A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O N
Future Communications Study Technology Assessment Team: Suggested Phase III Activities
Presented at ICAO ACP WGC Meeting, Brussels, Belgium
September 19, 2006
Prepared by:ITT/Glen Dyer, Tricia Gilbert
NASA/James Budinger
2
Background
• Phase III of the Future Communications Study (FCS) technology investigation has recently commenced– Focus of Phase III is detailed investigation of two additional
technologies initially screened in Phase I and II activities to evaluate applicability for the future radio system
• Phase III builds upon knowledge gained in first two study phases– General technology knowledge (e.g. technology concepts of use
for aviation application)– Evaluation criteria knowledge (derived and traceable evaluation
metrics)– Detailed technology investigation knowledge
3
Phase III Detailed Technology Evaluation Activities
• Three major task areas have been identified
1. Screened Technology Analyses (with focus on technologies not yet investigated)
• Candidate technologies for additional detailed investigations include W-CDMA, B-VHF and L-Band E-TDMA
• Common Model/Tool Development
2. DME and Mode S Interference Measurements
3. Final Technology Evaluation and Recommendations
4
Task Area 1: Screened Technology Analyses
• Objective– Detailed analysis of the suitability of Phase II
recommended technologies as FRS solutions• Initial technology study focus is WCDMA• Other candidates: B-VHF or E-TDMA
– These are the best performing technologies that have not yet been analyzed in detail
– The goal of this activity is to determine each of these technologies as fitting into one of the following categories as a FRS solution
• A totally suitable existing technology for the FRS• A custom solution for the FRS to meet aviation needs• A hybrid technology solution
5
Task Area 1: Screened Technology Detailed Analyses
Technology Standards
Technology Studies
FCS Phase I & II Technology Studies
Step 1Develop Detailed Analysis Plan
Define Objective(s) Specify Approach Develop Schedule
Step 2Perform Detailed Analysis
Analyze Functional Requirements
Analyze Institutional Requirements
Analyze Performance Requirements
Refine Concept of Use
Analyze Technology
Technology Standards
Technology Studies
FCS Phase I & II Technology Studies
Step 1Develop Detailed Analysis Plan
Define Objective(s) Specify Approach Develop Schedule
Step 2Perform Detailed Analysis
Analyze Functional Requirements
Analyze Institutional Requirements
Analyze Performance Requirements
Refine Concept of Use
Analyze Technology
6
Task Area 1: Common Model/Tool Development Overview
• Approach identified in original FCS documentation calls for “simulation of screened technologies”, for example:– Define common environmental models/loading scenarios for
evaluating technologies
– Build representative models for candidate technologies
– Evaluate technology performance
• Must ensure developed tools/models for Phase III analysis address the range of evaluation criteria proposed for technology selection, including– Technical criteria – addressing required functionality and
performance of the future radio system
– Institutional criteria – addressing factors of a technology that make it a viable candidate solution (e.g. cost/risk factors)
7
Task Area 1: Example Evaluation Tools/Models
Evaluation Criteria Technology Detailed Analyses Analyses Tools/Models
Functional Criteria Functional Capability - ATC and AOC A/G and A/A Addressed Data and G-A Broadcast Data Capability
Functional flow diagrams, sequence diagrams, swim lines
Rational Rose; CORE; any appropriate diagramming tool
Communication Performance – Latency, QoS, Capacity, Number of Users
Protocol Simulation
Physical Layer Simulation
Common Traffic Model;
Common Channel Model
Institutional Criteria Maturity for Aeronautical Environment - Technical Readiness Level
Not required Assessment by Inspection
Maturity for Aeronautical Environment - Standardization Status
Not required Assessment by Inspection
Maturity for Aeronautical Environment - Certification Issues
Detailed assessment of safety aspects of system
Tools to diagram and capture fault tree analysis
Cost – Ground Cost Cost Analysis Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Cost –Avionics Cost Cost Analysis Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Spectrum Protection Not required Assessment by Inspection
Security Vulnerability Assessment Security Assessment Methodology
Transition – ROI, technical migration (including integrity and availability performance), and operational migration
Availability Analysis Common Architectural Assumptions
8
Task Area 1: Tool Development Objectives and Approach
• Objective– Develop consensus on
required tools/models for future radio system technology evaluation
– Tool/model development
• Approach– Participate in consensus
meetings to identify tools/models required for technology evaluation
– Determine format for tools/models
– Support tool/model development and validation
Security Assessment MethodologyVulnerability AssessmentSecurity
Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Cost AnalysisCost – Ground Cost
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredMaturity for Aeronautical Environment -Technical Readiness Level
Institutional Criteria
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredMaturity for Aeronautical Environment -Standardization Status
Tools to diagram and capture fault tree analysis
Detailed assessment of safety aspects of system
Maturity for Aeronautical Environment -Certification Issues
Common Architectural Assumptions
Availability AnalysisTransition – ROI, technical migration (including integrity and availability performance), and operational migration
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredSpectrum Protection
Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Cost AnalysisCost –Avionics Cost
Common Traffic Model;
Common Channel Model
Protocol Simulation
Physical Layer Simulation
Communication Performance – Latency, QoS, Capacity, Number of Users
Rational Rose; CORE; any appropriate diagramming tool
Functional flow diagrams, sequence diagrams, swim lines
Functional Capability - ATC and AOC A/G and A/A Addressed Data and G-A Broadcast Data Capability
Functional Criteria
Analyses Tools/ModelsTechnology Detailed AnalysesEvaluation Criteria
Security Assessment MethodologyVulnerability AssessmentSecurity
Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Cost AnalysisCost – Ground Cost
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredMaturity for Aeronautical Environment -Technical Readiness Level
Institutional Criteria
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredMaturity for Aeronautical Environment -Standardization Status
Tools to diagram and capture fault tree analysis
Detailed assessment of safety aspects of system
Maturity for Aeronautical Environment -Certification Issues
Common Architectural Assumptions
Availability AnalysisTransition – ROI, technical migration (including integrity and availability performance), and operational migration
Assessment by InspectionNot requiredSpectrum Protection
Cost Model Methodology;
Cost Model Assumptions
Cost AnalysisCost –Avionics Cost
Common Traffic Model;
Common Channel Model
Protocol Simulation
Physical Layer Simulation
Communication Performance – Latency, QoS, Capacity, Number of Users
Rational Rose; CORE; any appropriate diagramming tool
Functional flow diagrams, sequence diagrams, swim lines
Functional Capability - ATC and AOC A/G and A/A Addressed Data and G-A Broadcast Data Capability
Functional Criteria
Analyses Tools/ModelsTechnology Detailed AnalysesEvaluation Criteria
9
Task Area 2: DME and Mode S Interference Measurements
• Objective– Further characterization of
DME and Mode S equipment interference performance against proposed modulation types for the FCS; particularly susceptibilities from the following types of equipment
• CDMA• MCM• Narrowband Digital
• Approach– This activity will consist of the
six interrelated tasks shown in the figure
1. Develop Test Plan & Procedures
2. Specify Interference
Sources to Evaluate
3. Procure or develop equipment
to emulate interference sources
4. Conduct Bench Tests Against DME
& Mode-S Receivers
5. Analyze and Reduce Data
6. Report Results
Interference Measurements
Current Activities
1. Develop Test Plan & Procedures
2. Specify Interference
Sources to Evaluate
3. Procure or develop equipment
to emulate interference sources
4. Conduct Bench Tests Against DME
& Mode-S Receivers
5. Analyze and Reduce Data
6. Report Results
Interference Measurements
Current Activities
10
Task Area 3: Final Technology Evaluation and Recommendations
• Objectives– Solicit, collect, and assess a wide
range of stakeholder inputs and feedback
– Perform the final technology evaluation and develop appropriate recommendations
• Approach– Combine technology performance
assessment against derived criteria with synthesis of a wide range of stakeholder input/feedback to fully reflect stakeholder requirements
• Facilitated through a more extensive application of the defined Analytical Hierarchy Process
ICAOACP
ICAOACP
FCS Phase ITechnologyInventory
FCS Phase ITechnologyInventory
1. Augment Technology Inventory (List Alternatives)
1. Augment Technology Inventory (List Alternatives)
2. Define Screening Filter(Define Threshold Level)
2. Define Screening Filter(Define Threshold Level)
3. Screen Technologies(Determine Acceptable Alternatives)
3. Screen Technologies(Determine Acceptable Alternatives)
5. Develop Decision Hierarchy5. Develop Decision Hierarchy
Phase II Task Activity
Phase III Task Activity
Key:
4. Derive AHP Evaluation Criteria(Define Criteria)
4. Derive AHP Evaluation Criteria(Define Criteria)
6. Evaluate Technologies vs. AHP Criteria6. Evaluate Technologies vs. AHP Criteria 7. Comparison of AHP Criteria Pairwise7. Comparison of AHP Criteria Pairwise
8. Calculate Evaluation Scores(Calculate Overall Priorities for Alternatives)
8. Calculate Evaluation Scores(Calculate Overall Priorities for Alternatives)
9. Sensitivity Analysis9. Sensitivity Analysis
3a. Update/Create
TechnologyConcepts of Use
3a. Update/Create
TechnologyConcepts of Use
TechnologyScreening
Detailed Evaluations
ICAOACP
ICAOACP
FCS Phase ITechnologyInventory
FCS Phase ITechnologyInventory
1. Augment Technology Inventory (List Alternatives)
1. Augment Technology Inventory (List Alternatives)
2. Define Screening Filter(Define Threshold Level)
2. Define Screening Filter(Define Threshold Level)
3. Screen Technologies(Determine Acceptable Alternatives)
3. Screen Technologies(Determine Acceptable Alternatives)
5. Develop Decision Hierarchy5. Develop Decision Hierarchy
Phase II Task Activity
Phase III Task Activity
Key:
4. Derive AHP Evaluation Criteria(Define Criteria)
4. Derive AHP Evaluation Criteria(Define Criteria)
6. Evaluate Technologies vs. AHP Criteria6. Evaluate Technologies vs. AHP Criteria 7. Comparison of AHP Criteria Pairwise7. Comparison of AHP Criteria Pairwise
8. Calculate Evaluation Scores(Calculate Overall Priorities for Alternatives)
8. Calculate Evaluation Scores(Calculate Overall Priorities for Alternatives)
9. Sensitivity Analysis9. Sensitivity Analysis
3a. Update/Create
TechnologyConcepts of Use
3a. Update/Create
TechnologyConcepts of Use
TechnologyScreening
Detailed Evaluations
11
Action Request
• The ACP Working Group is invited to consider the technology investigation activities described in this paper, and provide comments if desired
• It is recommended that the ACP Working Group discuss and agree upon the desired outcome of the Future Communications study
• It is recommended that the ACP Working Group discuss and agree upon the need for a comprehensive modeling approach against all evaluation criteria and specify model structures for each