---
title: "R023: C/S R.023 - Issue 1"
description: "Official Cospas-Sarsat R-series document R023"
sidebar:
  badge:
    text: "R"
    variant: "note"
# Extended Cospas-Sarsat metadata
documentId: "R023"
series: "R"
seriesName: "Reports"
documentType: "report"
isLatest: true
documentDate: "February 2018"
originalTitle: "C/S R.023 - Issue 1"
---

> **📋 Document Information**
>
> **Series:** R-Series (Reports)
> **Date:** February 2018
> **Source:** [Cospas-Sarsat Official Documents](https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/documents-pro/system-documents)

---

COSPAS-SARSAT 406-MHz MEOSAR SYSTEM
DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION
PHASE II REPORT
Issue 1


COSPAS-SARSAT 406-MHz MEOSAR SYSTEM
DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION
PHASE II REPORT
HISTORY
Issue
Revision
Date
Comments


Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-59)


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
History

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

1.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1-7
1.1
MEOSAR System Description ...................................................................................1-7
1.2
The Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR Demonstration and Evaluation Plan ...........................1-7
1.3
The Phase II of the Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR D&E ...................................................1-8
1.3.1
Objective of the D&E Phase II ......................................................................1-8
1.3.2
Report of the D&E Phase II ...........................................................................1-8
2.
CONDUCT OF PHASE II AND MEOSAR SYSTEM CONFIGURATION ...............2-1
2.1
Tests Conducted During the Phase II .........................................................................2-1
2.2
Participants in the D&E Phase II ................................................................................2-5
2.3
Configuration of the D&E Phase II ............................................................................2-8
2.3.1
Experimental Space Segment ........................................................................2-8
2.3.2
Experimental Ground Segment ......................................................................2-8
2.3.3
Beacon Simulators and Test Beacons ..........................................................2-10
2.4
Test Coordination .....................................................................................................2-10
2.5
Operational Issues Encountered during the Phase II Testing ...................................2-10
2.6
Data Collection .........................................................................................................2-10
3.
RESULTS OF THE TECHNICAL TESTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................3-1
3.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin) ................................................3-1
3.1.1
Analysis .........................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2
Interpretation ..................................................................................................3-1
3.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference) ...............................................................................3-5
3.2.1
Analysis .........................................................................................................3-5
3.2.2
Interpretation ..................................................................................................3-5
3.3
Test T-3 (Valid/Complete Message Acquisition).......................................................3-6
3.3.1
Analysis .........................................................................................................3-6
3.3.2
Interpretation ..................................................................................................3-7
3.4
Test T-4 (Independent 2D Location Capability) ......................................................3-10
3.4.1
Analysis .......................................................................................................3-10
3.4.2
Interpretation ................................................................................................3-10


3.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons) ..............3-13
3.5.1
Analysis .......................................................................................................3-13
3.5.2
Interpretation ................................................................................................3-14
3.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity) ....................................................................3-18
3.6.1
Analysis .......................................................................................................3-18
3.6.2
Interpretation ................................................................................................3-18
3.7
Test T-4/T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage) ....................................................3-21
3.7.1
Analysis .......................................................................................................3-21
3.7.2
Interpretation ................................................................................................3-22
3.8
Test T-5/T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage) ....................................................3-24
3.8.1
Analysis .......................................................................................................3-24
3.8.2
Interpretation ................................................................................................3-24
4.
RESULTS OF THE OPERATIONAL TESTS AND DISCUSSION ............................4-1
4.1
Expected MEOLUT Configuration and Time Periods ...............................................4-1
4.2
MCC Configuration ....................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1
France ............................................................................................................4-1
4.2.2
Italy ................................................................................................................4-2
4.2.3
Japan ..............................................................................................................4-2
4.2.4
Norway ..........................................................................................................4-3
4.2.5
Spain ..............................................................................................................4-4
4.2.6
USA ...............................................................................................................4-5
4.3
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage ...........................................................................4-6
4.3.1
O-1 Test Result ..............................................................................................4-6
4.3.2
O-1 Test Result Interpretation .....................................................................4-13
4.4
Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to
Existing System .........................................................................................4-20
4.4.1
O-2 Test Result ............................................................................................4-20
4.4.2
O-2 Test Result Interpretation .....................................................................4-27
4.5
Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat
Ground Segment Network .........................................................................4-32
4.5.1
O-3 Test Result ............................................................................................4-32
4.5.2
O-3 Test Result Interpretation .....................................................................4-39
4.6
Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures ...........................................4-42
4.6.1
O-4 Test Result ............................................................................................4-42
4.6.2
O-4 Test Result Interpretation .....................................................................4-45
4.7
Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service .............................................................4-47
4.8
Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the MEOSAR System .......4-48
4.8.1
Incident 1 – Brazil........................................................................................4-49
4.8.2
Incident 2 – New Zealand ............................................................................4-50
4.8.3
Incident 3 – New Zealand ............................................................................4-51


4.8.4
Incident 4 – New Zealand ............................................................................4-52
4.8.5
Incident 5 – Norway ....................................................................................4-53
4.8.6
Incident 6 – New Zealand ............................................................................4-54
4.8.7
Incident 7 – Australia ...................................................................................4-55
4.8.8
Incident 8 – Italy ..........................................................................................4-56
4.8.9
Incident 9 – New Zealand ............................................................................4-57
4.8.10 Incident 10 – Australia .................................................................................4-58
4.8.11 Incident 11 – Australia .................................................................................4-59
4.8.12 Incident 12 – Brazil......................................................................................4-60
4.8.13 Incident 13 – New Zealand ..........................................................................4-61
4.8.14 Incident 14 – Argentina ...............................................................................4-62
4.8.15 Incident 15 – Australia .................................................................................4-64
4.8.16 Incident 16 – New Zealand ..........................................................................4-65
4.8.17 Incident 17 – Australia .................................................................................4-66
4.9
Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution – Impact on Independent
Location Accuracy .....................................................................................4-67
4.9.1
O-7 Test Result ............................................................................................4-67
4.9.2
O-7 Test Result Interpretation .....................................................................4-71
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................5-1
5.1
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin) ...................................5-1
5.1.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference) ..................................................................5-1
5.1.3
Test T-3 (MEOLUT Valid/Complete Message Acquisition) ........................5-1
5.1.4
Test T-4 (Independent Location Capability)..................................................5-2
5.1.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons) ....5-2
5.1.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity) .........................................................5-4
5.1.7
Test T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage) ................................................5-5
5.1.8
Test T-8 (Combined MEO/GEO Operation Performance (Optional)) ..........5-5
5.1.9
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage ..............................................................5-5
5.1.10 Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to
Existing System .............................................................................................5-6
5.1.11 Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the
Cospas-Sarsat Ground Segment Network .....................................................5-6
5.1.12 Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures ................................5-8
5.1.13 Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service ................................................5-10
5.1.14 Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the
MEOSAR System ........................................................................................5-10
5.1.15 Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution – Impact on Independent
Location Accuracy.......................................................................................5-10
5.2
Recommendations for the Conduct of Subsequent D&E Phases .............................5-11
5.2.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin) .................................5-11
5.2.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference) ................................................................5-11
5.2.3
Test T-3 (MEOLUT Valid/Complete Message Acquisition) ......................5-11


5.2.4
Test T-4 (Independent Location Capability)................................................5-11
5.2.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons) ..5-11
5.2.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity) .......................................................5-12
5.2.7
Test T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage) ..............................................5-12
5.2.8
Test T-8 (Combined MEO/GEO Operation Performance (Optional)) ........5-12
5.2.9
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage ............................................................5-12
5.2.10 Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to
Existing System ...........................................................................................5-12
5.2.11 Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the
Cospas-Sarsat Ground Segment Network ...................................................5-12
5.2.12 Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures ..............................5-12
5.2.13 Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service ................................................5-12
5.2.14 Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the
MEOSAR System ........................................................................................5-13
5.2.15 Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution –Impact on Independent
Location Accuracy.......................................................................................5-13
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A  DETAILED LOG OF PHASE II TESTS ................................................................... A-1
ANNEX B  LIST OF ACRONYMS FOR OPERATIONAL TESTS .......................................... B-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The MEOSAR System Concept ..........................................................................................1-7
Figure 2: Phase II Test Planning (as Run) ..........................................................................................2-3
Figure 3: MEOLUTs Involved in Phase II Technical Testing with 3,000 km Radius Circles ...........2-9
Figure 4: Beacon Simulators Used in the MEOSAR D&E Phase II  (MEOSAR Visibility
Circles at Five Degree Elevation) .....................................................................................2-10
Figure 5: Location of the 35 Operational Beacons Deployed for T-5 and T-5/T-7 Phase 2
in April 2015 .....................................................................................................................3-14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Technical Tests, Test Coordinators and Test Reports ...............................................2-1
Table 2: List of Operational Tests, Test Coordinators and Test Reports ............................................2-2
Table 3: Participation in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Technical Tests ...................................................2-6
Table 4: Participation in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Operational Tests ...............................................2-7
Table 5: List of Experimental MEOSAR Satellites Used During the MEOSAR D&E Phase II ........2-8
Table 6: MEOLUTs Participating in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Tests ................................................2-9


DOCUMENT SUMMARY
This document provides the report of Phase II of the Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR Demonstration and
Evaluation (D&E), tests which were conducted from April 2014 to June 2015.
Section 1 provides background on the MEOSAR system and reference material.
Section 2 reviews the planning and conduct of the tests, noting the list of participants, MEOSAR
space and ground assets configuration used during the tests and information of interest on the
coordination of the tests.
Section 3 details, for each D&E technical test the key results and interpretations as provided by each
test participant that contributed to this Report (Canada, France, Russia, Turkey and USA). The
underlying sub-sections were provided under the responsibility of these administrations and,
therefore, were not reviewed nor commonly agreed by the Phase II technical test participants.
Section 4 details, for each D&E operational test the key results and interpretations as provided by
each test participant that contributed to this Report: France, Italy, Norway, Japan, Russia, Spain and
USA. The underlying sub-sections were provided under the responsibility of these administrations
and, therefore, were not reviewed nor commonly agreed by the Phase II operational test participants.
Additionally, the following participants contributed with SAR Reports to the O-6 test: Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Italy, New Zealand and Norway.
Section 5 provides, for each test, the conclusions and recommendations agreed by the Phase II test
participants, as well as general recommendations regarding the implementation of the MEOSAR
system.

1-7

1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
MEOSAR System Description
Figure 1 provides a graphical summary of the MEOSAR concept. This picture shows the relay of
beacon signals, via multiple satellites, to the MEOLUT. Beacon data is processed by the MEOLUT
to derive the beacon locations, and passed onto the MCC, which in turn notifies the RCC.
Figure 1: The MEOSAR System Concept
1.2
The Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR Demonstration and Evaluation Plan
The Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC) has directed that a demonstration and evaluation (D&E) be
performed to confirm the expected capabilities and benefits of a satellite system in medium-altitude
Earth orbit (MEO) that uses onboard repeater instruments to relay distress alert signals emanating
from 406 MHz distress radiobeacons. The CSC further directed that the D&E should establish the
technical and operational performance characteristics of the MEOSAR system.
The framework for the D&E of the MEOSAR system is provided in document C/S R.018 “Cospas-
Sarsat Demonstration and Evaluation Plan for the 406 MHz MEOSAR System”. In particular,
documents provide guidelines for:
•
conducting the D&E of the MEOSAR system in a standard manner among the participants,

1-8

•
collecting a set of results from individual participants, using compatible formats, that can be
consolidated into a final report for review by Cospas-Sarsat participants and other interested
parties,
•
analysing and translating the results into a set of recommendations for a decision by the
Cospas-Sarsat Council to enter the Initial Operational Capability Phase.
Additional resources regarding the MEOSAR system (e.g., space segment information) are available
in document C/S R.012 “Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz MEOSAR Implementation Plan”.
CSC-49 agreed to divide the MEOSAR D&E Phase into three phases:
•
Phase I, during which the participants perform only technical tests,
•
Phase II, during which the participants perform technical and operational tests,
•
Phase III, during which the participants replicate the tests of the Phases I and II, when
satellites with L-band downlinks are widely available.
1.3
The Phase II of the Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR D&E
1.3.1
Objective of the D&E Phase II
In MEOSAR D&E Phase II, participants performed technical and operational tests (see the detailed
definition in document C/S R.018) to characterise the technical and operational performance of the
MEOSAR system. Due to the limited space segment available, some tests had to be coordinated and
the processing be tuned accordingly, in particular capacity tests.
1.3.2
Report of the D&E Phase II
The D&E Phase II report was produced with inputs from the Phase II Test participants where some
of the review and drafting work was achieved by a Correspondence Working Group with the support
of the Secretariat, based on:
•
the reports on the conduct of the technical and operational tests provided by the test
coordinators (see Table 1 and Table 2),
•
contributions from the technical test participants, which provided their interpretation of the
test results (see section 3),
•
contributions from the operational test participants, which provided their interpretation of the
test results (see section 4),
•
agreement among the participants on common conclusions and recommendation for the D&E
Phase II (see section 5).
- END OF SECTION 1 -

2-1

2.
CONDUCT OF PHASE II AND MEOSAR SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
2.1
Tests Conducted During the Phase II
Table 1 and Table 2 provides the list of technical and operational tests planned for the Phase II,
respectively, their completeness status, the participants undertaking the role of test coordinator and
the reference to the test reports written by the test coordinators. The detailed conduct of each test can
be found in the test coordinator’s reports.  Figure 2 provides a Gantt chart of the D&E testing
campaign.
Test
Definition
Run
Status
Test
Coordinator
T-1
Processing Threshold and System
Margin

Completed in February 2015
USA
T-2
Impact of Interference
Records available only for tests T-1, T-3
Run
Canada
T-3
Valid/Complete Message Acquisition

Completed in February and March 2015
France
T-4
Independent 2D Location Capability

Completed in March and April 2015
USA
T-5
Independent 2D Location Capability
for Operational Beacons
-
Completed in March and April 2015
Turkey
T-6
MEOSAR System Capacity

Completed in June 2015
France
T-7
Networked MEOLUT Advantage

Completed in April and May 2015
USA
T-8
Combined MEO/GEO Operation
Performance
-
Discarded
Turkey
Table 1: List of Technical Tests, Test Coordinators and Test Reports

2-2

Test
Definition
Test
Coordinator
Test Report Reference
O-1
Potential Time Advantage
France
Section 4.3 of this report
O-2
Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to
Existing System.
USA
Section 4.4 of this report
O-3
Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat
Ground Segment Network
Spain
JC-29/Inf 28
O-4
406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures
USA
Section 4.6 of this report
O-5
SAR/Galileo Return Link Service
France
(SGDSP)
Test O-5 has been postponed to
Phase III
O-6
Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the MEOSAR
System
Australia
Section 4.8 of this report
O-7
MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution –Impact on Independent
Location Accuracy
USA
Section 4.9 of this report
Table 2: List of Operational Tests, Test Coordinators and Test Reports

2-3

Figure 2: Phase II Test Planning (as Run)

2-5

2.2
Participants in the D&E Phase II
Table 3 provides the participants in each run of technical test, which provided at least raw data as per
Table J.1 of document C/S R.018 or a technical test report. Some participants did not provide
technical test results and/or technical test report. Table 3 also provides the test during which
spectrum of the 406 MHz band was recorded. For test T-5, the participation in test T-5 is identified
either in supplying test beacons or in involving MEOLUTs.

2-6

Test
Definition
Run
T-2: Impact of
Interference
(by Canada)
France
EC/France
Russia
Turkey
USA
Hawaii
Florida
Maryland
T-1
Processing Threshold and System
Margin

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T-3
Valid/Complete Message
Acquisition

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T-4
Independent 2D Location
Capability

X
X
X
X
X
X
T-5
Independent 2D
Location
Capability for
Operational
Beacons
Test beacon

X
X
X
X
MEOLUT
X
X
X
X
T-6
MEOSAR System Capacity

X
X
X
X
T-4/T-7
Networked MEOLUT
Advantage

X
X
X
T-5/T-7
Networked MEOLUT
Advantage

X
X
X
Table 3: Participation in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Technical Tests

2-7

Table 4 provides the participants in each run of operational tests, which provided raw data using the O-test spreadsheet described in
section 5 of document C/S R.018, or have provided reports to be included in the O-6 section.
Test
Definition
Period
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
France
Italy
Japan
New
Zealand
Norway
Spain
USA
O-1
Potential Time Advantage

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
O-2
Unique Detections by MEOSAR System
as Compared to Existing System

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
O-3
Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert
Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat Ground
Segment Network

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
O-4
406 MHz Alert Data Distribution
Procedures

X

X
X
O-5
SAR/Galileo Return Link Service


O-6
Evaluation of Direct and Indirect
Benefits of the MEOSAR System


X
X
X
X
X
X
O-7
MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution –
Impact on Independent Location
Accuracy

X

X
X
Table 4: Participation in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Operational Tests

2-8

2.3
Configuration of the D&E Phase II
2.3.1
Experimental Space Segment
Table 5 provides the list of experimental MEOSAR satellites available for testing during MEOSAR
D&E Phase II.
MEOSAR
Constellation
Satellite
(C/S ID)
Satellite availability status for Phase I or launch date
DASS (GPS-II)

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available subsequent to launch on 4 October 2012

Available subsequent to launch on 15 May 2013

Available subsequent to launch on 21 February 2014

Available subsequent to launch on 15 May 2014

Available subsequent to launch on 2 August 2014

Available subsequent to launch on 29 October 2014
Galileo

Available for testing from January 2015 (without ephemeris)

Available for testing from March 2013

Available for testing from March 2013 (without ephemeris)
Glonass

Available with limitations (no ephemeris data available)

Available with limitations (no ephemeris data available)
Table 5: List of Experimental MEOSAR Satellites Used
During the MEOSAR D&E Phase II
2.3.2
Experimental Ground Segment
The ground segment equipment in place for the Phase II of the MEOSAR D&E consisted of
experimental MEOLUTs located in Brazil, Cyprus, Canada, France, Norway, Russia, Spain, Turkey,
the UK and the USA. Table 6 provides the MEOLUTs available for testing, their number of
antennas, their software configuration and their availability (note that some participants may have
experienced unexpected down periods for some channels, thus limiting their participation in
particular tests; see the Test Coordinators reports for more detail).

2-9

Country/
Organisation
Location
Number of
Antennas
Configuration
Available for
D&E testing since
Brazil
Brasilia

[to be completed]

Canada
Ottawa

HGT MEOLUT 600
Spectrum Monitoring Only

Cyprus
Larnaca

HGT MEOLUT600 LP v2.0 / SP v2.0 / FP v2.0

France
Toulouse

HGT MEOLUT600 LP v1.7b / SP v1.5 / FP v1.5

Norway
Svalbard

HGT MEOLUT600 LP v2.0 / SP v2.0 / FP v2.0

Russia
Moscow

4 antennas
(for more information see relevant sections of
test reports)

Spain
Maspalomas

HGT MEOLUT600 LP v2.0 / SP v2.0 / FP v2.0

Turkey
Ankara

6-channel (1-2-4-5-6-7)
HGT MEOLUT600 LP v1.8 / SP v1.8 / FP v1.8

USA
Florida

McMurdo MEOLUT v1.0

Hawaii

McMurdo MEOLUT v1.0

Maryland

McMurdo MEOLUT v1.0

Table 6: MEOLUTs Participating in MEOSAR D&E Phase II Tests
Figure 3: MEOLUTs Involved in Phase II Technical Testing with 3,000 km Radius Circles

2-10

2.3.3
Beacon Simulators and Test Beacons
Four beacon simulators were used during the Phase II testing, located in Florida, Hawaii and
Maryland, USA and Toulouse, France. After each test, the beacon log files were provided by each
administration providing beacon simulators.
Figure 4: Beacon Simulators Used in the MEOSAR D&E Phase II
(MEOSAR Visibility Circles at Five Degree Elevation)
2.4
Test Coordination
A smooth progression of the D&E planning and tests has been observed thanks to the active
participation of the Test Coordinators and Test Participants.  No formal D&E test had to be
postponed or re-scheduled due to a coordination issue.
However, a dry-run test encountered some difficulty because of the work simultaneously being
performed by the Galileo Programme. In addition to this particular case, other tests had been planned
by Test Participants at times similar to those of SAR/Galileo commissioning tests, requiring an active
coordination between France and EC/ESA in order to avoid the simultaneous transmission of beacon
signals.
2.5
Operational Issues Encountered during the Phase II Testing
No operational issue was encountered during the conduct of the Phase II tests.
2.6
Data Collection
For the technical tests, the participants collected the following data:
•
beacon simulator log data to collect the beacon IDs transmitted (if applicable),

2-11

•
MEOLUT raw data as per csv format defined in Table J.1 of document C/S R.018,
•
MEOLUT location data as per csv format defined in Table J.2 of document C/S R.018,
•
MEOLUT pass schedule data as per csv format defined in Table J.3 of document C/S R.018.
For the operational tests, the participants collected raw data from the MEOSAR-ready MCCs as
requested in section 5 of document C/S R.018. Then participants used the spreadsheet provided in
order to produce the operational test tables needed for the analyses presented in this report.
All the data provided by the test participants were saved on the MEOSAR D&E FTP server.
- END OF SECTION 2 -

3-1

3.
RESULTS OF THE TECHNICAL TESTS AND DISCUSSION
The following sections provide, for each test:
•
references to the test participant’s reports presenting the results of the MEOSAR D&E
tests conducted during the Phase I testing,
•
a summary of the interpretation of the test analyses, as provided by each administration.
3.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin)
3.1.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
“C/S D&E Phase 2 T-1 Test Report - Processing Threshold and System Margin”,
SAR-RE-DEMEO-911-CNES\_01\_01
Russia
T-1 Run-1 Test Participant report\_Russia.pdf
Turkey
T-1 Phase 2 TRMEO Report v1 - 20.12.2015.doc
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T1 Run01- ver2 03 June 2015
TG-3/2015/Inf.14 - Maryland MEOLUT Results for Tests T-1, T-3, and T-4
T1 USA Florida MEOLUT Report rev1.0 22 May 2015
T1 USA Hawaii MEOLUT Report rev1.0 22 May 2015
3.1.2
Interpretation
3.1.2.1 France
The configuration of the L-Band Space Segment was not improved since Phase I, which implies
the L-Band satellites analysis was still very limited.
Regarding the automatic pass-schedule processing, the MEOLUT antennas track sometimes less
than 4 satellites even if 4 or more satellites are in visibility conditions. This leads us to the
conclusion that the optimization algorithm for computing the tracking plan of the French
MEOLUT is not performant enough to provide coherent satellite tracking and this fact is
degrading both detections and locations of the ground station.
The following summarizes the results obtained for Phase I and Phase II.

3-2

Phase I
Phase II
Toulouse
Run1
Toulouse
Run2
Maryland
Run1
Maryland
Run2
Toulouse
Run1
Maryland
Run1
Florida
Run1
Number of single satellite channels


Mean throughput probability of valid
message at 37 dBm (%)


Mean throughput probability of complete
message at 37 dBm (%)


Percentage of single satellite channels for
which the system margin is defined (valid
messages) (%)


Percentage of Single Satellite channels for
which the system margin is defined
(complete messages) (%)


Test T-1 Phase I and Phase II Results Summary
As observed during Phase I Run2, the throughput probability curves are strongly jagged, probably
due to a frequency sweeping radar with a pulse period equal to 200 ms. The new parameter
setting (from 0 to 2) of the bit error tolerance on bits 1 to 15 does not improve significantly the
results. Consequently, we assume that many messages are out-filtered before the decoding
process. This issue reduces both detection performances and location performances.
Valid Message Probability vs Antenna Number -  Toulouse Transmission
In almost all the single satellite channel cases, the system margin value is undefined because the
throughput detection probability never reaches the criteria of 70%. Consequently, it is not
possible to determine a significant value representing the MEOSAR system margin.

3-3

The detection performance is improved using multi-antennas combination and a margin above the
70% threshold was achieved when at least two antennas were used.
The throughput probabilities computed from the Maryland and Florida transmissions at the
nominal power were better than the results obtained from the Toulouse transmission.
At beacon level, the antenna pattern null at high elevation angle is a system limitation which was
observed for both Phase I and Phase II runs.
As observed during Phase I Runs, an important gap between the throughput probability of valid
and complete messages was observed even if the SP software version was updated. We can note
that this issue is fixed on the SP software version of the European MEOLUTs.
The probability to detect processing anomaly was around 14.3·10-4 (requirement: 10-4) during
Toulouse transmission. This high value seems to be due to the low transmission power of most of
the bursts. No processing anomaly was detected from 2 or more satellites but 1 anomaly was
detected by 2 antennas which tracked the same satellite. All the processing anomalies correspond
to 2-bit errors on the field PDF1/BCH1.
3.1.2.2 Russia
The interpretation of results of the test indicated that the Processing Threshold in a standalone
MEOLUT analysis varied from 22 to 28 dBm and System Margin therefore ranged from 9 up to
15 dB and was subject to number of antennas and beacon simulator locations.
With respect to a single-satellite channel statistics, the System Margin varied from 8 to 15 dB and
more. In several cases the anomalous values of less than 7 dB were observed. The additional
analysis of a Toulouse beacon emission showed that after including the antenna gain variation
information into account factors adversely affecting the Processing Threshold were:
•
Interferences, that might temporarily or fully block the reception at a MEOLUT by
overlapping with the beacon signal in frequency and time;
•
Drop-off of the C/N0 values that triggered the reception of invalid messages in the
MEOLUT signal processor in the range of 270˚-310˚ azimuth degrees and 5˚-60˚
elevation degrees, where the effective beacon EIRP was less than expected possibly due
to unknown reduction of the antenna gain value, presence of local obstructions or out-of-
band interferences that could break in the GPS satellite repeater band (S-band repeater).
The investigation of anomalous occurrences in USA-based transmissions was not conducted as
the beacon antenna gain patterns for USA beacon simulators was not available at the time of
writing of the report.
3.1.2.3 Turkey
For the Toulouse transmission of 3-4 February 2015, the 6-channel Ankara MEOLUT reached
the 70% system throughput threshold aimed by test T-1 at 26 dBm for valid messages and at 28
dBm for complete messages with corresponding average C/No values of 34.2 dB-Hz and 35.1
dB-Hz respectively.

3-4

Taking the valid messages into consideration, the results seemed to indicate a processing
threshold of 26 dBm and a system margin of 11 dB. When complete messages were considered,
the processing threshold became 28 dBm whereas the system margin decreased to 9 dB.
3.1.2.4 USA
Single Channel (i.e., a single satellite through a single antenna) results were provided to the
MEOSAR D&E FTP server, but not repeated in the Maryland Participant Report because they
vary considerably due to the following factors. They are affected by the beacon EIRP in the
direction of the satellite, which is a combination of the transmit power, the antenna pattern, and
any ground blockage. They are also affected by the amount of noise reaching the satellite’s
receive antenna along with the beacon signal. This noise varies but seems to have different
characteristics based on the portion of the globe covered by the receive antenna. Therefore, single
channel results are not all the same but vary as these variables change for a given satellite pass.
For instance, a satellite pass that does not pass through the null of the beacon’s antenna pattern
will produce better results than one that does.
Multi-channel results (from the Maryland MEOLUT with four antennas) from the Maryland and
Florida beacon simulators show that beacons that transmit at the minimum allowable power
(35 dBm) and are within reasonable proximity to the Maryland MEOLUT have a greater than
77% probability of recovering a valid message on a single burst. The threshold for recovering a
valid message on a single burst of 70% is achieved at a beacon transmit power of 30 dBm for the
Maryland beacon simulator and 33 dBm for the Florida beacon simulator.
Even beacons transmissions from Hawaii show that for a beacon that transmit at the minimum
allowable power (35 dBm) and are at great distances away from the MEOLUT (7,780 km), the
probability of recovering a valid message on a single burst is 68%.

3-5

3.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference)
3.2.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
Canada
JC-31/10/3
3.2.2
Interpretation
3.2.2.1 Canada
Due to the Canadian MEOLUT at Shirley’s Bay not being operational for the majority of the
MEOSAR D&E Phase II, spectrum monitoring files were only available for tests T-1 and T-3 and
these were made available on the MEOSAR D&E FTP server.  Unlike during Phase I testing,
little use of the plots was made by other D&E participants, most likely due to the fact that tests T-
1 and T-3, being single channel tests, did not yield significantly different results from Phase I –
with one exception.  As described at TG-3/2015/Inf.1 – Corr.1, when T-testing is performed
coincidental with CTEC B.8 Testing (Translation and Transmitter Frequencies) interference will
likely be observed on any channels tracking satellites with CTEC in their footprint.  The B.8
transmission is in the upper half of the band, and does not interfere with operational beacons,
however, in one case it did impact reception of T3 test transmissions.
The figure below provides an example of the interference which was observed.

3-6

Strong Interferences During T-3 Test on 5 March 2015 – observed at French MEOLUT
3.3
Test T-3 (Valid/Complete Message Acquisition)
3.3.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
MEOSAR D&E Phase 2 Test T-3 REPORT - Valid/Complete Message Acquisition
SAR-RE-DEMEO-913-CNES\_01\_01
Russia
T-3 Run-1 Test Participant report\_Russia.pdf
Turkey
T-3 Phase 2 TRMEO Report v1 - 13.12.2015.doc
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T3 Run01-26 May 2015
TG-3/2015/Inf.14 - Maryland MEOLUT Results for Tests T-1, T-3, and T-4
T-3 USA Florida MEOLUT Report rev 1.0 22 May 2015
T-3 USA Hawaii MEOLUT Report rev 1.0 22 May 2015
37 dBm Bursts
33 dBm Bursts

3-7

3.3.2
Interpretation
3.3.2.1 France
For Toulouse transmission, the valid message detection probability within 10 minutes is
consistent with the document C/S R.012 requirement (> 99% within 10 minutes) at nominal
power 37 dBm. However, a 16 hours period was impacted by a MEOLUT software breakdown,
so the 24h coverage was not fully studied.
For US-Maryland transmission, the detection probability was degraded due to the less favourable
co-visibility conditions, as Phase I modified test. The detection probability within 10 minutes,
averaged over all 37 dBm slots, is equal to 89%. This value is not enough to consider that the
standalone French MEOLUT achieves to cover a 6,000 km radius area in term of message
detection. However, this objective should be achieved if the automatic pass schedule computation
is improved to track the maximum number of satellites.
For US-Florida transmission, the results are similar to the ones from US-Maryland transmission.
The detection probability within 10 minutes, averaged over all 37 dBm slots, is equal to 85%.
This lower value is explained by the larger beacon-MEOLUT distance (7,400 km).
The satellite segment coverage was globally satisfactory in term of message detection because
one or more satellites were in co-visibility over 24 hours for all transmissions. The future L-band
satellite deployment should improve the message detection performances thanks to a better link
budget and an increase of number of satellites in co-visibility.
Mean Detection Probability within X Minutes (slots 1-6 and 39-48) - Toulouse Transmission
The probability to detect processing anomaly was around 3.1x10-4 during Toulouse transmission.
No anomaly was detected from 2 or more satellites. All the anomalies correspond to 2-bit errors
on the field PDF1/BCH1. We also observe that the C/N0 range of the processing anomalies is
large.

3-8

3.3.2.2 Russia
The interpretation of results of the test indicated that the probability of detection of at least one
Valid/Complete Message at the MEOLUT for the beacon simulators ID = 2 and 4 (Maryland and
Florida) was 100% after 13 transmitted bursts (within 10 minutes after beacon activation) and
100% in after two transmitted bursts (within 2 minutes after beacon activation) for beacon
simulator ID=1 (Toulouse) for all considered slots and beacon emission power values.
With respect to transmission of beacon simulator ID=3 (Hawaii) the probability of detection of at
least one Valid/Complete Message at the MEOLUT was greater than 70% after seven transmitted
bursts for both 33 dBm and 37 dBm values of beacon emission power. Furthermore, it was noted
that the probability values for most of the slots did not keep increasing over time as it would be
expected but rather reached their maximum values and became flat. It was noted from the
analysis of this behavior that in every slot independently of the beacon emission power a few
beacon events had a very scanty throughput (0 to 2 bursts per antenna). The beacon events had
the following serial numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 28, 30, 32 and 34 (or YYY in the beacon hex ID
9C9D000YYYD00XX). Further investigation has indicated that all beacon events with those
serial numbers were emitted at 406.07 MHz frequency, while the signal processor software was
configured to support beacon burst integration only at 406.064 ± 0.0025 MHz. A detailed
investigation was not undertaken at this time with the view to have more results to analyze after
emission from Hawaii was repeated.
3.3.2.3 Turkey
For the Toulouse transmission of 4-5 March 2015, the valid message average detection
probability of the Ankara MEOLUT increased from 96% (resp. 99%) for 1 burst to 100% (resp.
100%) for 5+ bursts (resp. for 2+ bursts) for a beacon transmission power of 37 dBm (resp. 33
dBm). The Ankara MEOLUT complete message average detection probability increased from
95% (resp. 98%) for 1 burst to 100% (resp. 100%) for 5+ bursts (resp. for 2+ bursts) for a beacon
transmission power of 37 dBm (resp. 33 dBm). Valid (resp. complete) message transfer times of
8.6 seconds (resp. 10.7 seconds) were obtained at 37 dBm, and valid (resp. complete) message
transfer times of 5.3 seconds (resp. 5.6 seconds) were obtained at 33 dBm.
The results seemed to indicate that average detection probabilities improved, as expected, with
the number of transmitted bursts. However, the expected correlation with the beacon transmission
power (i.e., higher detection rates and shorter message transfer times for higher beacon
transmission power) was not observed.
3.3.2.4 USA-Maryland
The following charts summarize the results from the Maryland MEOLUT over the entire 24-hour
period of transmission from each beacon simulator. One chart is included for each beacon power
level.
Note that the Maryland simulator did not transmit during the first 11 minutes of the test, which
corresponds to the first 25 beacon ID’s of slot1.  However, we didn’t compensate for this in our
results.

3-9

The results demonstrate that the MEOSAR system is an excellent detector of beacon
transmissions.
Results from the Maryland and Florida beacon simulators show that beacons that transmit at
nominal power (37 dBm) and are within reasonable proximity to the Maryland MEOLUT have a
greater than 89% probability of detection on a single burst. Of course, after five minutes this
improves to over 98%.

3-10

Even at the other extreme of conditions, beacons transmissions from Hawaii show that for a
beacon well below the minimum allowable transmit power (33 dBm) and at great distances away
from the MEOLUT (7,780 km), the probability of detecting a beacon after a single burst is 60%
and improves to 90% after ten minutes.
3.4
Test T-4 (Independent 2D Location Capability)
3.4.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
“MEOSAR D&E Phase II Test T-4 Report - Independent 2D Location Capability”
SAR-RE-DEMEO-916-CNES\_01\_01
Russia
T-4 Run-1 Test Participant report\_Russia.pdf
Turkey
Data results files were uploaded to the FTP site.
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T4 Run01v2 –Maryland 10 June 2015
T4 Hawaii MEOLUT Report Rev1.0 22 May 2015
T4 Florida MEOLUT Report Rev1.0 22 May 2015
CSC-55/OPN/Inf.11 USA Florida MEOLUT results 30 November 2015
JC-29/Inf.46 USA Florida & Hawaii MEOLUT status 5 September 2015
3.4.2
Interpretation
3.4.2.1 France
The location probability within 10 min is not consistent with the document C/S R.012
requirement for Toulouse, Maryland and Florida transmissions. To achieve this requirement, it
seems necessary to improve the French MEOLUT software in terms of pass-schedule
computation, mono-channel throughput probability and location processing time. Moreover, the
multi-burst location algorithm needs to be upgraded, to take into account measurements from
several successive bursts and not only perform an average of successive single burst locations.
The location accuracy requirement (95% within 5 km) is quasi achieved by the locations
computed through 4 satellites during Toulouse transmission (93.2% within 5 km).
The number of satellites to compute the location is the main parameter in term of location
accuracy in the coverage area.
The location accuracy is slightly improved by the number of bursts used to compute the location,
but this is not verified for all cases.

3-11

Mean Location Probability within X Minutes – Toulouse Transmission
Cumulative Distribution of Location Errors Depending on the Number of Satellites Used to Compute Location
37 dBm – Toulouse Transmission
The probability to detect a processing anomaly was around 2∙10-4 during Toulouse transmission.
No anomaly was detected from 2 or more satellites. Most of the anomalies correspond to 2-bit
errors on the field PDF1/BCH1.

3-12

3.4.2.2 Russia
The interpretation of results of the test T-4 run1 can be summarized as follows:
•
the probability of producing an independent location was 0.99-1.0 after 13 bursts
(10 minutes). This exceeds the MEOSAR requirement of 0.98 probability within
10 minutes from a first beacon burst transmission;
•
the location accuracy was 1-1.5 km within 10 minutes from a first beacon burst
transmission in 95% of the cases which is up to 3 times better than a requirement (5 km).
•
average time to produce a location with errors less than 5 km was within 28-136 seconds
from a first beacon burst transmission.
•
no dependence of location and probability performance on the beacon simulator power
modes (33 and 37 dBm) was noted; and
•
a few anomalies in location performance were observed and caused:
•
mostly by poor satellite geometry (and, therefore, indicated by deviated JDOP
value); and
•
by lack of bursts or low C/N0 values of detected bursts possibly caused by high
elevation angles between beacon simulator and a satellite or reductions in beacon
simulator EIRP in a direction of a satellite caused by other factors.
3.4.2.3 USA
Maryland experienced a simulator problem during the execution of the test using the Maryland
Simulator. The initial run stopped prematurely requiring the transmission to be restarted.
Therefore, the Maryland simulator transmitted twice, run 1a and 1b.  The first transmission began
as planned but stopped prematurely because of a simulator issue.  The second transmission ran
for 24 hours.
In addition, the Maryland MEOLUT experienced antenna problems during the transmissions
from the Maryland simulator requiring the selection of data from two non-contiguous periods of
time. Therefore, the Maryland J.1 24-hour raw data file is data combined from two periods of
time - March 24 17:00 to March 24 24:00 UTC (7 hours) and March 25 12:00 to March 26
05:00 UTC (17 hours).  These time periods were selected because Maryland experienced antenna
problems at the later ends of each Maryland simulator transmission.
Summary of Maryland MEOLUT results from Maryland Simulator
Parameter
Tx Power
13 bursts
7 bursts
5 bursts
3 bursts
2 bursts
1 bursts
Independent Location
Probability (%)

98.83
94.17
90.83
81.04
82.09
67.83

98.78
95.83
93.00
89.39
83.48
68.70
Independent Location
Probability for errors
less than 5 km (%)

88.83
83.00
75.83
66.61
59.30
48.70

93.22
86.50
79.67
70.96
61.57
45.57
Independent Location
Errors 95th Percentile
(km)

5.55
6.91
7.69
13.25
10.98
10.80

4.75
6.66
6.80
9.19
10.76
12.31

3-13

For the Maryland results from the Maryland Simulator, after ten minutes (13 bursts), we are very
close to expectations even for the low power transmission. For single burst results, the
probabilities are much lower but the errors are well bounded. The expectation is that all
probabilities will improve when more operational L-band satellites are available because of their
stronger link performance.
3.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons)
3.5.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
Australia
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
EU
France
“MEODAR D&E Phase II T-5 Test Report: Independent 2D Location Capability for
Operational Beacons”
SAR-RE-DEMEO-940-CNES\_01\_00
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
Italy
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
Norway
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
Russia
T-5 Run-1 Test Participant report\_Russia.pdf, available on the FTP server
Turkey
T-5 Phase 2 TRMEO Report v1 - 11.08.2015.pdf
T-5 Phase2 Turkey Beacon Deployment Report - 10.08.2015.pdf
T-5 Phase2 Beacon Deployment Report - consolidated v2 - 20.08.2015.pdf
UK
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T5 and with T7 Networking – 8 September 2015
JC-29/Inf.38 Maryland MEOLUT Results for T5, T5/T7 and T6
Beacon deployment report (see annex of the Beacon Deployment Report, Rev.1, dated 10
August 2015, consolidated by the test coordinator)
Figure 5 below provides the locations of the test beacons used for test T-5. More details on the
beacon models, beacon features and their 24-hour activation periods are available in the Beacon
Deployment Report (T-5 Phase2 Beacon Deployment Report - consolidated v2 - 20.08.2015.pdf)
consolidated by the test coordinator from test participants’ reports.

3-14

Figure 5: Location of the 35 Operational Beacons Deployed for T-5 and T-5/T-7 Phase 2 in April 2015
3.5.2
Interpretation
3.5.2.1 France
Up to 22 MEOSAR satellites (17 GPS, 3 Galileo and 2 Glonass) were configured for tracking.
The system throughput was measured between 70% and 85% for beacons located less than
8,000 km away from the MEOLUT (except for beacons located in Scotland, and in North-East
America, probably due to a low EIRP). System throughput increased to 98 % for beacons being
located less than 1,500 km away from the MEOLUT (except for Toulouse-France beacon).
The results also show that the L-band satellites generally improved the link budget in terms of
C/N0 at MEOLUT level in comparison with the DASS S-band satellites (about 4 dB higher).
It can also be noticed that some beacons were received from GPS-DASS below the threshold of
34.8 dB.Hz which could explain the lower system throughput.
Regarding the location probability, for beacons located less than 3,000 km away from the
MEOLUT, due to large variations in channel throughput, the probability of location extended
from 0% to 80%, depending on beacons. Even for the “best” beacons, the results were far from
the requirement of 98% within 10 min or 90% within 2 min.
Regarding location accuracy, the main factor is the number of satellites used for the location
process. A significant improvement from three to four satellites can be observed. The best result
is 95 % within 8 km for locations derived from four satellites. The location accuracy requirement
(95% within 5 km) was still not met in this case. The main limitation was that most of locations
are produced with only three satellites, and using a single burst location averaging method.

3-15

Average C/N0 for Beacons Detections (less than 3,000 km away)
Location Accuracy Cumulative Distribution vs. the Number of Satellites Used
(for Beacons Less than 3,000 km Away)
These results on operational beacons showed that the French MEOLUT is below expectations for
location performances (probability and accuracy) with operational beacons.

3-16

3.5.2.2 Turkey
The Ankara MEOLUT exclusively tracked the 16 DASS satellites that were available at the time
of the T-5 Phase II tests.
Regarding the detection of activated beacons, 33 out of the 35 beacons deployed were detected by
the Ankara MEOLUT during test T-5, the remaining two beacons at Papeete, French Polynesia
being located too far away from the MEOLUT. Fourteen of the 33 beacons detected were located
more than 7,000 km away from the TRMEO, thus confirming the detection benefit of the
MEOSAR system, even with a limited MEOSAR space segment.
Regarding the System Throughput (i.e., probability of burst detection with at least one satellite),
on average around 85% of the transmitted bursts were detected, increasing to 98% for beacons in
the immediate vicinity of the MEOLUT, a significant improvement over the Phase I System
Throughput results. Concerning the detection of bursts by multiple channels, only 21.1% of the
detected bursts were detected over the three days of week 1 tests through at least four satellites,
and 47.7% through at least three satellites, a significant improvement, again, over the Phase I
results even though still a concern from a location probability viewpoint.
Location probability was roughly in the 80% - 90% range for the beacons in the geographic
region of the Ankara MEOLUT (a circle with a radius of 3,500 km centred at the MEOLUT).
Location accuracy was, as expected, better within the aforementioned geographic region around
the MEOLUT, with a 50th percentile (i.e., median value) of 1 km and a 75th percentile of 2 to
3 km. However, at its 95th percentile, the location accuracy went up to the 5 to 15 km range and
sometimes beyond that range. In addition, the following observations were made:
•
No significant improvement was noticed due to the integration of up to 7 bursts. In
general, single-burst locations were almost as accurate as multi-burst locations (it was
later discovered, after the end of the T-5 Phase II test, which TRMEO was configured for
single-burst processing and averaging of single-burst locations only; the configuration
was since modified to include multi-burst processing in addition to single-burst
processing).
•
The number of satellites used in the calculation of a location seemed to be the most
significant factor determining location accuracy.
4+ satellite locations did meet the “less than 5 km 90% of the time” criterion whereas 3+ satellite
locations did not meet that criterion.
Consequently, Turkey anticipated the definition of “nominal locations” as those locations derived
from bursts obtained from four or more satellites, and “marginal locations” as those locations
derived from bursts obtained from three or fewer satellites, possibly with the use, as well, of the
DOP value in those definitions, pointing out the potential necessity for MEOLUT networking in
the real world.
If the current detection rates were not significantly improved by the future L-band satellites, four-
channel MEOLUTs might have difficulties in systematically generating locations derived from
four satellites.

3-17

Turkey recommended that the following parameters be noted and taken into account in the
ongoing work on MEOLUT Performance Specifications and Design Guidelines:
•
impact on location accuracy of the number of satellites used to calculate a location,
•
concept of “nominal” and “marginal” locations.
3.5.2.3 Russia
The interpretation of results of the test indicated that the probability of detection of valid
messages (throughput) by the MEOLUT was within 0.99 -1.0 for most of the considered beacons.
One beacon located almost 10,000 km away from the MEOLUT was received with throughput
value of 0.55. An investigation in relation to this beacon was not conducted, however, it was
noted that the lower values of throughput might be caused by:
•
satellite geometry (the beacon was not seen by more than one antenna most of the time);
and
•
possible local obstructions (the elevation angles ranged between 0˚ - 20˚ for the most part
of the visibility zone);
MEOSAR system requirement introduced in Annex E of document C/S R.012 on independent
location accuracy to be produced within 10 minutes timeframe in 95% of the time (5 km):
•
was met for all static beacon transmissions (28 out of 29) located within 3,000 km from
the MEOLUT with error less than 3 km; and
•
was not met for a Norway beacon when moved (error = 7.42 km) located within 3,000 km
from the MEOLUT.
A derivation from MEOSAR system requirement on independent location probability to be
produced within 10 minutes timeframe with errors less than 5 km (0.93):
•
was met for 26 out of 29 beacon transmissions located within 3,000 km from the
MEOLUT; and
•
was not met for a Norway beacon when moved (P = 0.85) and for two Turkish beacons
(P=0.92), all located within 3,000 km from the MEOLUT.
MEOSAR system requirement introduced in Annex E of document C/S R.012 on independent
location probability to be produced within 10 minutes timeframe (0.98):
•
was met for 26 out of 29 beacon transmissions located within 3,000 km from the
MEOLUT; and
•
was not met for one UK beacon (P=0.95) and two Turkish beacon transmissions (P=0.94
and P=0.95), all located within 3,000 km from the MEOLUT.
Accurate localization of moving first generation beacons in MEOSAR is possible if FOA
measurements from six or more satellites are used. To this end, addition of another two antennas
to Moscow MEOLUT is currently under consideration.  Meanwhile, Russia is implementing
means of determining whether the beacon was static or not during transmission to ensure
locations with better accuracy.

3-18

3.5.2.4 USA
Single burst throughput is reasonable although not all beacon activations meet expectations.
Location results seem to vary in a non-predictable way that is difficult to summarize. Some
results are within expectation and some are not.
Because of the nature of the test, it is not possible to investigating the underlying causes of the
fluctuations in performance. Sometimes beacons in the same location provide different results.
This is complicated by the fact that MEOLUT hardware issues impacted the results from the
beacon activations of the most interest.
Further testing with commercial beacons may be necessary in order to collect the deployment
information necessary to better evaluate the results.
3.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity)
3.6.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
MEOSAR D&E Phase 2Test T-6 Report - MEOSAR System Capacity
SAR-RE-DEMEO-930-CNES\_01\_01
Russia
T-6 Run-1 Test Participant report\_Russia.pdf, available on the FTP server
Turkey
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T6 Run01-08 September 2015
JC-29/Inf.38 Maryland MEOLUT Results for T5, T5/T7 and T6
3.6.2
Interpretation
3.6.2.1 France
The analysis was mainly focused on the French MEOLUT results obtained during the French
simulator transmission as the space segment conditions of the document C/S R.018 were not
fulfilled for the Maryland transmission.
The results did not permit to characterize accurately the MEOSAR System Capacity as the
maximum number of simultaneous beacons is most likely higher than NB=200. Indeed, the
expected performance drop-off with the system saturation has never occurred.
The system throughput performance shows a slight influence of number NB, but the other
analyses on time to first message, or location probability/accuracy show no particular correlation
with this number.

3-19

Valid/Complete Message Detection Probability for Capacity Testing - Toulouse Transmission
Independent Location Probability - Toulouse Transmission
The probability to detect a processing anomaly was around 0.53x10-4 (requirement: 10-4) during
Toulouse transmission. No anomaly was detected from two or more satellites. All the processing
anomalies correspond to 2-bit errors on the field PDF1/BCH1. We also observe that the C/N0
range of the anomalies is large.

3-20

3.6.2.2 Russia
The results on System capacity using the MEOLUT throughput performance for both Toulouse
and Maryland transmissions indicated that:
•
if compared against the MIP requirement for detection probability the threshold of 99%
was not crossed even for a traffic load representing 200 operational beacons within
350 seconds. The System Capacity in a detection probability domain was, therefore, more
than 200 beacons, and
•
if a throughput criteria was assumed the MEOLUT throughput of 70% was reached in the
zone between 150 and 200 simultaneous beacons.
The results on System Capacity using the MEOLUT location performance for both Toulouse and
Maryland transmissions showed that no curve drop-off was identified, assuming that the value of
System Capacity was 200 beacons or more.
3.6.2.3 USA
Throughput Performance:
Probability of a Valid Message as a Function of Time for Different Values of NB
Location Performance:
Note: Only seven bursts are transmitted and available to generate the composite locations

3-21

Probabilities of any Single Burst and Composite Locations and
the Probabilities that those Locations are Less than 5 km.
The probability of generating a valid or complete message within 5 minutes after beacon
activation is 100% for at least 100 simultaneous beacons.
Single burst location probability suffers most as the number of simultaneous beacons increases
but the accuracy of those locations seems to remain fairly consistent.
The probability of generating a location five minutes after beacon activation remains fairly
consistent until the number of simultaneous beacons is between 75 and 100. Similarly, the
accuracy of those locations remains fairly consistent until then as well.
Based on this data from the four channel Maryland MEOLUT, it appears that the beacon capacity
is near 100 simultaneous beacons. However, it is reasonable to expect this value to improve with
additional antennas, which will be investigated during future testing. In addition, locations that
are generated ten minutes after beacon activation rather than the currently tested five minutes
would also likely improve results.
3.7
Test T-4/T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage)
3.7.1
Analysis
Administration
Test report reference
EC/France
MEOSAR D&E Phase 2 Test T-4/T-7 Report - Independent 2D Location Capability in
Networked Mode
SAR-RE-DEMEO-922-CNES\_01\_00
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T-4/ T-7 09 June 2016

3-22

3.7.2
Interpretation
3.7.2.1 USA
The table below is a summary of the results collected for the Maryland MEOLUT using the
Maryland simulator.
Parameter
Tx Power
13 burst
7 burst
5 burst
3 burst
2 burst
1 burst
Independent Location
Probability (%) Any

70.00
54.83
54.83
52.00
48.50
43.00

69.67
76.83
71.50
73.50
65.67
47.33
Independent Location
Probability for errors
less than 5 km (%)

66.50
48.83
47.17
43.17
38.50
29.00

68.67
74.33
67.00
66.00
56.33
35.67
Independent Location
Errors 95th Percentile
(km)

8.08
7.64
8.61
8.24
9.12
14.36

5.16
4.11
5.56
6.60
7.56
7.63
This chart summarizes Time to First Location for the beacon transmit power of 37 dBm.


9 11 13 15 17 19 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 41 44 45
seconds
Slot Number
Maryland Simulator - Maryland MEOLUT
Time to First Location - NB1 and NB13 - dBm 37
T4-T7 May 04, 2015
NB1-Processing Time
NB13-Processing Time
When comparing the Maryland T-4/T-7 summary results to the Maryland T-4 summary results,
overall improvement resulting from networking can be seen.  However the volume of network

3-23

data that results from the T-4/T-7 test is large because of the high density of beacon
transmissions.   This caused backlogs in the MEOLUTs location processing as demonstrated by
the spikes in the Time to First Location chart above. This impacted performance and caused the
improvement from networking to be less than expected.  We are investigating solutions for
handling large volumes of network data.
3.7.2.2 EC/France (European MEOLUTs)
For Toulouse transmission, at MEOLUT level, none of the three MEOLUTs reaches the 98%
probability to have an independent location within 10 minutes (requirement given by document
C/S R.012, Annex E). We can observe a lower performance at EU/Spitsbergen MEOLUT with
only 90% achieved to be compared to 95% at both others. At SGS level, the 98% probability to
have an independent location within 10 minutes is reached. For Maryland and Florida
transmission, the probability of location is still above 82% at 37 dBm.
This shows the advantage of networking for the location probability.
Mean Independent Location Probability Over All Slots
within X Minutes by each MEOLUT and the Overall SGS
The SGS curve is computed considering that a location has been produced by at least one
MEOLUT. This means that the location is potentially transmitted to one of the three MCCs
connected to a MEOLUT.
The requirement of having an independent location solution within 5 km 95% of the time is not
achieved. Indeed, 95% of the time the SGS provides a solution within 20 km. However, the
requirement is achieved with locations computed with 5 or more satellites and when using
satellites broadcasting accurate ephemeris.

3-24

Cumulative Distribution of Location Error-Toulouse Transmission
3.8
Test T-5/T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage)
3.8.1
Analysis
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
EC/France
MEOSAR D&E Phase 2 Test T-4/T-7 REPORT - Independent 2D Location Capability in
Networked Mode
SAR-RE-DEMEO-929-CNES\_01\_00
USA
Maryland MEOLUT Participant Report T5 and with T7 Networking – 8 September 2015
JC-29/Inf.38 Maryland MEOLUT Results for T5, T5/T7 and T6
3.8.2
Interpretation
3.8.2.1 EC/France (European MEOLUTs)
Up to 19 MEOSAR satellites (16 GPS and 3 Galileo) were configured for tracking.
The system throughput was measured between 87.4% (beacons Scotland1&2) and 100% for
beacons located on the ECA area. A system throughput drop was observed at around 5,000 km.
The L-band satellites generally improved the link budget in terms of C/N0 at MEOLUT level in
comparison with the DASS S-band satellites (about 4 dB higher).
In addition to the C/S R.018 methodology, the single channel throughput depending on satellite
constellation was analysed (figure below). To suppress masking effects at low beacon-satellite
elevation angle, the transmission period was defined as the time interval between the first
detected message and the last detected message during a satellite pass. From the beacons located

3-25

on the Europe area (Tr-Ankara3 to Fr-Audinghen), the overall single channel throughput for each
downlink type was the following:
•
S-band: 44%
•
L-band: 59%
Single Channel Throughput Depending on Satellite Constellation
Regarding the location probability with error less than 10 km, for beacons located inside the ECA
area, the mean probability of location is 98%, which is compliant with the location probability
98% within 10 min.
Regarding location accuracy, the main factor is the number of satellites used for the location
process. A significant improvement from three to four satellites can be observed. The best result
is 95 % within 8 km for locations derived from 6 satellites. The location accuracy requirement
(95% within 5 km) was still not met in this case. The main limitations were that most of locations
are produced with only 3 or 4 satellites and that the TLE files are used to compute the orbits of
the satellites 418 and 420.

3-26

Location Accuracy Cumulative Distribution vs. the Number of Satellites Used
(ECA Beacons)
Improvements of the location performances should be observed in Phase III thanks to the L-Band
satellite deployment.
3.8.2.2 USA-Maryland
Beacon activations with MEOLUT data exchange enabled generally produced better results than
when data exchange was disabled. Of course, the degree of the improvement depended on the
location of the beacon relative to the MEOLUTs involved. That is, beacons that were located far
from any MEOLUT involved in the data exchange were less affected.
Further testing with commercial beacons may be necessary in order to collect the deployment
information necessary to better evaluate the results.
- END OF SECTION 3 -

4-1

4.
RESULTS OF THE OPERATIONAL TESTS AND DISCUSSION
For each operational test conducted, the following sections provide:
•
test periods and MEOLUT mode of operation expected,
•
a description of each MCC configuration, per Administration,
•
operational test results provided by each Administration, and
•
a summary of the interpretation of the test analyses, as provided by each Administration.
4.1
Expected MEOLUT Configuration and Time Periods
MEOSAR D&E Phase II Operational Tests were carried out in two parts:
Phase II
Start
End
MEOLUT
Mode of Operation Expected
Part 1
7 April 2014 00:00 UTC
12 May 2014 00:00 UTC
Standalone
Part 2
19 January 2015 00:00 UTC
20 April 2015 00:00 UTC
Standalone
20 April 2015 00:00 UTC
11 May 2015 00:00 UTC
Networking
4.2
MCC Configuration
The following information on MEOSAR-ready MCC configuration was provided by the participants.
4.2.1
France
4.2.1.1 LEO/GEO FMCC
The FMCC-LEO/GEO filters out from the processed data all the beacon IDs that correspond to
inverted sync frame (test beacons) and orbitography/reference beacons.
4.2.1.2 French MEOSAR-Ready MCC
The French MEOSAR-ready MCC filters out from the processed data all the beacon IDs that
correspond to inverted sync frame (test beacons) and orbitography/reference beacons.
It is to be noted that on the French MEOSAR-ready MCC, some of the MCCs towards which SITs
are sent are purely virtual. Those would be received if the network link was established. Actually, the
French MEOSAR-ready MCC sent data to:
CYMCC, ITMCC, JAMCC, NMCC, SPMCC, TRMCC and USMCC

4-2

In addition, the French MEO-Ready MCC receives data from:
CYMCC, ITMCC, JAMCC, NMCC, TRMCC and USMCC
The means used at the FMCC were:
•
the French MEOLUT, in version FP 1.7b, SP and LP 1.5,
•
the French MEO-ready MCC, an in-house development,
•
the French MCC v2.7 for LEOSAR and GEOSAR alert data.
4.2.2
Italy
The MEOSAR-ready ITMCC was not associated with any MEOLUT.
MEOSAR data was received via FTP/VPN from the following MEOLUTs through their associated
MEOSAR-ready MCCs:
•
Toulouse (France)
•
EU Spitsbergen (Norway)
•
Ankara (Turkey)
•
EU Larnaca (Cyprus)
•
Brasilia (Brazil)
•
Florida – Maryland – Hawaii (USA)
The Italian MEOSAR-ready MCC was available for the whole test period.
The MEOSAR-ready ITMCC:
•
Name/Manufacturer: McMurdo Inc
•
Hardware / Software: HP ML 350 running Windows Server
•
Version (Core Processing): Insarcore 6.0.2.0
•
Configuration / Status: MEOSAR ready MCC in D&E Version
4.2.3
Japan
The MEOSAR-ready JAMCC is following condition:
•
MEOSAR data was received from USMCC and FMCC during the D&E test period.
•
The MEOSAR-ready JAMCC had not provided data for anywhere.
National MEOLUT is under construction. (Not operating). Therefore, in this test period, the
MEOSAR-Ready JAMCC did not receive MEOSAR data from a national MEOLUT. JAMCC
received MEOSAR data from international MEOLUTs via USMCC and FMCC.

4-3

The MEOSAR-ready JAMCC:
•
Name/Manufacturer: Techno-Sciences Inc
•
Hardware / Software: HP ML 350 / Windows Server 2012
•
Version (Core Processing):  Insarcore 6.0.0.0
•
Configuration / Status: MEOSAR ready MCC in D&E Version
•
Connected MEOLUT: Not Applicable
4.2.4
Norway
The MEOSAR-ready NMCC was connected to the four-channel EU/Spitsbergen MEOLUT through
direct FTPV link. MEOSAR data was also exchanged with the following MEOSAR-ready MCCs:
•
FMCC
•
ITMCC
•
CYMCC
International MEOLUTs from which data was received:
•
France via FMCC
•
Brasilia via BRMCC and FMCC
•
Ankara via TRMCC and FMCC
•
Florida via USMCC and FMCC
The MEOSAR-ready NMCC:
•
Name/Manufacturer:
Techno-Sciences, Inc
•
Hardware / Software:
HP ML350 Gen 8 running Windows Server 2012 64-bit
SQL Server 2012
•
Version:
Insarcore 6, 0, 2, 0
•
Configuration / Status:
Configured for D&E support
•
Connected MEOLUT:
EU/MEOLUT Spitsbergen
During part of the standalone and networked mode periods the EU/Spitsbergen MEOLUT was not
filtering orbitography or test protocol coded beacons. Nor did the Norwegian MEOSAR-ready MCC
filter out QMS data properly, resulting in a high amount of transmitted MEOSAR alert messages,
particularly to those destinations which have an orbitography beacon located in their region.

4-4

Because the EU/Spitsbergen MEOLUT was going through some heavy test campaigns
simultaneously as the D&E Operational tests occurred, it was challenging to maintain present
configuration state at all times for all subsystems. In the post processing NMCC attempted to remove
those cases from the analysis, to sustain a higher degree of reliability in the calculations.
Additionally, NMCC experienced two occasions where the MEOLUT was disconnected from
MEOSAR-ready MCC. There may also be other circumstances where we experienced reduced
availability because of conflicting SGS tests, or other anomalies, but these possible incidents are not
consistently preserved throughout the test periods.
4.2.5
Spain
Spain collected data for Phase II Part 1 and Phase II Part 2. However, given some limitations on the
participation in Part 1, the sample size was very reduced, and for this reason, only data for Phase II
Part 2 is presented.
The MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was connected and receiving MEOSAR data from the
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT in two possible operating modes:
•
in Standalone Mode, the EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT processed data coming from the
4 MEOLUT local channels and sent alert data to the MEOSAR-ready SPMCC,
•
in Networking Mode, the EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT can combine its own generated alert
data with TOA/FOA data coming from EU/Spitsbergen MEOLUT (Norway) and/or
EU/Larnaca MEOLUT (Cyprus).
The MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was connected to the MEOSAR-ready FMCC and USMCC for
receiving MEOSAR alert data.
The MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was not configured to transmit MEOSAR data coming from the
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT to other MCCs, because only the 30 Hex 406 MHz alert format messages
were being processed from the MEOLUT (not the 36 Hex 406 MHz format message). Therefore, the
MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was not sending real messages to any destination and all messages
generated were internally stored.
During the standalone mode period (19 January 2015 00:00 UTC – 20 April 2015 00:00 UTC),
sometimes, the MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was receiving data from the MEOLUT configured in
networking mode, or with the MEOLUT configured to send self-test alert messages to the MCC. In
those cases, either the data was removed from the statistics, considering only a group of selected time
periods for the analysis, instead of the whole period, or the MEOLUT was disconnected from the
MEOSAR-ready SPMCC.
The MEOSAR-ready SPMCC:
•
Name/Manufacturer: McMurdo Inc
•
Hardware / Software: HP ML 350p Gen8 running Windows Server 2012, 64 bits
•
SW InsarGIS: Version 8.3.0.16 – 12/June/2014.

4-5

•
SW InsarMP: Version 4.2.0.0 – 12/July/2012.
•
SW Version (Core Processing):  Insarcore 6.0.2.0 – 17/Jan/2014.
•
Configuration / Status: MEOSAR-ready MCC in D&E Version.
4.2.6
USA
Part 1
The USA MEOSAR-ready MCC:
Name/Manufacturer: this is an “in house” implementation
Hardware/Software: rack mount Windows Servers running windows applications
Version (Core Alert Processing): 1.15
Configuration/Status: configured for D&E support and fully operational
National MEOLUTs participating1:
Hawaii: fully operational for full duration
Florida: fully operational until 26 April 2014, then down for maintenance
Maryland: fully operational for full duration
International MEOLUTs for which data was received:
France via FMCC: fully operational for full duration
Norway via NMCC and FMCC: fully operational for full duration
Brasilia via BRMCC: fully operational for full duration
Connections to other MEOSAR MCCs:
FMCC: two way exchange of alert data for full duration
BRMCC: two way exchange of alert data for full duration
SPMCC: US transmitted alert data for full duration
PEMCC: US transmitted alert data for full duration
JAMCC: US transmitted alert data for full duration
Part 2
The MEOSAR USMCC:
Name/Manufacturer: this is an “in house” implementation
Hardware/Software: rack mount Windows Servers running windows applications
Version (Core Alert Processing): 1.31
Configuration/Status: configured for D&E support and fully operational
1 Further information on the availability of MEOLUTs over time is provided below in Figure 1.

4-6

National MEOLUTs participating:
Hawaii
Florida
Maryland
International MEOLUTs for which data was received:
France via FMCC
Norway via NMCC and FMCC
Brasillia via BRMCC
Ankara via TRMCC and FMCC
Larnaca via CYMCC and FMCC
MEOLUTs connected when networking was active:
Hawaii
Florida
Maryland
Connections to other MEOSAR MCCs:
FMCC: two way exchange of alert data
BRMCC: two way exchange of alert data
SPMCC: US transmitted alert data
PEMCC: US transmitted alert data
JAMCC: US transmitted alert data
4.3
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage
The test O-1 measures the elapsed time between the receipt at an MCC of MEOSAR distress alert
messages as compared to those from the existing system (LEOSAR and GEOSAR alert messages).
4.3.1
O-1 Test Result
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
JC-29/4/13 – DE Phase II part II Test O1 Report France\_04082015.pdf
Italy
JC-29/Inf. 19
Japan
Sections 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.2.3 to this document.
Norway
Sections 4.3.1.4 and 4.3.2.4 to this document.
Spain
JC-29/Inf.42
USA
Sections 4.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.6 to this document.

4-7

4.3.1.1 France
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area (in minutes)
AOI=FMCC service
area
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
PTAU
(vs LEO)
PTAU
(vs GEO)
Mean
-2.34
14.27
6.78
25.35
-2.01
11.60
-0.79
Median
0.37
9.73
3.87
18.23
0.74
6.12
0.65
Std Deviation
14.74
17.31
17.70
30.25
21.97
45.08
14.53
N


PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area and participating MEOLUTs coverage (in minutes)
AOI=FMCC service
area + MEOLUTs
coverage
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
PTAU
(vs LEO)
PTAU
(vs GEO)
Mean
-0.17
14.75
10.25
25.76
-1.19
12.48
-0.88
Median
0.22
10.43
5.68
17.88
0.78
6.20
0.72
Std Deviation
2.15
17.49
16.08
31.45
21.28
45.37
14.89
N


Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area (in minutes)
AOI=FMCC service
area
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
PTAU
(vs LEO)
PTAU
(vs GEO)
Mean
-1.13
4.29
3.31
36.15
3.62
18.80
3.27
Median
-1.13
3.87
1.72
24.80
2.47
7.61
2.74
Std Deviation
1.19
19.24
16.79
36.22
7.02
28.34
5.66
N


PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area and participating MEOLUTs coverage (in minutes)
AOI=FMCC service
area + MEOLUTs
coverage
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
PTAU
(vs LEO)
PTAU
(vs GEO)
Mean
-1.13
6.92
5.05
36.15
3.70
15.05
2.96
Median
-1.13
3.87
1.72
24.80
2.47
7.37
2.27
Std Deviation
1.19
18.35
15.71
36.22
6.96
26.42
4.35
N


4-8

4.3.1.2 Italy
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
1.08
19.01
15.50
54.30
0.78
Median:
0.99
13.27
7.88
41.88
0.88
Standard Deviation:
5.45
36.57
33.12
63.51
17.79
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
1.08
17.78
14.21
41.08
0.81
Median:
0.99
11.81
7.75
33.52
0.88
Standard Deviation:
5.45
32.31
28.99
54.03
18.23
Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
-2.37
26.95
24.75
20.35
2.23
Median:
-2.37
17.42
14.81
17.65
0.55
Standard Deviation:
N/A1
34.19
33.48
29.06
12.00
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
-2.37
28.53
25.99
24.37
2.34
Median:
-2.37
18.58
17.42
19.94
0.55
Standard Deviation:
N/A1
35.62
34.83
31.90
12.19
1 The number of samples for PTAE, in networking mode, was equal to one, therefore, Standard
Deviation value cannot be calculated, which is indicated as N/A in the corresponding table cell.

4-9

4.3.1.3 Japan
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
15.42
-148.91
-115.85
-178.93
-22.17
Median:
3.43
-38.10
-1.18
-43.57
2.02
Standard Deviation:
67.02
300.21
280.99
323.19
168.82
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
-0.52
-88.87
-35.86
N/A
11.86
Median:
0.80
-88.87
0.80
N/A
3.12
Standard Deviation:
9.89
171.25
98.60
N/A
94.17
Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
-67.79
-50.31
-48.46
40.47
-13.09
Median:
3.67
0.50
0.58
3.85
4.68
Standard Deviation:
215.85
203.21
190.95
300.77
142.10
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-10.45
Median:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.68
Standard Deviation:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
47.16

4-10

4.3.1.4 Norway
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
12.49
17.39
17.23
17.25
14.67
Median:
3.00
15.65
14.30
21.00
5.71
Standard Deviation:
14.03
48.93
48.62
52.66
36.03
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
10.11
15.58
15.38
8.46
13.12
Median:
3.00
12.25
11.62
5.13
4.90
Standard Deviation:
12.91
52.82
52.34
56.76
35.93
Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
4.73
5.98
5.86
24.42
9.95
Median:
6.43
10.07
8.72
22.00
5.17
Standard Deviation:
4.55
40.40
38.34
62.81
16.05
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
4.73
14.14
13.09
32.80
10.15
Median:
6.43
12.87
9.80
31.82
5.32
Standard Deviation:
4.55
20.74
19.78
65.37
16.09

4-11

4.3.1.5 Spain
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
6.93
17.90
23.92
32.90
3.89
Median:
1.40
17.43
7.13
44.42
1.48
Standard Deviation: 22.53
134.84
97.82
133.03
86.07
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
5.08
18.21
17.94
35.14
0.50
Median:
1.40
9.83
4.57
42.22
1.22
Standard Deviation: 18.19
121.04
97.12
102.50
85.49
Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean: -1.24
52.63
34.96
162.00
16.78
Median: -0.43
22.65
8.32
72.69
0.97
Standard Deviation:
5.27
103.27
91.82
272.33
70.48
PTA Summary Results for AOI Applied (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean: -1.24
27.66
13.74
187.79
14.19
Median: -0.43
18.75
5.22
73.13
0.52
Standard Deviation:
5.27
30.83
25.77
325.51
71.12

4-12

4.3.1.6 USA
Part 1 (Stand-Alone Only)
Part 2 – Stand-Alone
Part 2 – Networked

4-13

4.3.2
O-1 Test Result Interpretation
4.3.2.1 France
With the samples collected during D&E Phase II part II, it could be noticed that there was:
•
a potential time advantage of the MEOSAR system for location confirmation.
•
an improvement of this result when networking between MEOLUTs was ensured.
•
a potential time advantage of the MEOSAR system for location,
•
a very slight advantage of the MEOSAR system for encoded alert messages (in networking
only),
•
the trend of the analyses shows some potential time advantage to the MEOSAR system that
reaches a few minutes in most of the cases. Although the timing is sometimes better for
LEOSAR/GEOSAR alerts, this is expected to occur rather less by the time when the
MEOSAR constellations are complete. The space segment current characteristics can explain
part of the large differences in the alert delays.  The trend of the data set indicates that
MEOSAR should provide at least as good as LEOSAR/GEOSAR alert timing, but it is
expected that the time advantage be especially better for position confirmation data.
A first complementary analysis on the PTAO distributions (highest number of samples) has been
conducted. It shows that the PTAO for MEOSAR is between 0 and 5 minutes for almost 45% of the
samples. The left hand side of this histogram on the following figure illustrates the events for which
the LEOSAR/GEOSAR data was available before the MEOSAR data. Cases where the difference is
beyond 30 minutes occurred more often for beacon alerts that were first notified by the
LEOSAR/GEOSAR system.
Overall Time Advantage in Stand-Alone Mode (FMCC Service Area)

4-14

A second complementary analysis aimed to put into perspective the Potential Time Advantage versus
the location accuracy. As the beacon’s locations are unknown, the LEOSAR/GEOSAR computed
positions are considered as references and the MEOSAR location errors are calculated relatively to
them. Therefore, the “errors” presented here represent the distance between MEOSAR and
LEOSAR/GEOSAR computed positions.
As shown in the following figure:
•
The locations errors do not show any visible trend with respect to both PTAL and PTAC. The
general expected trend would be to have larger errors in case of high PTAs but it is not
always the case,
•
As expected, the location confirmations (PTAC) show better accuracy with time,
•
A large part of the locations “errors” are within 20 km (only 10 points >20km, and 4 points
>100 km). Most of the high error values are linked to a great distance between the locating
MEOLUT and the beacon LEOSAR/GEOSAR position. However, it is known that
MEOLUT location accuracy is currently very variable in time and depends on the space
segment/beacon/MEOLUT instant geometry: as no clear trend seems to appear, and due to
the limited amount of data to process, drawing a relevant conclusion is premature.
Distance Between MEOSAR and LEOSAR/GEOSAR Locations
vs Potential Time Advantage for MEOSAR (Stand-Alone)

4-15

4.3.2.2 Italy
The Area of Interest was defined by the portion of ITMCC Service Area covered by participating
MEOLUTs within a radius of 3,000 km.
Overall, the MEOSAR system reported a time advantage in the notification of alerts of about
1 minute, compared to the existing system.
In the computation of independent location (PTAL) and confirmation of position (PTAC), the new
system performed better reporting a median value of 14 minutes and 35 minutes, respectively. The
high standard deviation values however demonstrate the variability of results most likely due either
to the current space segment configuration or ground segment availability and performance.
The results for MEOLUTs in networking mode are based on 29 samples that are not representative
enough, however all the categories reported positive performance of the MEOSAR system, except
for PTAE where the lack of data did not make a comparison possible.
Complementary analysis showed the time delay (median value) for the LEOSAR-system-only to
detect and process a beacon compared to the MEOSAR system while comparison to GEOSAR-
system-only produced only a slight difference.
4.3.2.3 Japan
In respect of this O-1 test, participants shall report results for an AOI that coincides with the MCC
service area. However, since there are not many beacons in JAMCC service area, we shall provide
the results that includes alerts in China, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, and other areas in the
NWPDDR. In both periods, JAMCC could receive enough alerts on this area to analyse.
During the standalone mode period, JAMCC received 283 alerts.
•
With respect to PTAC, 30% of alerts show positive with Potential Time Advantage of
MEOSAR. Alert sample size was 65.
•
With respect to PTAO, 70% of alerts were positive and the median showed 2 minutes PTA of
MEOSAR.
During the network mode period, 119 alerts were received.
•
With respect to PTAC, 55% of alerts showed positive Potential Time Advantage of
MEOSAR and the median was about 4 minutes. Alert sample size was 35.
•
With respect to PTAO, 75% of alerts showed a positive MEOSAR time advantage and the
median showed 4 and a half minutes of PTA of MEOSAR.
Conclusions from results.
•
In standalone mode period, remarkable time advantage wasn’t apparent.
•
A slight time advantage was shown in the networking mode period.

4-16

4.3.2.4 Norway
The Area of Interest (AOI) was comprised of the NMCC service area consisting of supported SPOCs
and Norway covered by the EU/MEOLUT – Spitsbergen. Standalone period was based on 236
samples, while in networking period there was 59 recorded alert notifications where both MEOSAR
and LEOSAR/GEOSAR had detections for the same beacon ID. Such a small sample of data in the
networking period may not be sufficiently representative, and results from the two periods might not
be directly comparable because of the shorter test period.
From the data collected at NMCC during D&E Phase II Part 2 it could be noted:
•
A potential time advantage of about 5 minutes for all categories during standalone and
networking mode of operations,
•
For independent location (PTAL) and confirmation of position (PTAC) the MEOSAR system
demonstrated time advantages with a median of about 12 and 5 minutes, respectively, while
for MEOLUTs in networking mode the PTAL and PTAC values were 12 and 32 minutes,
•
An improvement for position confirmation when MEOLUTs in network mode,
•
A minor time advantage of the MEOSAR system for encoded alert messages.
Based on the analysis of the collected data sample there is a potential positive time advantage in
favour of the MEOSAR system. This premature conclusion should be supported by another test
campaign where the test period duration is expanded to provide more representative analyses and
results. However, the current interpretation of results is that this time advantage will be further
substantiated when the MEOSAR space and ground segment is more complete.
4.3.2.5 Spain
The dataset provided covered all the SPMCC Service Area.
During the standalone mode period (19/Jan/2015 00:00 UTC – 20/Apr/2015 00:00 UTC), sometimes
the data received from EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT suffered a processing delay at the MEOSAR-
ready MCC. When an excessive time delay was noted, this time delay was compensated, adjusting
the original delayed time tag to a time close to the transmission time of the MEOLUT. Alert
messages coming from MEOSAR-ready USMCC or FMCC did not suffer from this delay, being
processed in real-time.
For the networking mode period (20/Apr/2015 00:00 UTC – 11/May/2015 00:00 UTC), the above-
mentioned processing delay was accumulative since the very beginning, and it was not possible to
correlate, in most of the cases, the data coming from external MCCs for the same beacon activation
with the local EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT data. Therefore, for this period, and for the most of the
cases analysed, the detection, localization and confirmation messages came from external MCCs,
which did not suffer the processing delay.
Based on EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT Networking configuration, solutions provided by MEOSAR-
ready FMCC, coming from MEOSAR-ready NMCC or CYMCC, could have their origin in
TOA/FOA data computed by EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT, covering, in this way, the SPMCC AOI.

4-17

•
The data sample for standalone mode period was 225 alerts and the data sample for the
networking mode period was 58 alerts.
•
In general, the Potential Time Advantage of MEOSAR versus LEOSAR/GEOSAR is
positive, mainly in the PTAC (Potential Time Advantage Confirmation), which presented a
median value of around 43 minutes.
•
The networking mode provides an improvement in PTAL and PTAC over the positive values
already obtained for standalone mode. The median value for PTAC is increased by 30
minutes, reaching a value around 73 minutes.
•
In networking mode the PTAE values are negative. As commented above, during this time
the data from EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT was not directly available due to a processing delay
for the local data. Therefore, the data readily available at the MEOSAR-ready MCC came
from external MCCs which, due to communications latency, could produce the slight
negative PTAE figures observed.
•
The “AOI Applied” table does not show, in general, an improvement, with respect to the “All
Data” table. On the contrary, for some PTAs they are even worse in the “AOI Applied” table
with respect to “All Data” table. One possible explanation is that beacons out of the
Maspalomas AOI are located southward near the coast of Togo, and in this area, with low
latitudes, LEOSAR presents more latency, that is, the nearer a location is to the Equator, the
longer the periods between LEOSAR passes. Therefore, in these cases the MEOSAR could
provide a better PTA response than LEOSAR, however, that contribution is removed when
applying the 3000 km AOI radius. Therefore, the “All Data” versus “AOI Data” results
comparison suggests that AOI radius filtering could be increased beyond 3000 km, at least
with respect to the Potential Time Advantage of MEOSAR versus LEOSAR. In the following
table, all data within AOI have been removed, only data OUT of AOI is presented. It can be
noted the high number of positive PTAs versus negative PTAs and also the value of the
median figures. There is only one large negative sample (about -650 minutes) which makes
standard deviation increase in PTAL and PTAC.
PTA Summary Results for
All Data (in minutes)
PTAE
PTAL
PTAA
PTAC
PTAO
Mean:
44.93
16.78
52.28
28.42
38.71
Median:
44.93
28.28
30.17
51.65
7.14
Standard Deviation:
71.06
179.31
98.61
182.65
86.48
MAX PTA:
95.18
417.08
417.08
187.87
359.55
MIN PTA:
-5.32
-621.43
-67.80
-679.47
-28.15
N (Positive PTA):


N (Negative PTA):


•
An alternative analysis is provided in the following table for the standalone period with
calculations of PTAU and PTAE of MEOSAR vs LEOSAR and MEOSAR vs GEOSAR, and
it was noted that:

4-18

•
The Potential Time Advantage from MEOSAR versus GEOSAR is only slightly
positive, for both Unlocated and Encoded Located alerts (PTAUVG and PTAEVG),
which seems to indicate that in the SPMCC case at least, where the Service Area is
covered by three GEOSAR Satellites (GOES-E, M2 and M3), the improvement
provided by MEOSAR for Unlocated and/or Encoded Only alerts over GEOSAR is
not so high.
•
However, it was noted that the Potential Time Advantage MEOSAR versus LEOSAR
for Unlocated and Encoded Located alert (PTAUVL and PTAEVL) presented higher
PTA values than those obtained for MEOSAR vs GEOSAR.
•
Given that the high number of Encoded Located GEOSAR detections can bias the
PTAE global measurement, it is worth presenting PTAE values separated by PTA of
MEOSAR versus LEOSAR (PTAEVL) and PTA MEOSAR versus GEOSAR
(PTAEVG).
•
Therefore, in order to have a better perspective of the MEOSAR behaviour versus the
LEOSAR/GEOSAR system, it is considered interesting to include, in future
spreadsheets, the analysis of the PTAEVG and PTAEVL measurements.
•
For the same reason, given that same behaviour was noted also for unlocated alerts, it
is also considered interesting to add the PTAUVG and PTAUVL to the spreadsheet.
PTA Summary Results for All
Data (in minutes)
PTAUVG
PTAUVL
PTAEVG
PTAEVL
Mean:
3.41
13.46
5.60
42.44
Median:
0.72
4.38
0.67
16.32
Standard Deviation:
21.56
136.94
17.76
74.93
MAX PTA:
193.28
539.30
95.18
336.95
MIN PTA:
-63.45
-306.30
-5.32
-42.42
N (Positive PTA):


N (Negative PTA):


PTA Summary Results for AOI
Applied (in minutes)
PTAUVG
PTAUVL
PTAEVG
PTAEVL
Mean:
3.11
13.46
3.21
40.05
Median:
0.73
4.38
0.67
13.92
Standard Deviation:
21.04
136.94
8.65
77.40
MAX PTA:
193.28
539.30
36.85
336.95
MIN PTA:
-63.45
-306.30
-3.97
-42.42
N (Positive PTA):


N (Negative PTA):


4-19

4.3.2.6 USA
Part 1
MEOSAR appeared to be faster at providing unlocated alerts to the system.
MEOSAR did not show a time advantage in located alerts.
A limited satellite constellation appears to provide an explanation for the underlying cause of poor
MEOSAR performance as it relates to located alerts.
The USA O-1 results appear to diminish slightly within the AOI relative to the service area.
Part 2
Key observations on the results analysis process are as follows:
•
Removing the data with extremely large gaps improves the statistics for MEOSAR, and is
likely a more realistic measure of performance
•
Applying the AOI appears to have little or no impact on the results
•
The median appears to be a better measure of performance as the mean (or average) is easily
skewed by data with very large values, and the average should perhaps be removed
•
The category PTAO includes notifications for unlocated alerts while no other column reports
this data, and this could lead to confusion when interpreting the results, so a PTAU column
should perhaps be added
•
The time of notification for unlocated alerts is generally a minute or two faster for
LEOSAR/GEOSAR than MEOSAR, and the suspected reasons are potential configuration
details in USA MEOLUTs as well as a slightly more efficient communications path for
GEOLUT data (MEOLUT data goes through an additional FTP server).
Conclusions determined from these results are as follows:
•
Using the median is a more practical measure of performance
•
MEOSAR provides a clear time advantage in the independent location related categories
(PTAL and PTAC) but does not with respect to detect only data
•
MEOLUT networking further increased this time advantage in the independent location
related categories

4-20

4.4
Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to Existing System
4.4.1
O-2 Test Result
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
France D&E Phase 2 Part 2 Operational Tests Report
Sections 6.1.2 & 6.2.2, SAR-RE-DEMEO-917-CNES
Italy
JC-29/Inf. 20
Japan
Section 4.4.1.3 and 4.4.2.3 to this document.
Norway
JC-29/4/5 O-2 additional analysis
Spain
JC-29/Inf.42 / Additional analysis on Standalone Period in Section 4.4.1.5 to this
document.
USA
Section 4.4.1.6 and 4.4.2.6 to this document.

4-21

4.4.1.1 France
Standalone mode
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area (in minutes)
Any
Detection
Unlocated
Encoded Position
Independent
Position
Confirmed
Position
Cou
nt
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

13.15

11.33

1.05

28.30

17.11
MEO only

68.93

80.00

94.74

38.68

18.42
Both Systems

17.92

8.67

4.21

33.02

64.47
Total
692 100.00

59.97

13.73

15.32

10.98
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area and participating MEOLUTs coverage (in minutes)
Any Detection
Unlocated
Encoded Position
Independent
Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

13.74

11.14

0.00

23.47

16.39
MEO only

67.30

80.15

100.00

40.82

21.31
Both Systems

18.96

8.72

0.00

35.71

62.30
Total

100.00

71.83

0.52

17.04

10.61
Networking mode
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area (in minutes)
Any Detection
Unlocated
Encoded
Position
Independent
Position
Confirmed
Position
Cou
nt
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

6.39

5.82

1.75

16.28

4.17
MEO only

81.15

89.95

96.49

48.84

33.33
Both Systems

12.46

4.23

1.75

34.88

62.50
Total

100.00

60.38

18.21

13.74

7.67
PTA Summary Results for AOI = FMCC service area and participating MEOLUTs coverage (in minutes)
Any Detection
Unlocated
Encoded Position
Independent
Position
Confirmed
Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

6.29

5.82

1.96

15.00

4.55
MEO only

81.79

89.95

96.08

52.50

31.82
Both Systems

11.92

4.23

1.96

32.50

63.64
Total

100.00

62.58

16.89

13.25

7.28

4-22

4.4.1.2 Italy
Standalone mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

12.02%

0.28%

4.10%

1.41%
MEO only

64.92%

5.52%

7.21%

5.52%
Both Systems

23.06%

0.28%

6.51%

12.45%
Neither System

0.00%

93.92%

82.18%

80.62%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

12.04%

0.15%

3.81%

1.37%
MEO only

66.16%

5.95%

5.03%

4.88%
Both Systems

21.80%

1.37%

4.42%

7.16%
Neither System

0.00%

92.53%

86.74%

86.59%
Total Beacon Events


Networking mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

11.00%

0.00%

5.26%

0.96%
MEO only

75.12%

5.26%

9.09%

5.74%
Both Systems

13.88%

0.00%

1.91%

8.61%
Neither System

0.00%

94.74%

83.73%

84.69%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

10.45%

0.00%

4.48%

1.00%
MEO only

75.62%

5.47%

7.96%

4.98%
Both Systems

13.93%

0.00%

3.48%

2.99%
Neither System

0.00%

94.53%

84.08%

91.04%
Total Beacon Events


4-23

4.4.1.3 Japan
Standalone mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

14.70%

0.84%

3.26%

3.09%
MEO only

69.09%

14.70%

1.67%

2.09%
Both Systems

16.21%

0.50%

2.76%

6.02%
Neither System

0.00%

83.96%

92.31%

88.81%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

11.16%

0.80%

0.60%

0.80%
MEO only

77.89%

17.53%

0.00%

0.30%
Both Systems

10.96%

0.50%

0.00%

0.10%
Neither System

0.00%

81.18%

99.40%

98.80%
Total Beacon Events


Networking mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

16.15%

0.26%

4.62%

4.10%
MEO only

68.97%

1.28%

2.82%

5.13%
Both Systems

14.87%

0.26%

4.10%

5.64%
Neither System

0.00%

98.21%

88.46%

85.13%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

10.51%

0.34%

0.34%

0.34%
MEO only

79.32%

0.34%

0.00%

0.00%
Both Systems

10.17%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
Neither System

0.00%

99.32%

99.66%

99.66%
Total Beacon Events


4-24

4.4.1.4 Norway
Standalone mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

9.07 %

0.00 %

3.46 %

3.10 %
MEO only

85.68 %

2.98 %

2.98 %

3.10 %
Both Systems

5.25 %

0.12 %

1.67 %

2.98 %
Neither System

0.00 %
812 96.90 %

91.89 %

90.81 %
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

8.55 %

0.00 %

3.25 %

2.77 %
MEO only

86.27 %

2.77 %

3.01 %

3.13 %
Both Systems

5.18 %

0.00 %

1.33 %

2.41 %
Neither System

0.00 %
807 97.23 %

92.41 %

91.69 %
Total Beacon Events


Networking mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

18.14 %

3.63 %

1.08 %

11.86 %
MEO only

79.22 %

3.24 %

0.88 %

1.37 %
Both Systems

2.65 %

0.00 %

0.59 %

1.86 %
Neither System

0.00 %

93.14 %

97.45 %

84.90 %
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

18.24 %

3.67 %

0.99 %

11.99 %
MEO only

79.78 %

3.27 %

0.79 %

1.19 %
Both Systems

1.98 %

0.00 %

0.40 %

1.09 %
Neither System

0.00 %

93.06 %

97.82 %

85.73 %
Total Beacon Events


4-25

4.4.1.5 Spain
Standalone mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

7.78%

0.96%

1.44%

2.99%
MEO only

58.13%

6.58%

5.38%

3.59%
Both Systems

34.09%

1.44%

8.97%

17.58%
Neither System

0.00%

91.03%

84.21%

75.84%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position
Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

6.97%

1.07%

1.07%

2.14%
MEO only

61.39%

7.37%

4.02%

2.28%
Both Systems

31.64%

3.35%

4.69%

8.98%
Neither System

0.00%

88.20%

90.21%

86.60%
Total Beacon Events


Networking mode
All Data
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

10.07%

0.67%

1.68%

5.37%
MEO only

67.79%

6.71%

5.70%

2.01%
Both Systems

22.15%

0.00%

7.72%

10.40%
Neither System

0.00%
276 92.62%

84.90%

82.21%
Total Beacon Events


AOI Applies
Any Detection
Encoded Position
Independent Position Confirmed Position
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
LEO/GEO only

7.46%

0.76%

1.87%

2.24%
MEO only

72.39%

6.87%

5.22%

1.12%
Both Systems

20.15%

0.00%

2.99%

3.73%
Neither System

0.00%
248 92.54%

89.93%

92.91%
Total Beacon Events


4-26

4.4.1.6 USA
Part 1 (Stand-Alone Only)
Part 2 Stand-Alone

4-27

Part 2 Networked
4.4.2
O-2 Test Result Interpretation
4.4.2.1 France
Results show that there is no difference when considering an area of interest defined by the FMCC
service area or an area of interest defined by the FMCC service area extended by MEOLUTs
coverage.
Comparison between the MEOSAR and the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system indicates a very high
number of events generated by the MEOSAR system, two thirds of those being Unlocated alerts.
The MEOLUT networking operating mode seems to degrade the situation by relatively increasing the
number of Unlocated detections that becomes 15 times higher than it is for the LEOSAR/GEOSAR
system. Compared to the stand-alone operating mode, the networking operating mode increases the
number of detections. In the data set collected during the “networking” part of the test the amount of
MEOSAR detections doubles in relative size.
However, a small proportion of MEOSAR unique detections seem to lead to unique locations.
Nonetheless, conclusions could not be taken on the realism of the MEOSAR alerts; the number of
Unlocated alerts being excessive and some further analyses needs to be carried out on the existence
of beacons located by the MEOSAR system.

4-28

Events type distribution for each system (standalone mode)
4.4.2.2 Italy
Overall the MEOSAR system detected more beacons and provided more independent locations than
the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system.
Applying the Area of Interest produced only slight differences in all categories, most likely due to the
fact that most of beacons were located inside the coverage area provided by participating MEOLUTs
within a 3,000 km radius circle.
MEOLUTs in networking increased from 65% to 75% the number of MEOSAR-only detections.
The results from a complementary analysis showed the impact of unlocated alerts over the statistics
demonstrating that 72% of beacons detected by MEOSAR-only were unlocated.
However, the LEOSAR/GEOSAR-system-only results underscored some lacks in the detection and
in the computation of independent location compared to the new system, which needs further
investigation.
4.4.2.3 Japan
There was little data in the JAMCC service area. Therefore, JAMCC analyzed beacon detections
within the NWPDDR.
In the standalone period, the number of MEOSAR detections were 1,021 and LEO-GEO detection
were 370. According to the data, MEOSAR detection were 3 times larger than LEO-GEO. And 70%
of MEO had no location information.

4-29

In the networking  period, the number of MEOSAR detections were 327 and LEO-GEO detections
were 121. According to the data, MEOSAR detection were 3 times larger than LEO-GEO. And, 80%
of MEO had no location information.
The results shows that MEOSAR detects more beacons than LEO/GEO.
It is considered possible that the fact that no MEOLUT in NWPDDR caused many alerts with no
location data to be detected. There are no obvious difference between networking period and
standalone period. This also may be influenced by there being no MEOLUTs in the NWPDDR.
4.4.2.4 Norway
As noted by Norway in previous O-2 additional analysis presented at JC-29 (JC-29/4/5), there is a
high amount of unique MEO-only detections. MEO-only consists of approximately 86% of the total
beacon events in standalone mode, and about 80% of the alerts in networking mode of operation is
from MEO only detections. Most of the detections counted is from unlocated beacons, 89.4% of the
detections was unlocated beacons during standalone mode, and 94% was unlocated during
networking mode. In our interpretation of the results we find it remarkable that MEOLUTs in
networking mode seems to increase the amount of detect only cases without impacting other
categories significantly.
From the analysis results it is noted that there is little or no difference when applying an Area of
interest defined by the MEOLUT coverage area. This is most probably because the MEOLUT CA of
3000 km radius extends the NMCC service area, and the greater part of the beacons were located
inside the MEOLUTs coverage area.
Based on the collected data and analysis of unique detections by MEOSAR it is difficult to draw any
conclusions at this stage. MEOSAR for sure proves its capability of detecting beacons, and the large
amount of “phantom” beacons could be compensated by proper filtering methods at MCC and/or
MEOLUT level. However we would recommend further investigation and additional operational
tests to support and demonstrate the MEOSAR system advantages.
4.4.2.5 Spain
With respect to report JC-29/Inf.42, some refinement has been applied to the Standalone dataset, and
the figures in section 4.4.1.5 have changed slightly with respect to the figures for Standalone period
presented in JC-29 meeting report Inf.42.
A high percent of  MEO Only detections was noted, that is, there were between 58% and 62%
MEOSAR Only Detections in standalone mode, and between 68% and 72% of alerts detected by
MEO Only in Networking mode of operation.
It was also noted that beacon alerts detected by both systems did not always contain the same history
in the Beacon Alert Type, that is, some beacon events detected by LEO as U (Unlocated) could be
detected by MEO as DC (DOA Confirmed) alerts.
Taking All Data detected in Standalone Mode of operation, and from those 285 alerts detected by
both systems, a break-down per alert type categories was done, obtaining the following table:

4-30

ONLY
LEO/GEO


MEO
BOTH
U
E
D
ED
DC
EDC
Subtotal

U


E


D


ED


DC


EDC


Sub Total


Phase II Part 2 – Standalone Period
As it can be observed in the previous table, there is a diagonal in grey colour, which indicates which
beacon alerts detected by both systems have exactly the same alert types. Symmetric to this diagonal
appear the figures corresponding to those beacon events detected by both systems for all different
Alert Types combinations.
At this point, the comparison between MEOSAR and GEOSAR/LEOSAR systems is performed
using mirror pairs to this diagonal. As it can be observed in previous table, MEOSAR provided 37
beacon events with DOA, when those beacon events were provided as Unlocated by
GEOSAR/LEOSAR system, and the LEOSAR system provided 15 Doppler beacon events, when
those beacon events were provided as Unlocated by MEOSAR.
Phase II Part 2 – Networking Period
The previous table presents a similar analysis for the 66 beacon alerts detected by both systems,
when All Data is considered in the Networking Mode of operation.
ONLY
LEO/GEO


MEO
BOTH
U
E
D
ED
DC
EDC  Subtotal

U


E


D


ED


DC


EDC


Subtotal


4-31

While admitting that the data sample is small, only 66 samples, it is noted the ratio of MEOSAR
DOA detected when those alerts were detected Unlocated by LEO (15), over the number of
GEOSAR/LEOSAR Doppler detected alerts when those alerts were detected Unlocated by MEOSAR
(2).
It is also noted the number of MEOSAR Confirmed alerts with Encoded Position that were received
as Encoded Only by LEOSAR (5) over the number of Encoded Only MEOSAR that were confirmed
by GEOSAR/LEOSAR (1).
4.4.2.6 USA
Part 1
MEOSAR produces a large number of detect only cases, and a large portion of those are not detected
by the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system
The USA O-2 results do not appear to improve within the AOI relative to the service area
Lack of opportunity (i.e., visibility) does not seem to provide an explanation for the underlying cause
of many missed detections from either system
Part 2
Key observations on the results (all number references are from the complete data set) are as follows:
•
MEOSAR produces a large number of detect only cases (4829 unlocated and 783 encoded
only) relative to the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system (1144 unlocated and 129 encoded only), an
increase by factor of 4 for unlocated and 6 for encoded only, and further analysis indicated
that as much as 80% of this data appeared to be system generated anomalies
•
The number of LEOSAR/GEOSAR only cases for all categories, but in particular for
independent location (389) or confirmed positions (387), is a concern as these indicate a lack
of detections for what are most likely all real beacon activations
•
The data set is reduced, but statistics do not significantly change, when the AOI is applied
•
Networking of MEOLUTs appears to increase the amount of detect only cases, but did not
significantly impact other categories in this result set
•
The number of MEOSAR only cases where there was independent location (141) or
confirmed positions (156) demonstrates the value MEOSAR adds to the current system as
these are most likely real beacon activations that went undetected by the LEOSAR/GEOSAR
system due to gaps between LEOSAR satellite times of visibility
In the short term, concerns related to suspect alerts can be largely mitigated by appropriate filtering at
MCCs.  While the lack of MEOSAR detections needs to be improved, the significant number of
MEOSAR only cases with independent location and confirmed position soundly demonstrates the
value MEOSAR adds to the current system.

4-32

4.5
Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat Ground
Segment Network
4.5.1
O-3 Test Result
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
France D&E Phase 2 Part 2 Operational Tests Report, sections 6.1.3 & 6.2.3
SAR-RE-DEMEO-917-CNES
Italy
JC-29/Inf. 21
Japan
Sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.5.2.3 to this document.
Norway
Sections 4.5.1.4 and 4.5.2.4 to this document.
Spain
JC-29/Inf.42
USA
Sections 4.5.1.4 and 4.5.2.4 to this document.

4-33

4.5.1.1 France
All SIT messages sizes are assumed 1024 bytes.
Standalone Mode
Data received by the FMCC
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
Total
Data
Volume
(B)
Bandwidth
(kbit/s)
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


89700352 0.09127159
MEO


19262 11659


51474432 0.05237609
Combined


1266 37749 19852 17059


137866 141174784 0.14364768
Data sent out by the FMCC
Networking Mode
Data received by the FMCC (Network)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
Total
Data
Volume (B)
Bandwidth
(kbit/s)
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.11771571
MEO


0.15605472
Combined


13296 10727


0.27375194
Data sent out by the FMCC (Network)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
Total
Data
Volume (B)
Bandwidth
(kbit/s)
SIT\_MEO \#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.00904303
MEO


0.07895902
Combined


0.08798943
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
Total
Data
Volume (B)
Bandwidth
(kbit/s)
SIT\_MEO \#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.00696201
MEO


0.03107630
Combined


0.03785096

4-34

4.5.1.2 Italy
Standalone Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122 \#123 \#124 \#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133 \#Total Data
Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO \#142 \#143 \#144 \#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


16170 16558080
0.016849
MEO


0.000602
Combined


16741 17142784
0.017444
Notes
For QMS in the LEO/GEO system please note that ITMCC sent to the nodal FMCC:
- 6928 SIT 122 messages
- 2391 SIT 125 messages
Networking Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124 \#125 \#126 \#127 \#132 \#133
\#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO \#142
\#143
\#144 \#145 \#146 \#147 \#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO


0.017250
MEO


0.000433
Combined


0.017665
Notes
For QMS in the LEO/GEO system please note that ITMCC sent to the nodal FMCC:
•
1640 SIT 122 messages
•
578 SIT 125 messages
It was assumed that the size of SIT 185 is 1400 bytes based on the computation of maximum size that
the standard distress alert message could reach considering the current format, the following results
were noted about the volume of traffic for communication between ITMCC and SPOCs.
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#185
Data Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO
LEO\_GEO

2849000,00
0,002336
MEO

6854400,00
0,005618
Combined

9703400,00
0,007953
Summary Results from O-3 Spreadsheet - SIT 185

4-35

SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#185
Data Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO
LEO\_GEO

2536800,00
0,002588
MEO

5735800,00
0,005839
Combined

8272600,00
0,008421
Summary Results from O-3 Spreadsheet - SIT 185
Stand-Alone MEOLUT
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#185
Data Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO
LEO\_GEO

312200,00
0,001334
MEO

1118600,00
0,004745
Combined

1430800,00
0,006069
Summary Results from O-3 Spreadsheet - SIT 185
Networked MEOLUTs

4-36

4.5.1.3 Japan
Calculation based on Transmitted Messages only as per document C/S R.018.
Standalone Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133 \#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.009513
MEO


0.001606
Combined


0.011118
Networking Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
\#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.010172
MEO


0.003481
Combined


0.013653
Calculation based on Transmitted and Received Messages.
Standalone Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#122 \#123
\#124
\#125 \#126
\#127
\#132 \#133 \#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142 \#143
\#144
\#145 \#146
\#147
\#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO
14602 165

84912 1581 12278

1284 114939 117697536
0.119757
MEO
2585 1735 11211


0.023499
Combined
17187 1900 11274 85287 5013 15373
144 1315 137493 140792832
0.143257
Networking Mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132 \#133 \#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO


0.126843
MEO


0.043974
Combined


4439 21249 1706


0.170776

4-37

4.5.1.4 Norway
Standalone mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123 \#124 \#125 \#126 \#127 \#132 \#133 \#185 \#Total Data
Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO \#142
\#143 \#144 \#145 \#146 \#147 \#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO


5237 164
1593 2

1100 17743

0.018908
MEO


7723 1095 3


0.019615
Combined
18564 103

6087 7887 2688 5

1100 36568

0.038522
Networking mode
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122 \#123 \#124 \#125 \#126 \#127 \#132 \#133 \#185 \#Total Data Volume
Bandwidth
SIT\_MEO \#142 \#143 \#144 \#145 \#146 \#147 \#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO
2065 3

1238 45


0.017792
MEO
7531 60


1156 572


0.045551
Combined
9596 63

1985 1201 904


0.063327
Notes:
All QMS data included. MEO SIT 185 messages to SPOCs removed because of non-filtering
orbitography and test protocol coded beacons.

4-38

4.5.1.5 Spain
Standalone mode
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT connected to MEO-SPMCC (28 Jan – 20 Apr, with two gaps)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122 \#123 \#124 \#125 \#126 \#127 \#132 \#133 \#185 \#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142 \#143 \#144 \#145 \#146 \#147 \#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO
3186 137

2262 264 1760


2271 10241 11340680
0.017221
MEO
5838 316

1237 1950 698

218 21142 31445 40149072
0.060967
Combined
9024 453

3499 2214 2458

499 23413 41686 51489752
0.078188
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT NOT connected to MEO-SPMCC (Gap \#1: 19 Jan – 28 Jan, Gap \#2: 5 March – 16 March)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122 \#123 \#124 \#125 \#126 \#127 \#132 \#133 \#185 \#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142 \#143 \#144 \#145 \#146 \#147 \#136 \#137
LEO\_GEO


3412 3772880
0.017512
MEO


1205 1580968
0.007331
Combined


211 1665 4617 5353848
0.024843
Networking mode
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT connected to MEO-SPMCC (20 Apr – 11 May, with a gap between 29 Apr and 7 May)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO \#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
\#185
\#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.016674
MEO


0.045352
Combined


0.062026
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT NOT connected to MEO-SPMCC (29 Apr – 7 May)
SIT\_LEO\_GEO
\#122
\#123
\#124
\#125
\#126
\#127
\#132
\#133
\#185
\#Total
Data
Volume
Bandwidth
kb/s
SIT\_MEO
\#142
\#143
\#144
\#145
\#146
\#147
\#136
\#137
LEO\_GEO


0.017793
MEO


0.020796
Combined


0.038589

4-39

4.5.1.6 USA
Part 1
Part 2 Stand-Alone
Part 2 Networked
4.5.2
O-3 Test Result Interpretation
4.5.2.1 France
The MEOSAR system generates a considerable amount of SIT messages in comparison to the
LEOSAR/GEOSAR system. A high number of position conflicts are generated by MEOSAR. The
use of networking between MEOLUTs tends to excessively increase the volume of data transmitted.
From a technical point of view, the French MEOSAR-ready MCC is capable of handling the amount
of transiting data. However, from an operational point of view, the high number of SIT messages
may disturb the proper treatment and/or forwarding of the alert towards RCCs or SPOCs.
The trend of the analyses shows the Volume of MEOSAR distress alert traffic in the COSPAS-
SARSAT ground segment network will be considerably higher than the traffic generated by the
LEOSAR/GEOSAR system and may cause trouble at operational level for alert treatment.
Conclusions are taken with the limitations of the D&E testing phase II part II in terms of ground
segment configuration.

4-40

MEOSAR Data Sent Daily by the FMCC in Stand-Alone (Left Side) and Networking (Right Side) Modes
4.5.2.2 Italy
SIT 185 messages generated by the MEOSAR-ready MCC were only noted and not sent to the
SPOCs.
The MEOSAR-ready MCC not associated with a MEOLUT produces an additional outbound traffic
that is negligible, compared to the current load as the outgoing messages towards other MCCs are
related to beacons located in the Buffer Zone or to NOCR messages.
In that configuration, the ITMCC estimated the impact on data volume traffic and use of bandwidth,
analysing the SIT 185 messages generated towards their RCCs and SPOCs. In fact, from a
complementary analysis, the general additional data volume and use of bandwidth increased by
around 2.2 times the current workload. With MEOLUTs in networking and MCCs set in continued
transmission, the message traffic and bandwidth increased by around 3.5 times the current load.
The maximum bandwidth load recorded during the test period was 0.017665 Kbps for the combined
MEOSAR and LEOSAR/GEOSAR systems and MEOLUTs in networking mode, being within the
minimum network capabilities of current communication paths.
4.5.2.3 Japan
As the MEOSAR-ready JAMCC  isn’t connected with a MEOLUT, it has not sent  SIT messages to
any MCCs. It causes low amount of MEOSAR data compared with LEO/GEO data. It also seems
that the fact that JAMCC has exchanged many SIT message of LEO/GEO for MCCs as NODAL
MCC influenced the large amount of LEO/GEO data.
With regards to bandwidth, the maximum load recorded during the test period was 0.013653kbps for
the combined LEO/GEO/MEO in networking mode.
Considered with  the forthcoming LEO/GEO/MEO common use period, it seems that the impact of
data volume is not important.
4.5.2.4 Norway
Because of other EU/SGS qualification test campaigns running in parallel to the D&E phase II Part 2,
Norway experienced sometimes that the MEOSAR-ready NMCC received data from the local

4-41

MEOLUT configured in networking mode, or with the MEOLUT configured to send self-test alert
messages to the MCC. Those cases were attempted to be removed in the post-processing, which
excludes some time periods for the analysis. However due to the comprehensive test intervals the
volume of alert traffic may not be representative between the two systems at all times during
standalone and networking mode.
The MEOSAR system used more data volume and bandwidth than the current LEOSAR/GEOSAR
system. Overall the maximum bandwidth load recorded during networking was 0.063327 combined
for both LEO/GEO and MEO systems. The most significant difference of bandwidth usage between
the two systems also took place during networking, where MEOSAR reported an increase of data
volume and bandwidth of about +250% (2.5 times the current load).
From the complementary analysis, where a large amount of MEO SIT 185 messages were included,
it could be noted that the data volume and bandwidth load did not impact the processing capability of
the current MEOSAR-ready NMCC. Based on this analysis the interpretation of summary results is
that current communication links and MCC capability is suitable to cope with the additional traffic
load from MEOSAR.
4.5.2.5 Spain
The MEOSAR-ready SPMCC transmitted messages only until Location Confirmation, as it is done
for the LEO/GEO MCC system, thus, the number of SIT144 (Position Confirmation by Encoded)
and SIT147 (Position Confirmation by DOA) should have been greater if the SEND AFTER
RESOLVED configuration mode had been applied instead.
During some periods of time, the EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT data was directly available at the MCC,
and during other periods of time data was not directly available at the MCC. Given that having or not
an associated MEOLUT connected to the MCC is decisive for the amount of transmitted messages,
different tables were shown in the O-3 Traffic Analysis, depending on the connection status between
the MEOSAR-ready SPMCC and the EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT.
Taking into account the periods of time that the MEOSAR-ready SPMCC was connected to the
EU/Maspalomas MEOLUT, the maximum global traffic ratio observed was for the MCC to SPOC
communication link, with a MEOSAR traffic 9.3 larger than the LEOSAR traffic.
Several circumstances were identified which could lead to production of this large amount of
messages to SPOCs. They seem to be related with the continuous transmission of Position Updates
and Position Conflicts observed in some situations, and some SPOC areas which have double
destination addresses, leading the MCC to send the messages, intended for those areas, twice.
With the current DDP rules, about the minimum period of time of several minutes that should elapse
between consecutive position update and position conflict messages, the MCC to SPOC traffic load
should be lesser.
4.5.2.6 USA
Part 1

4-42

The results of the O-3 test imply that for the combined MEO and LEO/GEO systems, there will be a
data volume increase on the order of almost two and a half times the size of the existing LEO/GEO
system.  Likewise, the communication bandwidth of the combined system load will also be two and a
half times the occupancy of the current system.
Part 2
The results of the O-3 test imply that for the combined MEO and LEO/GEO systems, there will be a
data volume increase.  As the data will be merged in the LEO/GEO/MEO system, the increase will
not be as high, so the maximum increase (assuming networking is on) is perhaps 3.5 times the current
load.  However, given the relatively low overall bandwidth required, the impact of the additional
traffic due to the MEOSAR system should be negligible.
4.6
Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures
4.6.1
O-4 Test Result
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
France D&E Phase 2 Part 2 Operational Tests Report, sections 6.1.4 & 6.2.4
SAR-RE-DEMEO-917-CNES
Italy
JC-29/Inf. 22
USA
JC-29/Inf. 26 (section 5)

4-43

4.6.1.1 France
Standalone mode
Alert types repartition for the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system
Nb of sites: 215
Nb of solutions: 3425
FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOP
FA
DOP
ENC
CFM
FA
DOP
ENC
DIF
NC
DOP
DOP
DIF
NC
DOP
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOP
DOP
CFM
CA
ENC
DOP
CFM
CA
DOP
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOP
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOP
ENC
RD
UNL
TOTAL


SITE LEVEL STAT. (%)
74.42 7.91 17.2
0.47
0.00
15.81
0.00
0.47
SOLUTION LEVEL STAT. (%)
4.67
0.50 1.08
0.03
0.00
1.05 0.09 0.44
0.99
0.00
0.03
2.48 0.09
0.00 31.77 56.79
Alert types repartition for the MEOSAR system
Nb of sites: 601
Nb of solutions: 3403
FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOA
FA
DOA
ENC
CFM
FA
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
DOA
DOA
DIF
NC
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOA
DOA
CFM
CA
ENC
DOA
CFM
CA
DOP
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOP
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOP
ENC
RD
UNL
TOTAL


SITE LEVEL STAT. (%)
69.88 18.64 10.9 0.17
0.33
7.49
0.33
0.50
SOLUTION LEVEL STAT. (%) 12.34
3.29
1.94 0.03
0.06
1.18
0.53 1.53
1.32
0.06
0.09 16.37 6.94 1.70 33.94 18.69
Networking mode
Alert types repartition on the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system (Networking mode)
Nb of sites: 59
Nb of solutions: 910
FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOP
FA
DOP
ENC
CFM
FA
DOP
ENC
DIF
NC
DOP
DOP
DIF
NC
DOP
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOP
DOP
CFM
CA
ENC
DOP
CFM
CA
DOP
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOP
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOP
ENC
RD
UNL
COLUMN TOTALS


SITE LEVEL STAT. (%)
72.88
6.78
20.34
0.00
0.00
8.47
1.69
0.00
SOLUTION LEVEL STAT. (%)
4.73
0.44
1.32
0.00
0.00
1.43
0.00
0.33
0.55
0.11
0.00
1.98
0.00
0.00
26.70
62.42
Alert types repartition on the MEOSAR system (Networking mode)
Nb of sites: 293
Nb of solutions: 3693
FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOA
FA
DOA
ENC
CFM
FA
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
DOA
DOA
DIF
NC
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOA
DOA
CFM
CA
ENC
DOA
CFM
CA
DOP
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOP
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOP
ENC
RD
UNL
COLUMN TOTALS


SITE LEVEL STAT. (%)
72.70 19.11 8.19
0.00
0.00
6.83
0.00
0.34
SOLUTION LEVEL STAT. (%)
5.77
1.52
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.00 0.35 0.54
0.00
0.03 23.67 3.82 1.16 32.87 28.89

4-44

4.6.1.2 Italy
Standalone mode
NUMBER OF SITES

NUMBER OF
SOLUTIONS

FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOA
FA
DOA
ENC
CFM
FA
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
DOA
DOA
DIF
NC
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOA
DOA
CFM
CA
ENC
DOA
CFM
CA
DOA
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOA
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOA
ENC
RD
UNL
COLUMN
TOTALS


SITE LEVEL
STATISTICS
67.94%
10.45%
20.34%
0.99%
0.28%
13.98%
1.55%
0.28%
SOLUTION
LEVEL
STATISTICS
7.83%
1.20%
2.34%
0.11%
0.03%
2.62%
0.52%
0.08%
1.61%
0.18%
0.03%
12.34%
44.50%
2.70%
22.65%
2.02%
Networking mode
NUMBER OF SITES

NUMBER OF
SOLUTIONS

FA
UNL
FA
ENC
FA
DOA
FA
DOA
ENC
CFM
FA
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
DOA
DOA
DIF
NC
DOA
ENC
DIF
NC
ENC
ENC
DIF
CA
DOA
DOA
CFM
CA
ENC
DOA
CFM
CA
DOA
ENC
CFM
CT
CFM
CT
DOA
DIF
CT
ENC
DIF
RD
DOA
ENC
RD
UNL
COLUMN
TOTALS


SITE LEVEL
STATISTICS
74.30%
5.88%
19.20%
0.31%
0.31%
9.60%
0.00%
0.31%
SOLUTION LEVEL
STATISTICS
20.17%
1.60%
5.21%
0.08%
0.08%
4.71%
4.45%
0.08%
2.61%
0.00%
0.08%
2.02%
3.11%
0.59%
51.76%
7.39%

4-45

4.6.1.3 USA
Note: Only Part 1 results were provided by the USA for this test.
Standalone mode
Results (MEOSAR system)
Category
# of Sites
(all)
% of Total
(all)
# of Sites
(Service
Area)
% of Total
(Service
Area)
FA UNL

67.8

78.9
FA ENC

5.9

8.5
FA DOA\*

22.8

12.2
FA CFM\*

3.5

0.4
Total

100%

100%
Summary Results for First Alerts (LEOSAR/GEOSAR system)
* For the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system, “DOA” refers to Doppler and “CFM” refers to ambiguity
resolution. Figure 2 contains results for the same period as Figure 1.
4.6.2
O-4 Test Result Interpretation
4.6.2.1 France
The O-4 test results show that the number of solutions of the MEOSAR system is much higher than
that of the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system.
The LEOSAR/GEOSAR system has a large part of redundant data (89% of the alerts), whereas the
generation of alerts for the MEOSAR system is more spread among the alerts types and shows a
larger percentage of First Alerts and Position confirmation alerts than the LEOSAR/GEOSAR
system.
With the MEOLUTs networking ON, the MEOSAR system generates an excessive amount of alert
data. The proportion of redundant data increases as well as the proportion of continued transmission
confirmation while the number of first alerts was rather lower in comparison with the period of test
with the MEOLUT stand-alone mode.

4-46

O-4 Alert Types Repartition for the LEOSAR/GEOSAR System (Left Side) and
the MEOSAR System in Stand-Alone(Right Side)
O-4 Alert Types Repartition for the LEOSAR/GEOSAR System (Left Side) and
the MEOSAR System in Networking (Right Side)
4.6.2.2 Italy
The MEOSAR system detected 2.7 times the number of beacons detected by the LEOSAR/GEOSAR
system.
In the computation of an independent location, the MEOSAR system performed better than the
existing system, providing a higher percentage of alerts provided with position DOA (+7%).
The continued transmission provided a large number of solutions to the MCC that processed the data
without performance degradation, being within the capabilities of the Cospas-Sarsat communications
network, as demonstrated in the O-3 Summary results. In view of the benefits that it provides for a
continuous monitoring beacon position to the destination MCC, the above results support the
proposition that continued transmission should be the default setting for the future MCCs.
MEOLUTs in networking configuration increased the percentage of first alerts unlocated up to 74%
(+6%) as well as the number of unlocated solutions up to 20% (+12%) compared to the Standalone
mode.

4-47

First alerts with an independent position are very similar to the stand-alone mode, at around 20% of
total first alerts.
Redundant data also reported a significant increase (+ 34.5%) representing 59% of solutions in total.
4.6.2.3 USA
Note: Only Part 1 results were provided by the USA for this test.
As shown in Figure 1, most MEOSAR alerts were unlocated during the test period.  For beacon
activations, about 87% of MEOSAR first alerts were unlocated, 10% of MEOSAR first alerts
contained only encoded position and 3% of MEOSAR first alerts contained independent (DOA)
position.
An appropriate area of interest (that is, all activations vs. activations in the MCC service area) should
be selected in comparing the occurrence of output alerts by category between the MEOSAR and
LEOSAR/GEOSAR systems. This is illustrated by fact that 26.3% of LEOSAR/GEOSAR first alerts
contained Doppler location for all beacon activations vs. 12.6% of LEOSAR/GEOSAR first alerts in
the USMCC service area, as shown in Figure 2.  For all beacon activations processed by the
USMCC, independent location was provided for 3.13% of MEOSAR first alerts compared to 26.3%
of LEOSAR/GEOSAR first alerts.
Based on this analysis, the USA proposed modifications to the O-4 spreadsheet in document
C/S EWG-1/2014/6/4.
It is expected that independent (DOA) location will occur more often as more MEOSAR satellites
become available for use and when MEOLUT networking is performed.  The availability and use of
additional MEOSAR satellites will enable a more meaningful analysis of alert data distribution
procedures to be implemented in the operational MEOSAR system.
4.7
Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service
This test has been postponed to Phase III.

4-48

4.8
Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the MEOSAR System
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
Argentina
Sec. 4.8.14
Australia
Sec. 4.8.7, 4.8.10, 4.8.11, 4.8.15, 4.8.17
Brazil
Sec. 4.8.1, 4.8.12
Italy
Sec. 4.8.8
New Zealand
Sec. 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.6, 4.8.9, 4.8.13, 4.8.16
Norway
Sec. 4.8.5

4-49

4.8.1
Incident 1 – Brazil
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
6 October 2015 12:06 UTC
Location
Fazenda Guanabara Airport
Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil)
Incident Type
Aircraft emergency landing.
Beacon Type
ELT
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
On land
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
09:06
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Not reported
People Involved

People Rescued
2(Alive) / 1(Dead)
C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
Later
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage.
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No locations for this site.
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
No locations for this site.
On 6 October 2015, a single-engine aircraft made an emergency landing at Fazenda Guanabara
Airport in Brazil.
The ARCC-CW received a distress alert data from BRMCC of a registered radio beacon. During the
investigation ARCC CW received information that the aircraft fell immediately after taking off. The
aircraft was quite damaged. The crew were found alive, but one of them was seriously injured, dying
at the hospital.
The aircraft’s ELT was detected by GEOSAR at 12:06 UTC and by MEOSAR at 12:07:58, both
unlocated detections. As the ELT was registered, the search for the aircraft was able to commence.
In this incident, MEOSAR did not provide a time advantage.

4-50

4.8.2
Incident 2 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
24 February 2016 23:45 UTC
Location
Ngunguru River, New Zealand
Incident Type
Injured walker
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Land
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
12:45
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
Only
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Accuracy (1.5 NM)
On 24 February 2016, an injured walker contacted NZ Police by phone but was unable to provide a
location. The walker was carrying a PLB and was asked to activate the beacon. JRCC New Zealand
was contacted by the NZ Police but there was no LEOSAR or GEOSAR data for the beacon. JRCC
NZ contacted the AUMCC system manager and the MEOSAR system provided an encoded and
MEOSAR location. The walker was successfully rescued. The encoded location was 45 m from the
walker, the MEOSAR location was within 1.5 nautical miles. There were no LEOSAR or GEOSAR
detections of the beacon.
In this incident, MEOSAR was the only detection for a successful rescue.

4-51

4.8.3
Incident 3 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
1 May 2016 20:36 UTC
Location
Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand
Incident Type
Hiker with a shoulder dislocated.
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Forest/cliff
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
2 May 2016 08:36
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (49 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (49 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
On 1 May 2016 at 20:36 UTC, a MEOSAR alert was received for an unregistered New Zealand
beacon. The Nelson rescue helicopter was dispatched to the encoded position and located a male
tramper (hiker) who had taken a tumble and dislocated his shoulder. The man was airlifted to Nelson
Hospital for treatment. A LEOSAR alert was received at 21:05 UTC. MEOSAR provided a location
49 minutes before the LEOSAR detection.
In this incident, MEOSAR provided a time advantage.

4-52

4.8.4
Incident 4 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
25 April 2016 02:23 UTC
Location
Tararua, New Zealand
Incident Type
Hiker with a broken leg.
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Difficult terrain /fall
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
16:23
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Last light / Partially Cloudy
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (50 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (50 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
On 25 April 2016, JRCC NZ received a MEOSAR detection of a registered PLB about 50 minutes
before the initial LEOSAR detection. A solo tramper (hiker) was rescued just before last light.
Without the additional 50 minutes of time provided by the earlier MEOSAR detection, the rescue
would most likely have required a land search at night in difficult terrain.
Further details are available at the following web site:
http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/media-releases-2016/20160426a.asp.
In this incident, MEOSAR provided a time advantage that was critical to a successful rescue.

4-53

4.8.5
Incident 5 – Norway
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
9 January 2015 03:30 UTC
Location
North Sea
Incident Type
Fishing vessel sinking
Beacon Type
EPIRB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Sea / Life raft
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Drifting
Local Time
04:30 (Night)
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Ice Cold water / Rough seas
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (28 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (63 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
On 9th January 2015 at 03:30 UTC JRCC-North Norway received information from the coastal radio
that the fishing vessel “Oestbanken” (MMSI 259179000) was taking on water 60 NM north of
Baatsfjord with 5 people on board.
The first MEOSAR alert was received at 03:50 UTC with a DOA position. An unlocated GEO alert
was received at 04:18 UTC and a LEO alert with A and B positions was not received until
04:53 UTC.
The crew were rescued in rough seas in a life raft at 05:45 UTC.
See document JC-29/Inf 11 for a more detailed description of this incident.
In this incident, MEOSAR provided a 28 minute advantage in detection and a 63 minute advantage in
providing a location.

4-54

4.8.6
Incident 6 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
19 January 2016 03:26 UTC
Location
Mount Earnslaw, New Zealand
Incident Type
Hiker heart attack
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Valley
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
16:26
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not known
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
None
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (284 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (284 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
At 03:26 UTC on 19 January 2016, the New Zealand JRCC received a LEOSAR detection for a
beacon. The beacon had an encoded location. Just after the detection arrived at the JRCC, the JRCC
was contacted by emergency services. The beacon was associated with a party of trampers (hikers),
one of whom had suffered a suspected heart attack. The party had activated their beacon around five
hours prior to detection by the LEOSAR system. After waiting for a considerable period, they ended
up raising the alarm with some of the members hiking out and calling emergency services.
The beacon was confirmed by the MEOSAR system at 22:42 UTC on 18 January, four hours and
forty-four minutes before the LEOSAR detection.
It is presumed that the beacon was not detected by any GEO satellite due to terrain shielding. The
beacon was not detected for five hours by the LEOSAR system due to terrain shielding for earlier
passes.
In this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to SAR authorities, MEOSAR would have
provided detection and location advantage of 4 hours and 44 minutes.

4-55

4.8.7
Incident 7 – Australia
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
22 March 2016 05:40 UTC
Location
Bowen, Australia
Incident Type
Dory broken down at anchor
Beacon Type
EPIRB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Sea
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Drifting
Local Time
16:40
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
A dory
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (6 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (44 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
1st DOA Location (5.36 km)
On 22 March 2016, a distress beacon registered to a dory boat was detected in the vicinity of Dingo
Reef, 50 miles east of Bowen, Queensland, Australia. The main trawler was contacted and reported
that a dory was missing. A rescue helicopter was tasked and it located the dory which was broken
down at anchor. A second dory was directed to the scene and assistance was provided.
The first LEO unlocated alert was received at 05:46 UTC. An initial LEO alert with suspect position
data was received at 06:24 UTC; the closest Doppler position was 17.46 km from the beacon. A
resolved LEO alert was received at 06:32 UTC with a position about 670 m from the beacon.
The MEOSAR system provided an initial alert at 05:40 UTC with a DOA position 5.36 km from the
beacon. An updated location was received at 05:43 UTC with a DOA position 440 m from the
beacon.
In this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to SAR authorities, MEOSAR would have
provided a 6 minute advantage in detection and 44 minute advantage in time to determine location.

4-56

4.8.8
Incident 8 – Italy
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
4 November 2015 05:59 UTC
Location
South Sudan
Incident Type
Aircraft crash
Beacon Type
ELT
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Land
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
08:59
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Crash near the airport
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (23 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (20 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
On 4 November 2015 at 05:59 UTC, a cargo aircraft Antonov An-12BK, registration mark EY-406
and Tajikistan-registered crashed shortly after take-off from Juba International Airport in South
Sudan, impacting terrain about 1,100 metres past the runway end.
Thirty-seven people died including the crew of six. Only two passengers survived the crash. The
LEOSAR/GEOSAR system detected the ELT activation and alerts were processed by ITMCC, which
informed the interested SPOCs.
The first LEOSAR detection occurred at 06:22 UTC, the first LEOSAR Doppler positions at 07:16
UTC and the first resolved position at 08:00 UTC.
The first MEOSAR detection was at 0559 UTC, the first DOA position at 06:56 UTC and DOA
position was confirmed at 07:13 UTC.
See document CSC-55/OPN/Inf.10 for a more detailed description of this incident.
For this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to Search and Rescue authorities,
MEOSAR would have provided a 23 minute advantage in detection time, a 20 minute advantage in
detection of first position and a 47 minute advantage in time to confirmed position.

4-57

4.8.9
Incident 9 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
29 March 2014 23:31 UTC
Location
Lake Christabel, New Zealand
Incident Type
Hiker stuck
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Rocky Precipice
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
12:31
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
None
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (120 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (120 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
In April 2014, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) received a query regarding a PLB
activated in New Zealand. The owner of the beacon reported:
“I was out hunting in the weekend and I got myself into a really bad situation. I was climbing up
some steep bluffs trying to get to the top of a ridge, and all of a sudden I realised that I could neither
go up or down. I was stuck. I tried to figure out a way down, and my mate couldn't get up to me to
help. As an absolute last resort I activated my RescueMe PLB. I was perched on a rocky precipice
waiting for a helicopter.
I knew that I could not spend a night out here, so I told myself I was going to get down. I threw all of
my gear down the bluffs including my rifle. It was the scariest thing I have ever done, but I did
eventually manage to get down. It could easily have gone either way, one slip and I would have
tumbled hundreds of feet.
We then walked back out to the car and as soon as I got into reception I called 111. There had been
no reports of a PLB activated in my area.”
There were no LEOSAR or GEOSAR detections of this beacon. If the beacon had been left turned
on, the first LEOSAR detection would have occurred about 2 hours after the first detection by
MEOSAR.
At this time the New Zealand MEOLUT had not been built. The MEOLUT in Hawaii (over 7,400 km
away) detected the beacon at 23:31 UTC 29 March and had many detections of the beacon with an
encoded location from 23:34 UTC to 01:45 UTC 30 March.
In this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to Search and Rescue authorities, MEOSAR
would have provided an advantage of over 120 minutes in detection and location. See document
JC-28/Inf.5 for a more detailed description of this incident.

4-58

4.8.10 Incident 10 – Australia
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
13 April 2016 06:15 UTC
Location
Deepwater, Australia
Incident Type
Road accident
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Valley
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
16:15
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
None
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Later)
Only
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (43 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (43 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
A member of the public reported to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) that the
person had activated their PLB at Ten Mile Rd, Deepwater NSW Australia about 4:15 pm 13 April
2016 until approximately 4:55 pm (local times) after arriving at the site of a road accident. The
beacon was turned off when mobile phone contact was made to rescue authorities by climbing a hill.
There were no LEOSAR or GEOSAR detections of this beacon. The beacon was activated in a valley
and it is presumed that terrain shielding prevented any LEOSAR or GEOSAR detections. If the
beacon had been left turned on, the earliest LEOSAR detection would have been around 04:58 pm.
The New Zealand MEOLUT detected the PLB multiple times between 04:15 pm to 04:58 pm local
time and provided an encoded position.
In this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to Search and Rescue authorities, MEOSAR
would have provided at least a 43-minute advantage in detection and location compared with
LEOSAR and GEOSAR.

4-59

4.8.11 Incident 11 – Australia
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Retrospective
Date and Time
02 June 2016 04:44 UTC
Location
Moreton Bay, Australia
Incident Type
Moving fishing boat
Beacon Type
EPIRB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Sea
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Moving
Local Time
16:44
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
None
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
Other
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
1st location disadvantage (325 km)
At 04:44 UTC on 2 June 2016, an unlocated beacon was detected by the New Zealand MEOLUT and
the GEOSAR system. The beacon was registered but details were unclear as the previous owner had
sold the beacon.
The LEOSAR system generated A and B positions at 04:59. A conflict was generated at 06:31 before
the LEOSAR system produced a resolved position at 06:34.
The first DOA position was generated at 05:56 UTC. The next DOA position was generated at 06:16
UTC.
The first DOA position was over 325 km from the final location of the beacon. All DOA locations
after the first location at 05:56 were in the same area as the final location of the beacon.
Information from the incident indicates that the beacon was activated in a moving recreational
fishing boat.
In this incident, if the MEOSAR data had been available to search and rescue authorities, the first
DOA location may have confused the initial response. As the beacon was registered, information
from the beacon emergency contacts (once determined) may have indicated that the first DOA
location was grossly inaccurate. The second DOA position would also have indicated that there was a
conflict in positions.

4-60

4.8.12 Incident 12 – Brazil
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
05 July 2016 21:40 UTC
Location
Santa Cruz Air Force Base (Brazil)
Incident Type
Jet plane crash
Beacon Type
ELT
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Land
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
18:40
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Not reported
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (8 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Encoded Advantage (5 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
1st Location (18 km)
On 5 July 2016 at 21:40:11 UTC a Brazilian Air Force jet plane crashed close to Santa Cruz Air
Force Base due to landing gear problems. Both pilots successfully ejected before the accident. The
aircraft’s 406 MHz ELT was not activated, but the 406 MHz PLB attached to the pilot’s ejection seat
was automatically activated and its alerts were detected by LEOSAR, GEOSAR and MEOSAR
Systems. See document JC-30/Inf. 26 for a more detailed analysis of this incident.
The first MEOSAR detection occurred at 21:40:17 UTC, the first MEOSAR detection with an
encoded location was at 21:43:39 UTC and the first MEOSAR location was generated at 21:53:28
UTC.
The first LEOSAR detection and Doppler locations were generated at 21:48:51 UTC.
The first GEOSAR detection which included an encoded location occurred at 22:00:15.
The encoded location matched the reported position of the PLB. The LEOSAR positions were very
close to the actual PLB location. After 36 minutes, the MEOSAR location was 959 meters from the
actual PLB location.
In this incident, both LEOSAR and MEOSAR provided location data and an encoded location within
10 minutes. GEOSAR provided an encoded location within 20 minutes. The MEOSAR location data
was less accurate than the encoded and LEOSAR location data.

4-61

4.8.13 Incident 13 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
14 July 2016 18:56 UTC
Location
Nevada (USA)
Incident Type
Moving Aircraft
Beacon Type
ELT
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Air
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Moving
Local Time
12:56
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
None
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Disadvantage (11,000 km)
A beacon was detected by the New Zealand MEOLUT at 18:56 UTC on 14 July 2016. The beacon
had a DOA position of (37 13.8S, 164 11.0E) and an encoded position of (38 03.33N, 116 16.80W),
a difference of over 11,000 kilometres.
Later MEOSAR detections did not generate a DOA position.
Information from LEOSAR detections indicated that the encoded position was valid but on a moving
aircraft (as the encoded position changed over time).
In this incident, the MEOSAR location was invalid. If the alert had not included an encoded location,
the MEOSAR location may have resulted in an unnecessary Search and Rescue response.

4-62

4.8.14 Incident 14 – Argentina
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
04 August 2016 20:18 UTC
Location
Villa Llaquin, Neuquén, Argentina
Incident Type
Aircraft crash
Beacon Type
ELT
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Land
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
17:18
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Not reported
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Not reported
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
First Location
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
No advantage
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Advantage (75 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
1st DOA Location Accuracy (5.5 km)
On 4 August 2016 at 20:18 UTC, the ARMCC received an unlocated GEOSAR alert for an
unregistered ELT.
At 20:24 UTC, the Argentina MEOLUT provided a position near Villa Llanquin town in the
province of Neuquen, inside of Argentinian Patagonia, 40 km from Bariloche.
The local SAR forces were able to locate and rescue six persons from the aircraft that had crashed
due to lack of propulsion. See document JC-30/Inf. 38 for further information.

4-63

Detection times are shown in the following table:
TIME (UTC)  SYSTEM
DISTANCE
20:18
GEO Unlocated alert (GOES -13)
--
20:24
MEO DOA Position
5,5 km
20:40
MEO Confirmed
3,2 km
21:39
LEO Initial alert (S-12) – Prob. 94% - Doppler A  0,8 km
22:05
LEO Resolved alert (S-07)
3,3 km
Locations are shown on the map below:
In this incident, MEOSAR provided an alert with an accurate position 1 hour and 40 minutes prior to
the LEOSAR system which contributed to a successful rescue.

4-64

4.8.15 Incident 15 – Australia
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
14 August 2016 03:41 UTC
Location
Jurien Bay, Australia
Incident Type
Vessel broken up.
Beacon Type
EPIRB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Sea
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
11:41
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Persons in water
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
Only
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (at least 169 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (at least 169 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Accuracy (0.8 km)
A beacon was detected with a DOA location by the Australian and New Zealand MEOSAR system at
03:41 UTC on 14 August 2016. An unlocated GEOSAR detection was received by the Australian
JRCC at 0359.
Although the beacon was registered, attempts to contact the emergency contacts for the beacon were
unsuccessful.
SAR resources were tasked and at 06:00 UTC, two men were rescued off Jurien Bay in Western
Australia (approximately 200 kilometres north of Perth). Both men were rescued from the water as
their vessel had broken up.
If the beacon had been left turned on, the first LEOSAR detection would not have occurred until
approximately 06:30 UTC.
The rescue helicopter reported that the MEOSAR location provided by the JRCC was within
800 metres of the actual beacon location.
In this incident, MEOSAR provided a 169 minute advantage in providing a location for a rescue with
persons in the water.

4-65

4.8.16 Incident 16 – New Zealand
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
25 August 2016 21:48
Location
Mt Cook National Park, New Zealand
Incident Type
Hiker bad hand injury.
Beacon Type
PLB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Snow
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Static
Local Time
09:48
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Ice, cold
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
DOC Alpine Cliff Rescue Team / Helicopter
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
First Detection / Only Location
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage (85 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Advantage in location
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
At 21:48 UTC on 25 August 2016, RCCNZ received MEOSAR alerts for a PLB registered to the
Canterbury University Tramping Club, with positions near Ball Shelter in Aoraki Mt Cook National
Park. Contacts advised that two persons had borrowed the beacon before going back-country skiing.
The DOC Alpine Cliff Rescue Team was tasked, along with a helicopter. The crew, including a
paramedic, quickly found the pair, who had activated the PLB on behalf of an injured person they
had come across. The tramper (hiker) had fallen and sustained a bad hand injury. The person was
flown back to the SAR base for initial treatment then taken by ambulance to hospital
The only GEOSAR detection of the beacon was at 23:13 UTC with no encoded location. No location
was generated by the LEOSAR or GEOSAR systems.
In this incident, MEOSAR provided an 85 minute advantage in detecting the beacon and provided a
location that enabled the rescue of an injured person.

4-66

4.8.17 Incident 17 – Australia
Type of Analysis (Real-time/Retrospective)
Real-time
Date and Time
10 October 2016 05:33 UTC
Location
400 NM west of Cocos Island, Indian Ocean
Incident Type
Yacht total power failure
Beacon Type
EPIRB
Beacon Environment (land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Sea
Beacon Speed (static/moving/drifting…)
Drifting
Local Time
11:33 (Approx)
Local Weather Conditions (winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Rough seas
Resources moved (Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Sighted by Aircraft / Picked up by Vessel
People Involved

People Rescued

C/S MEOSAR Alert (Only/First/Other)
First
Detection Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Detection Advantage (180 mins)
Location Time (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Advantage (>210 mins)
Location Accuracy (Advantage/No Advantage)
Location Accuracy varied (0.1 – 15) NM
At 05:33 UTC on 10 October 2016, the Australian JRCC received an initial alert with a MEOSAR
location in the Indian Ocean, approximately 400 nautical miles west of Cocos Island. The beacon had
a country of registration of French Polynesia and was associated with a yacht with two persons on
board. An Australian defence force aircraft was tasked to respond and a 288 metre gas carrier was
diverted to the area.
At 10:07 UTC the yacht was sighted by the aircraft and two persons were rescued by the gas carrier
at approximately 10:50 UTC. The yacht had suffered a total power failure and was abandoned.
The first GEOSAR detection was sent to the FMCC at 08:28 UTC. This alert had no location data
and was forwarded to JRCC in Tahiti (as the beacon had a country of registration of French
Polynesia).
The first LEOSAR detection was at 08:50 UTC but again had no location data. At 09:08 UTC the
AUMCC received a LEOSAR detection with two Doppler locations in the Indian Ocean. A resolved
LEOSAR alerts was received by the Australian JRCC at 10:53 UTC.
Between 05:33 UTC and 10:52 UTC, 102 MEOSAR alerts were received by the Australian
MEOSAR MCC from the Australian and New Zealand MEOLUTs. The MEOSAR location was
confirmed at 05:50 UTC.
Using the location of the yacht at 10:07 UTC when sighted by the Australian aircraft, the MEOSAR
detections ranged from 0.1 nautical miles to 15 nautical miles. Accuracy of the MEOSAR locations
varied during the incident. The LEOSAR locations were within 1 nautical mile for the Doppler A
position and the resolved position.

4-67

In this incident, MEOSAR provided a detection time advantage of three hours compared with
GEOSAR and LEOSAR. As well, MEOSAR provided a time advantage of more than three and half
hours in generating location data. The MEOSAR data allowed a successful rescue to be completed
before LEOSAR produced a resolved location for this incident.
4.9
Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution – Impact on Independent Location
Accuracy
4.9.1
O-7 Test Result
The following test reports were provided by the participants:
Administration
Test report reference
France
France D&E Phase 2 Part 2 Operational Tests Report, sections 6.1.5 & 6.2.5
SAR-RE-DEMEO-917-CNES
USA
Operational Test Phase II Part 1 USA Preliminary Analysis (section 6), per
document JC-28/Inf.26
USA D&E Phase 2 Part 2 Operational Tests Report, per TG-2/2016 document
“USA\_O-7 PhaseII-Part2\_Report” listed under “Other Documents”

4-68

4.9.1.1 France
Standalone mode
FMCC-MEOSAR ready Quality Factor success rate (standalone):
Category
Count
Percentage
Success#1 (better QF - better accuracy)

27.1%
Success#2 (worse QF - worse accuracy)

30.9%
Failure#1 (better QF - worse accuracy)

22.7%
Failure#2 (worse QF - better accuracy)

19.2%
Total Analyzed

10.6%
Not Analyzed (No DOA position in event)

51.0%
Not Analyzed (QF scale not comparable HGT/TSI)

1.0%
Not Analyzed (No previous DOA position recorded)

0.3%
Not Analyzed (No change in QF [for HGT scale])

47.4%
Not Analyzed (Change in QF less than 50 [for TSI scale]

0.3%
Total Not Analyzed

89.4%
Grand Total

100.0%
All Successes vs analyzed data

58.1%
D&E Phase II O-7 / FMCC-MEO Results Summary (STAND-ALONE Mode)
Networking mode
FMCC-MEOSAR ready Quality Factor success rate (networking):
Category
Count
Percentage
Success#1 (better QF - better accuracy)

32.4%
Success#2 (worse QF - worse accuracy)

33.4%
Failure#1 (better QF - worse accuracy)

17.3%
Failure#2 (worse QF - better accuracy)

16.9%
Total Analyzed

14.0%
Not Analyzed (No DOA position in event)

71.4%
Not Analyzed (QF scale not comparable HGT/TSI)

1.0%
Not Analyzed (No previous DOA position recorded)

0.1%
Not Analyzed (No change in QF [for HGT scale])

27.2%
Not Analyzed (Change in QF less than 50 [for TSI scale]

0.2%
Total Not Analyzed

86.0%
Grand Total

100.0%
All Successes vs analyzed data

65.8%
D&E Phase II O-7 / FMCC-MEO Results Summary (NETWORKING Mode)

4-69

4.9.1.2 USA
Part 1
Part 2 (Stand-Alone Only – Modified approach to analysis)
Distance
Threshold
% Success
vs. Total
Analyzed
% Success
of Grand
Total
% Failure
of Grand
Total
Grand
Total
None (0)
68.9
11.6
5.3

0.5 km
70.3
10.9
4.6

1 km
71.5
10.3
4.3

Summary Quality Factor Reliability

4-70

Quality Factor
Range
Cases
Med-
ian
50th
75th
95th
< 5km
Count
< 5km
%
< 20km
Count
< 20km
%
0 to 49


17.66
36.88
64.79

13.9

58.3
50 to 99


10.86
35.14
35.14


100 to 149


56.45
65.16
69.05


11.1
150 to 199


77.36
80.39
80.39

16.7

16.7
200 to 249


21.43
27.06
81.11

12.5


250 to 299


10.54
25.27
77.27

23.1

61.5
300 to 349


17.23
25.7
42.31


56.7
350 to 399


18.56
23.85
62.2

5.3

63.2
400 to 449


21.29
31.34
91.66

7.1

42.9
450 to 499


12.9
23.95
40.86


500 to 549


13.2
21.09
30.94

17.5

73.7
550 to 5990


7.2
13.75
31.45


85.1
600 to 649


9.99
17.6
43.73

23.8

80.6
650 to 699


6.86
13.42
27.16

39.6

85.1
700 to 749


7.78
13.08
24.67


91.2
750 to 799


5.92
9.99
18.73

41.7

96.1
800 to 849


5.11
8.62
17.19

49.4

96.8
850 to 899


4.03
6.47
11.87

60.4

99.9
900 to 949


2.96
4.52
7.58

79.1


950 to 999


1.45
1.94
4.49

98.1


0 to 249


21.92
40.58
80.39

12.7

44.4
250 to 499


16.11
25.45
54.75


58.3
500 to 749


7.91
14.19
28.8

32.4

86.3
750 to 999


4.2
7.22
14.58

57.9

98.2
Total


5.3
9.8
24.0

47.6

92.3
Florida/Hawaii MEOLUT DOA Location Errors (km) vs. Quality Factor

4-71

4.9.2
O-7 Test Result Interpretation
4.9.2.1 France
The O-7 test results fail to prove the operational and technical effectiveness of the location Quality
Factor as it is currently used at the MEOSAR MCC level. The MEOLUT manufacturers use different
scales and definitions of this factor which prevents complete analysis: in particular, in stand-alone
mode the HGT MEOLUTs can only provide four distinct values. It also appears that QF strict
dependence on the location error value is only verified in two thirds of the time (in network results
which are slightly better than stand-alone).
The results of the O-7 test depend on the proper use and definition of the Quality Factor, which
differs from the one manufacturer to another. The idea to link it directly to the error location is
working between 58% and 65% of the cases only, which is not satisfactory. This can be due to two
factors:
•
location error estimation by MEOLUT not always representative of the real error,
•
other parameters than the location error estimation used in the QF processing.
The D&E Phase II O-7 results gathered by France lead to the necessity of re-defining a formal
definition of the QF (linked to the location error and/or may be other parameters) and reaching an
agreement between the manufacturers to use the same definition in the MEOLUTs’ out-going
messages.
Location Error as Function of QF (HGT / Network)

4-72

Location Errors Increasing and Corresponding QF (TSI/Network)
4.9.2.2 USA
Part 1
For a limited dataset and using the alert site composite location in the absence of ground truth, a
significant change in quality factor was correlated with an improvement in location accuracy in
66.7% of cases.  50% of successful cases (i.e., cases where the quality factor and location accuracy
were positively correlated) involved a location accuracy improvement of at least 2 km. This suggests
that the analysis of quality factor could be refined by correlating a meaningful improvement in
quality factor with an improvement in location accuracy that is meaningful to RCCs performing
SAR.
This analysis provides evidence that a quality factor correlated with location accuracy can be
achieved.  To enable different quality factors to be assessed objectively by various C/S participants,
quality factor algorithms should be distributed among C/S participants.
Keeping with the original objective of the test, the analysis is focused on redundant solutions, but it
would be useful to extend the analysis to a broader data set, so that a quality factor could be provided
to SPOCs.
Part 2 (Stand-Alone Only – Modified approach to analysis)
As shown in Figure A (see section 4.9.1.2 of this respect), a significant change in quality factor was
correlated with improved location accuracy, and the degree of correlation increased as the distance
threshold was increased.  An increase in the distance threshold yielded fewer cases where success
could be determined.  With a distance threshold of 1 km, the quality factor was successful in 71.5%
of applicable cases; however, this represents only 10.3% of total cases.
As shown in Figure B (section 4.9.1.2), an increase in the quality factor generally corresponds to a
decrease in location error, in particular, for higher ranges of quality factor.  For example, for every
quality factor range of 50 above 700, a higher quality factor corresponded to higher location

4-73

accuracy; in particular, the 50th percentile location error decreased continuously from 7.78 km for
range 700 - 749 to 1.45 km for range 950 - 999.
Since the algorithm used to compute quality factor is vendor specific, O-7 test results for USA
MEOLUTs may differ significantly from the results for MEOLUTs provided by other vendors.
Conclusions derived from this analysis follow:
•
The correlation between change in quality factor and change in location accuracy provides
evidence that an MCC algorithm could be implemented to distribute or filter alerts based on
significant changes in the quality factor.
•
The correlation between quality factor and location accuracy, especially for higher quality
factors, provides significant evidence that RCCs could be provided with reliable quality
factor information for MEOSAR data.
- END OF SECTION 4 -

5-1

5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides the conclusions commonly agreed by participants in the MEOSAR D&E tests
and their recommendations for future conduct of the tests in the MEOSAR D&E Phase III and the
implementation of the MEOSAR system.
5.1
Conclusion
5.1.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin)
•
System margin for single-burst throughput using single-channel results
The detection percentage produced from the single-channel testing varied enough and for most of the
MEOLUTs did not consistently surpass the 70% threshold defined in document C/S R.018. When
this threshold was reached, the system margin ranged from 0 to 15 dB. Due to difference of results
from various national administrations, it was difficult to determine a common system margin value
for a single-burst throughput using single-channel results.
•
System margin for single-burst throughput using multi-antenna results
Results for system margin were improved using multi antennas. Using the 70% threshold, the system
margin from different MEOLUTs ranged between 4-15 dB and was also dependent on the number of
MEOLUT antennas.
The resulting processing margin is between 22 and 33 dBm of beacon transmit power.
5.1.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference)
Due to the unavailability of the Canadian MEOLUT at Shirley’s Bay for the majority of the
MEOSAR D&E Phase II, there were fewer opportunities for T-Test participants to reconcile
anomalies and unexpected results with spectrum plots in order to confirm and correlate with
interference.  However, one instance of interference during T-3 testing revealed the impact of
MEOSAR D&E T-Testing running coincidental with CTEC B.8 Testing on the Sarsat LEOSAR
SARR-1 instruments.
5.1.3
Test T-3 (MEOLUT Valid/Complete Message Acquisition)
For Phase II, the transmission script has been updated to include 13 bursts in order to be in line with
the required time frame of 10 minutes, with two slots, first one at 37 dBm level and second one at
33 dBm level.
For nominal power of 37 dBm, and for beacon simulator at distance below 3,000 km from the
MEOLUT, the results of the test T-3 has shown that the probability of detection of a valid message is
in the range [88%- 100%] after 1 burst and higher than 99% after 13 bursts, which is compliant with
expectation for minimum performance at full operational capability (FOC) contained in Annex E of
document C/S R.012 (99% after 10 minutes) for most MEOLUTs.

5-2

Depending on MEOLUT, results at 33 dBm transmitted power are sometimes better than those
obtained at 37 dBm, which was unexpected.
The main conclusions drawn from the test were the following:
•
The results are compatible with the expectation for minimum performance at full operational
capability (FOC) contained in Annex E of document C/S R.012 (MIP).
•
The average detection probabilities improved with an increase of the number of transmitted
bursts,
•
The results have shown that due to reduced co-visibility, performances are decreasing at large
distances but for a range [6,000 km- 9,000 km], the probability of detection of a valid
message in 10 minutes is still above 80%, even reaching 100% for one MEOLUT.
It is expected that the results can still be improved for large distance as the MEOSAR L-band space
segment is expanded in the future, with an increase of single channel throughput.
For Phase III, some improvements to the test could be proposed such as:
•
The better results occasionally observed at 33 dBm vs 37 dBm could perhaps be explained by
a better space segment configuration during the 33 dBm slots.
5.1.4
Test T-4 (Independent Location Capability)
Independent Location Probability
The probability that a MEOLUT provides an independent 2D location with a location error
less than X km (X = 1, 5 or 10 km) did not always reach desired values. Performance for
X = 5 km after ten minutes ranged from 82 to 99%.
Independent Location Accuracy
The 50th percentile, the 75th percentile, and the 95th percentile of the location error of 2D
locations did not always reach desired values. At least one national administration reported
results of less than 5 km for 95th percentile after ten minutes.
Time to First Independent Location
The time elapsed between the first burst transmitted and the first 2D independent location with
an error less than X km (X = 1, 5 or 10 km) was not more than 2 to 3 minutes.
Conclusions
The results were improved from Phase I results because of the greater number of available satellites
and improvements in MEOLUT processing.  While not all results achieved the performance expected
for full operational capability, some met or exceeded the requirements.  It is expected that the results
will improve in the future as more L-band satellites are added and MEOLUT processing is improved.
5.1.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons)
Detection benefit of the MEOSAR system

5-3

The tests carried out over 2 weeks with 35 operational beacons deployed worldwide soundly
demonstrated the vast geographic range of individual MEOLUTs and confirmed the detection benefit
of the MEOSAR system, even with a limited MEOSAR space segment that consisted, at the time of
the tests, of 17 DASS, 3 Galileo and 2 Glonass satellites. Some participants only tracked the DASS
satellites whereas other participants tracked all available satellites.
Detection capability (system throughput)
The MEOLUT system throughput gradually degraded as the distance between the beacons and the
MEOLUTs increased and fewer satellites became available to select from to ensure the co-visibility
of a MEOLUT, satellite and a beacon. L-band satellites generally improved the link budget in terms
of C/N0 at MEOLUT level in comparison with the DASS S-band satellites (about 4 dB higher).
System throughputs in the range of 98% to 100% were reported by some MEOLUTs for beacons
located in the geographic region around the individual MEOLUT.
Independent Location Probability
Single-burst location probabilities of 80% to 95%, and 10-minute location probabilities of up to
100%, were reported by various MEOLUTs for beacons located in the geographic region around the
individual MEOLUT.
Independent Location Accuracy
Most of the presented results for independent location accuracy provided within 10 minutes did not
meet the expectation for MEOSAR IOC/FOC minimum performance of “5 km accuracy 95% of the
time” contained in document C/S T.019. The location accuracy was, as expected, better within the
geographic region of the MEOLUTs (e.g., circle centred at the MEOLUT with a radius of 3,000 km);
location error was frequently below 5 km within that geographic region especially for locations
calculated with detections from a larger number of satellites. Composite locations calculated by the
integration of up to 13 bursts over 10 minutes offered a higher probability to obtain a location
accuracy sometimes meeting minimum performance of “5 km accuracy 95% of the time” contained
in document C/S T.019. At least one administration reported location accuracy of 1 to 3 km, 95% of
the time.
Therefore, these results confirmed the ability of a MEOLUT to meet the accuracy requirements using
a hybrid space segment consisting of L- and S-band satellites.
More than one participant expressed the view that the main factor that affected location accuracy was
the number of satellites used for the location process and that a significant improvement in location
accuracy could be observed when the number of satellites used to calculate a location moved from
three to four. However, results provided by one participant revealed that the accuracy requirement
could be met with 3 satellites in many cases. That was made possible by selection of satellites that
provided a better geometry and JDOP value.
Although the D&E assumes fixed beacons, it was also noted by a participant that movement of
beacons impact the location accuracy. Although extremely limited by the test time, location accuracy
evaluation results reported by one participant showed that for a slow-moving beacon activated in
Bodoe, Norway the location accuracy was much worse in comparison with location accuracy
obtained from fixed beacons and did not meet C/S T.019 requirements. This degradation was caused

5-4

by inability to use FOA measurements in location processing due to extra Doppler shift caused by the
beacon movement. It was noted that to produce an accurate location of a moving beacon,
measurements obtained from at least 6 satellites per burst might be required, enabling processing of
both the beacon location and the beacon velocity.
Conclusions
Phase II test results showed that:
•
the MEOSAR system’s capability to detect beacons is very good, sometimes beyond
expectations,
•
the single-burst location accuracy, although better than in Phase I, was still not good enough
to meet all the related full operational capability (FOC) requirements in document C/S T.019,
“MEOLUT Performance Specification and Design Guidelines”,
•
composite locations provided higher probability to obtain a location accuracy sometimes
meeting the minimum performance of “5 km accuracy 95% of the time” contained in
document C/S T.019,
•
location accuracy for a moving beacon was worse than for fixed beacons and did not meet
C/S T.019 requirements,
•
the results did not provide clear guidance for the specifications and parameters regarding the
exact coverage areas in which the calculated locations could meet the minimum performance
expectation for location accuracy at full operational capability (FOC) as stipulated in
document C/S T.019,
•
one reason for the limitation in the location accuracy performance was the negative impact of
interference on the channel detection rates,
•
increasing the number of MEOLUT antenna-satellites pairings would improve the location
probability and accuracy, as well as the time to locate, and
•
selection of satellites and accuracy of TOA/FOA measurements (primarily FOA) were also
very important to improve the MEOLUT performance.
5.1.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity)
The transmission script has been updated to include the following number of NB transmitted beacons
25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200. Only Maryland and Toulouse simulators are able to transmit this script.
The results on System Capacity performance were not conclusive during Phase II.  While there was
no identifiable curve drop-off from the MEOLUTs monitoring the Toulouse beacon transmissions,
suggesting that the value of system capacity might be 200 beacons or more, results for MEOLUTs
monitoring the Maryland beacon transmissions showed some degradation in performance even below
100 beacons.

5-5

5.1.7
Test T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage)
5.1.7.1 Test T-4/T-7
Independent Location Probability
The probability that a MEOLUT provides an independent 2D location with a location error less
than X km (X = 1, 5 or 10 km) did not always reach desired values. Performance for X = 5 km
only met the expected performance when number of satellites or processing bandwidth were not
limiting factors.
Independent Location Accuracy
The 50th percentile, the 75th percentile, and the 95th percentile of the location error of 2D
locations did not reach desired values. Some reported results for performance for 95th percentile
after ten minutes was less than 5 km.
Time to First Independent Location
The time elapsed between the first burst transmitted and the first 2D independent location with
an error less than X km (X = 1, 5 or 10 km) was typically not more than 2 to 3 minutes.
However, for some participants the volume of data caused some processing issues that need to
be resolved.
Conclusion
Many results improved as a result of networking but some results still did not achieve the
performance expected for full operational capability.  It is expected that the results will improve in
the future as MEOLUT processing of network data is improved
5.1.8
Test T-8 (Combined MEO/GEO Operation Performance (Optional))
T-8 testing was not completed in Phase II.
5.1.9
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage
All participants noted a time advantage for the independent location provided in MEOSAR alert data
versus LEOSAR alert data when the median figure was observed, with the exception of Japan during
the standalone period, which presented some negative median values in PTAL and PTAC, likely due
to MEOLUTs were located to some distance from Japan. The results also showed that, in general,
there was not a significant improvement when the AOI filtering was applied.
The MEOSAR did not show a significant time advantage with respect to detect-only data category,
where the GEOSAR system reduced the time advantage near to zero. In results provided by one
participant the MEOSAR system presented a time advantage with respect to detect-only cases
provided by LEOSAR data.
Networking period results showed a time advantage for the MEOSAR system in the provision of
independent locations (PTAL and PTAC), in fact, the median values for all participants showed a
time advantage during this period.

5-6

5.1.10 Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to Existing
System
Overall the O-2 Testing during Phase II of the MEOSAR D&E produced useful results, some
highlighting concerns to be addressed, and some clearly indicating the benefits of MEOSAR.
Summarizing results from all participants with respect to unique detections by the MEOSAR and
LEOSAR/GEOSAR systems leads to three prevailing key observations:
•
MEOSAR produced an extremely large number of detect only (unlocated and encoded only)
cases relative to the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system,
•
There were always some beacon activations that were recorded by LEOSAR/GEOSAR only,
and when independent locations or confirmed positions were involved these statistics indicate
a failure by MEOSAR to record actual beacon activations,
•
Similarly, but more expected, the increased coverage capabilities of MEOSAR were
demonstrated as MEOSAR recorded many actual beacon activations with independent
locations or confirmed positions that went undetected by the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system,
mostly likely due to gaps in periods of satellite visibility for LEOSAR.
With regard to the collection of statistics and the analysis methodology, the following observations
were common among most participants:
•
The size of the data set is sometimes reduced, but overall, performance statistics do not
significantly change when the AOI is applied,
•
Networking of MEOLUTs appears to increase the amount of detect only cases, have limited
impact in other categories, and overall did not significantly impact key observations.
The single most significant outcome for the O-2 test lies in the large numbers of detect only cases
recorded by the MEOSAR system only.  Follow-on analysis performed by several participants
indicated that a majority of these cases appeared to be system generated anomalies (i.e., not real
beacons).  Ultimately, JC-29 developed related data distribution procedures that would help mitigate
the impact of these suspect alerts in the short term (during EOC), but further important work remains
to address this matter.
And while the lack of MEOSAR data for some actual beacon activations needs attention as well, the
significant number of MEOSAR only cases with independent location and confirmed position
soundly demonstrates the value that MEOSAR data adds to the current system.
5.1.11 Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat
Ground Segment Network
According to document C/S R.018, the O-3 test should:
•
Evaluate the volume of 406 MHz MEOSAR distress alert messages exchanged between
MCCs, compare it to the traffic for the existing system (LEOSAR and GEOSAR), and

5-7

•
Provide additional information on the combined totals and data volumes in bytes and
corresponding bandwidths
With respect to the volume of MEOSAR distress alert messages exchanged between MCCs during
the overall test time span, the major difference was noted between MEOSAR-ready MCCs which
were connected to a MEOLUT versus those MEOSAR-ready MCCs that were not connected to a
MEOLUT.
Those MEOSAR-ready MCCs that were not connected to a MEOLUT transmitted MEOSAR
message traffic at a lower volume than LEOSAR/GEOSAR message traffic, due to the production of
data from their local LEOLUT/GEOLUT systems. In this case, the MEOSAR message traffic was
less than one half that of the LEOSAR/GEOSAR message traffic.
Those MEOSAR-ready MCCs that were connected to a MEOLUT transmitted a MEOSAR message
traffic at a greater volume than MCC LEOSAR/GEOSAR message traffic. Calculating the ratio
between the MEOSAR Data Volume versus the LEOSAR/GEOSAR Data Volume, for most of the
participants, the MEOSAR Data Volume ranges between 1 and 4 times the LEOSAR/GEOSAR Data
Volume, except for FMCC that showed a ratio which ranges from 4 to 9. These ratios can also be
derived from the Bandwidth occupancy (because a fixed value of 1024 bytes per message was
considered) as follows:
Standalone
CONNECTED TO A MEOLUT
NOT CONNECTED TO A MEOLUT
FMCC
NMCC (QMS)\*
SPMCC
USMCC
ITMCC (QMS)\*
JAMCC
SPMCC
LEO/GEOSAR BW
0.00696201
0.018908
0.017221
0.008359
0.016849
0.009513
0.017512
MEOSAR BW
0.03107630
0.019615
0.060967
0.020178
0.000602
0.001606
0.007331
COMBINED
0.03785096
0.038522
0.078188
0.028536
0.017444
0.011118
0.024843
RATIO
4.46
1.04
3.54
2.41
0.04
0.17
0.42
Networking
CONNECTED TO A MEOLUT
NOT CONNECTED TO A MEOLUT
FMCC
NMCC (QMS)\*
SPMCC
USMCC
ITMCC (QMS)\*
JAMCC
SPMCC
LEO/GEOSAR BW
0.00904303
0.017792
0.016674
0.008752
0.017250
0.010172
0.017793
MEOSAR BW
0.07895902
0.045551
0.045352
0.032272
0.000433
0.003481
0.020796
COMBINED
0.08798943
0.063327
0.062026
0.041022
0.017665
0.013653
0.038589
RATIO
8.73
2.56
2.72
3.69
0.03
0.34
1.17
(QMS)\*: QMS data included.
Each participant presented different LEOSAR/GEOSAR bandwidth occupancy, but in general, for
MCC to MCC communications, the LEOSAR/GEOSAR message traffic bandwidth was below
0.02 kb/s. This figure includes the QMS message traffic for non-nodal MCCs.
Considering the distribution of operational alert messages only and taking into account that most
MCCs provided an overall MEOSAR message traffic which was below 4 times their
LEOSAR/GEOSAR message traffic, we concluded that the MEOSAR bandwidth between MCCs
kept below 0.08 kb/s, except for the FMCC case which reached the figure of 0.09 kb/s in the
networking mode.

5-8

Therefore, in these conditions (MCC being connected to a MEOLUT, no orbitography, test reference
or self-test beacons exchanged and the overall test time span considered), and considering the worst
case presented by France, the LEOSAR/GEOSAR/MEOSAR combined bandwidth used per MCC
for transmission of messages to other MCCs kept below 0.1 kb/s.
The analysis above takes into account neither traffic peaks nor the communications with
RCCs/SPOCs which in some situations presented some differences with respect to the MCC to MCC
communications, due to the MCC configuration context.
This configuration context is related with the MCC behavior after confirmation of the alert (e.g.,
some MEOSAR-ready MCCs during D&E behaved as LEOSAR/GEOSAR MCC after confirmation
of alerts not sending messages), the distance match criterion of 10 km, transmission of conflict
messages as they were received from the MEOLUT (without any time restriction between conflict
messages) and the number of SPOCs involved in every particular alert (given the special
characteristics of some areas, two SPOCs could be defined to cover the same area, therefore, alerts
for that area are sent duplicated).
Given this configuration context, some message traffic peaks to the SPOCs were identified, mainly
related with conflict alerts which were transmitted to the SPOC destinations right after those conflict
messages were received from the MEOLUT. Those traffic peaks kept below a bandwidth of 1 kb/s in
15 minutes (i.e., below 80 SIT185 messages of 1,400 bytes each in 15 minutes).
It had to be taken into account that a significant number of suspect MEOSAR alerts could have
impacted the Test O-3 results (see documents JC-29/4/5 (Norway) and JC-29/4/11 (USA) about
suspect MEOSAR alerts).
5.1.12 Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures
Test O-4 analyses (counts) alerts by MCC distribution category (e.g., first alert with no location,
position confirmation DOA and encoded position, redundant DOA) in order to assess and improve
MCC alert data distribution procedures.  Results presented by France, Italy and the USA compare
counts in the MEOSAR and LEOSAR/GEOSAR systems by MCC processing category, but have not
directly led to modifications in MCC data distribution procedures.
Significant differences in counts between the two systems reflect:
•
inherent system capabilities (e.g., only the MEOSAR system can generate independent
location with one burst),
•
the relatively limited implementation of the space and ground segments in the MEOSAR
system, and
•
differences in MCC alert data distribution procedures (e.g., continued transmission after
position confirmation in the MEOSAR system).

5-9

The higher number of alert sites (and solutions) in the MEOSAR system reflects a high detection
capability, but also reflects a high incidence of suspect (i.e., uncorroborated) MEOSAR alerts, as
described in the analysis for test O-2 (per section 5.1.10).
As reported by France, the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system generates significantly more redundant alerts
than the MEOSAR system (89% vs. 53% in standalone mode).  This is likely due in large part to two
factors:
a) alerts are sent after position confirmation only in the MEOSAR system (making
LEOSAR/GEOSAR alerts redundant and not transmitted after position confirmation); and
b) the LEOSAR/GEOSAR ground segment is more fully implemented (thereby increasing
opportunities for redundancy).
France and Italy reported that a higher percentage of MEOSAR first alerts contained DOA position
when MEOLUTs operated in standalone mode, per data extracted in the table below.  This is curious,
given that MEOLUT networking should increase the number of TOA/FOA measurements available
to the MEOLUT for given beacon bursts and thus increase the probability of location.  Some possible
factors are identified below:
a) communication delays hamper the benefit of MEOLUT networking (e.g., a MEOLUT
distributes an unlocated first alert prior to receiving or processing networked TOA/FOA data
that would have enabled a DOA position to be computed);
b) networked TOA/FOA data is largely redundant due to lack of coordinated satellite tracking
schedules between MEOLUTs (i.e., different MEOLUTs are tracking the same satellites at
the same time);
c) the high incidence of suspect (uncorroborated) alerts, while MEOLUTs are networked,
increases the number of unlocated first alerts distributed between MCCs (e.g., an
uncorroborated burst for an Italian coded beacon detected by the Norway MEOLUT could be
networked to the MEOLUTs in France and Cyprus, and distributed as a unlocated alert by the
NMCC, CYMCC and FMCC to the ITMCC); and
d) other factors coincident with the test periods affects results (e.g., poorer satellite visibility in
the period when MEOLUTs were networked).
Standalone Mode
Networking Mode
# With
DOA
# Total
% with
DOA
# With
DOA
# Total
% with
DOA
France


11.5


8.2
Italy


21.6


19.8
Total


17.0


14.3
MEOSAR First Alerts with DOA Position (Standalone and Networking Mode)
The USA reported than only 3.1% of MEOSAR first alerts contained independent location (in
standalone mode), compared to 26.3% in the LEOSAR/GEOSAR system. Per comparable data
reported by France, 11.5% (69 / 601) of MEOSAR first alerts contained independent location versus
17.7% (38 / 215) of LEOSAR/GEOSAR first alerts. As reported by the USA, it is expected that the

5-10

availability of first alert DOA locations (i.e., near real-time) will increase as more MEOSAR
satellites become available for use and when MEOLUT networking is performed.
5.1.13 Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service
Test O-5 has been postponed to Phase III.
5.1.14 Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the MEOSAR System
The results from O-6 were generally positive.
Seventeen incidents were reported for test O-6 in Phase II of the MEOSAR D&E. Six countries
provided data; twelve of the seventeen incidents were from Australia and New Zealand.
In eleven incidents MEOSAR provided a time advantage for detection of the beacon and/or a time
advantage for generating a location. The time advantage varied from 5 minutes to 284 minutes.
The benefit of the time advantage to an RCC is difficult to characterise. In some incidents a time
advantage is not likely to affect the successful outcome; however people in distress are rescued
sooner. In other incidents (for example Incident 4) the time advantage was critical to the successful
outcome of the rescue.
In two incidents MEOSAR provided the only detection in a successful rescue. In another incident,
MEOSAR provided the only location.
There were three incidents where MEOSAR did not provide an advantage. In two of those, the initial
location provided by MEOSAR was highly inaccurate due to a moving beacon.
5.1.15 Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution – Impact on Independent Location
Accuracy
Based on reports provided by France and the USA, the quality factor and location accuracy were
correlated in 58% to 72% of cases where an assessment was possible. For the French MEOLUT, the
correlation was higher in networking mode (65%) than in stand-alone mode (58%). For USA
MEOLUTs, all results were reported for stand-alone mode and the correlation was higher when a
distance threshold was included in the analysis (72% vs. 69%). The algorithm used to compute the
quality factor is vendor specific, and the French and USA MEOLUTs are provided by different
vendors.
O-7 test results do not prove the operational and technical effectiveness of the quality factor, as
reported by France.  However, as reported by the USA, correlations between the quality factor and
location accuracy provide evidence that RCCs could be provided with a reliable quality factor and
that an MCC algorithm could be implemented to distribute alerts based on a significant change in the
quality factor.

5-11

5.2
Recommendations for the Conduct of Subsequent D&E Phases
5.2.1
Test T-1 (Processing Threshold and System Margin)
It is recommended to maintain the test in Phase III as foreseen, in order to evaluate the space segment
improvement and the updates/upgrades of the MEOLUTs.
5.2.2
Test T-2 (Impact of Interference)
Canada and Test coordinators should collaborate during MEOSAR D&E Phase III and any other test
campaigns that might be impacted by B.8 testing at CTEC. Specifically, Canada and Test
coordinators should:
•
schedule MEOSAR D&E testing, MEOSAR space segment commissioning and SGB testing
with CTEC B.8 Testing (Translation and Transmitter Frequencies) which is routinely
scheduled in the third full week of the month),
•
when circumstances dictate, de-conflict CTEC B.8 Testing with unexpected re-testing,
•
Use the finalised schedule with the dates and times of B.8 test runs provided by CTEC after
the fact, to help to investigate any anomalies or unexpected results which might have been
caused by inadvertent scheduling of MEOSAR D&E Phase testing coincidental with CTEC
B.8 Testing.
5.2.3
Test T-3 (MEOLUT Valid/Complete Message Acquisition)
It is recommended to maintain the test in Phase III as foreseen, in order to evaluate the space segment
improvement and the updates/upgrades of the MEOLUTs.
It is suggested that participants optionally analyse the processing anomalies following the C/S T.020
methodology.
5.2.4
Test T-4 (Independent Location Capability)
It is recommended that further analyses be conducted to evaluate the relationship between location
Expected Horizontal Error (EHE) and various parameters (e.g., DOP, number of satellites used in
location determination, C/No measurements, etc.).
It is suggested that participants optionally analyse the processing anomalies following the C/S T.020
methodology.
5.2.5
Test T-5 (Independent 2D Location Capability for Operational Beacons)
It is recommended to continue monitoring the 406 MHz spectrum and it is suggested that participants
optionally analyze the detection rates per channel and per satellite type (L-band vs. S-band).
It is recommended to evaluate in detail the MEOLUT's ability to locate (within test T-5) slowly
moving beacons (float-free/aboard of moving vessels).

5-12

5.2.6
Test T-6 (MEOSAR System Capacity)
It is recommended to maintain the test in Phase III. It is suggested to include an optional networking
test T-6/T-7 to evaluate the potential risk of processor overload when exchanging TOA/FOA data.
5.2.7
Test T-7 (Networked MEOLUT Advantage)
It is recommended to maintain the test in Phase III as foreseen, in order to evaluate the advancement
in MEOLUT Networking.
5.2.8
Test T-8 (Combined MEO/GEO Operation Performance (Optional))
T-8 testing was not completed in Phase II.
5.2.9
Test O-1 Potential Time Advantage
Given that there were no significant differences in test results for AOI versus MCC service area, it is
recommended that Phase III analysis be performed for the MCC service area only.
Recognizing the bias produced by the GEOSAR alerts on the PTAE measurement, consider
analysing MEOSAR detect-only cases versus LEOSAR and GEOSAR detect cases separately.
5.2.10 Test O-2 Unique Detections by MEOSAR System as Compared to Existing
System
Given that there were no significant differences in test results for AOI versus MCC service area, it is
recommended that Phase III analysis be performed for the MCC service area only.
5.2.11 Test O-3 Volume of MEOSAR Distress Alert Traffic in the Cospas-Sarsat
Ground Segment Network
It is suggested to perform O-3 test again in Phase III, focusing not only on the MCC to MCC primary
communication paths, but also on the MCC to SPOC communication paths and MCC to MCC
secondary communication paths.
5.2.12 Test O-4 406 MHz Alert Data Distribution Procedures
As approved by the Council in December 2015, document C/S A.001 (Data Distribution Plan) has
been updated with alert data distribution procedures for LEOSAR/GEOSAR/MEOSAR (LGM)
capable MCCs. Given that the primary purpose of test O-4 is to validate (and improve) data
distribution procedures for the MEOSAR operational system, further analysis of test O-4 should be
based on agreed data distribution procedures for LGM capable MCCs.
5.2.13 Test O-5 SAR/Galileo Return Link Service
Test O-5 has been postponed to Phase III.

5-13

5.2.14 Test O-6 Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Benefits of the MEOSAR System
As only six countries provided results for Phase II of O-6, Cospas-Sarsat Participants should be
encouraged to report incidents with MEOSAR data to develop a better understanding of MEOSAR
across a broader range of RCCs.
Most the examples in test O-6 for Phase II concentrated on the time of detection and time of first
location. More examples of incidents with known rescue location are needed in Phase III to allow for
analysis of MEOSAR location data and the advantages and disadvantages to an RCC.
5.2.15 Test O-7 MEOSAR Alert Data Distribution –Impact on Independent Location
Accuracy
Based on document JC-29/3/19 (USA), C/S operational and technical documents have been updated
to distribute alerts based on a significant improvement in the Expected Horizontal Error and to
provide the Expected Horizontal Error to RCCs. Per document C/S T.019 (section 5.10), the
MEOLUT shall produce an Expected Horizontal Error for every independent location that contains
the true location with a probability of 95  2%.  Further analysis of the Expected Horizontal Error
should be performed for test O-7 in Phase III.
- END OF SECTION 5 -

A-1

ANNEX A
DETAILED LOG OF PHASE II TESTS
Week
Date Start
(yyyy-mm-dd)
Test
Test
Run
Time 1st Tx
(yyyy-mm-dd UTC)
Time last Tx
(yyyy-mm-dd UTC)
Beacon
simulator
Comments
2015/25
2015-06-18
T-6

2015-06-18
2015-06-19
Maryland
Exact transmission slot to be
provided by France
2015/25
2015-06-16
T-6

2015-06-16
2015-06-17
Toulouse
Exact transmission slot to be
provided by France
2015/16
2015/19
2015-04-20
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-6
O-7
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable O-tests in MEOLUT network mode
2015/04
2015/15
2015-01-19
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-6
O-7
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable O-tests in MEOLUT stand-alone
mode
2015/19
2015-05-07
T-4/T-7

2015-05-07 14:00:00
2015-05-08 14:00:00
Hawaii
2015/19
2015-05-06
T-4/T-7

2015-05-06 14:00:00
2015-05-07 14:00:00
Florida
2015/19
2015-05-05
T-4/T-7

2015-05-05 14:00:00
2015-05-06 14:00:00
Toulouse
2015/19
2015-05-04
T-4/T-7

2015-05-04 14:00:00
2015-05-05 14:00:00
Maryland
2015/17
2015/18
2015-04-20
T-5/T-7

2015-04-20 14:00:00
2015-05-01 14:00:00
Many
locations
See details in the beacon
transmission schedule available
on the D&E FTP server
2015/14
2015/15
2015-03-30
T-5

2015-03-30 14:00:00
2015-04-10 14:00:00
Many
locations
See details in the beacon
transmission schedule available
on the D&E FTP server
2015/14
2015-04-16
T-4

2015-04-16 14:00:00
2015-04-17 14:00:00
Florida
Confirmed
2015/14
2015-04-14
T-3

2015-04-14 14:00:00
2015-04-15 14:00:00
Florida
Confirmed
2015/14
2015-03-31
T-4/T-7
Dry
run
2015-03-31 15:00:00
2015-03-31 21:00:00
Maryland
Dry run of the USA of the
MEOLUT networking test T-4/T-7
2015/13
2015-03-26
T-4

2015-03-26 23:00:00
2015-03-27 23:00:00
Hawaii
Note: RESCHEDULED
2015/13
2015-03-25
T-4
1b
2015-03-25 12:00:00
2015-03-26 12:00:11
Maryland
Re-run of the Maryland
transmission (see line below)
2015/13
2015-03-24
T-4
1a
2015-03-24 17:00:00
2015-03-25 06:00:00
Maryland
First part of transmission (early
stop of the simulator at 06:00 UTC
due to a simulator issue)
2015/12
2015-03-19
T-4

2015-03-19 14:00:00
2015-03-20 14:00:00
Toulouse
2015/11
2015-03-17
T-4

2015-03-17 14:00:00
2015-03-18 14:00:00
Hawaii
CANCELLED

A-2

2015/10
2015-03-04
T-3

2015-03-04 14:00:00
2015-03-05 14:00:00
Toulouse
2015/10
2015-03-02
T-3

2015-03-02 14:00:00
2015-03-03 14:00:00
Hawaii
Two Frequencies transmitted
(406.064 and 406.070 MHz
instead of only one, 406.064MHz)
2015/10
2015-03-xx
T-3

-
Florida
CANCELLED
2015/09
2015-02-26
T-3

2015-02-26 14:00:00
2015-02-27 14:00:00
Maryland
2015/07
2015-02-12
T-1

2015-02-12 14:00:00
2015-02-13 14:00:00
Florida
2015/07
2015-02-10
T-1

2015-02-10 14:00:00
2015-02-11 14:00:00
Hawaii
2015/06
2015-02-05
T-1

2015-02-05 14:00:00
2015-02-06 14:00:00
Maryland
2015/06
2015-02-03
T-1

2015-02-03 16:00:00
2015-02-04 16:00:00
Toulouse
2015/03
2015-01-13
Dry run
T-4/T-7
-
2015-01-13 13:00:00
2015-01-13 15:00:00
Toulouse
Dry run using the script of test T-4
2014/15
2014/20
2014-04-07
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-6
O-7

2014-04-07 00:00:00
2014-05-12 00:00:00
Not applicable
O-tests only in MEOLUT stand-
alone mode (no MEOLUT
networking)

B-1

ANNEX B
LIST OF ACRONYMS FOR OPERATIONAL TESTS
B.1
Test O-1
TMANU
Time of first MEOSAR Alert Notification Unlocated
TMANE
Time of first MEOSAR Alert Notification Encoded
TMANL
Time of first MEOSAR Alert Notification Location
TMANC
Time of MEOSAR Position Confirmation (Ambiguity Resolution)
TLANU
Time of first LEOSAR Alert Notification Unlocated
TLANE
Time of first LEOSAR Alert Notification Encoded
TLANL
Time of first LEOSAR Alert Notification Location
TLANC
Time
of
LEOSAR/GEOSAR
Alert
Position
Confirmation
(Ambiguity
Resolution)
TGANU
Time of first GEOSAR Alert Notification Unlocated (no encoded position)
TGANE
Time of first GEOSAR Alert Notification Encoded
Latitude
Based on encoded position, independent position or ground truth information
Longitude
Based on encoded position, independent position or ground truth information
B.2
Test O-2
LGST
LEO/GEO Start Time
LGET
LEO/GEO End Time
LGDT
LEO/GEO Data Type (U=Unlocated, E=Encoded, D=Doppler, C=Confirmed)
MST
MEO Start Time
MET
MEO End Time
MDT
MEO Data Type (U=Unlocated, E=Encoded, D=DOA, C=Confirmed)
Latitude
Based on encoded position, independent position or ground truth information
Longitude
Based on encoded position, independent position or ground truth information
B.3
Test O-3
MTT
MEO Transmission Time
MST
MEO SIT Type
LGTT
LEO/GEO Transmission Time
LGST
LEO/GEO SIT Type

B-2

B.4
O-4
FA UNL
First Alert, no location
FA ENC
First Alert with location, encoded position only
FA DOA
First Alert with location, DOA position only
FA DOA ENC CFM
First Alert with location, DOA/encoded Position Confirmation (dependent event)
FA DOA ENC DIF
First Alert with location, DOA/encoded Position Conflict (dependent event)
NC DOA DOA DIF
position Not Confirmed, DOA/DOA position conflict
NC DOA ENC DIF
position Not Confirmed, DOA/encoded position conflict
NC ENC ENC DIF
position Not Confirmed, encoded/encoded position conflict/update
CA DOA DOA CFM
Confirmation Alert, new DOA to previous DOA
CA ENC DOA CFM
Confirmation Alert14, new DOA to previous/new encoded
CA DOA ENC CFM
Confirmation Alert, new encoded to previous DOA
CT CFM
Continued Transmission15 event, DOA and/or Encoded positions, no position
conflict
CT DOA DIF
Continued Transmission event, DOA position conflict
CT ENC DIF
Continued Transmission event, encoded position conflict/update
RD DOA ENC
Redundant data (DOA/Encoded dependent beacon event and none of the above)
RD UNL
Redundant data (Unlocated dependent beacon event and none of the above)
B.5
O-6
Type of Analysis
(Real-time/Retrospective)
The report could be based on a distress where MEOSAR System
played a role in the Search and Rescue Mission in Real-Time
(Real-Time), or could be based on a LEOSAR/GEOSAR case that
has been analysed later trying to assess the benefits/deficits that
MEOSAR data would have provided to the Search and Rescue
Mission retrospectively (Retrospective), as if that MEOSAR data
would have been available at that time.
Date and Time
Date and Time in UTC
Location
Name of the Location of the Incident.
Incident Type
Situation of the vehicle/person in distress (sinking vessel, road
accident, walker injured…)
Beacon Type
EPIRB/ELT/PLB
Beacon Environment
(land/sea/cliff/forest/dessert…)
Geographical environment of the vehicle/person in distress.
Beacon Speed
(static/moving/drifting…)
Speed of the beacon.
Local Time
Local Time. This information could be complemented with the
lighting conditions (Get dark/Night)
Local Weather Conditions
(winds, ice, hot, cold…)
Weather conditions endanger not only the persons in distress but
also the Search and Rescue personnel.
Resources moved
(Helicopter/Vessel/Aircraft…)
Resources or means used in the rescue.
People Involved
People involved in the incident
People Rescued
People rescued

B-3

C/S MEOSAR Alert
(Only/First/Other)
The MEOSAR alert received by the RCC from Cospas-Sarsat could
be the Only alert received or the First alert received. Other
situations are possible, as for example, the alert was first detected
by MEOSAR but first located by LEOSAR, in such cases, a short
description could be provided here.
Detection Time
(Advantage/No Advantage)
Here the Advantage or No Advantage can be indicated for
Detection Time. Between parenthesis the difference in minutes can
be expressed.
Location Time
(Advantage/No Advantage)
Here the Advantage or No Advantage can be indicated for Location
Time. Between parenthesis the difference in minutes can be
expressed.
Location Accuracy
(Advantage/No Advantage)
Here the Advantage or No Advantage can be indicated for Location
Accuracy. Between parenthesis the observed error in Nautical
Miles/Kilometres can be expressed.
B.6
O-7
Status
Status of the alert site (beacon activation) when redundant condition occurred
- FA = First Alert with DOA location;
- CA = Confirmation Alert (confirmed but no data beyond);
- NC = Not Confirmed (but beyond first alert with DOA location);
- CT = Continued Transmission;
- PC = Position Conflict.;
- – – = (Not recorded).
ActLat
the actual latitude as determined from external information
ActLon
the actual longitude as determined from external information
NewSolId
internal reference to the new solution record (if not available, use 0)
NewLat
the latitude for the redundant solution
NewLon
the longitude for the redundant solution
NewQF
the quality factor for the redundant solution
ExistSolId
internal reference to the existing solution record (if not available, use 0)
ExistLat
the latitude for the existing solution (which the redundant one matches)
ExistLon
the longitude for the existing solution
ExistQF
the quality factor for the existing solution
- END OF DOCUMENT -

Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
1250 Boul. René-Lévesque West, Suite 4215, Montreal (Quebec) H3B 4W8  Canada
Telephone: +1 514 500 7999  /  Fax: +1 514 500 7996
Email: mail@cospas-sarsat.int
Website: www.cospas-sarsat.int