Ryan Malloy
4ed92efd69
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.
3530 lines
97 KiB
Markdown
3530 lines
97 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: "R020: C/S R.020 Issue 1"
|
||
description: "Official Cospas-Sarsat R-series document R020"
|
||
sidebar:
|
||
badge:
|
||
text: "R"
|
||
variant: "note"
|
||
# Extended Cospas-Sarsat metadata
|
||
documentId: "R020"
|
||
series: "R"
|
||
seriesName: "Reports"
|
||
documentType: "report"
|
||
isLatest: true
|
||
documentDate: "October 2012"
|
||
originalTitle: "C/S R.020 Issue 1"
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
> **📋 Document Information**
|
||
>
|
||
> **Series:** R-Series (Reports)
|
||
> **Date:** October 2012
|
||
> **Source:** [Cospas-Sarsat Official Documents](https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/documents-pro/system-documents)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT LOUCH
|
||
GEOSAR PERFORMANCE
|
||
EVALUATION PLAN
|
||
C/S R.020
|
||
Issue 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
LOUCH GEOSAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN
|
||
History
|
||
Issue
|
||
Revision Date
|
||
Revised Pages
|
||
Comments
|
||
Issue 1
|
||
|
||
Submitted to CSC-49
|
||
|
||
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
||
Page
|
||
1.
|
||
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1
|
||
1.1
|
||
Purpose of Document .................................................................................................. 1-1
|
||
1.2
|
||
Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1
|
||
1.3
|
||
Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 1-2
|
||
1.4
|
||
Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 1-3
|
||
2.
|
||
LOUCH GEOSAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
|
||
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 2-1
|
||
2.1
|
||
Performance Evaluation Goals .................................................................................... 2-1
|
||
2.2
|
||
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2-1
|
||
3.
|
||
LOUCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ....................... 3-1
|
||
3.1
|
||
General Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................... 3-1
|
||
3.2
|
||
Detailed Description of Objectives ............................................................................. 3-2
|
||
3.2.1 T-1: Processing Threshold, System Margin and Beacon Message
|
||
Processing Performance ............................................................................... 3-2
|
||
3.2.2 T-2: Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Messages ....................... 3-7
|
||
3.2.3 T-3: Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy ................................................ 3-10
|
||
3.2.4 T-4: Louch GEOLUT Channel Capacity ............................................................ 3-11
|
||
3.2.5 T-5: Impact of Interference ................................................................................. 3-13
|
||
3.2.6 T-6: Impact of Interference from LEOSAR Satellites ........................................ 3-15
|
||
3.2.7 T-7: Louch GEOLUT Network Performance ..................................................... 3-16
|
||
3.2.8 T-8: Processing Anomalies ................................................................................. 3-18
|
||
3.2.9 T-9: Louch Coverage .......................................................................................... 3-20
|
||
3.2.10 C-1: Commissioning of Louch GEOLUT ........................................................... 3-21
|
||
4.
|
||
REPORTING GUIDELINES .................................................................................. 4-1
|
||
|
||
LIST OF FIGURES
|
||
Figure 3-1: Graphs Depicting Processing Threshold, System Margin, Valid Message
|
||
and Complete Long Message Processing Performance ..................................... 3-6
|
||
Figure 3-2: Graphs Depicting Message Production Times .................................................. 3-9
|
||
Figure 3-3: Graphs Depicting Frequency Measurement Accuracy Performance............... 3-11
|
||
Figure 3-4: Graph Depicting Louch GEOSAR Capacity ................................................... 3-13
|
||
Figure 3-5: Test Set-up for Interference Evaluation ........................................................... 3-14
|
||
Figure 3-6: GEOLUT Valid Message Production Performance ........................................ 3-17
|
||
Figure 3-7: GEOLUT Network Performance ..................................................................... 3-18
|
||
LIST OF TABLES
|
||
Table 3-1:
|
||
Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-1 ...................................... 3-5
|
||
Table 3-2:
|
||
Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-2 ...................................... 3-8
|
||
Table 3-3:
|
||
Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-3 .................................... 3-10
|
||
Table 3-4:
|
||
Sample Table for Capacity Statistics ............................................................... 3-12
|
||
Table 3-5:
|
||
Sample Table of Louch GEOLUT Network Performance .............................. 3-16
|
||
Table 3-6:
|
||
Sample Table of Coverage Statistics ............................................................... 3-21
|
||
LIST OF ANNEXES
|
||
Annex A - Format of Louch Performance Evaluation Reports by GEOLUT Operators
|
||
Annex B - Test Scripts for Objectives T-1, T-2 and T-3
|
||
Annex C - Test Scripts for Objective T-4 (Channel Capacity)
|
||
Annex D - Test Scripts for Objectives T-6 and T-7
|
||
Annex E - Data to be Collected for Objectives T-1, T-2 and T-3
|
||
Annex F - Data to be Collected for Objective T-4
|
||
Annex G - Data to be Collected for Objectives T-6 and T-7
|
||
Annex H - Data to be Collected for Objective T-8
|
||
Annex I- Data to be Collected for Objective T-9
|
||
Annex J - Louch GEOSAR Performance Evaluation Programme Schedule
|
||
|
||
1 - 1
|
||
|
||
1.
|
||
INTRODUCTION
|
||
JSC "Academician M.F. Reshetnev" Information Satellite Systems" has installed 406 MHz
|
||
Search and Rescue (SAR) repeaters on the Louch-5A meteorological geostationary satellite.
|
||
The Louch-5A satellite was launched on 11th of December 2011 from Baikonur launch site
|
||
with the interim subsatellite point of 95º E and the final destination of 167º E . The SAR
|
||
payload on board of Louch-5A is a frequency translation repeater similar to that of MSG.
|
||
This instrument will be made available for use in the Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR system after
|
||
the completion of initial satellite on-orbit tests. Representing a new part of Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
GEOSAR, the performance of its SAR instrument needs to be evaluated and reported. In
|
||
light of this, the Cospas-Sarsat Council expects that Louch GEOSAR performance evaluation
|
||
programme should be conducted to:
|
||
a.
|
||
establish Louch GEOSAR / GEOLUT performance; and
|
||
b.
|
||
validate specification and commissioning requirements for GEOLUTs which operate
|
||
with the Louch GEOSAR payload.
|
||
1.1
|
||
Purpose of Document
|
||
The purpose of this document is to provide:
|
||
a.
|
||
test procedures for assessing the performance of GEOLUTs which operate with the
|
||
Louch SAR instrument;
|
||
b.
|
||
guidelines for analysing the test results; and
|
||
c.
|
||
guidelines, procedures and schedule for managing the Louch GEOSAR performance
|
||
evaluation programme and reporting the results.
|
||
1.2
|
||
Background
|
||
From 1996 to 1998 Cospas-Sarsat conducted a demonstration and evaluation programme to
|
||
determine the suitability of using satellites in geostationary orbit equipped with SAR
|
||
instruments to process the signals from Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz distress beacons. This
|
||
programme, hereafter referred to as the GEOSAR D&E, was implemented using the GOES
|
||
series of satellites provided by the USA, the INSAT-2 satellites provided by India, and
|
||
experimental ground segment equipment provided by Canada, Chile, India, Spain and the
|
||
United Kingdom. The GEOSAR D&E demonstrated that GEOSAR satellites provided a
|
||
significant enhancement to the Cospas-Sarsat system. Following from this conclusion, in
|
||
October 1998 the Cospas-Sarsat Council decided that the 406 MHz GEOSAR system
|
||
components should be incorporated into the Cospas-Sarsat System as soon as possible.
|
||
During the period that the GEOSAR D&E was being conducted, new GEOSAR repeaters
|
||
were developed by EUMETSAT and installed on the MSG meteorological geostationary
|
||
|
||
1 - 2
|
||
|
||
satellite series. Since the technical characteristics of the MSG SAR instrument were different
|
||
from SAR instrument on the GOES satellites, additional test were performed to establish
|
||
MSG GEOSAR/ GEOLUT performance, and any special GEOLUT specifications and
|
||
commissioning requirements. The results of these tests were approved by Cospas-Sarsat in
|
||
October 2004.
|
||
Following the deployment of a third type of 406 MHz GEOSAR payload onboard INSAT-3A
|
||
by the Republic of India and the signature of an Understanding between the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme and the Republic of India on the provision of Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR services in
|
||
February 2007, ISRO conducted an INSAT GEOSAR D&E test campaign including the
|
||
commissioning of the Bangalore GEOLUT in 2009. The results of INSAT GEOSAR D&E
|
||
evaluation were approved in October 2009 while the Bangalore GEOLUT was commissioned
|
||
in early 2010.
|
||
In 2011 an Electro GEOSAR performance evaluation test campaign took place following the
|
||
launch of Electro-L – a Russian geostationary meteorological satellite that carried SAR
|
||
equipment on board. It was manufactured by the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Lavochkin
|
||
Association” and launched on 20th February of 2011 by the Russian Federation.
|
||
With the deployment of a new 406 MHz GEOSAR payload type on board of Louch satellites
|
||
by the Russian Federation, there is a need to conduct tests with Cospas-Sarsat GEOLUTs to
|
||
establish Louch GEOSAR / GEOLUT performance, and any special GEOLUT specification
|
||
and commissioning requirements. The Cospas-Sarsat Council expects that the Louch
|
||
performance evaluation programme should be based on the technical series of tests defined in
|
||
the GEOSAR D&E Plan amended to address anticipated Louch performance.
|
||
The administrations of New Zealand, Australia and USA have agreed to participate in the
|
||
Louch GEOSAR performance evaluation programme. USA also announced that they would
|
||
provide beacon simulator signals for some of the proposed tests. The commissioning of New
|
||
Zealand GEOLUT is to be performed as part of the Louch performance evaluation test
|
||
campaign.
|
||
The Russian GEOLUT is planned to be deployed in the expected area of Louch-5A coverage
|
||
zone and may participate in the Louch GEOSAR performance evaluation programme, subject
|
||
to the completion of all on-site tests and performance validation.
|
||
1.3
|
||
Responsibilities
|
||
JSC “Russian space systems” will be responsible for assessing the performance of the Louch
|
||
SAR payload and will be responsible for confirming the operational status of the SAR
|
||
payload during the test period.
|
||
Operators of GEOSAR ground stations participating in the Louch GEOSAR performance
|
||
evaluation campaign will be responsible for conducting the tests as described herein, and to
|
||
produce a report in the format specified at Annex A for the consideration of the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Joint Committee.
|
||
|
||
1 - 3
|
||
|
||
1.4
|
||
Schedule
|
||
The chart in Annex J provides the major milestones of the Louch GEOSAR Performance
|
||
Evaluation Programme.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 1 -
|
||
|
||
2 - 1
|
||
|
||
2.
|
||
LOUCH
|
||
GEOSAR
|
||
PERFORMANCE
|
||
EVALUATION
|
||
GOALS
|
||
AND
|
||
OBJECTIVES
|
||
2.1
|
||
Performance Evaluation Goals
|
||
The goals of the performance evaluation programme are to:
|
||
a.
|
||
characterize the technical performance of the Louch GEOSAR system and confirm
|
||
that SAR payload and GEOLUT systems are effective for providing useful 406 MHz
|
||
alert data; and
|
||
b.
|
||
validate specification and commissioning requirements for GEOLUTs which will
|
||
operate with the Louch-5A satellite.
|
||
2.2
|
||
Objectives
|
||
The programme has been subdivided into specific objectives. Each objective is addressed by
|
||
conducting specific tests and analysing the results. Most of the tests require a beacon
|
||
simulator whose power output and message content can be controlled and varied. The tests
|
||
will be conducted over several weeks to collect enough data to provide statistically valid
|
||
results.
|
||
An overview of each objective is listed below, the detailed descriptions of these objectives
|
||
are provided in section 3.2.
|
||
T-1
|
||
Processing Threshold, System Margin, and Beacon Message Processing Performance
|
||
Determine the processing threshold, processing performance, system margin and the
|
||
performance in respect of long format beacon messages for GEOLUTs which operate
|
||
with the Louch payload. The beacon test signals used to assess these parameters do
|
||
not include beacon messages that collide with each other.
|
||
T-2
|
||
Time to Produce Valid and Confirmed Messages
|
||
Determine the statistical distribution of the time required for the GEOLUT to produce
|
||
valid and confirmed beacon messages. The beacon test signals used to assess this
|
||
parameter do not include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
||
|
||
2 - 2
|
||
|
||
T-3
|
||
Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy
|
||
Determine how accurately the beacon carrier frequency can be determined by the
|
||
Louch GEOSAR / GEOLUT system. The beacon test signals used to assess this
|
||
parameter do not include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
||
T-4
|
||
Louch GEOLUT Channel Capacity
|
||
Assess the capability of the GEOSAR system to handle multiple simultaneously
|
||
active distress beacons in a single 406 MHz channel. This parameter is assessed by
|
||
generating traffic loads which include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
||
T-5
|
||
Impact of Interference
|
||
Monitor the band for the presence of interference while the tests are being performed,
|
||
in order to understand any anomalies in the results and to illustrate the ability of the
|
||
GEOSAR system to provide valid messages in the presence of interference and noise
|
||
in the frequency bands used by the Louch GEOSAR system.
|
||
T-6
|
||
Impact of Interference From LEOSAR Satellites
|
||
Assess the impact of interference from LEOSAR satellite downlink signals on the
|
||
ability of the GEOLUT to produce valid and confirmed alert messages.
|
||
T-7
|
||
Louch GEOLUT Network Performance
|
||
To verify that although at any given time some GEOLUTs may be affected by
|
||
interference from the LEOSAR system, expected GEOSAR alerts will be reliably
|
||
provided by other GEOLUTs in the Louch ground segment.
|
||
T-8
|
||
Processing Anomalies
|
||
Assess the performance of the GEOLUT in respect of the production of processing
|
||
anomalies.
|
||
T-9
|
||
Louch Coverage
|
||
Estimate the geographic coverage of the Louch GEOSAR system.
|
||
C-1
|
||
Commissioning of Louch GEOLUT
|
||
Verify the compliance of Louch GEOLUT (for all Louch performance evaluation test
|
||
participants that intend to commission their LUTs) to the Cospas-Sarsat performance
|
||
and design guidelines (specified in C/S T.009) by performing the tests specified in the
|
||
GEOLUT Commissioning Standard (C/S T.010) and reporting results in the appropriate
|
||
format to the Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee for evaluation.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 2 -
|
||
|
||
3 - 1
|
||
|
||
3.
|
||
LOUCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
|
||
3.1
|
||
General Evaluation Methodology
|
||
All participants in the Louch GEOSAR performance evaluation programme are requested to
|
||
conduct their testing and evaluation in accordance with the common set of guidelines and
|
||
procedures as defined below.
|
||
a.
|
||
Russia is responsible for scheduling, in conjunction with the GEOLUT operators, all
|
||
the tests that require the support of the beacon simulator.
|
||
b.
|
||
Prior to conducting any tests that do not require the simulator, the participating
|
||
GEOLUT operators should liaise with Russia to confirm that there are no reported
|
||
problems with the satellite which could affect test results.
|
||
c.
|
||
Each GEOLUT operator should produce a Louch GEOSAR Performance Evaluation
|
||
Report in the format described at Annex A.
|
||
d.
|
||
Distress alerts from operational beacons generated by GEOLUTs participating in the
|
||
Louch evaluation programme should not be released into the Cospas-Sarsat System
|
||
until the respective GEOLUT operator has confirmed that the GEOLUT does not
|
||
produce processing anomalies.
|
||
________________________________________________________________________
|
||
Every effort should be made to ensure that the use of real or simulated beacon signals in
|
||
support of the Louch Performance Evaluation Plan will not generate distress alert messages
|
||
which might be interpreted in the existing LEOSAR and GEOSAR systems as real alerts.
|
||
_________________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
3 - 2
|
||
|
||
3.2
|
||
Detailed Description of Objectives
|
||
This section provides the following for each objective of the Louch GEOSAR Performance
|
||
Evaluation Programme:
|
||
a.
|
||
test procedures,
|
||
b.
|
||
data collection requirements, and
|
||
c.
|
||
data reduction/analysis requirements.
|
||
To simplify the testing and to reduce the number of 406 MHz test transmissions, test
|
||
procedures have been developed which share test transmissions. For example the output
|
||
produced by the GEOLUT resulting from the test transmissions for test T-1, is also used for
|
||
evaluating the performance of the GEOLUT in respect of the time to produce valid and
|
||
confirmed messages (T-2), and frequency measurement accuracy performance (T-3).
|
||
To ensure that the alert messages generated by the GEOLUTs can be correlated to the test
|
||
signal transmissions, GEOLUT operators should confirm that the time of day setting in the
|
||
GEOLUT is correct before conducting each test.
|
||
3.2.1 T-1:
|
||
Processing Threshold, System Margin, and Beacon Message Processing
|
||
Performance
|
||
The processing threshold, processing performance and the system margin are "figures of
|
||
merit" of the GEOLUT.
|
||
Processing Threshold
|
||
The processing threshold is the value of the minimum carrier to noise density ratio (C/No) in
|
||
dBHz at the GEOLUT processor for which the GEOLUT is able to produce a valid1 message
|
||
for 99% of the beacon events (the lower this value the more sensitive the GEOLUT).
|
||
System Margin
|
||
The system margin is the difference between a nominal beacon, with an EIRP of 37 dBm, and
|
||
a beacon operating at the GEOLUT threshold.
|
||
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
||
The processing performance requirement documented in C/S T.009 is that GEOLUTs should
|
||
be capable of producing valid messages within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95% of the
|
||
time, for all beacon signals whose C/No as measured at the GEOLUT is greater than
|
||
26 dB-Hz. This test will determine the C/No, for which the Louch GEOLUT can produce a
|
||
valid message for beacon event within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95% of the time.
|
||
Long Message Processing Performance
|
||
At present Cospas-Sarsat has no GEOLUT specification requirement in respect of producing
|
||
complete and confirmed long messages. Nevertheless, with the increased use of location
|
||
1 - Definitions of Valid, Complete and confirmed messages are provided in C/S
|
||
T.009"Cospas-SarsatGeolut Performance Specification and Design Guidelines".
|
||
|
||
3 - 3
|
||
|
||
protocol beacons using the long message format, it is necessary to assess the Louch system
|
||
performance in this regard.
|
||
3.2.1.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
This test assesses the GEOLUT performance in respect of its ability to produce single valid,
|
||
complete and confirmed complete distress beacon messages as a function of the beacon
|
||
power transmitted in the direction of the Louch satellite (beacon EIRP).
|
||
A beacon simulator is used to replicate distress beacons that transmit long format messages at
|
||
specific EIRPs, for a duration necessary to transmit 25 bursts for each beacon ID. Hereafter
|
||
the term “beacon event” is used to describe a beacon being active for a period of time. The
|
||
test is conducted by transmitting 50 beacon events for each EIRP, whilst ensuring that signals
|
||
from individual beacon events do not overlap in time and frequency with the signals from
|
||
other beacon events. The output of the GEOLUT is monitored and the information identified
|
||
in Table E-1 is recorded. The procedure is repeated at EIRP values ranging from 37dBm to
|
||
26 dBm, in one dB increments.
|
||
Performance of this test requires the following steps.
|
||
a.
|
||
Use a beacon simulator as a set of controlled test beacons with a variable output
|
||
EIRP.
|
||
b.
|
||
Program the simulator to provide different long format beacon identification codes for
|
||
each beacon event. The test scripts used for this test are provided at Annex B,
|
||
Table B-1.
|
||
c.
|
||
Calibrate the beacon simulator output EIRP and carrier frequency (to an accuracy of
|
||
0.2 Hz) to confirm the technical characteristics of the transmitted signals.
|
||
d.
|
||
To avoid interference to the 406 MHz channels currently active for operational use,
|
||
ensure that the simulator does not transmit in the channels used for operational
|
||
beacons.
|
||
e.
|
||
Set the simulator EIRP to 37 dBm in the direction of the Louch-5A satellite.
|
||
f.
|
||
Transmit the 50 beacon events provided at Table B-1 (each event consists of the same
|
||
beacon message transmitted 25 times), ensuring that individual beacon transmissions
|
||
do not interfere with each other. To eliminate any potential interference from
|
||
LEOSAR satellite downlinks, this test shall be scheduled to ensure that test signals are
|
||
not transmitted when Louch GEOLUTs are in the footprint of a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
LEOSAR satellites.
|
||
|
||
3 - 4
|
||
|
||
g.
|
||
Collect the data produced by the GEOLUT for each beacon event as described at
|
||
Annex E (note that this data will be analysed to provide the results for this test
|
||
objective, as well as for objectives T-2 and T-3).
|
||
h.
|
||
Repeat the process at the EIRP values listed at Table 3-1, using the associated test
|
||
scripts described at Table B-1.
|
||
3.2.1.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
For each set of 50 beacon events transmitted at a given EIRP as recorded at Annex E
|
||
Table E-1:
|
||
a.
|
||
Calculate the probability of:
|
||
(i) producing at least one valid message for each beacon event as follows:
|
||
d EIRP
|
||
he selecte
|
||
itted at t
|
||
nts transm
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
essage
|
||
ne valid m
|
||
at least o
|
||
produced
|
||
ich GEOLUT
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
(ii) producing at least one valid message within 5 minutes of beacon activation as
|
||
follows:
|
||
d EIRP
|
||
he selecte
|
||
itted at t
|
||
nts transm
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
tion
|
||
of activa
|
||
min
|
||
|
||
in
|
||
ssage with
|
||
a valid me
|
||
produced
|
||
ich GEOLUT
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
(iii) producing at least one complete beacon message as follows:
|
||
d EIRP
|
||
he selecte
|
||
itted at t
|
||
nts transm
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
e
|
||
ong messag
|
||
complete l
|
||
a correct
|
||
produced
|
||
ich GEOLUT
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
(iv) producing a confirmed complete beacon message as follows:
|
||
d EIRP
|
||
he selecte
|
||
itted at t
|
||
nts transm
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
sage
|
||
e long mes
|
||
a complet
|
||
to confirm
|
||
was able
|
||
ich GEOLUT
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
b.
|
||
Calculate the C/No at the GEOLUT processor corresponding to each EIRP. Note that
|
||
this is a calculated theoretical value of C/No, not the value measured by the
|
||
GEOLUT.
|
||
c.
|
||
Record the results of the calculations above in sample Table 3-1.
|
||
d.
|
||
Using the data from Table 3-1, produce graphs of the results as depicted at Figure 3-1.
|
||
|
||
3 - 5
|
||
|
||
EIRP
|
||
from
|
||
simulator
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Calculated
|
||
C/No at
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Valid Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon Events for which
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Valid Message
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Valid Message
|
||
within 5 Min
|
||
Valid Message was
|
||
Produced
|
||
Valid Message was
|
||
Produced within
|
||
5 Min
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
28.0
|
||
29.0
|
||
30.0
|
||
31.0
|
||
32.0
|
||
33.0
|
||
34.0
|
||
35.0
|
||
36.0
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.00
|
||
1.00
|
||
EIRP
|
||
from
|
||
simulator
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Complete Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon Events
|
||
for which a Complete
|
||
Message was Produced
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events for which a
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Message was Produced
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Complete /
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
28.0
|
||
29.0
|
||
30.0
|
||
31.0
|
||
32.0
|
||
33.0
|
||
34.0
|
||
35.0
|
||
36.0
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.00
|
||
1.00 / 1.00
|
||
Table 3-1: Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-1
|
||
|
||
3 - 6
|
||
|
||
Figure 3-1: Graphs Depicting Processing Threshold, System Margin, Valid
|
||
Message and Complete Long Message Processing Performance
|
||
All cases where the GEOLUT was not able to produce a valid message for a beacon event
|
||
should be analysed to determine if extraordinary external factors (e.g. interference) could
|
||
have caused the GEOLUT not to detect the beacon. If extraordinary external factors caused
|
||
the GEOLUT to miss a beacon event, the event should be removed from the statistics and an
|
||
explanation provided in the report.
|
||
Processing Threshold and System Margin
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
37 dBm
|
||
Processing Threshold
|
||
System
|
||
Margin
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
Probability of Valid Message
|
||
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Processing Performance
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
.95
|
||
Probability of Valid Message Within 5 min
|
||
Long Message Processing Performance
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Single Complete
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
.95
|
||
Probability of Successful Message Processing
|
||
|
||
3 - 7
|
||
|
||
3.2.2 T-2: Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Messages
|
||
This test assesses how long it takes GEOLUTs operating with the Louch satellite to produce
|
||
valid beacon messages, complete long messages, and confirmed complete long messages.
|
||
This information will be used to validate message processing requirements for GEOLUTs
|
||
which operate with the Louch-5A satellite, and to determine a figure of merit for the number
|
||
of bursts required to successfully process a message.
|
||
3.2.2.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
For simplicity this test is conducted by analysing the data collected for test T-1 (Threshold).
|
||
Note that the T-1 test scenario is specifically designed not to generate beacon bursts which
|
||
overlap in time and frequency. Consequently, for operational beacon events, the times to
|
||
produce valid, complete, and the time to confirm complete messages may differ from those
|
||
determined during this test.
|
||
The following test methodology and data collection requirements apply:
|
||
a.
|
||
Note the EIRP and 15 Hex ID for each beacon event.
|
||
b.
|
||
For each beacon event note the date/time that the GEOLUT produced:
|
||
(i)
|
||
the first valid message;
|
||
(ii)
|
||
the first complete message; and
|
||
(iii) the first confirmation of the complete message with an independent integration
|
||
process.
|
||
c.
|
||
Record the data collected above in tabular format as described at Annex E. The table
|
||
should have an entry for each beacon event at each EIRP.
|
||
3.2.2.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
a.
|
||
For each EIRP calculate the average time to:
|
||
(i) produce valid messages (ATVM), as follows:
|
||
produced
|
||
id message
|
||
st one val
|
||
ich at lea
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
sage
|
||
valid mes
|
||
to produce
|
||
or GEOLUT
|
||
on event f
|
||
st in beac
|
||
first bur
|
||
time after
|
||
ATVM
|
||
=
|
||
(ii) produce complete messages (ATCM), as follows:
|
||
ed
|
||
age produc
|
||
plete mess
|
||
st one com
|
||
ich at lea
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
message
|
||
complete
|
||
to produce
|
||
or GEOLUT
|
||
on event f
|
||
st in beac
|
||
first bur
|
||
time after
|
||
ATCM
|
||
=
|
||
|
||
3 - 8
|
||
|
||
(iii)confirm a complete messages (ATCCM), as follows:
|
||
ed
|
||
age produc
|
||
plete mess
|
||
st one com
|
||
ich at lea
|
||
nts for wh
|
||
beacon eve
|
||
number of
|
||
message
|
||
complete
|
||
to produce
|
||
or GEOLUT
|
||
on event f
|
||
st in beac
|
||
first bur
|
||
time after
|
||
ATCM
|
||
=
|
||
b.
|
||
In addition, for each EIRP calculate the standard deviation for the time to produce
|
||
valid, complete and confirmed complete messages.
|
||
c.
|
||
For each EIRP determine the time (duration) required for the GEOLUT to provide
|
||
95% and 98% of valid, complete, and confirmed complete messages. These values
|
||
are determined by normalising the time values by removing the time bias resulting
|
||
from the requirement to stagger the start times of each beacon event. The normalised
|
||
values are analysed to identify how long the GEOLUT required to produce the 95th
|
||
and 98th percentile for valid, complete, and confirmed messages. If the 95th or 98th
|
||
percentile was not achieved for any given category, this should be designated as Not
|
||
Available (N/A) in the appropriate cell of the table.
|
||
d.
|
||
Record the results of the above in sample Table 3-2.
|
||
e.
|
||
Using the data from Table 3-2, produce graphs of the results as depicted in Figure 3-2.
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
C/No
|
||
(dBHz
|
||
)
|
||
ATVM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATVM
|
||
ATCM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATCM
|
||
ATCCM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATCCM
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
C/No
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
95th Percentile
|
||
98th Percentile
|
||
Valid Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Complete
|
||
Msg (Sec)
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Msg (Sec)
|
||
Valid Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Complete
|
||
Msg (Sec)
|
||
Confirmed Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
Table 3-2:
|
||
Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-2
|
||
|
||
3 - 9
|
||
|
||
Figure 3-2: Graphs Depicting Message Production Times
|
||
Average Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete (ATCCM)
|
||
Complete (ATCM)
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid (ATVM)
|
||
95th Percentile to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Complete
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid
|
||
98th Percentile to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Complete
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid
|
||
|
||
3 - 10
|
||
|
||
3.2.3 T-3: Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy
|
||
The purpose of this objective is to assess how accurately the beacon carrier frequency can be
|
||
measured by the Louch GEOSAR / GEOLUT system. This is accomplished by comparing
|
||
the beacon's carrier frequency for each valid message as measured by the GEOLUT with the
|
||
known frequency value for the same beacon, provided by the beacon simulator operator. The
|
||
current GEOLUT specification (C/S T.009) requires a frequency measurement accuracy of
|
||
2 Hz.
|
||
3.2.3.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
For simplicity, this test is conducted by analysing the data collected for test T-1. For each
|
||
beacon event note the frequency measurement provided by the GEOLUT associated with the
|
||
first valid message produced, and record this information as described at Annex E.
|
||
The measured frequency should be corrected by the GEOLUT, as possible, to account for any
|
||
calibration that would normally be performed during real GEOLUT operations (e.g. if the
|
||
GEOLUT includes features for assessing and correcting frequency measurements by applying
|
||
calibration correction factors, these features should be activated).
|
||
3.2.3.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis, and Results
|
||
Using the data recorded at Annex E the mean and standard deviation of the frequency
|
||
differences for each EIRP should be calculated and recorded as indicated in sample Table 3-3
|
||
and graphed as depicted at Figure 3-3. Measurements which have large differences may be
|
||
removed from the data set if the measurement error can be explained by a known
|
||
phenomenon which degraded the GEOLUT's ability to produce a valid measurement.
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Calculated C/No
|
||
at GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Avg Freq Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz rounded to 1 decimal place)
|
||
Std Deviation of Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
26.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
Table 3-3:
|
||
Sample Table for Analysed Results for Objective T-3
|
||
|
||
3 - 11
|
||
|
||
Figure 3-3:
|
||
Graphs Depicting Frequency Measurement Accuracy Performance
|
||
3.2.4 T-4: LOUCH GEOLUT Channel Capacity
|
||
The definition of capacity in Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR systems is the number of 406 MHz
|
||
distress beacons operating simultaneously in the field of view of a GEOSAR satellite, that
|
||
can be successfully processed by the System to provide a valid beacon message, under
|
||
nominal conditions, within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95% of the time, and the number
|
||
of beacons that can be successfully processed within 10 minutes of beacon activation 98% of
|
||
the time. The applicable nominal conditions are described in document C/S T.012, “Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat 406 MHz Frequency Management Plan”, except that the uplink EIRP will be set to
|
||
34 dBm.
|
||
3.2.4.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
The Louch GEOSAR channel capacity is determined by generating traffic loads equivalent to
|
||
known numbers of simultaneously active long format beacons in a Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz
|
||
channel. The time required for the GEOLUT to produce a valid beacon message, complete
|
||
message and confirm a complete message for each beacon event is recorded. The number of
|
||
simultaneously occurring beacon events is changed and the time required for the GEOLUT to
|
||
produce valid, complete and complete confirmed messages are calculated and recorded for
|
||
the new 406 MHz traffic load.
|
||
The test scripts transmitted by the beacon simulator should conform to the nominal
|
||
conditions detailed in document C/S T.012, with the exception that the uplink EIRP will be
|
||
34 dBm. Specifically, the test shall replicate a number of beacon messages overlapping in
|
||
time and frequency commensurate with the number of simultaneously active beacons.
|
||
Further, the beacon events used in the test script shall also replicate the beacon burst
|
||
repetition period defined in document C/S T.001 (406 MHz beacon specification). The test
|
||
shall be scheduled to avoid any potential interference caused by Cospas-Sarsat LEOSAR
|
||
satellite downlink transmissions.
|
||
The test will replicate scenarios of 15, 20, 25 and 30 simultaneously active beacons.
|
||
26 27 …
|
||
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Avg Freq Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
Standard Deviation Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
|
||
|
||
…
|
||
|
||
EIRP
|
||
|
||
3 - 12
|
||
|
||
Performance of this test requires the following steps.
|
||
a.
|
||
A beacon simulator test script is developed which replicates 15 simultaneously active
|
||
beacons, with each beacon event having a unique ID. The time of the first burst for
|
||
each beacon event should be developed using a random process that ensures that the
|
||
first burst of each beacon is transmitted within 50 seconds from the start of the test.
|
||
The transmit time for subsequent transmissions for each beacon event shall conform
|
||
to the repetition period defined in the Cospas-Sarsat beacon specification (C/S T.001).
|
||
Therefore, the test script will include instances where beacon bursts may overlap in
|
||
time and frequency. The test signals will be transmitted with a carrier frequency of
|
||
406.063MHz with the uplink power set to 34 dBm. Each beacon event shall replicate
|
||
a beacon being active for a 15 minute period.
|
||
b.
|
||
Ensuring that the GEOLUTs will not be in the downlink footprint of a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
LEOSAR satellite, the test script is transmitted.
|
||
c.
|
||
For each beacon event the time that the GEOLUT produced the first valid message,
|
||
first complete message and first confirmed complete message should be recorded in
|
||
the tabular format provided at Annex F.
|
||
d.
|
||
Repeat test with a different test script which also replicates 15 active beacons, until 10
|
||
different test scripts have been transmitted.
|
||
e.
|
||
Repeat the process above for scenarios in which the beacon simulator replicates 20,
|
||
25, and 30 simultaneously active beacons.
|
||
3.2.4.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
Using the data collected at Annex F, Table 3-4 should be completed for each simulated traffic
|
||
load (e.g. the 10) repetitions of the test script for 15 active beacons are consolidated to
|
||
provide the data in a single row of the table).
|
||
Channel: 406.0XX
|
||
# of Active
|
||
Bcn Events
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within 5 Min
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within10 Min
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within 15 Min
|
||
% Confirmed Complete
|
||
Msg within 15 Min
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table 3-4: Sample Table for Capacity Statistics
|
||
From the data in Table 3-4, the percentage of beacon events which produced valid messages
|
||
within 5, 10 and 15 minutes of the start of the beacon event, and also the percentage of
|
||
confirmed complete messages, should be graphed against the respective beacon channel
|
||
population as indicated at Figure 3-4. As described below, the capacity of the channel is
|
||
determined by evaluating the number of active beacons corresponding to the 95th percentile
|
||
|
||
3 - 13
|
||
|
||
of the 5 minute curve and the 98th percentile of the 10 minute curve. Since the capacity of the
|
||
channel must satisfy both the 5 and 10 minute criteria, the lowest of these two figures is the
|
||
channel capacity.
|
||
Figure 3-4: Graph Depicting Louch GEOSAR Capacity
|
||
In the fictitious example above, the 0.95 probability in 5 minutes would be the most stringent
|
||
criteria, and, therefore, defines the capacity as being approximately 26.5 active beacons.
|
||
3.2.4.3
|
||
Interpretation, Conclusion and Recommendation
|
||
The results of these tests will provide an estimate of the capacity a single channel in the
|
||
Louch GEOSAR system. It is recommended that these results be used to validate the
|
||
GEOLUT capacity models being developed for the 406 MHz Frequency Management Plan.
|
||
3.2.5 T-5: Impact of Interference
|
||
The purpose of this objective is to determine the ability of the GEOSAR system to provide
|
||
valid messages in the presence of interference and noise. In view of the specialized test
|
||
equipment required to conduct this objective, not all Louch GEOLUT operators need
|
||
participate, but as a minimum one operator should monitor and report the impact of
|
||
interference in accordance with these procedures.
|
||
0.94
|
||
0.95
|
||
0.96
|
||
0.97
|
||
0.98
|
||
0.99
|
||
1.0
|
||
5 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
10 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
15 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
15 Minute Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg Curve
|
||
Probability
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Simultaneously Active Beacons Per
|
||
Channel
|
||
|
||
3 - 14
|
||
|
||
3.2.5.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
This objective will use both real alerts and controlled test beacons to determine the impact of
|
||
actual interferers seen in the GEOSAR field of view when interference is present. It will also
|
||
examine the relationship between the characteristics of the interfering signals and any
|
||
changes in the production of valid messages.
|
||
The following methodology should be used.
|
||
a. Characterize the interference by using a spectrum analyser and a data storage device
|
||
to permit detailed analysis of the interfering signal at a later time than its occurrence.
|
||
The following test set up could be used (see Figure 3-5):
|
||
b.
|
||
Monitor the GEOSAR band using the spectrum analyser. Record the output in a
|
||
storage device for later detailed analysis. Photographs, data plots, or spectrographs
|
||
could be used for this purpose.
|
||
c.
|
||
When interference is detected the following parameters concerning the interfering
|
||
signal should be collected.
|
||
i)
|
||
The identification of the GEOLUT.
|
||
ii)
|
||
Time of occurrence and the duration of the interfering signal.
|
||
iii)
|
||
Spectral occupancy.
|
||
LUCH-5A
|
||
SATELLITE
|
||
SIGNAL
|
||
ELECTRO
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
PROCESSOR
|
||
SPECTRUM
|
||
ANALYZER
|
||
STORAGE
|
||
DEVICE
|
||
ALERT
|
||
MESSAGES
|
||
INTERFERER
|
||
CHARACTERIZATION
|
||
DATA
|
||
PHOTOGRAPHS, PLOTS,
|
||
OR SPECTOGRAPHS
|
||
Figure 3-5: Test Set-up for Interference Evaluation
|
||
Louch 5A
|
||
Louch 5A
|
||
|
||
3 - 15
|
||
|
||
iv)
|
||
Signal strength.
|
||
v)
|
||
Time patterns (e.g. on/off versus continuous, sweeping versus constant, etc.).
|
||
vi)
|
||
Nature of modulation (analogue versus digital).
|
||
vii)
|
||
Location of the interferer (if known).
|
||
During periods of interference the production of valid messages by the GEOSAR
|
||
processor should be evaluated. Any loss of messages, the production of invalid
|
||
messages or increases in the message transfer time should be noted.
|
||
3.2.5.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
When interference is detected, all GEOSAR messages during the period should be examined
|
||
to determine if there is:
|
||
a.
|
||
a loss of expected messages;
|
||
b.
|
||
a decrease in the number of valid messages from operational and test beacons before
|
||
and after the occurrence of the interference; and
|
||
c.
|
||
an increase in processing anomalies.
|
||
Examine the technical parameters of the interferer and try to relate the impact on the message
|
||
processing to specific characteristics of the interferer. For example, is there a relationship
|
||
between the rate of reduction in valid messages to the interferer's signal strength?
|
||
3.2.6 T-6: Impact of Interference From LEOSAR Satellites
|
||
The purpose of this objective is to analyse and quantify the impact that Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
LEOSAR satellite downlink transmissions have on the ability of Louch GEOLUTs to process
|
||
beacon signals. The test transmissions used for this objective will also be used for objective
|
||
T-7 (Louch GEOLUT network performance).
|
||
3.2.6.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
The impact of interference from LEOSAR satellite downlink transmissions is assessed by
|
||
activating beacon events at regular intervals over extended periods of time. The performance
|
||
of the GEOLUT to produce valid and confirmed messages for these beacon events during
|
||
periods when the GEOLUT was within, and periods when not within a LEOSAR satellite
|
||
footprint, is analysed. It should be noted that harmful interference does not always occur
|
||
every time GEOLUTs are in the footprint of the LEOSAR satellites, since the level of
|
||
interference is dependant on many factors (e.g. side lobe characteristics of GEOLUT antenna,
|
||
GEOLUT antenna shielding, etc.). Consequently, this test will not categorically confirm
|
||
whether LEOSAR satellites generate harmful interference to the Louch GEOSAR System.
|
||
|
||
3 - 16
|
||
|
||
However, the test may provide sufficient information to determine whether additional tests on
|
||
the matter will be required.
|
||
Performance of this test requires the following steps.
|
||
a.
|
||
The beacon simulator is programmed to transmit a new beacon event, each with an
|
||
EIRP of 37 dBm every 10 minutes over a 48 hour period. Each beacon event shall
|
||
have a unique ID, transmit long format messages and shall be active for 20 minutes.
|
||
The burst repetition interval for each beacon event shall be implemented in a manner
|
||
which ensures that at least 10 bursts from each event do not collide with bursts from
|
||
3.2.7 T-7: LOUCH GEOLUT Network Performance
|
||
There is a requirement to confirm that the Louch GEOSAR system comprised of the
|
||
GEOSAR satellite and the network of GEOLUTs which track it will provide reliable and
|
||
timely 406 MHz alerts even if one or more of the Louch GEOLUTs were unavailable due to
|
||
interference from LEOSAR downlink transmissions.
|
||
3.2.7.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
The results from objective T-6 from all the participating GEOLUTs is analysed to complete
|
||
the table provided below. For each beacon event the earliest time that any of the GEOLUTs
|
||
produced a valid message and the earliest that any of the GEOLUTs produced a confirmed
|
||
complete message is recorded. Since this test requires consolidating the results from
|
||
objective T-6 from all the participating Louch GEOLUTs, objective T-7 will not be included
|
||
in the performance evaluation reports provided by individual GEOLUT operators.
|
||
Beacon ID
|
||
Time to Produce
|
||
Valid Msg
|
||
GEOLUT which
|
||
Produced Valid
|
||
Msg
|
||
Time to Produce
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
GEOLUT which
|
||
Produced
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
Table 3-5: Sample Table of Louch GEOLUT Network Performance
|
||
3.2.7.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
From the data collected, the following shall be provided.
|
||
a.
|
||
A histogram, with 100 second intervals, depicting the number of beacon events for
|
||
which valid and confirmed complete messages were produced, and the cumulative
|
||
probabilities of valid and confirmed complete messages (as provided at Figure 3-7).
|
||
b.
|
||
The mean time and standard deviation for the Louch GEOSAR system to produce
|
||
valid and confirmed complete messages.
|
||
|
||
3 - 17
|
||
|
||
c.
|
||
The probability that the combined network of GEOLUTs would produce a valid
|
||
message within 5 minutes, and within 10 minutes.
|
||
Figure 3-6: GEOLUT Valid Message Production Performance
|
||
|
||
|
||
Seconds x 100 (after start of beacon event)
|
||
Number of beacon events for which GEOLUT produced a valid message
|
||
(no possibility of LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Number of beacon events for which GEOLUT produced a valid message
|
||
(possible LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Cumulative Probability of valid message (no possibility LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Cumulative Probability of valid message (possible LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Number of Beacon Events
|
||
Cumulative Probability
|
||
3-4
|
||
1-2
|
||
0-1
|
||
4-5
|
||
8-9
|
||
2-3
|
||
6-7
|
||
5-6
|
||
7-8
|
||
9-10
|
||
|
||
3 - 18
|
||
|
||
Figure 3-7: GEOLUT Network Performance
|
||
3.2.8 T-8: Processing Anomalies (PA)
|
||
This test assesses GEOLUT performance in respect of its ability to suppress the number of
|
||
processing anomalies produced.
|
||
3.2.8.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
This test is conducted by monitoring the 406 MHz channel (406.022 MHz) used by Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat reference beacons, and noting instances where the GEOLUT produced valid beacon
|
||
0-1
|
||
4-5
|
||
2-3
|
||
3-4
|
||
1-2
|
||
7-8
|
||
6-7
|
||
8-9
|
||
Number of Beacon Events
|
||
Cumulative Probability
|
||
Number of beacon events for which one of the Louch GEOLUTs produced the
|
||
first valid message within the time interval.
|
||
Number of beacon events for which one of the Louch GEOLUTs produced the
|
||
first confirmed message within the time interval.
|
||
Cumulative Probability of the valid message being produced by at least one of the Louch GEOLUTs.
|
||
Cumulative Probability of confirmed message being produced by at least one of the Louch GEOLUTs.
|
||
Seconds x 100(after start of beacon event)
|
||
9-10
|
||
5-6
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 - 19
|
||
|
||
messages which did not correspond to any of the reference beacons in the coverage area of
|
||
the Louch satellite. Since the identifications (IDs) of all reference beacons in view of the
|
||
Louch satellite are known, it can be inferred that beacons detected in the 406.022 MHz
|
||
channel which do not correspond to known reference beacons are processing anomalies. The
|
||
following test methodology and data collection requirements apply:
|
||
a.
|
||
Note the 15 hexadecimal identification of all the reference beacons in the coverage
|
||
area of the Louch satellite.
|
||
b.
|
||
Monitor the 406 MHz channel used by Cospas-Sarsat reference beacons for a 4 week
|
||
period, and note each instance of the GEOLUT producing a processing anomaly. For
|
||
each processing anomaly note the date and time that it was produced by the
|
||
GEOLUT, the 15 Hex ID and the 30 Hex beacon message reported by the GEOLUT,
|
||
and whether there was interference from a LEOSAR satellite at the time the PA was
|
||
produced (an example of the table for collecting this data is provided at Annex H).
|
||
3.2.8.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
a.
|
||
Identify those valid messages that were processing anomalies (their 15 Hex ID did not
|
||
correspond to the 15 Hex ID of any of the reference beacons in the coverage area of
|
||
the Louch satellite).
|
||
b.
|
||
For each processing anomaly, determine if the GEOLUT was in the coverage area of
|
||
a LEOSAR satellite at the time the alert was produced. This information will be used
|
||
to develop statistics which will provide an indication of whether LEOSAR
|
||
interference impacts upon GEOLUT processing anomaly performance.
|
||
c.
|
||
For each processing anomaly, attempt to determine the source (i.e. reference beacon)
|
||
of the transmission. This is done by converting the GEOLUT produced message into
|
||
its binary representation, and comparing it with bit-shifted versions of all the
|
||
reference beacons in the Louch coverage area. If the bits of the processing anomaly
|
||
message correspond to 80% or more of a reference beacon message, then it could be
|
||
assumed that the processing anomaly was generated from the GEOLUT processing of
|
||
transmissions from that reference beacon.
|
||
d.
|
||
Record the results in the table provided at Annex H, and copied below:
|
||
15 Hex ID Produced
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
15 Hex ID of
|
||
Associated Reference
|
||
Beacon
|
||
Beacon Message
|
||
Produced by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(30 Hex)
|
||
Date / Time
|
||
LUT in LEO
|
||
Footprint
|
||
(Y/N)
|
||
e.
|
||
Calculate the PA rate as a function of beacon bursts in the coverage area of the Louch
|
||
satellite. This is calculated with the following equation:
|
||
Total Number of PAs
|
||
Total Duration of LEOCov in Days* Number of Reference Beacon Bursts per Day in Louch Coverage Area
|
||
f.
|
||
Calculate the PA rate when the GEOLUT is in the footprint of a LEOSAR satellite
|
||
using the following equation.
|
||
|
||
3 - 20
|
||
|
||
Total Number of PAs during LEOCov
|
||
Total Duration of LEOCov in Days* Number of Reference Beacon Bursts per Day in Louch Coverage Area
|
||
3.2.9 T-9: LOUCH Coverage
|
||
The coverage of the Louch GEOSAR system is evaluated using a combination of:
|
||
a.
|
||
technical tests, in which a beacon is activated for a period of time, during which it
|
||
crosses in or out of the Louch GEOSAR coverage area; and
|
||
b.
|
||
evaluating real beacon alerts detected by the LEOSAR system, and assessing if the
|
||
same alerts were detected by the Louch GEOSAR system.
|
||
3.2.9.1
|
||
Methodology and Data Collection
|
||
Testing Using Beacon Crossing Coverage Area
|
||
A beacon will be mounted on a vessel or vehicle which will be crossing the expected Louch
|
||
GEOSAR coverage area. After the beacon has been activated, the beacon operator will
|
||
record its location as a function of time. Louch GEOLUT operators will monitor the output
|
||
of their GEOLUTs for the test period, and record the times associated with the production of
|
||
all valid messages for the test beacon.
|
||
Evaluating Coverage Area Using Real Beacon Events of Opportunity
|
||
The location and times of real beacon events detected by the LEOSAR system during the
|
||
period of the Louch GEOSAR Performance testing are to be identified. Beacon events
|
||
located within an area enclosed by 80 latitude and longitude should be recorded in the
|
||
format provided at Annex I. The beacon ID and time of each alert in the sample set are to be
|
||
compared against the GEOLUT output to determine if the event was also detected by the
|
||
Louch GEOSAR system.
|
||
3.2.9.2
|
||
Data Reduction, Analysis and Results
|
||
Testing Using Beacon Crossing Coverage Area
|
||
From the data collected, the time that Louch GEOSAR coverage was lost (or began
|
||
depending whether the beacon was moving in or out of coverage) is to be recorded. The
|
||
movement of the beacon during the test period is to be plotted on a map, and the plot is to be
|
||
annotated to depict GEO coverage / no GEO coverage. From the collected data, the
|
||
estimated latitude and longitude of the last valid message detected by the GEOLUT before
|
||
the beacon left coverage, should be provided.
|
||
Evaluating Coverage Area Using Real Beacon Events of Opportunity
|
||
a.
|
||
All the LEOSAR alerts detected during the period of the Louch Performance
|
||
evaluation that satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the sample set should be recorded in
|
||
|
||
3 - 21
|
||
|
||
the format provided at Annex I (i.e., situated within an area enclosed by 80 latitude
|
||
and longitude);
|
||
b.
|
||
Each beacon event in the sample set should be checked to determine if it was also
|
||
detected by the Louch GEOLUT, and the results recorded as per Annex I;
|
||
c.
|
||
The beacon events are to be grouped into geographic areas of 10 latitude/longitude
|
||
blocks;
|
||
d.
|
||
For each block, the percentage of LEOSAR beacon events that were also detected by
|
||
the GEOLUT should be calculated and presented as indicated at Table 3-6 below; and
|
||
e.
|
||
The location of each beacon event should be plotted on two maps, one depicting
|
||
events that were detected by both the LEOSAR and GEOLUT, and a separate map
|
||
depicting beacon events detected only by the LEOSAR system.
|
||
Block Location
|
||
Number of
|
||
LEOSAR Beacon
|
||
Events
|
||
Number Detected
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
% Detected by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Longitude
|
||
Latitude
|
||
0/10w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
10w/20w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
20w/30w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
70e/80e
|
||
70s/80s
|
||
Table 3-6: Sample Table of Coverage Statistics
|
||
3.2.10
|
||
C-1: Commissioning of Louch GEOLUT
|
||
Part of the Louch GEOSAR performance evaluation plan includes the verification of the
|
||
compliance of Louch GEOLUT with the performance specification (C/S T.009). This verification
|
||
is performed for those ground segment operators participating in test campaign that intend to
|
||
commission their respective Louch GEOLUTs (New Zealand, Russia) to Cospas-Sarsat.
|
||
Document C/S T.010 provides the detailed testing and reporting requirements for the
|
||
commissioning of the Cospas-Sarsat GEOLUT. The annexes of the documents define the test
|
||
data format requirements and the content and format of the commissioning report which is to be
|
||
submitted to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat.
|
||
Commissioning reports are reviewed separately by the Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee and
|
||
approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 3 -
|
||
|
||
4 - 1
|
||
|
||
4.
|
||
REPORTING GUIDELINES
|
||
Each GEOLUT operator participating in the Louch GEOSAR Performance Evaluation
|
||
Programme shall submit an individual report to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat. The report
|
||
should follow the structure described in Annex A, using the same section paragraph
|
||
numbering and annexes.
|
||
The Secretariat will retain the complete reports on file for archival purposes, and will format
|
||
each report into a summarized version for presentation to the Joint Committee. Based upon
|
||
the recommendations of the Joint Committee, a summary report of the performance of the
|
||
Louch System will be produced for the consideration of the Cospas-Sarsat Council.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 4 -
|
||
|
||
________________________________________________________
|
||
ANNEXES TO THE
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT LOUCH
|
||
GEOSAR PERFORMANCE
|
||
EVALUATION PLAN
|
||
_________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
A - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX A
|
||
FORMAT OF LOUCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
|
||
REPORTSBY GEOLUT OPERATORS
|
||
A.1
|
||
INTRODUCTION
|
||
Introductory remarks provide information necessary to understand the report. The
|
||
introduction should identify which test objectives were completed and have been reported in
|
||
this document and any known deficiencies with the GEOLUT which could affect the results.
|
||
Furthermore, the introduction shall provide:
|
||
a.
|
||
the dates covered by the test programme;
|
||
b.
|
||
the location of the GEOLUT; and
|
||
c.
|
||
the configuration settings of the GEOLUT which could impact upon its observed
|
||
performance (e.g. the bandwidth settings of the GEOLUT receiver).
|
||
A.2
|
||
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
|
||
This section will provide summary statements concerning the results of each objective. It
|
||
should specifically identify any difficulties experienced with the evaluation programme and
|
||
any recommendations that should be noted by the Joint Committee.
|
||
A.3
|
||
Test T-1: PROCESSING THRESHOLD, SYSTEM MARGIN ANDBEACON
|
||
MESSAGE PROCESSING PERFORMANCE
|
||
A.3.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.3.2 Calculation of C/No
|
||
The calculations converting the EIRP of the simulator, to a C/No value at the GEOLUT
|
||
processor should be provided.
|
||
A.3.3 Test Results
|
||
The GEOLUT data collected for this test should be included as an annex to the report, and
|
||
referenced in this section of the report. In addition, the tables below should be produced
|
||
based on the collected data and provided in this section of the national report.
|
||
|
||
A - 2
|
||
|
||
Analysed Data for Test T-1
|
||
EIRP
|
||
from
|
||
simulator
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Calculated
|
||
C/No at
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Valid Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon Events for which
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Valid Message
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Valid Message
|
||
within 5 Min
|
||
Valid Message was
|
||
Produced
|
||
Valid Message was
|
||
Produced within
|
||
5 Min
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
28.0
|
||
29.0
|
||
30.0
|
||
31.0
|
||
32.0
|
||
33.0
|
||
34.0
|
||
35.0
|
||
36.0
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.00
|
||
1.00
|
||
EIRP
|
||
from
|
||
simulator
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Complete Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events Used
|
||
(Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
Sample Set)
|
||
Number of Beacon Events
|
||
for which a Complete
|
||
Message was Produced
|
||
Number of Beacon
|
||
Events for which a
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Message was Produced
|
||
Probability of
|
||
Complete /
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
28.0
|
||
29.0
|
||
30.0
|
||
31.0
|
||
32.0
|
||
33.0
|
||
34.0
|
||
35.0
|
||
36.0
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.00
|
||
A.3.4 Processing Threshold and Message Processing Performance
|
||
A graph of the results from the tables above should be included (a theoretical example is
|
||
provided herein). The processing threshold value should be highlighted by noting the value
|
||
of C/No corresponding to a 0.99 probability of obtaining a valid message as indicated below.
|
||
Similarly the processing performance is determined from the graph depicting C/No versus the
|
||
probability of producing a valid message within 5 minutes.
|
||
|
||
A - 3
|
||
|
||
A.3.5 System Margin
|
||
The calculations converting the threshold value of C/No to the associated EIRP, and the
|
||
resulting system margin should be provided.
|
||
Processing Threshold and System Margin
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
37 dBm
|
||
Processing Threshold
|
||
System
|
||
Margin
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
Probability of Valid Message
|
||
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Processing Performance
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
.95
|
||
Probability of Valid Message Within 5 min
|
||
Long Message Processing Performance
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Complete
|
||
1.0
|
||
.99
|
||
.98
|
||
.97
|
||
.96
|
||
.95
|
||
Probability of Successful Message Processing
|
||
|
||
A - 4
|
||
|
||
A.3.6 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
A.3.7 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
A.4
|
||
TEST T-2: TIME TO PRODUCE VALID, COMPLETE AND CONFIRMED
|
||
MESSAGES
|
||
A.4.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.4.2 Test Results
|
||
The results for this test are obtained by analysing the data that was collected for the T-1 Test.
|
||
A reference should be provided to indicate the annex of the report where this data is
|
||
provided. From the data, the table and graphs described below should be produced and
|
||
included in this section of the report. In addition to the mean time to produce valid, complete
|
||
and confirmed complete messages for each EIRP, the standard deviation for each of these
|
||
statistics should also be calculated and provided.
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
C/No
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
ATVM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATVM
|
||
ATCM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATCM
|
||
ATCCM
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Standard
|
||
Deviation of
|
||
ATCCM
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
C/No
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
95th Percentile
|
||
98th Percentile
|
||
Valid Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Msg (Sec)
|
||
Valid Msg (Sec)
|
||
Complete
|
||
Msg (Sec)
|
||
Confirmed Msg
|
||
(Sec)
|
||
26.0
|
||
27.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
A - 5
|
||
|
||
Average Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete (ATCCM)
|
||
Complete (ATCM)
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid (ATVM)
|
||
95th Percentile to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Complete
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid
|
||
98th Percentile to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages
|
||
C/No
|
||
EIRP
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Complete
|
||
|
||
|
||
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
|
||
Seconds After First Burst of Beacon Event
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Bursts Required
|
||
Valid
|
||
|
||
A - 6
|
||
|
||
A.4.3 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
A.4.4 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
A.5
|
||
TEST T-3: CARRIER FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT ACCURACY
|
||
A.5.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.5.2 Test Results
|
||
The results for this test are obtained by analysing the data that was collected for the T-1 Test,
|
||
to obtain the average frequency measurement error and standard deviation of this error, for
|
||
each EIRP. A reference should be provided to indicate the annex of the report where this
|
||
data is provided. The results of these calculations should be presented in tabular and
|
||
graphical formats as indicated below.
|
||
EIRP
|
||
(dBm)
|
||
Calculated C/No at
|
||
GEOLUT (dBHz)
|
||
AvgFreq Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz rounded to 1 decimal place)
|
||
Std Deviation of Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
26.0
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
37.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
…
|
||
|
||
EIRP
|
||
AvgFreq Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
Standard Deviation Freq
|
||
Measurement Error
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
|
||
|
||
…
|
||
|
||
EIRP
|
||
|
||
A - 7
|
||
|
||
A.5.3 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
A.5.4 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
A.6
|
||
TEST T-4: LOUCH GEOLUT CHANNEL CAPACITY
|
||
A.6.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.6.2 Test Results
|
||
The GEOLUT data collected for this test should be included as an annex to the report, and
|
||
should be referenced in this section of the report. From the data collected, the table and
|
||
graph depicted below should be provided, and the capacity calculated and reported in this
|
||
section of the report.
|
||
Channel: 406.0XX
|
||
# of Active
|
||
Bcn Events
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within 5 Min
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within10 Min
|
||
% Valid Msg
|
||
within 15 Min
|
||
% Confirmed Complete
|
||
Msg within 15 Min
|
||
|
||
|
||
A - 8
|
||
|
||
A.6.3 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
A.6.4 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
A.7
|
||
Test T-5: Impact of Interference
|
||
This objective is not accomplished through a controlled test, but rather by monitoring the
|
||
performance of the GEOLUT throughout the period of the entire Louch performance
|
||
evaluation programme, during which time it is anticipated that there will be periods of
|
||
interference. In view of the unstructured nature of this process it is not possible to predict
|
||
what information will be collected, the detailed analysis which will be required, not define
|
||
the structure for reporting the results in advance.
|
||
406.061 MHz Channel Capacity
|
||
0.94
|
||
0.95
|
||
0.96
|
||
0.97
|
||
0.98
|
||
0.99
|
||
1.0
|
||
5 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
10 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
15 Minute Valid Msg Curve
|
||
15 Minute Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg Curve
|
||
Probability
|
||
|
||
|
||
Number of Simultaneously Active Beacons Per
|
||
Channel
|
||
|
||
A - 9
|
||
|
||
In view of the above, for administrations which participated in this test objective, a
|
||
description of the configuration used to detect and measure interference should be provided.
|
||
In addition, the data collected for this objective should be provided as an annex to the report.
|
||
Finally any data reduction and/or analysis conducted should be described and the results
|
||
reported.
|
||
A.8
|
||
TEST T-6: IMPACT OF INTERFERENCE FROM LEOSAR SATELLITES
|
||
A.8.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.8.2 Test Results
|
||
The GEOLUT data collected for this test should be included as an annex to the report, and
|
||
should be referenced in this section of the report. The following should be provided:
|
||
a.
|
||
histograms / graphs, as provided in the example below, which depict the performance
|
||
of the GEOLUT to produce valid messages during periods when the GEOLUT was in
|
||
the footprint of a LEOSAR satellite prior to the production of a valid message for a
|
||
beacon event and when it was not;
|
||
b.
|
||
the mean and standard deviation for the time to produce valid messages, for both
|
||
sample sets;
|
||
c.
|
||
histograms / graphs, also in the format provided below, which depict the performance
|
||
to produce confirmed complete messages during periods when the GEOLUT was in
|
||
the footprint of a LEOSAR satellite prior to the first valid message, and when it was
|
||
not;
|
||
d.
|
||
the mean and standard deviation for the time to produce confirmed complete
|
||
messages; and
|
||
e.
|
||
a graph depicting the C/No, as measured by the GEOLUT to produce the first valid
|
||
message for each beacon event, plotted against the time since the start of the test (i.e.,
|
||
the horizontal axis of the graph will cover the 48 hour test period).
|
||
With respect to the calculation for the mean and standard deviation, if the GEOLUT did not
|
||
produce a valid or confirmed complete message, the beacon event should not be included in
|
||
the respective sample set, and a note should be provided in the report indicating how many
|
||
such events occurred. For example, the note might indicate that valid messages were not
|
||
produced for 3 beacon events, and confirmed complete messages were not produced for 7
|
||
events.
|
||
|
||
A - 10
|
||
|
||
GEOLUT Valid Message Production Performance
|
||
A.8.3 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test that
|
||
could affect the results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should be
|
||
provided. Specifically, the number of beacon events for which the GEOLUT was not able to
|
||
produce a valid or a confirmed complete message should be provided.
|
||
A.8.4 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
Seconds x 100 (after start of beacon event)
|
||
Number of beacon events for which GEOLUT produced a valid message
|
||
(no possibility of LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Number of beacon events for which GEOLUT produced a valid message
|
||
(possible LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Cumulative Probability of valid message (no possibility of LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
Cumulative Probability of valid message (possible LEOSAR interference prior to first valid message).
|
||
|
||
|
||
9-10
|
||
Number of beacon events
|
||
Cumulative Probability
|
||
8-9
|
||
7-8
|
||
6-7
|
||
5-6
|
||
4-5
|
||
3-4
|
||
2-3
|
||
1-2
|
||
0-1
|
||
|
||
A - 11
|
||
|
||
A.9
|
||
TEST T-7: LOUCH GEOLUT NETWORK PERFORMANCE
|
||
Since this test requires consolidating the results of objective T-6 from all the participating
|
||
Louch GEOLUTs, objective T-7 will not be included in the performance evaluation reports
|
||
provided by the individual GEOLUT operators. Instead the Joint Committee will produce a
|
||
report for this objective by consolidating the results provided by the participating GEOLUT
|
||
operators for objective T-6.
|
||
A.9.1 Test Results
|
||
The Joint Committee should analyse the data collected for objective T-6 (impact of LEOSAR
|
||
interference), and complete the actions described below.
|
||
a.
|
||
An entry should be made in the format of the table described at Annex G which
|
||
captures the earliest time that any of the Louch GEOLUTs produced a valid message
|
||
for each beacon event, and the earliest time that any of the GEOLUTs produced a
|
||
confirmed complete message for each beacon event.
|
||
b.
|
||
From the table produced by the Joint Committee, a graph (as described at Figure 3.7)
|
||
should be provided, which depicts the performance of the Louch GEOLUT network
|
||
in respect of producing valid and confirmed complete messages.
|
||
c.
|
||
From the consolidated data:
|
||
(i) mean and standard deviation for time required for the network of Louch
|
||
GEOLUTs to produce valid and confirmed messages for each beacon event
|
||
should be calculated and reported;
|
||
(ii) the probability that the network of Louch GEOLUTs would produce valid
|
||
messages within 5 and 10 minutes should be calculated and reported; and
|
||
(iii) the probability that the GEOLUT network produced confirmed complete
|
||
messages should be calculated and reported.
|
||
A.10 TEST T-8: PROCESSING ANOMALIES
|
||
A.10.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.10.2 Test Results
|
||
An entry should be made in the table provided at Annex H (a copy of the format of the table
|
||
is provided below) for each instance when the GEOLUT produced a valid message which
|
||
satisfied both conditions stated below:
|
||
|
||
A - 12
|
||
|
||
a.
|
||
the bias frequency calculated by the GEOLUT confirmed the transmission occurred in
|
||
the channel reserved for reference beacons (406.0205 - 406.0235 MHz); and
|
||
b.
|
||
the 15 Hex ID of the valid message produced by the GEOLUT did not match any of
|
||
the 15 Hex IDs of reference beacons operating in the Louch coverage area.
|
||
15 Hex ID Produced
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
15 Hex ID of
|
||
Associated Reference
|
||
Beacon
|
||
Beacon Message
|
||
Produced by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(30 Hex)
|
||
Date / Time
|
||
LUT in LEO
|
||
Footprint
|
||
(Y/N)
|
||
Table for Recording 406 MHz Processing Anomalies (extracted from Annex H)
|
||
A.10.3 Processing Anomaly Rate (PA)
|
||
The PA rate and the PA rate when the GEOLUT was in the footprint of a LEOSAR satellite
|
||
should be calculated and reported.
|
||
A.10.4 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
A.10.5 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
A.11 Test T-9: LOUCH COVERAGE
|
||
A.11.1 Test Description
|
||
This section should include a statement confirming that the tests were conducted and
|
||
analysed in accordance with C/S R.020, or describe any modifications to the test procedures
|
||
that were required.
|
||
A.11.2 Test Results
|
||
Beacon Crossing Coverage Area
|
||
a.
|
||
A narrative description of the test should provided, indicating the route taken, the
|
||
beacon identification, and the times associated with the activation and deactivation of
|
||
the beacon.
|
||
|
||
A - 13
|
||
|
||
b.
|
||
The GEOLUT performance in respect of producing valid messages, as a function of
|
||
time and elevation angle (as indicated below) should be provided.
|
||
c.
|
||
The results provided in the table should be graphically depicted on a map.
|
||
Beacon 15 Hex ID:
|
||
Activation Date / Time:
|
||
De-activation Date / Time:
|
||
Date / Time
|
||
Location (Lat/Long)
|
||
Beacon to Satellite
|
||
Elevation Angle
|
||
Detected by GEOLUT
|
||
(Yes/No)
|
||
Evaluating Coverage Using Real Beacon Events
|
||
a.
|
||
All beacon events detected by the LEOSAR system in the area enclosed by 80 N/S
|
||
and 80 E/W, shall be recorded as per Annex I, and an indication of whether the
|
||
beacon event was also detected by the Louch GEOLUT.
|
||
b.
|
||
Using the data captured at Annex I, beacon events are to be grouped into geographic
|
||
locations of 10 latitude/longitude blocks, and the associated statistics calculated as
|
||
indicated below.
|
||
Block Location
|
||
Number of LEOSAR
|
||
Beacon Events
|
||
Number Detected
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
% Detected by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Longitude
|
||
Latitude
|
||
0/10w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
10w/20w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
20w/30w
|
||
0/10n
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
.
|
||
70e/80e
|
||
70s/80s
|
||
c.
|
||
Two maps of the data collected as per Annex I should be produced. One map
|
||
depicting each beacon event that was detected by the LEOSAR and also by the Louch
|
||
GEOLUT, and the second map depicting each beacon event that was only detected by
|
||
the LEOSAR system.
|
||
A.11.3 Test Anomalies
|
||
This section should provide information concerning issues which occurred during the test
|
||
which could affect results. If some data was excluded from the results, an explanation should
|
||
be provided.
|
||
|
||
A - 14
|
||
|
||
A.11.4 Recommendations
|
||
Any proposed recommendations resulting from this test should be detailed in this section.
|
||
List of Annexes (electronic copies of annexes to be provided to Secretariat separately)
|
||
Annex A GEOLUT Data Collected for Objectives T-1, T-2, and T-3;
|
||
Annex B GEOLUT Data Collected for Objective T-4;
|
||
Annex C GEOLUT Data Collected for Objective T-6;
|
||
Annex D GEOLUT Data Collected for Objective T-8; and
|
||
Annex E GEOLUT Data Collected for Objective T-9
|
||
- END OF ANNEX A -
|
||
|
||
B - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX B
|
||
TEST SCRIPTS FOR OBJECTIVES
|
||
T-1, T-2 AND T-3
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the test signals that will be transmitted by the simulator for
|
||
objectives T-1, T-2 and T-3. In order to transmit the required number of beacon events at each
|
||
EIRP, each script will be comprised of 50 beacon events. A different script will be used for each
|
||
EIRP value. The test script for uplink signals with EIRPs of 26 dBm is provided below. The
|
||
scripts for the other EIRPs will be identical to this example except that the beacon event IDs
|
||
transmitted will be coded with the appropriate EIRP value. Copies of the test scripts for EIRP
|
||
values from 26 to 37 dBm are available from the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat on request.
|
||
Each row in the table represents a single beacon event. Each beacon event is comprised of 25
|
||
beacon bursts with a fixed burst repetition interval of 50 sec. The start time for each beacon event
|
||
is indicated in the table.
|
||
The 15 Hex ID of each beacon event conforms to the following convention:
|
||
9С5С00 X XX 0 0 0 0 X X
|
||
Fixed Values For all
|
||
Beacon Events
|
||
(example)
|
||
Beacon Event
|
||
Serial 001
|
||
through 50
|
||
Fixed Values
|
||
For all Beacon
|
||
Events
|
||
Transmit EIRP
|
||
|
||
B - 2
|
||
|
||
Table B-1: Test script for Test T-1, T-2 and T-3
|
||
- END OF ANNEX B -
|
||
|
||
C - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX C
|
||
TEST SCRIPTS FOR OBJECTIVE T-4
|
||
(Channel Capacity)
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the test signals that will be transmitted by the simulator
|
||
for objective T-4.
|
||
Each script includes 15, 20, or 25 different beacons that transmit 18 beacon bursts with a
|
||
fixed burst repetition interval of 50 seconds. Each beacon event is comprised of 18 beacon
|
||
bursts, which may overlap in time. The start of time of the first beacon burst for each beacon
|
||
event is provided in the table. To obtain sufficient statistics 10 different scripts for each
|
||
beacon population will be transmitted. The beginning of one script simulating 15
|
||
simultaneously active beacons is provided below.
|
||
The 15 Hex ID of each beacon event conforms to the following convention:
|
||
Table C-1: Test script for Test T-4
|
||
- END OF ANNEX C -
|
||
(example)
|
||
|
||
D - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX D
|
||
TEST SCRIPTS FOR OBJECTIVES T-6 AND T-7
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description and schedule of the test signals that will be transmitted by
|
||
the simulator for objectives T-6 and T-7. Each row in the table represents a single beacon
|
||
event used in the test script. Each beacon event will replicate a typical 406 MHz distress
|
||
beacon active for a period of 20 minutes (24 bursts ).
|
||
The 15 Hex ID of each beacon event conforms to the following convention:
|
||
9C5C00 67 0 XXX 0 37
|
||
Table D-1: Test Script for Test T-6 and T-7
|
||
15 Hex ID of BCN
|
||
event
|
||
30 Hex Msg of BCN Event
|
||
Time of First
|
||
burst in BCN
|
||
Event
|
||
To + X sec
|
||
(hh:mm:ss:ccc)
|
||
TxFreq
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
9C5C00670001037
|
||
CE2E0033800081BB80A1C0100002C1
|
||
00:00:02:530
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670002037
|
||
CE2E0033800101BFC3CF40100002C1
|
||
00:10:07:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670003037
|
||
CE2E0033800181BC02EAC0100002C1
|
||
00:20:23:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670004037
|
||
CE2E0033800201BEF36A80100002C1
|
||
00:30:13:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670005037
|
||
CE2E0033800281BD324F00100002C1
|
||
00:40:30:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670006037
|
||
CE2E0033800301B9712180100002C1
|
||
00:50:04:550
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670007037
|
||
CE2E0033800381BAB00400100002C1
|
||
01:00:48:570
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670008037
|
||
CE2E0033800401BC922100100002C1
|
||
01:10:20:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670009037
|
||
CE2E0033800481BF530480100002C1
|
||
01:20:48:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670010037
|
||
CE2E0033800801B850B600100002C1
|
||
01:30:30:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670011037
|
||
CE2E0033800881BB919380100002C1
|
||
01:40:35:010
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670012037
|
||
CE2E0033800901BFD2FD00100002C1
|
||
01:50:26:130
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670013037
|
||
CE2E0033800981BC13D880100002C1
|
||
02:00:06:220
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670014037
|
||
CE2E0033800A01BEE258C0100002C1
|
||
02:10:11:150
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670015037
|
||
CE2E0033800A81BD237D40100002C1
|
||
02:20:34:460
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670016037
|
||
CE2E0033800B01B96013C0100002C1
|
||
02:30:26:020
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670017037
|
||
CE2E0033800B81BAA13640100002C1
|
||
02:40:17:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670018037
|
||
CE2E0033800C01BC831340100002C1
|
||
02:50:19:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670019037
|
||
CE2E0033800C81BF4236C0100002C1
|
||
03:00:11:240
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670020037
|
||
CE2E0033801001B863E0C0100002C1
|
||
03:10:36:540
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670021037
|
||
CE2E0033801081BBA2C540100002C1
|
||
03:20:30:070
|
||
406.061
|
||
Fixed Values
|
||
For all Beacon
|
||
Events
|
||
(example)
|
||
“67”indicating
|
||
tests T6 and
|
||
T7
|
||
Fixed
|
||
Value
|
||
Fixed
|
||
Value
|
||
Beacon Event
|
||
Serial Number
|
||
Transmit EIRP
|
||
|
||
D - 2
|
||
|
||
9C5C00670022037
|
||
CE2E0033801101BFE1ABC0100002C1
|
||
03:30:07:400
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670023037
|
||
CE2E0033801181BC208E40100002C1
|
||
03:40:27:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670024037
|
||
CE2E0033801201BED10E00100002C1
|
||
03:50:20:560
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670025037
|
||
CE2E0033801281BD102B80100002C1
|
||
04:00:03:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670026037
|
||
CE2E0033801301B9534500100002C1
|
||
04:10:12:220
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670027037
|
||
CE2E0033801381BA926080100002C1
|
||
04:20:11:130
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670028037
|
||
CE2E0033801401BCB04580100002C1
|
||
04:30:44:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670029037
|
||
CE2E0033801481BF716000100002C1
|
||
04:40:38:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670030037
|
||
CE2E0033801801B872D280100002C1
|
||
04:50:53:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670031037
|
||
CE2E0033801881BBB3F700100002C1
|
||
05:00:44:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670032037
|
||
CE2E0033801901BFF09980100002C1
|
||
05:10:57:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670033037
|
||
CE2E0033801981BC31BC00100002C1
|
||
05:20:52:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670034037
|
||
CE2E0033801A01BEC03C40100002C1
|
||
05:30:09:120
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670035037
|
||
CE2E0033801A81BD0119C0100002C1
|
||
05:40:51:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670036037
|
||
CE2E0033801B01B9427740100002C1
|
||
05:50:25:530
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670037037
|
||
CE2E0033801B81BA8352C0100002C1
|
||
06:00:04:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670038037
|
||
CE2E0033801C01BCA177C0100002C1
|
||
06:10:30:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670039037
|
||
CE2E0033801C81BF605240100002C1
|
||
06:20:53:220
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670040037
|
||
CE2E0033802001B8054D40100002C1
|
||
06:30:49:100
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670041037
|
||
CE2E0033802081BBC468C0100002C1
|
||
06:40:28:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670042037
|
||
CE2E0033802101BF870640100002C1
|
||
06:50:42:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670043037
|
||
CE2E0033802181BC4623C0100002C1
|
||
07:00:25:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670044037
|
||
CE2E0033802201BEB7A380100002C1
|
||
07:10:57:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670045037
|
||
CE2E0033802281BD768600100002C1
|
||
07:20:38:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670046037
|
||
CE2E0033802301B935E880100002C1
|
||
07:30:07:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670047037
|
||
CE2E0033802381BAF4CD00100002C1
|
||
07:40:08:510
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670048037
|
||
CE2E0033802401BCD6E800100002C1
|
||
07:50:20:440
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670049037
|
||
CE2E0033802481BF17CD80100002C1
|
||
08:00:13:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670050037
|
||
CE2E0033802801B8147F00100002C1
|
||
08:10:09:110
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670051037
|
||
CE2E0033802881BBD55A80100002C1
|
||
08:20:52:560
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670052037
|
||
CE2E0033802901BF963400100002C1
|
||
08:30:36:410
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670053037
|
||
CE2E0033802981BC571180100002C1
|
||
08:40:08:360
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670054037
|
||
CE2E0033802A01BEA691C0100002C1
|
||
08:50:13:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670055037
|
||
CE2E0033802A81BD67B440100002C1
|
||
09:00:17:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670056037
|
||
CE2E0033802B01B924DAC0100002C1
|
||
09:10:52:130
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670057037
|
||
CE2E0033802B81BAE5FF40100002C1
|
||
09:20:49:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670058037
|
||
CE2E0033802C01BCC7DA40100002C1
|
||
09:30:44:040
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670059037
|
||
CE2E0033802C81BF06FFC0100002C1
|
||
09:40:29:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670060037
|
||
CE2E0033803001B82729C0100002C1
|
||
09:50:41:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670061037
|
||
CE2E0033803081BBE60C40100002C1
|
||
10:00:03:420
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670062037
|
||
CE2E0033803101BFA562C0100002C1
|
||
10:10:49:360
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670063037
|
||
CE2E0033803181BC644740100002C1
|
||
10:20:19:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670064037
|
||
CE2E0033803201BE95C700100002C1
|
||
10:30:01:510
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670065037
|
||
CE2E0033803281BD54E280100002C1
|
||
10:40:55:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670066037
|
||
CE2E0033803301B9178C00100002C1
|
||
10:50:49:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670067037
|
||
CE2E0033803381BAD6A980100002C1
|
||
11:00:38:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670068037
|
||
CE2E0033803401BCF48C80100002C1
|
||
11:10:51:020
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670069037
|
||
CE2E0033803481BF35A900100002C1
|
||
11:20:12:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670070037
|
||
CE2E0033803801B8361B80100002C1
|
||
11:30:40:580
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670071037
|
||
CE2E0033803881BBF73E00100002C1
|
||
11:40:09:420
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670072037
|
||
CE2E0033803901BFB45080100002C1
|
||
11:50:46:510
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
D - 3
|
||
|
||
9C5C00670073037
|
||
CE2E0033803981BC757500100002C1
|
||
12:00:56:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670074037
|
||
CE2E0033803A01BE84F540100002C1
|
||
12:10:04:110
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670075037
|
||
CE2E0033803A81BD45D0C0100002C1
|
||
12:20:24:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670076037
|
||
CE2E0033803B01B906BE40100002C1
|
||
12:30:12:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670077037
|
||
CE2E0033803B81BAC79BC0100002C1
|
||
12:40:26:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670078037
|
||
CE2E0033803C01BCE5BEC0100002C1
|
||
12:50:24:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670079037
|
||
CE2E0033803C81BF249B40100002C1
|
||
13:00:14:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670080037
|
||
CE2E0033804001B8C81640100002C1
|
||
13:10:39:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670081037
|
||
CE2E0033804081BB0933C0100002C1
|
||
13:20:35:560
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670082037
|
||
CE2E0033804101BF4A5D40100002C1
|
||
13:30:37:390
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670083037
|
||
CE2E0033804181BC8B78C0100002C1
|
||
13:40:19:230
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670084037
|
||
CE2E0033804201BE7AF880100002C1
|
||
13:50:32:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670085037
|
||
CE2E0033804281BDBBDD00100002C1
|
||
14:00:21:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670086037
|
||
CE2E0033804301B9F8B380100002C1
|
||
14:10:45:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670087037
|
||
CE2E0033804381BA399600100002C1
|
||
14:20:19:200
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670088037
|
||
CE2E0033804401BC1BB300100002C1
|
||
14:30:00:530
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670089037
|
||
CE2E0033804481BFDA9680100002C1
|
||
14:40:43:570
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670090037
|
||
CE2E0033804801B8D92400100002C1
|
||
14:50:21:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670091037
|
||
CE2E0033804881BB180180100002C1
|
||
15:00:01:570
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670092037
|
||
CE2E0033804901BF5B6F00100002C1
|
||
15:10:28:340
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670093037
|
||
CE2E0033804981BC9A4A80100002C1
|
||
15:20:56:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670094037
|
||
CE2E0033804A01BE6BCAC0100002C1
|
||
15:30:43:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670095037
|
||
CE2E0033804A81BDAAEF40100002C1
|
||
15:40:06:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670096037
|
||
CE2E0033804B01B9E981C0100002C1
|
||
15:50:04:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670097037
|
||
CE2E0033804B81BA28A440100002C1
|
||
16:00:55:410
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670098037
|
||
CE2E0033804C01BC0A8140100002C1
|
||
16:10:58:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670099037
|
||
CE2E0033804C81BFCBA4C0100002C1
|
||
16:20:56:100
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670100037
|
||
CE2E0033808001B952A040100002C1
|
||
16:30:43:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670101037
|
||
CE2E0033808081BA9385C0100002C1
|
||
16:40:15:270
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670102037
|
||
CE2E0033808101BED0EB40100002C1
|
||
16:50:48:270
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670103037
|
||
CE2E0033808181BD11CEC0100002C1
|
||
17:00:56:360
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670104037
|
||
CE2E0033808201BFE04E80100002C1
|
||
17:10:15:100
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670105037
|
||
CE2E0033808281BC216B00100002C1
|
||
17:20:12:400
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670106037
|
||
CE2E0033808301B8620580100002C1
|
||
17:30:14:560
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670107037
|
||
CE2E0033808381BBA32000100002C1
|
||
17:40:00:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670108037
|
||
CE2E0033808401BD810500100002C1
|
||
17:50:10:130
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670109037
|
||
CE2E0033808481BE402080100002C1
|
||
18:00:13:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670110037
|
||
CE2E0033808801B9439200100002C1
|
||
18:10:06:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670111037
|
||
CE2E0033808881BA82B780100002C1
|
||
18:20:30:200
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670112037
|
||
CE2E0033808901BEC1D900100002C1
|
||
18:30:17:010
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670113037
|
||
CE2E0033808981BD00FC80100002C1
|
||
18:40:43:050
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670114037
|
||
CE2E0033808A01BFF17CC0100002C1
|
||
18:50:13:040
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670115037
|
||
CE2E0033808A81BC305940100002C1
|
||
19:00:20:420
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670116037
|
||
CE2E0033808B01B87337C0100002C1
|
||
19:10:11:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670117037
|
||
CE2E0033808B81BBB21240100002C1
|
||
19:20:09:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670118037
|
||
CE2E0033808C01BD903740100002C1
|
||
19:30:36:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670119037
|
||
CE2E0033808C81BE5112C0100002C1
|
||
19:40:30:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670120037
|
||
CE2E0033809001B970C4C0100002C1
|
||
19:50:25:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670121037
|
||
CE2E0033809081BAB1E140100002C1
|
||
20:00:26:110
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670122037
|
||
CE2E0033809101BEF28FC0100002C1
|
||
20:10:20:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670123037
|
||
CE2E0033809181BD33AA40100002C1
|
||
20:20:52:440
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
D - 4
|
||
|
||
9C5C00670124037
|
||
CE2E0033809201BFC22A00100002C1
|
||
20:30:41:290
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670125037
|
||
CE2E0033809281BC030F80100002C1
|
||
20:40:35:130
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670126037
|
||
CE2E0033809301B8406100100002C1
|
||
20:50:17:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670127037
|
||
CE2E0033809381BB814480100002C1
|
||
21:00:20:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670128037
|
||
CE2E0033809401BDA36180100002C1
|
||
21:10:35:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670129037
|
||
CE2E0033809481BE624400100002C1
|
||
21:20:50:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670130037
|
||
CE2E0033809801B961F680100002C1
|
||
21:30:41:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670131037
|
||
CE2E0033809881BAA0D300100002C1
|
||
21:40:09:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670132037
|
||
CE2E0033809901BEE3BD80100002C1
|
||
21:50:25:200
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670133037
|
||
CE2E0033809981BD229800100002C1
|
||
22:00:52:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670134037
|
||
CE2E0033809A01BFD31840100002C1
|
||
22:10:23:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670135037
|
||
CE2E0033809A81BC123DC0100002C1
|
||
22:20:49:550
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670136037
|
||
CE2E0033809B01B8515340100002C1
|
||
22:30:37:460
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670137037
|
||
CE2E0033809B81BB9076C0100002C1
|
||
22:40:34:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670138037
|
||
CE2E0033809C01BDB253C0100002C1
|
||
22:50:09:570
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670139037
|
||
CE2E0033809C81BE737640100002C1
|
||
23:00:57:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670140037
|
||
CE2E003380A001B9166940100002C1
|
||
23:10:06:120
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670141037
|
||
CE2E003380A081BAD74CC0100002C1
|
||
23:20:54:250
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670142037
|
||
CE2E003380A101BE942240100002C1
|
||
23:30:31:290
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670143037
|
||
CE2E003380A181BD5507C0100002C1
|
||
23:40:49:200
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670144037
|
||
CE2E003380A201BFA48780100002C1
|
||
23:50:24:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670145037
|
||
CE2E003380A281BC65A200100002C1
|
||
24:00:12:540
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670146037
|
||
CE2E003380A301B826CC80100002C1
|
||
24:10:38:020
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670147037
|
||
CE2E003380A381BBE7E900100002C1
|
||
24:20:56:050
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670148037
|
||
CE2E003380A401BDC5CC00100002C1
|
||
24:30:36:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670149037
|
||
CE2E003380A481BE04E980100002C1
|
||
24:40:48:340
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670150037
|
||
CE2E003380A801B9075B00100002C1
|
||
24:50:52:250
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670151037
|
||
CE2E003380A881BAC67E80100002C1
|
||
25:00:01:290
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670152037
|
||
CE2E003380A901BE851000100002C1
|
||
25:10:07:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670153037
|
||
CE2E003380A981BD443580100002C1
|
||
25:20:50:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670154037
|
||
CE2E003380AA01BFB5B5C0100002C1
|
||
25:30:12:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670155037
|
||
CE2E003380AA81BC749040100002C1
|
||
25:40:24:440
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670156037
|
||
CE2E003380AB01B837FEC0100002C1
|
||
25:50:11:400
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670157037
|
||
CE2E003380AB81BBF6DB40100002C1
|
||
26:00:35:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670158037
|
||
CE2E003380AC01BDD4FE40100002C1
|
||
26:10:27:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670159037
|
||
CE2E003380AC81BE15DBC0100002C1
|
||
26:20:32:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670160037
|
||
CE2E003380B001B9340DC0100002C1
|
||
26:30:22:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670161037
|
||
CE2E003380B081BAF52840100002C1
|
||
26:40:51:520
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670162037
|
||
CE2E003380B101BEB646C0100002C1
|
||
26:50:19:240
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670163037
|
||
CE2E003380B181BD776340100002C1
|
||
27:00:58:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670164037
|
||
CE2E003380B201BF86E300100002C1
|
||
27:10:38:010
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670165037
|
||
CE2E003380B281BC47C680100002C1
|
||
27:20:54:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670166037
|
||
CE2E003380B301B804A800100002C1
|
||
27:30:12:560
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670167037
|
||
CE2E003380B381BBC58D80100002C1
|
||
27:40:36:460
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670168037
|
||
CE2E003380B401BDE7A880100002C1
|
||
27:50:25:350
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670169037
|
||
CE2E003380B481BE268D00100002C1
|
||
28:00:33:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670170037
|
||
CE2E003380B801B9253F80100002C1
|
||
28:10:57:010
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670171037
|
||
CE2E003380B881BAE41A00100002C1
|
||
28:20:13:520
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670172037
|
||
CE2E003380B901BEA77480100002C1
|
||
28:30:28:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670173037
|
||
CE2E003380B981BD665100100002C1
|
||
28:40:40:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670174037
|
||
CE2E003380BA01BF97D140100002C1
|
||
28:50:14:550
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
D - 5
|
||
|
||
9C5C00670175037
|
||
CE2E003380BA81BC56F4C0100002C1
|
||
29:00:20:000
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670176037
|
||
CE2E003380BB01B8159A40100002C1
|
||
29:10:21:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670177037
|
||
CE2E003380BB81BBD4BFC0100002C1
|
||
29:20:53:350
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670178037
|
||
CE2E003380BC01BDF69AC0100002C1
|
||
29:30:52:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670179037
|
||
CE2E003380BC81BE37BF40100002C1
|
||
29:40:25:000
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670180037
|
||
CE2E003380C001B9DB3240100002C1
|
||
29:50:06:460
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670181037
|
||
CE2E003380C081BA1A17C0100002C1
|
||
30:00:45:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670182037
|
||
CE2E003380C101BE597940100002C1
|
||
30:10:58:290
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670183037
|
||
CE2E003380C181BD985CC0100002C1
|
||
30:20:21:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670184037
|
||
CE2E003380C201BF69DC80100002C1
|
||
30:30:16:540
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670185037
|
||
CE2E003380C281BCA8F900100002C1
|
||
30:40:06:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670186037
|
||
CE2E003380C301B8EB9780100002C1
|
||
30:50:47:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670187037
|
||
CE2E003380C381BB2AB200100002C1
|
||
31:00:13:000
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670188037
|
||
CE2E003380C401BD089700100002C1
|
||
31:10:06:410
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670189037
|
||
CE2E003380C481BEC9B280100002C1
|
||
31:20:44:480
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670190037
|
||
CE2E003380C801B9CA0000100002C1
|
||
31:30:25:350
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670191037
|
||
CE2E003380C881BA0B2580100002C1
|
||
31:40:27:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670192037
|
||
CE2E003380C901BE484B00100002C1
|
||
31:50:25:240
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670193037
|
||
CE2E003380C981BD896E80100002C1
|
||
32:00:28:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670194037
|
||
CE2E003380CA01BF78EEC0100002C1
|
||
32:10:28:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670195037
|
||
CE2E003380CA81BCB9CB40100002C1
|
||
32:20:17:580
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670196037
|
||
CE2E003380CB01B8FAA5C0100002C1
|
||
32:30:18:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670197037
|
||
CE2E003380CB81BB3B8040100002C1
|
||
32:40:29:460
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670198037
|
||
CE2E003380CC01BD19A540100002C1
|
||
32:50:15:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670199037
|
||
CE2E003380CC81BED880C0100002C1
|
||
33:00:23:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670200037
|
||
CE2E0033810001BA67CC40100002C1
|
||
33:10:31:440
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670201037
|
||
CE2E0033810081B9A6E9C0100002C1
|
||
33:20:56:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670202037
|
||
CE2E0033810101BDE58740100002C1
|
||
33:30:03:110
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670203037
|
||
CE2E0033810181BE24A2C0100002C1
|
||
33:40:02:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670204037
|
||
CE2E0033810201BCD52280100002C1
|
||
33:50:00:260
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670205037
|
||
CE2E0033810281BF140700100002C1
|
||
34:00:57:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670206037
|
||
CE2E0033810301BB576980100002C1
|
||
34:10:03:520
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670207037
|
||
CE2E0033810381B8964C00100002C1
|
||
34:20:26:160
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670208037
|
||
CE2E0033810401BEB46900100002C1
|
||
34:30:49:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670209037
|
||
CE2E0033810481BD754C80100002C1
|
||
34:40:51:340
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670210037
|
||
CE2E0033810801BA76FE00100002C1
|
||
34:50:09:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670211037
|
||
CE2E0033810881B9B7DB80100002C1
|
||
35:00:21:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670212037
|
||
CE2E0033810901BDF4B500100002C1
|
||
35:10:13:230
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670213037
|
||
CE2E0033810981BE359080100002C1
|
||
35:20:47:370
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670214037
|
||
CE2E0033810A01BCC410C0100002C1
|
||
35:30:31:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670215037
|
||
CE2E0033810A81BF053540100002C1
|
||
35:40:10:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670216037
|
||
CE2E0033810B01BB465BC0100002C1
|
||
35:50:20:000
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670217037
|
||
CE2E0033810B81B8877E40100002C1
|
||
36:00:36:580
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670218037
|
||
CE2E0033810C01BEA55B40100002C1
|
||
36:10:04:400
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670219037
|
||
CE2E0033810C81BD647EC0100002C1
|
||
36:20:10:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670220037
|
||
CE2E0033811001BA45A8C0100002C1
|
||
36:30:47:200
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670221037
|
||
CE2E0033811081B9848D40100002C1
|
||
36:40:04:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670222037
|
||
CE2E0033811101BDC7E3C0100002C1
|
||
36:50:37:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670223037
|
||
CE2E0033811181BE06C640100002C1
|
||
37:00:07:280
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670224037
|
||
CE2E0033811201BCF74600100002C1
|
||
37:10:01:270
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670225037
|
||
CE2E0033811281BF366380100002C1
|
||
37:20:22:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
D - 6
|
||
|
||
9C5C00670226037
|
||
CE2E0033811301BB750D00100002C1
|
||
37:30:58:340
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670227037
|
||
CE2E0033811381B8B42880100002C1
|
||
37:40:16:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670228037
|
||
CE2E0033811401BE960D80100002C1
|
||
37:50:34:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670229037
|
||
CE2E0033811481BD572800100002C1
|
||
38:00:58:090
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670230037
|
||
CE2E0033811801BA549A80100002C1
|
||
38:10:46:060
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670231037
|
||
CE2E0033811881B995BF00100002C1
|
||
38:20:29:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670232037
|
||
CE2E0033811901BDD6D180100002C1
|
||
38:30:59:390
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670233037
|
||
CE2E0033811981BE17F400100002C1
|
||
38:40:44:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670234037
|
||
CE2E0033811A01BCE67440100002C1
|
||
38:50:06:450
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670235037
|
||
CE2E0033811A81BF2751C0100002C1
|
||
39:00:54:040
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670236037
|
||
CE2E0033811B01BB643F40100002C1
|
||
39:10:43:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670237037
|
||
CE2E0033811B81B8A51AC0100002C1
|
||
39:20:26:490
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670238037
|
||
CE2E0033811C01BE873FC0100002C1
|
||
39:30:03:410
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670239037
|
||
CE2E0033811C81BD461A40100002C1
|
||
39:40:44:180
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670240037
|
||
CE2E0033812001BA230540100002C1
|
||
39:50:41:030
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670241037
|
||
CE2E0033812081B9E220C0100002C1
|
||
40:00:26:340
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670242037
|
||
CE2E0033812101BDA14E40100002C1
|
||
40:10:55:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670243037
|
||
CE2E0033812181BE606BC0100002C1
|
||
40:20:30:310
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670244037
|
||
CE2E0033812201BC91EB80100002C1
|
||
40:30:45:100
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670245037
|
||
CE2E0033812281BF50CE00100002C1
|
||
40:40:53:030
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670246037
|
||
CE2E0033812301BB13A080100002C1
|
||
40:50:23:540
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670247037
|
||
CE2E0033812381B8D28500100002C1
|
||
41:00:26:510
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670248037
|
||
CE2E0033812401BEF0A000100002C1
|
||
41:10:02:390
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670249037
|
||
CE2E0033812481BD318580100002C1
|
||
41:20:01:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670250037
|
||
CE2E0033812801BA323700100002C1
|
||
41:30:21:520
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670251037
|
||
CE2E0033812881B9F31280100002C1
|
||
41:40:22:360
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670252037
|
||
CE2E0033812901BDB07C00100002C1
|
||
41:50:50:410
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670253037
|
||
CE2E0033812981BE715980100002C1
|
||
42:00:55:440
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670254037
|
||
CE2E0033812A01BC80D9C0100002C1
|
||
42:10:44:360
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670255037
|
||
CE2E0033812A81BF41FC40100002C1
|
||
42:20:47:470
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670256037
|
||
CE2E0033812B01BB0292C0100002C1
|
||
42:30:40:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670257037
|
||
CE2E0033812B81B8C3B740100002C1
|
||
42:40:32:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670258037
|
||
CE2E0033812C01BEE19240100002C1
|
||
42:50:56:080
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670259037
|
||
CE2E0033812C81BD20B7C0100002C1
|
||
43:00:20:150
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670260037
|
||
CE2E0033813001BA0161C0100002C1
|
||
43:10:53:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670261037
|
||
CE2E0033813081B9C04440100002C1
|
||
43:20:59:570
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670262037
|
||
CE2E0033813101BD832AC0100002C1
|
||
43:30:15:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670263037
|
||
CE2E0033813181BE420F40100002C1
|
||
43:40:27:250
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670264037
|
||
CE2E0033813201BCB38F00100002C1
|
||
43:50:09:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670265037
|
||
CE2E0033813281BF72AA80100002C1
|
||
44:00:14:540
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670266037
|
||
CE2E0033813301BB31C400100002C1
|
||
44:10:01:150
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670267037
|
||
CE2E0033813381B8F0E180100002C1
|
||
44:20:31:330
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670268037
|
||
CE2E0033813401BED2C480100002C1
|
||
44:30:50:270
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670269037
|
||
CE2E0033813481BD13E100100002C1
|
||
44:40:02:300
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670270037
|
||
CE2E0033813801BA105380100002C1
|
||
44:50:31:550
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670271037
|
||
CE2E0033813881B9D17600100002C1
|
||
45:00:08:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670272037
|
||
CE2E0033813901BD921880100002C1
|
||
45:10:05:590
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670273037
|
||
CE2E0033813981BE533D00100002C1
|
||
45:20:14:320
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670274037
|
||
CE2E0033813A01BCA2BD40100002C1
|
||
45:30:55:250
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670275037
|
||
CE2E0033813A81BF6398C0100002C1
|
||
45:40:55:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670276037
|
||
CE2E0033813B01BB20F640100002C1
|
||
45:50:46:210
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
D - 7
|
||
|
||
- END OF ANNEX D -
|
||
9C5C00670277037
|
||
CE2E0033813B81B8E1D3C0100002C1
|
||
46:00:17:190
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670278037
|
||
CE2E0033813C01BEC3F6C0100002C1
|
||
46:10:42:170
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670279037
|
||
CE2E0033813C81BD02D340100002C1
|
||
46:20:20:430
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670280037
|
||
CE2E0033814001BAEE5E40100002C1
|
||
46:30:18:380
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670281037
|
||
CE2E0033814081B92F7BC0100002C1
|
||
46:40:14:150
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670282037
|
||
CE2E0033814101BD6C1540100002C1
|
||
46:50:11:520
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670283037
|
||
CE2E0033814181BEAD30C0100002C1
|
||
47:00:09:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670284037
|
||
CE2E0033814201BC5CB080100002C1
|
||
47:10:08:030
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670285037
|
||
CE2E0033814281BF9D9500100002C1
|
||
47:20:50:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670286037
|
||
CE2E0033814301BBDEFB80100002C1
|
||
47:30:43:290
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670287037
|
||
CE2E0033814381B81FDE00100002C1
|
||
47:40:58:510
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670288037
|
||
CE2E0033814401BE3DFB00100002C1
|
||
47:50:10:500
|
||
406.061
|
||
9C5C00670289037
|
||
CE2E0033814481BDFCDE80100002C1
|
||
48:00:10:140
|
||
406.061
|
||
|
||
E - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX E
|
||
DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR OBJECTIVES T-1, T-2 AND T-3
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the data to be recorded for each beacon event transmitted by the simulator for objectives T-1, T-2, and T-3.
|
||
This information provides the foundation for the analysis and conclusions provided in the body of the report.
|
||
The table below combines information obtained from the simulator operator, with data collected from the GEOLUT under test. Each row in the
|
||
table represents a single beacon event.
|
||
A separate table should be provided for each run of the simulator (i.e. there should be 4 tables for each EIRP value since each EIRP scenario is
|
||
repeated 4 times).
|
||
These tables should be included as an annex in the Louch Performance Evaluation Report provided by each participating Louch GEOLUT
|
||
operator.
|
||
Table E-1: Results for Tests T-1, T-2 and T-3
|
||
EIRP (dBm)__________________ Date/Time of First Burst in Test Script Run 1____________
|
||
15 Hex ID
|
||
Tx by
|
||
Simulator
|
||
Time of
|
||
First Burst
|
||
in Bcn
|
||
Event
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
provided
|
||
First Valid
|
||
Msg
|
||
First Valid
|
||
Msg C/No
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
provided First
|
||
Complete
|
||
Msg
|
||
First Complete
|
||
Msg C/No
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Provided
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Msg
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
C/No Measured
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Freq
|
||
Transmitted
|
||
(Hz)
|
||
Calibrated Freq
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT for first
|
||
Valid Message (Hz)
|
||
The time required for the GEOLUT to produce a valid message for each beacon event can be calculated by taking the difference between
|
||
columns 3 and 2. The time to produce complete and confirmed complete message is the difference between columns 5 and 2, and 7 and 2.
|
||
|
||
E - 2
|
||
|
||
- END OF ANNEX E –
|
||
|
||
F - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX F
|
||
DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR OBJECTIVE T-4
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the data which should be recorded for each beacon event transmitted by the simulator for objective T-4. This
|
||
information provides the foundation for the analysis and conclusions provided in the body of the report.
|
||
The table below combines information obtained from the simulator operator, with data collected by the GEOLUT under test. Each row in the table
|
||
represents a single beacon event.
|
||
A separate table should be provided for each run of a test script (i.e. there should be 10 tables for each simulated traffic load).
|
||
These tables should be included as an annex in the Louch Performance Evaluation Report provided by each participating Louch GEOLUT operator.
|
||
Simulated Traffic Load (Number of simultaneously occurring beacon events)______________
|
||
Script Number ___ Date/Time of First Burst in Test Script Run 1____________
|
||
15 Hex ID
|
||
Tx by
|
||
Simulator
|
||
Time of First
|
||
Burst in Bcn
|
||
Event
|
||
Time GEOLUT
|
||
provided First Valid
|
||
Msg
|
||
First Valid
|
||
Msg C/No
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time GEOLUT
|
||
provided first
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
First Complete
|
||
Msg C/No
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time GEOLUT
|
||
Confirmed Complete
|
||
Msg
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg C/No
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT (dBHz)
|
||
Frequency
|
||
|
||
F - 2
|
||
|
||
- END OF ANNEX F -
|
||
|
||
G - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX G
|
||
DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR OBJECTIVES T-6 AND T-7
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the data which should be recorded for each beacon event transmitted by the simulator for objectives T-6 and
|
||
T-7. This information provides the foundation for the analysis and conclusions provided in the body of the report.
|
||
The table below combines information obtained from the simulator operator, with data collected by the GEOLUT under test. Each row in the
|
||
table represents a single beacon event.
|
||
This table should be included as an annex in the Louch Performance Evaluation Report provided by each participating Louch GEOLUT
|
||
operator.
|
||
15 Hex ID Tx by
|
||
Simulator
|
||
Time of
|
||
First Burst
|
||
in Bcn
|
||
Event
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Provided
|
||
First Valid
|
||
Msg
|
||
First Valid Msg
|
||
C/No measured
|
||
by GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Provided First
|
||
Complete
|
||
Message
|
||
First Complete
|
||
Msg C/No
|
||
measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Time
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
Provided First
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg
|
||
Confirmed
|
||
Complete Msg C/No
|
||
measured by
|
||
GEOLUT (dBHz)
|
||
LEOSAR
|
||
Interference
|
||
(Y/N)
|
||
- END OF ANNEX G -
|
||
|
||
H - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX H
|
||
DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR OBJECTIVE T-8
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the data which should be recorded for each processing
|
||
anomaly noted in the 406 MHz channel reserved for reference beacons.
|
||
This table should be included as an annex in the Louch Performance Evaluation Report
|
||
provided by each participating Louch GEOLUT operator.
|
||
15 Hex ID
|
||
Produced by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
15 Hex ID of
|
||
Associated
|
||
Reference Beacon
|
||
Beacon Message
|
||
Produced by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(30 Hex)
|
||
C/No of
|
||
Message as
|
||
Measured by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(dBHz)
|
||
Date /
|
||
Time
|
||
LUT in
|
||
LEO
|
||
Footprint
|
||
(Y/N)
|
||
_________ = Total duration that the GEOLUT was in the footprint of a LEOSAR satellite
|
||
during the 4 week period of observation.
|
||
- END OF ANNEX H -
|
||
|
||
I - 1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX I
|
||
DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR OBJECTIVE T-9
|
||
Introduction
|
||
This annex provides a description of the data which should be recorded for test T-9 (Louch
|
||
coverage), for the test using beacon events of opportunity.
|
||
This table should be included as an annex in the Louch Performance Evaluation Report
|
||
provided by each participating Louch GEOLUT operator.
|
||
15 Hex ID
|
||
Location Determined by
|
||
LEOSAR System
|
||
LEOSAR Detection
|
||
Time
|
||
Detected by
|
||
GEOLUT
|
||
(Yes / No)
|
||
- END OF ANNEX I -
|
||
|
||
J -1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX J
|
||
Tentative Schedule of the LOUCH GEOSAR Performance Evaluation Programme
|
||
Note: The main test campaign (which requires the using of beacon simulator) is expected to take less than a week and is assumed to be conducted
|
||
within two months period. The duration and exact dates are subject to the availability of a beacon simulator which may also be involved in the
|
||
MEOSAR D&E activities.
|
||
-END OF ANNEX J-
|
||
|
||
|
||
Milestone
|
||
August
|
||
September
|
||
October
|
||
November
|
||
December
|
||
January
|
||
February
|
||
March
|
||
April
|
||
May
|
||
June
|
||
July
|
||
August
|
||
September
|
||
Approval of Louch GEOSAR Performance Evaluation Plan by CSC-49
|
||
Louch GEOSAR Test preparation
|
||
and Coordination
|
||
Louch GEOSAR
|
||
Main Test campaign
|
||
Test report preparation and
|
||
internal review
|
||
Report is ready to be submitted to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
||
|
||
- END OF DOCUMENT -
|
||
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
||
1250 René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 4215, Montréal (Québec) H3B 4W8 Canada
|
||
Telephone: +1 514 500 7999
|
||
Fax: +1 514 500 7996
|
||
Email: mail@cospas-sarsat.int
|
||
Website: http://www.cospas-sarsat.int |