Cospas-Sarsat specification summaries moved to reference/ for internal use only. Links updated to point to official cospas-sarsat.int site. The extracted images remain in public/ for use in other pages.
481 lines
24 KiB
Markdown
481 lines
24 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: "G009: Action Plan In The Event Of Possible Leosar Degradation Prior To"
|
||
description: "Official Cospas-Sarsat G-series document G009"
|
||
sidebar:
|
||
badge:
|
||
text: "G"
|
||
variant: "note"
|
||
# Extended Cospas-Sarsat metadata
|
||
documentId: "G009"
|
||
series: "G"
|
||
seriesName: "General"
|
||
documentType: "overview"
|
||
isLatest: true
|
||
documentDate: "December 2015"
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
> **📋 Document Information**
|
||
>
|
||
> **Series:** G-Series (General)
|
||
> **Date:** December 2015
|
||
> **Source:** [Cospas-Sarsat Official Documents](https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/documents-pro/system-documents)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**ACTION PLAN IN THE EVENT OF POSSIBLE LEOSAR DEGRADATION PRIOR TO**
|
||
|
||
**MEOSAR FULL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**C/S G.009**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**Issue 1**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**December 2015**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**ACTION PLAN IN THE EVENT OF POSSIBLE LEOSAR DEGRADATION PRIOR TO**
|
||
|
||
**MEOSAR FULL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY**
|
||
|
||
**HISTORY**
|
||
|
||
Issue Revision Date Comments
|
||
|
||
1 - December 2015 Approved by Council (CSC-55)
|
||
|
||
|
||
**Table of Contents**
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1
|
||
|
||
1.1 Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................................. 1-1
|
||
|
||
1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1
|
||
|
||
1.3 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
|
||
|
||
2. OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF A DEGRADED LEOSAR SPACE SEGMENT ............... 2-1
|
||
|
||
3. REVIEW OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO MITIGATE LEOSAR SPACE SEGMENT
|
||
DEGRADATION ................................................................................................................. 3-1
|
||
|
||
3.1 Actions Taken to Use Available MEOSAR Capability to Augment the LEOSAR
|
||
System............................................................................................................................ 3-1
|
||
|
||
3.2 Actions Taken to Accelerate the Transition from the LEOSAR System to the
|
||
MEOSAR System .......................................................................................................... 3-2
|
||
|
||
4. MEOSAR IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS TO MITIGATE LEOSAR SPACE
|
||
SEGMENT DEGRADATION ............................................................................................. 4-1
|
||
|
||
4.1 General Considerations .................................................................................................. 4-1
|
||
|
||
4.2 Implementation of the Action Plan ................................................................................ 4-1
|
||
|
||
4.3 Guidelines for Work for Designated Panel of Experts .................................................. 4-2
|
||
|
||
4. ~~4~~ Actions to be taken if LEOSAR Space Segment Degradation Occurs Prior to IOC ..... 4-2
|
||
|
||
4.5 Actions to be taken if LEOSAR Space Segment Degradation Occurs During IOC ..... 4-3
|
||
|
||
5. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 - 1 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**1.** **INTRODUCTION**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**1.1** **Purpose and Objectives**
|
||
|
||
|
||
The purpose of this plan is to:
|
||
|
||
- provide information and guidance to LEOSAR and MEOSAR ground segment providers for
|
||
the period covering the transition from the LEOSAR system to the MEOSAR system; and
|
||
|
||
- consider possible courses of action the Cospas-Sarsat Council may take in the event the
|
||
LEOSAR space segment is degraded to the point where latency of alerts unduly increases the
|
||
delay in SAR authorities receiving distress alerts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The objectives of this plan are to:
|
||
|
||
- reduce the consequences of any LEOSAR space segment operational discontinuity prior to
|
||
the MEOSAR system being declared at Full Operational Capability (FOC); and
|
||
|
||
- take advantage of MEOSAR ground segment deployment so that users will be able to benefit
|
||
as soon as possible from early capabilities of the MEOSAR system.
|
||
|
||
The document directly addresses strategic goal #1 of the Cospas-Sarsat Strategic Plan, which aims to
|
||
provide continuity of space and ground operations within a twenty-year timeframe.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**1.2** **Background**
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Programme was established under the International Cospas-Sarsat Agreement
|
||
(ICSPA) signed by Canada, France, the USSR, and the United States (the “Parties”) in Paris on
|
||
1 July 1988. The Parties are to contribute to the Programme on a long term basis so as to maintain the
|
||
Space Segment of the System. The Agreement provides the basis for the continuity of the CospasSarsat Space Segment and its availability to all States on a non-discriminatory basis, and free of
|
||
charge for the end-user in distress. The Agreement stipulates contributions of the Parties to the Space
|
||
Segment, under normal conditions, that result in the availability of four operating payloads delivering
|
||
relevant Cospas-Sarsat alert and location data to search and rescue authorities (Article 5 of the
|
||
Agreement.). Effectively, this is the minimum operational configuration considered acceptable to the
|
||
Parties. However, the ICSPA does not address how many unique orbits the four satellites should
|
||
maintain or the minimal acceptable performance. It is clear that the performance achieved by four
|
||
satellites in a single orbit would be a significant reduction in capability compared to four satellites in
|
||
two or more orbits and, therefore, the number of unique orbits maintained by the satellites is a
|
||
contributing factor in the determination of degraded capability.
|
||
|
||
As of May 2015 there were five LEOSAR payloads in orbit and plans to replenish the constellation
|
||
were proceeding. The United States SIDAR Program is planning to launch a LEOSAR satellite at the
|
||
end of 2019. The Russian Federation is also working on plans to sustain the LEOSAR constellation
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 - 2 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
by launching two satellites potentially in 2016 and 2017. Even with these plans there is still a risk of
|
||
a gap in the constellation if a launch is not successful or some operational satellites fail.
|
||
|
||
This document establishes a minimal level of performance for the LEOSAR space segment for the
|
||
purpose of determining when mitigation actions are necessary to offset any degradation of LEOSAR
|
||
system performance prior to the declaration of MEOSAR system FOC.
|
||
|
||
A smooth transition from LEOSAR plus GEOSAR (LEO/GEO) system operations to MEOSAR plus
|
||
GEOSAR (MEO/GEO) operations requires that adequate LEOSAR infrastructure and LEOSAR
|
||
operation be maintained until the MEOSAR infrastructure is ready and the MEOSAR system is
|
||
declared at FOC. Space segment management issues are particularly challenging because the
|
||
hardware used has long procurement cycles, operating lifetime variability, and high development,
|
||
manufacturing and operation cost. For the Cospas-Sarsat Programme, this difficulty is often
|
||
compounded by the fact that Cospas-Sarsat payloads are secondary payloads onboard satellites with a
|
||
larger primary payload, which add schedule and orbit constraints.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**1.3** **Scope**
|
||
|
||
|
||
This Plan will be in effect from the time of its approval until the MEOSAR system (space and ground
|
||
segment) is declared at full operational capability. This period will include the MEOSAR
|
||
demonstration and evaluation (D&E), MEOSAR Early Operational Capability (EOC), and MEOSAR
|
||
Initial Operational Capability (IOC). During this time a constantly changing system configuration is
|
||
expected as Participants introduce MEOSAR ready ground segment equipment and additional
|
||
MEOSAR satellites.
|
||
|
||
Therefore, the details of the actions that may be required to respond to any particular situation of
|
||
LEOSAR space segment degradation will depend, among other things, on the status of the
|
||
Programme at the time this action plan must be put into effect.
|
||
|
||
The Plan outlines the actions that Participants can undertake to minimise the impact of LEOSAR
|
||
degradation prior to MEOSAR system FOC, and the guidelines which the Council can use to provide
|
||
direction in the event of any determined degradation beyond the minimal acceptable performance.
|
||
|
||
The Plan does not address any programmatic issues, but focuses on the pragmatic actions that can be
|
||
taken by all Programme Participants.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- END OF SECTION 1
|
||
|
||
2 - 1 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**2.** **OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF A DEGRADED LEOSAR SPACE SEGMENT**
|
||
|
||
|
||
The most significant consequence of a degraded LEOSAR space segment is the increased average
|
||
time required to detect and locate an activated distress beacon. As the number of LEOSAR payloads
|
||
in orbit or the number of unique orbits decreases, the time interval between satellite passes over any
|
||
particular geographic location increases [1] . The maximum waiting time required to establish the
|
||
position of an active beacon is determined by the interval between satellite passes as seen by the
|
||
beacon. The average time between satellite passes varies as a function of satellite configurations
|
||
(number of satellites and orbital planes) and beacon latitude. Given the different orbital parameters of
|
||
the various LEOSAR satellites and the drift of orbits over time, the time interval between satellite
|
||
passes that might be experienced by a hypothetical beacon at a given location cannot be uniquely
|
||
solved (because the geometry is not sufficiently stable and repetitive). Therefore, this can only be
|
||
analysed in a statistical manner.
|
||
|
||
This kind of analysis shows that in general, a reduced number of LEOSAR payloads have a more
|
||
noticeable impact at low and medium latitudes, where median satellite gap times increase by up to
|
||
six times when comparing baseline (ICSPA nominal deployment) and worst case satellite
|
||
configurations. The analysis shows that satellite gap times are not only influenced by the number of
|
||
satellites in orbit but also by the number of orbital planes used by these satellites.
|
||
|
||
The LEOSAR space segment should be considered as starting to degrade beyond the minimal
|
||
acceptable performance when any LEOSAR space segment time delay between two satellite passes
|
||
at the equator exceeds 4 hours 95% of the time. When this condition is met, an assessment of actions
|
||
should be invoked as outlined in section 4 of this document.
|
||
|
||
It is noted that the immediate detection capability permitted by the GEOSAR system allows SAR
|
||
responders to initiate the search and rescue process that will mitigate latency degradation. In
|
||
addition, data from registration databases will provide useful information to operational search
|
||
and rescue services.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- END OF SECTION 2
|
||
|
||
1 G aps between satellite passes constitute the maximum delays that a user would experience. Users can activate their beacons anytime between
|
||
satellite passes. While a “fortunate” beacon user might activate his beacon shortly before a satellite pass, the “unfortunate” one might activate his
|
||
beacon shortly after a satellite pass and would have to wait for the next satellite pass to get the distress signals forwarded through the LEOSAR
|
||
system. Considering that activations are spread over the total duration of satellite gaps, average latency experienced by the system would be
|
||
approximately half of the values calculated for the satellite gaps.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 - 1 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**3.** **REVIEW OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO MITIGATE LEOSAR SPACE SEGMENT**
|
||
**DEGRADATION**
|
||
|
||
|
||
Actions which could be undertaken by the Cospas-Sarsat Participants if the LEOSAR space segment
|
||
performance drops to an unacceptable level prior to the MEOSAR declaration of FOC can be
|
||
summarized as:
|
||
|
||
- those actions taken to use available MEOSAR capability to augment the LEOSAR system,
|
||
|
||
- those actions taken to accelerate the transition to MEOSAR EOC _,_ IOC and FOC.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**3.1** **Actions Taken to Use Available MEOSAR Capability to Augment the LEOSAR System**
|
||
|
||
|
||
These actions include the use of the available capability of the MEOSAR system to provide
|
||
detections and independent locations thereby providing additional alert data to the existing
|
||
LEO/GEO data distribution channel.
|
||
|
||
This approach is dependent on the availability of both the MEOSAR space and ground segments.
|
||
Adequate evaluation of MEOSAR performance will likely be achievable only once a certain amount
|
||
of MEOSAR D&E testing has been completed. Both of these conditions will likely be met at
|
||
MEOSAR system EOC, and will be met at MEOSAR IOC at the latest. To begin any operational
|
||
phase, it must be determined that the data provided by the MEOSAR system does not degrade the
|
||
performance of the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
|
||
The minimum level of performance of the MEOSAR system, more specifically the MEOLUTs,
|
||
needs to be defined for each phase of the MEOSAR development. This would also require the
|
||
development of suitable parallel processes for data distribution from non-operational (or noncommissioned) MEOLUTs to RCCs. While this mitigation action could provide tangible benefits and
|
||
reduce the impact of a shortage of LEOSAR payloads, its benefits would be limited to areas
|
||
adequately covered by a sufficient number of MEOLUT antennas. The information provided by
|
||
MEOLUTs may also not be available in a reliable manner as MEOLUTs used prior to MEOSAR
|
||
system IOC may not be providing 24/7 services.
|
||
|
||
Actions taken to use available MEOSAR capability to augment the LEOSAR system as it degrades
|
||
are inherently limited by the state of the MEOSAR assets, processes and procedures at the time when
|
||
it becomes necessary. While these actions would be necessary components of any action plan, it is
|
||
equally important to consider how progress towards global MEOSAR coverage might be accelerated
|
||
to maximize the MEOSAR system’s capability to augment the LEOSAR system and eventually to
|
||
replace it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 - 2 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**3.2** **Actions Taken to Accelerate the Transition from the LEOSAR System to the**
|
||
**MEOSAR System**
|
||
|
||
|
||
This category of actions includes possible actions aimed at reducing the time for the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme to transition from an operational LEOSAR system to an operational MEOSAR system
|
||
that can provide partial and eventually full global coverage.
|
||
|
||
These actions also provide a more comprehensive solution to the issue of the potential degradation of
|
||
the LEOSAR space segment. As such, they require important changes to the current MEOSAR
|
||
implementation schedule and significant efforts from the Programme in the short term.
|
||
|
||
The proposed mitigation actions consist of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme accelerating development
|
||
and implementation of the MEOSAR capabilities and distribution system to maximize the capability
|
||
of the MEOSAR system by:
|
||
|
||
- using the S-band DASS MEOSAR payloads in a combined S- and L-band MEOSAR system
|
||
until the MEOSAR L-band system alone will be declared at FOC,
|
||
|
||
- increasing MEOLUT networking capability to provide enhanced MEOSAR coverage beyond
|
||
what would be available from a ground segment consisting only of stand-alone MEOLUTs,
|
||
|
||
- assessing MEOLUT MEO/GEO capability to augment the number of channels available to
|
||
provide data for the difference of arrival processing that is used in the MEOSAR system to
|
||
generate independent location solutions,
|
||
|
||
- accelerating the expansion of the MEOLUT coverage area and global MEOSAR coverage
|
||
definition,
|
||
|
||
- establishing procedures, specifications and standards, as well as the interim procedures to be
|
||
able to execute this action plan smoothly.
|
||
|
||
It should be noted advancing MEOSAR FOC would require the accelerated deployment of a worldwide network of MEOLUTs and LEO/GEO/MEO MCCs, and the completion of the MEOSAR D&E
|
||
(including implementation of the EOC) and the IOC phases. This would require additional
|
||
commitments and effort from Administrations involved in activities during these phases.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- END OF SECTION 3
|
||
|
||
4 - 1 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.** **MEOSAR IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS TO MITIGATE LEOSAR SPACE**
|
||
**SEGMENT DEGRADATION**
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.1** **General Considerations**
|
||
|
||
|
||
As soon as possible the Cospas-Sarsat Ground Segment Providers should prepare for the potential
|
||
degradation of the 406 MHz LEOSAR space segment. Because it is not possible to predict, or infer,
|
||
an exact date when the space segment degradation might occur, it is necessary to consider that it
|
||
could happen at any time prior to FOC being achieved. All ground segment providers should develop
|
||
plans to implement a rapid transition to the use of MEOSAR data operationally.
|
||
|
||
It is unrealistic to expect that ground segment providers who have not already begun the process of
|
||
acquiring and implementing MEOSAR ground segment equipment can put MEOSAR equipment into
|
||
place quickly because of the realities of funding, contracting, and implementation. However, if there
|
||
is a rapid degradation of the LEOSAR space segment, operators of MCCs that are not MEOSARready need to have a process in place, consistent with the A-series operational documents describing
|
||
the procedures, specifications and standards applicable to each MEOSAR implementation phase, that
|
||
will enable their MCCs to receive MEOSAR distress alert messages and distribute them to the
|
||
appropriate RCC/SPOC.
|
||
|
||
Although this Plan assumes that Participants planning to install MEOLUTs and LEO/GEO/MEO
|
||
MCCs are taking steps before MEOSAR FOC to ensure a viable MEOSAR ground segment, as
|
||
stated in section 1.2, it is critical that the LEOSAR infrastructure and LEOSAR operation be
|
||
maintained until the MEOSAR system is declared at FOC. To this end the Cospas-Sarsat Council
|
||
engages Participants providing LEOSAR ground segment equipment to request support from
|
||
their suppliers with the necessary software upgrades that will allow the actions identified in this
|
||
plan to be quickly implemented.
|
||
|
||
Full operational capability of the MEOSAR system will not be declared until the Council has
|
||
assurance that global coverage is provided by the MEOSAR space and ground segments. Therefore,
|
||
the LEOSAR space segment, even if degraded, will continue to play a very important role during
|
||
MEOSAR EOC and IOC by providing global coverage using the SARP memory. Considering this,
|
||
each ground segment provider should evaluate its position to sustain their LEOLUT equipment as
|
||
long as possible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.2** **Implementation of the Action Plan**
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a degradation of LEOSAR space segment performance is suspected, a panel of experts established
|
||
by the Parties will be requested by the Council to investigate the status of the LEOSAR space
|
||
segment and provide findings of their assessment results to the Council. They will provide
|
||
recommendations to the Council on specific actions to be taken.
|
||
|
||
|
||
4 - 2 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
The expert panel will provide the Council with an analysis of System performance at the time of the
|
||
degradation. Coverage areas and expected latency timing should be identified and communicated to
|
||
the Council in a report. The analysis results will be considered at Council Session in conjunction with
|
||
information on the status of the MEOSAR system implementation, including current status of
|
||
MEOSAR ground and space segments, as well as other relevant information. The Council will then
|
||
provide the updated performance level of the existing LEOSAR/GEOSAR/MEOSAR systems to
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Participants and Programme stakeholders (IMO/ICAO).
|
||
|
||
Nodal MCCs will be notified by the Secretariat, acting on behalf of the Council, to provide system
|
||
status messages to all MCCs advising them of the recommended Council actions. Each nodal MCC
|
||
will then coordinate the data distribution procedures to implement in its data distribution region
|
||
based on prior coordination.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.3** **Guidelines for Work for Designated Panel of Experts**
|
||
|
||
|
||
The panel of experts identified by the Council to assess the status of the LEOSAR space segment and
|
||
the MEOSAR space and ground segments should be composed of individuals with the operational
|
||
and technical expertise to perform the tasks required to advise the Council on the appropriate actions
|
||
to take in the event of a degradation of the LEOSAR space segment performance prior to MEOSAR
|
||
IOC. When activated by the Council the panel should:
|
||
|
||
- confirm that the LEOSAR space segment has degraded below the performance level
|
||
identified in section 2,
|
||
|
||
- assess the status of the MEOSAR space and ground segment implementation and the
|
||
performance of the MEOSAR system,
|
||
|
||
- provide a brief summary report to Council that provides the findings of the panel and
|
||
recommendations for actions that the Council should consider.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.** ~~**4**~~ **Actions to be taken if LEOSAR Space Segment Degradation Occurs Prior to IOC**
|
||
|
||
|
||
If an unacceptable degradation of the LEOSAR space segment occurs prior to IOC of the MEOSAR
|
||
system, all formal MEOSAR technical and operational standards, system components (space and
|
||
ground segments) and data distribution protocols may not be ready for MEOSAR implementation.
|
||
The Council will determine, based on the MEOSAR D&E results to date, that the data provided by
|
||
the MEOSAR system will not degrade the performance of the Cospas-Sarsat System and should be
|
||
distributed in the ground network.
|
||
|
||
If an unacceptable degradation of the LEOSAR space segment occurs before EOC has been declared,
|
||
not all MCCs will have the capability to automatically process inbound MEOSAR alert messages nor
|
||
have established procedures to process MEOSAR alert data. These MCCs should be capable of
|
||
handling these messages and forwarding them to the appropriate RCC/SPOC for action.
|
||
|
||
If an unacceptable degradation of the LEOSAR space segment occurs after EOC has been declared,
|
||
the panel of experts will analyse if the path to IOC implementation can be re-sequenced or
|
||
|
||
|
||
4 - 3 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
accelerated in order to maximize the universal and uniform distribution of MEOSAR data across the
|
||
operational COSPAS-SARSAT System.
|
||
|
||
|
||
**4.5** **Actions to be taken if LEOSAR Space Segment Degradation Occurs During IOC**
|
||
|
||
|
||
If unacceptable degradation of the LEOSAR space segment occurs during MEOSAR IOC, each
|
||
nodal MCC should be capable of receiving, processing and transmitting MEOSAR alert data to all
|
||
MCCs within its data distribution region. Each nodal MCC should coordinate with all MCCs within
|
||
its data distribution region on the method of data distribution. For example, nodal MCCs could
|
||
format and transmit MEOSAR distress alert messages as SIT 185 (SPOC/RCC format) to nonMEOSAR ready MCCs in its region. Therefore, the method of distribution between MCCs may not
|
||
be the same for all data distribution regions and between MCCs and RCCs/SPOCs in each MCC
|
||
service area.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- END OF SECTION 4
|
||
|
||
5 - 1 C/S G.009 – Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
**5.** **SUMMARY**
|
||
|
||
|
||
Along with measures that are being considered for maintaining and strengthening the LEOSAR space
|
||
segment, this plan recognizes the need to address potential degradation of LEOSAR performance
|
||
below the minimal acceptable level and identifies actions that have to be taken by the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Council and Participants as required in case of such occurrence.
|
||
|
||
The plan concentrates on early operational use of MEOSAR capabilities available to mitigate
|
||
potential LEOSAR degradation if it occurs before MEOSAR FOC. In this regard, it is noted that
|
||
efforts under way in preparations for and completion of MEOSAR EOC and IOC would effectively
|
||
contribute to this objective.
|
||
|
||
The plan also recognizes that the required mitigation actions cannot be fully detailed in advance as
|
||
they would depend upon an actual cause of degradation and the progress in MEOSAR
|
||
implementation at the time of degradation occurrence. To this end, the Expert Panel, established by
|
||
the Parties, will be activated by the Council to assess the extent of LEOSAR performance
|
||
degradation if and when such degradation is suspected. This panel will then provide the Council with
|
||
recommendations on specific actions to be taken.
|
||
|
||
The plan envisages subsequent actions by the Council and Participants as stipulated in Section 4. In
|
||
particular, ground segment providers are encouraged to maintain their LEOSAR equipment in
|
||
parallel with implementing their MEOSAR system contributions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- END OF SECTION 5
|
||
|
||
- END OF DOCUMENT –
|
||
|
||
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
||
1250 Boul. René-Lévesque West, Suite 4215, Montréal (Québec) H3B 4W8 Canada
|
||
|
||
Telephone: +1 514 500 7999 / Fax: +1 514 500 7996
|
||
|
||
Email: mail@cospas-sarsat.int
|
||
Website: www.cospas-sarsat.int |