AMCP WGW/WP7

AERONAUTICAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (AMCP)

Working Group of the Whole

Montreal, Canada

21-24 May 2002

SASP COMMENTS ON APPENDIX A OF THE TLAT REPORT

Presented by the Secretary

This paper contains an extract from the report of the Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP) Working Group A/2 meeting (29 October to 9 November 2001).

Attachment

Extract from the report of the Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP) Working Group A/2 meeting

[…]

Agenda Item 4

1.1.1The Secretary presented WP/7, which contained information on the work done by the joint FAA/EUROCONTROL Technical Link Assessment Team (TLAT) in relation to the evaluation of the candidate technologies for ADS-B, together with a request from the Aeronautical Mobile Communications Panel (AMCP) for comments on the assumptions used by TLAT.

1.1.1.1A number of members expressed the view that it would not be possible, within the scope of the present meeting, to provide detailed comments. In order to do this, more information would be required about the operational concepts on which the TLAT requirements had been based. It was also noted that SASP had not yet developed a methodology for assessing risk in an ADSB environment, upon which the determination of ATC separation minima could be based. Until this work done, it would be difficult to determine the adequacy of the proposed system performance parameters.

1.1.1.2The meeting identified the following specific areas where comments could be made, or questions raised.

1.1.1.2.1It was noted that TLAT is drawing a distinction between the use of ADSB as the sole means, and primary means, of surveillance, and that a primary means system cannot be used for separation unless a supplementary means of surveillance, independent of the aircraft navigation system, is available. It was also noted that the paper states that ADSB is not expected to be used as a sole means of surveillance for the near future in US domestic airspace.

a)Is the emphasis on ADSB as a primary means of surveillance rather than sole means based on an expectation that it will not be feasible in the near term to meet the more stringent availability requirements for sole means operation, or was it that no operational need for sole means identified?

b)It was not apparent to the meeting what forms of independent surveillance other than radar exist. If the use of ADS-B for separation was to be limited to airspace where there was existing radar coverage, the usefulness of ADSB would be greatly reduced.

c)How do the TLAT assumptions relate to the CAPSTONE project in Alaska which the meeting understood to be operational, and involves the use of ADSB outside radar coverage?

1.1.1.3The material provided to SASP comprised only Appendix G. There are references in the text to other appendices. In particular, it would appear that Appendix J contains material relating to safety analyses which have been undertaken. SASP would be interested in a copy of this Appendix, and any other material which may relate to safety analyses and the assumptions regarding separation minima on which the performance parameters have been based.

1.1.1.4The meeting requested the Secretary to transmit the above comments and questions to the Aeronautical Mobile Communications Panel (AMCP).

[…]