AeroMACS SARPS Validation Report (Appendix D to WP03.1) first... · validation which is the system...

CP/1 WP03.1 Appendix D [Type text] [Type text]

- 1 -

(49 pages) CP 1 WP03 1 Appendix D_AeroMAX Validation Report_revised.docx

FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (CP/1)

AeroMACS SARPS Validation Report (Appendix D to WP03.1)

Version 0.5a

Prepared by ACP WG/S and

presented by Chairperson of the ACP WG/S

SUMMARY

The draft validation report was presented during the 6th meeting of the ACP WG/S in

November 2014 and the meeting successfully finalized the “Validation Report” based

on ACP WG S/6 WP03R1. Furthermore, the ACP WG S members reached a

unanimous agreement and conclusion to submit this report with draft AeroMACS

SARPs (amendment proposal of Annex 10 Volume III) to the CP/1 for their further

consideration and approval.

This report includes inputs from the testing activities of the SESAR AeroMACS

projects (Airbus, SELEX, Thales, INDRA, DSNA, AENA, NATMIG and

EUROCONTROL), the SANDRA testing, the FAA and NASA testing, JCAB

CARATS projects (supported by the HITACHI testing and the ENRI R&D

activities).

This document provides a full list of AeroMACS SARPs requirements and for each

of them it summarises the validation activities undertaken. In addition the report

provides the references to other documents and reports which provide additional

information for the relevant validation activities.

International Civil Aviation Organization

WORKING PAPER

CP/1 WP03.1

Appendix D

Based on WG-S/6

WP03R4(11/11/2014)


- 2 -

CP/1 WP 03

APPENDIX D

VALIDATION REPROT


- 3 -

FOREWORD

The AeroMACS SARPs proposal has been produced by the Aeronautical Communications

Panel (ACP) Surface Datalink Working Group (WGS) which consists of members nominated

by States and International Organization (Japan, United States and Eurocontrol) and their

advisors. Furthermore, in order to validate draft SARPs, ACP WGS dedicated substantial

effort to produce this validation report which includes inputs from the testing activities of the

SESAR AeroMACS projects (Airbus, SELEX, Thales, INDRA, DSNA, AENA, NATMIG

and EUROCONTROL), the SANDRA testing, the FAA and NASA testing, JCAB CARATS

projects (supported by the HITACHI testing and the ENRI R&D activities).

1. AEROMACS VALIDATION: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 The AeroMACS data link is the customisation of a commercial 4G system: WiMAX, which

is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard. WiMAX is a mature and validated system that has

been in operation and supporting mobile communications in various countries for many years

now.

1.2 The WIMAX (and the 802.16 standard) provide a multitude of capabilities, and they offer the

possibility for selected features to be supported only in some networks/implementations.

However as interoperability is a critical requirement for aviation, the aviation community has

agreed to the “AeroMACS profile” jointly developed in EUROCAE and RTCA in order to

facilitate interoperability. The AeroMACS profile is specifying the minimum set of required

WiMAX features that need to be implemented in all AeroMACS implementations in order to

support interoperability in a regional and global level for aviation.

1.3 Therefore, as AeroMACS is based on a system (WiMAX) already in operation, the validation

of AeroMACS SARPs focuses in the specific selected features for the AeroMACS profile,

and is not covering the general validation of the WiMAX (and 802.16 standard features.

1.4 Following the discussions in the 5th WGS meeting as well as in other WGS webex meetings,

this document identifies the validation activity undertaken for each of the AeroMACS

SARPs, and provides a summary of the validation conclusions that can be drawn based on

referenced validation activity.

1.5 WGS has agreed that the AeroMACS SARPs Validation Report (VR) will contain mainly

four parts (sections) as described below:

1) Introduction identifying the validation methods used and providing information for the

contributing exercises

2) A table providing the following information:

SARPs numbering and corresponding SARPs text

Validation method(s) applied for each of the SARPs

Identification of the contributor(s) contributing to the validation of the specific SARP

Summary of validation result with references as required to Appendices and other

documents with detailed validation information.


- 4 -

3) Conclusions of the overall AeroMACS validation based on the validation results reported

in point 2 above and recommendations to WGS as appropriate,

4) Appendices as required with the detailed validation information for the different SARPs

(as referenced in point 2 above).

1.6 The sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this report cover the point one above, section 6 covers the

point two above and section 7 covers the point three above. In addition, Section 8 identifies

the used references and the appendices of this report cover the point four above.

1.7 WGS also agreed that it would be beneficial to provide a traceability of the various SARPs

requirements to actual operational requirements and/or identify the rationale for the SARPs

requirements.

1.8 For the validation of AeroMACS, WGS agreed to use the same approach as the UAT

validation which is the system most recently introduced in Annex 10. In particular, the

validation report of UAT ([1]) identifies 10 validation methods:

IA Inspection using common

knowledge

IT Integration Test

IB Inspection through use of prior

analysis/documents

FT Flight Test

A Analysis MN Monitoring

S Simulation MD Manufacturer’s Data

UT Unit Test NVR No Validation Required (may

include editorial inspection

Table 1a: UAT Validation Methods

1.9 WGS agreed to use in general the same validation methods as in Table 1 above and modify

them as required (for example no FT will be planned). In addition, in the end there was no

MN validation activity performed. Therefore, based on the actual validation activities

undertaken for AeroMACS, the table below identifies the validation methods used for

AeroMACS.

IA Inspection using common

knowledge

UT Unit Test

IB Inspection through use of prior

analysis/documents

IT Integration Test

A Analysis MD Manufacturer’s Data

S Simulation NVR No Validation Required (may

include editorial inspection

Table 1b: AeroMACS Validation Methods

1.10 Overall there were 5 independent testing activities, which have produced material to support

the validation of the AeroMACS SARPs: SESAR testing, SANDRA testing, FAA/NASA

testing, and JCAB CARATS projects (supported by ENRI testing and HITACHI testing).

Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 below provide a brief introduction to these testing exercises.


- 5 -

2. AEROMACS TESTING IN SESAR AND SANDRA

2.1 In Europe, in the context of the SESAR Programme, there were two projects supporting the

development of AeroMACS. Project P15.02.07 addressed the overall system aspects and

focused on the ground system side and project P9.16 addressed the airborne side. In addition

in Europe, AeroMACS activities were also undertaken in the context of the EU FP7 project

SANDRA (subproject activities SP6 and SP7). The SESAR and SANDRA activities were

closely coordinated.

2.2 In the context of the SESAR projects there were two prototypes developed by SELEX and

THALES. In addition Airbus and DSNA actively participated in the extensive SESAR testing

activities covering:

Laboratory tests: measuring in a lab environment the performance aspects of the

AeroMACS profile, as well as investigating interoperability between mobile and base

station units as well as between the different manufacturers.

Field tests: tests in the Toulouse (TLS) airport environment addressing both the ground

and the aircraft segment of the AeroMACS data link.

2.3 For the AeroMACS prototypes, SELEX and THALES built different prototypes of both the

Base Station (BS) and the Mobile Station (MS) able to operate in the aeronautical C-Band

(5091 – 5150 MHz). Additional information for the SELEX and THALES prototypes is

provided in [2].

2.4 The table below gives an overview of focus areas and main partners involved in the lab and

field tests within projects P15.02.07 and P9.16:

P 15.02.07 P 9.16

Lab.

Test

THALES, THALES Lab. SELEX ES, SELEX Lab.

SELEX ES, SELEX Lab.

Field test

THALES + DSNA SELEX ES + Airbus

Toulouse airport Toulouse airport

Focus on ground component of

AeroMACS

Focus on airborne component of

AeroMACS

Table 2: SESAR AeroMACS testing organization

2.5 Overall the P15.02.07 and P9.16 testing activities covered:

Measurement of AeroMACS performance by testing the BS with the MS originating from

the same supplier in laboratories (controlled environment),

Interoperability evaluation of the AeroMACS prototypes, by cross-testing of BS with MS

from different suppliers in laboratories,

AeroMACS assessment, by carrying out tests in a real airport environment (taking place

in the Toulouse Airport and by installing the MS in cars and in an airplane and the BS on

fixed locations).

2.6 Additional information for the SESAR testing set up, the testing objectives, the test cases and

the testing outcome is provided in the SESAR deliverables [2a], [2b], [3a], [3b], [4], and [5].


- 6 -

2.7 The two SESAR projects are scheduled to be completed by February 2015. The last testing

activities took place in October 2014 and the final reports are still under final review and

approval.

2.8 In the context of the SANDRA, the objectives of the AeroMACS testing activities were to

demonstrate that: 1) AeroMACS could be integrated within the new multi-link IPv6 A/G

Mobile Network defined in SANDRA; 2) AeroMACS could interoperate with future

Integrated Modular Radio architectures; and 3) the profile defined is compatible with support

of multiple type of communication services (ATC, AOC, …).

2.9 Analysis has been conducted on WiMAX Characteristics and Airport modeling, with the goal

of identifying the features to be included in the AeroMACS System Profile, in strict

coordination with the SESAR 15.2.7 Project. Deployment studies have been performed

together with studies on possible extension of AeroMACS use above the parking and taxing

flight phases. Simulations have been performed in order to evaluate deployment in a wide

range of practical airport scenarios (different speeds/doppler, different cases of Multipath

Fading depending on the specific simulated area (RAMP, GROUND, TOWER), shadowing,

etc.).

2.10 AeroMACS Base Stations (BS) and Mobile Stations (MS) prototypes commonly developed

for SESAR and SANDRA have been used in the SANDRA testing. Prototype integration and

lab testing activities performed within Selex ES included: MAC layer software testing,

integration and testing of the networking solution (ASN-GW, Hand-over, Security features),

Radio Head Performances, Physical layer feature testing and mobility tests.

2.11 AeroMACS airborne and ground systems were integrated in SANDRA overall Mobile IPv6

multi-link test-bed in Oberpfaffenhofen.

2.12 Field Trials were executed in Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (Car Tests and Flight Tests, under

SP7) and Toulouse Airport (AeroMACS Point-to-point link tests, under SP6). In addition

SANDRA Flight Trials have been performed in Oberpfaffenhofen airport.

2.13 The SANDRA AeroMACS activities have been undertaken with the participation of Selex

ES, SITA, DLR, Triagnosys, Intecs, Altys, Alenia Aeronautica, Radiolabs, University of

Salzburg and University of Pisa.

2.14 The SANDRA project concluded in end of 2013 and additional information on the SANDRA

testing set up, the testing objectives, the test cases and the testing outcome is provided in the

SANDRA deliverables [6a] and [6b].

3. FAA/NASA AEROMACS TESTING

3.1 NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in collaboration with Federal Aviation Administration

and industry partners developed the AeroMACS test bed in Cleveland, Ohio. The test bed

facility is hosted at Cleveland Hopkins Airport (CLE) and the NASA GRC campus. NASA

GRC test bed infrastructure includes two base station locations, seven subscriber station

locations, one mobile station, a control room and a microwave communications link that

connects the control room to base stations. ITT Exelis was contracted to provide technical

and installation support. The following section provides a description of AeroMACS testing

accomplished at NASA test bed facility.


- 7 -

3.2 Testing activities covered by NASA and FAA in Cleveland test bed facility included:

Network entry with authentication and data transfer - The purpose of this test was to

verify that a service flow is successfully created when an SS enters the network and that

the service flow is removed completely when the SS exits the network.

QPSK throughput, UL and DL - This test verified baseline maximum throughput from

LOS within the sector using QPSK rate 1/2 coded modulation.

16-QAM throughput, UL and DL - This test case verified the baseline maximum

throughput from LOS within the sector using 16QAM rate 1/2 coded modulation.

64-QAM throughput, DL - The purpose of this test was to verify the baseline maximum

throughput from LOS within the sector using 64QAM rate 1/2 coded modulation on DL.

Sector capacity with multiple SSs - Demonstrate the operation of multiple SSs within a

sector to test the maximum throughput capacity of a single sector and the capability of a

sector to handle terminal “network entries” in congested conditions.

Multiple BTS throughput - Demonstrate the operation of multiple SSs across multiple

sectors to test the maximum throughput capacity of multiple BTSs and the capability of

multiple sectors to handle terminal “network entries” in congested conditions.

QoS—DL non-real-time (nRT) prioritization over best effort with two terminals - Data

prioritization test to verify the handling of data on the DL classified as high priority.

QoS—UL nRT prioritization over best effort with two terminals - Data prioritization test

to verify handling of data on UL classified as high priority. It verified that an nRT

protocol data stream is prioritized over a best-effort data stream when both data types that

are sent originate from the same SS.

Intra-sector mobility with link adaptation - Test ability to maintain a User Datagram

Protocol (UDP) traffic stream while mobile in a single BTS sector with link adaptation

enabled. Demonstrate network’s ability to switch between QPSK, 16QAM, and

64QAM using AMC.

Inter-sector mobility with link adaptation - Evaluate BTS handover ability for a mobile

SS that moves over multiple sectors and the ability to maintain a UDP traffic stream

while moving about multiple sectors with link adaptation enabled. Test network’s ability

to switch between QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM using AMC.

Long-term stability test - This was an extended-operation test to verify network stability

by periodically sending and receiving data bursts.

4. HITACHI AEROMACS TESTING

4.1 Hitachi has been contributing to ACP WG-S as a technical liaison through WiMAX Forum

and it is requested by WG-S to assist SARPS validation by using its AeroMACS system in

laboratory testing measuring the performance aspects of the AeroMACS profile, investigating

interoperability between mobile and base station units as well as between multiple vendors.

4.2 Laboratory tests

Hitachi AeroMACS prototype system consists of BS, ASN-GW, AAA, HA, and BS-

OMC.

Hitachi validated the protocol and sequence using network monitor, wireless monitor, and

logging functions to check R1 and R6 message.


- 8 -

BS was developed by Hitachi and MS was developed by multi vendors. Hitachi

AeroMACS prototype has been used in the Hitachi testing. Prototype integration and lab

testing activities include: MAC layer software testing, integration and testing of the

networking solution (ASN-GW, Hand-over, Security features), Radio Head

Performances, Physical layer feature testing and mobility tests.

4.3 Field tests

Collaborative experiments with NASA

Hitachi validated the field trial test items with NASA at CLE airport.

Evaluation facilities to ENRI

ENRI utilized Hitachi's AeroMACS systems as the evaluation facility and several

demonstrations for the WiMAX aviation summit 2014 in Sendai.

5. ENRI AEROMACS TESTING

5.1 ENRI has contributed to SARPS validation by using AeroMACS prototype, which was

evaluated in laboratory and ENRI’s Iwanuma Brunch at Sendai Airport.

5.2 The validation results provided by ENRI included:

SARPs 7.3.6 Point-to point communication

ENRI conducted several tests and demonstration related to section 7.3.6 of SARPs. The

results of those tests are provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].

SARPs 7.3.8 IP packet data service

ENRI conducted several tests and demonstration related to section 7.3.8 of SARPs. The

results of those tests are provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].

SARPs 7.3.10 recommendation voice services:

ENRI conducted bidirectional communication test and demonstration. The results of

those tests are provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].

SARPs 7.3.11 multiple service flow

ENRI conducted multiple flow test and demonstration. The results of those tests are

provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].

SARPs 7.4.1.1 TDD mode

ENRI conducted related several tests and demonstration related to section 3.1.1 of

SARPs. The results of those tests are provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].

SARPs 7.4.1.2 5MHz channel bandwidth:

ENRI conducted several tests and demonstration related to section 7.4.1.2 of SARPs. The

results of those tests are provided in EUROCAE WG82 May meeting, WP Preliminary

evaluation for AeroMACS prototype Mobile Station [11].

SARPs 7.6.2 Notification of the status communication:

ENRI confirmed that several LED indicated the status of communication such as Power,

Data, RSSI on the top of MSs. The results are provided in ACP WG S/6 WP04[10].


- 9 -

6. AEROMACS SARPS VALIDATION: CONTRIBUTIONS TABLE

6.1 The table below summarises the outcome of the AeroMACS SARPS validation activities. For

each of the SARP, the table provides the SARP number and text, identifies the validation

method(s) applied for this SARP, identifies who has performed relevant validation activities

and finally provides a summary of validation result with references as required to Appendices

and other documents providing detailed information on the outcome of the validation work.


10

AeroMACS SARPS Validation: Methods used, Contributors and Summary Outcome

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners

Validation conclusions/summary

7.1 DEFINITIONS NVR

7.2 INTRODUCTION NVR

7.3 GENERAL NVR

7.3.1 AeroMACS shall conform to the

requirements of this and the

following chapters.

IA WG-S IA:

Inspection only. Requirement is only referencing other requirements. It is

validated through the validation of the actual SARPs requirements.

7.3.2 AeroMACS shall only transmit

when on the surface of an

aerodrome.

IB, IT SESAR This restriction aims to demonstrate compliance with the ITU assumptions and

analysis for the allocation of the AeroMACS frequency band in WRC 2007.

This is a requirement on the avionics equipment and it is usually enabled with a

weight on wheels switch.

IB:

The EUROCAE AeroMACS draft MASPS include this requirement in sections

5.1 and 5.3. Furthermore the AeroMACS MOPS are expected to include this

requirement in version 2 which is planned for 2015. Finally the realisation of

this requirement is also part of the avionics standard (ARINC spec) which is

under development in AEEC and is expected to include this requirement.

IT:

The current prototypes (developed to support validation of standards) have not

fully implemented this requirement. In SESAR P9.16 the SELEX prototype

implements a kind of solution by forcing the shutdown of RF transmission on

the condition given by a discrete input. The working of this solution has been

verified.

Airbus has also confirmed that such requirement is achievable on A/C, by

similarity with existing systems (e.g. WIFI, Cellular Airborne radio) that obey

to the same rule.


- 11 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.3.3 AeroMACS shall support

aeronautical mobile (route)

service (AM(R) S)

communications.

IB, A, S, IT SESAR

SANDRA

This requirement is derived from the ITU conditions for the allocation of the

AeroMACS frequency band in WRC 2007.

IB:

The EUROCAE/RTCA AeroMACS MOPS and the EUROCAE draft MASPS

include this requirement in sections 1.3 and 2.2.1, and 11.1 respectively.

Considering the frequency band of operations, AeroMACS will be supporting

ATM, AOC and Airport communications impacting the safety and regularity of

flights.

A and S:

In SESAR there were analysis and simulations of the capacity of the

AeroMACS data link to support the communication exchanges of such

applications. The SESAR Deliverable P15.02.07 D04 AeroMACS deployment

and Integration Analysis provides in section 3 the outcome of these simulations

and analysis for different size of airports ranging from very small airports (3

a/c movements per hours) to very busy ones (more than 100 a/c movements per

hour).

IT:

In the SANDRA project there has been integrated testing of ATN applications.

These tests are described in the SANDRA deliverable D7.6.1 Evaluation

Results, Assessments and Recommendations, section 2.1.3. The SANDRA

testing demonstrates the feasibility of supporting air-ground ATN applications

(CM and PM-CPDLC) over IP data links (BGAN and AeroMACS were used).

In the tests CM was successfully established and CPDLC messages

successfully routed over the IP path enabled by the AeroMACS data link.

7.3.4 AeroMACS shall process

messages according to their

associated priority.

IB, A, S, UT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

IB:

The draft AeroMACS MASPS in sections 4.3 and 7.2 cover the AeroMACS

mechanisms for handling priority. In addition a section in the AeroMACS

Technical Manual will also cover the AeroMACS mechanisms to meet the QoS

(including priority) of the supported applications based on the

EUROCONTROL/AT4W Technical Note 14 (Service Flow Management and

QoS Management in AeroMACS).


- 12 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


A and S:

In SESAR, there were analysis and simulations of the ability of the AeroMACS

data link to support multiple classes of service and these are reported in the

SESAR Deliverable P15.02.07 D04 AeroMACS deployment and Integration

Analysis in section 3.3.3 and the draft AeroMACS MASPS in section 12.1.2.2.

UT:

In SESAR there were also unit tests demonstrating the handling of messages

according to priority and this is covered in the SESAR Deliverables P15.02.07

D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 (section A1.3) and P15.02.07

D06.2 Verification Report –Phase 1 (section A.2) and P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6

WP06 (sections 5.4 and 6.1.2.5).

NASA tested prioritization utilizing VLAN and is covered in document

NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2.

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for service

flow and prioritization. The measured results of this testing are provided in

ACP-WG-S/6 WP09 [14] , Section 2.3.


multiple levels of message

priority.

IB, UT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

IB:

AeroMACS can support different levels of message priorities in a flexible

manner. Based on the analysis in SESAR, a 6 level priority scheme has been

defined to satisfy the envisaged applications QoS requirements (see SESAR

Deliverable P15.02.07 D04, section 3.3.3) and is depicted in the draft MASPS

sections 4.3 and 7.2. A proposal to realise the envisaged priorities and QoS

requirements will be included in the AeroMACS Technical Manual (see

above).

UT:


according to priority (two service flows of BE with different maximum

sustained traffic rate values) .


- 13 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


This is covered in the SESAR Deliverables P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan

and Report – Phase 2 (section A1.3) and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report

– Phase 1 (sections A.2 and A.8) and P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (section

5.4).

NASA conducted tests addressing quality of service and results are available in

NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 [12].

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for multiple

priorities. The measured results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-

S/6WP09 [14] , Section 2.3.

7.3.6 AeroMACS shall support point to

point communication.

S, UT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

ENRI

S:

In SESAR, there were simulations of the capacity of the AeroMACS data link

to support various point to point communications. The outcome of these

simulations is reported in the SESAR Deliverable P15.02.07 D03.1

AeroMACS profile evaluation and validation in sections 2, 3 and 4 and the

draft AeroMACS MASPS in sections 12.1.2.1 and 12.1.2.2.

UT:

In SESAR there were also numerous unit tests demonstrating the transmissions

of point to point communications. The outcome of these tests is covered in the

SESAR Deliverables 15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2

(section A1.3, A2.1) and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1

(sections A.2 and A.8) and P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (sections 5.4, 6.1.5.3

and 6.2.2).

NASA completed point-to-point communications testing utilizing different

system configurations. Information can be found in NASA/CR—2011-

216997/VOL2 [12]

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for point to

point. The measured results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-S/6

WP09[14], Section 2.2.

ENRI validated the point-to-point communications. The results of this testing

and demonstration are provided in Section 3.2 of ACP-WG-S/6 WP04 [10].


- 14 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



multicast and broadcast

communication services.

IB SESAR The AeroMACS profile specifies the use of the Multicast Traffic Connections

as the mechanism to support multicast and broadcast communications. A

proposal has been developed in the context of the SESAR work

(EUROCONTROL/AT4W Technical Note 18 Multicast and Broadcast

Services on AeroMACS) to describe how to implement multicast and broadcast

services as multiple unicast communications and in addition to provide test

cases to support a revision of the AeroMACS MOPS in the future. The material

of this technical note will be the basis for a dedicated section in the AeroMACS

Technical Manual.

7.3.8 AeroMACS shall support internet

protocol (IP) packet data services.

IB, UT, IT SESAR

Hitachi

SANDRA

NASA

ENRI

IB:

The AeroMACS profile requires support for IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 is currently

not certifiable by WMF as there are no test cases to support the WIMAX

Forum certification of this feature. For this reason, in the context of the SESAR

work a proposal has been developed (EUROCONTROL/AT4W Technical

Note 17 IPv6 and Ethernet CS for AeroMACS) to describe the corresponding

test cases. This material will be included in a future version of the AeroMACS

MOPS and may also be included in the AeroMACS Technical Manual.

UT:

In SESAR there was extensive testing in the SELEX and Thales labs to

demonstrate the transmissions of IPv4 data packets. The outcome of these tests

is covered in the SESAR Deliverables P15.02.07 D06.2 AeroMACS

Verification Report – Phase 1(e.g. see sections A.2. and A.8) and P15.02.07

D10 AeroMACS Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 (e.g. see section A1.3

and A2.1) and P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (sections 5.4, 6.1.5.6 and

6.1.5.9).

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for IP data

service. The measured results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-S/6

WP09, Section 2.2.


- 15 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


IT:

In addition in the context of the SANDRA activities there has also been

integrated testing to demonstrate the transmission of the IP traffic and

establishment of an end-to-end IP connectivity and this is covered in the

SANDRA deliverable D6.5.1 Report on Testing (see section 4.1 Basic

functionality test). The test results show a successful establishment of IP

connectivity, the MS acquires IPv4 address from the DHCP server and is able

to authenticate itself in the network via the ASN-GW.

NASA tested IPv4 transport capabilities and outcomes are covered in

NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 [12]

ENRI validated the IP packet data services. The testing and demonstrating are

provided in ACP-WG-S/6 WP04R3, Section 3.

7.3.9 AeroMACS shall provide

mechanisms to transport

ATN/IPS and ATN/OSI (over IP)

based messaging.

IB, IT SANDRA IB:

AeroMACS is designed to be a data link capable to support ATN services, as is

mentioned in the draft MASPS section 4.3 and provides a recommended

mapping of ICAO ATN services into AeroMACS Classes of Service. In order

to support both short-term and long-term evolution roadmaps, AeroMACS

should thus support physical and link layer functions to support both current

ATN/OSI and future ATN/IPS networks.

IT:

In the context of the SANDRA activities there was testing of the transport of

ATN/OSI traffic over AeroMACS. This is described in the SANDRA

deliverable D7.6.1 SANDRA evaluation results – Assessment and

recommendations (see section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4). The SANDRA report indicates

how traffic from ATN/OSI CPDLC was exchanged during a handover between

VDLM2 and AeroMACS.


- 16 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.3.10 Recommendation.—AeroMACS

should support voice services.

Note.- Manual on the Aeronautical

Telecommunication Network (ATN)

using Internet Protocol Suite (IPS)

Standards and Protocols (Doc 9896)

provide information on voice service

over IP .

IB, A, IT FAA

SANDRA

NASA

Hitachi

ENRI

IB:

While the focus of the AeroMACS development for aviation is on data link, the

WIMAX technology is commercially used to support digital voice

communications (VoIP). Therefore it is expected that AeroMACS will also

support voice services as is indicated in the draft MASPS section 5.

A:

FAA provided in WGS an analysis (ACP-WG-S-6 IP02) of the AeroMACS

capabilities with respect to implementing voice services based on prior testing

results of data packet performance characteristics obtained at NASA-Exelis

Cleveland AeroMACS test bed located at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The

analysis focused on the results of the testing of the jitter and dropped packet

rate that are critical in the support of VoIP services. The Analysis concludes

that voice could be supported by AeroMACS.

IT:

Voice over AeroMACS was actually tested in the SANDRA project which

produced MOS estimates for the voice quality. The outcome of the SANDRA

testing is described the SANDRA deliverable D6.5.1 Report on testing (see

section 4.3) which shows as a final step that a working VoIP session with 32

kbps and 64 kbps codecs was successfully established and showed good call

quality results.

A VoIP capability (skype) was successfully tested in the AeroMACS

demonstration day organised by NASA and Hitachi in September 2014 in the

NASA AeroMACS test bed in the Cleveland Hopkins Airport. Test

information can be found in ACP-WG-S-6 WP09 titled “Field Trials and

Results” [14].

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for VoIP

communications. The results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-S-6

WP09 [14], Section 2.3.

ENRI validated the voice services. The results of bidirectional communication

test and demonstrations are provided in ACP-WG-S-6 WP04[10], Section 3.2.


- 17 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



multiple service flows

simultaneously.

S, UT, IT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

ENRI

S:

A number of simulations were carried out and described in SESAR 15.2.7 D04

(section 3), and also in the draft MASPS (section 12.1.2.2), showing the

transmission of data payload over multiple service flows configured

simultaneously with different transmission parameters associated to the

corresponding CoS.

UT:

In SESAR there were various tests at labs demonstrating the handling of two

service flows simultaneously. The outcome of this is covered in the SESAR

Deliverables P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 (section

A1.3) and: P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 (section A.2 and

A.8) and P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (sections 5.4, and 6.1.2.5).

IT:

In addition this was also tested in SANDRA D6.5.1 Report on testing (see

section 4.3), in which four (4) concurrent traffic flows were configured with the

different QoS parameters and corresponding port classification rules. It was

verified that AeroMACS allocates bandwidth to the different traffic according

to the parameters of the corresponding service flows.

NASA-Hitachi field trials demonstrated multiple service flow operations under

different loading profiles. Results can be viewed in ACP WG S/6 WP09 titled

“Field Trials and Results” [14].

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for multiple

service flows. The results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-

S/6WP09[14] , Section 2.3.

ENRI validated the multiple service flow. Multi flow test and demonstrations

are provided in ACP-WG-S/6WP04R3, Section 3.2.


- 18 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



adaptive modulation and coding.

IB, UT SESAR

NASA

IB:

The AeroMACS MOPS mandates in section 2.2.8.4.9.4.2 the support of the

data modulation mechanisms referred by IEEE 802.16-2009. This implies that

per-allocation adaptive modulation and coding shall be supported in the DL,

and the UL shall support different modulation schemes for each SS based on

the MAC burst configuration messages coming from the BS.

UT:

This capability was tested in SESAR. In particular, the SESAR deliverables

P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 (section A3.3) and

P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 – (section A.1) and P9.16 ACP-

WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (section 5.3).

NASA completed tests addressing adaptive modulation capabilities. Results

are documented in NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 [12].


handover between different

AeroMACS BSs during aircraft

movement or on degradation of

connection with current BS.

S, UT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

S:

In SESAR there have been analysis and coverage simulations for the handover

capability (P15.02.07 D03 Profile validation 2.3, 3.3), simulating the execution

of several handover options and message formats, and also the handover

performance in terms of delay and interruption time, respectively. Handover

was also executed in the capacity analysis in the draft MASPS section 12.1.2.2.

UT:

In SESAR P9.16, the hard handover feature was successfully tested without

data transmission (see P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (section 5.6)

NASA-Hitachi field trials demonstrated handover capabilities. Results are

available in ACP-WG-S/6 WP09 titled “Field Trials and Results” [14] and in

NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 [12].

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for hand

over function. The results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-S/6 WP09

[14], Section 2.4.


- 19 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.3.14 AeroMACS shall keep total

accumulated interference levels

with limits defined by the

International Telecommunication

Union - Radiocommunication

Sector (ITU-R) as required by

national/international rules on

frequency assignment planning

and implementation.

S (for large

scale)

UT

FAA

SESAR

NASA

S:

Both in US and Europe extensive simulations were undertaken to demonstrate

that AeroMACS would not interfere in particular with the satellite feeder links

(FSS). A comprehensive interference study is described in the draft MASPS

section11, which defined SARPS section 7.4.3 radiation power the maximum

tolerable power levels for implementation of AeroMACS in order not to

interfere with the FSS.

In SESAR, Deliverable P15.02.07 D02.3 describes the outcome of analysis and

simulations addressing the interference to FSS and indicates that there are no

problems expected. In addition, SESAR Deliverable P15.02.05 D01.5 describes

the outcome of theoretical spectrum investigations of interferences to and from

other systems operating in the same band or in adjacent bands and in particular

RLANs operating in the 5150-5250 MHz band, BBDR systems, MLS, Galileo

C1 and AMT. The outcome indicates there are no interference issues expected

in the case of RLANs and BBDR, but in the other cases and in particular with

MLS, there may be the need for careful planning to protect the AeroMACS

receiver from interfering systems but it is not impacting the other systems. This

will be further addressed with the development of AeroMACS frequency

planning criteria and guidance.

NASA provides information in the report [13]

UT:

For information, In SESAR, there was extensive testing of the spectrum

performance of the prototypes. The results of these tests are provided in the

deliverables P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 (sections A.5,

A.10 and A.11) and P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2

(sections A2.2, A3.2 and A3.6).


- 20 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.3.15 AeroMACS shall support a

flexible implementation

architecture to permit link and

network layer functions to be

located in different or same

physical entities.

IB ACP WG/S IB:

In the implementation of link and network functions, AeroMACS follows the

WMF concept in which these can belong to either component such as BS or

ASN-GW without a loss of system capability. This concept is shown in the

ASN Profiles described in the draft MASPS (section 2.1.7) which remain at the

level of functional components and not physical boxes.

System configurations used in various demonstrations conducted by SESAR,

Hitachi, and NASA included AeroMACS functions located in a stand-alone

prototype unit and the network router and application functions located on a

different physical entity. These represent federated architectures.

WiMAX Forum COTS products include WIMAX Hot Spots and Smart

Phones, which include the WiMAX, network router, and application functions

integrated in the same physical entity.

Based on the above existing system configurations, it can be concluded that

future AeroMACS systems will support flexible implementation architectures.

7.4 RADIO FREQUENCY (RF)

CHARACTERISTICS

NVR

7.4.1 GENERAL RADIO

CHARACTERISTICS

NVR

7.4.1.1 AeroMACS shall operate in time

division duplex (TDD) mode.

IB, UT SESAR

NASA

Hitachi

ENRI

IB:

Time Division Duplex is the basic mode to duplex DL and UL subframes and

is mandated in the MOPS Chapter 2.2.6.3.7.2.

UT:

In the laboratory tests described in Deliverable P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification

Report – Phase 1 sections A.1 and A.6, the correct configuration and operation

of the TDD mode is verified by spectrum analyser at both the BS and the MS

as a middle step in the verification test.


- 21 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


In the laboratory tests described in P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in section

5.1, the SELEX AeroMACS MS prototype Net Entry procedures is verified,

and shows among the different operations also the TDD mode.

All NASA tests were conducted in TDD mode. Results are available in

NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 [12]

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for TDD

mode. The testing included the multiple uplink and downlink ratios. This

testing is presented in ACP-WG-S/6 WP09 [14], Section 2.2.

ENRI validated the TDD mode. The results of the test and demonstrations are

provided in ACP-WG-S/6 WP04, Section 3.2.

7.4.1.2 AeroMACS shall operate with a 5

MHz channel bandwidth.

UT SESAR

SANDRA

Hitachi

ENRI

UT:

In the laboratory tests described in P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report –

Phase 1 (sections A.1, A.6 and A.10) and in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5]

in sections 5.1, the correct configuration and operation of the 5 MHz channel

bandwidth is verified at both the BS and the MS as a means to ensure the link

interoperability and compliance to RF characteristics.

UT:

In SANDRA D6.5.1 Report on testing (see section 4.2), the test platform is

successfully verified to operate in 5 MHz bandwidth channels.

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for 5MHz

channels. The results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-S/6 WP09[14],

Section 2.2.

ENRI validated the 5MHz channel bandwidth. The several demonstrations are

documented in ACP-WG-S/6 WP04, Section 3.2 and the results of test are

provided in WP of EUROCAE WG82 meeting in May 2014.


- 22 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.1.3 AeroMACS MS antenna

polarization shall be vertical.

MD SESAR MD:

During the field tests performed by Airbus in Toulouse airport the following

airborne MS antenna was used:

ANTCOM 5B-4.4-5.8V-O-XT-2 4.4-5.85 GHz 5dB Gain Omni Blade Antenna

http://www.antcom.com/documents/catalogs/Page/5B-4.4-5.8V-O-XT-2_LSC-

BandAntennas1.pdf.

The antenna is described by the manufacturer antenna as having vertical

polarization.

7.4.1.4 AeroMACS BS antenna

polarization shall have a vertical

component.

MD, UT SESAR

MD:

During the field tests performed by Thales in Toulouse airport and described in

15.2.7 D10 section A3, the following BS antenna was used:

MARS MA-WD55-DS16 4.9-6.1 GHz Dual Slant ±45°,Base Station Antenna,

90° sector antenna http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WD55-DS16.

The antenna is described by the manufacturer as dual slant (double

polarization).

UT:

AeroMACS field tests performed by Thales and described in SESAR

P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 section A3 make use of

a cross-polarization antenna, which thus includes a vertical component.

7.4.1.5 AeroMACS shall operate without

guard bands between adjacent

AeroMACS channels.

UT SESAR UT:

The field test performed by Thales in Toulouse and described in P15.02.07 D10

Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 A3.6 shows the operation of two

contiguous AeroMACS BS using adjacent channels (without guard band).

http://www.antcom.com/documents/catalogs/Page/5B-4.4-5.8V-O-XT-2_LSC-BandAntennas1.pdf

http://www.antcom.com/documents/catalogs/Page/5B-4.4-5.8V-O-XT-2_LSC-BandAntennas1.pdf

http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WD55-DS16


- 23 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.1.6 AeroMACS shall operate

according to the orthogonal

frequency division multiple

access method.

IB, UT SESAR

IB:

OFDMA is the only supported physical layer by AeroMACS, as is described in

the MOPS section 2.2.6.3.7.5.3.

UT:

The test described in deliverables P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report

– Phase 2 section A2.2 and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1

sections A.1 and A.6 verify the crest factor, (which is a basic characteristic of

an OFDMA signal) and the use of OFDMA itself, respectively.

In the laboratory tests described in P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in section

5.1, the SELEX AeroMACS MS prototype Net Entry procedures is verified, and shows

among the different operations also the OFDMA mode.

7.4.1.7 AeroMACS shall support both

segmented partial usage sub-

channelisation (PUSC) and PUSC

with all carriers as sub-carrier

permutation methods.

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:

AeroMACS MOPS mandates the use of PUSC in sections 2.2.8.4.6.1.2.1, and

2.2.8.4.6.2.1. PUSC is a basic configuration for AeroMACS

UT:

The use of PUSC is shown during a sub-channelisation test described in

P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 section A4.3 (see pictures in

A4.3.2 pages 52 and 53).

Hitachi's implementation provides for full support of PUSC as described in

IEEE 802.16e and required by the SARPS. The implementation was verified in

Hitachi's product development laboratory.


- 24 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.2 FREQUENCY BANDS NVR

7.4.2.1 The AeroMACS equipment shall

be able to operate in the band

from 5030 MHz to 5150 MHz in

channels of 5 MHz bandwidth.

Note 1.— Some States may, on the

basis of national regulations, have

additional allocations to support

AeroMACS. Information on the

technical characteristics and

operational performance of

AeroMACS is contained in the

AeroMACS Minimum Operational

Performance Specification (MOPS)

(EUROCAE ED-233 / RTCA DO-

346) and AeroMACS Minimum

Aviation System Performance

Standard (MASPS) (EUROCAE ED-

227).

Note 2. — The last center frequency

of 5145MHz is selected as the

reference frequency. AeroMACS

nominal center frequencies are

referenced downward from the

reference frequency in 5 MHz steps.

IA

UT

SESAR

NASA

UT:

In SESAR there was extensive lab testing of AeroMACS units operating in the

5091 to 5150 MHz frequency band. These tests are described in SESAR

deliverables P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 sections A1

and A2 and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 sections A.1 and

A.6, and in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in sections 5.1 and 6.1.5.1.

NASA completed tests utilizing 5000 – 5030 MHz. Information is available in

document [15].

IA:

For the band from 5030 to 5091 MHz, there has not been any testing in

SESAR. However, based on common knowledge, there is no technical

impediment to question the operation in this lower band, in particular since the

signal propagation conditions will actually be better.


- 25 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.2.2 The mobile equipment shall be

able to operate at center

frequencies offset from the

preferred frequencies, with an

offset of 250 KHz step size.

Note. — The nominal center

frequencies are the preferred center

frequencies for AeroMACS

operations. However, the base

stations should have the capability to

deviate from the preferred center

frequencies to satisfy potential

national spectrum authority

implementation issues (i.e. to allow

AeroMACS operations while

avoiding receiving or causing

interference to other systems

operating in the band such as MLS

and AMT).

UT

SESAR

Hitachi

UT:

In the laboratory tests described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in

section 5.1, the AeroMACS MS Prototype has been configured to perform the

frequency scanning in a settable range (in the 5-5.15GHz bandwidth), with

selectable step intervals multiple of 250KHz, demonstrating the requirement is

achievable.

The lab tests and field test executed in Toulouse airport and described in

SESAR deliverables P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2

section A3.2, and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 sections A.1

to A.5 indicate that a 250 kHz step was used in the MS equipment.

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for offset of

250 kHz step size. The results of this testing included searching 250kHz step to

network entry. Refer to ACP-WG-S/6WP09 [14], Section 2.1.

7.4.3 RADIATED POWER NVR

7.4.3.1 The maximum mobile station

effective isotropic radiated power

(EIRP) shall not exceed 30 dBm

A, UT SESAR,

During Toulouse testing, the MS EIRP was below 30 dBm: Max emitting

power 23 dBm and Max Antenna gain 6 dBi => EIRP 29 dBi as described in

P15.02.07 D05.1 System Implementation Deliverable Part1: AeroMACS

Ground Prototypes Description, section 2.3.3.

7.4.3.2 The maximum base station EIRP

in a sector shall not exceed 39.4

dBm

A

UT

SESAR UT + A:

In P15.02.07 field test, BS prototype maximum emitting power is 23 dBm and

max BS antenna gain is 15 dBi so that max BS EIRP is 38 dBm as shown in

P15.02.07 D05.1 System Implementation Deliverable Part1: AeroMACS

Ground Prototypes Description, section 2.3.2.1


- 26 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.3.3 Recommendation. — In order to

meet ITU requirements, the total

base station EIRP in a sector

should be decreased from that

peak, considering the antenna

characteristics, at elevations

above the horizon. Further

information is provided in the

guidance material;

Note 1.— EIRP defined as antenna

gain in a specified elevation direction

plus the average AeroMACS

transmitter power. While the

instantaneous peak power from a

given transmitter may exceed that

level when all of the subcarriers

randomly align in phase, when the

large number of transmitters

assumed in the analysis is taken into

account, average power is the

appropriate metric.

Note 2.— If a sector contains

multiple transmit antennas (e.g.,

multiple input multiple

output(MIMO) antenna), the

specified power limit is the sum of the

powers from each antenna.

IB

FAA This recommendation provides guidance on the antenna diagram shape relative

to the elevation and azimuth angle, based on the interference limitations

required to minimize the impact on FSS signals.

IB:

The elevation and azimuth pattern, and the recommended maximum power

transmission limits per angle value are indicated in the draft MASPS section

11.4. The AeroMACS Technical Manual will contain information and

examples based on analysis carried out by FAA.


- 27 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.4 MINIMUM RECEIVER

SENSITIVITY

NVR

7.4.4.1 AeroMACS receiver sensitivity

shall comply with table 7-1 –

AeroMACS Receiver Sensitivity

values.

Note 1.—The computation of the

sensitivity level for the AeroMACS is

described in the guidance material

Note 2.— AeroMACS receiver would

be 2 dB more sensitive than

indicated if Convolutional Turbo

Codes (CTC) is used.

Note 3 - The sensitivity level is

defined as the power level measured

at the receiver input when the bit

error rate (BER) is equal to 1*10-6

and all active sub carriers are

transmitted in the channel. In general

the requisite input power depends on

the number of active sub-carriers of

the transmission.

Note 4.— The above values assume a

receiver noise figure of 8 dB.

Note 5 .— The sensitivity values in

Table 7-1 assume absence of any

source of interference except for

thermal and receiver noise.

Table 7-1 –AeroMACS Receiver

Sensitivity values.

Note .— 64 QAM transmission is

optional for MS.

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:

The sensitivity levels to be complied with are in line with the values required

by IEEE802.16-2009 standard. This is consistent with the MOPS section

2.2.8.4.14.1.1.

UT:

Sensitivity levels have been verified in SESAR as described in the test in

deliverable P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 section A.4. In this

test, sensitivity limits are obtained by use of a variable attenuator for each of

the supported modulation and coding schemes. This is performed both in

downlink and uplink directions.

In addition, this requirement was also tested by Hitachi and measured results

are compliant with the specifications. The detailed test results are provided in

Appendix B-1 of [8].


- 28 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.5 SPECTRAL MASK AND

EMISSIONS

NVR

7.4.5.1 The power spectral density of the

emissions when all active sub

carriers are transmitted in the

channel shall be attenuated below

the maximum power spectral

density as follows:

a) On any frequency removed from

the assigned frequency between 50–

55% of the authorized bandwidth: 26

+ 145 log (% of BW/50) dB.

b) On any frequency removed from


100% of the authorized bandwidth:

32 + 31 log (% of (BW)/55) dB.

c) On any frequency removed from


150% of the authorized bandwidth:

40 +57 log (% of (BW)/100) dB.

d) On any frequency removed from

the assigned frequency beyond 150%

of the authorized bandwidth: 50 dB.

Note.- The power spectral density at

a given frequency is the power within

a bandwidth equal to 100 kHz

centred at this frequency, divided by

this measurement bandwidth. It is

clarified that the measurement of the

power spectral density should

encompass the energy over at least

one frame period.

UT SESAR

Hitachi

UT:

The Spectrum Mask has been measured in the SESAR testing and this is

described in deliverables P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1

(sections A.5 and A.10) and P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report –

Phase 2 (section A2.2). The first deliverable verifies the compliance of the

required attenuation values (plus minimum spurious attenuation which is

verified at 53 dB) and flatness of the transmission mask. The second

deliverable verifies the transmission mask in terms of adjacent/non-adjacent

channel rejection requirements.

In addition, this requirement was also tested by Hitachi and measured results

are compliant with the specifications. The Hitachi test was done with the

following settings:

- Measurement bandwidth (MeasBW): 100KHz

- RBW : 10kHz (MeasBW = 10 * RBW)

- Detector : Positive Peak

- Trace : Max-Hold

- Spectrum Peak Reference Mode

The detailed test results are provided in [9].

The testing methodology will be described in the Technical Manual (Guidance

Material).


- 29 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.5.2 AeroMACS shall implement

power control.

UT SESAR,

Hitachi

UT:

Unit tests have been performed in SESAR to verify the operation of power

control in the lab. This is described in SESAR P15.2.7 D06.2 Verification

Report – Phase 1 section A.7, which tests that the MS properly applies an Open

Loop (during ranging phase) and Closed Loop Power Control procedure and

that the physical measurements which drive them are correct within the

specified tolerances. In addition, SESAR P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and

Report – Phase 2 section A1.2 describes the unit test verifying the correct use

of CQI channels during the Closed Loop Power Control Execution, also

verifying that the closed loop power control satisfactorily sustains a data

transfer without causing any oscillation or instability in the system, facing

channel gain variations of up to 30 dB/s.

In the laboratory tests described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5]in section

5.2, the AeroMACS MS Prototype has been capable to apply both Open Loop

and Closed Loop Power Control. A configuration file (config.dat) parameter

has been set to enable/disable the OLPC in UL, demonstrating the requirement

is achievable on aircraft.

In addition as reported in Appendix B-2 of [8], Hitachi testing confirmed that

the transmission power of the MS changes according to the path-loss.

7.4.5.3 AeroMACS minimum rejection

for adjacent (+/–5MHz) channel –

measured at BER=10-6 level for a

victim signal power 3 dB higher

than the receiver sensitivity - shall

be 10 dB for 16 QAM 3/4.

UT SESAR,

Hitachi

UT:

Prototype unit tests were executed in SESAR and these are described in

deliverable P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 section

A2.2, verifying the rejection value for adjacent and non-adjacent channels for

16 QAM ¾ signal at 3dB higher than the sensitivity level.

This requirement was also measured by Hitachi and the results are compliant

with the specification. The detailed results are described in Appendix B-3 of

[8].


- 30 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



for adjacent (+/–5MHz) channel

measured at BER=10-6 level for a

victim signal power 3 dB higher

than the receiver sensitivity shall

be 4 dB for 64 QAM 3/4.

UT SESAR

Hitachi

UT:




64 QAM ¾ signal at 3dB higher than the sensitivity level.This requirement was

also measured by Hitachi and the results are compliant with the specification.

The detailed results are described in Appendix B-3 of [8].


for second adjacent(+/–10MHz)

channel and beyond – measured

at BER=10-6 level for a victim

signal power 3 dB higher than the

receiver sensitivity - shall be 29

dB for 16 QAM 3/4.

UT SESAR

Hitachi

UT:







[8].


for second adjacent (+/–10MHz)

channel and beyond – measured

at BER=10-6 level for a victim

signal power 3 dB higher than the

receiver sensitivity - shall be 23

dB for 64 QAM 3/4.

Note.— for additional clarification,

to the requirements stated in

paragraphs from 7.4.5.3, 7.4.5.4, 7.4.5.5 and 7.4.5.6, refer to IEEE

802.16-2009 section 8.4.14.2.

UT SESAR

Hitachi

UT:







[8].


- 31 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.4.6 FREQUENCY TOLERANCE NVR

7.4.6.1 AeroMACS BS reference

frequency accuracy shall be better

than +/- 2 x 10E-6.

IB, UT

SESAR IB:

AeroMACS MOPS 2.2.8.4.15.1 references to the requirement based in the

IEEE802.16-2009 standard.

UT:

In SESAR there was a unit test to verified the required accuracy. This is

described in P15.2.7 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 section A.10. The

test concludes that the BS center frequency error measured was about ±100 Hz

at 5.091 MHz, i.e. less than 2x10-8

7.4.6.2 AeroMACS MS reference

frequency shall be locked to that

of the BS centre frequency with

an accuracy better than 2% of the

subcarrier spacing.

IB,UT

SESAR IB:



UT:

In SESAR there was a unit test that verified the required accuracy. This is

described in P15.2.7 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 section A2.3.

7.4.6.3 AeroMACS MS shall track the

frequency of the BS and shall

defer any transmission if

synchronisation is lost or exceeds

the tolerances given above.

IB

WG S

analysis

based on

WiMAX

Forum

certification

IB:



The WiMAX Forum Certification Requirement Status List (CRSL) RCT MS-

19.1 Transmit Synchronization tests are category A certification tests required

for Forum Certification that cover the protocol implementation requirement to

sync the MS frequency to the BS and to shut down the MS transmitter under

certain circumstances that include loss of sync and frequency drift.


- 32 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5 PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

NVR

7.5.1 AeroMACS

COMMUNICATIONS

SERVICE PROVIDER

NVR

7.5.1.1 The maximum unplanned service

outage duration on a per

aerodrome basis shall be 6

minutes.

IB , A FAA IB:

AeroMACS safety and performance analysis is based on the work from

EUROCAE WG-78/RTCA SC-214 and sets the availability requirements over

the Aeronautical Communication Service Provider (ACSP) as described in the

draft MASPS section 8.1.1.

The ACSP covers both the connectivity service network (CSN) and the access

service network (ASN) that is deployed within a specific airport.

A:

Unplanned service outage is managed through appropriate design and

implementation of the system. Usually, this design process involves bottom up

analysis of the MTBF and MTTRs of the underlying components and

subsequent addition of redundancies at appropriate levels. It can be concluded

from the analysis of FAA’s existing critical infrastructure services such as FTI,

ASSC, ADS-B, VSCS, VDL, etc. that the stated requirement can be satisfied.

7.5.1.2 The maximum accumulated

unplanned service outage time on

per aerodrome basis shall be 240

minutes/year.

A, IB FAA IB:




draft MASPS section 8.1.1. The ACSP covers both the connectivity service

network (CSN) and the access service network (ASN) that is deployed within a

specific airport.

A:

As described under Section 7.5.1.1, this requirement is validated through

extension of FAA’s existing infrastructures supporting safety critical services.


- 33 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.1.3 The maximum number of

unplanned service outages shall

not exceed 40 per year per

aerodrome.

A, IB FAA IB:




draft MASPS section 8.1.1.

The ACSP covers both the connectivity service network (CSN) and the access

service network (ASN) that is deployed within a specific airport.

A:

As described under Section 7.5.1.1, this requirement is validated through

extension of FAA’s existing infrastructures supporting safety critical services.

7.5.1.4 Connection resilience. The

probability that a transaction will

be completed once started shall be

at least .999 for AeroMACS

systems over any one-hour

interval.

Note 1. — Connection releases

resulting from AeroMACS handover

between base stations, log-off or

circuit pre-emption are excluded

from this specification.

Note 2. — The requirements given in

7.5.1 refer to the overall service

provision, i.e; when all aircraft

operating at the aerodrome are

affected.

IB FAA,

SESAR

IB:


EUROCAE WG-78/RTCA SC-214 and defines the continuity target as the

99.9% probability to be compliant with the maximum acceptable transaction

time or expiration time, as described in the draft MASPS section 8.1. The

safety and performance analysis in SESAR 15.2.7 D08-T8.1 AeroMACS

Safety and Performance Analysis section 4.2 also defines continuity as the

probability that the transaction completes within a given duration, and given

that the continuity requirement is 0.999, this duration that all transactions shall

respect is the Transaction Time at 99.9% (TT 99.9 %).


- 34 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.2 DOPPLER SHIFT NVR

7.5.2.1 AeroMACS shall operate with a

Doppler shift induced by the

movement of the MS up to a

radial speed of 92.6km (50

nautical miles) per hour, relative

to the BS.

UT SESAR UT:

The MS mobility requirement has been verified In the laboratory tests

described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in section 5.7 and in the airport

tests performed in Toulouse and described in SESAR P15.02.07 D10

Verification Plan and Report– Phase 2 section A3.5.3. The test evaluates the

impact of mobility on the data communications and channel selectivity at 50,

90 and 120 km/h. The results showed that the data link could maintain

connectivity at reasonable data rate and maintained a consistent RSSI and

CINR performance. (ACP WG S/6 IP04).

7.5.3 DELAY NVR

7.5.3.1 Subnetwork entry time shall be

less than 90 seconds.

IB, A, UT,

MD

SESAR

Hitachi

IB and A:

AeroMACS draft MASPS requires a network entry time of 90 seconds as

indicated in section 6.3.

The SARPs Definitions section describes subnetwork entry time as the time

from when the MS starts scanning for BS transmissions until the first network

user “PDU” can be sent. Therefore it does not include time for self-test or other

power up functions.

The channel bandwidth being 5 MHz there are only 23 channels in the band

5030 to 5150 (and only 11 are available in the band 5091 to 5150).The SARPs

(as well as the MOPS and MASPS) required though that the AeroMACS MS

should be able to support 250 kHz frequency step size but also define a

preferred frequency set of 5 MHz step size.

There are various ways to implement the scanning process and it clarified that

the SARPs do not require sequential scanning with 250 KHz step size.

In addition other solutions to minimise the Subnetwork Entry Time exist such

as to pre-provision the MS with the frequency it needs to use at start-up (i.e. at

a destination airport) by means of a database.


- 35 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


Finally, as the deviations from the nominal frequencies should only take place

in exceptional cases, it is recommended that any implementation of the

scanning process addresses first the preferred frequencies.

UT:

In SESAR there were measurements in the lab as well as in a real environment.

A lab measurement is described in deliverable P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification

Report – Phase 1 section A.6. The test verifies the MS connects properly with a

BS in the laboratory. The test results show a network entry time of 9.33

seconds considering one scanning. In the same section, the subnetwork entry

time is estimated to 26.73 seconds assuming a sequential scan with 250 KHz

step size for the whole 5000-5150 MHz band (580 scans with 30 ms each

scan). A measurement of the scanning time in a real environment has also taken

place and it is described in SEAR 15.2.7 D10 Verification Plan and Report –

Phase 2 section A3.2. The test performed a MS initialization and scanning with

250 kHz step size, of 217 frequencies from 5093,5 to 5147,5 and the test results

indicate 2 minutes 10 seconds from MS switch on and network entry

completed.


section 5.1, the same lab test as reported above for the P15.02.07 project is

mentioned. As already reported, the Network Entry Time (consisting in

Physical/MAC Synchronization, Authentication/Registration and Service

Flows Creation) was measured being about 9.330 seconds. This time does not

include time for self-test and other power up functions. Furthermore, all of the

devices involved in the process were located in the same room. It is worth

observing that in this test the MS had been previously configured to scan a

limited list of frequencies. If instead the MS had to scan the whole frequency

band 5000-5150 MHz, an extra time should be considered for physical layer

scanning.

It is estimated that the order of magnitude of the time needed to span the whole

band looking for a valid preamble could be tens of milliseconds per each

channel.


- 36 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


Therefore, assuming for instance this time being 30 ms, the extra-time needed

to span the whole band would be 30ms * 580 = 17.4 seconds. This would lead

to a total Net Entry Time of 9.33 + 17.4 = 26.73 seconds.

It is also worth underlining that this result has been obtained in a controlled

environment (lab). Real environments (airports) can introduce degradation

factors (attenuation, multipath fading, shadowing, Doppler effects, etc.) that

may increase the packet error rate and the number of retransmissions, with

subsequent increase in the Net Entry Time. For this reason, the 90 seconds

currently hypothesized in the ICAO SARPs as maximum net entry time can be

considered appropriate.

UT:

Hitachi and NASA testing in Cleveland validated the requirements for network

entry time. The measured results of this testing are provided in ACP-WG-

S/6WP09 [14], Section 2.1.

MD:

Further testing has been conducted by Thales measuring the scanning time in a

lab for a limited set of frequencies (11 and 22). For 11 frequencies (forcing the

worst case scenario needing to scan all 11 nominal canter frequencies) the

subnetwork entry time is around 12 seconds. For 22 frequencies the

subnetwork entry time is around 16 seconds.

During the SARPs development process there was an open item to consider

reducing the 90s requirement. In the end considering requests also from the

industry involved it is proposed to maintain this requirement to 90s with the

expectation that a much better than 90s entry time will be generally achievable.

7.5.3.2 Recommendation .—

Subnetwork entry time should be

less than 20 seconds .

IB, A, UT,

MD

SESAR Based on the analysis above it is expected that this recommendation is feasible

and it could be met through an efficient implementation of the scanning

algorithm, or other means (such as frequency data bases).


- 37 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.3.3 The from-MS data transit delay

(95th percentile) for the highest

priority data service, shall be less

than or equal to 1.4 seconds over

a window of 1 hour or 600 SDUs,

whichever is longer.

S, A, UT

SESAR S+A:

The draft AeroMACS MASPS describes the results of simulations of capacity

analysis per airport in section 12.1.2.2.

The simulations calculate the average delay of data link message delay is 0.17

seconds in the worst case. A calculation of the variance range acceptable for

this delay to be within 95th percentile margin is a straightforward analysis

validation method. Assuming normal distribution of message delay, the 95th

percentile falls within 1.96*std dev. For it to be under 1.4 s, the std dev must be

0.63 s maximum (i.e. 3.7 times the mean). This means that, in order not to

comply with the requirement, the spread of the message delay distribution must

be very high, which was not the case observed in the simulations.

UT: In the tests described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in sections 5.4,

6.1.5.2, 6.1.5.6, 6.2.4.3, 6.2.4.5, 6.2.4.7 this requirement has been validated

both in laboratory and field environment

7.5.3.4 The to-MS data transit delay (95th

percentile) for the highest priority

data service, shall be less than or

equal to 1.4 seconds over a

window of 1 hour or 600SDUs,

whichever is longer.

S, A, UT SESAR S+A:

The draft AeroMACS MASPS describes the results of simulations of capacity

analysis per airport in section 12.1.2.2. The simulations calculate the average

delay of data link message delay is 0.17 seconds in the worst case. A

calculation of the variance range acceptable for this delay to be within 95th

percentile margin is a straightforward analysis validation method. Assuming

normal distribution of message delay, the 95th percentile falls within 1.96*std

dev. For it to be under 1.4 s, the std dev must be 0.63 s maximum (i.e. 3.7 times

the mean). This means that, in order not to comply with the requirement, the

spread of the message delay distribution must be very high, which was not the

case observed in the simulations.

UT:

In the tests described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in sections 5.4,

6.1.5.2, 6.1.5.6, 6.2.4.3, 6.2.4.5, 6.2.4.7 this requirement has been validated

both in laboratory and field environment


- 38 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.4 INTEGRITY NVR

7.5.4.1 AeroMACS BS and MS shall

support mechanisms to detect and

correct corrupt SNSDUs

IB, S

SESAR IB:

The AeroMACS draft MASPS requires in section 13 a mechanism to ensure

message integrity. In addition, the AeroMACS MOPS mandates the use of

CRC and ARQ retransmission to detect and correct corrupt SDUs in sections

2.2.8.4.16.1.2 and 2.2.6.3.3.3.2, respectively. The requirement is also addressed

at operational level in SESAR P15.02.07 D08 T8.1 Safety and Performance

Analysis, section 6.2.3, by indicating that the AeroMACS system shall prohibit

operational processing of corrupted messages.

S:

The operation of mechanisms to detect and correct corrupt SDUs (specifically,

the use of ARQ retransmission) has been described in the draft MASPS section

C1 in the capacity analysis per operational domain. The simulation verifies the

configuration and performance of various types of retransmission schemes.

7.5.4.2 AeroMACS BS and MS shall

only process SNSDUs addressed

to themselves

IB, A SESAR IB+A:

The AeroMACS draft MASPS requires in section 13 a mechanism of

continuous verification of the sender of the message. By a straightforward

analysis, it can be concluded that authenticating the sender ensures that the

corresponding security association (SA) is established bilaterally between the

sender and the receiver using a mutually agreed encryption key, and thus a

mechanism exists to ensure that no MS other than the intended receiver can

process the desired message.

The requirement is also addressed at operational level in SESAR P15.02.07

D08 T8.1 Safety and Performance Analysis section 6.2.3, by indicating that the

AeroMACS system shall only accept uplink messages intended for the aircraft.


- 39 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.4.3 Recommendation .— The

residual error rate, to/from MS

should be less than or equal to 5 x

10-8

per SNSDU.

Note.— There are no integrity

requirements for SNSDU residual

rate to the BS and MS as the

requirement is entirely satisfied by

the end-to-end systems in the aircraft

and Air Traffic Service Provider.

IB, A ACP-WG-S IB+A:

This recommendation is raised from an operational (application level)

requirement existent in the Communications Operating Concept and

Requirements (COCR) for the Future Radio System document v2. Tables 5-7

and 5-8 establish the integrity RCTP per service instantiation for ATS phase 1

and 2, respectively. The most stringent services in the tables require a

maximum error rate of 5*10E-08.

7.5.4.4 The maximum bit error rate shall

not exceed 10-6 after CTC-FEC

assuming a minimum received

signal equal to the corresponding

sensitivity level.

IB, A, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:

This requirement is covered by the MOPS section 2.2.8.4.14.1.1 which

establishes the maximum BER value to comply with the sensitivity requirement

as 10E-06.

A+UT:

The unit test performed and described in SESAR P15.02.07 D10 Verification

Plan and Report – Phase 2 section A2.2 uses the maximum BER level as a

reference to increase power levels until sensitivity level is achieved. Note that

it is acceptable to make measurements in terms of Packet Error Rate (PER) as

there exists a clear PER to BER translation depending on the packet size as

described in the future AeroMACS Technical Manual.

UT:

This requirement was tested by Hitachi and the results are compliant with the

specification. The detailed results are shown in Appendix B-4 of [8].


- 40 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.5.5 SECURITY NVR

7.5.5.1 AeroMACS shall provide a

capability to protect the integrity

of messages in transit.

Note.— The capability includes

cryptographic mechanisms to provide

integrity of messages in transit.

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:

The AeroMACS draft MASPS mandates in section 13 the support of

mechanisms and procedures to ensure message integrity and the

implementation of security association with cryptographic suites.

UT:

A unit test is described in SESAR P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report

– Phase 2 section A1.4 verifying that after authentication, the transmitted data

are properly encrypted, according to the required Private Key Management

Protocol. In addition, laboratory tests are described in SESAR P15.02.07 D06.2

Verification Report – Phase 1 in sections A.3 and A.9, which verify that BS

and MS are able to use encryption, and that encryption keys are correctly

distributed by the ASN-GW after authentication, respectively.

Hitachi tested and confirmed the use of the CMAC for MAC PDU exchange.

The detailed test results are described in Appendix B-5(2) of [8].


capability to protect the

availability of the system.


measures to ensure that the system

and its capacity are available for

authorized uses during unauthorized

events.

IB, UT SESAR

ACP WG S

IB:

The AeroMACS draft MASPS mandate in section 13 the integrity,

authentication and confidentiality mechanisms that aim to avoid loss of

availability due to flooding or DoS attacks.

UT:

Refer to UT in the section 7.5.5.5.


- 41 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



capability to protect the

confidentiality of messages in

transit.



encryption/decryption of messages.

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:


mechanisms and procedures to provide transmission confidentiality and the

implementation of security association with cryptographic suites.

UT:









section 5.5, the test verified that AeroMACS MS Prototype were able, after Net

Entry and Authentication, to encrypt data according to the required Private Key

Management Protocol, demonstrating the requirement is achievable on the

A/C.

Hitachi tested and confirmed the use of the TEK field for data transfer. The

detailed test results are described in Appendix B-5(3) of [8].

7.5.5.4 AeroMACS shall provide an

authentication capability.



peer entity authentication, mutual

peer entity authentication, and data

origin authentication.

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

IB:


mechanisms and procedures to provide protection against unauthorized entry

and perform device authentication.

UT:


– Phase 2 section A1.4 verifying that EAP authentication is successfully

performed, and then the transmitted data are properly encrypted, according to

the required Private Key Management Protocol.


- 42 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


In addition, laboratory tests are described in SESAR P15.02.07 D06.2





sections 5.5, the test verified that AeroMACS MS Prototype support both Non-

Authentication and Authentication, EAP-based, mode of operations,

demonstrating the requirement is achievable.

UT:

Hitachi's authentication implementation makes use of EAP-TLS and key

encryption protocols to provide an authentication feature that is compliant with

IEEE802.16e and fully satisfies the SARPS requirement. The authentication

implementation has been verified in Hitachi's product development laboratory.

Further detail can be found in the Validation results in Appendix B 5(4) of[8].


capability to ensure the

authenticity of messages in

transit.


cryptographic mechanisms to

provide authenticity of messages

in transit.

IB, UT SESAR

HITACH

IB:


mechanisms and procedures to ensure message integrity and the continuous

verification of the sender of the message, plus the implementation of security

association with cryptographic suites.

UT:








Hitachi also tested and confirmed the use of the CMAC for MAC PDU

exchange. The detailed test results are described in Appendix B-5(2) of [8].


- 43 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners



capability to authorize the

permitted actions of users of the

system.

Note.— The capability s includes

mechanisms to explicitly authorize

the actions of authenticated users.

Actions that are not explicitly

authorized are denied.

IB, UT SESAR IB:


mechanisms and procedures to provide protection against unauthorized entry

and perform device authentication. In addition, it mandates the support of

security control mechanisms in order to avoid unauthorized users to reach and

get ATC/AOC/NET services and interact with other parts of the infrastructure.

UT:

The field test described by P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report –

Phase 2 A3.3 was configured with the certificates and other secret information

(password, …), it was correctly authenticated and authorized to communicate.

Without this mandatory information, the MS was not authorized to register.

7.5.5.7 If AeroMACS provides interfaces

to multiple domains, AeroMACS

shall provide capability to prevent

intrusion from lower integrity

domain to higher integrity

domain.

IB, A ACP WG S IB:

The AeroMACS draft MASPS mandates in section 13 the support of security

control mechanisms in order to avoid unauthorized users to reach and get

ATC/AOC/NET services and interact with other parts of the infrastructure. In

addition, the MASPS section 3 Network Architecture indicates that

AeroMACS avoids an attack to spread to multiple NSP domains since it only

allows the connectivity with a single NSP at a time for a given MS. Thus, an

intruder cannot spread an attack to various NSP since it would need to perform

different network entry procedures for different service providers.

A:

The Thales AeroMACS MS includes the following security mechanisms to the

interfaces:

- MAC Filer to prevent computers with specified MAC address from

accessing to MS

- User Access Control to limit the device usage by the user.

- IP Filter capability with either black or white rule based on protocol

type, source and destination IP, port range

Other mechanisms include IP filtering, Port filtering and Access control

through credential.


- 44 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.6 SYSTEM INTERFACES NVR

7.6.1. AeroMACS shall provide data

service interface to the system

users.

UT SESAR UT:

In the SESAR testing, an Ethernet interface was implemented and tested on

both the THALES and SELEX prototypes. Ethernet interfaces exist between

the BS/MS equipment and their respective networks for control and data

payload communications. This is described in the Deliverable P15.02.07 D10

Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3.’


notification of the status of

communications

Note.- this requirement could

support notification of the loss of

communications (such as join and

leave events)

IB, UT SESAR

Hitachi

ENRI

IB:

SESAR deliverable P15.02.07 D08-T8.1 Safety and Performance Analysis

indicates in section 5.2.2.5 the maximum delays for the ATC center to be

notified in case of an interruption of the service.

UT:

All developed prototypes have indicates (LEDs) to indicate status of

functionalities. In the tests described in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in

sections 5.1, this requirement has been validated in laboratory by Logs

observation (and storage) from the network management and by the presence

of a dedicated LED, indicating the overall Net Entry Status starting from

AeroMACS MS scanning (LED=Yellow) and ending with the AeroMACS MS

registration on the AeroMACS Network after the acquisition of the IP address

through DHCP process (LED=Green), demonstrating the requirement is

achievable on the A/C.

ENRI validated the status of communication. Several LED indicate the status

of communication such as Power, Data, RSSI on the top of MSs. Those results

are provided in ACP WG-S/6 WP04, Section 3.2.


- 45 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.7 APPLICATION

REQUIREMENTS

NVR


multiple classes of services to

provide appropriate service levels

to applications.

IB, A,S and

UT

SESAR

IB:

The draft AeroMACS MASPS mandates in sections 5.3 and 6.2 the support of

applications of type ATC, AOC and NET. In addition, section 4.3 indicates a

service classification of these applications in a scheme of 6 classes of service

(CoS). Each class of service supports a service level characterised by a set of

parameters such as minimum reserved bandwidth, maximum reserved

bandwidth, maximum delay, scheduling type or relative priority.

IB+A:

A section in the AeroMACS Technical Manual will also cover the AeroMACS

mechanisms to meet the QoS (including priority) of the supported applications

based on the EUROCONTROL/AT4W Technical Note 14 (Service Flow

Management and QoS Management in AeroMACS). Such note will cover the

mechanisms of prioritization of packets belonging to different service classes,

CoS parameter configuration and call admission control. The operation of these

features creates altogether a QoS scheme that clearly delimits the different

service levels and relative priorities of the existing traffic flows.

S:




Analysis in section 3 and the draft AeroMACS MASPS in section 12.1.2.2.

UT:


according to priority (two service flows of BE with different maximum

sustained traffic rate values) and this is covered in the SESAR Deliverables

P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 (sections A1.3 and

A2.1) and P15.02.07 D06.2 Verification Report – Phase 1 (sections A.2 and

A.8) and in the P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] (sections 5.4 and 6.1.2.5).


- 46 -

AeroMACS SARPs:

Numbering and Text

Validation

method used

Validation

contributing

Partners


7.7.2 If there is a resource contention,

AeroMACS shall pre-empt lower

priority service(s) in favour of

higher priority service(s).

IB, A S, UT

SESAR

IB:

As reported previously, a section in the AeroMACS Technical Manual will

cover the AeroMACS mechanisms to meet the required QoS (including

priority) of the supported applications based on the EUROCONTROL/AT4W

Technical Note 14 (Service Flow Management and QoS Management in

AeroMACS).

IB+A:

In addition, AeroMACS MASPS section 4.3 indicates a service classification

of the different applications in a scheme of 6 classes of service (CoS). Each

class of service supports a service level characterised by a set of parameters

such as minimum reserved bandwidth, maximum reserved bandwidth,

maximum delay, scheduling type or relative priority. This CoS scheme makes

the scheduler handle priority mechanisms among the outgoing packets in the

queues according to the corresponding parameters and, if not enough resources

are available in the channel, pre-empt the scheduling of packets belonging to

classes of service of a lower level in favour of higher level classes of service.

S:




Analysis in section 3 and the draft AeroMACS MASPS in section 12.1.2.2. The

simulation shows how the higher classes of service (NET, ATC1 and ATC2)

comply with lower latency values than lower classes of service (AOCx).

UT:

SESAR P15.02.07 D10 Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2 section A1.3

verifies that all QoS related requirements are satisfied for different Scheduling

Types and for different traffic priorities, in both DL and UL directions. In the

laboratory tests described in P9.16 ACP-WG-S/6 WP06 [5] in section 5.4, the

test verified the capability of the AeroMACS MS prototype to assign high

priority service (SF data) more bandwidth than lower priority services (SF

data) demonstrating the requirement is achievable on the A/C.


47

7. CONCLUSIONS OF VALIDATION ACTIVITIES

7.1 The AeroMACS data link is the customisation of the WiMAX system (which is based on the

IEEE 802.16 standard) to meet the aviation requirements of information exchanges while the

aircraft is on the airport surface.

7.2 WiMAX is a system that is already in operation and supporting mobile communications in

various countries since 2005. However, there are many features in WiMAX whose

implementation is optional and depending on the equipment manufacturer, the network

provider, or both and therefore compliance with the WiMAX standard alone would not

guarantee interoperability for aviation.

7.3 To address this issue, the aviation community has agreed on the AeroMACS profile. The

AeroMACS profile is specifying the minimum set of the required WiMAX features that are

need to be implemented in all AeroMACS implementations in order to support

interoperability in a regional and global level for aviation.

7.4 The AeroMACS SARPs aim to unambiguously identify the SARPs required to realise the

AeroMACS profile in terms of the “Signal in Space”. Furthermore, considering that the

WiMAX is in general a validated system being in operation, the validation of the AeroMACS

SARPs is effectively focusing on the validation of the identified AeroMACS Profile features

is not covering the general validation of the WiMAX system.

7.5 The analysis of the material presented in section 6 of this report, shows that multiple

AeroMACS testing activities have been conducted with different AeroMACS

implementations from different equipment manufacturers and in different countries.

7.6 There are many SARPs that have been tested by one or more different testing exercise and

there is testing evidence that these are met. However there are also SARPs for which limited

testing has been made and some for which only analysis is provided.

7.7 It is noted that a Technical Manual is being developed to provide further explanation and

guidance on the implementation as well as the testing in some cases, of some SARPs

requirements.

7.8 WGS considering all the information in section 6 considers that the AeroMACS SARPs are

validated.


- 48 -

8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D06.2, AeroMACS Integration and Testing – Phase

1 Verification Report, version 00.01.00, 06/12/2013, SJU

Appendix 2: SESAR PROJECT P15.02.07, DELIVERABLE D10, AEROMACS VERIFICATION

PLAN AND REPORT – PHASE 2, DRAFT VERSION 00.00.07, NOVEMBER 2014

Appendix 3: Draft AeroMACS MASPS, version 0.19, EUROCAE WG82

9. REFERENCES

[1] ICAO ACP, UAT Validation Report, 2005, ICAO

[2a] SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D05.1, AeroMACS Ground Prototypes Description,

version 00.01.00, 23/05/2013, SJU

[2b] SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D05.2, AeroMACS Verification Strategy, version

00.01.00, 25/05/2013, SJU

[3a] SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D06.1, AeroMACS Integration and Testing – Phase 1

Verification Plan, version 00.01.00, 06/12/2013, SJU

[3b] SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D06.2, AeroMACS Integration and Testing – Phase 1

Verification Report, version 00.01.00, 06/12/2013, SJU

[4] SESAR Project P15.02.07, Deliverable D10, AeroMACS Verification Plan and Report – Phase 2,

Draft version 00.00.07, November 2014

[5] SESAR Project P9.16, Deliverable D11, AeroMACS System Final Validation Report, under

development (WP06 in the WGS/6 meeting is providing a summary of the P9.16 results to

support the SARPs validation)

[6a] SANDRA Project Deliverable 6.5.1 Report on Testing, 2013, SANDRA

[6b] SANDRA Project Deliverable 7.6.1 Evaluation results – Assessment and Recommendations,

2013, SANDRA

[7] ACP WG S Feb web meeting, WP01-NetworkEntryTime.doc, 21/2//2014.

[8] ACP WG S Jul meeting, IP04 - AeroMACS Validation Report from Hitachi_r9.doc, 14/7/2014.

[9] ACP WG S Sep web meeting, IP01_Validation Comments for Spectral Mask Specification from

Hitachi_r7.docx, 9/9/2014.

[10] ACP-WG-S/6 WP04 Throughput Evaluation of ENRI Prototype AeroMACS in Sendai

Airport.docx, 14/11/2014


- 49 -

[11] EUROCAE WG82 May meeting, WP Preliminary evaluation for AeroMACS prototype Mobile

Station “20140509EUROCAE_WG82.pdf”, 11/5/2014,

[12] NASA/CR—2011-216997/VOL2 - C-Band Airport Surface Communications System Standards

Development, Phase II Final Report, Volume 2: Test Bed Performance Evaluation and Final

AeroMACS Recommendations

[13] Mobile Satellite Service Interference Analysis for AeroMACS Base Stations

[14] ACP-WG-S/6 WP09 Field Trial and Test Results, 14/11/2014

[15] New ATM Requirements - Future Communications, C-Band and L-Band Communications Study

SE2020 TO 0008 (TORP 1240) Task 1, AeroMACS Interference Reduction and Spectrum

Studies. SE2020 TO 0007 (TORP 1252)

AeroMACS SARPS Validation Report (Appendix D to WP03.1) first... · validation which is the system...

Documents

Transcript of AeroMACS SARPS Validation Report (Appendix D to WP03.1) first... · validation which is the system...