Introduction

ACP-WGW01-WP06

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)

Working Group of the Whole — 1st meetingMontreal, Canada21–29 June 2005

Agenda item 5: Review of the progress on the development of new communication systems.

“Inventory of Institutional Elements”

Presented by Brent PhillipsPrepared by Kors van den Boogaard,Diane B. Revell, and Rhonda Thomas

SUMMARY

To successfully implement new aviation systems, one must consider three interdependent elements: the technology, users’ needs (requirements), and the institutional elements of the environment in which a system must operate. This paper is a strawman addressing the institutional elements that will help support decisions in developing the Future Communications System roadmap. The paper also includes the relevant stakeholders’ business cases, which ensure successful implementation of a new communication system. This document is intended to eventually form a reply to the 11th Air Navigation Conference (ANC) Agenda Item 7, Recommendation 7/5 request documented in the associated ANC Report (Section 7.5.4).

Appendix A (attached) is the product of discussions held at the WG-C9 meeting, and WG members in correspondence redefined it before the ACP Working Group of the Whole (WGW) meeting. It will continue to be refined and finalized. The draft will be submitted to the ANC as an integral activity of the WG-C task.

Page 1

ACP-WGW01-WP06

1. Introduction

1.1 To successfully implement new systems, stakeholders must consider three independent elements: technology, users’ needs (requirements), and the institutional elements of the environment in which a new system must operate. Currently, institutional elements are those important relationships and/or behavior patterns of the aviation industry that affect successful implementation of a new technology.

1.2 Part I of Appendix A examines the institutional elements identified by the 11th ANC as well as additional elements identified in follow-on papers and WG-C discussions. The concept of institutional elements is also incorporated as “Business Themes” in the Future Communications Study, conducted in accordance with the joint EUROCONTROL/FAA Action Plan 17. This Inventory can help improve aviation’s blemished track record in implementing standardized systems. The failure to implement International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standardized new systems is seldom related to the chosen technology, but, rather, is both the result of stakeholders’ uncertainty regarding the requirements and the rigidly structured and highly formalized aviation industry — “the institute-aviation.”

1.3 Part II of Appendix A addresses the institutional elements mainly from a stakeholder’s cost/benefit perspective. This perspective depends on which stakeholder’s view is embraced and is relative to that stakeholder’s specific business case. Success as a whole can be best achieved success by maximizing all of the business cases overall rather than by trying to optimize each stakeholder’s business case.

2. Background

2.1 The aviation community is in the process of defining the future aeronautical communication systems for the 2015–2030 timeframe. The primary catalyst of this process are projections of inadequate Very High Frequency (VHF) spectrum availability for Europe and the United States, which are experiencing increasing regional density. Inefficient management and use of this spectrum also contribute to the problem. In addition, air traffic growth, newer means of air travel (such as unmanned air vehicles (UAV)), and new concepts of air traffic management (such as more collaborative decision-making between pilot and controller) are beginning to change the amount and means of aviation communications anticipated in the future. As stakeholders define the requirements for these changes and consider suitable technologies, they also need to take into account the institutional elements that can make or break the successful implementation of the new aeronautical communication system. To the extent that new concepts of air traffic management (e.g. data communications) are adopted globally, the needs of the new communication system and problems that the aeronautical community will face in implementing a new system need to be addressed on a global level.

3. Discussions

3.1 The REPORT OF COMMITTEE B TO THE CONFERENCE ON AGENDA ITEM 7, AN-Conf/11-WP/202 (see Appendix A - Attachment A), Section 7.5.4 begins by noting:

“In connection with its consideration of future technology alternatives, the meeting reviewed a proposed approach to ICAO standardization of new aeronautical communication technologies”.

Page 2

ACP-WGW01-WP06

The paper continues by introducing the notion of institutional elements:

“The meeting also noted that aspects traditionally not fully taken into account in ICAO standardization activities could have a significant impact on the successful implementation of a standard. Such aspects included aircraft integration issues, cost and duration of the certification and operational approval process and the viability of business case for implementation from an avionics vendor/air frame manufacturer, airline and air traffic service provider perspective.”

This quote lists some of the institutional elements. An expanded list of elements gleaned from additional input papers and WG-C discussions follows:

a) Aircraft integration issues; b) Viability of business case for implementation; c) Standardization — cost and duration;d) Certification — cost and duration; e) Operational Approval — cost and duration;f) Communication Procedures;g) Service provision; h) Implementation Planning on a Global Basis;i) Radio Spectrum Access;j) Security; and k) Communication message traffic type (Air Traffic Service (ATS), Aeronautical

Operational Control (AOC), Aeronautical Administrative Communication (AAC), and Aeronautical Passenger Communication (APC)).

3.2 These 11 institutional elements tend to fall into two major categories: a) Those tied directly to the business cases (such as equipment upgrades and personnel

training) of particular aviation community stakeholders; and b) Those not seen as having a direct tie, but which are critical to successful implementation

and evolution of a future aeronautical communication system requiring unified support of aviation community stakeholders (such as changes in radio spectrum access).

3.3 Appendix A highlights these institutional elements so that stakeholders will consider them in developing and implementing future new aeronautical communication technology standardizations within ICAO. Note, however, that these institutional elements are only a rendering of elements being considered. Some of these institutional elements have a reasonable expectation of being achieved; others would require major changes within the aviation industry. This assessment provides valuable information that stakeholders can use in evaluating the appropriateness of our solution, referred to as “the roadmap.”

3.4 To target new aeronautical communication systems successfully, Appendix A details the institutional element “viability of the business case.” It presents the business case views of the many stakeholders in the aviation community, highlighting past issues that have resulted in unsuccessful implementation of changes to the aviation system standards. Historically, each stakeholder has tended to develop its business case in isolation. The result is that the sum of the

Page 3

ACP-WGW01-WP06

business cases does not fully reflect the relationships/behavior patterns of the total system. This is a classic case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. This assessment is partly, an effort to bring a holistic approach to stakeholders’ business case development.

3.5 We hope that stakeholders might consider these institutional elements in defining the new aeronautical communication system, selecting technologies, and in planning of the transition period between existing systems and systems to be implemented. We acknowledge that institutional elements exist that may pose a risk to EUROCONTROL and the FAA reaching harmonization. This paper’s goal is to provide information to support development of a plan that promotes a balanced approach, taking these issues into account to allow successful implementation of future aviation communication systems for deployment in the 2015-2030 timeframe.

4 Recommendations and Action by the Aeronautical Mobile Communication Panel

4.1 We request that the WGW to:a) Review and provide comments on incorrect or missing information in this working paper

and Appendix A; and b) Specifically, identify any other institutional elements that we should evaluate and discuss.

Page 4

Appendix A ACP-WGW01-WP06

Appendix ATable of Contents

1. General Information.....................................................................................................22. Part I — Institutional Elements...................................................................................3

2.1 Introduction to Institutional Elements.................................................................32.2 Aircraft Integration Issues...................................................................................42.3 The Viability of Business Case for Implementation............................................52.4 Standardization — cost and duration...................................................................72.5 Certification — cost and duration........................................................................82.6 Operational Approval — cost and duration.........................................................92.7 Communication Procedures...............................................................................102.8 Service Provision...............................................................................................112.9 Implementation Planning on a Global Basis.....................................................132.10 Radio Spectrum Access.....................................................................................152.11 Communication Message Traffic Type (ATS, AOC, AAC, APC)...................182.12 Security..............................................................................................................192.13 General Institutional Elements Driving Need for Global Harmonization.........20

3. Part II — Aviation Stakeholders...............................................................................213.1 Cost and Benefit Assessment.............................................................................223.2 Business Case Issues for Specific Stakeholders................................................24

3.2.1 Airspace Users...........................................................................................253.2.2 Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP).........................................................283.2.3 Communication Service Provider (CSP)...................................................293.2.4 Network Service Provider (NSP)...............................................................303.2.5 Regulators..................................................................................................303.2.6 Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers...................................................323.2.7 Airport Operators.......................................................................................333.2.8 Passengers and Shippers............................................................................35

4. Part III — Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations....................................37ATTACHMENT A............................................................................................................39ATTACHMENT B............................................................................................................40

Page 1

ACP-WGW01-WP06

1. General Information

This paper is organized to cover the following information: Institutional elements are introduced. Other institutional elements necessary for the business of aviation that are not

directly tied to any one stakeholder are also covered. Often these issues drive the need for global harmonization of systems and procedures in development and transition.

The major stakeholders in development and implementation of new aeronautical communication systems.

The cost and benefit assessment process for development of a viable business cases.

The business case issues likely to be applicable for those stakeholders, each with different views of the aviation business. This points out which institutional elements tend to drive the business cases of each major stakeholder.

Summary, recommendations and conclusions.

Page 2

ACP-WGW01-WP06

2. Part I — Institutional Elements

2.1 Introduction to Institutional Elements

In the 11th ANC Report relating to institutional elements, it was noted that the successful implementation of change to the aeronautical communication systems needs to include “…aspects traditionally not fully taken into account in International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standardization activities [that] could have a significant impact on the successful implementation of a standard. Such aspects included aircraft integration issues, cost and duration of the certification and operational approval process and the viability of business case for implementation ….”

This quote lists some of the institutional elements. An expanded list of elements gleaned from additional input papers and WG-C discussions follows:

Aircraft integration issues; Viability of business case for implementation; Standardization —cost and duration; Certification — cost and duration; Operational approval — cost and duration; Communication procedures; Service provision; Implementation planning on a global basis; Radio spectrum access; Security; and Communication message traffic type (Air Traffic Service (ATS), Aeronautical

Operational Control (AOC), Aeronautical Administrative Communication (AAC), and Aeronautical Passenger Communication (APC).

It has been noted that these institutional elements have parallels in evaluation criteria used for technology investigation. (The evaluation criteria are detailed in the ACP WGW01-WP-05 paper, “Review of the Progress on the Development of New Communication Systems: Technology Pre-Screening Process.”) Per WG-C discussions, some of the elements were grouped under the concept of Required Communication Performance (RCP). This concept, which is being developed within ICAO, is intended to address these institutional elements better than the current technology-specific Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), which complicate evolution of aeronautical communications.

Note: For this paper, we decided that RCP is not mature enough to be considered an institutional element. Although successful development and implementation of RCP concepts may affect institutions, the institutional issues associated with RCP remain unclear. The institutional issues that RCP addresses are certification and approval for operations using performance-based communications, which this paper discusses.

Page 3

ACP-WGW01-WP06

The “institute-aviation” encompasses numerous principles and laws to ensure safety. These principles and laws have benefited international aviation significantly. However, they are established on a framework that is becoming increasingly antiquated and based on obsolete technological limitations. With the concept of the new Communications, Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) environment, one recognizes that implementation of the new technology would be mainly cost/benefit driven, except for those cases in which safety needs to be improved. There is an implied institutional issue that can be resolved by identifying and explicitly changing these obsolete principles and laws without jeopardizing safety.

Based on the global nature of the aviation industry, one assumes that harmonization is a key attribute in the list of elements identified above. Lack of harmonization will drive costs and acceptance for implementation planning and service provision. In addition to the aspects that might be issues for each stakeholder, some broader institutional elements go beyond any individual stakeholder. These particular elements for successful transition likely require global harmonization.

“Harmonization” in this case means agreement among regions to ensure a viable transition from the current aeronautical communication systems to future aeronautical communication systems that allows, from an aircraft view, relatively seamless transition from airspace to airspace on a global basis. Harmonization is not necessarily commonality of all aspects relative to technologies and operational procedures. It is agreement on what is acceptable relative to interfaces (technical and procedural) from region to region for aeronautical communications and timeframe for transition to the new aeronautical communication system by region. This may involve the timeframe for phasing out of older aeronautical communication systems. Inherent in such harmonization are common assumptions that can be used in developing business cases and scheduling transitions.

Further details on each institutional element follow.

2.2 Aircraft Integration Issues

BackgroundTo successfully implement a newly standardized system, stakeholders must evaluate and satisfactorily resolve aircraft integration issues. These issues include the cost of integrating airborne components; interoperability with other airborne systems; effects of any change in human interaction; and certification of the aircraft for operation with the new system.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues of Aircraft Integration The cost of retrofitting aircraft versus forward fit solutions has to be determined.

(Retrofitting aircraft entails higher costs but allows for only long-term change.) Higher cost options would entail removing and replacing existing voice radios or

data management units, adhering to additional wiring requirements, and adding

Page 4

ACP-WGW01-WP06

new aircraft antennas or relocating existing antennas due to interference with other onboard systems.

Lower cost options include software upgrades or other depot-level upgrades to existing units. Lower cost options also include rollout timed with new aircraft production.

Removing and replacing existing equipment versus making software or other depot-level upgrades must be determined.

Any changes in systems operation must be documented in operational manuals, and pilots and others will have to be trained to use it.

Co-site interference issues must be resolved. A new system reduces effectiveness of an existing system, or an existing system

negatively impacts a new system. A new system introduces unacceptable changes to the existing Human Machine

Interface (HMI). The level of complexity of the changes required for implementation of the new

system must be determined. Recertification on a per-type basis is required regardless of the extent of

modification. The greater the modification, the greater the time and cost will be in the certification process.

Aircraft operators and manufacturers will pay integration and certification costs.

Potential Mitigation Involve aircraft certification authority from the beginning of the program. Determine institutional tradeoff of time for cost, risk, and efficiency. Provide proof of ground system viability, safety, and technology to handle the

heaviest communications traffic.

2.3 The Viability of Business Case for Implementation

BackgroundThe international aviation community’s selection, development, and implementation of new air traffic communication technologies will affect many stakeholders. These stakeholders are in diverse situations regarding their future role, existing infrastructure, current need, and timeliness of projected future need. Thus, stakeholder costs, benefits, and Return on Investment (ROI) could vary significantly for any given technology and implementation plan. This potential variability between each stakeholder’s cost, benefits, and ROI could become an impediment toward all users selecting a single communications technology.

There are also other potential sources of discord. For example, the lowest cost solution will not necessarily have the largest ROI; so one stakeholder might be willing to accept the low-cost solution despite the lower ROI whereas another stakeholder might be willing to accept the larger cost solution because of its larger ROI.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues associated with the Viability of Business Case

Page 5

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Impediments to selecting a new communications technology are the uncertainties about future air traffic growth, how evolving air traffic management paradigms will change—including the impact on air traffic controller/manager efficiencies—and what changes might be forthcoming in air-ground data load per flight. The need to enhance the communications capacity is strongly related to other air traffic capacity enhancements. These uncertainties also have ROI implications for the stakeholders. If a program plan has as options the ability to adapt in scale or time to unknown or changing circumstances, then this flexibility has value and can be estimated as the value of the options.

Despite concept developers’ best efforts to maximize stakeholder flexibility, there will remain some cost and ROI differences between stakeholders. If the differences are large, the next step toward choosing a technology plan would be to assess the comprehensive costs and ROI of each plan using a global economic perspective. If the plan with the largest global ROI also has a large variance among stakeholders’ ROI (as compared to any other plans under consideration), then perhaps those stakeholders who would benefit the most would be willing to share some of the marginal benefit that exists between the competing plans.

Specific drivers also include the following considerations: Cost — including the cost of equipment and its development, and service-related

costs; Benefit — including ROI, operational efficiencies, workforce efficiencies,

provision of beneficial services, growth opportunities, and interoperability improvements;

Risk — including development and integration risks, new training requirements, transition-related risks, and risks that actions taken for the benefit of one stakeholder might be a detriment to another stakeholder; politicization; and

Schedule — including the timeframes for each stakeholder to complete its actions relative to the overall schedule, and schedules related to a stakeholder’s individual needs and timetable.

Potential MitigationDecision-makers should strive to design a solution that maximizes flexibility to all stakeholders because this will facilitate each stakeholder’s goal of minimizing cost and maximizing ROI. The first step should be for concept developers to construct alternatives that maximize flexibility in scale and time for each stakeholder. The second step should be for each stakeholder to estimate his own cost and ROI under each proposed plan. If the concept developers have succeeded in designing a very scalable system plan, then many of the individual stakeholders will have sufficient flexibility to minimize their individual costs or maximize their individual ROIs. However, if consensus about a proposed plan cannot readily be found, then the selection process migrates into the political area. The third step will then be to estimate the costs and ROIs on a global economic basis and, from this additional basis of knowledge, a compromise will have to be negotiated.

Page 6

ACP-WGW01-WP06

2.4 Standardization — cost and duration

Background

Aviation operates in an international environment. To minimize cost and equipage issues, in general, an aircraft should be able to operate in any airspace without having different versions of the same capabilities being required by different airspace authorities. This decision of globally agreed-upon system specifications and interoperability is required in Article 37 of the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300). The decision implies use of open standards by the users. In addition, airspace authorities need to refer to open standards in enforcing required equipage rules to achieve airspace interoperability. The process to develop aviation standards must include essential elements to meet the safety and global interoperability needs.

Following is the framework of standardization for aviation air-ground communication systems:

ITU-R regulations and frequency allocation table: ITU-R identifies the frequency bands in which aviation can globally operate. ITU also identifies conditions and restrictions of use for these bands when being used for ATSC and AOC (safety of life) services. (See Radio Spectrum Access.)

ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) and Technical and Implementation Manuals: These ICAO documents are developed to ensure that the system safety requirements are met and support global interoperability needs. (See Radio Spectrum Access.)

EUROCAE/RTCA Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) and the Minimal Operational Performance Standards (MOPS): EUROCAE and RTCA identify the specific system and equipment requirements and test for the intended function to ensure system and equipment specifications under operational conditions.

JAR/FARs; These airworthiness requirements ensure that the equipment installed in an aircraft performs according to its intended function without affecting other installed equipment.

ARINC Spec: These specifications are developed to ensure interchangeability in form, fit, and function of the installed airborne equipment.

Because of the current elaborate and lengthy standardization process, a system being deployed could easily be obsolete by the time that competing technologies are evaluated and standards written.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues Associated with Standardization

Failure to implement standards due to lack of user consensus or long lead times; Duplication of standardization efforts between SARPs, technical manuals,

MASPS, and MOPS; Lack of manufacturer input to standardization due to the cost of participating in

an international forum with an extremely long time to see return on investment;

Page 7

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Excessive requirements due to regional implementations needs; and International differences in standards/implementations.

Potential Mitigation Establish an international coordinating body to facilitate exchange of policy,

requirements, etc.; Include diverse representation from all aspects of aviation to participate in

development of standards; and Allocate sufficient time to complete the standardization process.

2.5 Certification — cost and duration

Background

Certification must be considered at an early stage in the development cycle. For a new system, one must know its intended applications, as this will dictate the design and development methodology and the level of software certification. When it is desirable to employ an available technology that was not specifically designed for safety applications, it may be possible to use reverse engineering techniques to demonstrate that they have the capability to meet the requirements—but this could be expensive.

Figure 1, a notional depiction of an FAA view of certification, speaks to this process of certification. Consideration should be given to simplifying this process or allowing it to proceed in parallel to other aspects of the current more sequential flow for a new communication system, from definition of need to implementation and in-service operation.

Certification should be performed on well-defined standards to ensure success of the activity, reduce the cost by reducing the unknowns, and provide reusability of the certification.

Finally, standards provide requirements that ultimately must be certified as being met in the equipment being implemented. Timely examination of developing standards by certification representatives could provide a shorter path through certification by allowing early consideration of any language that might impede certification, avoiding a need to return to the table late in the game for revisions of or waivers from the standards.

In the past, avionics communications systems provided specified performance independent of the operation of the ground components, allowing simpler certification of avionics systems. Future communications systems will make the certification process more complicated because the performance of the aircraft system may be directly dependent on the ground system: Aircraft will be required to certify their performance accounting for both the airborne and ground assets. Quality of Service (QoS) parameters have been introduced to ensure the timeliness and robustness of the system and thereby improve certification processes. Use of commercial service provider assets that have not been “certified” remains an issue.

Page 8

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Figure 1: Certification Process (Notional)

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues Associated with Certification

Complicated testing on each Aircraft type; increasing the costs and time to equip with a new technology;

International differences in standards/implementations; Clearly defined minimum certification processes; and Identification of methodology to expeditiously certify commercial assets for

aviation use.o Current methods for certification of commercial communications systems

require long and expensive processes.

Potential Mitigation Improved certification mechanisms; and Tradeoffs of time for cost and efficiency.

2.6 Operational Approval — cost and duration

Background

Currently, a system must be certified and licensed for operation to obtain operational approval. Operational approval is to ensure safe conditions that aircraft use and may use

Page 9

ACP-WGW01-WP06

for one or more applications over a communications system. The requirements for operational approvals for new functions are usually determined after the elements of the technology are fully defined and nearing equipment certification approval. The operational approvals may identify limitations due to the lack in technology performance after standardization or implementation of the technology has begun or even being completed.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues Associated with Operational Approval

Operational approval is determined and issued after the standardization is either nearly complete or complete.

Requirements for operational approvals are not available prior to standardization. System modifications are required after installation of system to meet operational

approval requirements.

Potential Mitigation

Harmonized improved operational approval mechanisms.

2.7 Communication Procedures

Background

Currently, ATC communications are voice only. Various communication services are in segregated systems. No integrated global strategy exists for communications technology procedures or performance. Additionally, there is no agreement on operational benefits of new procedures.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues Associated with Communication Procedures

Increased air traffic will require more efficient communications. There is an increasing trend in the need to exchange information. There are bandwidth requirements of voice versus data. Communication paradigm changes will require additional training and equipment.

Potential Mitigation RCP standards for communication performance and procedures. Proscribed procedures. Application of technology goals as guidelines as to what can be achieved in new

performance and procedures.

Page 10

ACP-WGW01-WP06

2.8 Service Provision [Suggestion made that this section needs to be more structured along the lines of the various service arrangements. Note that some considered the first sentence below (now softened) to still be overly harsh – so perhaps it needs to be completely reworded or deleted.]

BackgroundSeveral service organizations provide part of the end-to-end system: air traffic controllers, communications services, and network services. Each has characteristics that affect provision of safety of flight services. The major issue involves the cost of providing the service, be it from the ATSO or from the public provider of the intermediate system. Additionally, organizations must deal with reluctance to change how the service is provided, its procedures, or its infrastructure.

The ATS communication service provision is sometimes monopolistic, which can result in relatively high costs in some instances, and sometimes provides low-grade service. National and regional economic and political interest has increasingly driven system selection. This has had the affect of reducing the safety and efficiency benefits of global operating systems. In turn, this will largely reduce the potential for commercial service providers to serve the industry on a global basis and further segment the already relatively small aeronautical equipment market.

Current aviation communication systems are owned, managed, and serviced by various agencies. They provide communication functions to support their main task: providing Air Traffic Services.

Service ArrangementsTypical arrangements that may be considered include:

Single Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP) and Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) service provision. NOTE: These are used synonymously in this document. Under this arrangement, ATSP deploys its own service or contracts with a Communications Service Provider (CSP) or Network Service Provider (NSP).

Multiple ATSPs service provision. Under this arrangement, a number of ATSPs within a region collectively contract with an NSP for services.

Airline service provision contracts with a CSP/NSP. – Under this arrangement, an airline contracts with a certified CSP and/ or NSP for safety and nonsafety communication services.

Since establishment of the new CNS/ATM concept, numerous ATSPs have privatized and have become more commercially oriented, resulting in a greater freedom to outsource services supporting the core business.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues for Service Provision(Suggested additions provided by John MacBride with his note “this may not be the best place for this feel free to move it or delete”)

Page 11

ACP-WGW01-WP06

ANSP safety regulation and sovereignty are issues. To address ANSP safety regulation, a regional or global standardization body is needed to operate in much the same way as the JAA operates for aircraft certification. In Europe, the first steps have been taken to establish such an organization with the formation of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Even this organization, however, would need its current scope widened to become a transnational ATM safety regulator.

The sovereignty issue can only be dealt with by restructuring the ANSPs in terms of service provision. The legal framework in which they operate needs to be harmonized in a way to allow changes in who controls whose airspace, fuller cooperation, alliances, joint ventures, and outsourcing.

Considering the increasing use of communications, one needs to assess the potential of sharing infrastructures as a means to control operating and investments costs. Outsourcing, particularly for smaller agencies, can be professionally and financially rewarding. A most significant issue facing ATSPs and airspace users is the need to exchange more information in a period of spiraling lifecycle cost of communication systems.

Outsourcing can take many forms. It can range from contracting technical management to the more complex business of defining functions and QoS and then handing over the entire job to a communication provider. However, the user should keep control of the communication service to ensure safety.

Outsourcing radio communication services can reduce the lifecycle costs on a number of fronts, including reduction in engineering and maintenance staff and in infrastructure replacement or modernization expenses. It means costs are leveled instead of being periodically recurring high lump-sum investments. The lack of funding is a challenge that may make it hard to keep up with technological advances. This sometimes leads to a fragmented aeronautical communication network that puts global interoperability at risk.

An additional concern with outsourcing may be reluctance of ATSPs to continue providing service because of profitability worries when new infrastructure requirements are imposed on them.

Potential Mitigation

Structure to encourage participation of multiple service providers for competition purposes.

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 involvement of all operators on a voluntary basis. This would be based on the service satisfying required criteria such as RCP, QoS, and related criteria.

Page 12

ACP-WGW01-WP06

For Service Level Agreements

In offering a service for safety-related communications, organizations should agree on some form of guarantee for continuity, availability, and integrity of the communication service. This could include development of a Service Level Agreement between two or more parties. In the context of a global service, a commonly agreed-upon set of performance parameters and contractual conditions may be necessary.

Because commercial communication service providers require optimum interoperability to conduct their business, an agreed-upon set of performance parameters and contractual conditions will relax the standardization effort for most of the stakeholders while guaranteeing better interoperability.

2.9 Implementation Planning on a Global Basis

[See possible ATM implementation –roadmap- give considerations to airframe, system and technology lifecycle]

BackgroundThe introduction of future technology asks that we also consider the overall standardization and implementation processes. As the international aviation community moves toward more advanced communications systems and technology, it will be essential to develop an implementation and transition plan that participating states can use as a general roadmap to aid in their decision-making processes. This will be a high-level document because the planning for implementation of aviation communications systems is, by nature, an activity that is performed by an individual nation to meet its own needs. At best, there might be a region in which more than one nation share common problems and needs that would permit use of a regional implementation planning effort. However, if global harmonization is to be achieved, these regions must coordinate efforts and move toward a common implementation. Existing inter-regional coordination and implementation of new systems are currently very weak and the existing mechanism does not fulfill these objectives.

Based on the global nature of the aviation industry, it is apparent that harmonization is a key attribute for ensuring full interoperability and consistency in applying standards, procedures, security measures, certification, and systems integration. Lack of harmonization will drive up costs and hinder acceptance for implementation planning and service provision.

Another aspect of globalization related to implementation planning is expectation that jobs for implementation related to development of components, in-line or retrofit installation of aircraft equipment, and upgrades to ground infrastructure will be dispersed among many of the states. Lack of such “spreading of the wealth” can lead to resistance to the change to a new communication system.

Integration and harmonization of various concepts and needs are also required to achieve a baseline regarding safety and regularity and to attain the seamlessness for efficient

Page 13

ACP-WGW01-WP06

operation. Planning for implementation of improved communications technology and systems, while performed by individual states, cannot be successfully accomplished in isolation. Regional air-ground communications systems are coordinated through the global mechanisms established by ICAO, and the ICAO standards and recommended practices provide a common framework for implementation and planning of systems.

Transition strategies of various member states will be primarily driven by market considerations and state policy decisions as development evolves. All users must ensure that transition plans meet user needs with tangible and clearly defined, cost-effective system requirements. Participating states must commit funding to support common implementation schedules. Related policies, procedures, and system functionality must also be compatible with and support these schedules. Delays in any of these elements could impact technology implementation and transition.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues for Implementation Planning on a Global Basis[Is UAT an example that could be cited of how parallel, interactive development shortens the cycle times while resulting in better quality?]

Cost: A shorter transition period will reduce the costs for simultaneous operation but

might increase costs, as investments might not be fully amortized and because of the high costs to retrofit aircraft in service.

A cost/benefits analysis will be needed to justify investments by all parties. In addition to assessing cost and benefits, this analysis should contribute to developing a viable business case showing potential ROIs that will promote the commitment of funds and user participation. The design of a scalable system plan would allow users to minimize costs and maximize individual state ROIs. Each state will have to estimate their respective cost and ROI. Joint sharing of costs by users reduces investment, improving ROI potential.

Participating states may well initiate their own development/acquisition/ certification programs. The key element is that safety, performance, and seamless interoperability is ensured for all users of the system.

As part of “spreading of the wealth” mentioned above, one possible approach might be a joint acquisition using common developers and manufacturers. This could be followed by some form of centralized certification effort for the airborne avionics, thus avoiding extensive duplication of effort in these areas by multiple states and improving the probability of success in meeting the overall transition schedule.

Benefits: Implementation plans are derived in a flexible and scalable manner so that

benefits are realized in a timely fashion. Harmonization of functionality and standards, combined with simultaneous

investment of funds by multiple states will promote confidence and buy-in from key stakeholders, such as airlines.

Risk:

Page 14

ACP-WGW01-WP06

The potential for technology introductions that are inconsistent with our change process cycles.

Lack of proper coordination between states, delaying mitigation of stakeholder problems/concerns.

Schedule: Introduction of non-SARP-compliant systems has illustrated the degree of rapid

technology refresh cycles that we must consider and try to approach. We face potential for technology introductions that are inconsistent with our change process cycles.

In the past, we enjoyed long cycles of technology introduction and use. The typical sequential cycle of standards development (i.e., SARPs followed by MASPS, and MOPS) far outlives the current technology cycle. These standards, which help create the technical requirements for system and equipment design, are taking too long when done sequentially. This is then followed by the design, development, and implementation phases of a technology insertion/update that only increases the overall implementation timeline.

Commercial systems move even faster, as demonstrated by the technology increments for mobile telephone technology. Although it is likely that safety service development has added requirements to the cycles to ensure adequate quality and safety, there would seem to be room for improvement by working some of these processes in parallel.

We should assume that various states will adopt implementation plans and schedules that will vary according to their regional priorities, resources, status, policies, etc. These schedules are not interdependent and do not necessarily have to be consistent in terms of a specific commissioning date. Recognizing that each state is independent and driven by a wide range of conditions, the global implementation plan schedules must be flexible and accommodate potentially significant differences in availability dates for the technology across these international boundaries.

Potential Mitigation Structure a plan that encourages a process that allows parallel, interactive

development that shortens the cycle times while increasing quality.

2.10 Radio Spectrum Access

Background

Traditionally, aviation has had an unchallenged, exclusive allocation of bandwidth. However, the mobile communication explosion has created an atmosphere in which all allocations are challenged and has caused a growing need for sufficient justification for retaining those aeronautical spectrum allocations, which are essential to future growth of the aviation industry. To force the new and existing radio spectrum users to become

Page 15

ACP-WGW01-WP06

more spectrum efficient, the radio spectrum regulators are increasingly looking for new ways to manage the spectrum.

General Aspects of Spectrum Management

The spectrum management process seeks to optimize use of this scarce spectrum resource. One of its main objectives is to create a universally agreed framework in which the demands for radio frequencies are balanced with the interests of different service users to produce a planned radio environment incorporating effective and efficient spectrum use.

Demand for spectrum continues to increase at a much faster rate than the frequency availability created from extended spectrum boundaries based on technology improvement.

The ITU Regulatory Framework for Aeronautical Radio Services

The ITU Radio Regulations recognize aeronautical mobile (route) and aeronautical radionavigation services as separate services within the mobile services family and within the radio determination family, respectively. The distress and safety provisions in Radio Regulations Chapter VII (Article 30) and Appendix 13, and the regulatory and operational aspects of the aeronautical mobile service in Chapter VIII (dealing with aeronautical services), as well as various other regulations, establish aeronautical services as a distinct and important component within the radio service hierarchy with a high importance being placed on safety aspects.

A distinction between aeronautical mobile services provided for safety and regularity of flight (aeronautical mobile route (R) services) and those for other purposes (aeronautical mobile and aeronautical mobile (off-route) services) has been created to protect for air traffic operations (safety and regularity of flight), with a distinctive designation for civil aviation (R service) in contrast to other aeronautical uses (such as off-route) of radio frequency spectrum. The convention employed in the Radio Regulations of according worldwide exclusive allocations to those services associated with safety and regularity of flight promotes development of globally agreed-upon system specifications and interoperability as required in Article 37 of the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300).

Relationship Between ITU Radio Regulations ICAO SARPs

Under its Constitution and Convention, the ITU has recognition and authority as the international body for telecommunications. The Radio Regulations are the instrument through which international-agreed radio spectrum policies are expressed. The regulations lay down the agreed-upon allocations of the radio frequency spectrum to the various user services, including aeronautical services, together with maximum limits for other transmission parameters designed to support an interference-free radio environment. These regulations, coupled with a broad regulatory framework covering—in particular, licensing of radio stations, personnel, provisions for inspection on demand,

Page 16

ACP-WGW01-WP06

and procedures for safety and distress—create the basis for a universal system of order in the use of radio frequencies.

The ITU Radio Regulations have treaty status, and states are inherently obliged to comply, unless an exception is stated and embodied in the Final Acts of the Conference, which created the regulation. Such statements appear in the published version of the Final Acts. Aeronautical services are obliged to operate within this framework.

The ICAO SARPs in Annex 10 are developed in accordance with Article 37 of the ICAO Convention to ensure the safety and regularity of air navigation. In addition to the ITU Radio Regulations, the SARPs specify interface and performance standards for internationally agreed-upon aeronautical systems, which have been developed by aviation to meet the specific operational requirements of aeronautical services. ICAO is recognized internationally as the competent international body to carry out this work and to coordinate a worldwide policy for the operational use of the specified systems. Furthermore, the ICAO Annexes contain procedures for regular and emergency communications that are specifically developed for aviation purposes, taking into account the operational conditions. These procedures supplement the basic requirements for procedures in aeronautical communications of the Radio Regulations.

Thus, ITU Radio Regulations and ICAO SARPs together form a complementary set of regulatory provisions. The ITU Radio Regulations must evolve within the general telecommunications environment, with its many and diverse users of the radio frequency spectrum, while the ICAO SARPs respond to the operational safety aspects of air navigation and are developed and agreed-upon by aviation within the ICAO organizational framework.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues Associated with Radio Spectrum Access Currently, the cost for access to the aeronautical spectrum is based on

administrative costs; however, in some states there is an increasing risk that, within evolving radio spectrum management, the costs will be based on the intrinsic value of the allocated safety of life spectrum bands.

The need to share bandwidth with other users has the potential risk that the aviation industry will be burdened with the costs for investment to enhance compatibility with these other services and to improve spectrum efficiency for the benefit of other industries.

Protection of the RF Environment to the levels assumed in the standards is necessary to meet the performance requirements identified for use in certification and to meet operational approval requirements.

Availability of new or existing Spectrum will be determined by auctioning, spectrum transfers and trading, and administrative incentive pricing, etc.

Potential Mitigation Assess actual spectrum utilization, needs, and time required.

Page 17

ACP-WGW01-WP06

2.11 Communication Message Traffic Type (ATS, AOC, AAC, APC)

BackgroundNote that the ICAO definitions of these message traffic types are provided in Attachment B to this paper.

In the interest of reducing costs, one periodically asks the question concerning having a system that can be used for both ATSC/AOC (safety and regularity of flight) and AAC/APC (non-safety) communications. For example, when satellite communication was first contemplated for aviation, the intention was to satisfy the ATSC/AOC and AAC/APC need for air-ground communication within one satellite communication system through a priority scheme based on urgency of the communication type. This could offset the high cost for ATSC/AOC communications with potential revenues from AAC/APC communications.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues for Communication Message Traffic Types Desire to have such a system that would not jeopardize spectrum allocations

(especially spectrum allocated for safety and regularity of flight). The resulting higher traffic volume could result in lower overall fixed and

variable costs for communications and increase competition. The following considerations will largely determine whether segregation or

integration of ATSC/AOC and AAC/APC communication is beneficial:o Appropriate RF band — Is the system operating in a designated AM(R)S

or AMS(R)S band, which allows AMS or AMSS?o How is global access guaranteed to AAC/APC spectrum?o Does aviation have to bid for bandwidth to conduct AAC/APC air- ground

communication?o Priority — Do ATSC/AOC communications receive priority over

AAC/APC traffic?o Certification to correct level — Are the avionics certified to the

appropriate level? o Is the supporting network developed to the appropriate standards, and is it

certifiable? o Can implementation of Required Communication Performance (RCP -

performance based requirements) target and simplify certification?o Is there a potential to offer various levels of QoS, including price

differentiation and how can they be guaranteed?o Will the resulting increased traffic from integrating ATSC/AOC and

AAC/APC traffic encourage competition? And would the availability of existing AAC/APC infrastructure that can meet QoS and RCP encourage competition and reduce overall costs?

o Will voice service requirements differ from data service requirements, including in the RCP concept for requirements?

Page 18

ACP-WGW01-WP06

o What are the human factors issues of integration (e.g., do air crew efforts to distinguish ATC versus AOC speakers and instructions on the same channel increase workload or errors)?

Potential MitigationThe fundamental choice must be made regarding the type of communications traffic to be supported. Resolution needs to be reached from technical and institutional aspects as to whether the requirements for ATSC and AOC communications would prevent the support of AAC and APC communications from a technical and institutional aspect. Inclusion of AAC and APC might be essential to justify the investment.

2.12 Security

BackgroundBy law, many government organizations must provide adequate protection against dangerous threats to government-controlled information. This protection is processed through a vast number of computing devices and systems. This is especially true for systems that are part of a country’s critical infrastructure. Extensive security certification and accreditation requirements for new and legacy information technology (IT) systems are now required. Additionally, increasing regulation concerning privacy of sensitive personnel information is another important driver for greater information security controls.

As communication systems—including those that support the aeronautical community—converge toward a more digital environment, the threat level increases significantly. Many technical controls, including data encryption and authentication, are required to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information. Not providing adequate security within a critical IT system can be costly. Computer malware or attack activities of an unauthorized system user could result in possible wide-ranging losses, including economic losses and loss of credibility and even human life.

Drivers/Tradeoffs and Issues for SecurityAt issue is how can aviation effectively balance the need for safety and security with cost and timeliness. Information security requires extensive pre-implementation analysis and planning to be cost efficient and effective throughout the lifecycle of the system, and it must be determined. A pre-implementation security threat analysis and risk assessment effort should result in a cost-efficient multilayered physical, technical, and procedural controls implemented in tandem with stakeholder acceptance of an appropriate level of unmitigated risk. Post-implementation of technical security controls usually involves greater cost and/or unnecessary acceptance of higher risk levels because of timing, funding, operational, or technological constraints.

The cost of adding security to a fielded commercial system is often an order of magnitude higher than that of initially fielding the system with security. In an aeronautical

Page 19

ACP-WGW01-WP06

environment where certification provides a significant hurdle during deployment, the delta will likely be even higher.

Institutional aspects of security—to be considered during the development of a future communications system—raise a number of questions, including:

How can a system be selected in the near future with confidence that emerging or evolving security regulations will have minimal impact on deployment?

How does the possibility of safety and non-safety traffic sharing network infrastructure impact the security of both types of traffic?

Are the security needs of safety and non-safety traffic similar? If so, can participants amortize costs through deployment of a shared network?

Potential Mitigation If network security is addressed at an application level, it is possible to remove

many of the institutional security-related issues—keeping keys, etc. Much work is being done globally to bring more attention to the security issue—–

It is suggested that we await the outcome of those activities. Future certification of aeronautical communication systems would likely

encompass related security elements, and the institutional aspects of certification will also sufficiently cover security.

Take into account as far as possible future advances in attacks when specifying a security solution since novel attacks are likely to be invented before the system is fielded. This means erring on the side of caution regarding threat likelihood and severity and ensuring that the solution is extensible.

Take into account as far as possible likely future changes to security laws and regulations.

2.13 General Institutional Elements Driving Need for Global Harmonization

Common assumptions need to be agreed upon by the various stakeholders. For example, the airframe and avionic manufacturers do not drive the ATSP implementation schedules, but they need to have the implementation schedule as an assumption in their business case development; and they need to have a commitment that they feel they can rely on for that implementation. Similarly, the ATSPs need to have an agreed-upon assumption about the equipage and usage implementation among airspace users for the business case development of the ATSPs’ corresponding business cases. A harmonization of the implementation planning is needed, which likely will include phasing of the transition to full implementation.

Page 20

ACP-WGW01-WP06

3. Part II — Aviation Stakeholders

As a component of the 11th ANC institutional elements, the successful implementation of change to the aeronautical communication systems needs to include “…the viability of business case for implementation from an avionics vendor/air frame manufacturer, airline and air traffic service provider perspective.” This quote lists some of the main stakeholders, but there is an expanded list major of stakeholders gleaned from additional input papers and WG-C meetings. The expanded list follows:

Airspace Users — includes several categories (Airlines, Cargo Services, General Aviation, Business, Military/Government, UAVs) that have differing needs;

Air Traffic Service Providers (ATSP) — includes some variation dependent upon air space type relative to traffic density served and infrastructure available as well as charging structure to airspace users;

Communication Service Providers (CSP) — using land and satellite such as the telephone companies, Inmarsat, MTSAT;

Network Service Providers (NSP) — includes the SITA, ARINC, AeroThai; Regulators — includes Standards Organization, Radio Spectrum Regulators,

Certification and Safety Organizations, and Rulemaking Bodies such as ICAO, FAA, JAA, EASA, JCAB, RTCA;

Airframe manufactures and Equipment manufacturers; Airport Operators; Pilots and Controllers; and Passengers and Shippers.

Note: The table was eliminated in this draft because it was not a good method to capture large amounts of text and data. However, we will continue to work to provide in a future draft, a table that may be able to replace much of the text or serve as a summation of the text.

In addition, the stakeholders within the aviation industry view the institutional elements within the context of their respective business cases and specific underlying costs and benefits from their particular view. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 discuss the cost and benefit assessment process and the business aspects per stakeholder, respectively. The business case aspects section of this paper gives a generalized statement of some variation of views among the stakeholders of the business case costs and benefits of implementing new communication systems that can be influenced by the other institutional elements. In considering these various views to improve the success of implementation of standards for new aeronautical communication systems, one needs to strike a balance that is not likely to be optimized for any given stakeholder, but that provides adequate benefits over a period of time, given the costs to each of the full set of major stakeholders involved in the transition.

Page 21

ACP-WGW01-WP06

3.1 Cost and Benefit Assessment

The first major step in conducting a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis would be to estimate all of the “negative costs” to be incurred if an air traffic bottleneck were to ensue from a failure to improve the current communications capacity. During this analysis, stakeholders must determine how to develop and agree on such an estimate and must include what common assumptions would be used and determine how the spectrum asset would be valued?

A failure to improve the air traffic communications capacity will eventually force a limit on peak period air traffic operations at the busiest airports. Air carriers and passengers would be forced to adapt to these new limitations, and any adaptation will have economic implications beyond the air industry itself. The market-based adaptation process would be complex, and many constituencies would bear the costs, both overt and hidden. Passengers would have to choose between traveling at less convenient times, to different locations, or be willing to pay more for the privilege of traveling to a very desirable location during the most desirable time. Cost minimization would force air carriers to reconsider their entire network of operations because local air traffic limitations would impact their entire operations sequencing. Continued air traffic limitations would also force local regions to bear the hidden costs of reduced economic growth and may also eventually force them into a complex series of adaptations.

The estimate of the total societal value lost by failing to improve the existing communications system should also be the maximum that society should be willing to pay to deploy a new communications system. This estimate should serve as an upper limit on the cost of deploying a new system and would assist in reducing the options under consideration.

The negative costs of failing to act could be allocated among the many different parties involved, but that would be difficult to do and be somewhat arbitrary. However, this estimated allocation would highlight which parties should be most willing to contribute to the costs of a new communications system and to what extent. Political complexities, however, may limit any subsidy between the interested parties.

The second major step of a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis would be to analyze the costs for a new system. An assessment of the costs and benefits of a change in technology will be an important part of the business justification. It is important to estimate costs incurred in implementing or using the system for each of the stakeholders. A cost assessment has to cover all phases of the lifecycle of an operational improvement, from planning, research, and investment to operation and maintenance.

For the Air Traffic Management (ATM) system, this assessment has to incorporate the intrinsic costs of the operational improvements to the ATM stakeholders (CNS/ATM regulators, service providers and airspace users) and how these costs are shared.

Page 22

ACP-WGW01-WP06

The benefits of introducing a new technological solution must be clearly identified and quantified against the operating cost of the existing system. If the solution could be structured or layered to enhance flexibility, then it would be valuable over the long term.

In all industries, system implementation can only be successful if there is a business case, and aviation is no exception. Although improvements in the communication infrastructure would benefit the aviation industry as a whole, the return on investment will be largely different between the stakeholders and, in some cases, could even be negative due to the interdependence of the investment decisions among stakeholders.

Consideration must be given to choosing between a market-driven option and a regulatory decision to mandate use of a new communication system. These become assumptions in the business cases of the various aviation stakeholders and need to be harmonized so the business cases have consistent assumptions to improve the opportunity for successful implementation. A mandate or incentives to encourage early equipage can be useful not only in the case of a safety issue, but also to help optimize the broader business case for aviation that is beyond the control of any individual stakeholder or class of stakeholders.

[Different per stakeholder – make possible reference to voluntary–mandatory document of RTCA).] [Suggestion from John MacBride that reference should be made to the letter produced by most major airlines a few years ago which stated that no mandate would be acceptable unless it applied equally to the ANSPs/ CSPs as well as the airlines and that evidence in the form of business cases would be needed.][Equipage rates, role of rule making being able to push a change if the nominal business case exists for airspace users (voluntary/ mandatory) – start rule making with airspace user inputs and also ATSP – investment synchronization between air and ground]

The benefits from implementing a new aeronautical communication system, possibly in conjunction with upgrades to other systems, fall within the following groups:

Increased Airport and Airspace capacity to accommodate growth — would also improve predictability (especially peak period capacity);

Reduction of delays — would improve predictability for many stakeholders (airspace users, pilots and controllers, airports, ATSPs, passengers);

Increased operational efficiency for many stakeholders (airspace users, pilots and controllers, airports, ATSPs);

Reduction of infrastructure costs — may result from phasing out of older communication systems;

Reduction of communication costs may be a longer term goal versus immediate benefit;

Improved passenger services; Extension of ATM Applications — (Due to increased bandwidth, new

applications may be created and also may include ability to displace some navigation and surveillance infrastructure with equivalent applications using Communications.); and

Page 23

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Increased Communications Integrity — (safety and security improvements through the system and the improved operational processes it supports).

The primary justification for implementing a new communication system is to avoid the economic damage that will ensue if a communications bottleneck prohibits future air traffic growth at the most desirable travel locations and times. The main drivers justifying a new communication system are thus increased airport and airspace, reduction of delays and increased operational efficiency. The full set of institutional elements will directly affect the costs for deploying and operating a new communication system and can be a large influence on the overall system costs and, therefore, can drive the business case.

3.2 Business Case Issues for Specific Stakeholders

Introduction of a new generation communication system could be beneficial to aviation if it offers the desired QoS at an acceptable cost. In Europe and possibly other areas, such a system needs to provide the future communication capacity to cope with air traffic growth and ATM improvements while taking into account the existing congestion of the VHF band. In other parts of the world, benefits could arise from providing communication for air traffic services where it currently is not economically viable, based on a potential reduction in communication acquisition and operating costs.

A range of options exists, from using or adapting available non-aviation specific systems and services to developing and deploying a completely new communication infrastructure; this falls more into the realm of technology selection. In case the launch of a dedicated aviation safety system is not financially viable, other options, such as leasing networks or inclusion of nonsafety communication traffic could, lower overall infrastructure and operating costs. This option is also related to technology selection but has institutional elements needing change before it can be more readily considered. This option might also provide opportunities for improved passenger services and greater options for new Aeronautical Administrative Communications (AAC) applications to aid airline efficiency.

It naturally follows that the costs, benefits, risks, and schedule of a stakeholder could vary significantly from that of the others for any given technology and implementation plan. This potential variability of business case outlook among the stakeholders affects the viability of the overall action plan for implementing any new communications system. The objective of this section is to explore the various business plan components and their effects on the stakeholders so as to raise the level of awareness within the aviation community; to that end, the action plan will provide the overall best solution.

The following business case issues for specific stakeholders take into account the fact that these stakeholders are in diverse situations regarding their future role, existing infrastructure, current need, and timeliness of projected future need. The viability of their

Page 24

ACP-WGW01-WP06

business cases regarding these diverse situations may be captured in the following components driving their business cases:

Cost — including the cost of equipment and its development, and service-related costs;

Benefit— including return on investment (ROI), operational efficiencies, workforce efficiencies, provision of beneficial services, growth opportunities, and interoperability improvements;

Risk— including development and integration risks, new training requirements, transition-related risks, and risks that actions taken for the benefit of one stakeholder might be detrimental to another stakeholder; and

Schedule— including the time frames for each stakeholder to complete its actions relative to the overall schedule, and schedules related to a stakeholder’s individual needs and timetable.

3.2.1 Airspace Users

Airspace Users have different views of reasons for equipping with new avionics systems. There are two types of Air Transport users: Airlines or Package services and business aviation. The ROI, as calculated by each airline is highly dependent on the size, age, and type of fleet and the area of operation. This may be applicable to other airspace users, but not necessarily to all. The Airlines or Package services usually develop a business case in which the ROI within defined periods of time is a critical factor. These business cases are tuned to the specific user, and a clear identification of how the financial investment will add profit to the bottom line of the company must be defined.

The second view of the group comes from the military side that, in their many diverse activities, has some identification with the airlines, as they provide similar services for specialized military support. The military does not operate on a business case model in which ROI is a critical factor. The military is rather a mission-oriented case where the mission is defined and the elements that are necessary to accomplish the mission are defined and implemented as necessary. There are relationships between an airline’s business case and a military mission-oriented view, but they are not the same.

The second category of Airspace Users, generally categorized as business aviation, is a subset of general aviation (as defined in Annex 6 Part 2 [of what?]). These users also have links to the first category of users, but their business case is significantly different. They normally do not equip large fleets such as the military/government or airlines. The primary motivations come under two major issues: providing the correct environment for their specific business interests (such as security, safety, efficiency, state of the art avionics and equipage, etc,) and, more appropriate to this paper, minimizing or eliminating restrictions to access of airspace and airports. Unlike airlines, business aviation sees cost, while a concern, as a secondary factor to access and efficiency considerations.

Page 25

ACP-WGW01-WP06

There is a third category of Airspace Users generally identified as General Aviation. These users generally are highly cost-conscious and less commonly use a business case. They desire and even demand no new required equipage from which they gain no apparent advantage. At the same time, these users can be considered in a consumer market where wide varieties of choice are desired, with individuals choosing what they perceive as needed, want, and can afford.

Airspace users also consist of pilots. Pilots are key players in the transition to new system’s implementation. Planning for a new aeronautical communication system will need the input of the pilots to address the RCP operational communication procedures and development of the associated training. The resultant benefits likely will be better informed flight, leading to less delay; simpler procedures; and more assured handling of disrupted flight.

In countries with a large volume of general aviation, this set of stakeholders is crucial to the acceptance of a new air-ground system. Since each aircraft will need to be equipped with the appropriate avionics, this group will likely incur the greatest collective expenditure. Therefore, the operational benefit has to be quantified and secured by commitments of the other stakeholders to justify the investment.

Airspace Users Cost Issues:Major costs to airspace users are for new equipage and its installation, operating and maintenance, and documentation and training for operating and maintaining the new system. Less obvious are costs related to carrying multiple systems during transition or because the ATC and AOC functionality required for the user is not met in a single system. For commercial airspace users, costs may be passed through by increased ticket prices or freight charges, but the timeliness of the ROI is an issue. Business Aviation must treat them as overhead, where ROI is not a certainty. For General Aviation, cost of new equipment may be prohibitive, with no possibility of return; and for many GA users, the cost of new equipment that provides no new benefits is also an issue. Governmental and military users costs need to be included in available budgets.

Airspace Users Benefit Issues:Commercial airspace users can benefit from new communications paradigms (e.g., data-link messaging supplanting voice) that promise fewer and shorter delays, which will improve the percentage of on-time flights. Delayed flights reduce airport capacity and also affect connecting flights, with trickle-down effects on fuel costs, on the passenger or cargo efficiency of each flight, and revenue losses to airlines providing alternate flights or transportation to passengers missing connections. Additional benefits accrue with communications that use radio spectrum more efficiently; this manifests in more channels becoming available that can be used to increase airspace capacity in crowded sectors and at airports (e.g., new channels support the addition of new runways). New communications technologies also can offer safer and more reliable communications through reduction of step-ons, stuck mic, abatements, etc.

Airspace Users Risk Issues:

Page 26

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Downtime, including unforeseen time lost due to integration issues, can affect the profitability of a commercial airspace user. New equipage and new spectral allocations must be certified for operation, and issues such as physical integration and co-site interference may present risks related to the large variety of equipment carried. Finally, predicted future air traffic volumes may not reliably predict the need for a new technology.

Airspace Users Schedule Issues:Scheduling concerns of commercial airspace users are in replacement of equipage. These replacements are, in turn, driven by rulemaking that mandates new equipment. The schedule for replacement becomes an issue when an aging fleet with short remaining lifetime must be newly equipped, or when the timeframe is not in line with the user’s business plan. Government and military users face similar issues, owing to the funding source constraints imposed by those institutions. The other aspect of schedule that must be considered is the point of involvement for this stakeholder. Knowledge of this stake holder’s business plans is important early in the implementation cycle, as it can aid in selection of a concept and technology that best fits the stake holder’s needs.

Airspace Users Summary:The sources of funding for new equipage and the timeframe in which those funds need to be available are concerns for airspace users. For users with an expectation of ROI, the balance sheet of investment versus return is also a concern. A plan that provides flexibility of timeframe for these expenditures would allay business plan concerns. This might be achieved in a plan that allows legacy equipment to continue operation (but not without some cost associated with carrying multiple systems) until new expenditures align with the user’s business plan.

We recommend an action plan that considers the global economic impacts of airspace users’ business plans. Although stakeholders’ timeframes will vary, the overall impact might be calculated against candidate action plans so as to maximize ROI and align with the business plans of the majority. Providing alternative minimum functionality systems for general aviation will be key.

To prevent the need of carrying multiple systems equipment, global and regional harmonization is essential. The avionics should have the potential ability to migrate to a new infrastructure with minimal certification. It would be preferable if the avionics could be installed from the aircraft production lines (versus retrofit), leading to lower certification, implementation, and transition costs. In part, this lower cost is based on not having to remove an existing in-service aircraft from operation to equip it with new avionics and having to update the associated operational procedures and train personnel for the change. Installation in line with production allows initial operation to be planned with the new systems, equipment, procedures, and trained personnel coming together at the same time.

The risks of doing nothing are many, but still need to be weighed against the benefits. Risks include a reduction in capacity, which can affect commercial airspace users’

Page 27

ACP-WGW01-WP06

profitability. There is also a risk of needing to replace equipment with outdated technology, only to face subsequent and untimely delayed need to upgrade when a new system finally is implemented. Unilateral actions by one region not taken by others could bring flight restrictions or a proliferation of systems to satisfy the needs of the various regions.

3.2.2 Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP)

[Need also to be categorized in traffic volume, geographic location, etc. – dense traffic, remote areas with less infrastructure and oceanic, means of charging airspace users … or other categories?]

This group of stakeholders uses the communications system as enabling technology to provide airspace users a service, based on mandatory or voluntary avionic equipage. Using an improved communication service to provide better operational capability will provide efficiency and capacity gains. Traditionally, an ATSP owns and operates a dedicated Air Traffic Control (ATC) communication service; however, we increasingly see use of a CSP and NSP having a contractual arrangement with the ATSP.

ATSP also considers controllers who work in this segment of the industry. Based on the current state of changes under discussion for aeronautical communication systems, the role of controllers will be affected by the new systems, and are key players in the transition to the new systems implementation. Planning for a new aeronautical communication system will need the input of the controllers to address the RCP operational communication procedures and development of the associated training. The resultant benefits likely will be better informed flight, leading to less delay; simpler procedures; and more assured handling of disrupted flight.

ATSP Cost Issues: Any aviation communication system requires ground infrastructure. The ATSP recovers its communication costs in general through taxes and or users charges. Costs also include training, and operation and maintenance of the system and must be weighed against available funding, or, in the case of independent providers, against their ROI.

ATSP Benefit Issues:Benefits accrue to service providers through reduced workforce or workloads (arising from more efficient communications provided by the system) and reduced operations and maintenance costs. A more spectrally efficient system could benefit this stakeholder by providing more sectors, thereby increasing the safety of flight through reduced throughput in busy sectors or during periods of peak capacity.

ATSP Risk Issues:A new technology often brings new operational paradigms. Service providers used to procedures that have remained basically static over a long period of time can be hesitant to accept such changes. Additionally, when a new system adds functionality that the provider sees as detrimental to its objectives (channel override), additional measures may

Page 28

ACP-WGW01-WP06

be necessary to allay any concerns. Such measures may increase the cost of the system. With independent contractors, the cost of bearing new infrastructure costs might force a contractor to desert this business area, seen as unprofitable with unforeseeable results.

ATSP Schedule Issues:

Any new operational paradigm affected by a new system should be presented to this stakeholder prior to finalizing technology selection.

ATSP Summary:

ROI probably is not the main concern of this stakeholder; rather, it is in a change in paradigms that would force unfamiliar procedures on the workforce. Early representation in, and consultation with, air traffic service provider representatives can provide insight into potential concerns that can guide an action plan to a successful conclusion.

The do-nothing case carries the risk of increased controller workload as air traffic increases, affecting flight safety and increasing delays.

3.2.3 Communication Service Provider (CSP)

A CSP can provide communication, usually in competition with other CSPs, to the ATSP and the airspace user’s ground facility (e.g., an airline operational center). This service can be voice and/or data services.

The CSP will make its investment decision on the market to provide non-ATM communication and the potential of a service contract with ATSPs since the ATM traffic volume is generally not adequate to justify the added infrastructure expense to meet ATS certification/operational approval.

CSP Cost Issues:CSPs bear the cost of providing infrastructure that supports the communication traffic from air traffic control centers to radios. While this cost is passed through to the organization providing air traffic control through service contracts, any required upgrades to communications infrastructure (e.g., broadband telco) will be weighed against ROI of this stakeholder. This cost will result in greater service contract fees and must be considered by the organization leasing the service. The value of air traffic communications as a customer is also an issue, because the size of the market is miniscule relative to that of residential, business, and cellular subscribers.

CSP Benefit Issues:If a new communications system offers the potential to integrate other aeronautical communications into a single system, infrastructure complexity could be reduced, and spectrum management could be simplified by reducing the number of channels needed to provide the combined services. Increased benefits could accrue to this stakeholder from user fees tagged to broadened services (e.g., APC) offered over the same system. Cost to the organization providing these services would also be improved. If the

Page 29

ACP-WGW01-WP06

communications provider is radio based (e.g., satellite), ground infrastructure equipment costs service fees may be less than with the current system.

CSP Risk Issues:The diversity in geography, telecommunications technology, and access to telecommunications resources carries the risk, if a new aeronautical communication system requires newer infrastructure of less coverage, or of a need for alternative communications on the ground and in the air. The diversity in these providers’ service offerings also might be seen as an obstacle if new telecommunications classes are required, especially in light of the small market value of the aeronautical industry as a revenue source.

CSP Schedule Issues

These issues are not obvious.

CSP Summary:

Telecommunications bandwidth and service types to be provided are of concern to this stakeholder. These concerns are founded in the provider’s ROI (when the provider is a commercial provider) and the feasibility of providing the required telecommunications. The small value of aeronautical communications as a revenue source is a potential roadblock to replace infrastructure for its benefit. In adopting an action plan, aviation should consider these aspects as an early step in exploring technology alternatives. Where possible, existing architecture should be used to minimize system costs.

3.2.4 Network Service Provider (NSP)

The NSP could be a CSP or a service broker providing interoperability between the various subnetworks while guaranteeing end-to-end quality of service. CSPs make arrangements with the NSPs to enable them to provide end-to-end service. They are probably the key actors in terms of risk sharing and service contracts.

The NSP could play a key role and therefore achieve a benefit from providing compatibility/bridging services for various new APC services.

NSP Issues:This service provider’s business case and cost, benefit, risk, and schedule issues parallel that of the CSP.

3.2.5 Regulators

The aviation regulators (such as FAA and JCAB) sometimes are also the responsible ATSP for a country. However, in their role as regulators, they are the entities that define the regulatory framework for some of the institutional elements, which can result in more or less expense and duration incurred for these activities by these stakeholders. The

Page 30

ACP-WGW01-WP06

regulators’ acceptance and implementation of RCP will likely affect the following issues that directly relate to the business cases for many of the other stakeholders:

Standardization — cost and duration; Certification — cost and duration; Operational Approval — cost and duration; and Communication Procedures.

The regulators also have a role in defining the implementation planning of the new aeronautical communication system for local, regional, and global service provision via participation in ICAO and regional aviation organizations.

Also, the regulators, in conjunction with their national telecommunication and radio communication regulatory authorities, help to determine the aviation community’s access to radio spectrum.

Regulators Cost Issues:

For most regulators, cost is not a major business case driver, as membership and symposia costs are borne by membership fees, and publications costs are borne by subscriptions or document sales. Cost associated with regulator activities are more often incurred by airspace users, airframe manufacturers, and the various service providers upon whom they levy regulation. Added functionality can increase regulator-related costs, due to greater complexity of the system to be certified; for example, in certifying complex (and perhaps not 100% testable) software. This added functionality may be new capabilities within a single type of service, or as an integration of services into a single system. Rulemaking organizations can impose costs burdens on stakeholders (e.g., General Aviation) when required equipment upgrades are costly.

Regulator Benefit Issues:

Objectives of regulators often use terms like “interoperability,” “uniformity” “safety,” etc., to describe the benefit of a regulatory document or standard. ARINC, for example, regulates form, fit, and function of avionics, which lowers costs of upgrades by providing for uniform and interoperable equipment for aircraft. Certification will be an important step in implementing a new aeronautical communication system. As the technology to achieve a given functionality becomes more mature, experience in applying it can benefit the end user by allowing certification organizations to simplify procedures based on this experience. In a similar vein, when a commercial technology standard has been implemented in the public market place (e.g., Internet protocols), there is benefit to the user community accruing from open standards that drive competition in the market to lower equipment prices.

Regulator Risk Issues:

There are several subcategories of risk in the regulator arena. First is the risk that the timeframe to implement new standards will not meet the need for the technology in a timely manner, owing to protracted lifecycles for production/modification and acceptance

Page 31

ACP-WGW01-WP06

of standards. Second is the risk that increasingly complex technology is applied as the aeronautical communication solution. Here, there are two issues, performance and safety certification of a system with greater complexity, and unforeseen possibilities of issues not caught in development that are discovered in the certification process. A third risk is related to the heterogeneous nature of the end-to-end system, involving not only avionics and air-traffic service infrastructure, but also the entire network and communications service infrastructure in between. As functional capabilities reach into these intermediate systems for protocol support, certification efforts may become riskier.

Regulator Schedule Issues:

Schedule is a key component for regulators. Timely and smooth introduction of a standard is crucial to achieving the planned implementation schedule.

Regulator Summary:

Schedule and system complexity are seen as major business case components for this stakeholder. If there are possibilities to build a new system under current standards and migrate the system functionality when standards are changed, the time schedule for implementation can be viewed with greater certainty of being achieved. This is due to the use of technology based on already-proven standards and to elimination of standards development as a milestone necessary to implementation. However, this approach could aggravate total equipment and certification costs if the architecture of the system is not open to straightforward modifications.

3.2.6 Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers

For industry to commit to developing or enhancing products to meet requirements, it must see a clear commitment from its customers (the airspace users) to implement a new system. Industry will need to invest in development, marketing, and production process. The business case should extend along the whole value chain from chip supplier to airframe manufacturer. During the initial feasibility stage, the industry will be reluctant to fund research and development (R&D) due to the high market risk.

For the avionics manufacturer, the size of the market is important consideration. A larger and more certain mature market will be an incentive for manufacturer involvement earlier with product development. (Note: replace “mature” because this also implies “not growing,” but any seller likes a growing market.) This market will encourage manufacturers to reach agreement on the technical solution, thus transforming the present technological competition into a competition for the market segment.

Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers Cost:These two stakeholders have slightly different business interests. The equipment manufacturer, in competing for new equipment contracts, often must fund R&D as an overhead. Prior to committing to underwriting R&D, the equipment manufacturer needs some assurance of the acceptance by the aviation community of the implementation plan and some estimate at the size of the resultant market. The product cost and the revenue

Page 32

ACP-WGW01-WP06

are interdependent, owing to the reluctance of the airframe manufacture, airspace user, and the various service organizations to equip with high-cost equipment.

For the airframe manufacturer, R&D may not be as much a factor as design changes to accommodate the new avionics. However, much of the rest of the airframe manufacturer’s business concerns are the same as those of the equipment manufacturer. Integration of new equipment is an additional cost to the airframe manufacturers not incurred by the equipment manufacturers.

Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers Benefit:Benefits to these two stakeholders arise from several sources. A new aeronautical communication system that integrates several services into one box can provide a larger market share for the equipment manufacturer and simplify integration for the airframe manufacturer.

Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers Risk:Revenue is the major risk for these stakeholders. The certainty of a positive ROI depends on acceptance of the new system by the aviation community and on the need for new aircraft. The latter item, in turn, depends on the age of the fleet and future air transport capacity demands; both of these hold some uncertainty. These risks interrelated with risks for the other stakeholders.

Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers Schedule:The implementation plan will suggest a timeframe during which fleets must reequip. The ability to achieve this schedule will depend on the equipment manufacturer successfully developing and producing equipment that meets performance requirements in a timely manner and will have an impact on the airframe manufacturers’ own production cycles. An implementation plan that suggests upgrades that occur mid-cycle for the airframe manufacturer may incur schedule problems, owing to the need for modification of the airframe to accommodate the new equipment when production is already underway. Issues in development, testing, and “box level” certification of the equipment that aggravate schedules impact all later stages in the implementation cycle.

Airframe and Equipment Manufacturers Summary:These stakeholders’ concerns are concentrated in two areas. First is ROI, associated with R&D investment, end-user acceptance, and uncertainties in market shares. Second is schedule, relating to development issues and airframe manufacturers’ timetables for producing new aircraft. Therefore, it is important that buy-in consensus among all stakeholders be achieved early in the implementation cycle to provide assurance that the product to be developed will have value to the vendor. There is also the issue of airframe manufacturers’ production timetables; clearly an implementation plan cannot accommodate each of these stakeholders’ needs equally. Therefore, concentration should be on arriving at a solution that minimizes changes to aircraft already in production. (This benefits the airspace user as well, if backward compatibility of the equipment can be maintained.)

Page 33

ACP-WGW01-WP06

3.2.7 Airport Operators

Airport operators provide facilities and services to airspace users. Their interests are in recovering costs of theses facilities and services. The viability of airports is strongly tied to their efficiency in moving traffic, which relies on communications.

Like many other stakeholder operations in the aviation community, airport operation at near maximum capacity limits makes any unanticipated disruption to the expected traffic pattern result in large delays and a resulting drop in efficiency for handling the air traffic.

Airport Operators Cost:Some ground infrastructure installation for the new communications system will occur at airports. This may encompass antennas, point-to-point telecommunications, new connections to external networks, and backroom equipment. There may also be physical modification of the airport infrastructure itself to accommodate/support the new system. Normally, the implementation program bears these costs: ground infrastructure as equipment and installation costs; physical modification as a Communication Facilities Enhancement.

A second area of cost is associated with growth potential arising from more efficient communications. As this potential becomes available, airport operators must decide to fund the construction of new runways and gates and perhaps a larger air-traffic control area. These decisions will be balanced against expected ROI from the increased traffic.

Airport Operators Benefit:Airport revenues should increase as more efficient communications allow more runways or reduce delays, enabling an increase in traffic volume. If airport surface communications, in particular, can replace voice communications with more efficient data messaging, surface waiting times might be reduced. Similarly, the availability of new runways can assist in smoothing traffic flow disrupted by weather by increasing capacity of alternate destination airports.

The airport operators should see increased revenues if they are able to handle increased airport and airspace capacity to accommodate growth. These operators can accommodate growth by making changes that result in reduction in delays for aircraft arrivals and departures and by providing improved predictability of air traffic. The improved predictability should allow for more efficient airport operations. Airport operations should also benefit from reduction of infrastructure costs that could occur if older communication systems are phased out.

Airport operations may also benefit if a new aeronautical communication system includes means to improve passenger services (such as reissuing alternate connection boarding tickets while passengers are still inbound to the airport) that result in smoother handling of passenger issues that arise due to weather or other disruptions to connecting flights at a major hub. Also, better knowledge of the pattern of air traffic including more advance

Page 34

ACP-WGW01-WP06

notice of changes to the regular patterns caused by weather or other events, can allow an airport operator to manage ground staff loading better to meet the changing needs.

Airport Risk Issues:The major risk to this stakeholder appears to be in deciding to add infrastructure and balancing that decision against expected ROI.

Airport Operators Schedule:

Schedule is not a concern to this stakeholder, other than the brief periods in which new equipment installation occurs.

Airport Operators Summary:

With this stakeholder, airport infrastructure cost (other than for the communication system itself) versus ROI is again the key business case component. But such decisions are outside the realm of any implementation program, being made by the airport authority itself. The implementation of a new communication system is merely an enabler of that decision.

3.2.8 Passengers and Shippers

This stakeholder category comprises all who travel or ship cargo by aviation. The major concern of this stakeholder is timely transport at reasonable rates.

Passengers and Shippers Cost:The cost of many components of a new aeronautical communication system (avionics, airframe modifications, ground infrastructure, airport improvements) pass through to the passenger or shipper — as airfare and freight charges or as a tax related to providing service. Additionally, new cabin communications services are provided at premium rates to the passengers.

Passengers and Shippers Benefit:This stakeholder’s major concern is that on-time transportation be provided. Delays occur due to limitations in airspace and airport capacity and events disrupting normal flight plans (weather). To the extent that a new aeronautical communication system improves on-time performance, this stakeholder will benefit. Further benefits accrue to passengers who can use new aeronautical passenger communications (APC) for business purposes, improving time management for these stakeholders. Consideration of passenger needs for communications when they fly can also benefit other stakeholders. This might provide a means to offset the costs of such a new aeronautical communication system, if the potential larger APC traffic volumes are encouraged by a system that is cost effective for the passengers yet can ensure adequate QoS for other stakeholders and their aviation message traffic (ATSC, AOC, AAC). Additionally, but less certainly, if (1) increase in airspace and runway capacity, (2) smaller operating costs of a new system, and (3) lower fuel costs afforded by on better on-time arrivals produce positive ROI for the other stakeholders, airlines may be able to reduce airfare prices.

Page 35

ACP-WGW01-WP06

Passengers and Shippers Risk:The risk here is related to an uncertainty in this stakeholder’s future travel preferences. These preferences could be changed by any number of unforeseeable events: further terrorist events or fears, fuel prices, passthrough costs from the new system, or (as unlikely as this might seem) worsening weather patterns tied to global climate changes.

Passengers and Shippers Schedule:

[N/A]

Passengers and Shippers Summary:

This stakeholder must be treated as a potential recipient of benefit, but as a mirror of risk incurred by the other stakeholders. By “mirror,” we mean that any inconvenience to the passenger or shipper might be reflected in travel-preference changes to the detriment of many of the other stakeholders.

Page 36

ACP-WGW01-WP06

4. Part III — Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

Several competing issues have been raised relative to the institutional elements that must be kept within view to ensure successful implementation of standardization of the next- generation aeronautical communication systems.

We must seek a higher degree of coordination and integration between the stakeholder groups. We can no longer afford a sequential process if we are to take advantage of the emerging technologies. We face the problem of being overcome by technological events if we adhere to the existing framework of standardization, development, certification, and implementation. We face the pressure driven by commercial enterprises—whose focus is profit—to establish and field solutions that will challenge our own ability to respond. With each stakeholder group trying to optimize its business case independently, the true overall business case is not developed that would represent a better view of reality and hopefully lead to better decision-making and implementation commitments.

In summary, an early industry wide agreement on the next-generation aeronautical communication system(s) catalyses the planning and improves the business case for all stakeholders. It also aligns the manufacturing industry and other stakeholder support for development of standards and commitments to implementation planning timelines. Coordinating this activity by means of focused stakeholder alliances can kick-start the development cycle and address the related institutional elements. This influences evolution of these elements in support of implementing the future communication system by reducing the institutional roadblocks (such as spectrum availability, certification cycles, operational approval cycles, and equitable spreading of transition costs to aid development of positive business cases).

Page 37

ACP-WGW01-WP06

REFERENCES:

Institutional Elements:

WGC6/WP7 Status and review of the emerging satellite communication technologies-Eurocontrol

WGC6/WP8 Status and review of the emerging satellite communication technologies-Eurocontrol

WGC6/WP13 Evolving Technology and the Impact on Communications Infrastructure-Rockwell Collins

WGC6/WP14 Impact of Technology Migrations Rockwell Collins

Future Communication Study:

WGC9/WP09 The Status of the Future Communication Study Operating Concepts and Requirements Work

Page 38

Attachment A ACP-WGW01-06.

ATTACHMENT A

Extract from ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE, Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003 - REPORT OF COMMITTEE B TO THE CONFERENCE ON AGENDA ITEM 7, AN-Conf/11-WP/202 dated 1/10/03

7.5.4.1 In connection with its consideration of future technology alternatives, the meeting reviewed a proposed approach to ICAO standardization of new aeronautical communication technologies and agreed to the following recommendation:

Recommendation 7/5 — Standardization of aeronautical communication systemsThat, for new aeronautical communication systems, ICAO:

a) Continue to monitor emerging communication systems technologies but undertake standardization work only when the systems meet all of the following conditions:AN-Conf/11-WP/202 7-20 Report on Agenda Item 7

1) can meet current and emerging ICAO ATM requirements; 2) are technically proven and offer proven operational benefits; 3) are consistent with the requirements for safety; 4) are cost-beneficial; 5) can be implemented without prejudice to global harmonization of the CNS/ATM

systems; and 6) are consistent with the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc

9750).b) Include in Annex 10 provisions ensuring that the introduction of mandatory carriage of new equipment be based only on appropriate ICAO regional and inter-regional coordination; and c) Further limit SARPs for complex aeronautical systems to broad, system-level, functional and performance requirements and better capitalize on the work of other standard-making organizations so as to reduce the complexity/size of technical provisions.

7.5.4.2 The meeting also noted that aspects traditionally not fully taken into account in ICAO standardization activities could have a significant impact on the successful implementation of a standard. Such aspects included aircraft integration issues, cost and duration of the certification and operational approval process and the viability of business case for implementation from an avionics vendor/air frame manufacturer, airline and air traffic service provider perspective.

Page 39

Attachment B ACP-WGW01-06.

ATTACHMENT B

Extracts from ICAO Document - Annex 10, Volume III part I, Chapter 3, 3.1, Definitions

Note. — The following definitions were taken from ICAO Doc 9705 — Manual of Technical Provisions for the Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN).

ADS application. An ATN application that provides ADS data from the aircraft to the ATS unit(s) for surveillance purposes.

Aeronautical administrative communication (AAC). Communication used by aeronautical operating agencies related to the business aspects of operating their flights and transport services. This communication is used for a variety of purposes, such as flight and ground transportation, bookings, deployment of crew and aircraft or any other logistical purposes that maintain or enhance the efficiency of over-all flight operation.

Aeronautical operational control (AOC1). Communication required for the exercise ofauthority over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of flight for safety, regularity and efficiency reasons.

Aeronautical passenger communication (APC). Communication relating to the non-safety voice and data services to passengers and crewmembers for personal communication.

Air traffic service. A generic term meaning variously, flight information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic control service (area control service, approach control service or aerodrome control service).

ATS communications (ATSC). Communication related to air traffic services including air traffic control, aeronautical and meteorological information, position reporting and services related to safety and regularity of flight. This communication involves one or more air traffic service administrations. This term is used for purposes of address administration.

1 The airline industry has the similar term “Airline Operational Communication,” also abbreviated AOC. It is used in relation to messages for both Aeronautical Operational Control and aeronautical Administrative Communications. Care is needed to avoid confusion in the usage of the abbreviation “AOC.”

Page 40