ACP WGC6/WP8
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)
Working Group C – 6th meeting
Toulouse, France
20 – 24 October 2003
Agenda items 6: Evaluation of potential technologies
Institutional and business model aspects for a new satellite communication system
Presented by Philippe Renaud
Prepared by Phil Platt
SUMMARY
This working paper discusses some business and institutional issues that must be
considered in proposing the introduction of a new satellite communication system.
1.
Background
The implementation of a new or improved satellite communication system may allow the
provision of the extra communication capacity required to cope with the foreseeable air traffic
growth. This is particularly true for data communications that will become the primary means of
air/ground communication in the next decade.
The current AMSS has been used for all forms of aeronautical communications for more than 10
years, including safety-related communications. The use of other systems for safety
communications will require careful consideration. Work is underway in Eurocontrol and
industry on the technical aspects of potential new generation satellite systems however
complementary consideration has to be undertaken on the business, institutional and service
requirements aspects. These are discussed below.
2.
Business Aspects
The use of a new generation of satellite communication system (e.g. NexSAT) could be of
benefit to aviation provided it offers an adequate quality of service at an acceptable cost. In
Europe such a system could provide the required future communication capacity to cope with air
traffic growth and ATM improvements taking into account the existing congestion of the VHF
band. In other parts of the world benefits could arise from the provision of communication for
air traffic services where it has not been possible and from reducing ground infrastructure costs.
A range of options exists, ranging from using an available satellite system to the development
and deployment of a new satellite communication system. It is considered that the launch of a
dedicated satellite will not be financially viable but options such as adding additional
transponders on a new satellite may be viable.
One fundamental choice that has to be made is the type of communications traffic to be
supported. The overall requirements are contained in the NexSAT Mission Requirements
document. This document discusses the requirements for safety and regularity of flight
1
533560589
communications only i.e. ATS and AOC, however support of non-safety communications i.e.
AAC and APC may be considered necessary as part of the business justification.
For NexSAT to be successful, the business case from various viewpoints has to be taken into
account. These viewpoints include the following stakeholders –





Airspace Users
Air Traffic Service Providers
Communication service providers
Satellite service providers
Industry
2.1
Airspace Users
This set of stakeholders is crucial in the acceptance and deployment of NexSAT. As each
aircraft will need to be equipped with NexSAT avionics this group will incur the greatest
collective expenditure and therefore the business benefit has to be clear to them.
Although the avionics could potentially reuse existing infrastructure in some aircraft, others will
need to be retrofitted. Given sufficient interest amongst the airline community, NexSAT
avionics may become standard Supplier Furnished Equipment, leading to lower certification and
implementation costs. There is a strong relationship between the airlines and aircraft
manufacturers which need to be carefully considered in developing the business needs.
The Return On Investment (ROI), as calculated by each airline depending on the age and type of
fleet, must be taken into account.
2.2
Air Traffic Service Provider
This group of stakeholders will use the satellite communications system as enabling technology
to give the airspace users a service which will be based on mandatory equipage (eventually).
This will enable the ATSP to have additional means of communications when there is no
alternative e.g. no VHF channels available or by enabling the provision of an ATS service in
areas where it is difficult or impossible without NexSAT.
Another possible scenario could be to use an improved communication service to provide better
operational capability in areas where current satellite communications are being used.
2.3
Communication Service Provider
A CSP will provide communication - usually in competition with other CSPs - to either the
ATSP or the airspace user’s ground facility (e.g. an airline operational centre). This can be voice
and/or data services.
Traditionally ATSPs have owned and operated the VHF based voice service, however for data
services the use of a CSP is the usual arrangement.
The role of the CSP for NexSAT could follow either model depending on circumstances and
ground connectivity.
2.4
Satellite Service Provider
The SSP provides the space segment elements of the system comprising satellite, ground earth
station and network control centre(s). The cost of using the capacity of this satellite
infrastructure has to be recovered. Traditionally for the aeronautical community, this has been
through a fixed levy passed on to the communication service provider who includes this in their
overall cost of service. This is passed on to the airline or air traffic service provider.
Another method of operating including leasing space segment to an operator (for example, as is
done in leasing capacity for wide area augmentation systems).
2.5
Industry
For industry to commit to developing or enhancing products to meet the requirements, they have
to see a clear commitment to utilise NexSAT. For a new system, they will need to invest in the
development, marketing and production process and will expect to make a reasonable return
(profit) on their investment in a relevant short period. The business case should extend along the
whole value chain from chip supplier to service provider. During the initial feasibility stage it is
unlikely that industry will find it attractive to fund R&D and public funding may be required in
the early stages.
For an existing system, they will need to provide evidence of the suitability of their system to
meet the requirements.
For the avionics manufacturer the size of the market is an important consideration. The greater
the market the more interest there is likely to be in industry, encouraging competition. The target
market of aircraft will determine the size and also the expected cost of avionics. For example,
the commercial airline market tends to use higher quality and higher price equipment than the
general aviation market. This has to be taken into account when planning the business case.
Market size will have an effect on the business case for the satellite segment provider and the
communication service provider.
2.6
Cost and Benefit Assessment
An important part of the business justification will be an assessment of the costs and
benefits of a change in technology. It is important to estimate costs incurred in
implementing or using the system for each of the stakeholders. The cost assessment has to
cover all phases of the life cycle of an operational improvement from planning, research, and
investment to operation.
For the ATM system this has to be seen as the costs of the operational improvements to the
ATM stakeholders (ATM/CNS regulators, service providers and users) and how these costs are
shared. For an airline these costs include installation and operation costs.
The benefits from using a technological solution must be clearly identified and preferably
quantified. Benefits can accrue from various areas such as cheaper communications costs,
improved efficiency through better flow of information and indirect benefits such as greater
flexibility in operating times due to improved airspace capacity.
Consideration must be given to the choice between a market driven option or a regulatory
decision to mandate the use of satellite communications.
2.7
Business Models
In considering the business case from the stakeholders’ point of view, various business models
should be considered.
2.7.1
Service users
Typical arrangements that may be considered include –



2.7.2
Single ATSP service provision – under this arrangement an ATSP contracts with a
Satellite Service Provider (SSP) for access to the space segment.
Multiple ATSPs service provision – under this arrangement a number of ATSPs
within a region collectively contract with a SSP for access to the space segment.
This may be done via an arrangement amongst the ATSPs or via an international
organisation that represents them.
Airline contracts with a CSP - To an airline the use of NexSAT may be transparent
apart from a potential reduction in communications charges and improved quality of
service. NexSAT may be integrated into the CSP’s communications infrastructure as
another air/ground medium with some specific features. Use of NexSAT could then
be transparent to the airline just as today ACARS uses AMSS, VHF, or HF systems
depending on the aircraft’s location.
Communication/Satellite Service providers
2.7.2.1 Satellite service providers
Since the establishment of the current AMSS, most intergovernmental satellite organisations
have privatised their business activities. This enables competition among all satellite operators
and strengthens their financial foundation to better discharge their public service obligations. But
it also makes them much more commercially orientated.
It is extremely unlikely that a new global service would be owned and financed by the public
sector or by a single operator. Therefore, any new initiative must rely on the market, competition
and the involvement of all operators on a voluntary basis.
2.7.2.2 Communication service providers
Communication service providers make arrangements with the satellite service provider to
enable them to provide a ‘better’ service. They are probably the key actors in terms of risk
sharing.
3.
Institutional Issues
A number of institutional issues will need to be considered in using or implementing NexSAT
such as –





Standardisation
Spectrum requirements
Satellite Service Provider Service Level Agreement
Inter SSP Co-ordination
Certification and Approval
Below is a discussion of the issues.
3.1
Standardisation
3.1.1
ICAO
NexSAT is a system that is intended to provide a worldwide communication service for civil
aviation. To ensure global interoperability, NexSAT has to be based on international standards.
ICAO is the relevant body to develop and obtain approval of worldwide standards and
recommended practices (SARPS) for NexSAT. It is important to recognise that for ACARS or
FANS 1/A no ICAO standards exist.
SARPs exist for the current civil aviation satellite system known as the Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite Service (AMSS). It is the role of ICAO to produce generic SARPs which will be
applicable not only to the current AMSS but also to new satellite systems such as NexSAT; the
technical details specific to each system will be contained a in Technical Manual.
This process is costly both for ICAO and for the member States that support the standardisation
activity in panel meetings and working groups. To ensure that the standardisation process is not
started prematurely ICAO has developed a set of acceptability criteria which any new satellite
communications system must comply prior to being considered.
3.1.2
Other standards activities
In addition to ICAO standards, to get to a product into operation will require additional
standards or least modification to existing standards. These include Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) and Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards
(MASPS) which are typically developed by EUROCAE or RTCA.
A considerable amount of work has taken place in RTCA and MOPS, and guidance
documents exist for satellite systems such as contained in DO-270, DO-262, DO-222, DO215A and DO-210D. This work needs to be reviewed for applicability to NexSAT. One area
for consideration is the performance values included in these documents in relation to their
use in high-density airspace.
Other industry standards such as airline form, fit and function standards should also be reviewed
or developed through the Airline Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC). Discussion on
satellite communication systems is currently taking place in the Air/Ground Communications
Systems Subcommittee. This subcommittee are considering changes to ARINC Characteristic
741 and ARINC Characteristic 761 to include Inmarsat Swift64, Iridium and Globalstar.
In Europe, standards related to the radio performance of the AES and GES will need to be
reviewed and possibly revised or new ones developed. These are undertaken by groups such
as ETSI TC-SES which is responsible for drafting standards for all types of satellite
communication services including fixed, mobile and broadcasting and for all types of earth
station equipment. Several documents have already been produced and one the European
Norm EN 301 473 is being updated.
3.2
Spectrum
To ensure protection and performance of safety and regularity of flight communications over a
satellite system they must operate in a specific part of the radio spectrum, namely the
aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S). Currently provisions exist in the L-band to
accommodate this requirement through the application of a footnote in the Radio Regulations. It
is expected that NexSAT will utilise the appropriate part of the L-band to offer AMS(R)S. If
other bands are proposed a convincing argument needs to be made that this will be suitable.
Following the recent World Radio Conference (WRC 2003) several Resolutions need to be taken
into account namely COM7/7 for WRC07 and COM7/B for WRC10.
3.3
SSP Service Level Agreement
In offering a service for safety related communications some form of guarantee for continuity,
availability and integrity of the satellite communication service should be agreed. This could
include the development of a Service Level Agreement between one or more parties. In the
context of a global service, a commonly agreed set of parameters may be necessary.
Note: current AMSS SARPS include some technical parameters such as end-to-end performance,
error rates, etc.
3.4
Inter SSP Co-ordination
NexSAT could have a global service supplemented by regional services. These services could be
operated by different SSPs. In these circumstances the co-ordination between the SSPs has to be
defined. A range of possible options could exist such as a user being limited to the use of one
SSP depending on their area of operation. Alternatively full co-ordination may be required if one
SSP acts as the back-up to the other to ensure the required continuity of service. This could
entail, for example, the real-time exchange of log-on information.
3.5
Certification and Approval
These are important issues which have to be considered at an early stage in the development
cycle. For a new system knowledge of what applications the system will be used for is very
important as this will dictate the design and development methodology. If the system is intended
for safety related services then guidelines such as those contained in EUROCAE ED78A (RTCA
DO-164). For existing systems that were not designed for safety applications it may be possible
to adopt reverse engineering to demonstrate that they have the capability to meet the
requirements but this could be expensive.
4.
Conclusions
The Working Group is requested to –
1. Review the information in this paper and provide feedback;
2. Consider if and how these issues need to be progressed within WG-C
[END]