A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN VDL MODE 2 AND VHF
ACARS BY PROTOCOL SIMULATOR
Jun Kitaori, Electronic Navigation Research Institute, Chofu, Tokyo, JAPAN
Abstract
VHF Aircraft Communications Addressing and
Reporting System (ACARS) is the most popular VHF
aeronautical datalink. It is used for such applications
as airline operation and air traffic control. VHF
ACARS has only a 2400 bit/s (bps) transmission rate
air-ground link. The VHF Digital Link mode 2
(VDL2) system, which has a thirteen times higher
transmission rate air-ground link than VHF ACARS,
is very similar to VHF ACARS. Both systems can
deal with messages in ACARS format.
Even though the systems are well used for
various operations, their effective link capacities are
not so clear. Finding out effective communication
performance, including real link capacity and
acceptable maximum delay, is useful for the design
layout of ground facilities and rebuild datalink
operation guidance in the near future.
We built both VHF ACARS and VDL2 protocol
models on an OPNET protocol simulator to evaluate
their effective communication performance. This
paper gives an outline of the protocol models and
comparison results of these performances by
simulation. Statistics such as transmission delay and
throughput have been obtained under various load
conditions for up to 200 aircraft.
Before starting the simulation, we analyzed
message data length and the message generation
interval of VHF ACARS from real communication
logs in Japan. The message data length was mostly
distributed randomly, below 660 bytes, and messages
exceeding 660 bytes rarely appeared. The message
generation interval mostly followed Pareto
distribution. We assumed that the message data
length and data generation interval followed uniform
distribution and Pareto distribution respectively.
978-1-4244-4078-8/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE.
Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
We found the following by analyzing simulation
results.
i) When data traffic load generated from an
aircraft equaled the load directed to the aircraft, the
VDL2 system was able to process 4.6 times more
congested load than the VHF ACARS.
ii) When data traffic load generated from an
aircraft was five times higher than the load directed
to the aircraft, the VDL2 system was able to process
8.8 times more congested load than the VHF ACARS.
The load condition approximated real VHF ACARS
data generation ratio between forward link and
reverse link.
Introduction
VHF ACARS and VDL2 are representative
aeronautical VHF datalinks. Both systems are based
on Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA)
technology and these have a lot in common.
VHF datalink communication demands are on
the increase (Figure 1), therefore you need to find
upper limits of system capacities and give operational
guidance for the future. Since both systems are in
operation, the measurement of operational
performance under loading that is too heavy for
datalink processing is extremely difficult. Therefore,
the upper limits of system capacities and the
difference of both communication performances are
not sufficiently obtained.
We built both VHF ACARS and VDL2 protocol
models on an OPNET protocol simulator to evaluate
their effective communication performance. This
paper gives an outline of the protocol models and
comparison results of these performances by
simulation.
4.B.3-1
 VDL2
VDL is a category of VHF datalinks, which are
standardized by ICAO, with a higher bit rate than
VHF ACARS. Three VDL modes (mode 2, mode 3
and mode 4) are authorized; however, each mode
system is not connectable to another mode system [2].
VDL2 is a bit-oriented packet communication
system with 25 kHz channel separation and a 31500
bps transmission bit rate. The modulation scheme of
the system is Differential 8 Phase Shift Keying
(D8PSK) [3]. The channel access scheme is p-
persistent CSMA. Once p-persistent CSMA system
checks line status, and if the line is idle, the system
transmits queued data with probability p or waits
Figure 1. Growth of VHF Datalink Traffic until the next transmission timing with probability 1-
p. If the line is busy, the system continuously
Outline of VHF ACARS and VDL2 monitors it until becoming idle. After becoming idle,
the system repeats the same as above. VDL2 has a
FEC function with Reed-Solomon code.
VHF ACARS
VHF ACARS is the first datalink system The VDL2 system is becoming popular as the
developed by ARINC. VHF ACARS is a character- successor system to VHF ACARS, because VDL2
oriented packet communication system with 25 kHz can deal with ACARS protocol by ACARS over
channel separation and 2400 bps transmission bit rate. Aviation VHF Link Control (AOA) technology.
The modulation scheme of the system is Amplitude VDL2 is also usable as a datalink for Aeronautical
Telecommunications Network (ATN). ATN protocol
Modulation―Minimum Shift Keying (AM-MSK) [1].
is quite different from ACARS protocol.
The channel access scheme is non-persistent CSMA.
Once the non-persistent CSMA system checks line We show the major specifications of VHF
status, the system transmits queued data if the line is ACARS and VDL2 in Table 1.
idle. If the line is busy, the system waits until a
specified time and restarts with the check. VHF Table 1. Major Specification of VHF ACARS and
ACARS has no Forward Error Correction (FEC) VDL2
function. System VHF ACARS VDL2
The acronym ACARS means VHF ACARS Channel Separation 25kHz 25kHz
system in a limited sense. However, the word also Radio Emission A2D G1D
means a common protocol on various datalinks in an Type
expanded sense. In this paper, we call the former Modulation AM-MSK D8PSK
“VHF ACARS” and the latter “ACARS protocol” to Transmission Bit 2400bps 31500bps
distinguish. Rate
Some service providers such as ARINC, SITA Information Unit Character Bit
and Avicom Japan operate VHF ACARS. These Error Correction No Yes
providers assure the compatibility of the ACARS Access Scheme Non-persistent p-
protocol. Meanwhile, VHF ACARS is not CSMA persistent
standardized by the International Civil Aviation CSMA
Organization (ICAO). Information Type Data Data
Message Frame Size 220bytes 220bytes
Supported Protocol ACARS ACARS,
ATN

4.B.3-2

Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Conditions of Simulation The distributions of message length and
generation interval represent the fundamental
mechanism of the message generator regardless of
Message Lengths and Intervals protocol. We applied the two assumptions as
Since the behavior of message generation on a discussed above to both VHF ACARS and VDL2
transmitter can affect the processing performance, protocol simulations.
prior to doing our protocol simulation, we needed to
identify the distribution of message lengths and
generation intervals in real operation. We estimated
the distributions by means of observed VHF ACARS
communication logs for three months in 2006 [4].
By analysis of the logs, short messages by
standard phrases occupied the majority of all
messages. The messages longer than 660 bytes
appeared much less than the shorter ones. We found
no principles for message length distribution shorter
than 660 bytes; we assumed the message length
distribution to be a uniform distribution between 1
and 660 bytes.
The distributions of VHF ACARS message
generation interval of forward link and reverse link Figure 2. VHF ACARS Message Interval
are shown in Figure 2 [4]. Forward link is the link Distribution
from a Datalink Service Provider (DSP) station to
Airborne (AIR) stations and reverse link is the link
from AIR to DSP. In this paper, we define Simulator and Network Configuration
“generation interval” as the interval from a message We developed VHF ACARS and VDL2
generation time to the next one. Strictly speaking, protocol models for a protocol simulator OPNET
since our logs were collected at DSP, the reverse version 11.5A on Microsoft Windows XP
link’s distribution was not calculated from generation Professional. Each model consists of DSP, Remote
interval. However, the reverse link’s distribution Ground Station (RGS) and AIR nodes (Figure 3).
seems to have a similar property to forward link Some RGS nodes can be located on the ground with a
because these plots look very similar. The plots of DSP node. We report in the paper the case of an RGS
generation interval were almost in a straight line with a DSP on the ground. Major simulation
except for intervals smaller than 10 seconds. Figure 2 parameters are listed in Table 2. At first, we set the
is drawn with log-log scale; a straight line on the parameter a in Table 2 to be equal to g. This
graph represents a power distribution. We assumed configuration was chosen to find the performance
the distribution of message generation interval to be a limit on traffic heavier than in real operation.
Pareto distribution with the parameter c=1.1. The
Pareto distribution, which is a kind of power
distribution, is briefly described in Appendix I.

4.B.3-3

Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Simulation Results

Transmission Delay
Average transmission delays on reverse link are
plotted in Figure 4. Average transmission delay on
VHF ACARS increases with number of AIR stations
(#AIR) but saturates up to 20 seconds. VDL2’s plot is
flattened no more than 2 seconds. On the reverse link,
since each AIR has a send queue independently,
generated messages in the queue are few and wait
time for transmission processing is short.

Figure 3. Protocol Model Overview

Table 2. Major Simulation Parameters

Setting Value
Number of AIR 10―200 Figure 4. Average Transmission Delays on
stations Reverse Link
Number of RGS 1―3
stations Average transmission delays on forward link are
plotted in Figure 5. Many huge delays longer than
RGS type independent:
1000 seconds are observed on the both systems. On
Simultaneous squitter
the other hand, partial message transmission delays
transmission or,
from RGS to AIR are 70 seconds at most. This fact
coordinate: Ordered
means that the majority of huge delays occur with
squitter transmission
DSP-RGS. Since the line lag on RGS-DSP is set to
Simulation time 20000 [s]
1.0 second, almost all of the huge delays are queue
Line lag on RGS- 1 [s]
time inside DSP. In other words, a DSP has only one
DSP
transmission queue, which spools all of the messages
Distribution of AIR uniform(1, 660)
and acknowledges (ACK) to any AIR. Therefore, the
message length
huge delays are caused by having many stored
Distribution of AIR pareto(a, 1.1) messages and acknowledges to be processed in the
message generation DSP transmission queue. For example, we can
interval calculate that the expectation of each AIR’s message
Distribution of DSP uniform(1, 660) generation intervals is 1100 seconds from g=100 and
message length #AIR=200. It is equivalent to 5.5 seconds
Distribution of DSP pareto(g, 1.1) (=1100/200) as the expectation of DSP’s message
message generation generation intervals.
interval

4.B.3-4

Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Message Arrival Ratio
The traffic statistics denote messages generated
by sender per unit time; throughput denotes messages
received by receiver per unit time. In this paper, we
define the ratio of the throughput to the traffic as
Message Arrival Ratio (MAR) and we evaluate the
MARs of both protocol models.
The MARs on the reverse link of VHF ACARS
are shown in Figure 6. The increase of #AIR involved
the decrease of MARs: down to about 0.7 under these
conditions. Even though the distribution of message
generation interval per each AIR is invariant,
increasing #AIR causes an increase in communication
traffic and transmission losses. The increase in
Figure 5. Average Transmission Delays on transmission losses was the main reason for the
Forward Link decrease in MARs.
We define a new value, Acceptable Limit of
Averaged Interval (ALAI) Tc as follows.
cg 1
Tc = ⋅
(c − 1) # AIRmax
#AIRmax describes the maximum number of AIR
that satisfies the average transmission delay on
forward link below a threshold. We assumed that the
threshold values were 80 seconds for VHF ACARS
and 20 seconds for VDL2 because these values
correspond to the wait timers for message
retransmission processes.
The calculated Tc s are shown in Table 3. If we
assume a steady operation, it is adequate to consider
that the ALAI for VHF ACARS should be 12.7 Figure 6. Message Arrival Ratios on Reverse Link
seconds and the ALAI for VDL2 should be 2.75
seconds. In other words, if average message Meanwhile, in real operation of VHF ACARS,
generation intervals on the whole network are less the MARs on the reverse link should be 100 percent.
than the ALAI, too many messages and ACKs stay in In our model, messages generated on an AIR are
the queue on DSP. It is extremely heavy traffic, destroyed when the AIR’s retransmission counter
which mostly causes serious transmission delays. exceeds the value described in ARINC specification
618 [1]. However in real operation, attempts are
Table 3. ALAI Evaluations by Transmission Delay made to resend the messages until the application or
avionics on the AIR accept DSP’s ACK. That is the
Protocol g #AIRmax Tc[s] reason why the MARs in real operation achieve 100
M d l 200.0 170 12.9 percent.
VHF
150.0 130 12.7 The MARs of VDL2 in Figure 6 mostly
ACARS
100.0 70 15.7 achieved 100 percent regardless of #AIR. Since the
20.0 60 3.67 transmission bit rate of VDL2 is 13 times higher than
10.0 30 3.67 VHF ACARS, a VDL2 message that has much
VDL2
7.62 30 2.79 shorter occupation times than VHF ACARS seldom
5.0 20 2.75 collided with another message.

4.B.3-5

Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Similarly, we show the results of MARs on the
forward link in Figure 7. The increase of #AIR also
involved the decrease of MARs; however
transmission losses should not be the only reason for
the decline. As described above, all messages
generated on DSP and ACKs for any AIRs are kept
in the queue on DSP. Generally, the more AIRs in the
model, the longer the required staying time. If there
are many queuing messages that haven’t been sent
waiting for a simulation to finish, the unsent
messages are eliminated for throughput calculation
and the MAR decreases.
Figure 7. Message Arrival Ratios on Forward
Link
The MAR threshold acceptable in operation is
not given in any specifications. In this paper, we
assume, as a guide, that the threshold is 0.99, and
then we calculate ALAI from the maximum #AIR
that satisfies beyond the threshold and a parameter g.
The results are shown in Table 4. It can be evaluated
that the ALAI for VHF ACARS should be 11.0
seconds and the ALAI for VDL2 should be 2.75
seconds. In addition, the maximum throughputs are
listed in Table 5.
Table 4. ALAI evaluations by MARs
Protocol g #AIRmax
VHF 150.0 140
ACARS 100.0 100
20.0 80
10.0 40
VDL2
7.62 30
5.0 20
Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Table 5. Maximum Throughputs
Protocol Forward Reverse Link
VHF 900 [bps] 830 [bps]
ACARS
VDL2 1800 [bps] 2000 [bps]
Discussions
Comparison of Simulation Results
Two types of ALAI conducted above have very
close values despite different measurements. The
reason is because MAR correlates strongly with
throughput and the throughput correlates with
transmission delay and simulation time.
From the comparison between VHF ACARS
and VDL2, for example, VDL2 system can process
4.62 (=12.7/2.75) times more message load than VHF
ACARS; these values are ALAI created by
transmission delay. If you prefer to use ALAI created
by MAR, the ratio will be 4.0 (=11.0/2.75). The ratio
doesn’t achieve the transmission bit rate ratio 13.1
(=31500/2400). Meanwhile, the throughput of VDL2
was only 0.0635 times its bit rate (=2000/31500), and
that of VHF ACARS only 0.375 times its bit rate
(=900/2400).
The reason why throughput of VDL2 is better
than that of VHF ACARS but doesn’t achieve ideal
performance is as follows. Both systems are based on
the CSMA scheme, and long messages are divided
into frames with a length of 220 bytes. Therefore,
long continuous transmission is impossible. Since a
frame transmission time of VDL2 is 13.1 times
shorter than VHF ACARS, the probability of frame
collision on VDL2 is much less than on VHF
ACARS with the same message generation. On the
other hand, every station must wait for receipt of
ACK. Therefore, a longer interval until the next
transmission makes throughput and MAR worse.
Result of g=5a Configuration
Tc[s]
11.87 We have used an assumption (g=a) for the
11.0 simulations above. This is a severe condition than
2.75 real operation. Actually, we obtained a result from
real VHF ACARS logs that message sending
2.75
repetition on reverse link was about fivefold on
2.79
forward link [4]; i.e. g=5a. We attempted to do
2.75
another simulation under the assumption (g=5a). The
4.B.3-6
result of evaluation by transmission delay is shown in
Table 6.
Table 6. ALAI Evaluations by Transmission Delay
(condition: g=5a)
Protocol g #AIRmax
VHF 500.0 160
ACARS 250.0 60
50.0 120
VDL2 38.1 90
25.0 70
In VHF ACARS, message generation interval on
DSP is larger than the condition (g=a); e.g. Tc=34.4
is larger than 12.7 (the least VHF ACARS record in
Table 3). On the other hand, the generation interval
on AIR which is comparable to Tc/5 is smaller than
the condition (g=a); e.g. 6.9 (=34.4/5) is smaller than
12.7. This denotes that the message generation rate
on AIR with g=5a can be increased as compared to
g=a. Similarly, in VDL2, message generation rate on
AIR can also be increased. In addition, MAR
received by AIR in both models significantly
improved. The major reasons for this are as follows:
• Since message generation rate on DSP is
suppressed, unsent messages and ACKs in
the DSP queue are reduced.
• Therefore, wait time for transmission is
reduced and ACK sending is easier than
ever.
• Finally, messages unsent until simulation
ends are also reduced.
Under the assumption (g=5a), the ALAI of VHF
ACARS was 8.8 (=34.4/3.9) times as large as that of
VDL2 at the maximum. It means that VDL2 system
has an added advantage compared to VHF ACARS in
the communication traffic environment of near real
operation.
Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have investigated the features
of two VHF datalinks, VHF ACARS and VDL2, and
evaluated certain aspects of communication
performance of these datalinks with numerous
Tc[s] aircraft using a protocol simulator. As a result of that,
34.4 we have found that the VDL2 system can process
45.8 about 4.6 times more congested communication
4.6 traffic than VHF ACARS under the assumption
4.7 (g=a). If another assumption (g=5a) holds, VDL2
3.9 can process about 8.8 times more congested
communication traffic than VHF ACARS.
Some new aeronautical datalinks will appear,
meanwhile VHF ACARS and VDL2 will continue to
be operated worldwide for a while. We hope that the
results are useful for the future operation and
maintenance of the datalinks.
References
[1] ARINC, 2000, Air/Ground Character-oriented
Protocol Specification, VHF ACARS ARINC
specification 618-5, ARINC, Chapter 4.0.
[2] ICAO, 2001, VHF air-ground digital link (VDL),
International Standards and Recommended Practices.
Annex 10, Volume III, Part I, ICAO, Chapter 6.
[3] ICAO, 2001, Manual on VHF Digital Link (VDL)
Mode 2, Doc 9776, ICAO.
[4] KITAORI, J., Y. MATSUKUBO, S. KOZONO, Dec.
2007, Analysis of VHF Aeronautical Mobile
Communications Traffic in Japan, IEICE Technical
Report SANE No.101, IEICE, pp. 37–41.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all staff concerned of
Avicom Japan and the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau
for cooperation in the collection of VHF ACARS
communication logs.
Email Address
Jun Kitaori: jun@enri.go.jp
4.B.3-7
Appendix I If c>1 is satisfied, the expectation of the Pareto
distribution, E(x), can be calculated using the
Pareto distribution is a kind of power law
following formula.
distribution. The probability distribution function of
Pareto distribution is defined with parameter a and c ca
as follows: E ( x) = (c > 1)
c −1
ca c
f ( x) = (a ≤ x < ∞)
x c −1 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference
October 25-29, 2009

4.B.3-8

Authorized licensed use limited to: BEIHANG UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 13,2024 at 00:50:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.