Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 82

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

CASCADE PROGRAMME

1090 MHZ CAPACITY STUDY FINAL REPORT

Edition Number Edition Date Status Intended for

: : : :

2.6 July 2006 Proposed Issue CASCADE VFG

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

DOCUMENT CONTROL
Copyright notice 2006 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). All rights reserved. Member States of the Organisation are entitled to use and reproduce this document for without any constraints. Disclosure to third parties shall only be subject to notification to EUROCONTROL. Edition history
Edition N Date and Status Author(s) Reason

1.0 2.3

31/05/2006 20/07/2006

R. McDonald R. McDonald

2.4 2.5

26/07/2006 01/08/2006

C. Tamvaclis C. Tamvaclis

Draft Updated for use of trackers, sectorised antennas and CASCADE reference architecture Final Draft Proposed Issue

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 1

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary..........................................................................................4
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Background .............................................................................................................................. 4 Future scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 4 FRUIT rates.............................................................................................................................. 5 1090 MHz decoder performance.............................................................................................. 6 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5 Air to ground performance................................................................................................ 6 Air to air performance ....................................................................................................... 8

Performance against ADS-B applications................................................................................ 8 1.5.1 1.5.2 Air to ground applications ................................................................................................. 9 Air to air applications ...................................................................................................... 10

1.6

Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 10

References ....................................................................................................12 1 Introduction .......................................................................................13


1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Background ............................................................................................................................ 13 Future scenarios .................................................................................................................... 14 FRUIT modelling .................................................................................................................... 14 Decoder performance modelling ............................................................................................ 15 CASCADE ADS-B applications.............................................................................................. 15 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 15

2
2.1

Air and Ground Scenarios .................................................................16


Aircraft scenarios ................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 Air traffic in 2004............................................................................................................. 16 Future scenarios............................................................................................................. 22 Comparison of air traffic scenarios with TLAT scenario................................................. 29

Ground scenarios ................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 High, medium and low scenarios ................................................................................... 32 Mode S implementation plans ........................................................................................ 34 IC code allocations ......................................................................................................... 34

3
3.1

FRUIT modelling ...............................................................................35


Overview of the FRUIT model................................................................................................ 35 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Model functions .............................................................................................................. 35 Model implementation .................................................................................................... 36 Overall Conclusions........................................................................................................ 36

4
4.1 4.2 4.3

Decoder performance modelling .......................................................38


Introduction............................................................................................................................. 38 DO-260A decoder .................................................................................................................. 38 RSL Advanced decoder ......................................................................................................... 40 4.3.1 4.3.2 Ground receiver.............................................................................................................. 41 Airborne decoder ............................................................................................................ 42

FRUIT analysis..................................................................................46

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 2

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

5.1

FRUIT rates............................................................................................................................ 46 5.1.1 5.1.2 Ground receiver.............................................................................................................. 46 Airborne receiver ............................................................................................................ 47

5.2

Decoder performance versus FRUIT level............................................................................. 48 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 Baseline scenario ........................................................................................................... 48 Reduced overall radar infrastructure .............................................................................. 50 Military remains mainly Mode A/C.................................................................................. 53

6
6.1

CASCADE applications .....................................................................55


Application descriptions ......................................................................................................... 55 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.1.5 6.1.6 6.2 6.3 ADS-B NRA (ATC surveillance in non-radar area) ........................................................ 55 ADS-B RAD (ATC Surveillance for radar areas) ............................................................ 55 ADS-B APT (Airport surface surveillance)...................................................................... 56 ATSA SURF (Enhanced traffic situational awareness on the airport surface)........................................................................................................................... 56 ATSA AIRB (Enhanced traffic situational awareness during flight operations)...................................................................................................................... 57 ASPA S&M (Enhanced sequencing and merging)......................................................... 57

Provisional application requirements ..................................................................................... 58 Application performance with 1090ES ................................................................................... 59 6.3.1 6.3.2 Air to ground applications ............................................................................................... 62 Air to air applications ...................................................................................................... 63

7
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Conclusions.......................................................................................64
Minimisation of FRUIT............................................................................................................ 64 Decoder technologies and update rates ................................................................................ 64 CASCADE ADS-B applications.............................................................................................. 64 Issues for future study............................................................................................................ 65 B.1 Validation Process and Data ................................................................................................ 70 B.2 Results of Validation Using NATS Data................................................................................ 72 B.3 Comparison of Recorded and Calculated FRUIT Level ....................................................... 76

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 3

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Executive summary
The analysis in this report shows that air to ground and air to air CASCADE ADS-B applications can be supported on 1090 MHz ES technology in even the worst postulated 2015 FRUIT environment. Furthermore if, as expected, the ADS-B RAD application leads to partial radar decommissioning it is likely that these applications would then continue to be supported for a long period beyond 2015. However the longer range air to air applications may well require a decoder with more advanced capabilities than those specified in DO-260A. The majority of FRUIT generated comes from replies to radars. As such, FRUIT can be significantly reduced by: Improved clustering of Mode S radar; Improved cooperation between civil and military radar operators.

The ADS-B infrastructure can contribute to FRUIT reduction by: Use of sectorised antennas. This would normally imply multiple receivers per ADS-B station, hence increasing station cost; Deployment of more ground stations with at least partially overlapping coverage..

1.1 Background
This report discusses the effects of future expected interference levels on 1090 MHz on the ADS-B applications considered by the CASCADE Programme [7] focusing on the core area of Europe. It is meant to provide an update on previous similar EUROCONTROL studies [13,14] in order to take into account developments in radar infrastructure, air traffic growth evolution, and 1090ES receiver technology. The report is based on simulations performed by Helios Technology Ltd, Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL) and National Air Traffic Services UK (NATS) for the EUROCONTROL CASCADE Programme [7]. Both air to air and air to ground applications have been considered in the core area of Europe. The study considered the performance of both a DO-260A MOPS (with the enhanced decoding techniques recommended in Appendix I.4) compliant 1090 MHz decoder [10] and an advanced 1090 MHz decoder developed by RSL [11].

1.2 Future scenarios


Scenarios for the future 1090 MHz environment were developed reflecting the expected growth in air traffic in core Europe as well as changes in aircraft equipage and ground radar infrastructure. These scenarios estimated the resultant FRUIT rate, i.e. all unwanted transmissions on 1090 MHz that may interfere with a desired 1090 MHz Extended Squitter, in terms of unwanted messages received per second. Air traffic was estimated using data from the EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) for the busiest day on record in core Europe. This estimate was enhanced with the addition of military and general aviation flights and the resulting aircraft numbers increased to represent expected air traffic growth. Increased equipage of the European fleet with 1090 ES and ACAS was also assumed.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 4

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Radar infrastructure has a significant effect on 1090 FRUIT levels, and therefore several scenarios were developed representing different evolutions of the core Europe ground radar infrastructure. Based on current ground plans, it was assumed many current civil Mode A/C radars will upgrade to Mode S by 2015. The number of radars in simultaneous operation was also considered and varied between scenarios. Military SSR radars were also included and scenarios representing different evolutions of the infrastructure were considered, including the change of some military SSR radars to Mode S.

1.3 FRUIT rates


A FRUIT model was used to estimate the FRUIT present in the different future scenarios. The model determines all contributions to FRUIT including replies to Mode A/C/S radars, replies to ACAS interrogations, short squitters and 1090 ES broadcasts. As part of the study, the model was successfully validated against measured data from ADS-B ground stations in the London TMA. FRUIT rates were estimated for two test points: one on the ground at Brussels and one at 33000 ft above Brussels for each future scenario.
120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0
Baseline (High interference) Military mainly Mode A/C Reduced overall radar infrustructure
Mode A/C FRUIT Mode S FRUIT

Figure 1: The impact of different radar configurations on received FRUIT (All scenarios 2015, 1560 aircraft, ground receiver with omni antenna). Figure 1 shows the estimated FRUIT levels received at the ground test point for several 2015 scenarios. The baseline scenario assumes most civil and military radar (374 in total) are upgraded to Mode S. The second scenario (military mainly mode A/C) assumes that civil radars are upgraded to Mode S but military ones remain Mode A/C. The third scenario assumes a reduced radar infrastructure of 205 civil/military radars mostly upgraded to Mode S. Such a scenario could occur if some radars are decommissioned due to the deployment of ADS-B. Mode S FRUIT includes also extended squitter messages due to ADS-B. Extended Squitter FRUIT is proportional to the number of aircraft and hence remains the same in all three scenarios (~7500 msg/sec in this case). The reminder of the FRUIT con-

Final Report Version 2.5

FRUIT rate (all powers)

Page 5

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

sists of replies to radar and ACAS interrogations. Replies to radar interrogations constituted the majority of the observed FRUIT (>80% in the baseline scenario). Figure 1 demonstrates that the dominant form of FRUIT by 2015 is likely to be Mode S rather than Mode A/C (which is a different conclusion from previous studies [13], [14]). It also shows that radar infrastructure rationalisations could lead to significant FRUIT level reductions. Additional FRUIT reductions are possible with optimised Mode S radar clustering. Furthermore the use of receivers with sector antennas would reduce the FRUIT actually received on the 1090ES decoder.

1.4 1090 MHz decoder performance


Two decoders were investigated: a model of a DO-260A MOPS compliant decoder and a model of an advanced decoder developed by RSL. For the purposes of this study DO-260A compliance is taken to mean that the advanced decoding techniques recommended in DO-260A (Appendix I) have been implemented. It should be made clear however that these techniques are not mandated by DO-260A. The RSL advanced decoder has been chosen because it implements decoding techniques which are more advanced than those specified in DO-260A Appendix I. The RSL receiver is currently built in a ground station, but it is assumed that a decoder of this performance could in future also be adapted and fitted on aircraft.

1.4.1 Air to ground performance


Figure 2 below shows the performance achieved by the ground 1090 receiver (with omni antenna) assuming the FRUIT scenarios in Figure 1. Performance is measured in terms of squitter decode probability versus target range. A certain minimum squitter decode probability 1 has to be achieved to ensure the position update periods required by the applications (2 sec for airport surface, 5 sec for TMA surveillance, and 10 sec for en route radar surveillance) . These required minimum decode probabilities are indicated in Figure 2. The width of the decode probability bars shows how different FRUIT environments (worst case = scenario A, best case = scenario C from Figure 1) affect the resulting performance. Figure 2 shows separately the performance of a DO-260A compliant decoder and an RSL enhanced decoder. It can be seen that the RSL decoder achieves substantially higher squitter decode probabilities.

The required minimum squitter decode probabilities have been calculated assuming that receiver data are processed by a tracker, which can take into account position and velocity information (transmitted separately under 1090 ES) in order to produce position updates. The tracker can achieve the required update rates work with lesser squitter decode probabilities and results in longer ranges for the required performance, see Sec. 6.3.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 6

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

0.9

0.8

Probability of correct decode

0.7

0.6

Advanced decoder MOPS decoder 2s update (95%)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

5s update (95%)
0.1

10s update (95%)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0 Range (NM)

Figure 2: The performance of the DO-260A decoder and RSL advanced decoder for a decoder on the ground with an omni antenna. (2015 scenarios as in Fig. 1, position updates from a tracker)
1

0.9

0.8

Advanced decoder (highest interference scenario only)

Probability of correct decode

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

2s update (95%)
0.3 0.2

MOPS decoder (all interference scenarios)

5s update (95%)
0.1

10s update (95%)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0 Range (NM)

Figure 3: The performance of the DO-260A decoder and RSL advanced decoder for a decoder on the ground with a 90 degree sector antenna. (2015 scenarios as in Fig. 1, use of a tracker assumed) Figure 3 above shows the performance achieved when a 90-degree sector antenna is used on the ground receiver. The advanced decoder results are shown only for the worst case (scenario D in Fig 1). The reduced FRUIT levels result in substantial range extensions. The advanced decoder still provides a significant improvement in performance over the MOPS decoder. This is particularly apparent for long range applications.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 7

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1.4.2 Air to air performance


Results for 2015 air to air scenarios are shown in Figure 4. As before, a range of results is shown. The results 2 are shown for a standard avionics omni antenna. It can be seen that decode probabilities tend to be lower than those achieved air to ground. This is because the wanted signal level is lower (due to the lower gain of an avionics L-band antenna) while the FRUIT rate tends to be higher as an airborne aircraft sees many more transmitters than a ground system. Consequently the required update rates can be sustained at lower ranges than on a ground receiver. It can also be seen that the advanced RSL decoder would provide a significant improvement over a MOPS compliant decoder.

1 0.9 0.8

Advanced Decoder

Probability of Correct Decode

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

MOPS Decoder

2s update (95%)
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

5s update (95%) 10s update (95%)

Range (NM)

Figure 4: Performance of airborne DO-260A MOPS decoder and RSL advanced decoder (2015 scenarios, receiver at FL330).

1.5 Performance against ADS-B applications


The requirements for ADS-B applications considered by the CASCADE Programme are being developed by the Requirements Focus Group (RFG) [7] and will be specified in EUROCAE standards such as ED-126 for the NRA application [12]. A summary of the currently assumed (and still under development by the RFG) performance requirements for these applications is provided in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Airport surface applications have nor been considered in this study. These applications refer to environments where 1090ES performance is not dominated by the effects of FRUIT interference.

Similarly to the case of air to ground performance in Sec. 1.4.1, minimum required squitter decode probabilities have been calculated assuming an (airborne) tracker function capable of producing position updates from either position or velocity messages

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 8

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Application

Provisional Requirements 95% Update

Range attained for this update rate DO-260A decoder Advanced decoder

Air to Ground 4-sectored antenna (highest sector) ADS-B NRA/RAD (TMA) ADS-B NRA/RAD (en-route) 5 sec 10 sec At least 70 NM range At least 90 NM range Over 150 NM range Over 150 NM range

Air to Ground omnidirectional antenna ADS-B NRA/RAD (TMA) ADS-B NRA/RAD (en-route) 5 sec 10 sec At least 40 NM range At least 50 NM range At least 80 NM range At least 100 NM range

Table 1: CASCADE air to ground applications and corresponding range 3 achievable over 1090ES for the 2015 baseline
Air to Air Provisional Requirements 95% date* ATSA AIRB See and Avoid (GA) ATSA AIRB During flight operations (IFR) ASPA S&M Traffic identification ASPA S&M Active spacing merge ASPA S&M Active spacing in trail 5 sec 5 sec UpRange 15 NM 20 NM Results DO-260A decoder Up to 35 NM range Up to 35 NM range Advanced coder de-

Up to 100 NM range Up to 100 NM range Up to 120 NM range Up to 70 NM range Up to 70 NM range

10 sec 2 sec

100 NM 60 NM

Up to 40 NM range Up to 30 NM range

2 sec

30 NM

Up to 30 NM range

Table 2: CASCADE air to air applications requirements and corresponding range3 achieved over 1090ES for the 2015 baseline

1.5.1 Air to ground applications


Table 1 shows the ranges3 over which a 1090ES ground receiver would meet the position update requirements of the air to ground applications. Two separate cases have been considered: A standard DO-260A compliant receiver and an RSL receiver with enhanced decoding techniques. Air to ground application range requirements are not explicitly specified as it is usually possible to deploy multiple 1090ES ground stations in order to achieve any required range. Furthermore coverage calculations need to take into account also the
3

The 1090ES range has been calculated assuming the use of a tracker exploiting both position and velocity squitters to achieve the required position update rate.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 9

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

geographic terrain and other antenna or line of sight (LoS) constraints which may impose multiple 1090ES ground stations anyway. The results of Table 1 suggest that for short and medium ranges (<70 NM) even in the highest FRUIT environments a single 1090ES ground station with an omni antenna might be sufficient barring Line of Sight and antenna constraints. For long ranges (>100 NM) sectorised antennas and/or multiple networked stations are going to be required in high interference scenarios. The use of more advanced decoding techniques such as those implemented by RSL would reduce the number of sectors (and hence ground station complexity) and/or networked stations required. It should be noted that 2015 is expected to be a worst case for a possibly long period beyond 2015 4, and therefore the applications should continue to be supported with the same ground station infrastructure beyond 2015.

1.5.2 Air to air applications


Table 2 shows the ranges3 over which a 1090ES airborne receiver would meet the position update requirements of the air to air applications. Again two separate cases have been considered: A standard DO-260A compliant receiver and an RSL receiver with enhanced decoding techniques. Table 2 shows that air to air applications with ranges up to 120 NM can be supported in the 2015 environment. Short range (<30 NM) applications can be supported in even the highest FRUIT environments with DO-260A compliant receivers. Medium range applications (30 60 NM) can be supported at a 2 sec update rate, although they may require more advanced decoding techniques. Longer range (>60 NM) requirements would require an advanced decoder.

1.6 Conclusions
This study has investigated the levels of FRUIT expected in 2015 given implementation of civil Mode S radars and military SSR radars in core Europe. The majority of FRUIT generated comes from replies to these radars. As such, FRUIT can be significantly reduced by: Improved clustering of Mode S radar; Improved cooperation between civil and military radar operators.

The modes of operation of civil and military radars have a large effect on the amount of interference produced by them. Decoding 1090 ES messages in the presence of Mode S FRUIT (either from other 1090 ES messages, short squitters, ACAS or replies to Mode S radars) is significantly more challenging than in the presence of Mode A/C FRUIT. Therefore the speed and extent of transition to Mode S from all parties is important. 1090 MHz FRUIT rates are likely to decrease for a transition period beyond ~20154. It will be important however to keep monitoring FRUIT levels and perform follow-on simulation studies following any changes in predictions for air traffic growth and the evolution of national plans for surveillance infrastructure. There are additional mitigation means for future FRUIT increases including:
Some radar infrastructure is likely to be decommissioned and replaced by ADS-B stations leading to a reduction in interrogations and hence in FRUIT. In following years air traffic growth will eventually compensate for the reduction in interrogations and furthermore the level of 1090ES FRUIT will become more and more critical. Consequently 1090ES system performance can be expected to improve for some period beyond 2015 and then gradually degrade again.
4

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 10

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Use of sectorised antennas. This would normally imply multiple receivers per ADS-B station, hence increasing station cost. Deployment of more ground stations with at least partially overlapping coverage. In this way the required air to ground range per station can be reduced at the cost of increased ground infrastructure. Such a configuration may in any way be necessary for other reasons such as integrity and continuity of service

1090ES ground infrastructure will have to be designed through analysis of the local application requirements and environment. Such design must include consideration of the expected FRUIT levels and allow for potential expansion of this infrastructure to handle future interference increases. The use of more performant decoders than those currently specified in the 1090 MOPS is likely to become necessary especially for long range air to air applications. The RSL receiver demonstrates that such advanced decoders are indeed feasible and effective. Changes in the 1090 MOPS would be necessary to mandate the required performance improvements. In conclusion, this report shows that that air to ground CASCADE ADS-B applications [NRA, RAD, and APT] can be supported on 1090 MHz ES technology in even the worst postulated 2015 FRUIT environment. The use of more advanced RSL like decoders may not be necessary except on economic ground (because it could require fewer or simpler ground stations). Furthermore if as expected the ADSB RAD application leads to partial radar decommissioning it is likely that these applications would then continue to be supported for a long period beyond 2015. Air to air CASCADE ADS-B applications can also be supported in the 2015 environment. However the longer range (>60 NM) requirements (which are in any case planned for CASCADE Stream 2) may well require a decoder with more advanced capabilities than those specified in DO-260A. This need will have to be reevaluated when RFG requirements will have been finalized.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 11

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

References
1. EUROCONTROL Long-Term Forecast, Flight Forecast 2004-2025, Edition 1.0, (DIA.STATFOR.DOC.103.V0.1), EATMP Infocentre reference: 041122-01 2. High-Density 2015 European Traffic Distributions for Simulations, Eurocontrol ADS Programme , Edition 1.2 (24/03/2000). 3. EUROCONTROL Medium-Term Forecast, (EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecast Service (STATFOR): Forecast of Annual Number of IFR Flights (2004 2010). volume 1). Reference: 040219-01, Edition Date 19/2/04 edition 1.0. Document Identifier DIA.STATFOR.DOC.71.v1.0 volume 1. 4. New 1090 ES ADS-B implementation - Reference: Interoperability Requirements for ASA/GSA Package I using the 1090 MHz Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, (INTEROP ASA/GSA PACKAGE I 1090 MHz). 5. Investigation of future traffic scenarios and datalink loadings using the Mode S datalink model. SICASP/WG-1, Eurocontrol, Smith System Engineering Ltd, Roke Manor Research Ltd. 6. ICAO Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume IV. Aeronautical Telecommunications Volume IV, Surveillance Radar and Collision Avoidance Systems. (3.1.2.8.6.4) Third Edition, Adm. 77, July 2002. 7. EUROCONTROL CASCADE website www.eurocontrol.int/cascade 8. Study into the performance of passive surveillance ground stations utilizing Mode S extended squitter (DERA/LSB1(ATC)/SIEM/REP(PASSIVE)/2/1.0/DERA/ LSB1/CR000083) J. L. Mann, March 2000 9. Gotzenhain FRUIT/ADS-B Evaluation v1.1 14/01/05 Dirk De Bal, Intersoft Electronics 10. RTCA Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Services Broadcast (TIS-B), DO-260A. 11. Technical Note (ADS-B HELIOS 002) on description of models and measurement techniques 01-09-2005 Issue 0.b, Raytheon systems limited 12. Safety, performance and interoperability requirements for ADS-B-NRA application, EUROCAE, ED-126, v3.0, May 2006. 13. Technical Link Assessment Report, TLAT, March 2001, EUROCONTROL and FAA 14. 1090 MHz Extended Squitter Assessment Report, June 2002, FAA and EUROCONTROL

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 12

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
This report discusses the effects of future expected interference levels on 1090 MHz on the ADS-B applications considered by the CASCADE Programme [7] focusing on the core area of Europe. The objective of the EUROCONTROL CASCADE program is to plan and co-ordinate in the implementation of: the first set of Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) applications (using the position broadcast by aircraft as a basis for surveillance); more Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) services (providing a robust menu-based data communication channel to pilots and controllers); and some other data link services (exploiting the existing data link to provide airborne data to ground systems).

There are other surveillance systems using the 1090 MHz band including Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), Mode S. and Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS). Previous studies [8], [13], [14] have shown that 1090 ES performance can be limited by interference from the emissions due to these technologies. ADS-B application performance and feasibility might therefore be affected by potential increases in 1090 MHz interference. For this reason the CASCADE Programme initiated a study to revisit the assumptions made in previous EUROCONTROL studies [13], [14] and update them to reflect current knowledge of infrastructure plans, more accurate modelling techniques and the latest application requirements. More specifically the study considered: Air traffic growth This study predicts aircraft numbers for the 2015+ timescale taking into account the slowdown in aircraft traffic growth that occurred from 20002004 and also the latest EUROCONTROL traffic growth predictions. Radar infrastructure evolution The expected implementation of Mode S radars in core Europe is included. Aircraft equipage. Aircraft were assumed to be equipped with Mode S transponders and transmitting 1090 ES according to current and expected future mandates. FRUIT modelling. An updated Mode S FRUIT model was developed as part of the project improving in particular its modelling of ACAS. Advanced decoding techniques. Previous studies have assumed DO-260A compliant 1090ES decoders. This study considered also a more advanced decoder from RSL. ADS-B Application requirements. The work of RFG in developing requirements for ADS-B applications has been taken into account by testing decoder performance against these newly developed requirements.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 13

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The study on which this report is based was performed by Helios Technology Ltd, Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL) and National Air Traffic Services UK (NATS) for the EUROCONTROL CASCADE program. Both air to air and air to ground ADS-B applications were considered in the core area of Europe. The impact of hybrid surveillance was not considered, but it is not expected to have a significant impact on future 1090ES performance except through potential replacement of radars.

1.2 Future scenarios


A key aspect of the study is the prediction of future air traffic levels as well as the expected aircraft equipage and ground radar infrastructure, which are the determining factors for establishing interference levels on the 1090 MHz band. The postulated scenarios are described in Section 2 and have been defined taking into account the expected growth in air traffic in core Europe as well as changes in aircraft equipage and ground radar infrastructure. Air traffic was estimated using data from the EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) for the busiest day on record in core Europe. This estimate was enhanced with the addition of military and GA flights and the resulting aircraft numbers increased to represent expected air traffic growth. Increased equipage of the European fleet with 1090 Extended Squitter and ACAS was also assumed. Several scenarios were developed for the future ground radar infrastructure representing different potential evolutions of this infrastructure in core Europe. Based on current ANSP plans, it was assumed many current civil Mode A/C radars will have been upgraded to Mode S by 2015. The number of radars in simultaneous operation was also considered and varied between scenarios. Military SSR radars were also included and scenarios representing different evolutions of the infrastructure were considered, including the change of some military SSR radars to Mode S. It is expected that after 2015 there will be reduced reliance on radar and increased use of ADS-B. It is therefore likely that after ~2015 FRUIT levels may decline and should stay at lower levels for a long period until air traffic growth compensates for the reduction in ground interrogations.

1.3 FRUIT modelling


The term FRUIT is used here to describe all unwanted transmissions on 1090 MHz interfering with a desired 1090 ES. A FRUIT rate is the number of unwanted messages received per second. Future FRUIT levels were determined on the basis of the expected aircraft traffic, ground interrogators and ACAS operations. A FRUIT model was used to estimate the FRUIT present in the different future scenarios. The model determines all contributions to FRUIT including replies to Mode A/C/S radars, replies to ACAS interrogations, short squitters and 1090 ES broadcasts. FRUIT rates were estimated for two test points: one on the ground at Brussels and one at 33000 ft above Brussels for each future scenario. FRUIT modelling is described in Sec. 5. As part of the study, the model was successfully validated against measured data from ADS-B ground stations in the London TMA, thus confirming its accuracy for this study.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 14

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1.4 Decoder performance modelling


1090ES decoder performance was measured in terms of the probability of successfully decoding a 1090 ES message in the presence of other 1090 MHz signals. The decoder models and the test environment are described in Section 4. This includes a description of how the FRUIT rates generated by the FRUIT model were translated into inputs for the decoders. Two decoders were investigated: a model of a DO-260A MOPS compliant decoder and a model of an advanced decoder developed by RSL. Although the RSL advanced decoder is currently only developed for ground stations, it was assumed that a decoder of this performance could in future also be adapted and fitted on aircraft.

1.5 CASCADE ADS-B applications


A set of ADS-B air to ground and air to air applications are currently under evaluation within the EUROCONTROL CASCADE Programme for implementation over 1090 ES. For the purposes of this study 1090ES decoder performance was evaluated in terms of achieving the performance requirements stated for these applications (DO260A and RSL decoder considered separately). The relevant application performance requirements are in this case the delivered position (or state vector) update rate which must be satisfied with 95% confidence. The performance requirements of CASCADE ADS-B applications are still under development by the Requirements Focus Group (RFG) [7] and will eventually be specified in standards similar to [12] for the NRA case. This study assumed provisional requirements extrapolated from known CASCADE Requirements Focus Group (RFG) requirements. The application requirements were tested for each decoder in the different interference environments. These tests are discussed and examined in Section 6.

1.6 Conclusions
The application performance in the different environments is then evaluated and discussed in Section 7.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 15

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

2 Air and Ground Scenarios


Estimates of future FRUIT levels on 1090 MHz depend upon assumptions made about the future environment, this can be broadly categorised into assumptions about the ground environment and assumptions about the airborne environment. Airborne Environment: Number of aircraft and their relative 3D positions, Equipage of aircraft (e.g. No transponder, Mode A/C, Mode S, ACAS, 1090 ES).

Ground Environment: Number of ground radars simultaneously operating (Civil and Military), Modes these radars are operating in (Mode A/C, Mode S), Configuration of radars (e.g. Interlace patterns, clustering), Other sources of interrogation (e.g. active multilateration systems), Other sources of 1090 MHz (e.g. TIS-B or similar).

All of these parameters have been estimated using current available data. These parameters are also expected to change over time (e.g. increased 1090 ES equipage on aircraft and increased deployment of Mode S radar) and this is included in the future scenarios. The scenarios of interest are for peak traffic flow in Core Europe. Therefore the analysis was made for airborne scenarios for within 300 NM of Brussels, the ground scenario file that was considered was for a 300 NM x 300 NM square centred on Brussels in line with the assumptions made in [13] and [14]. The region of 300 NM around core Europe is used as the centre of this is expected to provide the highest interference environment in ECAC [2]. A realistic representation of the interference found at Brussels should be determined by including all aircraft and radars within 300 NM.

2.1 Aircraft scenarios


Air traffic was estimated from data of the busiest day in 2004, this was then grown to represent the expected increase in air traffic using the EUROCONTROL STATFOR long term growth forecast [1]. Whilst the scenarios have been developed for this study, they are valid for any simulations requiring peak instantaneous traffic levels in core Europe. The scenario is based on a geographical area of radius 300 NM centred on Brussels. Scenarios for 2004, 2010 and 2015 have been developed, each with different traffic levels. The scenarios in this report only include transponder-equipped aircraft.

2.1.1 Air traffic in 2004


This section presents the geographic layout of the scenarios, the 2004 scenario and its validation. The scenario has been developed in line with the scenario [2] that was used for the studies [13] and [14].

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 16

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

2.1.1.1

Geographic layout

Scenarios are described in terms of the following volumes: A number of Terminal Manoeuvring Areas (TMAs), each having a radius of 50 NM and extended from 0 to 10000 ft altitude. An area between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels including all aircraft not in the major TMAs. This is referred to as the core areas outside major TMAs. This covers all altitudes. An area of between 200 NM and 300 NM from Brussels including all aircraft not in the major TMAs. This is referred to as the non-core area outside major TMAs. This covers all altitudes.

The TMAs included are the main five ones within 300 NM of Brussels: London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris and Brussels. The scenarios are also defined in terms of a number of altitude bands, as defined in Table 3.
Altitude Band G L M H U Altitude Range (ft) 0 0 to 3000 3000 to 10000 10000 to 25000 >25000

Table 3: Altitude Band Definitions Each scenario describes the numbers of aircraft in each altitude band in each the different regions. The parameters used are described in Table 4.
Name Outside Major TMAs Region Core (0 NM to 200 NM from Brussels) Parameter Description Amount of traffic aircraft on the ground Amount of traffic in altitude band L Amount of traffic in altitude band M Amount of traffic in altitude band H Amount of traffic in altitude band U Non-core (200 NM to 300 NM from Brussels Amount of traffic aircraft on the ground Amount of traffic in altitude band L Amount of traffic in altitude band M Amount of traffic in altitude band H Amount of traffic in altitude band U Major TMA 50 NM around each major TMA) Amount of traffic aircraft on the ground Amount of traffic in altitude band L and M

Table 4: Parameters Defining Traffic Distribution

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 17

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

2.1.1.2

2004 Model

A snapshot of air traffic in Europe was created using data from the EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU). Data was provided detailing IFR flights in Europe for 10th September 2004, which was the busiest day on record. CFMU data contains information on most IFR aircraft in Europe and it is based on flight plan data which is updated with actual aircraft times over waypoints. Not all aircraft, especially GA aircraft (flying VFR) and some military, are present in the CFMU data. The data consisted of flight details, departure and arrival airports and times over waypoints. Typically times between waypoints were of the order of a few minutes. Information available was time-stamp, latitude, longitude, altitude, callsign and aircraft type. The data was then interpolated between waypoints such that aircraft position and altitude at specific times of the day could be estimated. The number of airborne aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels was then calculated at hourly intervals. The results are presented in Figure 5.
2500

2000

Number of IFR Aircraft

1500

1000

500

0
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM 00 00 : 9: 00 : AM 0: 00 11 AM :0 0: 00 12 AM :0 0: 00 PM 1: 00 :0 0 PM 2: 00 :0 0 PM 3: 00 :0 0 PM 4: 00 :0 0 PM 5: 00 :0 0 PM 6: 00 :0 0 PM 7: 00 :0 0 PM 8: 00 :0 0 PM 9: 00 :0 0 10 PM :0 0: 00 11 PM :0 0: 00 PM AM 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0: 00 00

00 :

00 :

00 :

00 :

00 :

00 :

12 :0

00 :

10 :0

1:

2:

4:

3:

6:

5:

8:

7:

Time (UTC)

Figure 5: Number of IFR airborne aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels for each hour, 10th September 2004 The peak time was found to be 16:01 UTC. This is the time at which the maximum number of instantaneous aircraft was found to be airborne or taxiing. The snapshot of CFMU data at the peak time for the major TMAs is given in Table 5. To estimate the number of aircraft on the ground, it is assumed that aircraft are taxiing for 10 minutes prior to take-off and for 10 minutes after landing. The number of these aircraft has therefore been calculated by extrapolating their take-off time back 10 minutes and their landing time forward 10 minutes. They are then randomly placed within a 3 NM radius of the airport at 0 ft altitude.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 18

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Airport Brussels (centred EBBR) Frankfurt (centred EDDF) London (centred EGLL) Amsterdam (centred EHAM) Paris (centred LFPG)

Within 50 NM and on ground 4 8 11 4 13

Within 50NM and 0 to 10000 ft 11 11 30 19 14

Table 5: Distribution of aircraft in the major TMAs data on 11/09/2004 at 16:01 UTC Note that while taxiing time may be longer than 10 minutes, an aircraft transmits ADS-B messages at a very low rate if stationary. (The ground extended squitter rate switches to the high rate if the aircraft has moved more than 10 meters in a 30 second sampling interval [10].) The total number of aircraft on the ground may therefore be high but many will be parked or queuing. Ten minutes has therefore been chosen to represent the aircraft actively taxing on the airport surface. For the areas outside the major TMAs (but still within 300 NM of Brussels), the snapshot results are shown in Table 6.
G Ground Outside Major TMAs, Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Outside Major TMAs, Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels 12 L 0 to 3000 ft 10 M 3000 to 10000 ft 19 H 10000 to 25000 ft 143 U 25000 to 40000 ft 161

30

19

43

120

149

Table 6: Distribution of aircraft outside major TMAs on 11/09/2004 at 16:01 UTC Additional traffic in the CFMU data but beyond 300 NM from Brussels was 1694 aircraft. This data can be visualised by counting the number of aircraft per square degree for this region of core Europe, e.g. the number of aircraft around 52 N and 0 E (close to Heathrow) is 25. Figure 6 shows distribution. The smallest dots represent one aircraft. It is clear that the air traffic in core Europe can be well represented as centred on Brussels and including the four other major TMAs.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 19

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 6: Traffic density within 300 NM of Brussels for 16:01, September 10th 2004 2.1.1.3 Scenario Validation Analysis of aircraft flights discussed in previous sections has been based on data from the EUROCONTROL CFMU. As previously noted, VFR aircraft, military aircraft and potentially a small number of IFR aircraft are missing from the CFMU data. Therefore an analysis was performed to see how many additional aircraft should be added to the CFMU data sample so that that the scenario contains all transponderequipped aircraft. An aircraft scenario was generated from CFMU data of aircraft in the region of London at 09:55 UTC 7/4/2005. This was then compared with a recording of aircraft present at the same time in the region from a Mode S radar 5 in the London region. Aircraft were then matched between the two sets of data. The primary means of matching was the aircraft callsign, although aircraft were also matched by their Mode A code and/or position when callsigns were not available. The Mode S radar recorded significantly more aircraft than was evident from the CFMU data alone. Within 100 NM of the radar, CFMU data predicted 102 aircraft when the radar recorded 143 - a difference of 40%. Another check at 09:45 UTC on the same day again records a 40% difference. The aircraft in the additional 40% were estimated to fall into three categories:
5

The Mode S radar was capable of detecting Mode A/C and Mode S equipped aircraft.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 20

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

15% additional GA; 5% additional military; 20% additional aircraft that appeared in the CFMU data but were thought to have landed.

Some GA aircraft could be easily identified because they were using the VFR Mode A conspicuity code 7000. Other aircraft were categorised as either GA or military depending on their Mode A code. The radar recording showed that some aircraft were still airborne, although according to the CFMU data they had already landed. Typically the CFMU data had recorded these aircraft as landing between 30 seconds and 5 minutes earlier. The additional aircraft which also appeared in the CFMU data but were thought to have landed is a known problem 6. Our understanding is that the CFMU tracks aircraft and updates the flight plan with actual times over waypoints until they are 30 NM from their destination airport. It then assumes a straight-in approach to the airport and ignores any turns or additional delays in the final 30 NM. UK NATS investigated the time and day in question and found that there were no unusual delays or holding patterns in place in the London area. The local time (10:55 BST) is outside the morning peak, suggesting that this is a typical London arrival pattern. 2.1.1.4 Updated 2004 Aircraft Scenario To generate the 2004 scenario, the aircraft scenario discussed in section 2.3 was therefore increased to include the additional aircraft found in the radar sample. It was assumed that the additional aircraft are distributed across the scenario in the same proportions between altitudes. To validate this assumption, the proportion of aircraft in different altitude bands between the CFMU and radar data is shown in Table 7. It can be seen that the altitude distribution between aircraft is similar in both cases.
Altitude Band FL 0 30 FL 30-100 FL100-250 FL 250+ L M H U CFMU, Core Europe 16:01 9/10/2004 7% 14 % 29 % 50 % Mode S Radar, London, 09:55 7/04/2005 7% 14 % 27 % 52 %

Table 7: Comparison of aircraft altitude distribution between CFMU and radar data The resulting new scenario is shown in Table 8 and Table 9.

A separate study is currently underway to identify and quantity the extent by which the CFMU data underestimates the aircraft landing times.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 21

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Airport Brussels (centred EBBR) Frankfurt (centred EDDF) London (centred EGLL) Amsterdam (centred EHAM) Paris (centred LFPG)

Within 50 NM and on ground 6 13 15 6 18

Within 50NM and between 0- 10000ft 15 15 42 27 20

Table 8: The 2004 aircraft scenario inside major TMAs

G Outside Major TMAs Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels Ground 17 42

L 0 to 3000 ft 14 27

M 3000 to 10000 ft 27 60

H 10000 to 25000 ft 200 168

U Over 25000 ft 225 209

Table 9: The 2004 aircraft scenario outside major TMAs

2.1.2 Future scenarios


This section uses traffic growth forecasts to estimate the 2010 and 2015 scenario. 2.1.2.1 Growth Forecasts The scenarios for 2010 and 2015 have been generated by growing the traffic samples of busiest day in 2004. The growth rates used have been taken from the EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecast Service (STATFOR) long term growth forecast 2004-2025 [1]. An assumption has been made that the peak number of aircraft on the busiest day at the busiest time grows as the same rate as the total growth in air traffic. To validate this assumption, an analysis has been made comparing the annual percentage change in the number of flights in ESRA (EUROCONTROL Statistical Reference Area); the annual percentage change of the number of flights on the busiest day in September in ESRA; and the annual percentage change on the busiest day in September in the UK. These three parameters have historically over the past few years all changed at a similar rate. It is assumed that this trend continues and future overall air traffic growth scales with the growth on the busiest day. The present long term growth forecast uses more complex extrapolation methods than previous studies. The new methods tend to yield a lower growth expectation than previous methods, especially due to the impact of airport constraints to growth. Four core scenarios are discussed in [1]: Scenario A: Globalisation and Rapid Economic Growth, involves strong economic growth in an increasingly globalised World. Economic growth, free trade and Open Skies agreements encourage flight growth at the fastest rate. Scenario B: Business as Usual involves moderate economic growth and no significant change from the status quo and current trends. The economy grows at medium rate and EU expansion is fastest amongst the scenarios.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 22

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Scenario C: Strong Economies and Regulation involves strong economic growth, with government regulation to address growing environmental issues. As a result noise and emission costs are higher, which encourages a move to larger aircraft and more hub-and-spoke operations. Trade and air traffic liberalisation is more limited. Scenario D: Regionalisation and Weak Economies involves increased tensions between regions, with knock-on effects on economies, trade, and tourism shifting to short haul. Security costs increase further after 2010, and the fuel price is highest amongst the scenarios, reaching nearly 40% of operating costs by 2025.

Within each of these scenarios, growth predictions have been made for each State. For example, Scenario B (Business as usual) is shown below in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Per annum growth predictions for IFR flights by state, 2004 - 2025 for Scenario B (Business as usual), reproduced from [1] The core European States situated within 300 NM of Brussels have very similar expected growth rates. As these are mature markets these growth rates are lower than the less developed economies of Eastern Europe. 2.1.2.2 2010 and 2015 Scenario Growth Rates Three growth rates were used from the forecasts to create the 2010 and 2015 scenarios, as shown in Table 10.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 23

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Expected Growth (pa) Baseline (using scenario B, Business as Usual) High (using scenario A, Globalisation and Rapid Economic Growth) Low (using scenario D Regionalisation and Weak Economies) 2.7 % 3%

Overall % increase 2004 to 2010 17.4 % 19.4%

Overall % increase 2004 to 2015 34.1% 38.4 %

2.1%

13.2%

25.7%

Table 10: Long term growth predictions for the States within 300 NM of Brussels (low, baseline and high growth) These forecasts compare well with UK national air traffic services (NATS) forecasts. NATS expect the air traffic in the South-East of England to increase by 34-37 % between 2004 and 2015, which is close the baseline forecast for that period. Using these growth rates, the total number of aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels was estimated for all years up to 2015, as shown below.
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Low (2.1% growth) 1165 1189 1214 1240 1266 1292 1319 1347 1375 1404 1434 1464 Baseline (2.7% growth) 1165 1196 1229 1262 1296 1331 1367 1404 1442 1480 1520 1561 High (3% growth) 1165 1200 1236 1273 1311 1350 1391 1433 1476 1520 1565 1612

Table 11: Peak numbers of aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels 2004-2015 The traffic growth is shown below rising from 1165 aircraft in 2004 to 1561 aircraft by 2015.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 24

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1700

Number of transponder equipped aircraft

1600

1500

1400

1300 Baseline (2.7%) 1200 High (3%) Low (2.1%) 1100

1000 2002

2004

2006

2008 Year

2010

2012

2014

2016

Figure 8: Predicted traffic growth within 300 NM of Brussels from 2004 to 2015 (low, baseline and high growth rates) 2.1.2.3 2010 Scenario The baseline 2010 Scenario can therefore be seen to have 1367 aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels. The main parameters describing the scenario for the baseline growth rate are shown in Table 13 and Table 14. These can be seen in Figure 6, plotted as the number of aircraft per square degree.
Low (2.1%) Major TMAs Outside Major TMAs, Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Outside Major TMAs, Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels Total 199 547 Baseline (2.7%) 207 567 High (3%) 210 577

572

593

603

1319

1367

1390

Table 12: Predicted transponder equipped aircraft traffic numbers for 2010 (low, baseline and high growth) A detailed breakdown of the scenario is given below.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 25

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Airport Brussels (centred EBBR) Frankfurt (centred EDDF) London (centred EGLL) Amsterdam (centred EHAM) Paris (centred LFPG)

Within 50NM and on ground 7 15 18 7 21

Within 50NM and between 0 - 10000ft 18 18 49 31 23

Table 13: Distribution of aircraft 2010 in the five main TMAs (baseline growth)

G Ground Outside Major TMAs, Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Outside Major TMAs, Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels 20

L 0 to 3000 ft 16

M 3000 to 10000 ft 31

H 10000 to 25000 ft 235

U Over 25000 ft 265

49

31

71

197

245

Table 14: Distribution of aircraft 2010 outside the five main TMAs (baseline growth) The aircraft equipage assumed is shown in Table 15
Equipment Type Mode S Transponder Mode A/C Transponder ACAS Extended Squitter Capability Assumed Equipage 89% of transponder equipped aircraft 11% of transponder equipped aircraft 75% of Mode S equipped aircraft 80% of Mode S equipped aircraft

Table 15: Assumed aircraft equipage in 2010 It has been assumed that GA equipage of Mode S transponders has increased from 0% in 2004 to 50%, partly as a result of the availability of low-cost Mode S transponders. Also, Mode S equipage on IFR aircraft and military is assumed to rise to 90%. These figures result in the 89% Mode S transponder equipage shown in Table 15. Figure 9 shows a density plot for 2010 in core Europe assuming the baseline growth rate. The graph shows the number of aircraft in 1 degree squares. The largest circle is above Germany and contains 54 aircraft.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 26

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 9: Predicted traffic density in core Europe in 2010 (baseline growth) 2.1.2.4 2015 Scenario The 2015 scenario is summarised in Table 16. It has 1562 aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels.
Low (2.1%) Major TMAs Outside Major TMAs, Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Outside Major TMAs, Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels Total 221 607 635 1463 Baseline (2.7%) 236 647 677 1560 High (3%) 244 669 699 1611

Table 16: Predicted aircraft traffic numbers for 2015 (low, baseline and high growth) A detailed breakdown of the main parameters is listed below in Table 17 and Table 18.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 27

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Airport Brussels (centred EBBR) Frankfurt (centred EDDF) London (centred EGLL) Amsterdam (centred EHAM) Paris (centred LFPG)

Ground 8 17 21 8 24

Within 50NM and between 0- 10000ft 21 21 56 36 26

Table 17: The distribution of aircraft 2015 in the five main TMAs (baseline growth)

Ground Outside Major TMAs, Between 0 and 200 NM from Brussels Outside Major TMAs, Between 200 and 300 NM from Brussels 23

0 to 3000 19

3000 to 10000 36

10000 to 25000 268

25000 to 40000 302

56

36

81

225

280

Table 18: The distribution of aircraft 2015 outside the five main TMAs (baseline growth) The aircraft equipage assumed is shown in Table 19.
Equipment Type Mode S Transponder Mode A/C Transponder ACAS Extended Squitter Capability Assumed Equipage 100% of transponder equipped aircraft 0% of transponder equipped aircraft 80% of Mode S equipped aircraft 100% of Mode S equipped aircraft

Table 19: Assumed aircraft equipage in 2015

It has been assumed that all aircraft types will have Mode S and extended squitter equipage by 2015. However, ACAS equipage of GA aircraft is assumed to be limited. Figure 10 shows a density plot for 2015 in core Europe assuming the baseline growth rate. As before, the graph shows the number of aircraft in 1 degree squares. The largest circle is above Germany and contains 62 aircraft.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 28

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 10 : Predicted traffic density in core Europe in 2015 (baseline growth)

2.1.3 Comparison of air traffic scenarios with TLAT scenario


This section presents a comparison of the 2015 scenario derived here with the one developed in the Technical Link Assessment Team (TLAT) study [13], which was used also in the subsequent [14] study. The TLAT scenario was based on EUROCONTROL work done in 1999 to estimate air traffic over core Europe in 2015 [2]. This scenario for 2015 had 2091 aircraft within a circular radius of 300 NM centred on Brussels. The main elements of that scenario were: 73% traffic increase by 2015 over 1999. 2091 aircraft (150 on the ground). Centred on Brussels, 5 major TMAs (Brussels, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Frankfurt), each assumed to be equal sized. 157 aircraft (25 on the ground) within 50 NM of each TMA. 696 en-route aircraft within 200 NM from the centre and an additional 585 aircraft (150 in TMAs) between 200-300 NM. Also 25 aircraft on the ground in the whole area of the scenario outside the TMAs.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 29

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

2.1.3.1

Comparison of scenarios
Reference [3] 2015 Major TMAs (including ground) Outside major TMAs and < 200 NM (excluding ground) Outside major TMAs between 200 and 300 NM (excluding ground) Aircraft on the ground Total 785 696 585 25 2091 This Study 2015 237 625 621 79 1562

Table 20: Comparison of 2015 scenario between this study and the TLAT study The central 200 NM radius of the scenarios are compared as the original 1999 data were best defined in this region: For the scenario in Reference [2], London Heathrow was brought 30 NM east to bring it to within 200 NM of Brussels. This boosted the 200 NM aircraft number. This study (Figure 11) has included aircraft within 200 NM of Brussels and additionally aircraft within 50 NM of London Heathrow (care has been taken not to double count any aircraft which fulfil both of these criteria).
1400 1200 Number of Aircraft 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Year 1999 Estimate with 3.7% growth 2004 Estimate with 2.7% growth

Figure 11: Comparison of maximum expected maximum aircraft numbers within 200 NM of Brussels between this study and TLAT It can be see from Figure 11 that two factors have influenced the difference between the final 2015 scenario values. The starting values for the number of aircraft are different and the old model was grown at a significantly greater growth rate. Several assumptions have changed which account for these differences:

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 30

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

A growth rate of 3.7% was assumed in Reference [2] based on the ESRA predictions at the time. A more modest growth rate of 2.7% is now specified by EUROCONTROL. Growth forecasts have become more sophisticated, especially regards their consideration of airport constraints and the influence of socio-economic factors. The more sophisticated models tend to predict lower growth than previous models. This is particularly true of the mature, western European economies. The resultant growth from the 1999 study was therefore a 73% increase in traffic from 1999 to 2015, whilst the present study predicts only a 34% increase in air traffic from 2004 to 2015. The number of IFR flights in the European area did not increase in the years 2000 2003, with only 2004 expected to have a greater traffic than 2000. This is discussed in Reference [1] and is shown below in Table 20 for the ESRA.
2000 2001 8304 -0.6% 2002 8138 -2% 2003 8320 2.2% 2004 (baseline) 8643 3.9%

IFR Flights (thousands) % Change compared with previous year

8354

Table 21: The number of IFR flights in Europe for the years 2000 2004 [1] The initial starting number of aircraft is also lower in the current analysis than assumed in TLAT. This is because the studies used different ways to predict TMA aircraft numbers. The TLAT analysis [2] (building on the analysis in [5]) estimated the number of TMA aircraft by calculating the maximum number of movements per hour in the London TMA airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City and Luton) in 1996 as 252 movements/hour. Assumptions were then made about the average time spent in each TMA. The estimated TMA traffic figure was then increased from 1996 to 2015. It was then assumed that all five major TMAs in core Europe had grown to be the same size as the London TMA. The present study has estimated TMA air traffic by radar and CFMU data and has not assumed that all TMAs are the same density as London. Several additional factors may also have influenced the initial starting number of aircraft: Data supplied by the CFMU is now actual times from radar plots of aircraft over waypoints whilst the 1999 data was based on flight-plans. It is possible the old data could contain some duplicate flight-plans which could boost aircraft numbers, although care was taken at the time to minimise these. Careful analysis of the 1999 data shows evidence of increased military traffic which may have been related to operations in Kosovo at that time. Although the amount of IFR military traffic is limited, this may have contributed to artificially increasing the peak traffic density.

As a final validation, the aircraft altitude distributions have been compared between the figures used in [2] and those used in this study. Table 21 shows that there are a

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 31

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

higher proportion of aircraft at higher altitude in the recent samples than in older data. No obvious reason for this difference has been found.

Reference [2] CFMU sample all ECAC L M H U 2% 20 % 39 % 39 % Debden radar sample 10 % 12 % 38 % 40 % Average

This study CFMU 2004 London Mode S radar (2005) 7% 14 % 27 % 52 %

Altitude Band FL 0 30 FL 30-100 FL100-250 FL 250+

6% 16 % 39 % 39 %

7% 14 % 29 % 50 %

Table 22: Comparison of aircraft altitude distributions from different sources

2.2 Ground scenarios


Ground scenarios consist of radar infrastructure in a 300 * 300 NM square area centred on Brussels. Only radars were considered and other sources that may either directly cause FRUIT or instigate aircraft to cause FRUIT were not considered. Several ground scenarios are considered. These encompass 2010 and 2015 and low, baseline and high interference levels. The interference levels are defined by more or less radars in operation in that scenario. The base European radar configuration for 2005 7 consists of 454 radars. These include civilian, military, mode S and mode A/C. The distribution of these 454 radars is shown in Figure 12. Approximately 60% of radars have been defined as military with the remaining defined as civilian.

2.2.1 High, medium and low scenarios


Radars included in the ground scenario are considered to be active and in operational use. The ratios of Mode S to Mode A/C are discussed in Chapter 2. For the low, baseline and high scenarios, radar numbers remain constant across 2010 and 2015, only the ratio of Mode S to Mode A/C radars is changed.

Ground scenarios for 2005 originally provided by EUROCONTROL previously used in other Helios projects on behalf of EUROCONTROL e.g. P299 Mode S Model Updates

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 32

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 12: Distribution of radars in base 2005 scenario. Red denotes civilian radars, blue denotes military radars. 2.2.1.1 Low scenario This represents a reduction in radar numbers across Europe and increased dependence on multilateration and ADS-B systems.
All backup radars are removed All duplicate radars are removed A remaining 10% of civil radars are removed compared with 2005 estimate 75% of Military radars are removed compared with 2005 estimate

2.2.1.2 Baseline scenario This represents a continuation dependence on radars at current levels but without backup or duplicate radars operating. The majority of military radars are considered to be in operation.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 33

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

All backup radars are removed All duplicate radars are removed Remaining civil radars remain at 2005 numbers 25% of Military radars are removed compared with 2005 estimate

2.2.1.3 High scenario All radars included in the 2005 estimate are considered to be still in operation.
Backup radars remain at 2005 estimate Duplicate radars remain at 2005 estimate Civil radars remain at 2005 estimate Military radars remain at 2005 estimate

2.2.2 Mode S implementation plans


On the basis of the state plans for the implementation of Mode S which have been declared to EUROCONTROL the ground radar infrastructure scenarios for 2010 and 2015 given below have been derived. In the case of Core Europe these plans generally change current Mode A/C radars into Mode S radar with a similar operational range and rotation rate. For the purposes of the study scenarios the choice of radars to be changed from Mode A/C to Mode S is made randomly but the percentages suggested in the state plans are respected. 2.2.2.1 2010 scenario The expected 2010 radar configuration is summarised in
Civil radars Military radars 75 % Mode S 50 % Mode S

Table 23: Expected 2010 Mode S radar implementation 2.2.2.2


Civil radars Military radars

2015 scenario
100 % Mode S 75 % Mode S

Table 24: Expected 2015 Mode S radar implementation

2.2.3 IC code allocations


The allocation of IC codes to Mode S radars has been performed assuming clustering of radars. For civil radars, two IC codes have been allocated per smaller State and four codes allocated for the large core European States (UK, France and Germany). These codes have been assigned randomly to radars. Military radars are assumed to be all operating with II=0 and a probability of reply for all calls of 50%.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 34

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

3 FRUIT modelling
FRUIT modelling was performed by using a model developed for EUROCONTROL, as part of the study some validation was performed on the model.

3.1 Overview of the FRUIT model


This section describes the Mode S model that has been used for the validation. The Mode S model simulates the RF (Radio Frequency) interference on the 1090 MHz band used by Mode S radar, SSR radar and Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). The model was developed over several EUROCONTROL projects to help with the planning and implementation of Mode S in the ECAC area. A key requirement for the model was the ability to see how different implementations and configurations of Mode S radar stations impact on the RF environment.

3.1.1 Model functions


The Mode S model has the following key functionalities: The ability to specify the aircraft and ground configurations of the scenario, e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude, interrogation rate, equipage of aircraft and type of radar. o o o o o Test point configuration: active interrogator or passive receiver; rotating/non-rotating antenna; number of recording sectors; cable losses etc.

The Mode S model has the ability to categorise the results, so they can then be compared easily to raw FRUIT recordings, according to the following types of message: o o o o o o Mode S Roll Call. Mode S All Call. Extended Squitters. Mode A/C. TCAS, which can be split into that due to either Mode S or Mode A/C interrogations. Short Squitters.

The Mode S model has the ability to categorise the results according to the sector in which the FRUIT was received. Configurable Minimum power Trigger Level (MTL) that can be set before the simulation is run. This enables the receiver sensitivity threshold level used in the experimental recordings to be modelled. A configurable TCAS model. A line of sight calculation based on: o Earths horizon.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 35

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

o o

Saladt data (terrain obstruction data). Mode S maps.

Configurable transmitter powers and receiver sensitivities. Sector-by-sector configuration of ground stations. Transponder occupancy calculation. Ability to define surveillance coverage by importing coverage maps.

3.1.2 Model implementation


The Mode S model is implemented in Excel using Visual Basic and runs a typical simulation 8 in 25 minutes. The Mode S model is designed to be: transparent in design; easy to use; easy to modify; and, easy to configure.

The model has already been used to simulate air traffic scenarios up to the year 2010, involving two thousand aircraft and several hundred interrogators. It has been used in the development of a short-term strategy for minimising RF pollution.

3.1.3 Overall Conclusions


The NATS recording radar and ADS-B recordings provided the best source of data for validation and the validation therefore focussed on this data. The Mode S Model was configured to reflect the known environment (using the radar data) and used to predict the expected RF environment. The predicted FRUIT was then compared against the ADS-B recording made by NATS. The overall totals for Mode A/C and Mode S FRUIT are within around 9% for Mode A/C and 3% for Mode S between the predicted and the recorded FRUIT data. This shows good correlation and considered to be an acceptable margin of error given that: Assumptions needed to be made in setting up the Mode S model where specific information on the environment at the time of the FRUIT recording was not available. There are inherent differences between the process of recording FRUIT and simulating the FRUIT transmitted (e.g. recorded FRUIT must be identified and decoded in some way and not all FRUIT may be captured by the recording process; the Mode S model simulates all FRUIT transmitted regardless of whether they can be recorded or not).

Overall, the total Mode S and Mode A/C FRUIT rates show good correlation between the Mode S model and the recorded FRUIT data. When looking at different categories of Mode S FRUIT broadly the Mode S model calculates the right distribution. However, when looking in detail at the different categories the Mode S model appears to more accurately calculate some types of FRUIT compared to others. In particular:

Average simulation time for a scenario with 1600 aircraft and 450 interrogators run on a laptop with an Intel P4 2.0 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM, Excel 2002 and Windows XP.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 36

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The comparison of Mode S All Calls is good (<12%). Further investigation would be useful to confirm this result, in particular with more accurate information on the number, location and configuration of Mode S radars. The comparison of Extended Squitters is good (<7%). The comparison of Mode S TCAS is very good (<3%) but it is worth further investigation using more accurate information on TCAS equipage. The comparison of Mode S Roll Call is poor. There is a large discrepancy of 38%. However, as the Roll Call FRUIT rate is low the absolute difference between the Mode S model and recorded FRUIT data is small. This difference may be due to the limited information on the number, location and configuration of Mode S radars. The comparison of Short Squitters is poor; the difference is 49%. There is no obvious explanation for this difference and further work would be required to determine the cause. Again the absolute difference is relatively small.

Although the prediction of Mode S Roll Call and Short Squitters has a large discrepancy from the recorded results, these messages form a relatively small share of the total. Mode S Roll Call and Short Squitters are less than 15% of the recorded Mode S messages (and less than 2% of the total Mode A/C/S messages). Therefore these discrepancies should not affect the overall study.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 37

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

4 Decoder performance modelling


4.1 Introduction
The determination of FRUIT levels was determined by entering a specific scenario into the Mode S FRUIT model. The output of the model is a file containing the signal type (e.g. short squitter, extended squitter, Mode A/C radar reply) FRUIT, an associated power (signal amplitude) for each item of FRUIT and the time that signal starts. These times have been randomly allocated within the second from an average FRUIT rate (FRUIT per second) that the model outputs at an intermediate stage.

4.2 DO-260A decoder


A model of a MOPS compliant DO-260A decoder developed by Lincoln Labs in Matlab has been used to model the performance of a standard decoder. The model takes as an input the file containing all the signals on 1090 MHz that would arrive at the decoder for a period of 1 second. The file contains message type (e.g. Mode A/C, 1090 ES, Mode S short), message start time (between 0 and 1 seconds), message power (signal level, dBm).

The model then attempts to decode the 1090 ES messages in the presents of whatever other FRUIT overlaps them. The model then returns a file containing each 1090 ES within the input file and its associated probability of correct decode (between 0 and 1), power of the input message (dBm), distance that target aircraft was away that produced a signal of that power.

A typical output of this process is shown in Figure 13.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 38

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1 0.9 0.8 Probability of correct decode 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Range (NM) 120 140 160 180 200

Figure 13: Typical output from DO-260A decoder model for an air to ground scenario, 11000 extended squitters are shown. The data in Figure 13 was then placed into 2NM bins and averaged, this resulted in the results shown in Figure 14 which shown a clear correlation between probability of decode and range of target.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Probability of decode 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Range (NM)

Figure 14: The probability of correct decode versus range graph for a sample ground scenario.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 39

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The pink best fit line in Figure 14 is a result of fitting the data assuming the decoder performance of probability against range was well represented by an S curve.

y=

1 1 + ( x exp( a ( x b)))

As seen in Figure 14, this shown an excellent correspondence.

4.3 RSL Advanced decoder


An advanced 1090MHz decoder has been developed by Raytheon Systems Ltd (RSL) for use within a ground ADS-B station. A model of this decoder, developed in Matlab was used to determine the decoding performance of a modern advanced system. The inputs used by RSL were only the FRUIT rate and type, the FRUIT power was determined by their signal generator. An overview of the process in determining decoder performance for the RSL decoder is given below in Figure 15.

Simulated Signal
db2

Evaluation Results
db4

Scenario Generator

Signal Generator

Decoder

Evaluator

db1

db3

Signal Parameters

Decoded Data

Figure 15: An overview of the process to evaluate RSL decoder performance From the FRUIT rates and types, an associated power was given to each item of FRUIT, this power is determined assuming that aircraft are evenly spread out to the horizon as shown in Figure 16 for scenarios where the receiver is on the ground.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 40

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

4.3.1 Ground receiver

Figure 16: Assumed aircraft distribution in altitude and range

Figure 17: Assumed aircraft distribution with range from a ground receiver Once the distribution of aircraft has been determined, the resulting probability distribution of different signal powers is generated. Figure 18 shows the assumed distribution of signal amplitude of messages arriving at the decoder on the ground. This is the distribution after all associated cable losses and antenna gains as well as the free space loss.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 41

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 18: Probability of a received signal having a specific power (signal amplitude)

4.3.2 Airborne decoder


The current RSL decoder is designed as a decoder in a ground ADS-B receiver, however it is possible that a future decoder onboard an aircraft would also have a similar performance. For the case of an airborne decoder, the power levels of the FRUIT that the decoder receives are different. In the scenarios modelled, the aircraft was at 10000m and therefore had a view of more distant aircraft that are not cut-off by the horizon. This is shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 42

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 19: Assumed aircraft distribution in altitude and range for a decoder at FL330.

Figure 20: Assumed aircraft distribution with range from a receiver at FL330 Figure 21 shows the assumed distribution of signal amplitude of messages arriving at the decoder at 10000m. This is the distribution after all associated cable losses and antenna gains as well as the free space loss.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 43

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The expected signal amplitudes are different between the decoder at 10000m and the decoder on the ground. The airborne decoder is assumed to have no gain, and more distant aircraft are visible, both of which cause more low amplitude FRUIT.

Figure 21: Probability of a received signal having a specific power (signal amplitude) for receiver at FL330 Decoder performance for each FRUIT scenario was determined by RSL and plotted as probability of decode versus signal amplitude. The results were fitted with a ERFC function of the form

A sample result for a particular FRUIT environment is shown in Figure 22. These results for each FRUIT environment were then converted into a probability of decode vs. range using equations from [11].

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 44

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Figure 22: Probability of decode vs signal amplitude for a sample ground scenario for the RSL advanced decoder

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 45

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

5 FRUIT analysis
The following 2015 scenarios were analysed in order to establish the impact of changes in ground surveillance infrastructure on FRUIT: a. Baseline scenario: Assumes a high implementation of Mode S radars in core Europe but without any decrease in the total number of currently deployed radars (170 civil and 204 military all civil and half military are Mode S). b. Reduced radar infrastructure: This scenario assumes that some radars are decommissioned. The assumed infrastructure for 2015 is 152 civil radars (all Mode S) and 52 military (half Mode S, half Mode A/C). c. Military mainly Mode A/C: This scenario assumes that only civil radars are decommissioned and military ones remain Mode A/C. The assumed infrastructure for 2015 is 152 civil radars (all Mode S)), while the military SSR radars (204 in total) remain primarily Mode A/C. All scenarios were considered with the baseline growth (2.7%) of aircraft and so included 1560 aircraft within 300 NM of Brussels.

5.1 FRUIT rates


The fruit rate observed at the 1090ES receiver depends on its location and also on the type of antenna used. Two receiver positions have been considered, one on the ground and one at FL330 both at the centre of the scenario (=Brussels). Two antenna types have been considered, an omni DME type antenna and a 90-deg sector antenna.

5.1.1 Ground receiver


120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0
Baseline (High interference) Military mainly Mode A/C Reduced overall radar infrustructure

Mode A/C FRUIT Mode S FRUIT

FRUIT rate (all powers)

Figure 23: 2015 FRUIT on ground receiver with omni antenna Figure 23 shows the FRUIT (measured as messages per second) received by the ground receiver with an omni antenna for the three scenarios. Only FRUIT above the receiver MTL (assumed to be -84 dBm in accordance with DO-260A) has been considered.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 46

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Mode S FRUIT appears to be the dominant FRUIT type in two of the three scenarios. Extended squitters are counted as part of the Mode S FRUIT and since they are proportional to the number of aircraft they are at a constant level of ~7500 msg/sec for all three scenarios. The baseline scenario has the highest level of Mode S FRUIT because it involves the largest number of Mode interrogators. The assumed reduction from 170 to 152 civil (scenario b) has a big impact on the Mode S FRUIT while there will also be a large Mode A/C FRUIT component due to military radars which would be substantially reduced if military radars were to be decommissioned or upgraded to Mode S as well [scenario c]. FRUIT simulations in previous studies [13], [14] had indicated FRUIT orders of even higher levels than scenario b but the dominant form of FRUIT was Mode A/C. Clearly the assumption of at least the civil radar infrastructure being upgraded to Mode S would change the nature of the dominant interference to Mode S. Figure 23 refers to the use of an omni antenna at the ground station. It is possible however to reduce the FRUIT level by using sector antennas, although more than one sector antenna (and hence more than one receiver) might then be needed to achieve the required airspace coverage. Sector antennas can reduce the FRUIT level considerably and this is illustrated by Figure 24 below, which shows the results obtained with a 90-deg antenna on each scenario. Obviously, further reductions are possible with 60-deg or narrower beam sector antennas.

FRUIT rate (msg/sec)

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Baseline Military mainly A/C Reduced radar
Mode S Mode A/C

Figure 24: 2015 FRUIT on ground receiver for the highest FRUIT sector of a 4sectored antenna.

5.1.2 Airborne receiver


Similarly to the figures for the FRUIT level estimates on the ground receiver, Figure 25 shows the FRUIT rates for an airborne receiver at FL330 always at the centre of the scenario (FRUIT levels above MTL= -84 dBm). As expected FRUIT levels are considerably higher that those observed on the ground receiver, and the dominant FRUIT component is Mode S FRUIT. The extended squitter component of Mode S FRUIT is proportional to the number of aircraft and hence remains the same for all three scenarios (~7800 msg/sec). Figure 25 confirms that reductions in ground radar infrastructure would greatly reduce FRUIT levels on the airborne receiver just as they would do for ground receiv-

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 47

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

ers. If a sector antennas can be used onboard aircraft they would reduce the FRUIT level further but they are more complicated to implement than on a ground system.
200000 180000 FRUIT rates (all powers) 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Baseline (high interference) Reduced overall radar infrustructure Military mainly Mode A/C Baseline 4sectored (high interference)
Mode A/C Mode S

Figure 25: 2015 FRUIT on airborne receiver with omni antenna at FL330

5.2 Decoder performance versus FRUIT level


The simulated FRUIT levels presented in the previous Section were applied to the decoder models for DO-260A and RSL receivers in order to obtain estimates of the successful decode probability per squitter as a function of the FRUIT level.

5.2.1 Baseline scenario


As shown in Sec. 5.1 the baseline scenario produces the highest level of Mode S FRUIT. This is the worst case from the decoder perspective because Mode S FRUIT is much more difficult to de-garble than Mode A/C replies. Figure 26 depicts the observed squitter decode probability as a function of target distance from the ground receiver with an omni antenna. As expected decode probability decreases with distance following the decrease of the wanted signal level, however the decode probability achieved by the RSL receiver decreases at a lower rate than that of the DO-260A decoder. The advanced decoding techniques of the RSL receiver can therefore achieve a given decode probability for targets at longer distances than a MOPS compliant receiver. This is not surprising because DO-260A decoding techniques were designed to improve the de-garbling of Mode A/C FRUIT but have minimal impact on Mode S FRUIT. The advanced decoding techniques of RSL improve also Mode S de-garbling.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 48

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1 RSL advanced 0.8


Probability of decode

DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 26: Ground Decoder performance for baseline scenario 2015, omni antenna. As shown in Figure 24, the use of a 90-deg sector antenna would reduce the FRUIT levels seen by the receiver. The corresponding performance of the decoder is shown in Figure 27 below. The FRUIT reduction resulting from the use of the 90-deg. sector antenna means that decode probability will decrease at a lower rate with target distance and hence a given decode probability would be achieved at longer range than in the case of an omni antenna. It is noticeable also that the RSL decoder still provides a significant range advantage over the DO-260A decoder.
1 0.8
Probability of decode

RSL advanced DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 27: Ground Decoder performance for baseline scenario 2015 with 90deg. sector antenna

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 49

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

RSL advanced
0.8
Probability of decode

DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 28: Airborne Decoder performance for baseline scenario 2015 with omni antenna Figure 28 above depicts the performance of an airborne decoder at FL330 at the scenario centre for the baseline 2015 scenario and assuming an omni antenna. The FRUIT level is much higher than in the ground receiver case and hence decode probability drops much quicker with target distance. The advanced decoding techniques of the RSL receiver still provide a significant improvement. Similarly to the ground receiver case the use of an airborne sector antenna would reduce FRUIT levels and hence improve the range of the 1090Es decoder. This is demonstrated by Figure 29 below, which depicts the performance of an airborne decoder with a90-de sector antenna (2015 baseline scenario).
1

RSL advanced
0.8
Probability of decode

DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 29: Airborne Decoder performance for 2015 baseline scenario with 90deg. sector antenna

5.2.2 Reduced overall radar infrastructure


The reduced radar infrastructure scenario considered in Sec. 5.1 results in a lesser FRUIT rate than the baseline as shown in Figure 23 consequently decoder perform-

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 50

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

ance should be better than in the baseline. This is confirmed by Figure 30 below compared with Figure 26 for the corresponding baseline case.
1 0.8
Probability of decode

RSL advanced DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 30: Ground Decoder performance, 2015 reduced radar infrastructure scenario, omni antenna

1 0.8
Pro b ab ility o f d eco d e

DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 31: Ground decoder performance, 2015 reduced radar infrastructure scenario, 90-deg. sector antenna Figure 31 above shows the performance of the DO-260A compliant decoder on the ground at the scenario centre assuming the reduced radar infrastructure scenario of Sec. 5.1. Comparison with the omni antenna receiver case of Figure 30 shows that decoder range increases due to the FRUIT reduction attributable to the use of the sector antenna. The case of airborne receiver performance under the reduced radar infrastructure scenario is shown in Figure 32 below. Compared with Figure 28 which shows airborne decoder performance for the baseline case, it is clear that the reduced radar

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 51

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

infrastructure will lead to an extension of the range of the airborne decoder due to the FRUIT decreases.

1
P ro b a b ilit y o f d e c o d e

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

DO-260A

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 32: Airborne Decoder performance, 2015 reduced radar infrastructure scenario, omni antenna.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 52

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

5.2.3

Military remains mainly Mode A/C

As explained in Sec. 5.1 this scenario consists of a situation where there is a high implementation of Mode S civil radars in core Europe while the military SSR radars in core Europe remain primarily Mode A/C. The resulting FRUIT contains a much higher Mode A/C component than the other scenarios while the Mode S FRUIT is about 50% of what was obtained in the baseline. Figure 33 below indicates the decode probability obtained by a DO-260A receiver under this scenario. Comparison with Figure 26 for the baseline scenario shows that the decoder performs better than under the baseline, i.e. it can achieve a longer range for the same decode probability. This is in line with the fact that DO-260A decoding techniques are more efficient over Mode A/C FRUIT than over Mode S. The same observation applies to the case of a sector antenna (compare Figure 31 above and Figure 34 below) and also for the airborne receiver case (compare Figure 32 above and Figure 35 below).
1

0.8 DO-260A
Probability of decode

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 33: Ground Decoder performance for 2015 scenario with military radars mainly Mode A/C, omni antenna

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 53

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

1 0.8
Probability of decode

DO-260A

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100


Range (NM)

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 34: Ground Decoder performance for 2015 scenario with military radars mainly Mode A/C, 4-sectored antenna

1 0.9 0.8 Probability of decode 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Range (NM) 120 140 160 180 200

DO-260A RSL advanced

Figure 35: Airborne decoder performance for 2015 scenario with military SSR radars remaining mainly Mode A/C, omni antenna

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 54

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

6 CASCADE applications
This section discusses the performance of airborne and ground ADS-B applications of the EUROCONTROL CASCADE Programme in the light of the projected 1090ES performance characteristics for 2015 presented in the previous Sections. The service descriptions are described below and are taken from [7].

6.1 Application descriptions


6.1.1 ADS-B NRA (ATC surveillance in non-radar area)
The ADS-B-NRA application will provide enhanced Air Traffic Services in areas where radar surveillance currently does not exist (note that radar area cases are covered by the ADS-B-RAD application). Examples are remote, off-shore, oil rig and small island environments, which, due to the level of traffic, location or the cost of the equipment, could not justify the installation of radar. Also it will include areas where existing radar is to be de-commissioned and the replacement costs are not justified. The ADS-B-NRA application is designed to enhance the ICAO Air Traffic Services of Air Traffic Control and Flight Information, Alerting and Air Traffic Advisory. The application will provide a cost effective solution to achieve benefits in capacity, efficiency and safety in a similar way as could be achieved through the introduction of SSR radar. The performance requirements for ADS-B NRA are taken from the document ED-126 [12]. The basic requirements from [12] are A position report every 10 seconds with 95% probability in en-route airspace. A position report every 5 seconds with 95% probability in TMA airspace.

ADS-B NRA is an application which requires one or more 1090ES ground receivers. There is no specific requirement on the range of number of ground receivers, which are deemed local issues. For the purposes of this discussion it is assumed that each ADS-B ground receiver should provide a range roughly equivalent to a radar, hence two nominal ranges have been considered, for a TMA the receiver should achieve a minimum range of 80 NM, and for en route the receiver should achieve 150 NM. It is stressed that these are nominal ranges. The location and number of ground stations would depend on local implementation.

6.1.2 ADS-B RAD (ATC Surveillance for radar areas)


The ADS-B-RAD application will enable an enhancement of Air Traffic Service in areas where radar surveillance currently exists (note that non radar areas are covered by ADS-B-NRA) and will apply to en-route and terminal phases of flight in airspace classes A to E. The ADS-B-RAD application is designed to enhance the ICAO Air Traffic Services of Air Traffic Control and Flight Information, Alerting and Air Traffic Advisory.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 55

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The application will improve safety and reduce surveillance infrastructure related costs through the replacement of some SSR radar sensors with ADS B. The performance requirements for ADS-B RAD are assumed to be similar to those for ADS-B NRA as these follow radar specifications. The requirements from [12] are: A position report every 10 seconds with 95% probability in en-route airspace. A position report every 5 seconds with 95% probability in TMA airspace.

ADS-B NRA is an application which requires one or more ground receivers. The same nominal ranges have been assumed as in the NRA case. Clearly the number and location of ground stations would depend on local implementation.

6.1.3 ADS-B APT (Airport surface surveillance)


The ADS-B-APT application will provide a new source of ATC surface surveillance information for aircraft and vehicles at controlled airports. The application is designed to either support deployment as a sole-means surveillance system, combined with existing SMR (or ADSE-3) infrastructure or to be a component in an ASMGCS Level 1 (or ASDE-X) concept. The benefits of enhanced management of ATC airport surface surveillance are greatest at night and in low visibility conditions, by allowing ATC to monitor aircraft movements presented on a display. The main objective is to enhance safety (especially during low visibility conditions) and efficiency for the surface operations. ADS-B APT is a short range, high update rate application. The provisional requirements 9 are A position report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 2NM range. A velocity report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 2NM range.

6.1.4 ATSA SURF (Enhanced traffic situational awareness on the airport surface)
This ATSA SURF application will enhance traffic situational awareness of flight crews providing information regarding the surrounding traffic during taxi and runway operations. The objectives are to improve safety (e.g. at taxiways crossings, before entering an active runway, before take-off, etc) and to reduce taxi time in particular during low visibility conditions and by night. ADS-B SURF is a short range, high update rate application. The provisional requirements 10 are: A position report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 2NM range. A velocity report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 2NM range.

provisional requirements for the CASCADE applications extrapolated from known Requirements Focus Group (RFG) requirements 10 provisional requirements for the CASCADE applications extrapolated from known Requirements Focus Group (RFG) requirements

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 56

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

6.1.5 ATSA AIRB (Enhanced traffic situational awareness during flight operations)
ATSA AIRB will enhance the traffic situational awareness of flight crews during flight operations by displaying surrounding traffic position in the cockpit. The objectives are to improve traffic awareness and safety of flight in all airspace. ATSA AIRB includes two medium range air to air applications. For GA type traffic, this involves 11 A position report every 5 seconds with 95% probability from 15 NM range. A velocity report every 5 seconds with 95% probability from 15 NM range.

For IFR traffic this involves A position report every 5 seconds with 95% probability from 20 NM range. A velocity report every 5 seconds with 95% probability from 20 NM range.

6.1.6 ASPA S&M (Enhanced sequencing and merging)


ASPA S&M will allow pilots to identify another aircraft and to maintain an instructed spacing with that flight. The main objective is to assure more consistent aircraft spacing, potentially increasing capacity in en-route and TMA environments by transferring the spacing task from the ATSU to the cockpit. ASPA S&M active merge is a long range, high update rate application. The provisional requirements 12 are A position report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 60 NM range. A velocity report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 60 NM range. An aircraft type report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 60 NM range.

ASPA S&M active spacing in trail is a long range, high update rate application. The provisional requirements are A position report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 30 NM range. A velocity report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 30 NM range. An aircraft type report every 2 seconds with 95% probability from 30 NM range.

ASPA S&M traffic identification is a long range, low update period application. The provisional requirements are A position report every 10 seconds with 95% probability from 100 NM range.

11

provisional requirements for the CASCADE applications extrapolated from known CASCADE Requirements Focus Group (RFG) requirements 12 provisional requirements for the CASCADE applications extrapolated from known CASCADE Requirements Focus Group (RFG) requirements

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 57

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

6.2 Provisional application requirements


A summary of the provisional requirements is given below in Table 25. Update rate (s) Range (NM) 150* 80*

ADS-B NRA
Position (en-route) Position (TMA) 10 5

ADS-B RAD
Position (en-route) Position (TMA) 10 5 150* 80*

ATSA APT
Position Velocity 2 2 2* 2*

ATSA SURF
Position Velocity 2 2 2 2

ATSA AIRB See and Avoid (GA)


Position Velocity 5 5 15 15

ATSA AIRB During flight operations (IFR)


Position Velocity 5 5 20 20

ASPA S&M Traffic identification


Position 10 100

ASPA S&M Active spacing merge


Position Velocity Aircraft type 2 2 2 60 60 60

ASPA S&M Active spacing in trail


Position Velocity Aircraft type 2 2 2 30 30 30

Table 25: Summary of provisional CASCADE application requirements (*Range requirements are nominal for air to ground applications) It should be noted that there are also track initiation requirements per application. In the case of 1090ES they would depend on obtaining the target identifier that is carried in a separate message from position or velocity. These requirements are not considered because they were uncertain at the time this study was done.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 58

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

6.3 Application performance with 1090ES


To evaluate whether 1090ES performance is sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the applications, a simple probability argument is made: In accordance with the 1090 MOPS it is assumed that A position message transmitted every 0.5 seconds per aircraft ; A velocity message transmitted every 0.5 seconds per aircraft.

It is assumed that the 1090ES receiver feeds the received decoded messages to a tracker which produces a track update from each message received. The CASCADE application requirement listed in Table 25 can be used to determine the required probability of receiving a single message. For example, for the ADS-B NRA application in TMA airspace, the requirement is for a 5 seconds update period of the position report with 95% probability. In 5 seconds an aircraft will broadcast 10 extended squitter position messages, and 10 extended squitter velocity messages. In order for a new position report to be generated from the tracker with 95% probability in 5 seconds then the minimum decode probability for each individual message is 14% 13. The minimum decode probability is compared with the decoder performance curves fro 2015 presented in Sec. 5. This is shown below in Figure 36 for the case of a ground receiver with 90-deg sector antenna. Application update requirements are shown as lines at the corresponding minimum decode probability, calculated as explained above. The range at which this application can be fulfilled with different decoders and in different scenarios can then be read off the graph.

13

Without the tracking function a position report would have to be generated from the 10 extended squitter position messages which would therefore lead to a minimum message decode probability of 26%. One can therefore conclude from Figure 36 that the tracking function extends the range of the ground DO-260A receiver for 5 sec updates from ~55 NM to ~75 NM. Similarly Figure 37 suggests that a tracker could improve the range of the airborne DO-260A receiver from ~30 NM to ~50 NM. A similar case can be made for the RSL receiver. It should be noted however that the accuracy of the tracker output must meet the accuracy requirements of the applications. This aspect has been discussed in [14].

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 59

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

0.9

0.8

Advanced decoder (highest interference scenario only)

Probability of correct decode

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

2s update (95%)
0.3 0.2

MOPS decoder (all interference scenarios)

5s update (95%)
0.1

10s update (95%)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0 Range (NM)

Figure 36: Ground decoder performance for several 2015 scenarios, 4-sectored antenna. The equivalent results for a ground receiver with an omni antenna are shown in Figure 37.
1

0.9

0.8

Probability of correct decode

0.7

0.6

Advanced decoder MOPS decoder 2s update (95%)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

5s update (95%)
0.1

10s update (95%)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0 Range (NM)

Figure 37: Ground decoder performance for several 2015 scenarios, omni antenna. The summary graph for airborne decoders (with omni antenna) is shown below in Figure 38. These results have been derived for a single receiver. Use of diversity receivers (with a top and bottom antenna on the airframe) would improve the decode probability and hence extend the range of the system. Further improvement would be

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 60

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

possible with sector antennas but their implementation may be problematic on an airframe.
1 0.9 0.8

Advanced Decoder

Probability of Correct Decode

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

MOPS Decoder

2s update (95%)
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

5s update (95%) 10s update (95%)

Range (NM)

Figure 38: Airborne decoder performance for several 2015 scenarios, FL330, omni antenna The following Table 26 summarises the range results per application derived from the above figures. For both the airborne and ground applications the use of a tracking function is assumed 14. Applications on the airport surface have not been included in the table because they require very short ranges, and furthermore 1090ES FRUIT is unlikely to be the dominant interference factor.
Application Provisional Requirements 95% Update Range attained for this update rate DO-260A decoder Advanced decoder

Air to Ground 4-sectored antenna (highest sector) ADS-B RAD/NRA (TMA) ADS-B RAD/NRA (en-route) 5 sec 10 sec At least 70 NM range At least 90 NM range Over 150 NM range Over 150 NM range

Air to Ground omnidirectional antenna ADS-B RAD/NRA (TMA) ADS-B RAD/NRA (en-route) 5 sec 10 sec At least 40 NM range At least 50 NM range At least 80 NM range At least 100 NM range

Table 26: Air to ground ADS-B application results for 2015 (assumes use of tracker13)

As explained in footnote 13 the use of a tracking function reduces significantly the minimum decode probability and hence influences the attainable range.

14

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 61

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The above results have been derived for the case for a single ground receiver (assuming also a tracking function). Typically, however several ground stations might be deployed and connected in a network not only to achieve the required coverage but also to ensure that more than one receiver has a chance of receiving each 1090ES message. Similarly a single ground station might incorporate multiple receivers with sector antennas of at least partially overlapping coverage. Such a network of stations possibly multi-receiver would significantly improve the air to ground range offered by the 1090ES system for any air to ground application albeit at an increased cost 15. Air to ground application requirements are discussed further in Sec. 6.3.1 below. The following Table 27 summarises the air to air range results per application.
Air to Air Provisional Requirements 95% date* ATSA AIRB See and Avoid (GA) ATSA AIRB During flight operations (IFR) ASPA S&M Traffic identification ASPA S&M Active spacing merge ASPA S&M Active spacing in trail 5 sec 5 sec UpRange 15 NM 20 NM Results DO-260A decoder Could work to 35 NM range Could work to 35 NM range Only a 40 NM range could be attained in highest interference Only a 30 NM range could be attained in the highest interference 30 NM is the maximum range in the highest scenario. Advanced coder de-

Could work to 100 NM range Could work to 100 NM range Could work 120 NM to

10 sec

100 NM

2 sec

60 NM

Could work to 70 NM

2 sec

30 NM

Could work to 70 NM

Table 27: Air to air ADS-B application results for 2015 (assumes onboard tracker13 and omni antenna) Results have been derived for the case of a single airborne decoder (and assuming a tracking function). Air to air application requirements are discussed further in Sec. 6.3.2 below.

6.3.1 Air to ground applications


Table 26 indicates that air to ground RAD/NRA applications can be supported in even the worst postulated 2015 FRUIT environment. If DO-260A compliant receivers are used it will be necessary however to deploy sector antennas or multiple ground stations in order to achieve equivalent coverage to a radar. More advanced decoding techniques such as those implemented in the RSL decoder can clearly reduce substantially the need for more complex ground stations (with sector antennas) and the number of ground stations. It should be noted that If some radars are decommissioned with the deployment of ADS-B as foreseen by the ADS-B RAD application, it is likely that FRUIT conditions will improve relative to the baseline case and then the applications would continue to

In practice the structure of such a network would be dependent on local implementation issues such as State borders and terrain effects.

15

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 62

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

be supported for a long period beyond 2015 until air traffic growth compensates for the FRUIT reductions due to radar decommissioning.

6.3.2 Air to air applications


Table 27 indicates that the 1090ES system can support the air to air ADS-B applications in the 2015 environment. In particular Short range applications can be supported in even the highest FRUIT environments with standard DO-260A compliant receivers. Medium range applications (30 60 NM) can be supported at a two sec update rate, although they may require more advanced decoding techniques than those specified in DO-260A. Long range applications (100 NM) may be possible only with advanced RSL like decoding techniques unless significant radar decommissioning occurs due to ADS-B RAD deployment.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 63

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

7 Conclusions
This study has investigated the 1090 MHz FRUIT environment in the period to 2015 and its impact on the CASCADE applications as supported on 1090MHz ES.

7.1 Minimisation of FRUIT


This study has investigated the levels of FRUIT expected in 2015 given the planned implementation of civil Mode S radars and military SSR radars in core Europe. The majority of FRUIT generated comes from replies to these radars and therefore changing the configuration and number of radars has a dominant effect on the performance of ADS-B applications over 1090ES. The majority of the FRUIT is likely to be Mode S and not Mode A/C. Previous studies [13],[14] had assumed the opposite because they underestimated the upgrading of ground radar infrastructure to Mode S. FRUIT due to ADS-B extended squitters will be an increasing component of the Mode S FRUIT and it will grow in proportion to the number of aircraft. It is unlikely however to pose a problem in the period to 2015 (~8% of the FRUIT in the baseline 2015 scenario). The expected 1090 FRUIT can be significantly reduced in core Europe by: Improved clustering of Mode S radars reducing Mode S interrogations. Improved cooperation between civil and military radars leading to reductions in military radar interrogations. rationalization of the civil radar en route and TMA infrastructure including partial radar decommissioning in line with the ADS-B RAD applications

It is expected that after 2015 more widespread use of ADS-B RAD will mean less dependency on SSR radars. As such, radar interrogations and hence FRUIT rates are likely to decrease for a transition period beyond 2015 until traffic growth compensates for the reduction in ground interrogations. The increased use of ADS-B RAD is consistent with the EUROCONTROL surveillance strategy.

7.2 Decoder technologies and update rates


Mode S FRUIT is likely to be the major FRUIT component in the future. Mode S FRUIT requires more sophisticated de-garbling techniques than Mode A/C FRUIT. The de-garbling techniques recommended in DO-260A App I.4 may not be sufficient in the future high Mode S FRUIT interference environments. It was shown that for air to ground ADS-B applications, the use of RSL-like advanced decoders provides a significant improvement over 1090ES decoders implementing the DO-260A App I.4 techniques. This performance benefit would be in addition to the benefits offered by the use of sectorised antennas and/or networking of multiple ground stations. In the deployment of ground receivers, local analysis will have to determine the expected FRUIT levels and the required density and type of ground stations for that location. Annex A details some areas where the 1090 MHz MOPS, (DO-260A [10]), could be updated to reflect the benefits of modern advanced decoders.

7.3 CASCADE ADS-B applications


The requirements for the CASCADE ADS-B applications have been extrapolated from existing documents such as [12] and estimated from RFG expert opinion. The conclusions of the study may need to be reviewed when RFG requirements will have been finalised.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 64

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The analysis presented in this report shows that air to ground CASCADE ADS-B applications [NRA, RAD, and APT] can be supported on 1090 MHz ES technology in even the worst postulated 2015 FRUIT environment. The use of more advanced RSL like decoders may not be necessary except on economic ground (because it could require fewer or simpler ground stations). Furthermore if as expected the ADS-B RAD application leads to partial radar decommissioning it is likely that these applications would then continue to be supported for a long period beyond 2015. Air to air CASCADE ADS-B applications can also be supported in the 2015 environment. However the longer range (>60 NM) requirements (which are in any case planned for CASCADE Stream 2) may well require a decoder with more advanced capabilities than those specified in DO-260A. This need will have to be reevaluated when RFG requirements will have been finalized.

7.4 Issues for future study


FRUIT levels have been estimated using the best currently available data. State and military Mode S implementation and clustering plans will need to be monitored to ensure that the radar infrastructure evolves in accordance with the assumptions in this study. Future air traffic levels have been calculated in accordance with current EUROCONTROL estimates. These estimates are updated annually so it will be necessary to check the impact of any future changes. In this work a MOPS standard DO-260A decoder and an example advanced decoder have been simulated. Developments in decoder technology will need to be monitored and evaluated as decoder performance is critical in the performance of the whole 1090ES system. In this study only FRUIT levels core Europe has been considered, and at only two altitudes (0ft and 33000ft). Applications that are designed to be used in low density airspace or at low altitude need to be considered in more detail to investigate their local environment.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 65

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

A. Suggested changes to DO-260A MOPS


This annex describes areas where the 1090 MHz MOPS, (DO-260A [10]), could be updated to reflect the benefits of advanced decoders.
Section 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 Title Introduction System Overview Operational Applications ADS-B Functions Operational Goals Assumptions and Rationale Test Procedures MASPS Compliance Definition of Terms General Requirements Minimum Performance Standards Standard Conditions and Signals Proposed Changes None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None Equipment class definition only. This section defines transmitter and protocol characteristics which should not need to be modified but it includes also section 2.2.4 on ADS-B receiver characteristics which should be modified to require the higher performance capabilities achievable through more advanced decoding techniques No change is required to the environmental tests themselves. However, the functional tests required to be carried out during environmental testing should be changed to reflect higher performance standards. The test procedure specific to the receiver testing could be tightened to reflect a higher performance requirement. All other parts of this section will not change. None Equipment installation requirements will not change. None Equipment installation requirements will not change. None Equipment installation requirements will not change. Data None no changes are required to the aircraft systems from which the navigational data is received. None Equipment installation requirements will not change. Live flight testing requirements could potentially be changed to demonstrate increased reception performance. None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None Self test requirements will not be affected. None Equipment controls will not be affected. None This section defines protocol only and will thus have no effect on decoding performance.

2.3

Equipment Performance Environmental conditions

2.4

Equipment dures

Test

Proce-

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 A.1

Installed Equipment Considerations Equipment Installation Antenna Installation Flight Environment Sources Aircraft / Vehicle Data Flight Test Procedures System Overview Operating Modes Self Test Controls ADS-B 1090 MHz Formats and Coding

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 66

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

A.2 B.1 B.2 B.3 C.1 C.2 C.3 D.1 D.2 D.3 E

TIS-B Formats and Coding Acronyms Definition of Terms Illustration of Geodetic Coordinate Definitions Introduction Model Aircraft Antenna Pattern Measurements Analysis of Aircraft Antenna Gain Measurements Introduction and Purpose ATC Surveillance Traffic Information Service Broadcast (TIS-B) Transmitter and Receiver Power Requirements for Air to Air Range Introduction ADS-B MASPS ance Matrix Compli-

None This section defines protocol only and will thus have no effect on decoding performance. None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only None This describes previous study results None This describes previous study results None This describes previous study results None This is an explanation only None - The ground system architecture will not be directly affected by the improvement in performance of each receiver. None - The ground system architecture will not be directly affected by the improvement in performance of each receiver. None Power requirements will not be affected.

F.1 F.2

None This is an explanation only None Any changes to reflect desired decoding performance will not affect the flow-down of requirements from the MASPS. None TIS-B will not be affected by any changes proposed in this study. None This is an explanation only None transition issues, i.e. operation with mixed levels of equipage, will not be affected by any changes to the decoding performance. None transition issues, i.e. operation with mixed levels of equipage, will not be affected by any changes to the decoding performance. None transition issues, i.e. operation with mixed levels of equipage, will not be affected by any changes to the decoding performance. None transition issues, i.e. operation with mixed levels of equipage, will not be affected by any changes to the decoding performance. None This is an explanation only None - as the protocol will be unchanged, the method of report assembly will be unchanged. None - as the protocol will be unchanged, the method of report assembly will be unchanged. None - as the protocol will be unchanged, the method of report assembly will be unchanged.

F.3 G.1 G.2

TIS-B MASPS Compliance Matrix Introduction Air to Air ADS-B Applications Aircraft Integration

G.3

G.4

Air Ground Surveillance Applications Operational Approvals

G.5

H.1 H.2

Scope and Purpose Data Flow Into and Out Of the Report Assembly Function Messages and Reports Estimating Values Report Field

H.3 H.4

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 67

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

H.5 H.6 I.1 I.2 I.3

Tracking pants

ADS-B

Particiand

None - as the protocol will be unchanged, the method of report assembly will be unchanged. None - as the protocol will be unchanged, the method of report assembly will be unchanged. None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only This section details the techniques on which the performance requirements of Sec. 2.2.4 have been based. If the minimum performance requirements are to be changed in accordance with the possibilities offered by more advanced techniques this section has to be changed accordingly. This section details optional enhanced decoding techniques which would improve the baseline decoder performance specified in Sec. 2.2.4. More advanced decoding techniques could be described here. In any case it should be noted that this appendix is not normative material, it is meant purely for information None This section details the MIT Lincoln Labs algorithm, which may be updated by Lincoln Labs in due course. It is not intended to give details of any proprietary technique in any revised MOPS document. None This section details the MIT Lincoln Labs algorithm, which may be updated by Lincoln Labs in due course. It is not intended to give details of any proprietary technique in any revised MOPS document. None This is an explanation only None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This is an explanation only None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance. None This section defines the accuracy of the transmitted data which does not affect decoding performance.

Track Acquisition Coast Considerations Purpose and Scope Background

Current Squitter Reception Techniques

I.4

Enhanced Squitter Reception Techniques

I.5

Improved Reception Performance in a High FRUIT Environment Summary

I.6

J.1 J.2 J.3

Purpose and Scope Rationale for Table 2-20 Rationale for Tables 2-21 and 2-22 for Determining NACv Purpose Background Scenarios and Results A Minimum Report Assembly Technique A Kalman Filter Report Assembly Technique Real Time Evaluation Conclusions Undetected Rate Report Error Performance

K.1 K.2 K.3 K.4 K.5 K.6 K.7 L.1

None - There are no changes proposed to the undetected error rate spec. Whilst lower error rate may be achievable, this limit figure is derived from the end application requirements defined in the MASPS.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 68

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

M.1 M.2 M.3

Purpose and Scope Background Current Reception Range

None This is an explanation only None This is an explanation only This section discusses the air to air range of A3 receivers. It may have to be modified to account for the capabilities of a mode advanced receiver. None This section already states the assumption that improving the decoder will result in a longer useable system range. This section discusses the impact of a potential increase in minimum transmission power. It may have to be modified to account for the impact of transmission power on the more advanced decoder None This is an explanation only None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This section describes backward compatibility of the message formats only. None This is an explanation only None This section describes message formats only.

M.4

Techniques for Extended Reception Range Transmission Power

M.5

N.1 N.2 N.3

Introduction 1090 MHz ADS-B Message Types State Vector Reports Generated Using Version Zero messages Mode Status Reports Air Referenced Reports Velocity

N.4 N.5 N.6 N.7

Target Status Reports Formats for Version Zero 1090 MHz ADS-B Messages Introduction Summary of Trajectory Change Reporting Requirements 1090 MHz ADS-B Message for Trajectory Change Information Transmission quirements Rate Re-

O.1 O.2

O.3

None This section describes message formats only.

O.4 O.5 O.6 O.7 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 Q.1

None This section describes message formats only. None This section describes message formats only. None This section describes message formats only. None This section describes message formats only. None This is an explanation only None This describes previous study results None This describes previous study results None This describes previous study results None This is an explanation only

Estimated Performance Other Factors and Issues Conclusions Introduction Performance Evaluation by APL Performance Evaluation by MIT Lincoln Laboratory Summary Background

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 69

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Q.2 Q.3

Information Content Reference

None This section describes message formats only. None This section describes message formats only.

B.

FRUIT model validation

This section describes the validation work carried out on the Mode S model. The validation of the Mode S model is important as the model is used in later work packages to simulate the future FRUIT environments for testing the decoder. Two main sources of FRUIT data have been used for the validation: Data recorded by UK NATS in the London area in the UK on the 6th-7th of April 2005 [2]. Data recorded by Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL) and Intersoft at the RSL ADS-B ground station at Gotzenhain in Germany on the 7th of December 2004. This is summarised in the Gotzenhain Report [9].

B.1 Validation Process and Data


This section describes the validation process and discusses the data used for validation.

B.1.1 Overview of the validation process


The validation process is illustrated in Figure 39 belowError! Reference source not found..
Note air/ground scenario (Aircraft, radar, etc)

Record ADS-B/radar/CFMU data

Configure Mode S model with scenario

Run model to get interference estimates

Compare results/ analyse differences

Figure 39: Validation process

The most important part of the validation is to configure the Mode S model as accurately as possible with the air/ground scenario. Annex B contains a complete list of the data required to configure the model and includes:

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 70

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Signal level of each message or an indication of the threshold above which replies are recorded by the equipment. The aircraft scenario and configuration; The ground scenario and radar configuration; Information on the test (recording) point;

In addition, the recording of the RF environment is critical. Ideally, raw (decoded but not processed) FRUIT replies received by the recording equipment would be logged. This would then be analysed to determine the type of message received, including information on garbled messages. This was not possible for this study.

B.1.2 Data obtained in this study


The required data is quite detailed and, in this study, not all of it could be obtained. In particular, missing data was the exact number and configuration of ground radars, particularly Mode S; some details of aircraft numbers (particularly for GA and military) and equipage (particularly TCAS); some information about the exact workings of the ADS-B recording stations.

The number and configuration of configuration Mode S radars was estimated by analysis of the recorded 1090 FRUIT data. The number and configuration of Mode A/C radars was taken from the model baseline scenario provided by EUROCONTROL. Initially data from the CFMU was used to estimate aircraft in the scenarios. However, a comparison of the CFMU data and radar recordings showed that the CFMU data did not include all aircraft in the sky at a given point in time. The CFMU data estimates a landing time based on the time the aircraft passes the last waypoint and assumes that the aircraft flies straight from the waypoint to the airport. In reality aircraft may turn after the last waypoint or be placed in holding patterns. The CFMU data therefore assumes that many aircraft landed earlier than they did in reality. GA and military aircraft are also not included in CFMU records and therefore were estimated analysis of the radar data. Whilst no specific information was available on the aircraft equipage, it was anyway possible to derive Mode S and Extended Squitter equipages from analysis of recorded FRUIT data and radar data. Only the TCAS equipage could not be derived. Here equipage rates were assumed and stochastic distributions were used. Finally, the exact workings of the ADS-B recording systems were not known. The main problem was that that ADS-B receiver sensitivity used by NATS was unknown. The threshold of the receiver could be changed but the units were not known. Since the receiver sensitivity is critical to estimating ADS-B performance, it was necessary to attempt to derive the sensitivity during the analysis.

B.1.3 Error due to incorrect transponder operation


Even when all the data provided above are available there are other potential sources of differences between experimentally recorded FRUIT rates and FRUIT rates calculated by the Mode S model. For example if the aircraft transponder is not behaving as described in the Mode S SARPs then the FRUIT rates calculated by the Mode S model will differ. From analysis on the NATS FRUIT data it appears that some aircraft may not be transmitting Extended Squitters at the expected rates (defined by the 1090 MOPS). Clearly this can be a source of error in the analysis. This is likely to be because current trans-

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 71

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

ponders and aircraft installations as well as the ground receiver are not certified for ADS-B. In the analysis, the average rate of transmission of extended squitter was derived from the ADS-B data and this was used in place of the MOPS rate. A regular transmission rate was assumed.

B.2 Results of Validation Using NATS Data


This section presents the results of validation using data recorded by NATS. NATS recorded ADS-B data at 09:40 UTC (10:40 BST) and 12:25 UTC (13:25 BST) on 7th April 2005. Recordings were made using three different receiver sensitivity thresholds; these were 0, 30 and 90 measured in the recording equipments unknown arbitrary units (as discussed in the previous section). NATS also provided details of the recording equipment which consisted of: a passive, omni-directional antenna; a SSR receiver and down converter (converts received signal to an intermediate frequency); an 80m cable between the receiver and recording unit; a recording and processing unit.

Information from NATS radar recordings from the London area on the 7th of April 2005 was also provided for 0945 and 0955 UTC. This was used to create an aircraft configuration picture along with details from flights in ECAC provided by the CFMU on the 6th-7th of April 2005 and information provided by EUROCONTROL on Aircraft and Ground scenarios for 2005. In addition, NATS provided data on the latitude, longitude, altitude and scan period for 12 UK radars.

B.2.1Assumptions
B.2.1.1 Power Threshold Calibration
FRUIT recordings were received from NATS for three different receiver sensitivity threshold levels used with the recording equipment. The threshold levels were given in unknown arbitrary units. Since the threshold determines the sensitivity of the receiver, it was necessary to attempt to calibrate the equipment using the recorded data. The calibration was carried out by: Selecting an aircraft from which a sufficiently large set of messages were received at a power close to the sensitivity level of the recording equipment (90 units). Calculating the average received power of DF 0 messages (in the arbitrary units of the recording equipment). Calculating the distance of the aircraft from the recording equipment. Calculating the expected received power of the messages (dBm) based on an assumed transmission power and the free space loss. Correlating the calculated power in arbitrary units to the calculated power in dBm.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 72

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

A single type of Mode S message (Mode S replies, DF=0) was chosen for the calibration. The received power of this message for a single aircraft at a range of 36.2 NM is shown below.
Measured result Expected result Assumed Transmitted Power (dBm) Calculated Free Space Loss Actual Average Received Power (arbitrary units) 94.25 Expected Average Received Power (dBm) 57 129.7 -72.7

Table 28: Power level calibration data from analysed aircraft The expected received power was then re-calculated for an aircraft at a distance of 60 NM away, which was the distance of the furthest aircraft from which a Mode S reply (DF=0) was recorded. The expected power at this range was -77 dBm. Since this should have been the lowest-power signal decoded by the receiver, it was assumed to correspond to the receiver MTL for that equipment setting. The Mode S model was therefore set up with a MTL of -77 dBm. The Mode S model was also checked to confirm that the furthest aircraft contributing to the FRUIT rates were around 60 NM away from the test point. The limitations of this calibration are: There was a wide variation in the received power of messages from a particular aircraft. There was no specific information available on antenna gains or cable losses. Therefore nominal values were assumed. It was assumed that the aircraft transmits at 57dBm. Whilst this is the SARPs value, some variability is allowed in SARPs. It was assumed that the average received power from the furthest aircraft is at the threshold power level.

Despite the limitations, setting the Mode S model MTL to -77dBm had the desired effect in terms of limiting the aircraft which contributed to the FRUIT level calculation to those that were observed to contribute to the FRUIT recording.

B.2.1.2 FRUIT rates


The FRUIT recordings were used to calculate FRUIT rates for each of the different types of messages at a particular time. Average rates per second were calculated by adding up all the specific types of messages over a minute and dividing by 60. This produced the average number of FRUIT per second for that minute. These values were compared to FRUIT rates calculated by the Mode S model. A point to note is that as the power threshold used for the FRUIT recordings decreased (i.e. a more sensitive receiver) the number of FRUIT recorded did not always increase as expected. The likely reason is that, at high sensitivities, less data is decoded as more overlapping messages are received and it becomes more difficult to decode individual FRUIT. In other words, fewer discrete FRUIT are decoded by the recording equipment due to increased garbling. The Mode S model estimated FRUIT irrespective of whether they can be decoded and logged by FRUIT recording equipment. In order to ensure that a direct compari-

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 73

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

son could be made between FRUIT rates calculated by the Mode S model and from the recorded FRUIT data, the FRUIT data recorded at the lowest sensitivity was used (90 units). This reduced the effect of FRUIT being lost from the recorded data due to garbling.

B.2.1.3 Aircraft configuration


Comparisons of the CFMU data and radar recordings revealed that the CFMU data did not include GA or military aircraft and often assumed that aircraft had landed earlier than in reality (e.g. where aircraft had been kept in holding patterns). The radar recordings were therefore used as the source for the positions and altitudes of aircraft used to generate an aircraft scenario for the Mode S model. The use of the radar recordings also had the advantage of providing information that could be used to identify the specific Mode S and Mode A/C equipage of aircraft. 86% of aircraft in the radar recording were Mode S equipped. The Short and Extended Squitter equipage rates were derived from analysis of the radar recordings and recorded FRUIT data. Short Squitter equipage was measured at 86% of the aircraft in the scenario using the recorded data. (Short Squitter equipage is equivalent to upon the Mode S equipage.) The Short Squitter transmission rate used in the Mode S model was 1 Hz as specified in the Mode S SARPS. The Extended Squitter equipage was calculated by identifying discrete valid Mode S addresses extracted from Extended Squitter transmissions. A valid Mode S address was identified by cross-checking Mode S addresses extracted from the recorded FRUIT data with Mode S addresses identified in the radar recordings. If the address did not correlate with the radar recording it was assumed to be a false address probably caused by a bit decode error in the FRUIT recording. 29% of Mode S aircraft in the radar recording were Extended Squitter equipped. The average Extended Squitter transmission rate was calculated to be 1.9 transmissions per second, per aircraft. This was calculated by totalling the number of Extended Squitter transmissions received in 60 seconds and dividing by the number of Extended Squitter equipped aircraft. TCAS equipage was assumed to be 83% of the Mode S equipped aircraft. This figure was provided by EUROCONTROL for another study.

B.2.1.4 Ground Station Configuration


NATS provided some configuration information for 12 radars. However, there was no specific information on which radars were operating as Mode S radars at the time of the FRUIT recording. Ground station scenarios for the Mode S model were created using the information provided by NATS on the radars and supplemented with the ground station data provided by EUROCONTROL. All military radars were removed from the ground station data provided by EUROCONTROL on the assumption that they were not operating at the time of the FRUIT recording. This assumption should be checked and validated in future work. Further analysis was carried out on the FRUIT recording data in order to gain a better idea of the number of Mode S radars affecting the aircraft in the scenario. An analysis was carried out into those radars contributing to All Call replies and a separate analysis for those contributing to Roll Call replies. More detail on each analysis is given in the sections below. An assumption was made that all Mode S radars were using a lockout range equal to their operational range. Another assumption was made that the majority of All Call replies in the recorded FRUIT data were from aircraft outside of the operational range

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 74

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

of the interrogating Mode S radar. Based on these assumptions, a Mode S radar will contribute either to the All Call replies or the Roll Call replies but not both. As a result of the analyses below the ground station scenario was altered to match the calculated level of Mode S radar equipage with three radars contributing to Roll Call FRUIT and two contributing to All Call FRUIT. Roll Call In order to identify the number of Mode S radars causing Roll Call replies the DF=4 and DF=5s transmitted by an aircraft were analysed for patterns of replies. Single or groups of replies were expected to be repeated on a regular basis according to the scan rate of interrogating radars. By identifying the number of different patterns in a set of replies from a single aircraft it is possible to estimate the number of different radars that the aircraft is within the operational range of. It was concluded that there were three different Mode S radars causing Roll Call replies.
DF = 4,5 for an analysed aircraft at 6400 ft, 09:59:00

Received by NATS 6 sec radar 6 sec radar 4 sec radar

0 0 10 20 30 40 Time (seconds) 50 60 70 80

Figure 40: Distribution of DF = 4 and 5 from analysed aircraft All Call The analysis assumed that Mode S radar were using lockout equal to their operational range. Therefore, the majority of the All Call replies recorded would be from aircraft beyond the lockout and operational range of the interrogating radar. In order to identify the number of Mode S radars causing All Call replies, the contents of all received DF=11s were analysed to identify the II code associated with the All Call reply (this is extracted from the Parity/II code field). The numbers of replies to each II code are tabulated in Table 29 below.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 75

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

II code 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 15

Number of All Call replies to the II code 980 31 3 2 2 1 111 2 3 3 1 1

Table 29: Number of All Call replies to II codes Three peaks in the data can be clearly seen. Replies to II code zero were assumed to be due to Short Squitters rather than All Call replies. It was also assumed that data recorded for all other II codes was due to data errors in the decoded FRUIT replies. There are several possible reasons why the number of replies to II code 7 is over three times larger than those to II code 1. For example: different radars could have been operating at different interrogation rates and scan rates; there are less aircraft replying to II code 1 due to the relative locations of the radar and aircraft, the operational range of the radar and the physical range of the radar; more than one radar could be operating with the same II code.

It was assumed that only one Mode S radar had been assigned to each II code within the area of interest. (Due to the relatively low level of Mode S radar implementation in the ECAC area it was assumed unlikely that any two radars affecting the FRUIT recording had the same II code.) From this analysis it was therefore concluded that there were two Mode S radars causing All Call replies (with II codes 1 and 7).

B.3 Comparison of Recorded and Calculated FRUIT Level


FRUIT rates were then compared for: The recorded FRUIT data [2]. These are from 09:55 on the 7th April 2005. The FRUIT rates were averaged over a minute beginning at 09:55. The Mode S model results, once it was set-up using the assumptions described above. The model was run twice and averaged.

The results are shown in Table 30 and in Figure 41.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 76

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Type of FRUIT

Recorded FRUIT rates (per sec)

Estimated FRUIT rate (per sec) Run 1 Run 2 4137 438 42 274 46 29 61 Average 4133 415 42 272 46 29 61

Percentage difference

Mode A/C Mode S (Total) Extended Squitter (DF = 17) Mode S TCAS Mode S All Call (DF = 11, II <> 0) Mode S Roll Call (DF = 4,5) Short Squitters (DF = 11, II = 0)

3791 425 45 266 52 21 41

4128 391 42 270 46 29 61

9.0 % 2.4 % 6.7% 2.3% 11.5% 38.1% 48.8%

Table 30: FRUIT rate comparison

4500

4000

3500

Average FRUIT per second

3000

2500 Recorded Estimated 2000

1500

1000

500

0 Mode A/C Mode S (Total) Mode S TCAS Extended Squitter Mode S All Call (DF=17) (DF = 11, II <> 0) Mode S Roll Call (DF = 4,5) Short Squitters (DF = 11, II = 0)

Figure 41: FRUIT rate comparison There is no precise measure of how close the Mode S model and recorded FRUIT rates should be to each other given the assumptions that had to be made in the setup of the Mode S model. However, it was assumed that FRUIT rates within: 10% show good correlation; 20% show acceptable correlation given that justification can be made for the difference; >20% indicates that further investigation is required.

Based on these figures the following conclusions can be drawn.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 77

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

The overall totals for the Mode A/C and Mode S FRUIT show a difference of around 9% for Mode A/C and 3% for Mode S between the Mode S model and the recoded FRUIT data showing good correlation. Within the Mode S FRUIT, analysis of the different message types showed more variable success. The Extended Squitter FRUIT shows a good correlation of within 7%. We would expect the Extended Squitter rates to be close as it determined purely by the aircraft equipage and the transmission rate. Any differences between the Mode S model and recorded values may be caused by: unknown transmission powers and antenna gains; aircraft using different Extended Squitter transmission rates (the Mode S model assumes a global average transmission rate); non-MOPS compliant implementation of Extended Squitter transponders.

Analysis of Extended Squitter transmissions from an individual aircraft provided evidence for the existence of potential non-MOPS compliant Extended Squitter transponders. The Mode S SARPS and MOPS specify transmission rates for Extended Squitters. The Mode S model therefore assumes that Extended Squitter transmissions are made at a regular rate. However, analysis of the recorded Extended Squitter transmissions from an aircraft revealed that the transmission rate was not consistent. An example of this is shown in the graph below and it suggests that there are some problems with meeting the MOPS requirements in some transponders.
Frequency of DF=17 for an analysed aircraft
6

5 Frequency per second

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Time (s)

Figure 42: Extended Squitter reception from one aircraft, illustrating inconsistent transmission rate

Mode S TCAS messages show a good correlation of within 3%. This is very close considering that the actual TCAS equipage was not known. A stochastic TCAS equipage distribution was used and as such the Mode S model was run a second time to investigate the effect of using the stochastic distribution. The difference in values be-

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 78

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

tween run 1 and run 2 indicates that the specific TCAS equipage at a point in time can have an impact on the TCAS Mode S FRUIT rate. Mode S All Call messages show a reasonable correlation of within 12%. The difference between the Mode S model and the recorded FRUIT rates are probably caused by the incomplete knowledge of the ground station configuration. In particular there was uncertainty in the ground station configuration for the: data on number and locations of Mode S radars in use; lockout ranges; scan rates; interrogation rates.

Analyses were performed in order to derive information on the numbers and configuration of Mode S radars in operation at the time of the FRUIT recordings. However, more detailed information would be required on the ground stations in use at the time of the FRUIT recordings in order to further validate the estimation of Mode S All Calls by the Mode S model. Mode S Roll Call messages show a poor correlation of within 39%. However, due to the low number of Mode S Roll Call messages (21 recorded, 29 predicted) this large percentage difference is only a small absolute difference in the FRUIT calculated by the Mode S model compared to that recorded. It could be due to statistical variability in the data and longer recordings would be needed to check this. As with the Mode S All Call the difference in the values may also be caused by incomplete knowledge of the ground station configuration used particularly regarding: data on number and locations of Mode S radars in use; surveillance ranges; scan rates. re-interrogation rates (re-interrogation due to transponder occupancy etc).

Given the uncertainty in the ground station configuration and the small absolute difference in the calculated and recorded Mode S Roll Call FRUIT this is seen as a good correlation despite the large percentage difference. Short Squitters show a poor correlation of 49% between recorded and predicted values. This is not a good correlation and surprising given that the Short Squitter FRUIT is only dependent on the Mode S equipage and transmission rate, both of which should be known with a good level of certainty. Any differences between the Mode S model and recorded values may be caused by: unknown transmission powers and antenna gains; aircraft using different Short Squitter transmission rates (the Mode S model assumes a global average transmission rate); non-SARPS compliant implementation of Short Squitters; garbled Short Squitters that can not be decoded by the recording equipment; decode errors in DF field of Mode S message resulting in allocation to wrong FRUIT category.

Analysis of Short Squitter transmissions from aircraft provided evidence that transmissions were not being made at the expected rate of once a second, as shown in Figure 43. The majority of aircraft appeared to be transmitting at less than once a second, which is not compliant with the Mode S MOPS and SARPs.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 79

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

Short Squitters are a key area for further work, since the discrepancy is not explainable with this data. Mode A/C messages show good correlation of within 9%. This is particularly good considering the lack of up to date information on the number, location and configuration of Mode A/C radars. The difference between the Mode S model and the recorded FRUIT rates may therefore be caused by the incomplete knowledge of the ground station configuration. In particular the ground station configuration used in the Mode S model may have used: incorrect data on number and locations of Mode A/C radars in use; incorrect scan rates; incorrect interrogation rates.

DF=11, II=0 for an analysed aircraft

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Time (secs)

Figure 43: Received Short Squitter rate for one aircraft

B.3.1 Summary
The total Mode S and Mode A/C FRUIT rates show good correlation between the Mode S model and the recorded FRUIT data. When looking at different categories of Mode S FRUIT broadly the Mode S model matches the recording although 2 areas were significantly different: Mode S Roll Call and Short Squitter messages. However, it is worth remembering that the Mode S model calculates all the transmissions made (regardless of whether they could be individually decoded at a test point) whereas for the recorded FRUIT data a FRUIT is only recorded if it can be identified in some way (e.g. at least part decoded). It may not be possible to identify and record every single FRUIT, even with post processing techniques. In order to identify the type of Mode S FRUIT the DF field must be decoded. Even though a FRUIT is identified by the recording equipment the DF field may be incorrectly decoded. Therefore,

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 80

1090 MHz Interference Study

EUROCONTROL CASCADE

the recorded data may not be a true representation of the different categories of FRUIT. In terms of the validation process it is therefore better to look in detail at the comparison of the total Mode S and Mode A/C FRUIT rates but to only look more generally at the relative levels of the different types of Mode S FRUIT. From this point of view these results provide good evidence of the validity of the Mode S model.

Final Report Version 2.5

Page 81