years beyond. FO2, FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2025; almost "PASS" for the years 2030 and 2035; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. MF4: "PASS" for the year 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. The scenario shows advantages with regard to the FO4 frequency option compared to the Lille ScC scenario without AOC migration: FO4 can fulfil the requirements up to the year 2025. Note: for this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2035 onwards. 29 The 99th percentile with values of 98.3%, 96.6% and 96.0% is close to the target value of 99%. 30 The 99th percentile with values of 98.9% and 98.8% is close to the target value of 99%. 70 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.2 Medium traffic area 5.3.2.1 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) 5.3.2.1.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϭϮϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϴϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϲϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 39 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area In this scenario the user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 3921 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the Single-Frequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient at least from the year 2025 and beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2035; TRTD requirements are met up to the year 2030 (FO4) and 2040 (MF4). The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2040, and it should be noted that TRTD requirements are fully met up to the year 2040. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the options FO4 or MF4 option, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2030. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 71 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϲϳ͘ϭ ϲϵ͘ϰ ϲϭ͘ϴ ϱϴ͘ϳ &KϮй ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϬ͘ϭ ϴϳ͘ϵ ϴϱ͘ϳ ϴϬ͘ϵ ϳϲ͘ϴ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϭ͘ϯ ϴϵ͘ϲ ϴϰ ϴϰ͘Ϯ &Kϰй ϵϴ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϰ ϴϵ͘ϭ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϴ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϲ͘Ϯ ϵϰ͘ϰ ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^&й Table 50 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015, "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2020 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2025 up to 2035 and "FAIL" for the year 2040. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2020 and 2025 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2030 onwards. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled), and "BORDERLINE" for year 2040. • MF4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 to 2035 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2040 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled). Note: Only Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) fulfils all requirements up to and including the year 2040. 5.3.2.1.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ Ϭ ϯϰ ϰϮ͘ϱ ϯϯ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϵ ϯϰ ϰϮ͘ϱ ϯϯ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϳ͘ϵ ϳϰ͘ϱ ϵϭ͘ϵ ϲϯ ϱϲ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϵϯ͘ϱ ϵϭ͘ϵ ϴϲ͘ϯ ϱϲ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϴϭ ϵϱ͘ϴ ϲϴ͘ϴ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϲ͘ϰ ϵϱ͘ϴ ϵϬ͘Ϯ Ϭ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϱ ϵϵ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϱ͘ϱ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϱ͘ϱ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϴ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ Table 51 – TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area 72 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Rome ScA scenario: All Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" with regard to the more stringent TRTD requirements for the year 2015; but SF, FO2 and FO3 "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030, and almost31 "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040. 5.3.2.1.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^Đ Table 52 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA scenario: SF, FO2: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; almost "PASS" for the year 2020; "FAIL" from the year 2025 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the year 2035; "FAIL" for the year 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years from 2015 up to 2040. For this scenario, 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. Frequency option FO4 is expected to be sufficient up to the year 2030. For this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will not be required until the year 2040 if Frequency Option MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is used. 31 The 95th percentile is fulfilled, but the 99th percentile is not fulfilled. 73 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.2.2 Optimistic air traffic growth (ScA) – alternative AOC COM 5.3.2.2.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϴϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϳϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ϰϬϬϬ ϯϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Figure 40 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area In this scenario the user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 39 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, also FO3 seems to be insufficient at least from the year 2025 and beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2035; TRTD requirements are met up to the year 2035 (FO4) and 2040 (MF4). The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2040, and it should be noted that TRTD requirements are fully met up to the year 2040. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the options FO4 or MF4 option, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2035. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 74 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϯ ϲϵ͘Ϯ ϳϯ ϲϯ͘ϵ ϲϰ͘ϴ &KϮй ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϬ͘ϭ ϴϴ ϴϳ ϴϯ ϴϭ͘ϱ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϯ ϵϬ͘ϵ ϴϱ͘ϯ ϴϲ͘ϯ &Kϰй ϵϴ ϵϳ͘ϳ ϵϲ͘ϲ ϵϱ͘ϳ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϴ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϴ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘ϵ ϵϲ͘ϳ ϵϱ͘ϴ ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^&й Table 53 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA with AOC migration scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015, "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2020 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2025 up to 2040. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2020 and 2025 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2030 onwards. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2035 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2040 (the TRTD values are almost fulfilled). • MF4: definitely"PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled). Note: Only Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) fulfils all requirements up to and including the year 2040. 5.3.2.2.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϵ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϰϴ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϯϳ͘ϭ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϳ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϵϯ͘ϯ ϵϯ͘ϱ ϴϵ͘ϭ ϴϳ͘ϭ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϲ͘ϳ ϳϭ͘ϱ Ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϯ ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϲ͘ϳ ϵϭ͘ϵ Ϭ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϲ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘Ϯ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϵϴ͘Ϯ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'ͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ Ϭ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϰϴ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϯϳ͘ϭ ϳϰ ϵϯ͘ϱ ϲϲ͘ϵ ϲϰ͘ϭ Table 54 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area 75 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Rome ScA with AOC migration scenario: All Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" with regard to the more stringent TRTD requirements for the year 2015; but SF and FO2 "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015, almost32 "PASS" for the years 2020 up to 2030, but "FAIL"s from the year 2035 onwards. . FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2035, and almost33 "PASS" for the year 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040. 5.3.2.2.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Table 55 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScA – AOC migration scenario: SF, FO2: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; almost "PASS" from the year 2020 up to 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2035; almost "PASS" for the year 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years from 2015 up to 2040. For this scenario, 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. Frequency option FO4 is expected to be sufficient up to the year 2035; this is an advantage compared to the Rome ScA scenario (without AOC migration) due to the reduced traffic load caused by the AOC migration. For this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will not be required until the year 2040 if Frequency Option MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is used. 32 th th The 95 percentile is fulfilled, the 99 percentile is not fulfilled, but the values 98.3%, 97.4% and 96.7% are close to the target value of 99%. 33 th th The 95 percentile is fulfilled, the 99 percentile is not fulfilled, but the value 98.2% is close to the target value of 99%. 76 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.2.3 Median air traffic growth (ScC) 5.3.2.3.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϵϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬ ϳϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϲϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϯϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 41 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area In this scenario the user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 39 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, but FO3 seems to be insufficient - at least with regard to the TRTD requirements (see below) from the year 2020 and beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2035; TRTD requirements are met up to the year 2030 (FO4) and 2040 (MF4). The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2040, and it should be noted that TRTD requirements are fully met up to the year 2040. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the options FO4 or MF4 option, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2035. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 77 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ZŽŵĞ^Đ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϳϬ ϳϯ͘ϵ ϲϲ ϲϭ͘ϴ &KϮй ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϬ ϴϳ͘ϲ ϴϵ ϴϯ͘ϱ ϴϭ͘ϰ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϭ͘ϵ ϵϭ͘ϰ ϴϲ͘ϳ ϴϯ͘ϳ &Kϰй ϵϴ ϵϴ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϱ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϴ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϴ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϳ ϵϱ͘ϴ Table 56 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015, "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2020 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2025 up to 2040. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2020 up to 2030 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2030 onwards. • FO4: definitely "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040 (the TRTD values are almost fulfilled). • MF4: definitely"PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled). Note: Only Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) fulfils all requirements up to and including the year 2040. 5.3.2.3.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: th • 95 percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99 percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds th ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϱ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϴ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϵ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϳ͘ϰ ϳϯ͘ϭ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ϲϴ͘ϭ ϲϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ ϯϴ͘ϯ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϴ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϰ͘ϵ ϵϮ͘ϳ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ϴϵ͘ϴ ϴϲ͘ϱ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϯ͘ϲ ϲϳ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϯ͘ϲ ϴϵ͘ϳ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϴ ϵϴ͘ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϴ ϵϴ͘ϭ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ Table 57 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area 78 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Rome ScC scenario: All Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" with regard to the more stringent TRTD requirements for the year 2015; but SF and FO2 "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015, almost34 "PASS" for the years 2020 up to 2030, but "FAIL"s from the year 2035 onwards. . FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030, and almost35 "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040. 5.3.2.3.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^Đ Table 58 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC scenario: SF, FO2: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; almost "PASS" from the year 2020 up to 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years from 2015 up to 2040. For this scenario, 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. Frequency option FO4 is expected to be sufficient up to the year 2030. For this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will not be required until the year 2040 if Frequency Option MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is used. 34 th th The 95 percentile is fulfilled, the 99 percentile is not fulfilled, but the values 98.4%, 97.2% and 97.2% are close to the target value of 99%. 35 th th The 95 percentile is fulfilled, the 99 percentile is not fulfilled, but the values of 98.1% are close to the target value of 99%. 79 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.2.4 Median air traffic growth (ScC) – alternative AOC COM 5.3.2.4.1 VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations ϳϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϲϬϬϬ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐD&ϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϰϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϰƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϯϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϯƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ&KϮƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^Đ^&ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 42 - Capacity Limitations, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area In this scenario the user data throughput results for the Multi-Frequency Options FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4 (explained in detail in sub-chapter 0) are considered and compared to the offered load and the Single-Frequency (SF) option. By applying any of the Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4), reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided today and in the near future. As can be concluded from this graph (Figure 42 above) and the capacity limitation value table below, although one additional frequency (Frequency options FO2) shows some advantage over the SingleFrequency (SF) scenario, this additional frequency cannot compensate for the significant increase of data traffic estimated for the year 2020 and beyond. Although two additional frequencies, i.e. a total of 3 available VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO3) show – as can be expected – further advantages for this scenario, but FO3 seems to be insufficient - at least with regard to the TRTD requirements (see below) from the year 2020 and beyond. However when applying a total of 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO4 and MF4), VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are not expected before the year 2035; TRTD requirements are met up to the year 2030 (FO4) and 2040 (MF4). The proposed Frequency Option 5 (=MF4) with load balancing shows a further advantage over option FO4, such that 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency options could be sufficient up to the year 2040, and it should be noted that TRTD requirements are fully met up to the year 2040. Therefore it can be concluded, that by applying the options FO4 or MF4 option, reaching VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations can be avoided at least up to the year 2035. It is recommended to investigate further in these promising results obtained when applying MultiFrequency option MF4. 80 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 By applying the capacity limitation criteria defined in sub-chapter 5.1 above, we get the following results: ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ ^&й ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϵϳ ϳϰ͘ϲ ϳϭ͘ϵ ϳϳ ϲϵ͘Ϯ ϲϳ͘ϴ &KϮй ϵϳ͘ϴ ϵϬ ϴϵ͘ϴ ϴϵ͘ϱ ϴϲ͘ϱ ϴϲ &Kϯй ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘Ϯ ϵϮ͘ϳ ϴϴ͘ϴ ϴϴ͘ϳ &Kϰй ϵϴ ϵϴ͘Ϯ ϵϳ͘Ϯ ϵϲ͘ϳ ϵϱ͘ϯ ϵϰ͘ϴ D&ϰй ϵϳ͘ϰ ϵϴ͘ϳ ϵϴ͘ϱ ϵϴ ϵϳ͘ϭ ϵϳ͘ϯ Table 59 - Capacity Limitation values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC – AOC migration scenario: • SF: "PASS" only for the year 2015, "FAIL" for all years at and beyond year 2020. • FO2: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the year 2020 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2025 up to 2040. • FO3: definitely "PASS" only for the year 2015 (the TRTD values are also fulfilled), "PASS" for the years 2020 up to 2030 (but the TRTD values below are not fulfilled), "BORDERLINE" for the years 2035 onwards. • FO4: definitely"PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled). • MF4: definitely"PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040 (the TRTD values below are also fulfilled). Note:Both Frequency Option 4 and 5 (=FO4 and MF4) fulfil all requirements up to and including the year 2040. 5.3.2.4.2 ATS application performance For these scenarios the ATS/CPDLC (pass/fail criteria) shows the following results for the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD): for the following performance requirements: • 95th percentile – target value (max) = 16 seconds • 99th percentile – target value (max) = 20 seconds ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲ&ƌĞƋƵ͘KƉƚŝŽŶ d^ͬW>dZd ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ^& dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϰϯ͘ϱ ϰϭ͘ϱ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϰϮ͘ϵ ϰϬ͘ϲ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&KϮ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϳϳ͘ϰ ϳϴ͘ϭ ϵϱ͘ϳ ϵϯ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϰ Ϭ ϰϭ͘ϱ ϱϰ͘ϵ ϰϮ͘ϵ ϰϬ͘ϲ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϭϬϬ ϵϰ͘ϵ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘ϳ ϵϯ͘ϭ ϵϮ͘ϰ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϯ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϴ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘Ϯ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϴ͘ϰ ϵϳ͘ϱ ϵϴ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘Ϯ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'Ͳ&Kϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϴ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘Ϯ ϵϵ͘ϭ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϵϵ͘ϵ ZŽŵĞͺ^ĐͺD/'ͲD&ϰ dZdфсϭϲƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ dZdфсϮϬƐĞĐŽŶĚƐŝŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ ϵϵ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ Table 60 - TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area 81 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Conclusions for Rome ScC with AOC migration scenario: All Frequency Options (SF, FO2, FO3, FO4 and MF4) "PASS" with regard to the more stringent TRTD requirements for the year 2015; but SF and FO2 "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 and almost36 "PASS" for the years 2020 up to 2040. FO4: "PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years 2015 up to 2040. 5.3.2.4.3 Combined VDL Mode 2 capacity and ATS application performance results The combined VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations and performance results (see sub-chapter 5.1 above for details) for the investigated scenario are summarized below. ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Table 61 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area Conclusions for Rome ScC – AOC migration scenario: SF, FO2: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; "FAIL" from the year 2020 onwards. FO3: "PASS" for the year 2015 only; almost "PASS" from the year 2020 up to 2030; "FAIL" from the year 2035 onwards. FO4: "PASS" for the years 2015 up to 2030; almost "PASS" for the years 2035 and 2040. MF4: "PASS" for all years from 2015 up to 2040. For this scenario, 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. Both Frequency Options FO4 and MF4 are expected to be sufficient up to the year 2040. For this scenario, more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies will not be required until the year 2040 if Frequency Option FO4 or MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is used. 36 th th The 95 percentile is fulfilled, the 99 percentile is not fulfilled, but the values 98.4%, 97.5%, 98.0% and 95.2% are close to the target value of 99%. 82 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 5.3.2.4.4 High traffic area The following contains a graphical overview showing the main capacity performance of the various VDL Mode 2 ground stations forming the VDL Mode 2 network. The figures on the next pages show for each year 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 and for each frequency option: • • • • • SF: Single Frequency FO2: Frequency Option 2 (2 frequencies) FO3: Frequency Option 3 (3 frequencies) FO4: Frequency Option 4 (4 frequencies) MF4: Frequency Option 5 (4 frequencies with load balancing) the VDL Mode 2 performance (capacity limitation) for each VDL Mode 2 ground station. The capacity limitation results of the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations are expressed as relative value of “User Data Offered Load” to “User Data Throughput”. A coloured categorization has been applied to the results in order to support a quick and comprehensive understanding of the output: In the maps below, each VDL Mode 2 ground station is marked with a circle, which indicates the performance of the specific station: • >= 95%: very good (dark green) – PASS • >= 90% up to 95%: good (light green) – still PASS • >= 85% up to 90%: becoming critical (yellow) – BORDERLINE • >= 80% up to 85%: critical (orange) – definitely BORDERLINE • < 80%: (red) - definitely FAIL. 83 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged Figure 43: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2015 Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 85 of 151 Figure 44: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 86 of 151 Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 87 of 151 Figure 45: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 88 of 151 Figure 46: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 89 of 151 Figure 47: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 90 of 151 Figure 48: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 91 of 151 Figure 49: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 92 of 151 Figure 50: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 93 of 151 Figure 51: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 94 of 151 Figure 52: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 95 of 151 Figure 53: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 5.3.2.4.5 Medium traffic area The following contains a graphical overview showing the main capacity performance of the various VDL Mode 2 ground stations forming the VDL Mode 2 network. The figures on the next pages show for each year 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 and for each frequency option: • • • • • SF: Single Frequency FO2: Frequency Option 2 (2 frequencies) FO3: Frequency Option 3 (3 frequencies) FO4: Frequency Option 4 (4 frequencies) MF4: Frequency Option 5 (4 frequencies with load balancing) the VDL Mode 2 performance (capacity limitation) for each VDL Mode 2 ground station. The capacity limitation results of the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations are expressed as relative value of “User Data Offered Load” to “User Data Throughput”. A coloured categorization has been applied to the results in order to support a quick and comprehensive understanding of the output: In the maps below, each VDL Mode 2 ground station is marked with a circle, which indicates the performance of the specific station: • >= 95%: very good (dark green) – PASS • >= 90% up to 95%: good (light green) – still PASS • >= 85% up to 90%: becoming critical (yellow) – BORDERLINE • >= 80% up to 85%: critical (orange) – definitely BORDERLINE Figure 54 - VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2015 Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 98 of 151 Figure 55: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 99 of 151 Figure 56: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 100 of 151 Figure 57: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 101 of 151 Figure 58: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 102 of 151 Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 103 of 151 Figure 59: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Optimistic Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 104 of 151 Figure 60: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2020 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 105 of 151 Figure 61: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2025 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 106 of 151 Figure 62: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2030 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 107 of 151 Figure 63: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2035 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged 108 of 151 Figure 64: VDL Mode 2 GS network performance – Median Traffic - Single- (SF) and Multi-Frequency scenarios: FO2, FO3, FO4, MF4 – Year 2040 SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 6 Conclusions This very detailed study have considered the complete European environment and traffic, for then focus the results on what the consortium believed are a good representation of an high density area and a medium density area in terms of traffic. All VDL Mode 2 ground stations, as indicated by CSPs/ANSP, have been considered in the ECAC area and, as terms of reference of the study, no geographical redistributions of those ground stations has been considered. Of course changing the distribution of VDL Mode 2 ground stations all around Europe may change the outcome of this study. The results of the study are based on assumptions, detailed within the document, that the consortium believed are representing the most realistic scenario until 2040. The VDL Mode 2 protocol considered is the one currently used by many European ANSPs/CSPs and indicated in the European Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 about requirements on data link services for the Single European Sky. The Multi-Frequency options, in terms of frequencies usage, are the one that the consortium believed are the most promising ones, in terms of better utilization of the four VDL Mode 2 channels. As general remark, the study have proved that: • VDL Mode 2 will reach a capacity limit at a certain point of time. Therefore it is urgent to work on the development of the next generation Datacom system. • Multi Frequency deployment is a “MUST” today, especially in area at high density area. Anyway it is important to start on having a single frequency environment working perfectly, on which a Multi Frequency environment can be built on top of. • A 4 frequencies implementation is a minimum to support VDL Mode 2 deployment until 2025 in high density area, if the datalink will be used as assumed on the study. • Other studies, outside of this VDL Mode 2 capacity scope, may consider the optimization of VDL Mode 2 protocol and some configuration changes on ground stations. Those activities may extend the viability of the VDL Mode 2 link beyond 2025 in high density area. The main conclusions for the single and multi-frequency environment are as follows: 6.1 High Traffic Area (Lille) This area reaches its VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations already today or in the near future. This is supported both by: • the comparison of the "offered load" (i.e. what a user wants to send (per time unit)) and the "user data throughput" (i.e. what is finally received successfully at VDL Mode 2 application level at the destination) and • the operational performance concerning ATS/CPDPC messages with regard to the Technical th Round Trip Delay (TRTD) for which target values (max) for the 95 percentile (16 seconds) and th for the 99 percentile (20 seconds) are defined in the reference document "Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements", Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014. In particular, we can see that: • for the optimistic traffic growth we have recorded: SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 65 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ͕ϱ Ϭ Ϭ͕ϱ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ >ŝůůĞ^Đ Figure 66 - Overall results, Single-Frequency (SF), optimistic traffic growth, high traffic area • for the optimistic traffic growth, with AOC migration, we have recorded: Figure 67 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Figure 68 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area • for the median traffic growth we have recorded: 110 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 69 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth, high traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^Đ Figure 70 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, high traffic area 111 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • Edition 00.00.006 for the medium traffic growth, with AOC migration, we have recorded: Figure 71 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ >ŝůůĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Figure 72 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, high traffic area The detailed VDL Mode 2 simulation results show, that from 2020 onwards (both for the optimistic traffic scenario as well as even for the median traffic scenario) there is a significant gap between the "offered load" and the "user data throughput", which means that data is significantly delayed and/or lost and the operational ATC/CPDLC performance requirements (TRTD) are not met. The following major airports are located within the high traffic area of interest (Lille): • Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS) • Brussels International (BRU) • Düsseldorf (DUS) • London City (LCY) • London Gatwick (LGW) • London Heathrow (LHR) • London Luton (LTN) • London Stansted (STN) • Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG) • Paris Orly (ORY) When analysing the VDL Mode 2 simulation characteristics and results in detail, the following performance results can be observed for the different VDL Mode 2 ground stations (ARINC and SITA) for the baseline year 2014/15: 112 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ϯϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϮϬϬ ǀŐ͘ ϭϱϬ d^>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ K>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ Ϭ D^ Zh >'t >,Z >dE ^dE ' KZz Figure 73 - High Traffic Area - ARINC Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 ARINC operates one VDL Mode 2 ground station per major airport. The total number of ARINC stations within the area of interest is 8. There is no ARINC station located in DUS and LCY. ϱϬϬ ϰϱϬ ϰϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϮϱϬ ǀŐ͘ ϮϬϬ d^>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬ K>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ KZzϳ WZϳ WZh 'y 'ϳ ^dEϳ Et/ϳ >,Zϳ >'tϳ >zϳ h^ϳ Zhϳ D^ϳ Ϭ Figure 74 - High Traffic Area - SITA Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 SITA operates one or two VDL Mode 2 ground stations on each of the major airports. The total number of SITA stations within the area of interest is 13. There are no ARINC stations located in DUS and LCY. The traffic load is highest in AMS and CDG and lowest in LTN (ARINC) and LCY (SITA). The ATS traffic exceeds the AOC traffic significantly in CDG only. The ATS and AOC traffic are approximately the same in AMS (high),DUS (medium), LCY (low), PAR7 (SITA; low), PARU (SITA; low)) and ORY (high). The ATS traffic is significantly lower than the AOC traffic in LGW, LHR. 113 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 The loss rates (see Appendix for details) are significantly high for AMS (ARINC) and BRU (ARINC). This is probably caused by the fact that adjacent VDL Mode 2 ground stations are farer away for ARINC than for SITA, as ARINC does not operate a VDL Mode 2 ground station in DUS. Please note, that the assumption for ATS data traffic is that every aircraft is transmitting data messages on a regular basis. Therefore, the data traffic volume of ATS becomes much higher than today. AOC data traffic was derived from real data application load based on input data from SITA. This clearly shows that ATS data application load will affect the data volume significantly once air space users are utilizing data communication means more heavily. Please note further that Figure 73 and Figure 74 (above) show only ATS and AOC results for the baseline scenario year 2014/2015. Please refer to Section 3.2.8 "Assumptions on AOC and ATS Traffic Load" for a clear picture on how ATS and AOC data traffic has been taken into account based on assumptions for ATN Baseline 1 (ATN/B1: year 2015 and year 2020), ATN Baseline 2 (ATN/B2; year 2025 and year 2030), and ATN Baseline 3 (ATN/B3; year 2035 and year 2040) and AOC evolution (year 2015 up to year 2040). The impact of these ATS and AOC data traffic assumptions are summarized for single-and multifrequency scenarios, high and medium traffic area (year 2015 up to year 2040) below. The main conclusions for the single and multi-frequency environment for the high density area are as follows: • A single VDL Mode 2 frequency (SF) seems not to be sufficient for the high density area for all investigated scenarios (optimistic or median traffic, with or without AOC migration) already for today (year 2015). • The Frequency Options with two VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO2) and three frequencies (FO3) are not expected to be sufficient from the year 2020 onwards. • A total of four VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. • Frequency Option FO4 (4 frequencies) is expected to meet the requirements at least until the year 2020 but certainly not from the year 2030 onwards. • Only Frequency Option MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is expected to provide the required performance until the year 2035. • For all scenarios (optimistic or median traffic as well as with or without AOC migration), more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies are expected to be required for the High density area (or areas with similar high air traffic density) at least from the year 2035 onwards. The main reason for the conclusion that two or even three VDL Mode 2 frequency channels will not be sufficient already from the year 2020 onwards, is the significant increase in data traffic load expected towards the year 2020. Compared to the year 2015 the ATS / Enroute traffic load for ATN_B1 (100% equipped rate) will increase - for the year 2020 - by a factor of around 2.5. Taking the increase of AOC data traffic (around 20%) and the increase of air traffic (around 32.000 flights today and around 40.000 flights expected in 2020) of around 25% into account the overall increase (ATS + AOC traffic) will be around 230 %. This is well confirmed by the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study, when looking into the graph (Figure 57 – Comparison of Offered Load for various scenarios – High traffic vs. Medium traffic area, below): The increase of Offered Load for the Lille area from 2015 to 2020 is 236% ! From this estimation it can be concluded that two and even three VDL Mode 2 frequency channels will not be sufficient to carry the increase of data amount which is expected to be around 2.5 to 3 times 114 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 higher for the year 2020 than today, when a single VDL Mode 2 frequency channel is reaching its saturation already today. This is well confirmed by the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study. 6.2 Medium Traffic Area (Rome) For this area, the single VDL Mode 2 frequency (SF) seems to be sufficient to manage the datalink traffic for the today’s scenario (2015), with performances that allow its usage for ATS traffic. However from 2020 onwards, a single frequency will not be sufficient, and so using the 4 VDL Mode 2 frequency channels will be required. This is supported by: • the comparison of the "offered load" (i.e. what a user wants to send (per time unit)) and the "user data throughput" (i.e. what is finally received successfully at VDL Mode 2 application level at the destination) and • the operational performance concerning ATS/CPDPC messages with regard to the Technical th Round Trip Delay (TRTD) for which target values (max) for the 95 percentile (16 seconds) and th for the 99 percentile (20 seconds) are defined in the reference document "Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements", Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014. In particular we can see that: • for the optimistic traffic growth we have recorded: Figure 75 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^Đ Figure 76 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth, medium traffic area 115 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • Edition 00.00.006 for the optimistic traffic growth, with AOC migration, we have recorded: Figure 77 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Figure 78 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, optimistic traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area • for the median traffic growth we have recorded: Figure 79 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth, medium traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^Đ Figure 80 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth, medium traffic area 116 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • Edition 00.00.006 for the medium traffic growth, with AOC migration, we have recorded: Figure 81 - Capacity Limitations and TRTD values, SF, Multi-Frequencies, medium traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ^& ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &KϮ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ Ϭ &Kϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ D&ϰ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ZŽŵĞ^ĐͲKDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ Figure 82 – Overall results, SF, Multi-Frequencies, median traffic growth with AOC migration, medium traffic area While there are 10 major airports in the high traffic area, there is only a single major airport and some smaller airports in the medium traffic area: • Rome Fiumicino • Rome Ciampino • Napoli Airport • Costa Smeralda (Olbia) Airport However it should be noted that a significant amount of en-route traffic is routed through the medium traffic area. The reason why significantly different conclusions with regard to the VDL Mode 2 capacity limitations are drawn for the high traffic area and the medium traffic area respectively is the different level of data traffic load as depicted in Figure 83 below. 117 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ϰϬϬϬϬ ϯϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϯϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϱϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϬϬϬ >ŝůůĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞ^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϱϬϬϬ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ Ϭ ZŽŵĞD/'^ĐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ Figure 83 – Comparison of Offered Load for various scenarios – High traffic vs. Medium traffic area The following can be concluded from this graph (Figure 83): • The data traffic load for the high traffic area (Lille) is about 3.5 times higher than for the medium traffic area (Rome). • The expected data load for the year 2020 is around 2.5 times higher than today for the Lille area, and around 3 times higher for the Rome area. • The expected migration to alternate communication technologies for exchanging AOC data traffic – instead over VDL Mode 2 - from the year 2025 onwards contributes significantly to a reduction of the data load. As is shown in this graph, even the optimistic traffic scenario with AOC migration (= MIG ScA) causes a lower data traffic load than the median traffic without considering AOC migration (= ScC). When analyzing the VDL Mode 2 simulation characteristics and results in detail, the following performance results can be observed for the different VDL Mode 2 ground stations (ENAV) for the baseline year 2014/15: ϰϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϮϱϬ ǀŐ͘ ϮϬϬ d^>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϱϬ K>ŽĂĚ;ďŝƚͬƐͿ ϭϬϬ ϱϬ Ϭ EWK>/ K>/ ZKDͲ ZKD&KϭͲ ZKD&KϮͲ /DW/EK ^DZ dZϯϯ^ Figure 84 - Medium Traffic Area - ENAV Stations – Baseline Year 2014/15 The following can be concluded from this graph (Figure 84): 118 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 • The number of aircraft is highest in ROMA FCO1 and lowest in ROMA ACC CIAMPINO and ROMA FCO2. • The traffic load is highest at ROMA FCO1 and lowest in ROMA ACC CIAMPINO and ROMA FCO2. • The ATS traffic exceeds the AOC traffic significantly in ROMA FCO1, in NAPOLI and in OLBIA only. • The AOC traffic is (slightly) higher than the ATS traffic in ROMA ACC CIAMPINO and in ROMA FCO2. The main conclusions for the single- and multi-frequency environment for the Rome area are as follows: • A single VDL Mode 2 frequency (SF) is sufficient for the Rome area for all scenarios (optimistic or median traffic, with or without AOC migration) for the year 2015 and the near future. • The Frequency Options with two VDL Mode 2 frequencies (FO2) and three frequencies (FO3) are not expected to be sufficient from the year 2020 onwards. • A total of four VDL Mode 2 frequencies will be required from the year 2020 onwards. • Frequency Option FO4 (4 frequencies) is expected to meet the requirements at least until the year 2030. • Both Frequency Options FO4 and MF4 are expected to fulfil the requirements up to the year 2040 for the scenario with median traffic growth (ScC) and switching to other AOC COM alternatives (AOC migration from the year 2025 onwards). • For all scenarios (optimistic or median traffic as well as with or without AOC migration), more than 4 VDL Mode 2 frequencies are not expected to be required for the Rome area until the year 2040 if the Frequency Option MF4 (or a frequency management strategy with similar performance) is used. The main reason for the conclusion that two or even three VDL Mode 2 frequency channels will not be sufficient already from the year 2020 onwards, is the significant increase in data traffic load expected towards the year 2020. Compared to the year 2015 the ATS / Enroute traffic load for ATN_B1 (100% equipped rate) will increase - for the year 2020 - by a factor of around 2.5. Taking the increase of AOC data traffic (around 20%) and the increase of air traffic (around 32.000 flights today and around 40.000 flights expected in 2020) of around 25% into account the overall increase (ATS + AOC traffic) will be around 230 %. This is confirmed by the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study, when looking into the graph (Figure 75, above): The increase of Offered Load from 2015 to 2020 for the Lille area is 236% and for the Rome area it is even higher (around 320%) ! From this estimation it can be concluded that two and even three VDL Mode 2 frequency channels will not be sufficient to carry the increase of data amount which is expected to be around 2.5 to 3 times higher for the year 2020 than today, when a single VDL Mode 2 frequency channel is reaching its saturation already today. This is well confirmed by the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study. 119 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 7 5HIHUHQFHV [1] Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements, Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014 [2] Requirements for monitoring through VDL Mode 2 channels edition, 0.4 - Eurocontrol [3] ICAO EUR FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT MANUAL, ICAO EUROPEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC OFFICE, Doc 011, Edition 2014 [4] Ad Hoc meeting on EUROCONTROL MF Roadmap, 2nd December 2013, EUROCONTROL [5] Steven C. Bretmersky, Robert R. Murawski, and Vijay K. Konangi. "Characteristics and Capacity of VDL Mode 2, 3, and 4 Subnetworks", Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, Vol. 2, No. 11 (2005), pp. 470-489. 120 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged Appendix A 3URJUDPPH0DQDJHPHQW A.1 Work Breakdown Structure The project was organised upon a Work Breakdown Structure which covered all required activities while allowing for clear identification of the competences to be provided by each Consortium partner. The Figure below summarises the highest level of the WBS decompositions into WPs and Tasks. Figure 85 - Work Breakdown Structure Each task was led by a single partner, which was overall responsible for the timely conduction of all activities. Each task was participated mainly by a number of partners, depending on the required competences. SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 A short description of each WP objectives follows in the next pages. A.1.1 WP1 Management Work Package 1 (WP1) will deal with the detailed project plan which is delivered through the deliverable D0. Enav leads this Work Package, with the contribution of all consortium partners. sWP 1.1 Overall Consortium Coordination This activity is dedicated to ensuring proper coordination at management level among partners. The Task is allocated to the consortium Steering Group, which will be the ultimate responsible to implement the project and is responsible for monitoring all the project activities, their progress, the milestones achieved, and the effort spent in future periods. In case of problems it will be also responsible to define mitigation actions or contingency plans to apply, and to look for arbitration among project parties in case of any issue being escalated at such level. The task will be conducted by organizing at least one plenary Meeting and a Final Closing Meeting. Webex meetings and offline coordination conducted by phone and email will be ensured as needed. sWP 1.2 Monitoring & Controlling, Risk management This activity will provide day by day control of the proper execution of the project, report, support finance administrations for timely and correct presentation of Eligible Costs, identify and prevent risk and mitigate their potential effect, identify and take advantage of any opportunity, address and help solving issues and the related escalation processes. The task is allocated to the consortium leader. sWP 1.3 Project & Demonstration Planning This activity will refine the project and demonstration planning within 30 calendar days after project KOM, as for Call Technical specifications. These will include a description of the simulation capabilities, the plan of simulation and experiments, the description of how the simulation assets will be integrated, an initial concept description with a preliminary list of use cases and their allocations to the demonstration activities. sWP 1.4 Quality Assurance & Configuration magament This activity will ensure that the Project complies with quality standard, by providing templates, ensure document archiving, versioning and sharing into a distributed collaborative environment. Whenever applicable, SESAR available templates will be adapted to keep consistency with the current way of working and avoiding "re-inventing the wheel". A.1.2 WP2 Characterization of Applications Work Package 2 (WP2) covers the characterization of all data applications relevant for the analysis. A pragmatic approach to characterize aeronautical data applications is used. The approach is based on the methodology described in section 3.1. In such a way it becomes possible to apply the same approach for all applications/services to be considered for this study. The output of that work package is the detailed characterization of all application/services including performance requirements. This characterization is used as direct input to create application profiles. Such an application profile is a set of applications/services to be used by aircraft. Application profiles is a part of a simulation scenario configuration. The characterization of applications/services include failure conditions. In such a way it becomes possible to assess a break-even performance of VDL Mode 2. The output of that work package is detailed in deliverable D1.1 “Detailed specification of the baseline scenario”. sWP2.1 LINK 2000+ Within this work package data link services specification with mandatory message set will be evaluated. Services are: • DLIC (Data Link Initiation Capability) 122 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 This service deals with exchange of address information („ATN-Port“), supported applications (type and version) etc. to allow for establishing a CPDLC transport connection between ground and airborne ATN system. • ACM (ATC Communication Management) This service covers Data Link supported automated hand-off. • ACL (ATC Clearances) This service includes clearances like „Heading Change, Climb/Descend to Fly“. • AMC (ATC Microphone Check) This service provides info to all A/C within sector to check „Stuck Microphone“. DFS leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. sWP2.2 FANS 1/A Within this work package data link services belonging to the FANS 1/A service set is evaluated: FANS1/A required ATS applications: • CM Application • CPDLC Application • ADS-C Application CPDLC consists of: • Clearance Delivery (CRD) Service • Information Exchange and Reporting (IER) Service • ATC Communications Management (ACM) Service • ATC Microphone Check (AMC) Service ADS-C consists of: • Position reports • Information Exchange and Reporting (IER) Service NATS leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. sWP2.3 AOC Within this work package AOC data link services is evaluated. Sources of reference are: • COCRv2 • SJU AOC Datalink dimensioning • Operational knowledge of supporting airlines (e.g. EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa) and Communications Service Provider (e.g.SITA) ENAV leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of SITA all the consortium partners. sWP2.4 ATN Service Set B2 Within this work package data link services belonging to the ATN Service Set B2 is evaluated. Required ATS applications: • CM Application • CPDLC Application • ADS-C Application CM application supports: • Data link Initiation Capability (DLIC) Service CPDLC application supports: • ATC Communications Management (ACM) Service • ATC Microphone Check (AMC) Service • Departure Clearance (DCL) Service 123 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis • • • • • • • • Edition 00.00.006 Clearance Delivery (CRD) Service Information Exchange and Reporting (IER) Service Position Report (PR) Service In Trail Procedure (ITP) Service Flight Interval Management (FIM) Service Oceanic Clearance Delivery (OCL) Service Data Link Taxi (D-TAXI) Service 4D Trajectory Data link (4DTRAD) Service ADS-C application supports: • Information Exchange and Reporting (IER) Service • Position Reporting (PR) Service • 4D Trajectory Data link (4DTRAD) Service Note: main enabler is ADS-C EPP (Extended Projected Profile) report, which contains the sequence of 1 to 128 waypoints or pseudo waypoints of the FMS active Flight Plan with associated constraints or estimates (altitude, time, speed, etc) and current gross mass. The 4DTRAD service uses CPDLC for the provision of 4D clearances and ADS-C for acquiring trajectory data from the aircraft by the 4DTRAD service provider for: • enhanced trajectory definition and prediction, • trajectory intent and trajectory constraint coordination, and • trajectory intent and trajectory constraint conformance monitoring. LFV leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. sWP2.5 Future Services beyond ATN B2 Within this work package data link services beyond ATN Service Set B2 is evaluated. Possible evaluations include (but are not limited to): • FIS/MET applications • Adapted AOC data applications • Full 4D application/service ENAIRE leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. A.1.3 WP3 Scenario Definition Work Package 3 (WP3) create a reasonable amount of simulation scenarios that is used as direct input for the simulations. A simulation scenario needs to consist of a mobility model (i.e. air traffic), a topology model (ground station deployment and frequency options), and a data model. The following items characterize a simulation scenario: • Air traffic (i.e. includes target year and growth assumptions) including area of interest • VDL Mode 2 Ground Station topology (geographical location of VDL Mode 2 ground stations) • Frequency deployment options (all options will be simulated separately) • Application profile to be used (i.e. applications/services specified in WP2) The output of that work-package is detailed in D1.1 “Detailed specification of the baseline scenario”. ENAV leads the entire Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. sWP3.1 Air Space Definition sWP 3.1 consider different aspects of the defined airspace that may become relevant for the study. It is intended to analyze a single airspace, however, if required the study not be restricted to a single airspace. It is noted, though, that the number of results and reports is kept at a manageable level. At the current state the area of interest is within the peak air traffic area of Europe (such as the extended 124 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 TMA areas of Paris and/or London). The output of this work-package is the definition of a dedicated air space to be analyzed. The output is represented as a polygon of geodetic edge points (i.e. latitude and longitude positions). sWP3.2 Deployment Options sWP 3.2 consider the VDL Mode 2 ground station deployment options and the prevision of percentage of capable aircraft per the different capability packages (as specified on WP2) . This includes the location of all available VDL Mode 2 ground stations within a given area of interest. Additionally, various options to deploy a multi-frequency strategy is elaborated within this workpackage. That is, 1.) A technical concept to realize a deployment of multiple frequencies within the given area of interest is elaborated in accordance with technical and possibly operational constraints. 2.) An operational concept to assign a frequency to any given aircraft. Possibilities for individual frequency selection algorithms may also be considered. The output of this work package is the position of each VDL Mode 2 ground station to be considered and a set of options to use multiple frequencies for the same ground station deployment. The frequency assignment strategy needs to be elaborated during the course of the study. Another output is the percentage of aircraft equipped with a certain technology. sWP3.3 Scenario compilation WP3.3 gathers the outputs of the different sub-work-packages of WP 2 and WP 3 and compiles the set of scenarios to be simulated. This list include all necessary parameter settings required by the simulation. A.1.4 WP4 Simulation and reports Work Package 4 (WP4) cover the simulation aspect of the study. In order to simulate the scenarios defined in WP3, different simulation tools will be used. These tools (described in the previous sections) need adaptations to comply with the study requirements. The output of this work package is reflected in multiple deliverables. Deliverable D1.2 “Simulation results template” provide the basis for the capacity and performance assessment of VDL Mode 2. Based on this template, results gained by running individual simulation scenarios is reported in separate deliverables (i.e. D2.X “Simulation run”). Finally, deliverable D3 “Final Report” reflect in a summary the key results gained from the complete simulation campaign. This deliverable also conclude the capacity and performance assessment of VDL Mode 2. University of Salzburg leads this Work Package, with the exclusion of sWP 4.5, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. sWP4.1 Air traffic generation and forecasts sWP4.1 is almost independent of other work-packages and can be immediately started from the beginning of the study. This work package make use of the air traffic simulation tool NAVSIM. WP4.1 produce air traffic for the target years of the study (i.e. 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040). Thereby, growth indicators of Eurocontrol’s latest long term forecasts is used. The regular update of the long term forecast that predicts air traffic up to the year of 2035 is used. For air traffic beyond that time a different report issued by Eurocontrol is used to estimate air traffic for the year 2040. These reports contain different growth scenarios where the following is considered: • Scenario A (global growth) – optimistic air traffic growth • Scenario C (regulated growth) – median air traffic growth The output of this work-package consist of 18 data files (based on XML) characterizing the air traffic of the desired target years and growth rates. These files will be used as direct input for the performance evaluation. Deliverable D3 “final report” describe the methodology to extrapolate air traffic to future target years. Additionally, the gained results of the air traffic extrapolation is shown within this report. 125 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 sWP4.2 VDL Mode 2 Network Simulation The VDL Mode 2 Network Simulation needs to provide an appropriate interface to configure the simulation in such a way that scenarios defined in WP3 comply with the capabilities of the simulator itself. That is, the configuration of a ground based network including VDL Mode 2 ground stations and frequency deployment options. TheVDL Mode 2 Network Simulation make use of the “Aeronautical Network Simulator” which is capable to simulate multiple different protocols given an appropriate topology. For this study the VDL Mode 2 protocol is required to be implemented and integrated into the “Aeronautical Network Simulator”. Thereby, the data exchange and link management procedures are of interest. Additionally, the Physical channel is simulated (i.e. interference caused by neighboring stations is reflected in the simulation). This VDL Mode 2 implementation will benefit from the VDL Mode 2 evaluation carried out in a co-operation with EuroControl from 2002 until 2005. The output of this work-package is a set of data files (based on XML) which are further processed by the statistical analysis tool. The amount of produced data files is dependent on the amount of evaluation scenarios which will be evaluated during the course of the study. The files contain all relevant information necessary to assess the simulation runs of a specific scenario appropriately (a single scenario consist of multiple runs based on different frequency deployment options elaborated in WP3). As such the required input for this work package is an appropriate scenario description in form of a configuration file. The VDL Mode 2 protocol conformance is verified through appropriate test procedures available within the SARPs of VDL Mode 2. sWP4.3 VDL Mode 2 Operational and Technical Constraints sWP4.3 reflect any know issues of VDL Mode 2 (i.e. experience gained by ANSPs during operation). Especially current practice of LINK 2000+ shows two effects which have significant impact on data throughput over VDL Mode2. One is related to the hidden ground transmission effect, which causes collisions of ground data transmissions at the airborne receiver side. This is due to the CSMA channel access scheme used in VDL Mode2 and the fact that ground transmissions cannot be treated as a cluster for several VGSs in place. The second effect is due to the implementation of selection of VGSs by the airborne radio. It turned out that not always the most logical selection is in place. A consideration of this effect might be useful to provide some guidelines for airborne radio manufacturer. sWP4.4 Statistical Evaluation and Reports Generation sWP 4.4 cover the implementation of a statistical evaluation and report generation tool. Thereby, produced output (in form of XML) is used as input to analyze required performance figures. A template is produced and documented in the form of deliverable D1.2 “Simulation Results Template”. All subsequent simulation reports is based on that template. The auto-generated reports is compatible with MS Word. sWP4.5 Validation of evaluation concept sWP4.5 constantly monitor and validate the simulation approach. That means that the implemented model and parameters of the evaluation environment is cross-checked with the information provided by partners. sWP4.6 Final Report Production sWP 4.6 produce a final synthesis report, reflected on the deliverable D3. This document is created bringing together the analysis of all scenarios defined on WP3, executed on WP 4.4 and validated by all consortium partners on WP 4.5. All relevant key metrics are detailed and as output a traceability matrix between operational improvements and technological enables is realized, highlighting the breaking point of VDL Mode 2 technology (standard and myltifrequency) and foreseen needed requirements on future datalink technologies. ENAV leads this sub-Work Package, with the contributions of all the consortium partners. 126 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 A.2 Deliverables Deliverable D0 - Detailed Project Plan Deliverable D1.1 - Detailed Specification of the Baseline Scenario Deliverable D1.2 - Simulation Results Template Deliverable D2.1 - Overview Simulation Results A.3 Schedule Figure 86 - GANTT of the project 127 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Appendix B Edition 00.00.006 6LPXODWLRQPRGHOVGHVFULSWLRQ During the introduction of new standards for data communication in aviation (i.e. mainly VDL mode 2, mode 3, and mode 4) a lot of research on the topic of VDL Mode 2 has been published; a paper called characteristics and capacity of VDL Mode 2, 3, and 4 sub-networks gave a good overview of the performance of each of those systems. Also, Eurocontrol conducted a study called “VDL Mode 2 Capacity Simulations Project” and published results in late 2006Error! Reference source not found.; USBG was part of this study. Figure 87: High Level view of simulation tool chain The approach of the VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis is based on a simulation tool chain where each element provides input to the next element of the chain. Each tool is based on a discrete event based simulation. 37 38 The first tool (NAVSIM : Air Traffic Calculation) provides the mobility of aircraft of a complete day 39 (i.e. 24 hours). The information of each aircraft is updated in discrete steps of 3 seconds . Thereby, important aspects such as position (i.e. longitude, latitude, and altitude), vertical intent, current 37 NAVSIM ATM/ATC/CNS Simulation Tool developed by Mobile Communications R&D (MCO) in close co-operation with University of Salzburg (USBG) 38 based on data provided by Eurocontrol/NM (former CFMU) for a reference day (whole ECAC area) 39 might be simulated or derived (interpolated) from time steps of about 1 minute (e.g. Consolidated Position Report (CPR) data) 128 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 domain (i.e. APT, TMA, ENR, or ORP), and current sector information are provided. Aircraft are generated for the core area of Europe. The amount of aircraft is extrapolated to the desired scenario (i.e. year and growth scenario). The second tool (VDL Mode 2 Topology Calculation) takes this information and calculates distances of individual aircraft to neighbouring aircraft and visible ground stations. The distances are updated in the same discrete steps as the granularity of the aircraft mobility model. Neighbouring aircraft are all aircraft which are within the radio horizon. The same is true for visible ground-stations. The second tool requires input data such as ground-station positions (latitude, longitude, and altitude), operating frequency, and parameters necessary for link budget calculation such as transmission power or antenna gain. Due to the geographical areas that have been assessed we did not consider any digital elevation model as obstacles are not expected within the evaluated area. The third tool (VDL Mode 2 Protocol and Channel Simulation) takes the mobility, topology, data model, and additional scenario configuration parameters and produces VDL Mode 2 performance data. Each simulation scenario is simulated with multiple different initial seed settings, thus providing confidence intervals for all results. The gained performance data is stored for each seed in a separate xml file. The fourth and final tool (VDL Mode 2 Report Generator) takes all performance data of a single scenario setup and calculates performance figures. These figures are then provided in separate simulation reports. These reports are auto-generated. For concluding comparisons the “VDL Mode 2 Report Generator” keeps data of interest for the final report. B.1 Mobility Model Eurocontrol has provided an update of the long term forecast that predicts air traffic up to the year of 2035 [c.f. GROWTH REPORT 2035]. For air traffic beyond that time a different report issued by Eurocontrol can be used to estimate air traffic for the year 2040 [c.f. GROWTH REPORT 2050]. These reports contain different growth scenarios where the following is considered: • • Scenario A (global growth) – optimistic air traffic growth Scenario C (regulated growth) – median air traffic growth The extrapolated air traffic including position data (latitude, longitude, and altitude), flight domain, and sector information form the mobility model of the study. This methodology has been applied for previous projects and is applied for this study as well. In order to simulate and produce air traffic profiles for dedicated areas and future reference scenarios a simulation tool is necessary. The approach and methodology to extrapolate air traffic to future target years has been successfully applied in the past. This section describes the capabilities of the air traffic model and shows pragmatically the approach to extrapolate air traffic of today to the future based on the simulation tool NAVSIM. The NAVSIM tool is capable to simulate all phases of flight (i.e. Communications at departure gate (1), during taxiing (2), Take-Off (3), On Departure Route SID (4), En-Route (5), Arrival STAR, Approach and Final Approach (6), Landing (7), Taxiing (8), Communications at destination gate (9)) taking the characteristic performance data of each aircraft type (based on “Base of Aircraft Data” 40 (BADA ) data) into account. This allows simulating accurately the time instances an aircraft remains within the various domains (i.e. Airport (APT), Terminal Maneuvering Area (TMA), and En-route (ENR) also including Oceanic Remote and Polar (ORP) regions). Air traffic (consisting of several thousands of aircraft) is usually simulated with time steps of around one second and can be simulated in a very detailed approach for microscopic scenarios (i.e. APT and TMA areas) where intervals of position updates can be rather short (smaller than 50 milliseconds). For large scale evaluations air traffic (consisting of several ten-thousands of aircraft and up to around 300.000 aircraft for a worldwide scenario) is simulated in a coarse-grained approach (position updates larger than 3 seconds). 40 https://www.eurocontrol.int/services/bada 129 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Aircraft are created at departure airports 30 minutes before the Calculated Take-Off Time (CTOT). Briefly before take-off (i.e. during "taxiing") the aircraft moves toward the runway. Take-off, climbing, cruising, and descending behavior are based on the aircraft type. The flight track an aircraft is flying is according to a known flight plan from which the actual flight path is derived, emulating a generic Flight Management System (FMS) for each aircraft. After landing the aircraft is deleted from the simulation around 15 minutes after touchdown. In addition to all phases of flight, performance based flight characteristics, and realistic flight tracks NAVSIM can also provide information about the ATC sectors (which is important for ATC data application triggers). The NAVSIM tool is simulating air traffic based on scheduled flights. Data on scheduled flights is retrieved from Eurocontrol Network Operations (formally called Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU)) for specific reference days. Data for a reference day (around 30.000 flights) contain all flights within the ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) area, but also all flights outside the ECAC area if the flight departs from, arrives at, or overflies the ECAC area. In order to generate future air traffic based on this data the following steps are conducted: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) Generate a reference day based on data from Eurocontrol Network Operations Evaluate growth factors based on Eurocontrol’s long term forecasts (from STATFOR) Include additional flights to reference day based on a specific algorithm (explained below) Validate retrieved results (through comparison with output of Eurocontrol’s SAAM tool) STEP 1: Simulating future air traffic requires the generation of individual future flights. For this reason an approach has been developed, which is based on the air traffic of a reference day with the following main characteristics: • • • Detailed statistics of all flights of the reference day are available, including especially all departure / destination airport pairs (flight relations) for each country in the area of interest. For each such flight relation the number of flights in both directions is available. All future air traffic scenarios are an extension of the reference day’s traffic scenario, i.e. each individual flight of the reference day is also contained unchanged in the future scenario. STEP 2: Eurocontrol’s long term forecasts provide individual air traffic growth factors for each European country. Based on the reference day’s air traffic the following parameters need to be assessed: • • • • Growth factor of each individual country Total flights within each country (i.e. departure and destination pair is within same country) Total number of flights to other countries Total number of flights between each flight relation in either direction STEP 3 Based on steps 1 and 2 an extension factor can be calculated. This extension factor is a separate multiplication factor for national flights and for international flights of a specific country, respectively. The calculation is done in the following way: • • • Considering flight relations between two countries, the lower growth rate is taken to increase the number of flights between the two countries in question. Running this calculations for all “country pairs” in the area of interest results in a growth rate that is still too low (as the minimum growth rate is considered for each relation). In order to achieve the target growth rate for each country the required number of additional flights within the country in question is calculated. 130 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 From this the total number of future flights and the future extension factor is calculated for each pair of countries (including flights within each country). As a result, future air traffic scenarios can be generated satisfying the individual air traffic growth rate of each country in the area of interest. STEP 4: To validate the results, the number of flights in the simulation for each country and each air traffic scenario (2015 to 2040, Scenarios A, C and D) is compared with the number of flights for the reference day per country and applying a multiplication factor according to the growth rate as specified in the Eurocontrol / STATFOR Long-term forecast statistics for each country. Furthermore – in the past – the results for the year 2020 have already been validated with available data from Eurocontrol (SAAM 2020 scenario) and have shown a very good correspondence (in terms of Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count (PIAC) for the ECAC area) between the “NAVSIM/2020/Low D” scenario and the SAAM data for the year 2020. NAVSIM is implemented in Delphi and runs on any Microsoft Windows platform. B.1.2 Air Traffic data file The air traffic reference (mobility) data has been provided on courtesy by Eurocontrol/NM. The following describes the main characteristics of the reference air traffic data: Reference Day: August 29th, 2014 (last Friday in August; high/peak day of year 2014) Type of Flights: All IFR Flights (within / to / from) ECAC area on reference day Number of Flights: 32817 (within 24 hours) Main data provided for each flight: • • • • • • • Callsign / Operator Type of Aircraft Departure and Destination Aerodrome ETD, CTD, ATD (Estimated, Calculated, Actual Time of Departure) ETA, CTA, ATA (Estimated, Calculated, Actual Time of Arrival) Flight Route by Point Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude and Altitude / FL) Flight Route by Air Space Profile (Entry / Exit Time) Based on STATFOR air traffic forecast data described above (year 2014 to 2040; Scenarios A, C and D), the following number of flights have been calculated for the whole ECAC area (within 24 hours) based on the reference day (August 29th) of the year 2014: Median Optimistic 2015 MOB_2015_M: 34,078 MOB_2015_O: 34,078 2020 MOB_2020_M: 40,174 MOB_2020_O: 41,067 2025 MOB_2025_M: 45,172 MOB_2025_O: 47,833 2030 MOB_2030_M: 49,539 MOB_2030_O: 54,566 2035 MOB_2035_M: 53,544 MOB_2035_O: 61,203 131 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis MOB_2040_M: 58,693 2040 Edition 00.00.006 MOB_2040_O: 70,319 Table 62: Expected number of flights of mobility scenarios from 2015 to 2040 The following figure shows the expected number of flights within the whole ECAC area for the years th 2014 to 2050; Scenarios A, C, and D) based on the reference day (August 29 ) of year 2014: EƵŵďĞƌŽĨ&ůŝŐŚƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƌĞĂ;ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚĂǇ͖ϮϰŚͿ ϭϬϬϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬϬ ϴϬϬϬϬ ϳϬϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ŽƉƚŝŵŝƐƚŝĐͿ ϱϬϬϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ŵĞĚŝĂŶͿ ϰϬϬϬϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ;ƉĞƐƐŝŵŝƐƚŝĐͿ ϯϬϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬϬ Ϭ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϮϬϰϬ ϮϬϰϱ ϮϬϱϬ Figure 88: Number of Flights within ECAC Area (peak day 2014; 2015 to 2050 (forecast)) B.2 Topology Model As depicted in the high level view of the simulation approach (c.f. Figure 87) it can be seen that the VDL Mode 2 topology calculation takes three data input sources: 1. The previously generated mobility model (containing all flights within the area of interest) 2. Ground station information (i.e. location of all European VDL Mode 2 ground stations) 3. Topology configuration data (i.e. diverse parameters) The topology model addresses the following aspects: 1. Area of interest used to evaluated performance characteristics 2. Ground station locations and characteristics 3. Link Budget model used to calculate interference 4. Mobility management used to determine handoff decisions 5. Deployment options used to analyse different frequency settings B.2.1 Area of interest Figure 90 gives an overview of the simulated reference area and the involved data link topology. The black lines indicate simulated air traffic tracks. The red ellipses show the areas of interest for a high data link usage environment (High density area) and a low data link usage environment (Rome area), 132 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 respectively. These areas are represented as ellipses as the Mercator projection distorts the circular area of interest with a radius of roughly 150 nautical miles. Each available VDL Mode 2 ground station within the simulated reference area is simulated, however, evaluated are only those which are located within the areas of interests for high and low data link usage, respectively. These ground station positions are represented as orange circles – the remaining ground stations are represented as green circles. th Figure 89: Number of flights on reference day (Aug. 29 2014). The areas of Lille and Rome have been selected to represent high and low data link usage environments, respectively. The area with high air traffic density is the area with roughly 150 nautical miles (nm) radius around Lille, France. All major airports within the capital areas of London, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam lay within this area. Figure 89 highlights the number of flights within selected areas of interest. This figure clearly shows that the High density area contains most flights across Europe while Rome reflects an area with comparably low air traffic. 133 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 90: Simulated area including areas of interest with high and low data traffic. B.2.2 Ground Station characteristics The following tables indicated the ground station characteristics of the evaluated ground stations that are located within the two areas of interest. Code City Airport Country OWNER FRQ Power AMS7 Amsterdam Schipol Netherlands SITA 136,975 20 W BRU7 Brussels National Belgium SITA 136,975 20 W CDG7 Paris CDG France SITA 136,975 20 W CDX Paris CDG France SITA 136,975 10 W DUS7 Düsseldorf Int’l Germany SITA 136,975 20 W LCY7 London City Airport UK SITA 136,975 20 W LGW7 London Gatwick UK SITA 136,975 5 W LHR7 London Heathrow UK SITA 136,975 20 W NWI7 Norwich Int’l UK SITA 136,975 20 W ORY7 Paris Paris Orly France SITA 136,975 20 W PAR7 Paris No Airport France SITA 136,975 20 W PARU Paris No Airport France SITA 136,975 10 W Table 63: Evaluated SITA network relevant for area of interest with high data link usage Code City Airport Country OWNER FRQ Power AMS Amsterdam Netherlands ARINC 136,975 20 W BRU Brussels Belgium ARINC 136,975 20 W CDG Paris France ARINC 136,975 20 W LGW London UK ARINC 136,975 20 W LTN London UK ARINC 136,975 20 W ORY Paris France ARINC 136,975 20 W STN Paris France ARINC 136,975 20 W Table 64: Evaluated ARINC network relevant for area of interest with high data link usage Code City Airport Country OWNER FRQ Power Ciampino - Italy ENAV 136,975 40 dBm 134 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Code City Airport Country OWNER Edition 00.00.006 FRQ Power ATCR-33S FCO Italy ENAV 136,975 40 dBm SMR-B FCO Italy ENAV 136,975 47 dBm Napoli Italy ENAV 136,975 47 dBm Table 65: Evaluated SITA & ARINC network relevant for area of interest with low data link usage NOTE 1: In Italy all ground stations are operated by ENAV, hence SITA and ARINC use the same access network to provide services to their customers. NOTE 2: The antenna radiation pattern is assumed to be omnidirectional for each antenna. That is, all aircraft that are in line of sight of an antenna are capable to receive signals from that ground station. NOTE 3: The listed power in the tables above is understood as EIRP. B.2.3 Link Budget Model The “Signal in space minimum aviation system performance standards (MASPS) for advanced VHF digital data communications including compatibility with digital voice techniques” VDL_MASPS describes the link budget for VHF Data Link in Appendix L. For this study it is reasonable to take this model as direct input for the simulation. Within this section the link budget calculations are described – details can be found the previously mentioned document. B.2.3.1 Link budget theory For any radio link, the achieved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) determines the quality of the received signal. For radio systems using digital transmission techniques, the signal quality is normally expressed in terms of bit error rate (BER) or the packet error rate (PER), both of which are related to SNR by well-known formulations. The received signal level on VHF line-of-sight paths is given by PR = PT GT GR λ 2 ×C LT LR (4πρ )2 2 §G · §G · § λ · 1 = PT × ¨ T ¸ × ¨ R ¸ × ¨ ¸ × © LT ¹ © LR ¹ © 4πρ ¹ LGR PR and PT are the received and transmitted power respectively, GR and GT are the receive L L and transmit antenna gain respectively, R and T are the receive and transmit line losses L respectively, λ is the wavelength, and GR is the squared magnitude of a complex-valued term that where accounts for interference between the direct line-of-sight and ground reflection paths. 2 § λ · ¨ 4πρ ¸ ¹ is the free-space propagation loss, which may be expressed in decibels as The factor © LFS = 37.8 + 20log10 ( ρ ) + 20log10 ( f ) 135 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 LFS is the free-space loss in decibels, ρ is line-of-sight distance (slant range) between the transmitter and receiver in nautical miles, and f is the operating frequency in Megahertz. Due to the where fact that the free-space propagation loss can be assumed as worst case a different model has been applied. Namely, the propagation curves as recommended in the “Recommendation ITU-R P.528-3 (02/2012) Propagation curves for aeronautical mobile and radio navigation services using the VHF, UHF and SHF bands”. L The term GR accounts for the combined effects of reflection from the Earth's surface and the dependence of the atmosphere's refractive index on aircraft altitude. These effects have been modelled in the Johnson-Gierhart model (refer to VDL_MASPS for more details). The error performance of the link is determined by the ratio of the average received power to the average noise power, that is, by the signal-to-noise ratio. This requires that we estimate the amount of noise present in the receiver signal processing bandwidth (again for more details refer to VDL_MASPS). B.2.3.3 Link budget simulation For every simulated Node (ground station, aircraft) the received power level is calculated by summing up all currently available signals. In order to calculate the SNR, all other signals during a transmission are taken into account (these signals are considered as external noise). All undesired signals that are received during the time period of the desired signal (c.f. figure 65) are accumulated. The interfering signals are accumulated; however, the inference is accounted only for the amount of time the interference was present during the observed time period. In other words an average value is used. This is a valid approach as the physical layer applies code interleaving. Based on the retrieved signal to noise ratio it is possible to calculate the bit error rate for received physical frames. Interference 4 Interference 3 Desired SIGNAL Interference 2 Interference 1 Figure 91: Interference The distance between aircraft and neighbouring/visible ground stations and aircraft is always known during the simulation (based on line of sight calculations). The following steps is considered in order to determine whether a data packet is received correctly: 1.) If an aircraft or a ground station transmits data each neighbouring/visible ground station or aircraft knows the received power based on a link budget calculation. That is the SNR of each received data packet can be calculated. 2.) Based on known VDL Mode 2 performance (i.e. PER (based on code word length) to SNR) it is possible to determine the packet error rate. From the known “PER error curve” it is possible to derive an error probability for that specific packet. 3.) A random process decides if the packet is dropped 136 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 NOTE: It is assumed that the interference of different VDL frequencies is negligible. NOTE: It is assumed that interference is Gaussian distributed (i.e. SINR == SNR). In order to determine whether a channel is idle or busy a threshold is used. The received power (based on link budget calculation) is aggregated (linearly). If the threshold is exceeded the channel is sensed as busy. Ground Station Transmitter Power 5W – 50W (36dBm – 47dBm) Ground Station Cable Loss 4.5 dB Ground Station Antenna Gain 0 dBi Aircraft Transmit Power 15 W = 41.8 dBm Aircraft Cable Loss 3 dB Aircraft Antenna Gain -4 dBi Ground Station Receiver Noise Figure 10 dB Aircraft Receiver Noise Figure 14 dB External System Noise Figure 10 dB Modulation D8PSK Channel Symbol Rate 10,500 symbols per second Table 66: Parameters used for link budget calculation. B.2.4 Mobility Management The mobility management determines the initial VDL Mode 2 ground station selection and the handover/hand-off procedures. The initial ground station selection algorithm is based on the best received signal. The procedure itself is based on the standard algorithm. The following information is considered for hand-over/hand-off: 1. Priority is given to VDL station declared as ATN capable (we consider all stations as ATN capable). 2. When a connection is established, there are 2 possible events that trigger a change: a. When the Quality of the signal is too low (i.e. SQP <= 3), or b. When the system fails to send a message after a certain number of attempts. That is, the N2 parameter is reached (N2 equal to 6). B.2.5 Deployment Options Four different deployment options are considered to address multi-frequency: Channel Data traffic carried by frequency Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data FRQ Option1 FRQ 1 Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Table 67: Frequency Option 1: Single frequency. 137 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Channel FRQ Option 2 FRQ 1 FRQ 2 Edition 00.00.006 Data traffic carried by frequency Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Table 68: Frequency Option 2: Multi frequency deployment with two frequencies. Channel FRQ 1 FRQ Option 3 FRQ 2 FRQ 3 Data traffic carried by frequency Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Table 69: Frequency Option 3: Multi frequency deployment with three frequencies. Channel FRQ 1 FRQ Option 4 FRQ 2 FRQ 3 FRQ 4 Data traffic carried by frequency Ͳ Common Signalling Channel (CSC) data Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that are flying in the TMA/ENR domain Ͳ Data traffic of aircraft that stay in the airport (APT) domain Table 70: Frequency Option 4: Multi frequency deployment with four frequencies. The algorithm to select a VDL Mode 2 frequency in one of the Multi-Frequency (MF) scenarios is implemented as follows: An airborne VDL Mode 2 station (aircraft) always logs onto the VDL Mode 2 network via the Common Signalling Channel (CSC; 136.975 MHz) responding to the periodically transmitted Ground Station Information Frames (GSIF). Then the VDL Mode 2 ground station decides on which frequency the further communication data exchange is carried out. For all aircraft in the airport domain (APT) either the CSC or one of the APT frequencies is chosen. This selection is based on the lowest number of aircraft allocated to a specific ground station. In case that the airborne VDL Mode 2 station (aircraft) is within the TMA/ENR domain during the initial establishment of the VDL Mode 2 connection via the Common Signalling Channel (CSC) - on request of the VDL Mode 2 ground station – the aircraft is either handed over to the VDL Mode 2 frequency foreseen to handle TMA/ENR data traffic or stays on the CSC. As explained above, this decision is based on the current lowest number of aircraft allocated to the VDL Mode 2 ground stations in question. In case that the domain in which an aircraft is already in (either airport (APT) domain or TMA/ENR domain) changes, that is either from APT domain to TMA/ENR domain (initial phase of a flight) or from TMA/ENR domain to APT domain, the VDL Mode 2 ground station decides whether a handover has to be carried out as follows: Current domain APT Next domain TMA/ENR TMA/ENR APT Current frequency CSC APT CSC Next frequency CSC or TMA/ENR CSC or TMA/ENR CSC or APT TMA/ENR CSC or APT Remark APT could be one of two APT frequencies APT could be one of two APT frequencies 138 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 The decision which VDL Mode 2 frequency to chose (CSC, APT or TMA/ENR) again depends on the lowest number of aircraft currently allocated to the target (next) frequency. B.3 Data Application Model The data application model needs to represent a realistic system load. The intention of this data model is not the implementation of an interactive application processes. However, the attempt is to model the load as realistically as possible. The generation of data application messages is based on the flight path of simulated aircraft. That means, all phases of flight are reflected in simulated flight paths. In order to trigger data applications at the right simulation time of a flight it is necessary to identify possible trigger events for data applications of simulated flights. Trigger Events can be: - Change of ATC domain (APT arr., APT dep., TMA arr., TMA dep., ENR, ORP) - Change of ATC sector - Change of vertical intent (i.e. cruise, climb, descend) – not considered in this simulation - Change of APT position (i.e. Ramp, Ground, Tower) – not considered in this simulation APT TMA ENR TMA APT Instance 1 Instance 2 Sector n Ramp Sector 2 Ground Sector 1 Tower Tower Ground Ramp Instance 3 Possible Triggers Figure 92: Possible trigger events of a simulated flight. Based on the “Trigger Event” it is possible to derive a time window within the simulation. Figure 92 represents this time window as “Instance”. That is, after a “Trigger Event” happens it is possible to schedule message exchanges within this window. An application instance contains of 1 to n dialogues, where a dialogue may consist of 0 to f Forward Link FL messages and 0 to r Reverse Link RL messages (Figure 93). An aeronautical data communication service may start its dialogues within a service instance either at the beginning, at the end, or (in absence of a specification) at a random point during the service instance duration. If a service instance consists of more than one dialogue the dialogues are evenly distributed with a random offset (up to +/-10% of the service instance duration). 139 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 93: Application instance and corresponding dialogues. Forward link and reverse link messages may be separated by the human interaction time HIT (if applicable) and the Required Communication Technical Performance RCTP one way latency. The RCTP is the required 95% percentile latency of any aeronautical data link technology. The maximum execution time is calculated through the separation time of consecutive forward link and reverse link messages. This interval time is calculated through the RCTP one way latency and (if applicable) HIT multiplied by two (Figure 94). This models an interactive application data exchange (i.e. a message and a response) performed over a data link technology providing the minimum latency requirements which are defined by the RCTP. The human interaction time is only included if the application message generation is human dependent. Forward L. Reverse L. (RCTP+HIT)*2 RCTP+HIT (RCTP+HIT)*2 Figure 94: Calculation of maximum execution time for a dialogue B.3.1 ATS data traffic Current air traffic control is based on voice exchanges between aircraft crew and air traffic controllers. In order to introduce data link communication utilized for air traffic control aircraft and air traffic control canters need to be equipped in terms of hardware and software, respectively. Currently the vision is that data link is introduced for air traffic control in 3 phases. These phases are realized through programs called “ATN B1”, “ATN B2”, and “ATN B3”. Assumptions with respect to ATS datalink program: • 100 % ground equipage rate. That is, if aircraft are capable to use ATN B 1/2/3 data link message exchanges, they is able to use it at any time. • If aircraft are capable to use ATN B2 they will use only the defined set of message for ATN B2. • If aircraft are capable to use ATN B3 they will use only the defined set of message for ATN B3. • FANS 1/A communications over VDL Mode 2 are assumed to behave as ATN communications. The following table indicates the equipage rate with respect to all simulated flights assumed for the different simulated years: ATS ATN B1 2015 80 % 2020 100 % 2025 100 % 2030 100 % 2035 100 % 2040 100 % 140 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis 0% 0% ATS ATN B2 ATS ATN B3 0% 0% Edition 00.00.006 20 % 0% 80 % 0% 100 % 20 % 100 % 80 % ATS Communication profile B1 Assumptions on application data messages simulated for ATS data traffic. Ͳ ATN B1 communication profile 2015 (ENR only) o Transfer of communication (1 UL and 1 DL) per sector (approximately every 6 min) o clearance (1 UL and 1 DL) per sector (approximately every 6 min) o message size: 200 byte Ͳ ATN B1 communication profile from 2020 onwards (ENR only) o Transfer of communication (1 UL and 1 DL) per sector (approximately every 6 min) o 3 messages (1 UL and 1 DL) per sector (approximately every 6 min) NOTE: Message size is assumed to be constantly 200 bytes. ATS Communication profile B2 / B3 Note: The above mentioned model is applied to produce application data according to the characteristics presented in the table below. These applications are valid for both ATN B2 and ATN B3, respectively. However, performance requirements are more stringent for ATN B3 applications. ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞͺEĂŵĞ d KD WdͺW Dͺ>/ d^ Wdͺ ƌĂŵƉ dƌŝŐŐĞƌŝŶŐ ^ĞĐƚŽƌ ǀĞŶƚ ϯϬŵŝŶ͘ďĞĨŽƌĞ &>^ d Dͺ>/ d^ EZ &>^ d/^ d^ Wdͺ ƌĂŵƉ d/^ d^ dDͺ > d^ Wdͺ ƌĂŵƉ W>ͺZ d^ Wdͺ W>ͺZ d^ Wdͺ W>ͺZ d^ dDͺ dZh W>ͺZ d^ dDͺ W>ͺZ d^ EZ W>ͺ/Z d^ W>ͺ/Z d^ W>ͺ/Z ηŽĨ / WĞƌŝŽĚŝĐŝƚǇ й ^/E'> ^ŝǌĞ> ^ŝǌĞh> DƐŐ > DƐŐ h> DƐŐ ;ǇƚĞƐͿ DƐŐ ;ǇƚĞƐͿ /ŶŝƚŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ DƐŐ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϮϮϴ ϭ Ϯϱϯ ,hD > ^/E'> Ϭ͘ϯ ϭ ϭ ϮϮϴ ϭ Ϯϱϯ ,hD > &>^ ŽŶEZͲϭŶƚƌǇ ϯϬŵŝŶ͘ďĞĨŽƌĞ d ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ Ϯϴϴ ϭ ϭϴϭ ,hD > &>^ ǁŝƚŚŝŶdD ZEKD ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ Ϯϴϴ ϭ ϭϴϭ ,hD h> &>^ ĂƚƌĂŵƉ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ Ϯϳϴ ϭ ϱϮϳ ,hD h> ŐƌŽƵŶĚ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ Ϯ ϵϯ Ϯ ϵϯ ,hD h>͕> ŐƌŽƵŶĚ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ Ϯ ϵϯ Ϯ ϵϯ ,hD h>͕> ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯ Ϯ ϵϯ Ϯ ϵϯ ,hD h>͕> dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯ Ϯ ϵϯ Ϯ ϵϯ ,hD h>͕> dZh ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϱ Ϯ ϵϯ Ϯ ϵϯ ,hD h>͕> Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> d^ dDͺ dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ/Z d^ dDͺ dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ/Z d^ EZ dZh ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ> d^ Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϮϲϬ ϭ ϮϱϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ> d^ Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϮϲϬ ϭ ϮϱϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ> d^ dDͺ dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϮϲϬ ϭ ϮϱϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ> d^ dDͺ dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϮϲϬ ϭ ϮϱϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺ> d^ EZ dZh ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϮϲϬ ϭ ϮϱϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺWZ d^ EZ dZh ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯ ϭ ϭϮϬ ϭ ϭϮϬ ,hD h>͕> W>ͺD d^ Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭ ϭ ϴϵ ,hD h> W>ͺD d^ Wdͺ &>^ ^/E'> Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭ ϭ ϴϵ ,hD h> 141 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis WdͺW Edition 00.00.006 dƌŝŐŐĞƌŝŶŐ ^ĞĐƚŽƌ ǀĞŶƚ WĞƌŝŽĚŝĐŝƚǇ й &>^ ^/E'> ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞͺEĂŵĞ d KD W>ͺD d^ dDͺ W>ͺD d^ dDͺ &>^ W>ͺD d^ EZ &>^ ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ W>ͺD d^ Wdͺ &>^ W>ͺD d^ Wdͺ &>^ W>ͺD d^ dDͺ W>ͺD d^ dDͺ W>ͺD d^ EZ W>ͺͺdy/ d^ Wdͺ W>ͺͺdy/ d^ Wdͺ W>ͺͺdy/ d^ dDͺ ηŽĨ / ^ŝǌĞ> ^ŝǌĞh> h> DƐŐ > DƐŐ DƐŐ ;ǇƚĞƐͿ DƐŐ ;ǇƚĞƐͿ /ŶŝƚŝĂů /ŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ DƐŐ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭ ϭ ϴϵ ,hD h> ^/E'> Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭ ϭ ϴϵ ,hD h> ^/E'> Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭ ϭ ϴϵ ,hD h> ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϯ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> dZh ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> dZh ĂďŽǀĞ&>Ϯϰϱ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ ϭ ϭϮϲ ϭ ϴϴ ,hD h>͕> ŐƌŽƵŶĚ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ Ϯ ϭϯϮ ϭ ϵϴ hdK h>͕> ŐƌŽƵŶĚ &>^ ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ Ϯ ϭϯϮ ϭ ϵϴ hdK h>͕> ^/E'> ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ Ϯ ϭϯϮ ϭ ϵϴ hdK h>͕> &>^ Table 71: ATS Communication profile B2 / B3 B.3.2 AOC data traffic The AOC data model assumptions are based on input received from SITA. The model is based on the subscription status, which can be small, medium, or large, respectively. In this case a small subscription means the lowest amount of message and data volume exchange, respectively. The message sizes itself are determined by an accompanied empirical histogram (this data is confidentially provided by SITA). In order to extrapolate the data from now to 2040, the current (2014) data has been compared to the data from 2005. Assuming a linear growth the following numbers represent the amount of AOC data message exchanges used for the simulation. 142 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 95: AOC application message exchanges for different subscriber levels. The following table show the interpolated amount of AOC messages assumed to be exchanged between air and ground for the years 2020 to 2040. Thereby, historic data is being used as basis. The different columns indicated the flight phase and subscription level (i.e. small, medium, and large). zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW >Z'ͺE ϮϬϬϱ Wͺ'd ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϲ ϯ ϳ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ EZ ϭ ϯ ϭ ϲ ϰ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϭ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW ϮϬϭϬ Wͺ'd Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϲ ϲ ϲ >Z'ͺE ϵ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϰ EZ Ϯ ϰ Ϯ ϳ ϱ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϯ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ 143 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Ϯ ϯ Edition 00.00.006 ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϱ ϯ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW ϲ >Z'ͺE ϮϬϭϱ Wͺ'd Ϯ ϰ ϰ ϲ ϴ ϭϬ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϲ EZ Ϯ ϱ Ϯ ϳ ϲ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϯ ϭ ϯ Ϯ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW ϮϬϮϬ Wͺ'd ϯ ϱ ϲ ϲ ϭϭ ϲ >Z'ͺE ϭϮ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϴ EZ ϯ ϲ ϯ ϴ ϳ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϰ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϭ ϰ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ ϲ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW >Z'ͺE ϮϬϮϱ Wͺ'd ϯ ϲ ϳ ϲ ϭϯ ϭϯ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϭϬ EZ ϯ ϳ ϯ ϴ ϴ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϰ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϯ ϭ ϰ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW ϮϬϯϬ Wͺ'd ϰ ϳ ϵ ϲ ϭϲ ϲ >Z'ͺE ϭϱ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ ϭϮ EZ ϰ ϴ ϰ ϵ ϵ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϱ ϭ ϯ ϰ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϭ ϱ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ ϲ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW >Z'ͺE ϮϬϯϱ Wͺ'd ϰ ϴ ϭϬ ϲ ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϭ Ϯ Wͺdy/ 144 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ ϯ ϯ ϰ ϰ ϭϰ EZ ϰ ϵ ϰ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϱ ϭ ϯ ϰ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϰ ϭ ϱ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ ϲ zĞĂƌ &ůŝŐŚƚWŚĂƐĞ ^D>>ͺhW ^D>>ͺE D/hDͺhW D/hDͺE >Z'ͺhW >Z'ͺE ϮϬϰϬ Wͺ'd ϱ ϵ ϭϮ ϲ Ϯϭ ϭϴ Wͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϱ ϭ Ϯ d<ͺK&& Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ WZdhZ Ϭ ϰ ϰ ϱ ϱ ϭϲ EZ ϱ ϭϬ ϱ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϯ WWZK, ϭ ϲ ϭ ϯ ϱ ϲ >E/E' Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ZZͺdy/ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϱ ϭ ϲ ZZͺ'd Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϱ ϯ ϲ Figure 96 - AOC messages assumed to be exchanged between air and ground for the years 2020 to 2040 B.3.3 End-to-End TRTD estimation In order to estimate the Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD)41 of ground initiated ATS/CPDLC messages, taking into account the whole communication link from the ground based application (e.g. 42 CPDLC message generation by Air Traffic Controller (ATCO)) in the ATN ground network through the VDL Mode 2 radio access network to the airborne application (e.g. FMS display) connected to the aircraft (on-board) network and vice versa (ACKs) on application (end-to-end (TP4) level the following VDL Mode 2 Markov Model has been developed, which is based directly on the simulation results of the detailed VDL Mode 2 simulations carried out in the context of this study. Namely the following parameters are taken explicitly into account: • TD_UL ... Uplink (UL) "one-way" transmission delay, composed of medium access control (MAC) delay (i.e. the delay to get access to the radio channel) and the transmission delay from sending the message until it is received successfully at the receiving station; • TD_DL ... Downlink (DL) "one-way" transmission delay, in the reverse direction (from airborne application to ground application); • RTO_UL ... Standard Retransmission Timeout value based on Karn's algorithm; in the Markov model it is twice the round trip transmission delay composed of uplink and downlink "one-way" transmission delay; • Retransmission algorithm: if a CPDLC message which was transmitted on the uplink is not acknowledged (by receiving an ACK) before the retransmission timer (RTO_UL) expires, a 41 Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) of ATS/CPDLC messages as specified in "Link 2000+ DLS CRO Performance Monitoring Requirements", Eurocontrol / Network Manager Directorate, David Isaac, Ed. 1.3, 19 May 2014 42 ATN ... Aeronauical Telecommunication Network 145 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 retransmission of the unacknowledged CPDLC message occurs; this retransmission timeout value is increased by a factor of 2 with each subsequent retransmission43; • p_lossUL .. probality of loss (loss rate) on the uplink; • p_succUL ... probability of success (success rate) on the uplink = 1 – p_lossUL; • p_lossDL .. probality of loss (loss rate) on the downlink; • p_succDL ... probability of success (success rate) on the downlink = 1 – p_lossDL; • ǻt ... Time step of the Markov model corresponding to the Minimum(TD_UL,TD_DL); in the outline of the Markov model above it is assumed that the transmission delay on the downlink is smaller than the transmission delay on the uplink; By calculating a transition probability matrix P between each of the states of the VDL Mode 2 Markov model (see VDL Mode 2 Markov model for details) and multiplying this transition matrix n times, i.e. Pn, we get an estimate for the probability that within n time steps (ǻt) the transition from the initial state 0 (UPLINK) to the success state 16 (ACK RECEIVED) is reached. From this calculation it can be estimated which percentage of transmitted CPDLC messages is th successfully acknowledged after e.g. 16 seconds (max target value for 95 percentile for TRTD) or th after 20 seconds (max target value for 99 percentile for TRTD). It should be further noted that a fixed round trip transmission delay of 2 seconds is assumed for the ATN ground network, while the round trip delay within the airborne network is assumed to be neglectable. 43 In the VDL Mode 2 Markov model the retransmission timeout value is increased by a factor of 2 until a maximum value of 4*RTO_UL is reached; subsequent retransmissions use the same retransmission timeout value. 146 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 Figure 97: Markov Model to estimate Technical Round Trip Delay (TRTD) for end-to-end data traffic. B.4 Protocol Simulation The VDL Mode 2 simulation software reflects the “Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs)” of VDL Mode2. The core components of the simulation software are the Medium Access layer and the Data Link Layer. The primitives exchanged between the entities of the sub-layers is used in order to model system behavior rather precise (c.f. Figure 98). Starting from the Physical Layer it is important to model the free space propagation of radio signals in such a way that neighboring entities are receiving data packets at different points in time. Therefore, it is necessary to know the distance between entities at any time of the simulation. This provides the possibility to indicate toward the VDL Mode 2 Physical Layer of each simulated entity (i.e. a mobile station or a ground station) whether the physical channel is idle or busy. The reception and transmission of data packets is also supported through such an approach. Each simulated entity (i.e. a mobile station or a ground station) provides a model representing the “Radio Spectrum”. This allows every simulation entity to schedule a “Start of Data Reception” event and an “End of Data Reception” event at its neighbors (i.e. simulation entities that are within a reasonable range). Additionally, a “Transmission garbled” event can be scheduled by transmitting data stations at neighboring simulation entities. In such a way it is possible to determine whether data packets are destroyed due to channel contention or not. Based on the known distance among each other, also the quality of the signal can be determined. Based on this information it is easy to model the Medium Access (MAC) sub-layer according to SARPs. However, it has to be noted that the performance of the VDL Mode 2 MAC sub-layer is dependent on many factors (e.g. initial parameter settings and current load). 147 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 The Data Link Service (DLS) entity provides connection oriented data transfer (based on HDLC). The Logical Link Layer (LLC) provides connectionless data transfer (for broadcast messages). The Link Management Entity (LME) is included in the VHF Management Entity which provides an interface to upper layers for initialization and shutdown of the service. The Sub-network entity provides an interface for connection oriented and acknowledged data transfer. For connectionless and unacknowledged data transfer the LLC provides an interface toward upper layers. The VDL Mode 2 protocol implementation correctness has been verified through multiple unit test cases proposed within the standard documentation itself (c.f. Appendix to Part I of Manual on VDL Mode 2 [ICAO]). As a result of this verification effort it can be assumed that the VDL Mode 2 protocol simulation software is working appropriately to the greatest possible extent. A simulation management interface starts and stops the VHF management entity which is responsible for initial ground station logon and handoff/handover decisions. Generated application data packets are directly handed over to the VDL Mode 2 layer. A simple first in first out queue takes care that data packets are not flooding the system. That means, no transport layer protocol is simulated. However, the end to end performance can still be evaluated based on the obtained Layer 2 performance. 148 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 ^ŝŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ/ŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞ ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ŝŶĐ͘YƵĞƵĞͿ DL_DATA.req ^ƵďŶĞƚǁŽƌŬ LM_DISC.ind DL_DATA.ind LM_STARTUP.req LM_SHUTDOWN.req s,&DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŶƚŝƚǇ DL_RST_N2.ind DL_RST_TM2.ind DL_RST_FRMR.ind DL_RST_DISC.ind PH_SQP.ind DL_XID.ind DL_RST_N2.ind DL_RST_TM2.ind DL_RST_DM.ind DL_BLOCK.req DL_UNBLOCK.req DL_DISC.req DL_DATA.req DL_RST_DM.req DL_XID.req ĂƚĂ>ŝŶŬ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ PH_DATA.ind PH_OCC.ind DL_UNITDATA.req >>ͺϭ TX_EVENT _TM2.ind TX_QUEUE.req TX_EVENT _TM2.ind PH_DATA.ind PH_OCC.ind TX_QUEUE.req dyYƵĞƵĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ MA_CTS.ind MA_EVENT_TM2.ind MA_RTS.req D PH_ADD.req PH_FREQ.req PH_DATA.req PH_IDLE.ind PH_BUSY.ind WŚǇƐŝĐĂů RF_OCC.ind RF_BUSIY.ind RF_IDLE.ind RF_PDU.rcv RF_PDU.xmt ZĂĚŝŽ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ Figure 98: Simulation protocol stack of VDL Mode 2 performance and capacity study 149 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Appendix C Edition 00.00.006 'HWDLOHGVLPXODWLRQUXQV See SESAR JU extranet for all the material produced during simulation runs. 150 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged SESAR_CFT_0096 VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis Edition 00.00.006 -END OF DOCUMENT- 151 of 151 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2015. Created by ENAV, ENAIRE, DFS, NATS, LFV and University of Salzburg (supported by DSNA, EasyJet, Air France, Lufthansa, SITA and Airbus) for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged

SJU VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis

Related documents

Products

Support

SJU VDL Mode 2 Capacity and Performance Analysis

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib