RASMAG/7−IP/4

4/6/07

International Civil Aviation Organization

The Seventh Meeting of the ICAO Regional Airspace Safety Monitoring
Advisory Group (RASMAG/7)
Bangkok Thailand, 4 – 8 June 2007

Agenda Item 5: Review the airspace safety monitoring arrangements in the Asia/Pacific
Region and the activities of regional airspace safety monitoring agencies

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF ADS-C DATA

(Presented by Japan)

SUMMARY

ENRI (Electronic Navigation Research Institute) is now analyzing ADS-C messages for
the preparation of collision risk estimation prior to the implementation of 30NM
longitudinal separation minima in NOPAC route. This paper summarizes the current
situation.

1. Introduction

1.1. NOPAC (NOrth PACific) route system (Fig.1) is the most congested oceanic ATS routes in
Fukuoka FIR and Anchorage FIR. The number of aircraft flying in NOPAC route system is growing.
To accommodate the traffic growth, the reduction of separation minima is expected. The 50NM
longitudinal separation minimum for ADS (ADS-C) equipped aircraft has been implemented
sequentially beginning from R220 and R580. ENRI had provided technical supports [1] in the safety
assessment prior to this implementation.

Figure 1 : NOPAC route system

RASMAG/7 – IP/4 2

1.2. In the near future, the 30NM longitudinal and lateral separation minimum in oceanic airspace
will be necessary to accommodate future traffic. ENRI is preparing for the future safety assessment.
1.3. An aircraft under ADS circumstance transmits their position periodically. In Fukuoka FIR,
the reporting interval is 1600 seconds in usual and 320 seconds in the case of strategic lateral offset.
Under the radar surveillance, the position information is available in the order of seconds. Since the
position information is rarely available under ADS circumstance comparing with the radar
surveillance, the prediction of the trajectory is indispensable for the surveillance. The accuracy of the
prediction is a key factor in the collision risk estimation and is taken into account in collision risk
estimation [1], [2].
1.4. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the result of analysis.

2. ADS Messages

2.1. The ADS (ADS-C) system is designed to provide flight position and other optional messages.
Under ADS circumstance, an aircraft periodically reports its position measured by on-board
equipments (GPS receiver etc.) and its position at a future time instance predicted by the on-board
system. An ATC system - ODP (Oceanic Data Processing) system - interpolates (and extrapolates) to
predict the aircraft position from the optional messages till it receives the next report.

Information
•Position at reporting time
•Predicted Position etc.

Interpolated Path
Position at
reporting time ATC

Predicted
Position

Figure 2: ADS-C
2.2. The ADS data were provided by Kobe Aeronautical Satellite Center. They are collected from
September 1st 2005 to August 31st 2006 except in November 18th 2005 and except from January 17th
2006 to February 9th 2006. We also collected FDMS data from September 1st 2005 to August 31st
2006, which includes flight plan, the name of waypoints which the corresponding aircraft passed over
and so on.
 3 RASMAG/7 − IP/4

3. Results

3.1. According to FDMS data, the number of aircraft flying in oceanic airspace of Fukuoka FIR
from September 1st 2005 to August 31st 2006 is 474,660. 98,924 aircraft (20.8%) of them were
equipped with ADS transponders.
3.2. According to FDMS data, 92,240 aircraft (19.4% of oceanic airspace users) flew on NOPAC
route system in the same period. 26,535 aircraft (28.8%) were equipped with ADS transponder.
3.3. The percentage of aircraft which were equipped with ADS transponder does not exceed 30%
in the both whole oceanic airspace in Fukuoka FIR and NOPAC route system.
3.4. Fig. 3 shows the geographical distribution of periodically reported positions. There are some
position reports which deviate from the routes. The reason of deviations should be inquired.

Figure 3 : Geographical Distribution of Periodically Reported Positions

3.5. For the 1,350,063 ADS messages reporting aircraft positions, we evaluated differences
between the time instance when DLCS (Data Link Center System) at Kobe Aeronautical Satellite
Center receives ADS messages and the time instance when the aircraft onboard system composed the
messages (stamped time in the message). The proportion of time required for downlink greater than 1
minute and 3 minutes are 10.37% and 2.70%, respectively.

3.6. ODP displays ADS data etc on the screen for air traffic controllers. For pairs of successive
ADS messages transmitted by aircraft, we calculated the predicted position at the time instance when
the second report is transmitted in accordance with the ODP’s position prediction algorithm using the
data of the first report. The ‘position prediction error’ means the difference of the position reported by
the second report from the predicted position (Fig.4). The ‘speed prediction error’ is calculated as the
position prediction error divided by the time elapsed from the first report is transmitted till the second
report is transmitted (Fig.4). The distribution of along-track speed prediction errors is the key
parameter of the collision risk formula [1],[2].
RASMAG/7 – IP/4 4

Position reported by Position at time

the first report instance t2 predicted
Predicted path using the optional
message coupled
with the first report
Position Prediction Error

Position reported by
the second report
Position Prediction Error
Speed Prediction Error =
t2-t1

time
t1 : time instance t2 : time instance
when the first when the second
report transmitted report transmitted

Figure 4 : Definition of Prediction Errors

3.7. The interval of periodic reports t2-t1 (the notation is given in Fig.4) of an aircraft flying in
NOPAC route system. is given by Fig. 5. Many reports are transmitted 6 min (to be precise, ≥ 5 min
and <6 min) or 27 min (to be precise, ≥ 26 min and <27 min). 1600 sec (26 min 40 sec) is the
reporting interval of periodic report which is indicated in periodic contract request messages and 320
sec (5 min 20sec) is the reporting interval of periodic report which is indicated in periodic contract
request messages in the case of strategic lateral offset. The maximum of the interval was 4,956 sec
(approximately 82 min).

Num of periodic report pairs

30000

25000
Total No. of pairs : 93476
Max : 4956 sec
20000 Min : 0 sec

15000

10000

5000

0
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

interval of periodic report (min)

Figure 5 : Distribution of intervals of periodic reports
 5 RASMAG/7 − IP/4

3.8. In ODP, ‘predicted route group’ and ‘fixed projected intent group’ are utilized for the
prediction of aircraft position. The former gives the estimated position of aircraft at some fixed
number of minutes after the time when the report was transmitted (in Japan, 37 min). On the other
hand, the latter gives the position of the next waypoint and ETA (estimated time of arrival, which is
given by the elapsed time from the time instance when the position report is transmitted). We found
that the predicted position of aircraft by the ODP position prediction algorithm sometimes has a large
error if the position report is not coupled with ‘fixed projected intent group’.

3.9. Fig. 6 shows the trajectory of an aircraft flying on R220 in NOPAC route system. The dots
show the position reported via ADS. The estimated along-track speed prediction error of reports
which were transmitted at 2005-09-12 17:40 and 18:06 was -668 (knots). It turned out that the basic
group transmitted at 17:40 is not coupled with ‘fixed projected intent group’ and ETA given in
‘predicted route group’ is 10 sec. The ‘predicted route group’ reports that the next waypoint which the
aircraft fly over is in the east of the reported position in spite of the westbound aircraft. The large
prediction error does not occur only in this case. We found that basic groups which are not coupled
with ‘fixed projected intent group’ sometimes has large longitudinal prediction errors. 0.034% of
basic reports are not coupled with ‘fixed projected intent group’ and 0.017% of basic reports are
coupled with neither ‘fixed projected intent group’ nor ‘predicted route group’.

2005-09-12 17:40
FIR Boundary
2005-09-12 18:06
2005-09-12 18:13
2005-09-12 18:14
R220

Figure 6 : Trajectory of Aircraft with Longitudinal Prediction Error = -668 (knots)

3.10. We found the distribution of the along-track speed error of ADS reports of flights in NOPAC
route system. The periodic position reports which are not coupled with ‘predicted route group’ or
‘fixed projected intent group’ are omitted in the calculation. Fig 7 shows the distribution of along-
track speed prediction error of report pairs whose reporting interval ≥ 26 min and <27 min. In some
case, multiple position reports are transmitted simultaneously and, rarely, these reports show different
positions. We omit such reports we found when we investigated the cause of every large deviations.
The maximum of the absolute value of along-track position prediction errors was 72.0 knots.
RASMAG/7 – IP/4 6

Figure 7 : Along-track Prediction Error for Pairs Whose Interval ≥ 26 min and <27 min
(Basic Report Data without ‘Fixed Projected Intent Group’ Were Omitted)

4. Conclusion

4.1. According to FDMS data, the percentage of aircraft which were equipped with ADS
transponder does not exceed 30% in the both whole oceanic airspace in Fukuoka FIR and NOPAC
route system.

4.2. We investigated the time required for the transmission of ADS message from aircraft to the
ground (DLCS). It is found that the proportion of down link transmission times greater than 1 minute
and 3 minutes are 10.37% and 2.70%, respectively.

4.3. We presented the distribution of along-track position prediction errors (Fig.7). The maximum
of the absolute value of along-track position prediction errors was 72.0 knots. In the calculation of this
distribution, the periodic position reports which are not coupled with ‘predicted route group’ or ‘fixed
projected intent group’ were omitted.

5. Further Work

5.1. DLCS is the relay point of the ADS data. The ADS data which is necessary for air traffic
control is transmitted to ODP. We have to merge FDMS data with DLCS data to find ADS data
transmitted between GES (Grand Earth Station) and AES (Aircraft Earth Station) flying along
NOPAC routes. However, ODP merges these data and we consider that the data merged by ODP is
more appropriate for the analysis than the data merged by us. ODP data has been provided since Apr.
2007. These data will be is utilized for further analysis of ADS messages.
 7 RASMAG/7 − IP/4

5.2. Another future work will be to find a smooth distribution which fits the empirical distribution
given in Fig. 7.

…………………….

Reference
[1] Fujita,M., Nagaoka,S. and Amai,O., Safety Assessment prior to Implementation of 50NM Longitudinal
Separation Standard in R220 and R580, ICAO SASP-WG/WHL/9-WP/14, Montreal, May, 2006

[2] Anderson, D., A Collision Risk Model Based On Reliability Theory That Allows For Unequal RNP
Navigation Accuracy, ICAO SASP-WG/WHL/7-WP/20 REVISED, Montreal, May, 2005

[3] Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), ARINC Characteristic 745-2, June, 1993.

[4] Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)
Equipment, RTCA DO-212 October, 1992.

[5] ATS Data Link Applications over ACARS Air-Ground Network, ARINC Characteristic 622-4, October,
2001.

[6] Fujita,M, Analysis of ADS-C Data, ICAO SASP-WG/WHL/11-WP/XX, Montreal, May, 2007