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.
3898 lines
204 KiB
Markdown
3898 lines
204 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: "P011: C/S P.011 Issue 2 Rev.7"
|
||
description: "Official Cospas-Sarsat P-series document P011"
|
||
sidebar:
|
||
badge:
|
||
text: "P"
|
||
variant: "note"
|
||
# Extended Cospas-Sarsat metadata
|
||
documentId: "P011"
|
||
series: "P"
|
||
seriesName: "Programme"
|
||
documentType: "programme"
|
||
isLatest: true
|
||
issue: 2
|
||
revision: 7
|
||
documentDate: "October 2025"
|
||
originalTitle: "C/S P.011 Issue 2 Rev.7"
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
> **📋 Document Information**
|
||
>
|
||
> **Series:** P-Series (Programme)
|
||
> **Version:** Issue 2 - Revision 7
|
||
> **Date:** October 2025
|
||
> **Source:** [Cospas-Sarsat Official Documents](https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/documents-pro/system-documents)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT
|
||
PROGRAMME
|
||
MANAGEMENT POLICY
|
||
C/S P.011
|
||
Issue 2 - Revision 7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT
|
||
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT POLICY
|
||
History
|
||
Issue
|
||
Revision
|
||
Date
|
||
Comments
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-35)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-37)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-39)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-41)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-43)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-45)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-49)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-51)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-53)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-55)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-59)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-61)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-62)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-64)
|
||
|
||
|
||
November2022
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-67)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-69)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-72)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Approved by the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC-73)
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
||
Page
|
||
1.
|
||
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND LONG-TERM PLANNING ................................... 1-1
|
||
1.2
|
||
Strategic Planning, Programme Management and Long-Term Evolution ...................... 1-1
|
||
Funding, Management and Operation of the Satellite Alerting System ................ 1-2
|
||
Satellite System Composition, Evolution and Enhancements ............................... 1-2
|
||
1.3
|
||
Partnership and Communications .................................................................................... 1-3
|
||
1.4
|
||
International Coordination and Liaison ........................................................................... 1-3
|
||
2.
|
||
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE COSPAS-SARSAT PROGRAMME ............. 2-1
|
||
2.1
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Council ..................................................................................................... 2-1
|
||
2.2
|
||
Subsidiary Bodies ............................................................................................................ 2-2
|
||
Joint Committee .................................................................................................... 2-2
|
||
2.2.1.1 The JC, meeting in plenary session, shall: ................................................ 2-2
|
||
2.2.1.2 The OWG functions include: .................................................................... 2-3
|
||
2.2.1.3 The TWG functions include: .................................................................... 2-3
|
||
2.2.1.4 Coordination Between Working Groups .................................................. 2-3
|
||
Task Groups .......................................................................................................... 2-3
|
||
Experts' Working Groups ...................................................................................... 2-4
|
||
ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group ......................................................................... 2-4
|
||
2.3
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat ................................................................................................ 2-5
|
||
2.4
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meetings .................................................................................................. 2-5
|
||
Schedule and Annual Cycle of Cospas-Sarsat Meetings ....................................... 2-5
|
||
Working Language of Cospas-Sarsat .................................................................... 2-5
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meeting Documents ....................................................................... 2-6
|
||
Deadlines for Submission of Meeting Documents ................................................ 2-6
|
||
Invitations to Cospas-Sarsat Meetings .................................................................. 2-8
|
||
Observers at Cospas-Sarsat Meetings ................................................................... 2-8
|
||
Observer’s contributions to Cospas-Sarsat Meetings ............................................ 2-9
|
||
Attendance at Cospas-Sarsat Meetings ................................................................. 2-9
|
||
Meetings Held Outside of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme Headquarters ............ 2-10
|
||
3.
|
||
ASSOCIATION WITH THE COSPAS-SARSAT PROGRAMME ................................... 3-1
|
||
3.1
|
||
User States ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
|
||
3.2
|
||
Ground Segment Providers ............................................................................................. 3-2
|
||
3.3
|
||
Space Segment Providers ................................................................................................ 3-2
|
||
3.4
|
||
Procedure for Association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme ...................................... 3-3
|
||
Association by States Non-Party to the ICSPA to Participate in the System as
|
||
Ground Segment Providers or User States ............................................................ 3-3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Association by Organisations ................................................................................ 3-4
|
||
3.5
|
||
Common Rules of Participation ...................................................................................... 3-4
|
||
4.
|
||
COMMON COSTS OF THE PROGRAMME ..................................................................... 4-1
|
||
4.1
|
||
Definition of the Programme Common Costs and Funding ............................................ 4-1
|
||
4.2
|
||
Annual Contributions ...................................................................................................... 4-2
|
||
4.3
|
||
Invoicing and Payment of Contributions......................................................................... 4-2
|
||
4.4
|
||
Arrears in Payment of Contributions .............................................................................. 4-3
|
||
5.
|
||
THE COSPAS-SARSAT SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 5-1
|
||
5.1
|
||
Space Segment ................................................................................................................ 5-1
|
||
The LEOSAR Space Segment ............................................................................... 5-2
|
||
The GEOSAR Space Segment .............................................................................. 5-2
|
||
5.1.2.1 The GOES GEOSAR Space Segment ...................................................... 5-2
|
||
5.1.2.2 The MSG GEOSAR Space Segment ........................................................ 5-3
|
||
5.1.2.3 The INSAT GEOSAR Space Segment ..................................................... 5-3
|
||
5.1.2.4 The Electro Space Segment ...................................................................... 5-4
|
||
The MEOSAR Space Segment .............................................................................. 5-4
|
||
5.1.3.1 The GPS MEOSAR Space Segment ......................................................... 5-4
|
||
5.1.3.2 The Galileo MEOSAR Space Segment .................................................... 5-5
|
||
5.1.3.3 The GLONASS MEOSAR Space Segment .............................................. 5-5
|
||
5.1.3.4 The BEIDOU (BDS) MEOSAR Space Segment ..................................... 5-5
|
||
Space Segment Commissioning and Changes of Status ........................................ 5-5
|
||
5.2
|
||
Ground Segment .............................................................................................................. 5-6
|
||
SAR Points of Contact (SPOCs) ........................................................................... 5-7
|
||
Implementation of LUTs and MCCs ..................................................................... 5-8
|
||
5.2.2.1 LUT Commissioning ................................................................................ 5-9
|
||
5.2.2.2 MCC Commissioning ............................................................................. 5-10
|
||
5.2.2.3 MCC Service Areas ................................................................................ 5-11
|
||
5.2.2.4 Nodal MCC Network .............................................................................. 5-13
|
||
Monitoring and Reporting Ground Segment Equipment Operation and Status .. 5-14
|
||
5.2.3.1 Ground Segment Equipment Status ........................................................ 5-14
|
||
5.2.3.2 Annual System Test ................................................................................ 5-15
|
||
5.2.3.3 Changes to Ground Segment Equipment Status ..................................... 5-15
|
||
5.3
|
||
Beacons ......................................................................................................................... 5-15
|
||
Beacon Specification and Type Approval ........................................................... 5-16
|
||
Frequency Management ...................................................................................... 5-18
|
||
Beacon Coding and Registration ......................................................................... 5-18
|
||
International Beacon Registration Database (IBRD) .......................................... 5-19
|
||
5.3.4.1 International Regulations and Purpose of the IBRD .............................. 5-19
|
||
5.3.4.2 Functional Requirements and Operations Policy for the IBRD ............. 5-20
|
||
5.4
|
||
System Evolution .......................................................................................................... 5-21
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.
|
||
SYSTEM OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 6-1
|
||
6.1
|
||
Continuous Monitoring and Objective Assessment of the System Status ...................... 6-1
|
||
6.2
|
||
Annual Report on System Status and Operations ........................................................... 6-1
|
||
Reporting Requirements ........................................................................................ 6-1
|
||
Template for Annual Report, Submission Deadlines and Processing of Participant
|
||
Reports ................................................................................................................... 6-2
|
||
6.3
|
||
False Alerts and System Anomalies ................................................................................ 6-3
|
||
False Alerts ............................................................................................................ 6-3
|
||
System Anomalies ................................................................................................. 6-4
|
||
6.4
|
||
Collection of Cospas-Sarsat Data on SAR Incidents ...................................................... 6-4
|
||
Distress Incident Report for Documentation of SAR Events and Persons Rescued
|
||
6-4
|
||
Collecting and Reporting Data for SAR Event Analysis ...................................... 6-5
|
||
6.5
|
||
Changes to System Specifications, Ground Segment Requirements and Standards ....... 6-5
|
||
Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 6-5
|
||
Change Approval Process ..................................................................................... 6-6
|
||
Tracking and Controlling Changes ........................................................................ 6-7
|
||
Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................................... 6-7
|
||
6.5.4.1 Administrations ......................................................................................... 6-8
|
||
6.5.4.2 Joint Committee / Task Groups ................................................................ 6-8
|
||
6.5.4.3 Secretariat ................................................................................................. 6-8
|
||
6.5.4.4 Council ...................................................................................................... 6-8
|
||
6.6
|
||
Interconnection of MCC Information Technology (IT) Systems .................................. 6-11
|
||
6.7
|
||
MCC Backup ................................................................................................................. 6-11
|
||
6.8
|
||
Protection and Management of Cospas-Sarsat Frequencies .......................................... 6-12
|
||
Protection of Frequencies Used by Cospas-Sarsat .............................................. 6-12
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Management of the 406.0 – 406.1 MHz Band ............................. 6-12
|
||
1544.0 – 1545.0 MHz Downlink Frequency Band .............................................. 6-13
|
||
6.9
|
||
Protections and Management of Cospas-Sarsat Trademarks and Service Marks ......... 6-13
|
||
7.
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................ 7-1
|
||
7.1
|
||
Documentation Management .......................................................................................... 7-2
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meeting Documents ....................................................................... 7-2
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme Documents .................................................................. 7-2
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System Documents ........................................................................ 7-2
|
||
7.2
|
||
Document Holders ........................................................................................................... 7-3
|
||
7.3
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Website .................................................................................................... 7-3
|
||
7.4
|
||
Document Retention Policy ............................................................................................ 7-4
|
||
Financial Documents ............................................................................................. 7-4
|
||
Correspondence ..................................................................................................... 7-4
|
||
Meeting Reports and Report Annexes ................................................................... 7-5
|
||
Meeting Documents .............................................................................................. 7-5
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
ANNEX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ............. A-1
|
||
ANNEX B: RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COSPAS-SARSAT COUNCIL ....... B-1
|
||
ANNEX C: RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COSPAS-SARSAT JOINT
|
||
COMMITTEE ........................................................................................................ C-1
|
||
ANNEX D : DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE AND
|
||
ITS WORKING GROUPS ................................................................................... D-1
|
||
ANNEX E: LIST OF ORGANISATIONS THAT HAVE OBSERVER STATUS AT
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT JOINT COMMITTEE MEETINGS ............................... E-1
|
||
ANNEX F: LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ............................................................ F-1
|
||
|
||
|
||
LIST OF FIGURES
|
||
Figure 6-1:
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Change Management Process ....................................................... 6-9
|
||
Figure 6-2:
|
||
The two Trademarked Logos ............................................................................... 6-14
|
||
Figure 6-3:
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Heritage Service Mark/Logos ....................................................... 6-14
|
||
LIST OF TABLES
|
||
Table 6-1:
|
||
Types of System Changes .................................................................................. 6-10
|
||
|
||
1-1
|
||
|
||
1.
|
||
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND LONG-TERM PLANNING
|
||
1.1
|
||
Mission Statement and Objectives
|
||
The International Cospas-Sarsat Programme provides accurate, timely and reliable distress alert and
|
||
location data to help search and rescue authorities assist persons in distress.
|
||
The objective of the Cospas-Sarsat system is to reduce, as far as possible, delays in the provision of
|
||
distress alerts to SAR services and the time required to locate a distress and provide assistance, as
|
||
these have a direct impact on the probability of survival of the person in distress at sea or on land.
|
||
To achieve this objective, Cospas-Sarsat Participants implement, maintain, co-ordinate and operate
|
||
a satellite system capable of detecting distress alert transmissions from radiobeacons that comply
|
||
with Cospas-Sarsat specifications and performance standards, and of determining their position
|
||
anywhere on the globe.
|
||
1.2
|
||
Strategic Planning, Programme Management and Long-Term Evolution
|
||
The functions of the Council include the development of the necessary technical, administrative
|
||
and operational plans for the implementation of the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme
|
||
Agreement (ICSPA), document C/S P.001. The development of a strategic plan, therefore, falls
|
||
into the purview of the Cospas-Sarsat Council. Issue 1 of the document C/S P.016 “Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Strategic Plan” was approved by the Council in October 2008. While the Plan covers the
|
||
twenty-year period 2008 to 2028, the Council intends to do periodic reviews as necessary.
|
||
The scope and goals of the Programme are established in Article 2 of the ICSPA, which defines
|
||
as follows the purpose of the Agreement:
|
||
a)
|
||
assure the long-term operation of the System;
|
||
b)
|
||
provide distress alerts and location data to the international community on a non
|
||
discriminatory basis; and
|
||
c)
|
||
support, by providing these distress alerts and location data, the objectives of the
|
||
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime
|
||
Organization (IMO) concerning search and rescue.
|
||
The following sections highlight the structure of the international cooperation established under
|
||
the ICSPA and the basic management policies adopted by the Council for various aspects of the
|
||
System to support the objectives set out in the ICSPA.
|
||
|
||
1-2
|
||
|
||
Funding, Management and Operation of the Satellite Alerting System
|
||
The satellite, ground processing and communication capabilities that compose the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System are established and operated by the participating countries (the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Participants). The Cospas-Sarsat satellite alerting and locating services are
|
||
made available free of charge to the international SAR community and users in distress.
|
||
Each Space Segment Provider and Ground Segment Provider retains full responsibility
|
||
for and control of its contribution to the Cospas-Sarsat Satellite System. However,
|
||
through their formal association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme, all Space and
|
||
Ground Segment Providers make a commitment to operate their contribution to the
|
||
System in accordance with the specifications and standards approved by the Council.
|
||
The purpose of the Cospas-Sarsat System is to assist SAR services worldwide.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat distress alert and location data is provided by Cospas-Sarsat Participants
|
||
to the responsible SAR services. However, the satellite system, including its Space and
|
||
Ground Segments (i.e. the satellites, LUTs and MCCs) is not a part of the SAR services
|
||
and the responsibility of Cospas-Sarsat Participants is solely to process and forward
|
||
available Cospas-Sarsat data to the designated competent authority in each country, in
|
||
accordance with the Cospas-Sarsat Data Distribution Plan (document C/S A.001).
|
||
Satellite System Composition, Evolution and Enhancements
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat satellite system is composed of three parts: the Space Segment, the
|
||
Ground Segment and distress beacons, as described at Article 3 of the International
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement (ICSPA). The Cospas-Sarsat System also includes
|
||
enhancements decided by the Council pursuant to section 3.2 of Article 3 of the ICSPA.
|
||
At present, the Space Segment is composed of three types of satellite constellations:
|
||
•
|
||
low-altitude Earth-orbiting (LEO) satellites in polar orbits support the
|
||
LEOSAR system,
|
||
•
|
||
geostationary Earth-orbiting (GEO) satellites support the GEOSAR system,
|
||
and
|
||
•
|
||
medium-altitude Earth-orbiting (MEO) satellites support the MEOSAR
|
||
system.
|
||
The LEOSAR system was designed to accommodate 121.5 MHz distress beacons which
|
||
existed prior to the development of the Cospas-Sarsat System and the 406 MHz beacons
|
||
specifically designed to operate with the System. Because of the limited performance of
|
||
the older 121.5 MHz beacon technology and the excessive false alert rate experienced
|
||
with these beacons, the satellite processing of 121.5 MHz signals was terminated on
|
||
1 February 2009.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1-3
|
||
|
||
1.3
|
||
Partnership and Communications
|
||
Pursuant to Article 13 of the ICSPA, Cospas-Sarsat cooperates with the International Civil
|
||
Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International
|
||
Telecommunication Union (ITU) and other international organisations to ensure the compatibility
|
||
of the Cospas-Sarsat distress alerting services with the needs, the standards and the applicable
|
||
recommendations of the international community.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat has observer status at the IMO and the ITU and participates in the meetings of the
|
||
IMO/ICAO Joint Working Group on SAR. The Secretariat represents Cospas-Sarsat at a number
|
||
of meetings of international organisations and standards organisations that address distress beacon
|
||
matters.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Council has granted observer status to ICAO, IMO, ITU, and UNOOSA at the
|
||
Open Meetings of the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC) and the Joint Committee (JC). In addition, a
|
||
number of organisations have received observer status at JC meetings and, on an ad-hoc basis, at
|
||
Task Group meetings (see section 2.4 and Annex E).
|
||
1.4
|
||
International Coordination and Liaison
|
||
The presentation to the international community of Cospas-Sarsat plans and objectives and the
|
||
coordination of actions decided by the Cospas-Sarsat Council with international organisations are
|
||
part of the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat functions outlined in the ICSPA, and shall be performed in
|
||
accordance with Council guidance and directions.
|
||
Although the Secretariat acts on behalf of Participants in the Cospas-Sarsat Programme, Secretariat
|
||
actions in international fora need to be supported by the administrations of participating States.
|
||
Therefore, Participants retain primary responsibility for international coordination and liaison and
|
||
should endeavour to:
|
||
a)
|
||
coordinate at a national level with their SAR agencies on issues related to the
|
||
international SAR community;
|
||
b)
|
||
coordinate at a national level with their telecommunication authorities on issues
|
||
affecting the operation of Cospas-Sarsat satellites, LUTs and radiobeacons, and with
|
||
other regulatory authorities as necessary in respect of the carriage and registration of
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat radiobeacons;
|
||
c)
|
||
accurately publicise Cospas-Sarsat plans, objectives and System performance at
|
||
international meetings; and
|
||
d)
|
||
support whenever possible the policies and actions recommended by the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Council on matters pertaining to Cospas-Sarsat Programme activities.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 1 -
|
||
|
||
2-1
|
||
|
||
2.
|
||
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE COSPAS-SARSAT PROGRAMME
|
||
The management structure of the Programme is defined in the International Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme Agreement (ICSPA), which states the responsibilities of the Parties to the ICSPA and
|
||
establishes two organs:
|
||
the Council; and
|
||
the Secretariat.
|
||
In the following sections of this document, the term "Parties" designates the States signatory to the
|
||
ICSPA and the term "Participants" designates the Parties and the States and organizations that
|
||
have notified their association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme in accordance with the agreed
|
||
procedure. Further information on the rules and the procedure for association with the Programme
|
||
is provided at section 3.
|
||
2.1
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Council
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC) is composed of one Representative from each of the Parties to
|
||
the Agreement (ICSPA Article 8). The CSC meets at least once a year to “carry out the relevant
|
||
policies and co-ordinate the activities of the Parties” (ICSPA Article 9), but can meet as often as
|
||
necessary to discharge its functions. Council decisions are taken unanimously by the
|
||
Representatives of the Parties.
|
||
The CSC meets in Closed Meetings, with attendance by Parties only, and such other entities as the
|
||
Parties may decide by consensus to invite, primarily to address the management of the Secretariat
|
||
and the administration of the Programme, including relations with prospective Participants, System
|
||
users, manufacturers and international organisations.
|
||
The CSC also meets at least once a year in an Open Meeting during which the associated States
|
||
and organisations, and such other entities as the Parties may decide by consensus to invite, may
|
||
address any issue pertaining to the administration of the Programme and the management of the
|
||
System that is of interest to Participants. These include matters concerning the Common Costs of
|
||
the Programme, the operation of the System and its development, the report and recommendations
|
||
of the Joint Committee, and relations with international organisations. The Council decided at its
|
||
CSC-10 Session that "formal Council decisions which affect other Participants should be
|
||
submitted as proposals to the Open Meeting where the matters could be discussed, and decisions
|
||
taken and recorded in the Summary Record of the Open Meeting" (CSC-10/CLD/SR/8.3.5).
|
||
The ICSPA states that "the Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure". The approved Rules
|
||
of Procedure for the Cospas-Sarsat Council are provided at Annex B to this document. At its first
|
||
session the CSC decided (CSC-1/CLD/SR/11.2) that “the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of
|
||
the Council shall be selected from among the Representatives of the Parties on the principle of
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-2
|
||
|
||
rotation”, and “shall remain in office for two successive regular sessions of the Council subsequent
|
||
to the session in which they were elected”.
|
||
2.2
|
||
Subsidiary Bodies
|
||
The CSC may establish subsidiary organs as required for the implementation of the Agreement
|
||
(ICSPA Article 7.2).
|
||
Joint Committee
|
||
The CSC decided at its first Session (CSC-1/OPN/SR/7.1.2) to establish a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Joint Committee (JC). The JC comprises two Working Groups:
|
||
a) the Operations Working Group (OWG); and
|
||
b) the Technical Working Group (TWG).
|
||
The CSC further decided (CSC-2/OPN/SR/8.1.3) that:
|
||
a)
|
||
the Joint Committee shall comprise a Chairperson appointed by the Council
|
||
and the Working Groups meeting in a plenary session; and
|
||
b) the Chairpersons of the Working Groups shall also be appointed by the Council.
|
||
The JC meets at least once a year, as directed by the CSC, to address the items of the
|
||
agenda approved by the CSC. The rules of procedure for the meetings of the JC and its
|
||
Working Groups are approved by the CSC and provided at Annex C to this document.
|
||
The terms of reference for the JC and its Working Groups are defined as follows.
|
||
2.2.1.1 The JC, meeting in plenary session, shall:
|
||
coordinate the activities of the Working Groups regarding the operation of the
|
||
System, the technical aspects of the Programme and the System exercises
|
||
decided by the CSC;
|
||
prepare, update or coordinate the development of all System documents and
|
||
submit the final draft documents to the CSC for approval;
|
||
perform or coordinate studies on all aspects of the Programme as requested
|
||
by the CSC, and submit final reports to the CSC for approval;
|
||
prepare, review and approve the report of the JC to the CSC, including a
|
||
record of the Working Groups' activities; and
|
||
make appropriate recommendations to the CSC regarding all aspects of the
|
||
Programme.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-3
|
||
|
||
2.2.1.2 The OWG functions include:
|
||
the development of necessary plans and documents for the operation of the
|
||
System;
|
||
the coordination of all relevant aspects of System operations, to provide
|
||
timely and reliable Cospas-Sarsat alerts from vessels, aircraft and persons in
|
||
distress to SAR organisations;
|
||
the preparation of operational performance standards;
|
||
the assessment of System operational performance and status;
|
||
performing studies, reporting and making recommendations on System
|
||
operations and performance; and
|
||
other matters regarding System operations that fall within the purview of the
|
||
OWG.
|
||
2.2.1.3 The TWG functions include:
|
||
the development of technical plans and documents for the implementation of
|
||
the Programme;
|
||
the coordination of technical aspects of the Programme between participating
|
||
States;
|
||
the preparation of technical specifications and standards for the System;
|
||
the assessment of System technical performance and status;
|
||
performing studies, reporting and making recommendations on all technical
|
||
aspects of the Programme; and
|
||
other technical matters regarding the System's space and ground segments
|
||
and radio beacons, that fall within the purview of the TWG.
|
||
2.2.1.4 Coordination Between Working Groups
|
||
In accordance with these terms of reference and the applicable rules of procedure, the Chair
|
||
of the JC shall consult with the Chairs of the OWG and the TWG to implement its
|
||
responsibilities. The duties of the Chairs of the JC and its Working Groups are
|
||
summarised at Annex D to this document. Both Working Groups shall coordinate their
|
||
activities as necessary.
|
||
Task Groups
|
||
The CSC may decide, upon recommendation by the JC, to establish Task Groups to
|
||
address specific issues and prepare documents for submission to the JC. The JC
|
||
recommendation to the CSC for the establishment of a Task Group shall be accompanied
|
||
by draft terms of reference for the proposed Task Group.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-4
|
||
|
||
When deciding to establish a Task Group, the CSC shall approve the terms of reference,
|
||
amended as necessary, decide on the date and venue for the meeting, and designate the
|
||
Chairperson of the Task Group meeting. The Chairperson shall be selected on the basis
|
||
of known competence in the subject matter. All Participants may submit proposals for the
|
||
selection of the Chairperson.
|
||
The Secretariat shall convene the Task Group meeting and invite Participants to be
|
||
represented after appropriate coordination with the designated Chairperson and as
|
||
directed by the Council. Participants may request to be invited to Task Group meetings
|
||
that are addressing matters of particular interest to them. In consideration of the subject
|
||
matter to be addressed, and subject to a CSC decision, Observers may be invited to attend
|
||
a Task Group meeting. The rules of procedure for the JC shall be applicable to the Task
|
||
Group meeting (except the rules applicable to document submission deadlines, see section
|
||
2.4.4), unless otherwise specified in the terms of reference.
|
||
The Chairperson of a Task Group is responsible to the CSC for the work and output of
|
||
the Task Group. The report of the Task Group shall be submitted to the JC for
|
||
consideration and comments, unless otherwise directed by the Council. The Report shall
|
||
also be submitted for consideration at the subsequent Open Meeting of the CSC, together
|
||
with the Task Group recommendations to the Council and the JC comments and
|
||
recommendations on the subject matter.
|
||
Experts' Working Groups
|
||
The Council may establish Experts' Working Groups (EWG) to address specific issues
|
||
and prepare recommendations for its consideration. The terms of reference of the EWG
|
||
and the date and venue of the meeting shall be approved by the CSC. The EWG Chair
|
||
shall be selected by the CSC on the basis of competence in the subject matter.
|
||
The Head of Secretariat shall convene the EWG meeting as directed by the CSC and
|
||
invite experts on the subject matter to participate in the EWG, after appropriate
|
||
coordination with the designated Chairperson, and as directed by the Council. The
|
||
Chairperson of an EWG is responsible to the CSC for the work and output of the EWG.
|
||
ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group
|
||
The Secretariat may provide each Session of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group on the
|
||
Harmonization of Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (JWG) with the Report
|
||
of the immediately previous Joint Committee meeting as a means to provide context for
|
||
the work of the JWG and its recommendations to the IMO Navigation, Communications
|
||
and Search and Rescue (NCSR) Sub-Committee, labelling the document to indicate that
|
||
it was for preliminary information and that the recommendations were subject to future
|
||
Council consideration. Task Group and Experts Working Group chairs, together with the
|
||
Secretariat, may choose to provide to ICAO and IMO a summary of their group’s work,
|
||
which most simply might take the form of extracts of the meeting report that would be of
|
||
relevance to ICAO and IMO, carefully labelling the document to indicate that it was for
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-5
|
||
|
||
preliminary information and that the recommendations were subject to future Council
|
||
consideration.
|
||
2.3
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat is “the permanent administrative organ for the Programme and shall
|
||
assist the Council in the implementation of its functions” (ICSPA Article 10). Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Secretariat services shall be provided in accordance with the relevant decisions of the CSC,
|
||
including the actions, functions and Head of Secretariat objectives described in the annual Work
|
||
Plan and Spending Plan approved by the Council.
|
||
Further details on the procedures to be followed by the Secretariat to coordinate with the Parties
|
||
and Participants and report on its activities to the CSC are provided in the document "Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Secretariat Management Guide" (C/S P.012), approved by the CSC.
|
||
2.4
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
Schedule and Annual Cycle of Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
The schedule of Cospas-Sarsat meetings for the forthcoming year is decided at the Open
|
||
Meeting of the last CSC session in the year.
|
||
The annual cycle of meetings normally includes one Joint Committee meeting, one
|
||
Council session with Closed Meeting only, and one Council session with Open and
|
||
Closed Meetings. The Council decides on an ad hoc basis to establish Task Groups or
|
||
Experts' Working Groups, as appropriate. The mandate and terms of reference of Task
|
||
Groups and Experts' Working Groups can be extended or amended only by the CSC.
|
||
Working Language of Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
The International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement stipulates (ICSPA Article 8) that
|
||
“the languages of the Council shall be English, French and Russian”. At CSC-3 in 1989,
|
||
the Council approved its rules of procedure (CSC-3/OPN/SR/4.1.5), which are provided
|
||
at Annex B to this document. Rule 15 (B) of the Council Rules of Procedure states that
|
||
"speeches in meetings of the Council may be made in English, French or Russian and
|
||
shall be interpreted into the other languages of the Programme". The Secretariat shall
|
||
organise simultaneous translation to and from the three languages of the Programme at
|
||
Council meetings.
|
||
Meetings of subsidiary bodies will normally be held in the English language only, with
|
||
no interpretation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-6
|
||
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meeting Documents
|
||
Documents for Council sessions may be written in one of the languages of the Council.
|
||
Documents submitted in the French or Russian languages shall be provided to the
|
||
Secretariat with sufficient advance notice for their translation into English prior to the
|
||
applicable deadline for document submission. Documents for other Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
meetings should be submitted to the Secretariat in English only and will be made available
|
||
to meeting participants in English only.
|
||
The Secretariat shall mail invitations with agendas and terms of reference, as appropriate,
|
||
for each Cospas-Sarsat meeting in accordance with CSC directions and guidelines.
|
||
Subsequent to the meeting, the Secretariat shall mail a report or Summary Record, as
|
||
appropriate, to Participants and Observers.
|
||
Working papers or reports submitted for consideration at Cospas-Sarsat meetings,
|
||
including Council sessions, will not be mailed to Participants. Meeting documents shall
|
||
be placed by the Secretariat in the appropriate section of the Cospas-Sarsat website as
|
||
PDF files for downloading by Participants. Meeting documents and updates to System
|
||
documents will not be available in printed form at the meeting venue, unless a Participant
|
||
makes a specific request to the Secretariat at least two weeks prior to the meeting.
|
||
However, a limited number of the revisions and new issues of System documents will be
|
||
made available at Council and JC meetings. When no free wireless Internet access is
|
||
available at the meeting venue, one hard copy of working papers will be provided to each
|
||
delegation.
|
||
Amendments to System documents or new System documents agreed by the Joint
|
||
Committee and submitted to Council for approval per the Joint Committee
|
||
recommendations should be prepared by the Secretariat and placed in the protected
|
||
section of the Cospas-Sarsat website for downloading by Participants at least six weeks
|
||
prior to the Council session, with each page labelled with the words “Submitted to
|
||
Council for approval”. One hard copy of each new or revised System document will be
|
||
provided only to delegations that have made a request to the Secretariat at least two weeks
|
||
in advance. These documents will be provided at the beginning of the Council session
|
||
under a red cover (the Red Book).
|
||
Deadlines for Submission of Meeting Documents
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Participants need adequate time to consider proposals and establish
|
||
national positions prior to Council or Joint Committee meetings. In addition, documents
|
||
for consideration at meetings must be submitted to the Secretariat with sufficient advance
|
||
opportunity for procedural review (e.g., ensuring assignment to proper meeting and
|
||
agenda), editorial review (verifying that language is sufficiently clear), formatting,
|
||
conversion to PDF files and placement on the website for downloading by Participants.
|
||
Different types of meeting document submissions are as follows:
|
||
•
|
||
System documents,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-7
|
||
|
||
•
|
||
working documents (ordinary meeting submissions),
|
||
•
|
||
information documents,
|
||
•
|
||
response to documents,
|
||
•
|
||
revision to documents (could include a change of position or content),
|
||
•
|
||
corrigendum to document (corrections due to incorrect information, does not
|
||
include a change of position, a new/updated view or new content),
|
||
•
|
||
addendum to document (additional information to submitted document).
|
||
It is, therefore, essential that Participants and the Secretariat abide by the following
|
||
deadlines for the submission of documents to Council and Joint Committee meetings.
|
||
Presentations (such as PowerPoint presentations) that Participants may wish to make must
|
||
be associated with a formal document and must respect the same deadlines.
|
||
Applicable deadlines for documents shall be stated and distributed with the agenda for
|
||
the meeting. (The requirements below are in addition to deadlines that may be imposed
|
||
by the Council for documents in specific circumstances. In such cases those deadlines
|
||
may be earlier than those described below.)
|
||
Documents and presentations (which would have to be associated with a document), to
|
||
be considered to be timely submissions for all Cospas-Sarsat meetings except the Joint
|
||
Committee meetings, would have to be provided to the Secretariat prior to meetings as
|
||
follows:
|
||
•
|
||
6 weeks (minimum) for new system documents, (e.g., including
|
||
commissioning reports and performance evaluation reports),
|
||
•
|
||
6 weeks for long/bulky documents over 10 pages (includes all types of
|
||
documents submitted to the meeting),
|
||
•
|
||
4 weeks for papers that recommend changes to System technology, current
|
||
operations or policies,
|
||
•
|
||
2 weeks for information papers or documents submitted in response to other
|
||
papers,
|
||
•
|
||
2 weeks for revisions and addendums to timely submitted papers provided,
|
||
however, these submissions will clearly indicate the revisions, preferably
|
||
with changes tracked using strike-through and italics and a track bar to the
|
||
left of the paragraph.
|
||
Documents and presentations, to be considered to be timely submissions for Joint
|
||
Committee meetings, would have to be provided to the Secretariat prior to meetings as
|
||
follows:
|
||
•
|
||
6 weeks (minimum) for new system documents, (e.g., including
|
||
commissioning reports and performance evaluation reports),
|
||
|
||
2-8
|
||
|
||
•
|
||
6 weeks for long/bulky documents over 10 pages (includes all types of
|
||
documents submitted to the meeting),
|
||
•
|
||
5 weeks for papers that recommend changes to System technology, current
|
||
operations or policies,
|
||
•
|
||
3 weeks for information papers,
|
||
•
|
||
2 weeks for documents submitted in response to other papers,
|
||
•
|
||
2 weeks for revisions and addendums to timely submitted papers provided,
|
||
however, these submissions will clearly indicate the revisions, preferably
|
||
with changes tracked using strike-through and italics and a track bar to the
|
||
left of the paragraph.
|
||
A corrigendum can be issued at any time, to correct mistakes and/or errors in a timely
|
||
submitted document (with no other changes).
|
||
In respect of documents submitted to the Secretariat after the specified deadlines
|
||
(documents not timely submitted) except as provided below, will be deferred to the next
|
||
meeting of Council or the Joint Committee, as appropriate.
|
||
The meeting Chair may decide to accept for consideration during the meeting a late
|
||
document that addresses urgent matters, or joint proposals of three or more Participants
|
||
which are addressing critical topics, and such document shall be labelled as "Late
|
||
Submission - Urgent Matter".
|
||
Invitations to Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
All Participants shall be invited to be represented at Joint Committee meetings and the
|
||
Open Meetings of the Council, unless their association with the Programme has been put
|
||
in abeyance by the CSC.
|
||
Invitations to Task Group meetings and Experts' Working Group meetings will be issued
|
||
by the Secretariat, after coordination with the Chair of the meeting. The Secretariat will
|
||
issue invitations to those Participants, Observers, and experts identified by the Chair that
|
||
are directly concerned by the matters to be addressed per the approved terms of reference
|
||
for the meeting, and are approved by the Council.
|
||
Observers at Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
Subject to a specific CSC decision, administrations or agencies of States that have not
|
||
completed the notification of their association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme may be
|
||
invited to attend Cospas-Sarsat meetings as observers.
|
||
Normally, observer status at a particular meeting will be granted to an agency or
|
||
administration only if that agency or administration has formally stated a firm intention
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-9
|
||
|
||
to implement the association procedure in the near future, or when confirmation has been
|
||
provided to the CSC that the formal notification procedure was in progress. Invitations
|
||
may be issued on the Council's instruction only.
|
||
The CSC may also decide to invite national or international organisations as observers to
|
||
specific Cospas-Sarsat meetings, where their competencies and expertise might assist the
|
||
discussion of technical or operational matters.
|
||
The list of organisations that may be invited to attend JC, TG and EWG meetings, as
|
||
appropriate, is provided at Annex E to this document.
|
||
Observer’s contributions to Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
Observers invited to meetings pursuant to section 2.4.6, above, may submit papers to the
|
||
meeting addressing points of the agenda related to matters under their authority or within
|
||
their field of expertise. When invited to a Council meeting, an observer may make such
|
||
contributions only in the form of information papers, unless the Council specifically has
|
||
invited the observer to make another form of contribution (e.g., a working paper).
|
||
Observers will be invited to present their papers and otherwise make interventions
|
||
addressing points of the agenda related to matters under their authority or within their
|
||
field of expertise.
|
||
Although observers may at times be invited to attend Council sessions, consistent with
|
||
Rule 10 of Annex B of document C/S P.011, only Representatives of the Parties may
|
||
participate in Council decision making.
|
||
Attendance at Cospas-Sarsat Meetings
|
||
Proper accreditation of Participant representatives and delegations, observers, and other
|
||
individuals entitled to participate or invited to participate in Cospas-Sarsat meetings
|
||
serves the vital purpose of assuring participants in a Programme meeting that discussions
|
||
are taking place solely among those who have the right to represent the views and
|
||
commitments of the government or institution that they are representing. In general, it is
|
||
expected that the representative or head of delegation representing a Participant
|
||
government or agency should be an employee of that government or agency, or a person
|
||
in like status. Additionally, in accordance with the provision of the arrangement regarding
|
||
the Headquarters of the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme, the composition of
|
||
delegations properly accredited to a Cospas-Sarsat meeting at the Organization's
|
||
Headquarters is be provided to the host country in relation to visa and other immigration-
|
||
control issues. For the above reason, as well as for the sound administration of the
|
||
Programme, delegations attending Cospas-Sarsat meetings shall be established as
|
||
follows:
|
||
a)
|
||
Heads of Delegations attending a Cospas-Sarsat meeting shall be accredited
|
||
in accordance with the rules of procedures for the meeting.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-10
|
||
|
||
b)
|
||
For Council meetings, Heads of Delegations must be accredited by a letter
|
||
from the official Representative of the Cospas-Sarsat Participant sent to the
|
||
Head of the Secretariat prior to the meeting. This signed letter can be
|
||
forwarded by normal mail, as facsimile message or in a PDF attachment to an
|
||
email message. Accreditations can be valid for several Council sessions or for
|
||
a single session. The duration of the accreditation shall be specified in the
|
||
letter. If an accreditation ceases to be valid, a new accreditation shall be sent
|
||
as described above.
|
||
c)
|
||
For Joint Committee meetings and the other subsidiary organs of the Council
|
||
(e.g. Task Groups), the accreditation of the Head of Delegation shall be sent
|
||
to the Head of Secretariat by the official Representative of the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Participant, before the meeting, as described above. Alternatively, the Head
|
||
of a Participant’s delegation to the Joint Committee or other Council
|
||
subsidiary organs may be accredited by a letter from the accredited Head of
|
||
Delegation to the Council.
|
||
d)
|
||
The list of delegates or advisers in each delegation must be provided in
|
||
writing (letter, facsimile or email) to the Secretariat by either the official
|
||
Representative of the Participant or the accredited Head of Delegation.
|
||
e)
|
||
The official contact for Observers invited to participate in a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
meeting must inform the Secretariat of the composition of their delegation
|
||
prior to the meeting.
|
||
Meetings Held Outside of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme Headquarters
|
||
Meetings held outside the Cospas-Sarsat Programme Headquarters will abide by the same
|
||
meeting attendance and accreditation procedures outlined above in section 2.4.7.
|
||
Upon receiving a proposal by a Participant to host a Cospas-Sarsat meeting, the CSC may
|
||
decide to accept the invitation and hold the meeting outside the Organization's
|
||
Headquarters. The invitation should be submitted to the CSC in due time for consideration
|
||
at its Open Meeting in the year preceding the date of the meeting. In respect of Joint
|
||
Committee and Task Group meetings, it is desirable that such proposed invitations be
|
||
announced at the JC meeting that precedes the Open Meeting of the CSC.
|
||
As a general principle, the Council should limit the number of major meetings, i.e., the Joint
|
||
Committee and the consecutive closed-open meetings of a Council session, that are held
|
||
outside the location of the Secretariat to a maximum of one meeting per year.
|
||
The basic principle to be applied for the payment of expenditure for Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
meetings held outside the Organization's Headquarters is that the host organiser bears the
|
||
additional costs incurred for holding the meeting. However, this principle may be difficult
|
||
to implement strictly and should, therefore, be interpreted in the following way:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2-11
|
||
|
||
Travel Costs and Hotel Accommodation for Delegates:
|
||
All participants in the meeting, including the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat Staff,
|
||
should pay for their travel costs and hotel accommodation.
|
||
Secretariat and Meeting Support Staff:
|
||
Except when specifically agreed to by the CSC, the host shall cover all
|
||
expenditure incurred for staff supporting the meeting, which does not include
|
||
the permanent Staff of the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat but may include
|
||
overtime required from typists, photocopy operator, etc., to be hired by the
|
||
host.
|
||
Interpretation/Sound System:
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat normally arranges and pays for expenses
|
||
related to interpreters at CSC meetings, but the installation and operation of
|
||
interpretation equipment (sound system) should be paid for by the host of the
|
||
meeting.
|
||
Accommodation and Equipment:
|
||
The host shall pay for all expenditure related to meeting rooms, offices and
|
||
the required typing, word processing, printing, copying equipment and
|
||
stationery required for the meeting. This includes the cost of operating this
|
||
equipment (electric power, photocopies, paper, computer diskettes, etc.).
|
||
Communication Facilities:
|
||
The Host shall provide the appropriate telephone and facsimile equipment
|
||
free of charge. Delegates may be requested to pay for their own
|
||
communications. The Secretariat may also pay for its own communications.
|
||
A detailed list of requirements for hosting Cospas-Sarsat meetings is provided in the
|
||
Secretariat document C/S S.002, "Guidelines for Cospas-Sarsat Meetings Held Outside
|
||
Secretariat Headquarters", which can be obtained from the Secretariat. The precise nature
|
||
of equipment, support and stationary required for successfully hosting a specific meeting
|
||
should be discussed and agreed with the Secretariat.
|
||
- END OF SECTION 2 -
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3-1
|
||
|
||
3.
|
||
ASSOCIATION WITH THE COSPAS-SARSAT PROGRAMME
|
||
The International Cospas-Sarsat Programme was established pursuant to the International Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Programme Agreement (ICSPA) signed in Paris on 1 July 1988 by Canada, the Republic of
|
||
France, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Secretary
|
||
General of ICAO and the Secretary-General of IMO are the Depositaries of the ICSPA.
|
||
On 6 January 1992, the Russian Federation notified the Secretary-General of IMO that the Russian
|
||
Federation maintained "all rights and obligations of the USSR in the International Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme".
|
||
Article 16 to the ICSPA declares that the ICSPA is "open for accession by any State that agrees to
|
||
contribute a minimum of one basic unit to the Space Segment and is prepared to assume the
|
||
responsibilities of a Party", subject to the agreement of the existing Parties in respect of its Space
|
||
Segment contribution. However, only a limited number of States can realistically contribute to the
|
||
Space Segment per the rules of the ICSPA, and a significant number of States contributing to the
|
||
Ground Segment of the System are interested in its management. To allow for this, a specific
|
||
method for non-Party States' association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme is provided at Articles
|
||
11 and 12 of the ICSPA. The Parties to the ICSPA and the States or organizations that have notified
|
||
their association in accordance with the procedures described below are referred to as Participants
|
||
in the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
Finally, the Council may also accept additional contributions to the Cospas-Sarsat Space Segment
|
||
implemented and operated by Space Segment Providers that are not a Party to the ICSPA. This
|
||
form of association is discussed in section 3.3 and illustrated at section 5.1 of this document.
|
||
3.1
|
||
User States
|
||
User States are those States that:
|
||
a)
|
||
use the System both through the reception of Cospas-Sarsat alerts and the deployment of
|
||
radiobeacons; and
|
||
b)
|
||
have formally notified the Depositary of the ICSPA of their association with the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Programme pursuant to Article 12 of the ICSPA and in accordance with the
|
||
approved procedure described in the document C/S P.002 "Procedure for the Notification
|
||
of Association with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme by States Non-Party to
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat Agreement".
|
||
Per Article 12 of the ICSPA and the subsequent development of Cospas-Sarsat standards for the
|
||
use of the System, User States undertake to assume the following responsibilities:
|
||
a)
|
||
to make or regulate the use of radiobeacons with characteristics that comply with
|
||
appropriate provisions of the ITU and Cospas-Sarsat approved specifications;
|
||
|
||
3-2
|
||
|
||
b)
|
||
to maintain a 406 MHz beacon register or provide through other means for the registration
|
||
of 406 MHz beacons; and
|
||
c)
|
||
to receive and exchange alert data and other information in respect of the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System operation in accordance with procedures agreed with the Council.
|
||
Per Article 12 of the ICSPA, User States should also endeavour to participate in appropriate
|
||
meetings of the Programme and are entitled to receive all documents pertaining to these meetings
|
||
or submit documents for review at these meetings.
|
||
3.2
|
||
Ground Segment Providers
|
||
Ground Segment Providers are those States that:
|
||
a)
|
||
have established, or plan to establish in the near future, Ground Segment equipment to
|
||
operate with the Cospas-Sarsat satellite System and to use the System both through the
|
||
reception of Cospas-Sarsat alerts and the deployment of radiobeacons; and
|
||
b)
|
||
have formally notified the Depositary of the ICSPA of their association with the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme pursuant to Article 11 of the ICSPA and in accordance with
|
||
the approved procedure described in the document C/S P.002 "Procedure for the
|
||
Notification of Association with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme by States
|
||
Non-Party to the Cospas-Sarsat Agreement".
|
||
Per Article 11 of the ICSPA and the subsequent development of Cospas-Sarsat standards for the
|
||
use of the System, Ground Segment Providers undertake to assume the following responsibilities:
|
||
a)
|
||
to adhere to the technical specifications and operating procedures approved by the
|
||
Council for the purpose of ensuring adequate System performance;
|
||
b)
|
||
to endeavour to deliver Cospas-Sarsat alerts and location information in accordance
|
||
with procedures agreed with the Council; and
|
||
c)
|
||
to discharge the same responsibilities as User States in respect of their use of the
|
||
System.
|
||
Per Article 11 of the ICSPA, Ground Segment Providers should also endeavour to participate in
|
||
appropriate meetings of the Programme and are entitled to receive all documents pertaining to
|
||
these meetings or submit documents for review at these meetings.
|
||
3.3
|
||
Space Segment Providers
|
||
The Parties to the ICSPA are the main providers of the Cospas-Sarsat Space Segment. However,
|
||
organisations or States that are not Party to the ICSPA may wish to contribute space segment
|
||
capabilities that they own and operate, without assuming the responsibilities of a Party. In such
|
||
circumstances, a formal procedure and specific documentation may be developed by the Council
|
||
in cooperation with the prospective Space Segment Provider, to formally acknowledge the
|
||
additional space segment contribution as part of the Cospas-Sarsat System. This form of
|
||
|
||
3-3
|
||
|
||
association is subject to prior agreement with the Cospas-Sarsat Parties on the nature, the terms
|
||
and the conditions of the proposed contribution to the Cospas-Sarsat Space Segment.
|
||
At the CSC-24 Session, in April 2000, the Council decided "to pursue the development of formal
|
||
relations with EUMETSAT and India as Space Segment Providers, using Articles 9 (Functions of
|
||
the Council) and 13 (Relationship with International Organizations) of the ICSPA as a basis".
|
||
The Council will review on a case-by-case basis the suitability of proposed Space Segment
|
||
contributions and decide as appropriate on the conditions for their acceptance into the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat System, the applicable commissioning requirements and the terms and conditions of the
|
||
cooperation with new Space Segment Providers. If such cooperation on a new Space Segment
|
||
contribution is approved, the respective responsibilities and commitments of the Parties and the
|
||
new Space Segment Provider should be formally spelled out in a specific document, or series of
|
||
documents, as appropriate.
|
||
3.4
|
||
Procedure for Association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme
|
||
The standard procedure for States that wish to become associated with the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme as a provider of Ground Segment equipment or as a user of the Cospas-Sarsat System
|
||
is described in the document C/S P.002 "Procedure for the Notification of Association with the
|
||
International Cospas-Sarsat Programme by States Non-Party to the Cospas-Sarsat Agreement".
|
||
There is no standard procedure for association by States or organizations that wish to contribute
|
||
elements of the Space Segment. Possible contributions to the Space Segment will be addressed by
|
||
the Council on a case-by-case basis.
|
||
Association by States Non-Party to the ICSPA to Participate in the System
|
||
as Ground Segment Providers or User States
|
||
Any State may decide to become associated with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme as a
|
||
Ground Segment Provider or as a User State, and may unilaterally notify its association
|
||
by depositing the standard letter of notification of association approved by the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Council with one of the Depositaries of the ICSPA.
|
||
The Depositary will review the notification of association to verify that the letter:
|
||
a)
|
||
is identical to the standard text approved by the Council, or that any
|
||
amendment to the standard text has been approved by the Council prior to the
|
||
notification; and
|
||
b)
|
||
has been signed by the Head of State, or the Head of Government, or the
|
||
Minister for Foreign Affairs, or by a duly authorised representative and is
|
||
accompanied with the proper authorisation signed by one of the authorities
|
||
mentioned above.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3-4
|
||
|
||
The aim of the procedure is to ensure that the signatory of the standard letter of
|
||
notification of association is acting with the full authority of the State, particularly with
|
||
regards to the State's operational responsibilities and regulatory competencies concerning
|
||
SAR, whether in the maritime, aeronautical, or telecommunications domains.
|
||
If the notification procedure is accomplished as required, the Depositary will notify the
|
||
Parties and the Secretariat of the date the association will become effective (i.e. 30 days
|
||
after the notification of association was received by the Depositary). Further information
|
||
concerning the procedure for the notification of association is provided in the document
|
||
C/S P.002.
|
||
Association by Organisations
|
||
In exceptional circumstances the Cospas-Sarsat Council may decide to accept a request
|
||
for formal association with the Programme by an organisation.
|
||
In such cases, the notification shall be in the form of a letter agreed with the Council and
|
||
sent to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat. Sample letters and detailed information on the
|
||
procedure are provided in the document C/S P.003 "Procedure for the Association of
|
||
Organizations with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme".
|
||
3.5
|
||
Common Rules of Participation
|
||
The preamble to the ICSPA states that access to the Cospas-Sarsat System is provided to all States
|
||
on a non-discriminatory basis and free of charge for the end-user in distress. Therefore, there is no
|
||
requirement for a country to become associated with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme in order to
|
||
benefit from Cospas-Sarsat satellite alerting services. All countries can avail themselves of the
|
||
System by:
|
||
a)
|
||
regulating the use of Cospas-Sarsat compatible beacons;
|
||
b)
|
||
designating a SAR point of contact (SPOC) for receiving alerts and location data
|
||
produced by the System; and
|
||
c)
|
||
establishing a register for 406 MHz beacons with a 7-day / 24-hour point of contact.
|
||
For those States and organisations that decide to become formally associated with Cospas-Sarsat,
|
||
the basic principle is that each Participant is responsible for financing all costs of their
|
||
participation, including the costs associated with the implementation, maintenance and operation
|
||
of equipment that constitute their contribution to the System. In addition, States and organisations
|
||
formally associated with the Programme pursuant to Articles 11 and 12 of the ICSPA are expected
|
||
to contribute an annual flat fee towards the administrative costs of the Programme (Common
|
||
Costs) as described at section 4 of this document.
|
||
States and organisations that contribute elements of the Cospas-Sarsat Space and Ground
|
||
Segments shall make alert and location data produced by their equipment available to SAR
|
||
services, in accordance with the procedures and standards approved by the Council. This includes
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3-5
|
||
|
||
commissioning their equipment into the Cospas-Sarsat System in accordance with applicable
|
||
standards.
|
||
The rules for participating in the Cospas-Sarsat System or for States to avail themselves of Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat satellite alerting services are summarised in the document C/S P.007 "Guidelines for
|
||
Participating in the Cospas-Sarsat System".
|
||
- END OF SECTION 3 -
|
||
|
||
4-1
|
||
|
||
4.
|
||
COMMON COSTS OF THE PROGRAMME
|
||
Article 6 of the ICSPA states that:
|
||
(6.1)
|
||
"each Party [...] shall be fully responsible for financing all costs associated with its
|
||
contribution to the Space Segment [...] and the common costs arising from the obligations
|
||
of the Agreement" (i.e. the ICSPA);
|
||
(6.2)
|
||
"common costs associated with the organization, administration and coordination of the
|
||
Programme, including those incurred in financing the activities of the Council and the
|
||
Secretariat, shall be shared equally by the Parties"; and
|
||
(6.4)
|
||
non-Party States "choosing to participate in activities associated with the organization,
|
||
administration and co-ordination of the Programme as referred to in Article 6.2 may be
|
||
invited to contribute to the common costs involved under terms determined by the
|
||
Council".
|
||
Pursuant to section 6.2 of their standard letter of notification of association, Participants declare
|
||
that they are "prepared to contribute the standard annual amount, determined from time to time by
|
||
the Council in agreement with Non-Party States associated with the Programme, towards the
|
||
Common Costs associated with the organization, administration and co-ordination of the
|
||
Programme".
|
||
4.1
|
||
Definition of the Programme Common Costs and Funding
|
||
As stated at Article 6.2 of the ICSPA, the Common Costs are the costs associated with the
|
||
organization, administration and coordination of the Programme, including those incurred in
|
||
financing the activities of the Council and the Secretariat. They do not include any expenses
|
||
incurred for "the reception and transmission of distress alert data through the Cospas-Sarsat Space
|
||
Segment", which are provided by the Parties and other Space Segment Providers free of charge to
|
||
other Participants (ICSPA, Article 6.3).
|
||
At its Second Session in May 1989, the Council decided to approve the principles
|
||
(CSC-2/OPN/SR/2.2.2) that:
|
||
a)
|
||
"the costs incurred by the Parties or the Ground Segment Providers for the
|
||
establishment of the System, its maintenance and its operation are not included in the
|
||
Common Costs of the Programme"; and
|
||
b) "details regarding the Common Costs of the programme will be disclosed at the Open
|
||
Meeting of the Council to support discussion of non-Party States' contributions".
|
||
|
||
4-2
|
||
|
||
Per Article 9 of the ICSPA (Functions of the Council), the Council is responsible for "the
|
||
implementation of those provisions of Article 6 (Financial Matters) that require Council action".
|
||
Under direction from the Council, the Secretariat will prepare a forecast of the expected Common
|
||
Costs for the forthcoming year for review at the Open Meeting of the Council. The forecast shall
|
||
be amended as necessary by the Council to form the approved Spending Plan for the forthcoming
|
||
accounting year.
|
||
The Parties to the ICSPA are responsible for funding the totality of the Common Costs, each of
|
||
them for an equal share of the total Common Costs. However, the required funding for the
|
||
Programme Common Costs is offset by the annual contribution from other Participants, as
|
||
determined in agreement with the Council.
|
||
4.2
|
||
Annual Contributions
|
||
All States and organisations that have formally notified their association with the Programme shall
|
||
pay the annual standard fee determined by the Council as their contribution towards the Common
|
||
Costs of the Programme. The full annual fee is due for the year in which formal association begins,
|
||
except as may be decided by the Council in exceptional circumstances.
|
||
At its CSC-11 Session in 1993 (CSC-11/OPN/SR/5.4.7) the Council decided that:
|
||
a)
|
||
future evolution of the annual contribution should be decided with a minimum 3-year
|
||
advance notice period before any agreed increase to the annual fee is implemented
|
||
(e.g. a change decided at the Open Meeting of the October 2005 session of the Council
|
||
would become effective from 2008 only); and
|
||
b) future discussions on Participants' contributions should be supported by appropriate
|
||
financial statements provided to Participants for review prior to the Council Session".
|
||
c) Non-Party Participants currently contribute an amount of CAD 68,000 per year. The
|
||
contribution of each Party currently stands at CAD 272,000 per year (CSC-53/OPN/
|
||
SR/7.5.3).
|
||
4.3
|
||
Invoicing and Payment of Contributions
|
||
Invoices for the agreed annual contributions are raised by the Secretariat in January in accordance
|
||
with the Council’s decision, and are issued in Canadian dollars (CAN $). Participants should send
|
||
a letter advising the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat of the appropriate recipient of invoices for annual
|
||
contributions (CSC-3/OPN/SR/4.4.5 and CSC-12/CLD/ SR/3.2.3).
|
||
If payment is not received in full by the end of June, a reminder will be issued by the Secretariat
|
||
to all Participants with outstanding contributions.
|
||
When payment is received by the Secretariat, an acknowledgement for the amount credited to the
|
||
Secretariat bank account is despatched to the Representative of the relevant Participant. This
|
||
acknowledgement states whether there is a shortfall or overpayment of the amount due.
|
||
|
||
4-3
|
||
|
||
Payments received in other currencies will be converted into CAN $, using the bank’s current rate
|
||
of exchange on the date of receipt of the payment (CSC-25/OPN/SR/5.5.12). Where there is a
|
||
shortfall in the contribution payment, the outstanding amount will be added to the following year’s
|
||
invoice. Similarly, any overpayment will be deducted from the following year’s contribution
|
||
invoice.
|
||
Payments should be made using the bank account details as stated on the invoice, making clear
|
||
reference to the Cospas-Sarsat Programme and the corresponding invoice number. Where payment
|
||
is made by electronic or telegraphic transfer, Cospas-Sarsat should be informed in writing to ensure
|
||
that payments are allocated correctly.
|
||
4.4
|
||
Arrears in Payment of Contributions
|
||
A Participant that fails to make the annual contributions required under Section 4.2, such that the
|
||
Participant’s account at the Programme is in arrears by an amount that equals or exceeds twice the
|
||
annual contribution required under Section 4.2, shall have its participation in the Programme
|
||
placed in “abeyance”. The Participant will remain in abeyance status until its account at the
|
||
Programme is current.
|
||
A Participant in abeyance status will not be invited to Cospas-Sarsat meetings, will lose its access
|
||
to non-public Cospas-Sarsat documents, and will have no right to support from the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Secretariat [other than that available normally to non-Participant entities] except as may be related
|
||
to procedures to bring its accounts into a current status, or for the prosecution of activities related
|
||
to a specific distress alert.
|
||
For Participants in an abeyance status for a period exceeding three consecutive years, the Council
|
||
may, at its discretion, report the non-compliance of the Participant with its obligations to the
|
||
Depositary holding its letter of association with the Programme and request that the association be
|
||
terminated.
|
||
If at a future date a Participant whose association has been terminated desires to rejoin the
|
||
Programme as a provider of Ground Segment equipment or as a user of the Cospas-Sarsat System,
|
||
it must again follow the procedures outlined in document C/S P.002 "Procedure for the
|
||
Notification of Association with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme by States Non-Party
|
||
to the Cospas-Sarsat Agreement" [and, as may be decided by the Council, pay its previously due
|
||
contributions].
|
||
The Council may waive these sanctions at its discretion in exceptional circumstances.
|
||
– END OF SECTION 4 –
|
||
|
||
5-1
|
||
|
||
5.
|
||
THE COSPAS-SARSAT SYSTEM
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat System comprises:
|
||
a)
|
||
a Space Segment including:
|
||
•
|
||
the low-altitude polar orbiting satellites of the Cospas and Sarsat constellations,
|
||
•
|
||
geostationary satellites from the GOES series (USA), the MSG and MTG series
|
||
(EUMETSAT), the Louch and Electro-L series (Russian Federation), and the
|
||
INSAT and GSAT series (India), and
|
||
•
|
||
satellites in medium-altitude earth orbit in the GPS constellation (USA), the
|
||
Galileo constellation (EU), the GLONASS constellation (Russian Federation),
|
||
and the BeiDou constellation (China (P.R. of));
|
||
b)
|
||
a Ground Segment established by the Parties and other States comprising Local User
|
||
Terminals (LUTs) to receive and process the satellite signals and Mission Control
|
||
Centres (MCCs) to accept the output from LUTs and convey distress alerts and
|
||
location data to appropriate authorities; and
|
||
c)
|
||
radiobeacons designed to operate on 406 MHz that comply with appropriate provisions
|
||
of the ITU and Cospas-Sarsat specifications.
|
||
Further to this, article 3 of the ICSPA provides for any future “enhancements to the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Space Segment configuration”, as decided by the Cospas-Sarsat Council.
|
||
5.1
|
||
Space Segment
|
||
The status of the Cospas-Sarsat Space Segment is provided on the Cospas-Sarsat website
|
||
www.cospas-sarsat.int.
|
||
Detailed descriptions of the Cospas-Sarsat LEOSAR, GEOSAR, and MEOSAR Space Segments
|
||
are provided in the documents:
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.003
|
||
"Description of the Payloads Used in the Cospas-Sarsat LEOSAR
|
||
System",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.011
|
||
"Description of the Payloads Used in the Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR
|
||
System",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.016
|
||
“Description of the 406 MHz Payloads Used in the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
MEOSAR System”.
|
||
|
||
5-2
|
||
|
||
The LEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat satellite system in low-altitude polar orbit, established by Canada,
|
||
France, Russia and the USA and referred to as the LEOSAR system, was declared
|
||
operational at the first meeting of the Cospas-Sarsat Steering Committee held in Seattle,
|
||
Washington, USA, in 1985. The LEOSAR Space Segment described in the 1988 ICSPA
|
||
includes the 121.5 MHz SAR repeater (SARR) channel and the 406 MHz SAR receiver-
|
||
processor (SARP) channel provided on both Sarsat and Cospas satellite constellations.
|
||
As of 1 February 2009, however, 121.5 MHz SARR instruments on orbit were turned off
|
||
and payloads on replacement satellites launched after that date were configured without
|
||
the 121.5 MHz SARR capability.
|
||
The additional 406 MHz SAR repeater (SARR) channel, provided on Sarsat satellites
|
||
only, was formally acknowledged as part of the Cospas-Sarsat System at the CSC-21
|
||
Session (October 1998). At CSC-21, the Council approved amendments to documents
|
||
C/S T.002 "Cospas-Sarsat LEOLUT Performance Specification and Design Guidelines"
|
||
and C/S T.005 "Cospas-Sarsat LEOLUT Commissioning Standard" to include the
|
||
performance and commissioning requirements of the LEOLUT processing system for the
|
||
406 MHz SARR channel. A 406 MHz SARR capability is also planned on future Cospas
|
||
satellites, beginning with the Cospas-13 satellite.
|
||
The GEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
Geostationary satellites with a 406 MHz repeater capability, referred to as the GEOSAR
|
||
space segment, are a significant enhancement to the original Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
Following experiments performed in 1984 by the USA in conjunction with Canada and
|
||
France using the geostationary meteorological satellite GOES-7, the Council decided to
|
||
undertake a thorough demonstration and evaluation of the performance of a 406 MHz
|
||
geostationary alerting system, compatible with existing Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz beacons.
|
||
5.1.2.1 The GOES GEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
The GEOSAR Demonstration and Evaluation (D&E) of the GEOSAR system
|
||
was performed between July 1996 and February 1998, using the satellites
|
||
GOES-8, GOES-9 and INSAT-2A, and experimental GEOLUTs in Canada,
|
||
Chile, France, India, Spain and the UK. The Council approved the D&E report
|
||
(document C/S R.008) in October 1998 and decided (CSC-21/OPN/SR,
|
||
section 4.2.4) "to adopt the D&E conclusion that the enhancement of the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat System through the integration of 406 MHz GEOSAR components was
|
||
desirable" and "to accept the GOES-East and GOES-West 406 MHz GEOSAR
|
||
components as an enhancement to the existing Cospas-Sarsat System".
|
||
The characteristics of the GOES GEOSAR system are described in the document
|
||
C/S T.011 "Description of the Payloads Used in the Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR
|
||
System". In a letter to the Secretary-General of ICAO dated 5 February 1999,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-3
|
||
|
||
the USA informed the Depositaries of the ICSPA of the addition of the GOES
|
||
GEOSAR capability to the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
5.1.2.2 The MSG GEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
The cooperation between Cospas-Sarsat and the EUMETSAT organization in
|
||
respect of the METEOSAT Second Generation (MSG) space segment was
|
||
established through an exchange of letters (letter from the Chair of the CSC to
|
||
the Director General of EUMETSAT dated 15 June 2001 and the response of
|
||
EUMETSAT's Director General dated 28 June 2001), which make reference to
|
||
the "EUMETSAT to Cospas-Sarsat MSG GEOSAR Operations Interface
|
||
Control Document (ICD)" that defines the detailed responsibilities of each
|
||
organisation. Changes of substance to the ICD shall be reviewed and agreed by
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee and signed by the Head of Secretariat and
|
||
the Chair of the Cospas-Sarsat Council. However, administrative updates to the
|
||
ICD are only reviewed by the Secretariat and signed by the Head of Secretariat.
|
||
The D&E of the MSG GEOSAR system was performed between October 2002
|
||
and June 2004 and the document C/S R.013 "Cospas-Sarsat METEOSAT
|
||
Second Generation (MSG) GEOSAR Performance Evaluation Report" was
|
||
approved by the Council at the CSC-33 Session. The Council also decided to
|
||
"formally accept the commissioning of MSG GEOSAR components into the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System" (CSC-33/OPN/SR, section 4.1.8).
|
||
The characteristics of the MSG GEOSAR space segment are described in the
|
||
document C/S T.011 "Description of the 406 MHz Payloads Used in the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat GEOSAR System". The Depositaries of the ICSPA were informed, in a
|
||
letter from the Head of Secretariat dated 16 November 2001 (ref:
|
||
CS01/304/F440), of the agreement between Cospas-Sarsat and EUMETSAT
|
||
concerning the MSG GEOSAR enhancement to the Cospas-Sarsat Space
|
||
Segment.
|
||
5.1.2.3 The INSAT GEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
The INSAT-2A satellite was used during the GEOSAR D&E performed between
|
||
July 1996 and February 1998 with an experimental GEOLUT installed at
|
||
Bangalore, India. The characteristics of the 406 MHz INSAT GEOSAR system
|
||
are provided in the document C/S T.011 "Description of the 406 MHz Payloads
|
||
used in the Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR System". The INSAT-3 satellites equipped
|
||
with a 406 MHz repeater provide a narrow-beam downlink which does not give
|
||
direct access to INSAT GEOSAR data outside India.
|
||
A specific Understanding between India and the Cospas-Sarsat Parties for the
|
||
association of India as a Provider of GEOSAR services and the formal
|
||
integration of the INSAT GEOSAR system to the Cospas-Sarsat System, was
|
||
signed at the beginning of 2007. This Understanding, recorded under the
|
||
reference C/S P.009, became effective on 25 March 2007.
|
||
|
||
5-4
|
||
|
||
The completion of the INSAT GEOSAR D&E with a new GEOLUT installed in
|
||
Bangalore is pending. However, in recognition of the significant benefits
|
||
demonstrated by the INSAT GEOSAR operation, GEOSAR alert data provided
|
||
by the INSAT system is distributed in the Cospas-Sarsat network under the
|
||
responsibility of India.
|
||
5.1.2.4 The Electro Space Segment
|
||
A 406 MHz GEOSAR capability exists on the Russian geostationary satellite
|
||
Electro-L.
|
||
The MEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
Medium-Altitude Earth Orbit SAR satellites with a 406 MHz repeater capability,
|
||
referred to as the MEOSAR space segment, are a significant enhancement to the
|
||
original Cospas-Sarsat System. The USA, the European Commission (EC) and
|
||
the Russian Federation began consultations with Cospas-Sarsat in 2000
|
||
regarding the feasibility of installing 406 MHz SAR instruments on their
|
||
respective medium-altitude Earth orbit navigation satellite constellations.
|
||
Following experiments and studies performed in the early 2000s by the USA in
|
||
conjunction with Canada and France using the DASS payloads on the GPS
|
||
constellation, the Council decided to undertake a thorough demonstration and
|
||
evaluation of the performance of a 406 MHz MEOSAR alerting system,
|
||
compatible with existing Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz beacons.
|
||
The Demonstration and Evaluation (D&E) of the MEOSAR system was
|
||
performed in three phases as described in document C/S R.018, “Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Demonstration and Evaluation Plan for the 406 MHz MEOSAR System”. The
|
||
Council approved the final D&E report, document C/S R.024, “Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
406-MHz MEOSAR System Demonstration and Evaluation Phase III Report”,
|
||
in March 2021.
|
||
In April 2023, Council decided to declare the MEOSAR System at its initial
|
||
operational capability (IOC), effective as of 25 April 2023. Progress continues
|
||
towards achievement of full operational capability (FOC) with ongoing
|
||
commissioning of ground segment and implementation of MEOSAR
|
||
components of the Quality Management System.
|
||
5.1.3.1 The GPS MEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
The GPS constellation nominally consists of a minimum of 24 operational
|
||
satellites. As of October 2024, the constellation includes 17 GPS II and four GPS
|
||
III satellites carrying DASS/S-band repeaters. Four other DASS/S-band GPS III
|
||
launches are planned. The DASS S-band constellation is not planned to be
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-5
|
||
|
||
declared as operational, but its data may be used operationally. The first SAR/L-
|
||
band GPS III payload is planned to be launched not earlier than 2026.
|
||
5.1.3.2 The Galileo MEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
As of October 2024, the Galileo constellation has achieved, for what concerns
|
||
the constellation deployment, its Full Operational Capability (FOC)
|
||
configuration consisting of eight satellites at a 45-degree separation in each of
|
||
the three orbital planes, plus a minimum of one spare satellite positioned in the
|
||
auxiliary slots of each plane, resulting in a configuration of 8+1/8+1/8+1. The
|
||
constellation includes 27 SAR commissioned payloads.
|
||
Additional Galileo launches are planned as part of the Galileo constellation
|
||
management process.
|
||
5.1.3.3 The GLONASS MEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
As of October 2024, the GLONASS constellation includes four SAR payloads:
|
||
two are in operation and two are considered to be under test. Three more
|
||
SAR/GLONASS payloads are currently planned. Future SAR/GLONASS
|
||
launches will depend on primary navigation mission needs.
|
||
5.1.3.4 The BEIDOU (BDS) MEOSAR Space Segment
|
||
As of October 2024, the BDS constellation includes six L-band SAR payloads.
|
||
BDS is working with CNMCC to define the mechanism for transmitting BDS
|
||
ephemeris data to enable tracking of these satellites. BDS is conducting
|
||
feasibility studies on the deployment of future SAR/BDS payloads.
|
||
Space Segment Commissioning and Changes of Status
|
||
New satellites will be launched from time to time to maintain the operational status of the
|
||
LEOSAR, GEOSAR, or MEOSAR space segments. New SAR satellite payloads shall be
|
||
commissioned into the System in accordance with the provisions of documents C/S T.004
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat LEOSAR Space Segment Commissioning Standard", C/S T.013 "Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat GEOSAR Space Segment Commissioning Standard", or C/S T.017 “Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
MEOSAR Space Segment Commissioning Standard” as appropriate.
|
||
The Commissioning Authority is either the responsible Space Segment Provider or a
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Party designated with the agreement of the Space Segment Provider.
|
||
In addition to provisions set forth in the commissioning standards (C/S T.004, C/S T.013,
|
||
C/S T.017), a report on the SAR-payload commissioning shall be submitted by the
|
||
Commissioning Authority to the Joint Committee for its review. The Council
|
||
alternatively may decide to create an Experts Working Group to perform this review in
|
||
accordance with terms of reference decided by the Council for the Experts Working
|
||
Group. The Joint Committee or Experts Working Group shall make recommendations on
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-6
|
||
|
||
the completeness of the report and may provide other recommendations unrelated to the
|
||
report, as appropriate. Because the Commissioning Authority solely is responsible for the
|
||
commissioning of the SAR payload, the recommendations of the Joint Committee or
|
||
Experts Working Group shall not include any recommendation with regard to approval
|
||
of the commissioning of the SAR payload or changes in the status of the SAR payload.
|
||
The Council shall:
|
||
a)
|
||
note any changes to the status of operational satellites or SAR payloads as
|
||
determined and reported by the Commissioning Authority, as appropriate;
|
||
b)
|
||
note the receipt of the report and the review by the Joint Committee or EWG;
|
||
c)
|
||
decide as appropriate on the recommendations made by the Joint Committee
|
||
or by the Experts Working Group; and
|
||
d)
|
||
request that the Secretariat make any appropriate amendments to the Space
|
||
Segment status published on the Cospas-Sarsat website.
|
||
Information on changes to the status of operational satellites or SAR payloads should be
|
||
distributed to all Ground Segment Providers by the responsible Space Segment Provider
|
||
or Commissioning Authority, in accordance with the applicable Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
operational requirements. It should also be forwarded to the Secretariat with a specific
|
||
request to amend the Space Segment status published on the Cospas-Sarsat website.
|
||
The Secretariat shall not amend the status of a Space Segment component published on
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat website unless a written request to do so has been documented in a
|
||
Council Summary Record, or received from the responsible Space Segment Provider or
|
||
Commissioning Authority. The date of the last amendment to the status of the Space
|
||
Segment shall be provided with the published status report.
|
||
5.2
|
||
Ground Segment
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Ground Segment includes:
|
||
a)
|
||
LUTs installed by Participants in the System to receive and process
|
||
LEOSAR,GEOSAR, or MEOSAR downlink signals, and forward alerts to the
|
||
associated MCC; and
|
||
b)
|
||
MCCs that filter, geographically sort and process alert data received from their
|
||
associated LUTs and other MCCs, and forward alert messages to other MCCs, SAR
|
||
Points of Contacts (SPOCs) or Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs).
|
||
LUT performance specifications and commissioning standards are provided in the documents:
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.002
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat LEOLUT Performance Specification and Design
|
||
Guidelines",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.005
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat LEOLUT Commissioning Standard",
|
||
|
||
5-7
|
||
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.009
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat GEOLUT Performance Specification and Design
|
||
Guidelines",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.010
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat GEOLUT Commissioning Standard",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.019
|
||
“Cospas-Sarsat MEOLUT Performance Specification and Design
|
||
Guidelines”,
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.020
|
||
“Cospas-Sarsat MEOLUT Commissioning Standard”.
|
||
MCCs' performance specification, communications interface description and commissioning
|
||
standard are provided in the documents:
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.001"
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat Data Distribution Plan" (DDP),
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.002
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat Mission Control Centres Standard Interface
|
||
Description" (SID),
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.005
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat Mission Control Centre (MCC) Performance
|
||
Specification and Design Guidelines",
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.006
|
||
"Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Mission
|
||
Control
|
||
Centre
|
||
Commissioning
|
||
Standard".
|
||
The structure of the inter-MCC communications network, the procedures for the exchange of
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat alert and location data and System data between MCCs, and the rules applicable to
|
||
the distribution of Cospas-Sarsat alerts to SPOCs, RCCs, or the responsible authority for SSAS
|
||
alerts, are provided in the document C/S A.001 "Cospas-Sarsat Data Distribution Plan" (DDP).
|
||
SAR Points of Contact (SPOCs)
|
||
SPOCs are MCCs, RCCs and other established and recognised national points of contact
|
||
that can accept or assume responsibility for the coordination and the fast and effective
|
||
transfer of Cospas-Sarsat alert data to enable the rescue of persons in distress.
|
||
To avail themselves of the System, States should:
|
||
a)
|
||
designate a single SAR point of contact (SPOC) for receiving Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
alert and location data for distress locations in their SAR area of
|
||
responsibility;
|
||
b)
|
||
provide the address, telephone, telex or facsimile number or AFTN address
|
||
of their SPOC to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat; and
|
||
c)
|
||
develop a comprehensive plan for the distribution of alert and location data
|
||
to SAR authorities, as appropriate.
|
||
Each MCC distributes Cospas-Sarsat alert data to its national RCCs and to designated
|
||
SPOCs in the other countries included in its service area, as defined in the document
|
||
C/S A.001 "Cospas-Sarsat Data Distribution Plan" (DDP). MCCs should coordinate with
|
||
countries in their service areas to collect contact information for their SPOCs for inclusion
|
||
on the Cospas-Sarsat website www.cospas-sarsat.int.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-8
|
||
|
||
Implementation of LUTs and MCCs
|
||
The decision to implement a new LUT and MCC is the sole responsibility of the
|
||
Participant that funds the purchase and installation of the equipment. There are no
|
||
mechanisms or plans for the Cospas-Sarsat Programme to fund or subsidise the purchase,
|
||
implementation or operation of new Ground Segment equipment. However, only States
|
||
or organisations that have completed the appropriate procedure for the notification of their
|
||
association as Ground Segment Provider or as Ground Segment Operator, respectively,
|
||
may have their equipment commissioned and integrated into the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
A State that has notified its association with the Cospas-Sarsat Programme as a Ground
|
||
Segment Provider per the terms of the standard letter of notification of association,
|
||
assumes the responsibility "to adhere to the technical specifications and operating
|
||
procedures set by the Council for the purpose of ensuring adequate System performance"
|
||
and "to provide, as agreed with the Council, appropriate performance data in order to
|
||
confirm compatibility of its Ground Segment equipment with the System".
|
||
Prior to its full integration into the Cospas-Sarsat System, any new Ground Segment
|
||
equipment must be commissioned in accordance with the applicable Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
requirements detailed in the documents listed above. The Council may decide to create
|
||
an Experts’ Working Group to undertake the review of Ground Segment Equipment
|
||
commissioning reports that ordinarily would be considered by the Joint Committee. The
|
||
Experts’ Working Group could be mandated by the Council to make recommendations
|
||
directly to the Council. The Council could further decide to approve as commissioned
|
||
Ground Segment Equipment based on recommendations of the Experts’ Working
|
||
Group. As directed by the Council the Experts’ Working Group shall provide a report to
|
||
the Joint Committee of its findings and recommendations, and the Council’s related
|
||
decisions.
|
||
Commissioning of new, or enhanced Ground Segment equipment should be done against
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat requirements detailed in the specification document and per the
|
||
commissioning standard document that are published by the Secretariat, at the time the
|
||
commissioning test campaign is formally commenced1. All ground segment configuration
|
||
changes decided by the Council with a due date before the commencement of the formal1
|
||
commissioning tests should be included in commissioning tests and shown to be
|
||
implemented by including them in the commissioning report, unless a configuration
|
||
change is explicitly identified as an exception by the Council. If there were any ground
|
||
segment configuration changes with a required implementation date before the formal1
|
||
1 While planning and pre-integration testing are meaningful components of the commissioning effort, commissioning
|
||
is considered to formally commence when the actual commissioning test campaign begins. For MCCs, this is the start
|
||
of the integration test phase as defined in section 2.2 of document C/S A.006. The formal date should be documented
|
||
in the Commissioning Plan and updated as needed. For LUTs, this is the start of the first test data collection period
|
||
defined in section 2.3 of documents C/S T.005, C/S T.010 and C/S T.020.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-9
|
||
|
||
beginning of the commissioning tests that were not verified prior to the declaration of
|
||
IOC, the final commissioning report shall document verification of these items when FOC
|
||
is declared. After commissioning, Ground Segment Providers will be required to
|
||
implement configuration management changes by the agreed schedules as decided by the
|
||
Council.
|
||
The cost of implementing the commissioning procedure and reporting to the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Joint Committee is the responsibility of the Agency or Administration that has
|
||
installed the equipment to be commissioned.
|
||
The general principles summarised below govern the commissioning of Ground Segment
|
||
equipment into the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
5.2.2.1 LUT Commissioning
|
||
The implementation of the commissioning procedure is the responsibility of the
|
||
Ground Segment Provider/Operator. A commissioning report in the format
|
||
described in the documents C/S T.005 for LEOLUTs, C/S T.010 for GEOLUTs,
|
||
or C/S T.020 for MEOLUTs shall be submitted to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat,
|
||
for review by the Joint Committee.
|
||
The commissioning report must be submitted to the Secretariat by the
|
||
Representative of the Participant or the designated Cooperating Agency prior to
|
||
the Joint Committee meeting as per the timeline specified in section 2.4.4 of this
|
||
document. After review of the report, the Joint Committee will make a
|
||
recommendation to the Cospas-Sarsat Council. Formal commissioning will be
|
||
recorded at the subsequent meeting of the Council, as appropriate.
|
||
If the commissioning test results in the report do not demonstrate full compliance
|
||
with the applicable Cospas-Sarsat specification, corrective action must be taken.
|
||
If the test results in the commissioning report submitted to the Secretariat
|
||
demonstrate compliance with the specification, the new LUT may be declared at
|
||
initial operational capability (IOC) by the Ground Segment operator, and alert
|
||
data derived from the new LUT may be used by the associated MCC and
|
||
distributed internationally in accordance with the document C/S A.001 (DDP),
|
||
under the responsibility of the Ground Segment operator. The declaration of IOC
|
||
status may occur prior to the JC review of the LUT commissioning report.
|
||
However, the report must be submitted to the Secretariat prior to IOC.
|
||
All new LUTs (LEOLUT, GEOLUT, or MEOLUT) shall be commissioned in
|
||
accordance with the above policy, including new equipment replacing
|
||
previously commissioned equipment. New operational capabilities added to
|
||
existing LUTs (as defined in the specification documents C/S T.002 or
|
||
C/S T.009, e.g. additional processing channel, combined LEO/GEO processing,
|
||
|
||
5-10
|
||
|
||
etc.) shall also be commissioned per the applicable requirements of the
|
||
documents C/S T.005, C/S T.010, or C/S T.020.
|
||
For enhancements to LUTs concerning new or updated functionalities as agreed
|
||
with the Cospas-Sarsat Council, the Ground Segment operator should perform
|
||
the test programme established by the Joint Committee and report as directed by
|
||
the Council. For any other enhancement or update to the LUT equipment, the
|
||
LUT operator should perform all testing that may be required to ensure that the
|
||
expected performance is achieved and maintained, and notify the Council in
|
||
accordance with the applicable reporting procedures.
|
||
The status of commissioned LUTs will be recorded on the Cospas-Sarsat website
|
||
www.cospas-sarsat.int and published in the Cospas-Sarsat System Data
|
||
document.
|
||
5.2.2.2 MCC Commissioning
|
||
The commissioning of a new MCC in the Cospas-Sarsat System demonstrates
|
||
the capability of the MCC to exchange data with other MCCs in the network in
|
||
a timely and reliable manner and process messages in accordance with Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat functional requirements.
|
||
This demonstration requires, in particular:
|
||
a)
|
||
the description of communication links with other Cospas-Sarsat MCCs,
|
||
including a decision concerning the Data Distribution Region (DDR) in
|
||
which the MCC under development (DMCC) will be integrated; and
|
||
b)
|
||
a precise definition of the new MCC service area (i.e. the agreed list of
|
||
SPOCs that will be served by the DMCC in addition to its national RCCs).
|
||
Therefore, the commissioning of a new MCC can only be performed in
|
||
cooperation with the nodal MCC responsible for the DDR, after the development
|
||
of a detailed commissioning plan and coordination with adjacent MCCs in
|
||
respect of the DMCC service area. A complete description of the DMCC with
|
||
its communication links, points of contact and agreed service area shall be
|
||
provided to the Secretariat. The Secretariat shall prepare the required
|
||
amendments to the relevant operational documents (DDP, SID and Geosort) and
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat website www.cospas-sarsat.int for review by the Joint Committee
|
||
and approval by the Council, as appropriate, prior to the beginning of DMCC
|
||
operation.
|
||
Following implementation of the DMCC commissioning tests and analysis of
|
||
test results that demonstrate conformance with Cospas-Sarsat requirements, the
|
||
responsible nodal MCC should submit a report to the Secretariat. This report will
|
||
be submitted to the Joint Committee for review and subsequent approval by the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Council. The responsible nodal MCC may declare the new MCC
|
||
|
||
5-11
|
||
|
||
at initial operational capability (IOC). Formal commissioning of the new MCC
|
||
will be recorded at the subsequent meeting of the Council, as appropriate.
|
||
For enhancements to existing MCCs concerning new or updated functionalities
|
||
as agreed with the Cospas-Sarsat Council, the Ground Segment operator should
|
||
perform the test programme established by the Joint Committee and report as
|
||
directed by the Council. For any other enhancement or update to the MCC
|
||
software or communication capabilities, the MCC operator should perform all
|
||
testing that may be required to ensure that the expected performance is achieved
|
||
and maintained, and notify the Council in accordance with the applicable
|
||
reporting procedures.
|
||
The status of commissioned MCCs will be recorded on the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
website www.cospas-sarsat.int and published in the Cospas-Sarsat System Data
|
||
document.
|
||
5.2.2.3 MCC Service Areas
|
||
a)
|
||
Service Area Description
|
||
The document C/S A.001 (DDP) defines an MCC service area as “that part of
|
||
the world within which a Cospas-Sarsat alert data distribution service is provided
|
||
by that MCC”. An MCC service area is described in the DDP as a list of SAR
|
||
Points of Contact (SPOCs) designated by States to interface with Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
that receive Cospas-Sarsat distress alerts from that MCC (i.e. their associated
|
||
MCC).
|
||
In accordance with the rules of Cospas-Sarsat alert data distribution described in
|
||
the DDP, SPOCs in other countries shall not be served by more than one MCC.
|
||
MCCs should coordinate with their SPOCs with a view to establishing reliable
|
||
communication links and developing awareness of the Cospas-Sarsat System, its
|
||
alert message formats and their contents.
|
||
Changes to the list of SPOCs that define an MCC service area can be agreed
|
||
bilaterally between interested MCCs after proper coordination with all interested
|
||
parties, provided that, in particular:
|
||
-
|
||
the affected SPOCs have been duly informed with appropriate advance
|
||
notice of the proposed change of associated MCC and have either
|
||
expressed their consent or did not object to the proposed change; and
|
||
-
|
||
the MCC that accepts responsibility for serving a SPOC has adequate
|
||
communication links with this SPOC.
|
||
|
||
5-12
|
||
|
||
b)
|
||
Service Area Boundaries
|
||
Search and Rescue Regions (SRRs) defined and coordinated internationally by
|
||
ICAO and IMO, are assigned to the aeronautical, maritime or Joint RCCs
|
||
established by States. An MCC service area will usually include the various
|
||
SRRs of the RCCs associated with the SPOCs that define the MCC service area.
|
||
For the practical implementation of the Cospas-Sarsat alert data distribution
|
||
procedures described in the document C/S A.001 (DDP), which demand the
|
||
geographic sorting of distress alerts, the precise boundaries of MCC service
|
||
areas must be coordinated among all interested parties. In particular,
|
||
coordination is required between a new MCC and existing MCCs that previously
|
||
assumed responsibility for the distribution of Cospas-Sarsat alert data in the
|
||
proposed service area of the new MCC.
|
||
Usually, the service area boundaries reflect existing boundaries of SRRs as
|
||
defined and coordinated internationally by ICAO or IMO. On land, special effort
|
||
should be made to limit the number of points required to define the service area
|
||
boundary and keep this number of data points to a manageable level, consistent
|
||
with the capability of MCCs to geographically sort distress alerts in accordance
|
||
with their computed location. The boundary description resulting from the
|
||
coordination of a new MCC service area should be provided to the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Secretariat for distribution to all MCCs.
|
||
It is highly desirable that adjacent MCC service areas have common boundaries
|
||
with identical geographical coordinates. Discrepancies between adjacent MCCs'
|
||
boundaries should be resolved by bilateral agreement between the neighbouring
|
||
MCCs, noting that the description of the MCC service areas is not related to and
|
||
shall not prejudice the delimitation of any boundaries between States.
|
||
c)
|
||
Geosort Document
|
||
The description of MCC service area boundaries used by MCCs to
|
||
geographically sort Cospas-Sarsat alerts are recorded in the Geosort document.
|
||
This document reflects the agreement of MCCs in respect of their common
|
||
service area boundaries, or the absence of agreement between adjacent MCCs
|
||
which results in the implementation of partially overlapping service areas.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Council does not and cannot approve the Geosort document,
|
||
nor the recorded descriptions of MCC service areas. Therefore, the geographical
|
||
description of an MCC service area provided in the Geosort document should be
|
||
considered as the unilateral declaration by an MCC, after proper coordination
|
||
with all interested parties, of the geographical area for which the MCC operator
|
||
has taken a commitment to distribute Cospas-Sarsat alert data to the responsible
|
||
SAR authority, in accordance with Cospas-Sarsat principles, procedures and
|
||
requirements.
|
||
|
||
5-13
|
||
|
||
d)
|
||
Coordination of a New MCC Service Area
|
||
A new MCC shall provide for consideration by the Joint Committee a list of
|
||
SPOCs which it proposes to serve. Subject to the concurrence of MCCs that are
|
||
already providing the alerting service to the concerned SPOCs and following the
|
||
coordination per section 5.2.2.3 (a) above, the definition of the new MCC service
|
||
area at FOC will be recorded in the DDP.
|
||
When no agreement can be reached on the list of SPOCs to be associated with
|
||
the new MCC service area, the document C/S A.001 (DDP) will follow the
|
||
previous service area definition of the MCC already commissioned into the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
At IOC, the service area of the new MCC is limited to its national search and
|
||
rescue regions (i.e. the new MCC distributes alert data to its national RCCs only).
|
||
If no significant problems are discovered during the IOC phase, the MCC may
|
||
transition to full operational capability (FOC), subject to appropriate
|
||
coordination with other Cospas-Sarsat MCCs, and undertake the distribution of
|
||
alert data to all SPOCs in its service area.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat encourages existing and prospective Ground Segment Providers
|
||
to undertake coordination on a bilateral basis to implement, wherever and
|
||
whenever possible, a common definition of the boundary between adjacent MCC
|
||
service areas, with a view to simplifying the geo-sorting process and ensuring an
|
||
efficient and effective distribution of Cospas-Sarsat alert data. Ground Segment
|
||
Providers should, therefore, undertake all reasonable efforts to achieve common
|
||
MCC service area boundaries and limit overlapping areas.
|
||
If a common boundary cannot be agreed after proper coordination with all
|
||
interested parties, the unilateral declaration of the service area boundaries
|
||
proposed by each MCC should be submitted to the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat for
|
||
distribution to and consideration by all concerned MCCs. If the implementation
|
||
of the proposed new boundaries and the resulting overlap is practically feasible,
|
||
all Cospas-Sarsat MCCs will be requested to implement the geo-sorting of alert
|
||
data in accordance with the declared service areas and ensure in all
|
||
circumstances the distribution of data regarding alerts located in the overlap to
|
||
both MCCs in parallel.
|
||
5.2.2.4 Nodal MCC Network
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat MCC communications network is organised into a number of
|
||
Data Distribution Regions (DDRs). A DDR comprises two or more MCC service
|
||
areas. Cospas-Sarsat alert data and System information are exchanged between
|
||
DDRs through a single MCC which acts as point of contact / communication
|
||
node for that DDR.
|
||
|
||
5-14
|
||
|
||
The DDRs and the nodal MCC network are described in the Cospas-Sarsat Data
|
||
Distribution Plan (C/S A.001). Specific operational, functional and performance
|
||
requirements for nodal MCCs are defined in the document C/S A.005 and
|
||
specific commissioning requirements for the nodal MCC function are described
|
||
in the document C/S A.006, particularly as regards the communication links with
|
||
other nodes in the network.
|
||
Pursuant to the requirements of document C/S A.005, a nodal MCC shall
|
||
coordinate with and act as a focal point for MCCs in its DDR on Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System matters, and provide support and assistance to developing MCCs within
|
||
its DDR.
|
||
Monitoring and Reporting Ground Segment Equipment Operation and
|
||
Status
|
||
Detailed requirements in respect of System monitoring and reporting are listed in the
|
||
document C/S A.003 "Cospas-Sarsat System Monitoring and Reporting".
|
||
5.2.3.1 Ground Segment Equipment Status
|
||
Ground Segment equipment (GSE) shall be integrated into the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System per guidelines detailed in annexes to documents:
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.006 (MCC commissioning),
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.005 (LEOLUT commissioning),
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.010 (GEOLUT commissioning),
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.020 (MEOLUT commissioning).
|
||
These guidelines state that after reaching IOC status, the operation of GSE shall
|
||
be monitored for at least 90days. When performance is confirmed to be
|
||
satisfactory, GSE will reach full operational capability (FOC).
|
||
If serious performance anomalies are noted, FOC should be withheld until the
|
||
anomalies are rectified. However, GSE shall not be maintained at IOC status for
|
||
more than one year. In the case that the GSE cannot reach FOC within one year,
|
||
its status shall revert to “under development”.
|
||
If GSE has reached FOC but then ceases to function within specifications for a
|
||
significant period of time, the equipment should be reported as "commissioned,
|
||
not operational" (CNO) until normal operation is resumed as determined by the
|
||
nodal MCC. Document C/S A.003 section entitled “Procedure for Determining
|
||
the Status of Operational Ground Segment Equipement” provides details on the
|
||
circumstances that may lead to a system being declared "commissioned, not
|
||
operational". CNO GSE shall be restored from non-operational to operational
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-15
|
||
|
||
status in accordance with the procedures in the document C/S A.003 section
|
||
entitled “Recover Operational Status of a CNO GSE”.
|
||
The status of Ground Segment equipment will be published on the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
website www.cospas-sarst.int and in the Cospas-Sarsat System Data document.
|
||
5.2.3.2 Annual System Test
|
||
At CSC-21 the Council decided to adopt Joint Committee recommendation on
|
||
determining and reporting the status of Ground Segment equipment on a
|
||
recurring basis (CSC-21/OPN/SR/3.3.5). In particular, the Council agreed that
|
||
the Joint Committee with inputs from nodal MCCs and other Ground Segment
|
||
Operators should review the status of all commissioned Ground Segment
|
||
equipment on an annual basis.
|
||
A Ground Segment System test will be conducted annually to help confirm the
|
||
status of commissioned LEOLUTs, GEOLUTs, MEOLUTs, and MCCs in the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System, using test messages transmitted by beacon simulators and
|
||
the test script defined in the document C/S A.003 "Cospas-Sarsat System
|
||
Monitoring and Reporting". Each Ground Segment operator should coordinate
|
||
with their associated nodal MCC and report to the Joint Committee the results
|
||
of its Ground Segment equipment processing of the test transmissions. The Joint
|
||
Committee shall make recommendations to the Council in respect of possible
|
||
changes to the status of Ground Segment equipment.
|
||
5.2.3.3 Changes to Ground Segment Equipment Status
|
||
Changes to Ground Segment equipment status should be reported by Ground
|
||
Segment Providers per the requirements of document C/S A.003.
|
||
The Secretariat will update the status of Ground Segment equipment published
|
||
on the Cospas-Sarsat website. However, the Secretariat shall not amend the
|
||
status of a Ground Segment component unless a written request to do so has been
|
||
documented in a Council Summary Record, or received from the responsible
|
||
Ground Segment Provider. The date of the last amendment to the status of the
|
||
Ground Segment shall be provided with the published status report.
|
||
5.3
|
||
Beacons
|
||
Article 3 of the ICSPA lists "radiobeacons, which are designed to be activated in a distress and to
|
||
transmit a radio signal on frequencies of 406 MHz and / or 121.5 MHz, the characteristics of which
|
||
comply with appropriate provisions of the International Telecommunication Union and
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat specifications", as the third component of the Cospas-Sarsat System. Following the
|
||
termination of the satellite processing of 121.5 MHz beacon transmissions on 1 February 2009, all
|
||
beacons in the Cospas-Sarsat System must operate in the frequency band 406.0 to 406.1 MHz.
|
||
|
||
5-16
|
||
|
||
However, the majority of these beacons also include a 121.5 MHz transmitter for homing purpose
|
||
and, therefore, continue to transmit a 121.5 MHz signal.
|
||
Articles 11 and 12 of the ICSPA require Ground Segment Providers and User States to:
|
||
a)
|
||
"make use of radiobeacons for operation in the System, the characteristics of which
|
||
comply with appropriate provisions of the ITU and Cospas-Sarsat specifications"; and
|
||
b)
|
||
"maintain, as applicable, a radiobeacon register".
|
||
The above requirements are also stated in the standard letters of notification of association as
|
||
Ground Segment Provider or User State (document C/S P.002).
|
||
Finally, Article 9 of the ICSPA defines as a Council function "the preparation, consideration and
|
||
adoption of technical specifications for [...] radiobeacons" and [...] "the adoption of procedures for
|
||
type approval of [...] radiobeacons".
|
||
Beacon Specification and Type Approval
|
||
The documents C/S T.001 "Specifications for Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz Distress Beacons"
|
||
or C/S T.018 “Specification for Second-Generation Cospas-Sarsat 406-MHz Distress
|
||
Beacons” and C/S T.007 "Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz Beacon Type Approval Standard" or
|
||
C/S T.021“Cospas-Sarsat Second Generation 406-MHz Distress Beacon Type Approval
|
||
Standard” provide the approved specifications and type approval standards for 406 MHz
|
||
beacons compatible with the Cospas-Sarsat System.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat cannot enforce the application of its 406 MHz beacon specification and
|
||
type approval standard, or impose these requirements on States that do not voluntarily
|
||
associate themselves with the Programme. However, the Cospas-Sarsat Party States, and
|
||
certain other States have within the procedures of the International Telecommunication
|
||
Union (ITU) frequency-assignment rights that must be respected under the international
|
||
Radio Regulations. Planned use by other States of the bands 406.0 to 406.1 MHz and
|
||
1544.0 to 1545.0 MHz must be properly coordinated in advance with the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Party States using the procedures of the Radio Regulations. These required coordination
|
||
procedures apply, for example, to beacons that have not been type approved by Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat and to planned new space segment operating in the bands.
|
||
The issuing of performance requirements, carriage regulations and the testing and type
|
||
approval of 406 MHz distress beacons are the responsibilities of national authorities.
|
||
However, to ensure beacon compatibility with Cospas-Sarsat receiving and processing
|
||
equipment, it is essential that beacons meet specified Cospas-Sarsat performance
|
||
requirements. Compliance with these requirements provides assurance that the tested
|
||
beacon performance is compatible with, and will not degrade, the Cospas-Sarsat system.
|
||
Therefore, it is expected that national authorities and search and rescue agencies will
|
||
require manufacturers to comply with the appropriate provisions of the documents
|
||
C/S T.007 and C/S T.021.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-17
|
||
|
||
To assist national authorities in this respect, the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat will issue a
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Type Approval Certificate to 406 MHz beacon manufacturers for each
|
||
model that has successfully undergone type approval testing as required in the document
|
||
C/S T.007 or C/S T.021. States may choose to rely on the results of Cospas-Sarsat type
|
||
approval testing for national type approval, as an alternative to re-testing the 406 MHz
|
||
transmission characteristics of the beacons. However, the Cospas-Sarsat type approval
|
||
procedure does not cover the mechanical and environmental specifications of distress
|
||
beacons or their installation on board ships or aircraft. Therefore, States should ensure
|
||
that the applicable requirements have been properly addressed by manufacturers before
|
||
approving a particular model.
|
||
At times, at the request of Cospas-Sarsat Participants, beacons are designed to meet
|
||
specific user requirements but do not meet some of the Cospas-Sarsat operational
|
||
requirements, e.g., the operating lifetime at minimum temperature, as reflected in the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat beacon specification, documents C/S T.001 or C/S T.018. If such beacon
|
||
models satisfy all other requirements in documents C/S T.001 or C/S T.018, as verified
|
||
in accordance with the type approval standard in documents C/S T.007 or C/S T.021,
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat may consider issuing a letter of compatibility in lieu of a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Type Approval Certificate.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Council will decide on a case-by-case basis which performance
|
||
requirements may be waived when granting a letter of compatibility, after consideration
|
||
of the specific application disclosed in the request for a waiver. Requirements which
|
||
affect the compatibility of the beacon signal with satellite and ground segment processing,
|
||
including the reliability or the quality of alert data, shall not be waived.
|
||
The letter of compatibility shall:
|
||
a)
|
||
specifically refer to the Cospas-Sarsat Participant’s request for a waiver of
|
||
requirement and the nature of the intended use of that beacon;
|
||
b)
|
||
disclose the specific non-conformity of the beacon design with Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
requirements and the limitation(s) attached to the use of the 406 MHz alerting
|
||
function with the Cospas-Sarsat System;
|
||
c)
|
||
include a statement indicating the manufacturer’s obligation to inform users
|
||
of the stated non-conformity and usage limitations; and
|
||
d)
|
||
be published on the Cospas-Sarsat website together with the summary beacon
|
||
characteristics.
|
||
The Secretariat will maintain a database for all beacon models that have received a
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Type Approval Certificate or a letter of compatibility and publish a
|
||
summary description of approved or compatible models on the Cospas-Sarsat website.
|
||
|
||
5-18
|
||
|
||
The specific page of the Cospas-Sarsat website that contains the Type Approval
|
||
Certificate and letter of compatibility information will prominently display the following
|
||
explanatory text:
|
||
NOTE: Beacon models with C/S TAC numbers in the 700-series have NOT received a
|
||
type-approval certificate because they have not met one or more performance
|
||
specifications of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme. Instead, these beacon models have been
|
||
issued a “letter of compatibility” at the request of one or more Cospas-Sarsat Participants.
|
||
Such beacons may be perfectly suitable for your particular needs, but you will need to
|
||
take extra care to be certain that is the case.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat type approval testing must be performed at Cospas-Sarsat accepted test
|
||
facilities. The procedure and conditions for obtaining Cospas-Sarsat acceptance are
|
||
detailed in document C/S T.008 "Cospas-Sarsat Acceptance of 406 MHz Beacon Test
|
||
Facilities".
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat cooperates with the ITU and other standards organisations to ensure that
|
||
international specifications and standards for 406 MHz beacons are consistent with
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat requirements. Transmission requirements applicable to 406 MHz beacons
|
||
are defined in Recommendation ITU-R M.633, in Annex 10 of the ICAO Convention and
|
||
in IMO Assembly Resolution A.810, by reference to the Cospas-Sarsat specification.
|
||
Frequency Management
|
||
To ensure that the System satisfies future capacity requirements and remains capable of
|
||
servicing the growing 406 MHz beacon population, the use of the band 406.0 to
|
||
406.1 MHz by Cospas-Sarsat must be monitored and procedures for its efficient
|
||
management must be defined. The Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz Frequency Management Plan
|
||
(document C/S T.012), describes the process, procedures, and detailed technical analyses
|
||
developed by Cospas-Sarsat for managing the use of the 406.0 - 406.1 MHz frequency
|
||
band. Document C/S T.012 includes the procedures used by Cospas-Sarsat to allocate
|
||
frequency channels in the 406.0 - 406.1 MHz frequency band, as well as any procedures
|
||
for monitoring and managing the production of beacons operating in channels that are
|
||
approaching or exceeding their capacity limit.
|
||
Beacon Coding and Registration
|
||
Beacon coding is detailed in the specification documents (C/S T.001 and C/S T.018) and
|
||
further illustrated in document C/S G.005 "Cospas-Sarsat Guidelines on 406 MHz
|
||
Beacon Coding, Registration and Type Approval". The Cospas-Sarsat website also
|
||
provides a "beacon tutorial" that includes detailed guidance on beacon coding. States
|
||
should ensure that beacons authorised for use under their jurisdiction and registered in
|
||
their databases are coded in accordance with the applicable Cospas-Sarsat requirements.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-19
|
||
|
||
Pursuant to the requirement of Annex 10 of the ICAO Convention and IMO Assembly
|
||
Resolution A.887(21), States should maintain a current register for all 406 MHz ELTs
|
||
and EPIRBs to establish the correspondence between a 406 MHz ELT or EPIRB and its
|
||
owner or its carrier vehicle. A register is equally necessary for establishing the
|
||
correspondence between a 406 MHz PLB and its owner or user.
|
||
The country code is the only information in the beacon message that can provide a link
|
||
to the administration maintaining the beacon registration database. Therefore, to enable
|
||
SAR services to retrieve pertinent registration data, the country code encoded in the
|
||
beacon message must be that of the country maintaining the registration database
|
||
(CSC-23/OPN/SR/4.1.20).
|
||
States are requested to provide IMO, ICAO, as appropriate, and Cospas-Sarsat with the
|
||
details of their beacon register's point of contact where SAR services can obtain
|
||
information on the ship, or aircraft carrying a transmitting beacon, or the owner of a PLB.
|
||
The information contained in the beacon register should be available to SAR services
|
||
24 hours / day and 7 days / week to facilitate the expeditious processing of Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
distress alerts.
|
||
When available, information on national registers' points of contact will be published on
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat website www.cospas-sarsat.int. In addition, the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Secretariat will maintain the document C/S S.007 "Handbook of Beacon Regulations",
|
||
which includes available information on administrative contacts for beacon coding and
|
||
registration in each country.
|
||
International Beacon Registration Database (IBRD)
|
||
Despite the clear advantage of registration, a significant number of beacons are not
|
||
properly registered due to a lack of registration facilities in a number of countries.
|
||
Furthermore, a number of beacon registers do not have 24-hour points of contact easily
|
||
accessible by SAR services. Therefore, the Cospas-Sarsat Council decided at its CSC-33
|
||
Session (CSC-33/OPN/SR/4.4.8) to proceed with establishing an International Beacon
|
||
Registration Database (IBRD).
|
||
5.3.4.1 International Regulations and Purpose of the IBRD
|
||
IMO policy, as stated in IMO Assembly Resolution A.887(21), adopted on
|
||
25 November 1999, provides in paragraph 2 that “every State requiring or
|
||
allowing the use of these GMDSS systems should make suitable arrangements
|
||
for ensuring registrations of these identities are made, maintained and enforced.”
|
||
These arrangements are further clarified in paragraph 12 which provides that
|
||
“Every State should maintain a suitable national database or co-ordinate with
|
||
other States of their geographical area to maintain a joint database”.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5-20
|
||
|
||
ICAO policy on registration of ELTs is contained in Chapter 5 of the ICAO
|
||
Convention, which provides that “States shall make arrangements for a 406 MHz
|
||
ELT register. Register information regarding the ELT shall be immediately
|
||
available to search and rescue authorities. States shall ensure that the register is
|
||
updated whenever necessary.”
|
||
It is, therefore, the sole responsibility of States to provide the appropriate
|
||
regulatory environment, facilities and resources that are required for an effective
|
||
registration process. The IBRD is a means designed by Cospas-Sarsat to assist
|
||
with the registration process when, due to a lack of resources, States have not
|
||
implemented facilities for a national register. States may choose to selectively
|
||
allow registration of beacons in the IBRD by beacon type. The IBRD is also
|
||
meant to assist States in making their registration data available to SAR
|
||
authorities on a 24-hour basis, 7 days per week. However, it is not designed to
|
||
become the unique central repository for beacon registration data.
|
||
In providing the IBRD and making the IBRD available to States and users under
|
||
their jurisdiction, Cospas-Sarsat does not accept or take over the specific
|
||
responsibilities of States as stated by IMO and ICAO and declines all
|
||
responsibilities or liabilities that might be associated with the registration of any
|
||
data in the IBRD, or its availability or unavailability to SAR authorities. When
|
||
States choose to allow the registration of data from users under their jurisdiction
|
||
in the IBRD, or upload national registration data into the IBRD, they retain full
|
||
and exclusive responsibility for the integrity of such data, its accuracy and its
|
||
availability to SAR. In this regard, Cospas-Sarsat does not provide any guaranty
|
||
as to the continuous operation of the IBRD.
|
||
5.3.4.2 Functional Requirements and Operations Policy for the IBRD
|
||
The IBRD is designed to be freely available to users with no access to national
|
||
registration facilities and to Administrations who wish to avail themselves of the
|
||
facility to make their national beacon registration data more available to SAR
|
||
services. However, direct registration of beacons in the IBRD is not allowed for
|
||
the country codes of Administrations that have informed Cospas-Sarsat of their
|
||
decision to control the registration of beacons under their jurisdiction, whether
|
||
in the IBRD or in their own national registration databases.
|
||
The IBRD provides various levels of access to:
|
||
a)
|
||
beacon owners who wish to register their beacons when no
|
||
registration facility exists in their country and the responsible
|
||
Administration has agreed to allow direct registration in the IBRD;
|
||
b)
|
||
Administrations who control the registration of beacons identified
|
||
with their country code, but wish to make registration data available
|
||
to international SAR services via the IBRD;
|
||
|
||
5-21
|
||
|
||
c)
|
||
SAR services that need to access beacon registration data to
|
||
efficiently process distress alerts; and
|
||
d)
|
||
other authorised government entities or agencies for the purpose of
|
||
controlling the proper coding or registration of beacons.
|
||
The functional requirements for the IBRD are provided in the documents
|
||
C/S D.001 "Functional Requirements for the Cospas-Sarsat International
|
||
Beacon Registration Database" and the IBRD operations policy is defined in the
|
||
document C/S D.004 "Operations Plan for the Cospas-Sarsat International
|
||
Beacon Registration Database".
|
||
Access to the IBRD is controlled by user codes assigned by the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Secretariat in accordance with Council guidelines. Administrations wishing to
|
||
use the IBRD should designate a National Point of Contact. Cospas-Sarsat will
|
||
accept designations from the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Representative
|
||
or, for
|
||
non-participating countries, the IMO or the ICAO Representative for that
|
||
country.
|
||
The Secretariat will provide each National IBRD Point of Contact with user
|
||
identifications and passwords to be used by:
|
||
a)
|
||
National Data Providers for registration of beacons with their
|
||
country code(s);
|
||
b)
|
||
SAR services for IBRD queries; and
|
||
c)
|
||
authorised shore based service facilities and inspectors to verify
|
||
proper coding and actual registration of the beacon.
|
||
These IBRD user identifications and passwords should be distributed within
|
||
each country under the responsibility of the National IBRD Point of Contact.
|
||
Detailed rules for accessing the IBRD are provided in the document C/S D.004.
|
||
5.4
|
||
System Evolution
|
||
The initial design of the Cospas-Sarsat System was agreed by the development agencies in 1979
|
||
when the first Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Leningrad, in former USSR. The
|
||
System has evolved almost continuously since that time with various additions, such as the Sarsat
|
||
406 MHz search and rescue repeater system (SARR) which was not officially part of the initial
|
||
programme, or the 406 MHz GEOSAR system for which early experiments were performed by
|
||
the USA in 1984.
|
||
The MEOSAR system, which began development in 2000 and achieved initial operational
|
||
capability in 2023, provides an enhanced distress alerting capability characterised by:
|
||
a) near instantaneous global detection and independent locating capability for Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
beacons;
|
||
|
||
5-22
|
||
|
||
b) robust beacon-to-satellite communication links, high levels of space and ground segment
|
||
redundancy and availability;
|
||
c) resilience against beacon to satellite obstructions and interference; and
|
||
d) the possible provision of additional, enhanced SAR services, including a return link to the
|
||
beacon.
|
||
All past evolutions aimed at providing enhancements to the existing System while maintaining full
|
||
compatibility with earlier equipment, in particular the 406 MHz beacon specifications. All future
|
||
evolutions shall ensure backward compatibility and maintain the required system performance.
|
||
– END OF SECTION 5 –
|
||
|
||
6-1
|
||
|
||
6.
|
||
SYSTEM OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
|
||
System operation is the responsibility of each provider of System elements, i.e. the Space Segment
|
||
Providers and Ground Segment Providers. The providers of Cospas-Sarsat System elements are
|
||
committed through various instruments, i.e. the ICSPA for the Parties, specific agreements for
|
||
other Space Segment Providers and the letter of notification of association for non-Party
|
||
Participants, to operate their contribution to the System in accordance with the specifications,
|
||
standards and processes approved by the Council, as described in the System documents.
|
||
The objective of the Cospas-Sarsat System is to reduce, as far as possible, delays in the provision
|
||
of distress alerts to SAR services and the time required to locate a distress and provide assistance,
|
||
as these have a direct impact on the probability of survival of the person in distress. To ensure that
|
||
this objective is fulfilled, whenever possible, Cospas-Sarsat has established a Quality Management
|
||
System (QMS), outlined in the Cospas-Sarsat Quality Manual, document C/S P.015. The
|
||
application of Cospas-Sarsat QMS principles to System operation includes a quasi-real-time
|
||
monitoring process of the System operation and specific reporting requirements for all operators
|
||
of System elements, as described in document C/S A.003 “Cospas-Sarsat System Monitoring and
|
||
Reporting”.
|
||
6.1
|
||
Continuous Monitoring and Objective Assessment of the System Status
|
||
The monitoring process described in document C/S A.003 involves reporting to nodal MCCs the
|
||
data generated by LEOLUTs, GEOLUTs, and MEOLUTs using the transmissions of designated
|
||
orbitography or reference beacons. The transmitted data is automatically assessed on a daily basis
|
||
using a set of predetermined criteria. The result of this objective assessment, which characterises
|
||
the current status of each LUT-satellite combination, is reported by nodal MCCs on the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat website.
|
||
6.2
|
||
Annual Report on System Status and Operations
|
||
In order to assemble basic information on the evolution of the Cospas-Sarsat System, track the
|
||
implementation of the approved changes in each part of the System and maintain up-to-date data
|
||
on the operational status of the System, it is important that Participants provide information on the
|
||
status of their contribution to the System, or changes to the portion of the System that they operate.
|
||
Reporting Requirements
|
||
The status of the System, including its Space Segment, Ground Segment and beacons, a
|
||
summary of its performance and the history of detected anomalies should be reported
|
||
annually by all Participants. To that end, System status and performance reporting criteria
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-2
|
||
|
||
have been defined in the document C/S A.003 “Cospas-Sarsat System Monitoring and
|
||
Reporting”.
|
||
Information to be provided includes:
|
||
•
|
||
Space Segment status (reported by the Space Segment Providers only),
|
||
•
|
||
Ground Segment status, including MCC and LUT availability statistics,
|
||
•
|
||
status of implementation of approved System changes (see section 6.4 of this
|
||
document),
|
||
•
|
||
current beacon population figures and forecasts,
|
||
•
|
||
numbers of confirmed distress alerts and false / undetermined alerts, and false
|
||
alert rate calculations (see section 6.2 of this document),
|
||
•
|
||
MCC back-up test results,
|
||
•
|
||
interference monitoring,
|
||
•
|
||
processing anomalies, and
|
||
•
|
||
reports of SAR events assisted by Cospas-Sarsat (see section 6.3 of this
|
||
document).
|
||
Template for Annual Report, Submission Deadlines and Processing of
|
||
Participant Reports
|
||
The Secretariat will host a template for the Annual Report on System Status and
|
||
Operations on the Cospas-Sarsat website at the beginning of each calendar year, formatted
|
||
as a Joint Committee paper for that year. However, in order to allow the Secretariat
|
||
sufficient time to aggregate the reports, each Participant should submit their Annual
|
||
Report on System Status and Operations to the Secretariat by the end of the month of
|
||
February for the previous year reporting period.
|
||
The Secretariat will then prepare the draft document C/S R.007 “Cospas-Sarsat Report
|
||
on System Status and Operations” for the calendar year, for review by the Joint
|
||
Committee and subsequent approval by the Council.
|
||
On the basis of the information provided by Participants at Cospas-Sarsat meetings,
|
||
including the results of the annual System test and any reported anomalies, the Joint
|
||
Committee will prepare updates to the description of the System provided in the
|
||
appropriate System documents and on the Cospas-Sarsat website. When Participants,
|
||
including the provider of a System component, agree on the proposed change to the
|
||
description of the status of this System component, the agreement and the amended status
|
||
should be documented in writing and the corresponding amendment published by the
|
||
Secretariat on the Cospas-Sarsat website. If a disagreement exists, the Secretariat should
|
||
follow the Joint Committee recommendation and the matter should be addressed at the
|
||
next Council Session.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-3
|
||
|
||
6.3
|
||
False Alerts and System Anomalies
|
||
False Alerts
|
||
A false alert is a Cospas-Sarsat distress alert message that is forwarded to SAR authorities,
|
||
but which does not correspond to an actual distress situation. Every false alert represents
|
||
a waste of valuable SAR resources since each must be investigated by SAR services
|
||
before the case can be closed. Additionally, a high false alert rate causes SAR services to
|
||
question the reliability and integrity of all Cospas-Sarsat data.
|
||
Investigation into false alerts revealed the following typical causes:
|
||
a)
|
||
beacon mishandling (e.g., improper testing, storage or disposal);
|
||
b)
|
||
beacon malfunctions (e.g., faulty activation switch, water ingress, or
|
||
electronics malfunction);
|
||
c)
|
||
mounting failures; and
|
||
d)
|
||
extreme environmental conditions.
|
||
In view of their impact, Cospas-Sarsat has developed a comprehensive false alert
|
||
monitoring and reporting programme, which is described in the document C/S A.003
|
||
(System monitoring and reporting). This programme provides guidance to Participants
|
||
for tracking and reporting the number and the causes of false alerts. The information
|
||
obtained from this programme is reported to international organisations (i.e. IMO) to seek
|
||
their assistance in reducing the number of false alerts through education programmes. It
|
||
is also used by Cospas-Sarsat for developing enhancements to the System that help reduce
|
||
the number and / or impact of false alerts on SAR services.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat currently reports two false alert rates:
|
||
a)
|
||
the ratio of false alerts to the total number of alerts transmitted to SAR
|
||
services, i.e. the “SAR” false alert rate; and
|
||
b)
|
||
the ratio of false alerts to the estimated beacon population, i.e. the “beacon”
|
||
false alert rate.
|
||
The SAR false alert rate is a measure of the impact of false alerts on SAR services.
|
||
However, because this rate is traditionally high (around 95% or more) in all automatic
|
||
alerting systems, a large reduction in the number of false alerts would translate into a
|
||
much smaller reduction of the rate. Therefore, a better appreciation of the impact of false
|
||
alerts can be derived using the ratio of actual distress alerts to the total number of alerts,
|
||
e.g.:
|
||
•
|
||
SAR false alert rate of 98% = one real distress for 50 Cospas-Sarsat alerts,
|
||
•
|
||
SAR false alert rate of 96% = one real distress for 25 Cospas-Sarsat alerts,
|
||
•
|
||
SAR false alert rate of 90% = one real distress for 10 Cospas-Sarsat alerts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-4
|
||
|
||
A reduction of the SAR false alert rate from 98% to 90% would correspond to a reduction
|
||
by a factor 5 of the actual number of false alerts.
|
||
The beacon false alert rate is independent of the size of the population. It is a good
|
||
indication of beacon performance and provides a good basis for tracking global trends in
|
||
the System. It can also be used to characterise the performance of a particular beacon type
|
||
or model.
|
||
System Anomalies
|
||
Processing anomalies are messages produced by the Cospas-Sarsat system, which either
|
||
should not have been generated or which provided incorrect information. Possible
|
||
examples of processing anomalies include:
|
||
a)
|
||
beacon transmissions that were incorrectly decoded by the System;
|
||
b)
|
||
distress alert messages that might be generated from the incorrect processing
|
||
of 406 MHz interferers; and
|
||
c)
|
||
large Doppler location errors, which may be caused by a number of different
|
||
circumstances, including faulty beacons, detections during beacon warm-up
|
||
periods, incorrect satellite orbit vectors at LUTs, etc.).
|
||
The number of processing anomalies produced by the System is very low; nevertheless,
|
||
they do represent a waste of valuable resources since, like false alerts, each should be
|
||
investigated to determine the cause. Cospas-Sarsat has provided guidance in document
|
||
C/S A.003 for categorising and reporting processing anomalies, in an attempt to
|
||
determine the causes of processing anomalies with a view to developing and
|
||
implementing procedures for their elimination.
|
||
If a System component is repeatedly producing anomalies or its performance is
|
||
continuously degraded, the status of this component published in Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
documents and the website should be amended per the Joint Committee recommendation
|
||
or in accordance with the relevant Council decision.
|
||
6.4
|
||
Collection of Cospas-Sarsat Data on SAR Incidents
|
||
Detailed requirements for the collection of Cospas-Sarsat data on SAR incidents are listed in the
|
||
document C/S A.003 "Cospas-Sarsat System Monitoring and Reporting".
|
||
Distress Incident Report for Documentation of SAR Events and Persons
|
||
Rescued
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat collects reports from Participants on SAR events and the rescue of persons
|
||
in order to assess the effectiveness of the Cospas-Sarsat System and its contribution to
|
||
search and rescue. Participant reports should be provided to the Secretariat quarterly. The
|
||
Secretariat will collate the reports for review by Participants at the Joint Committee.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-5
|
||
|
||
These reports will form part of the document C/S R.007 Cospas-Sarsat Report on System
|
||
Status and Operations and, after approval of the C/S R.007 Report by the Council, will
|
||
be posted on the Cospas-Sarsat website. Summary statistics will be published in the
|
||
annual Cospas-Sarsat System Data Document and Information Bulletin.
|
||
Collecting and Reporting Data for SAR Event Analysis
|
||
Occasionally, a distress event might be of particular interest and in such circumstances a
|
||
Participant or ICAO or IMO representative could request that the Council Chairperson
|
||
instruct the Secretariat to request MCC operators to collect data pertaining to that incident.
|
||
The procedure for collecting Cospas-Sarsat data and the list of data to be collected for
|
||
SAR event analysis are specified in Annex G, “Collecting and Reporting Data for SAR
|
||
Event Analysis”, of document C/S A.003. The data collected should allow a detailed
|
||
analysis of the status of the Space and Ground Segments, communications in the Ground
|
||
Segment, System and beacon performance at the time of the incident, and include a
|
||
detailed record of GEOLUT, LEOLUT, MEOLUT, and MCC data processing.
|
||
When a request has been made for the collection of data for SAR incident analysis,
|
||
Ground Segment operators should ensure that the source data from their Ground Segment
|
||
equipment is preserved and archived for subsequent analysis and documentation, should
|
||
the Council request additional investigation of the event.
|
||
6.5
|
||
Changes to System Specifications, Ground Segment Requirements and Standards
|
||
It is important to monitor the system’s stability and control its evolution. A well-defined process
|
||
of change management ensures that only those changes which have a significant, cost effective
|
||
impact on Cospas-Sarsat are approved for implementation. Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 provide an
|
||
overview of the management of change within the Cospas-Sarsat System. The change management
|
||
process begins with proposals to change elements of the Ground Segment, Space Segment, beacon
|
||
specifications or beacon type approval standards by participants to the Joint Committee (JC) or
|
||
specifically established Task Groups (TG).
|
||
Based on participants’ proposals or TG reports, the JC debates the merits of the issue and, if agreed
|
||
by the participants, makes a recommendation to the Cospas-Sarsat Council (CSC) for approval of
|
||
the proposed change. The recommendation includes a proposed implementation date and an
|
||
indication of the criticality of the change. Between the JC meeting and the next Council meeting,
|
||
the Participants confirm the possible implementation date and resources required through
|
||
consultations with their equipment vendors / manufacturers. The CSC has the responsibility to
|
||
approve the change and adopt the associated implementation schedule. The CSC also approves
|
||
appropriate amendments or additions to the documentation.
|
||
Evaluation Criteria
|
||
To properly evaluate proposed changes, the Joint Committee requires specific
|
||
information and evaluation criteria upon which it can make an objective decision.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-6
|
||
|
||
A reasonable set of evaluation criteria includes the following:
|
||
-
|
||
Detailed description of the change:
|
||
•
|
||
Is the change description complete?
|
||
•
|
||
Is the change consistent with current Council policy?
|
||
-
|
||
Requirement for change:
|
||
•
|
||
Is there a new requirement? If so, what is it and what is the source of
|
||
the requirement?
|
||
•
|
||
Is the change proposed because an existing requirement is not being
|
||
met? If so, what is the deficiency?
|
||
-
|
||
Performance impact:
|
||
•
|
||
What performance specification is impacted by the change?
|
||
•
|
||
What is the impact if the change is not implemented?
|
||
-
|
||
Resources required:
|
||
Information on resources required may include manpower and equipment
|
||
costs as well as an assessment of whether the amount of required resources is
|
||
considered high, low or medium. Note that the estimates provided for this
|
||
element may vary significantly for each Administration and should only be
|
||
considered for information purposes.
|
||
-
|
||
Implementation schedule.
|
||
-
|
||
Who and or what does it affect?
|
||
•
|
||
Are all members of Cospas-Sarsat affected by the change or a limited
|
||
set of Participants? If a limited set, who are they?
|
||
•
|
||
Are external entities (e.g., SPOCs, RCCs, beacon manufacturers, etc.)
|
||
affected? If so, who are they?
|
||
•
|
||
What subsystem is impacted (MCCs, LUTs, Space Segment, etc.)?
|
||
Change Approval Process
|
||
When Participants introduce proposed changes they should, at a minimum, define the
|
||
change and address each of the evaluation criteria listed above. The list of criteria will be
|
||
included in the JC document template provided prior to each meeting.
|
||
The appropriate Working Group Chair will schedule the paper for discussion in
|
||
accordance with the Rules of Procedure for the Joint Committee. The group chairperson
|
||
will ensure that the discussion focuses on the information provided by the Participants
|
||
that match the evaluation criteria. The result of the discussion may include modifications
|
||
to the change proposal to address more completely the evaluation criteria. The final result
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-7
|
||
|
||
of the discussion in the Working Group should be an agreement whether or not to
|
||
recommend that the Council approve the proposal. In addition, for each proposed System
|
||
change agreed by the JC, the Working Group will assign a change type (see Table 6.1)
|
||
and determine whether the implementation of the change needs to be tracked.
|
||
After the JC, the Secretariat will prepare a list of recommended changes for CSC
|
||
consideration.
|
||
The CSC will review the changes recommended by the JC and assess the proposal using
|
||
the evaluation criteria and the information provided in support of the change proposal,
|
||
prior to making their decision. Based on this data and the policy guidelines summarised
|
||
in C/S P.011, the CSC will approve or disapprove the recommended change and may
|
||
request further study by the JC.
|
||
Tracking and Controlling Changes
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat change management process follows the best practices and includes a
|
||
provision for tracking and controlling changes. This information is important to track the
|
||
status of changes and accurately highlight the System status outside the Programme.
|
||
The implementation of all changes that require coordination among Ground Segment
|
||
operators, Space Segment providers, or external entities (e.g., beacon manufacturers) will
|
||
be tracked. Each Participant will report on the status of tracked changes as part of their
|
||
annual System status report, using the format listed at Annex B to the document
|
||
C/S A.003.
|
||
The Secretariat will provide to the CSC a list of changes agreed to and recommended by
|
||
the JC for their review at each Open Meeting of the Council. This list includes current
|
||
changes and all critical changes that have not yet been reported as implemented by all
|
||
MCCs. The Council will use this list and the summary of changes from System Status
|
||
Reports to:
|
||
a)
|
||
evaluate the status of changes within the Cospas-Sarsat System;
|
||
b)
|
||
encourage Participants to complete necessary changes, particularly critical
|
||
changes, by the agreed deadlines;
|
||
c)
|
||
evaluate the priority of new changes that are brought to the Council for
|
||
approval; and
|
||
d)
|
||
make adjustments to priorities and due dates, as appropriate.
|
||
Roles and Responsibilities
|
||
The roles and responsibilities for the management of change within the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System are:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-8
|
||
|
||
6.5.4.1 Administrations
|
||
Administrations:
|
||
a)
|
||
propose changes to items of the approved configuration and provide
|
||
information in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed above
|
||
in section 6.4.1.;
|
||
b)
|
||
coordinate with vendors / manufacturers on cost and implementation
|
||
schedule for changes recommended by the Joint Committee;
|
||
c)
|
||
implement changes approved by the Council and provide comments
|
||
to the Council, as appropriate; and
|
||
d)
|
||
report on the status of approved changes as part of their annual
|
||
System Status Report.
|
||
6.5.4.2 Joint Committee / Task Groups
|
||
The Joint Committee / Task Groups:
|
||
a)
|
||
review proposed changes;
|
||
b)
|
||
decide which changes should be forwarded to the Council for final
|
||
disposition based on the appropriate evaluation criteria;
|
||
c)
|
||
assign a change type (see Table 6.1) to each change; and
|
||
d)
|
||
identifies changes that shall be tracked with respect to their
|
||
implementation by Participants.
|
||
6.5.4.3 Secretariat
|
||
The Secretariat:
|
||
a)
|
||
provide a list of changes approved by the Joint Committee to the
|
||
CSC for their consideration. This list will include information
|
||
provided in response to the evaluation criteria;
|
||
b)
|
||
summarize the status of changes provided in the annual System
|
||
Status Reports; and
|
||
c)
|
||
inform Participants and manufacturers of the approved changes by
|
||
correspondence or through the Cospas-Sarsat web site, as required.
|
||
6.5.4.4 Council
|
||
The Council:
|
||
a)
|
||
establish and modify, as appropriate, Cospas-Sarsat policy on
|
||
change management;
|
||
b)
|
||
review the System changes agreed by the JC along with the
|
||
information provided in response to the evaluation criteria and
|
||
decide on final disposition of each change. The CSC can approve,
|
||
|
||
6-9
|
||
|
||
disapprove a proposed change, or send the proposal back to national
|
||
Administrations and / or the JC for further study. When the CSC
|
||
decides to approve a System change, the CSC will also make a final
|
||
decision on the change type and the scheduled implementation date;
|
||
and
|
||
c)
|
||
review information on the status of pending changes approved at
|
||
previous CSC sessions and make adjustments as necessary inform
|
||
Participants and manufacturers of the approved changes by
|
||
correspondence or through the Cospas-Sarsat web site, as required.
|
||
Participants provide
|
||
status of planned and
|
||
past due changes to
|
||
Secretariat in established
|
||
format as part of annual
|
||
System Status Report
|
||
JC assesses effort
|
||
required / proposed
|
||
implementation date and
|
||
recommends change with
|
||
tentative date
|
||
Participants confirm
|
||
possible implementation
|
||
date and resources
|
||
required with vendors
|
||
and manufacturers
|
||
Council adopts changes
|
||
and implementation
|
||
schedule, approves
|
||
documentation
|
||
Participants propose
|
||
changes to JC providing
|
||
information on
|
||
evaluation criteria as part
|
||
of proposal
|
||
Council reviews status of
|
||
implementation of
|
||
change and decides what
|
||
and how the information
|
||
is to be conveyed
|
||
externally
|
||
JC reviews and updates
|
||
status paper and planned
|
||
implementation dates
|
||
based on Participants
|
||
readiness
|
||
Secretariat combines
|
||
input and provides paper
|
||
to JC
|
||
Secretariat compiles list
|
||
of changes and
|
||
implementation dates
|
||
agreed by JC
|
||
Manufacturers comment
|
||
on effective date / range
|
||
to specifications or
|
||
recommended changes
|
||
Figure 6-1: Cospas-Sarsat Change Management Process
|
||
|
||
6-10
|
||
|
||
Table 6-1: Types of System Changes
|
||
Type of Change
|
||
Critical
|
||
(Directly affects users or prevents
|
||
operators from completing their
|
||
mission)
|
||
Routine
|
||
(Indirectly affects SAR services,
|
||
beacon manufacturers but could
|
||
directly affect Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Ground Segment operations)
|
||
Corrective:
|
||
Change necessary to meet existing
|
||
specifications, requirements or
|
||
advertised system capabilities.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
LLEs, alert data not delivered,
|
||
system processing anomalies
|
||
treated as operational alerts,
|
||
beacon failure to operate as
|
||
required.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
Immediate after Council approval
|
||
Examples:
|
||
MCC configuration, ability to
|
||
archive data.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
2 years after Council approval or
|
||
agreed date/range.
|
||
Adaptive:
|
||
Change necessary to adapt system
|
||
to a change in system technology
|
||
(e.g., beacon, space segment),
|
||
system configuration,
|
||
specification, or mission.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
METOP Manoeuvres, SSAS.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
When required after Council
|
||
approval.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
New GEOSORT regions.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
2 years after Council approval or
|
||
agreed date/range.
|
||
Enhancement:
|
||
Changes improve current
|
||
operations possibly as a result of
|
||
new specifications.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
New DDP
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
When required after Council
|
||
approval.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
Location protocol beacons
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
2 years after Council approval or
|
||
agreed date/range.
|
||
Correction to System
|
||
Documentation
|
||
(Except C/S T.001):
|
||
Correction/clarification that only
|
||
affects documentation; not Ground
|
||
Segments operations or
|
||
specifications.
|
||
N/A
|
||
Examples:
|
||
Clarifications to DDP that do not
|
||
affect MCC processing.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
Immediate after Council approval.
|
||
Correction to C/S T.001:
|
||
Correction / clarification that only
|
||
affects documentation, not beacon
|
||
specifications.
|
||
N/A
|
||
Examples:
|
||
Typographical errors, clarification
|
||
to existing requirements.
|
||
Implementation:
|
||
As agreed after Council approval.
|
||
Note: Some changes can be completed unilaterally; other may require bi-lateral or multi-lateral coordination.
|
||
|
||
6-11
|
||
|
||
6.6
|
||
Interconnection of MCC Information Technology (IT) Systems
|
||
The architecture and operating concept of the Cospas-Sarsat System requires the interconnection
|
||
of Mission Control Centres (MCCs) to exchange alert and System data. An interconnection is the
|
||
direct connection of two IT systems for the purpose of exchanging data. This architecture ensures
|
||
the timely delivery of distress alerts and a robust network providing redundancy. In order to ensure
|
||
the security of individual MCC systems and the reliability of the MCC network, each MCC
|
||
operator shall follow security controls published in Cospas-Sarsat documentation. The risks of not
|
||
properly securing MCC systems includes the chance that distress alerts could be intercepted,
|
||
corrupted, or individual MCC systems compromised.
|
||
Ground Segment Providers wishing to connect MCC systems should identify the most secure
|
||
means of exchanging alert and System information while considering cost implications and risks
|
||
to operations and to other systems. Once the communication link is established between two
|
||
MCCs, it shall be tested to ensure there are no obvious ways for unauthorized users to circumvent
|
||
or defeat security controls.
|
||
On an ongoing basis each MCC operator shall:
|
||
a)
|
||
maintain equipment and configuration to ensure that all security patches and other
|
||
related updates are installed and kept current;
|
||
b)
|
||
ensure that only authorized users have access to MCC systems;
|
||
c)
|
||
conduct scans and correct detected vulnerabilities as appropriate; and
|
||
d)
|
||
analyse their respective systems to detect and track unusual or suspicious activities
|
||
across the interconnection and report their findings to other MCCs.
|
||
Appropriate MCCs shall be notified of any significant changes which could affect the exchange of
|
||
alert and System data, or change the security posture of either MCC. To maintain a robust network,
|
||
each MCC shall identify, establish, maintain, and test backup arrangements for the delivery of
|
||
distress alerts to search and rescue services.
|
||
6.7
|
||
MCC Backup
|
||
To maintain a robust distribution of distress alert data to search and rescue authorities, the
|
||
capability of an MCC to continuously deliver alert messages shall not be interrupted for longer
|
||
than one hour. Suitable back-up arrangements should be activated before an interruption of service
|
||
is allowed to exceed one hour.
|
||
MCCs should identify, establish, maintain and test back-up arrangements to deliver distress alert
|
||
and location data to the SPOCs normally supported by the failed MCC until such time as the
|
||
affected MCC is able to resume normal operations, or an alternative long-term solution has been
|
||
agreed and implemented. All MCCs should have the ability to temporarily transfer the
|
||
responsibility for the distribution of distress alert data to another MCC, regardless of any
|
||
arrangements made locally, for example operating dual MCCs.
|
||
|
||
6-12
|
||
|
||
6.8
|
||
Protection and Management of Cospas-Sarsat Frequencies
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat System makes use of the following frequencies:
|
||
Frequency
|
||
Use
|
||
406.0 – 406.1 MHz
|
||
Uplink frequency band used by 406 MHz distress beacons
|
||
1544.0 – 1545 MHz
|
||
Downlink frequency band used by Cospas, Sarsat, GOES and MSG
|
||
satellites for relaying signals of distress beacons
|
||
4505.7 MHz
|
||
Downlink frequency band used by INSAT satellites for relaying signals
|
||
of 406 MHz distress beacons
|
||
Protection of Frequencies Used by Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
In light of the adverse impact that interference has on System performance, Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
has developed:
|
||
a)
|
||
frequency protection requirements for the various instruments that comprise
|
||
the System, which are published in the document C/S T.014 "Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Frequency Requirements and Coordination Procedures";
|
||
b)
|
||
procedures to be used by Participants for responding to coordination requests
|
||
from administrations in respect of the possible introduction of new systems
|
||
that would share the frequencies used by Cospas-Sarsat, also provided in the
|
||
document C/S T.014;
|
||
c)
|
||
procedures for interference monitoring and responding to interference
|
||
observed in the 406.0 – 406.1 MHz band, which are provided in the document
|
||
C/S A.003 "Cospas-Sarsat System Monitoring and Reporting”; and
|
||
d)
|
||
guidance to Ground Segment operators for registering with the International
|
||
Telecommunication Union (ITU) their country's use of the 1544 – 1545 MHz
|
||
frequency band by their LUTs, as provided in the applicable LUT
|
||
commissioning standard.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat protection requirements have been incorporated into the following
|
||
ITU Recommendations:
|
||
a)
|
||
ITU-R M.1478, Protection criteria for Cospas-Sarsat search and rescue
|
||
instruments in the band 406-406.1 MHz; and
|
||
b)
|
||
ITU-R M.1731, Protection criteria for Cospas-Sarsat local user terminals in
|
||
the band 1544-1545 MHz.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Management of the 406.0 – 406.1 MHz Band
|
||
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has allocated the 406.0 - 406.1 MHz
|
||
frequency band for the dedicated use of 406 MHz emergency position indicating
|
||
radiobeacons (EPIRBs). Since the overall capacity of the Cospas-Sarsat System is directly
|
||
related to the distribution of beacon carrier frequencies within the band, Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-13
|
||
|
||
has developed procedures for assessing and managing the number of beacons operating
|
||
in various portions of the allocated spectrum.
|
||
As described in the document C/S T.012 “Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz Frequency
|
||
Management Plan” Cospas-Sarsat manages the use of the 406 MHz band by:
|
||
a)
|
||
dividing the 406.0 – 406.1 MHz band into 3 kHz channels;
|
||
b)
|
||
monitoring and forecasting the traffic load in each channel; and
|
||
c)
|
||
opening and closing specific channels for new 406 MHz beacon models
|
||
submitted for type approval, as required to ensure that the channel capacity is
|
||
not exceeded.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat provides as much advance notice as possible of the opening and closing of
|
||
specific channels in order to ensure that:
|
||
a)
|
||
Administrations and organisations are able to adapt their regulations as required;
|
||
and
|
||
b)
|
||
beacon manufacturers have sufficient advance notice to design new models and
|
||
produce beacons for operation in the new channels.
|
||
1544.0 – 1545.0 MHz Downlink Frequency Band
|
||
Article 5 of the Radio Regulations allocates the 1544 – 1545 MHz frequency band to the
|
||
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) for links in the space-to-Earth direction and restricts its
|
||
use to distress and safety communications (Article 5.356 refers). Under Article 5.354, the
|
||
use of the band by the MSS is subject to a formal coordination process.
|
||
It is, therefore, highly desirable that all Ground Segment Providers in the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System formally notify the ITU of their use of the band, as detailed in the document
|
||
C/S T.014, and engage in a formal coordination process with the administrations that
|
||
propose new systems for operation in this band, in accordance with the applicable ITU
|
||
procedure. Participants that undertake the formal coordination process should cooperate
|
||
with other Cospas-Sarsat Participants and accordingly inform the Joint Committee.
|
||
The existing and planned uses of the band, particularly the planned use by the MEOSAR
|
||
system, are described at Annex J to document C/S T.014.
|
||
6.9
|
||
Protections and Management of Cospas-Sarsat Trademarks and Service Marks
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat System makes use of the following trademarks or service marks in its operations,
|
||
education, and promotion of its services:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-14
|
||
|
||
Figure 6-2: The two Trademarked Logos
|
||
The above trademarks/logos are registered in several countries and protected by the laws of those
|
||
nations and to an extent under the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention.
|
||
Additionally, the trademarks are protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention of the World
|
||
Intellectual Property Organization in States which are party to the Convention for the purpose of
|
||
protecting the use of trademarks which are identical to, or present a certain similarity with the
|
||
emblems or official signs of international organizations (i.e., in this case Cospas-Sarsat).
|
||
Further, the following service marks are, or have been, associated with the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme and are also covered by the policies provided here.
|
||
Figure 6-3: Cospas-Sarsat Heritage Service Mark/Logos
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat trademarks or service marks are associated with a service operated and
|
||
maintained to specific performance and quality standards. To avoid diminishing or compromising
|
||
the reputation of the Cospas-Sarsat service, the association of the trademark or service mark with
|
||
devices or services shall only be permitted for those devices or services that have been tested to
|
||
the required standards and conform to those standards. Use of the marks is specifically allowed for
|
||
labelling, instruction materials and marketing of a specific device that has received a Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
type approval or letter of compatibility. This licensed use only applies where it is clear that the use
|
||
of the marks only applies to a Cospas-Sarsat type approved product and not to any other products.
|
||
This license authorization shall be included in type-approval certificates and letters of
|
||
compatibility issued by the Secretariat after February 2018.
|
||
The “fair use” doctrine permits the limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring
|
||
permission from the rights holders. Based on the above, the Programme recognizes the following
|
||
uses as “fair use” of the Cospas-Sarsat trademarks and service marks by Participants,
|
||
manufacturers, or users:
|
||
a)
|
||
use by the Secretariat, Participants, or Observers in approved documents and materials
|
||
prepared for or associated with a Cospas-Sarsat scheduled meeting, event, or activity;
|
||
and
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6-15
|
||
|
||
b)
|
||
use by the Secretariat, Participants, manufacturers or Observers in documents or
|
||
materials discussing the Programme, promoting the Programme, or providing training
|
||
or education on the Programme.
|
||
All other use of the Cospas-Sarsat trademarks/service marks beyond this “fair use” and explicit
|
||
authorization for type approved beacons (or beacons with a letter of compatibility) must be
|
||
requested through the Secretariat at least 30 days prior to the planned use and, if not previously
|
||
approved by the Council, approved by the Parties prior to the use of the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
trademarks or service marks on a case by case basis. The request should identify the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat trademarks/service marks to be used, the intended audience, the intended use, and scope
|
||
of use (quantities, medium, and method of distribution).
|
||
– END OF SECTION 6 –
|
||
|
||
7-1
|
||
|
||
7.
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT DOCUMENTATION
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat documentation consists of the following series of documents:
|
||
•
|
||
C/S P.xxx: Programme documents, which include the agreements, arrangements or
|
||
understandings that establish the Programme with its legal basis and
|
||
management structure, list the System components and record Council
|
||
policies in respect of the System management;
|
||
•
|
||
C/S G.xxx: General System documents that provide a high level description of the
|
||
System and its management;
|
||
•
|
||
C/S A.xxx: Operational System documents that record the detailed description of
|
||
agreed procedures and standards for the operation of the System Space
|
||
and Ground Segments, and the applicable alert data distribution policies
|
||
and procedures;
|
||
•
|
||
C/S D.xxx: International Beacon Registration Database (IBRD) documentation,
|
||
including functional requirements and operation procedures;
|
||
•
|
||
C/S T.xxx: Technical System documents that provide a detailed technical description
|
||
of and requirements for the System Space and Ground Segments and
|
||
406 MHz beacons;
|
||
•
|
||
C/S R.xxx: Reports prepared under Council direction for consideration and approval
|
||
by the Cospas-Sarsat Council; and
|
||
•
|
||
C/S S.xxx: Secretariat documents prepared by the Secretariat for its own use or the
|
||
information of Participants.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat documentation also includes:
|
||
a)
|
||
the Council records, meeting reports, and documents submitted by Participants and the
|
||
Secretariat for consideration at Cospas-Sarsat meetings, which are archived by the
|
||
Secretariat;
|
||
b)
|
||
the System Data document and Information Bulletin published periodically by the
|
||
Secretariat under Council guidance, which are intended for general release;
|
||
c)
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat website maintained by the Secretariat under Council guidance; and
|
||
d)
|
||
promotional material developed by the Secretariat under Council direction.
|
||
|
||
7-2
|
||
|
||
7.1
|
||
Documentation Management
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat is responsible for maintaining the Cospas-Sarsat documentation,
|
||
including archives. Such maintenance and archiving shall be performed in accordance with the
|
||
applicable Council guidelines and section 7.4 of this document.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Meeting Documents
|
||
Documents for discussion at Cospas-Sarsat meetings shall be submitted to the Secretariat
|
||
before the agreed deadlines for formatting, registration and placement on the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat website, as described in section 2 of this document.
|
||
The Secretariat shall maintain archives of all documents submitted to Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
meetings and reports or summary records produced during meetings in hard copy and
|
||
electronic formats for a minimum of five years.
|
||
Meeting documents should not be publicly released, unless otherwise requested by the
|
||
Council. The Secretariat may release meeting documents, except the Closed Council
|
||
documents, to the Participants' Representatives and other authorised recipients as directed
|
||
by the Council. Participants' Representatives should control the distribution of meeting
|
||
documents in their own country.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme Documents
|
||
Programme documents (P series) shall not be amended without the approval of the
|
||
Parties.
|
||
The Programme documents of interest to existing or prospective Participants (e.g., the
|
||
ICSPA) should be placed on the non-protected section of the Cospas-Sarsat website in
|
||
PDF format only, as directed by the Council.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat System Documents
|
||
System documents (G, A, D, T and R series) shall be maintained by the Secretariat and
|
||
updated according to the applicable Council guidance. In principle:
|
||
a)
|
||
the text of the main body of a System document shall not be changed without
|
||
Council approval of the revision or the new issue;
|
||
b)
|
||
changes to annexes of System documents that define policies or detailed
|
||
procedures that affect the specification of System components, their approval or
|
||
commissioning standards or their operation shall be agreed by the Joint
|
||
Committee and submitted to Council for approval; and
|
||
c)
|
||
except for the correction of errors identified by Participants or the Secretariat,
|
||
the Council will not normally approve changes to System documents that have
|
||
not been reviewed, agreed and recommended by the Joint Committee.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7-3
|
||
|
||
System documents will normally be placed on the non-protected section of the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat website in PDF format only, for downloading by Participants or other
|
||
interested parties free of charge. The Secretariat will provide hard copies of the System
|
||
documents upon request, free of charge, subject to availability.
|
||
In addition to the full text of the approved System document, the Secretariat will place on
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat website for downloading the replacement pages of new revisions of
|
||
System documents, after their approval by the Cospas-Sarsat Council.
|
||
7.2
|
||
Document Holders
|
||
Each Participant in the Cospas-Sarsat System may nominate a document holder to receive all
|
||
updates to approved System documents.
|
||
A full set of the approved System documents will be provided upon request to the designated
|
||
document holder of Participants after they have officially become associated with the programme.
|
||
The Secretariat will send replacement pages of existing System documents or new System
|
||
documents to document holders only upon request.
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Participants should advise the Secretariat of any changes to the designated
|
||
document holder(s) in their country.
|
||
7.3
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Website
|
||
The Secretariat maintains the Cospas-Sarsat website in the three languages of the Programme in
|
||
accordance with Council guidance. The website provides a description of the Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
System and Programme, and includes information on:
|
||
a)
|
||
System operations, including SAR operations assisted by Cospas-Sarsat alert and
|
||
location data; and
|
||
b)
|
||
issues of interest to Cospas-Sarsat Participants, Administrations, SAR services and
|
||
users of the System.
|
||
The website provides a 406 MHz beacon decoding facility and information and national points of
|
||
contact for beacon coding registration. The list of type approved beacon models, with a summary
|
||
description of each model, and the list of points of contact for beacon manufacturers shall also be
|
||
provided and maintained on the Cospas-Sarsat website by the Secretariat. System documents
|
||
approved by the Council shall be freely accessible on the website for downloading, except as
|
||
otherwise directed by the Council.
|
||
Contact details for MCCs, SPOCs, national beacon registers, and administrative contacts for
|
||
beacon matters, are available on the Cospas-Sarsat website. The Secretariat shall immediately
|
||
update the website to reflect new contact information provided by Participants. The Secretariat
|
||
shall confirm information received from other parties with the associated MCC before updating
|
||
the Cospas-Sarsat website.
|
||
|
||
7-4
|
||
|
||
Meeting documents and reports can be accessed via password in protected areas of the website.
|
||
The Secretariat shall maintain password protected areas on the Cospas-Sarsat website:
|
||
a)
|
||
the first area will contain Council meeting documents or other sensitive information
|
||
and will be accessible by Participants only (i.e. States and organisations formally
|
||
associated with the Programme); and
|
||
b)
|
||
the second area will contain Joint Committee and Task Group meeting documents and
|
||
will be accessible by Participants and other interested parties, including organisations
|
||
that have received observer status at Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee meetings.
|
||
The Secretariat will issue passwords for access to the restricted areas of the website to each Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Representative and their designated Head of Delegation to the Council. Best security
|
||
practices demand that these passwords be renewed once per year. To that end, each January the
|
||
Secretariat will provide the designated Representative with the new username and password by
|
||
regular mail. The new username and password will also be sent to the Heads of Delegation to the
|
||
Council and/or Joint Committee Meeting by email. For security reasons, the username and its
|
||
associated password will be sent in separate emails.
|
||
The same policy in respect of password access to Joint Committee and/or Task Group documents
|
||
will apply to organizations with observer status. The password correspondence will be addressed
|
||
to the official point of contact and forwarded to designated Heads of Delegation as appropriate.
|
||
Once a password is received, the Representative or Head of Delegation is responsible for ensuring
|
||
relevant members of his / her delegation have access to the protected area of the website.
|
||
Passwords may be changed at the request of the Representative in cases where a breach of security
|
||
is suspected.
|
||
7.4
|
||
Document Retention Policy
|
||
Financial Documents
|
||
Financial documents (including, invoices, receipts, etc.) are to be sent to an off-site
|
||
document archive facility at the end of each fiscal year and stored for a period of 8 years.
|
||
Financial documents (e.g., schedules, financial ledgers, employee files, contracts, etc.)
|
||
are to be retained in a digital format and backed up using the routine Cospas-Sarsat server
|
||
back-up rules, which include a yearly DVD or electronic-drive backup of the year’s
|
||
documents sent to an off-site archive facility for safekeeping.
|
||
Correspondence
|
||
All signed original correspondence of historic significance to the Programme will be kept
|
||
intact and stored at an off-site document archive facility, unless selected for display.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7-5
|
||
|
||
All correspondence which does not have an original signature and is more than 5 years
|
||
old is to be digitally archived locally on the Secretariat servers (all paper copies will be
|
||
destroyed or recycled).
|
||
All correspondence papers less than 5 years old will have one physical copy housed at the
|
||
Secretariat offices and one digital copy will be held on the Secretariat servers.
|
||
Meeting Reports and Report Annexes
|
||
One physical copy of every meeting Report is to be stored at the Secretariat, indefinitely.
|
||
One digital copy of every meeting Report will be housed on the archive portion of the
|
||
Secretariat Server and backed up using the routine Cospas-Sarsat server back-up rules,
|
||
which include a yearly DVD or electronic-drive backup of the year’s documents sent to
|
||
an off-site archive facility for safekeeping.
|
||
Meeting Documents
|
||
One physical copy of all meeting documents less than 5 years old is to be stored on the
|
||
Secretariat premises.
|
||
One physical copy of all correspondence in regard to meetings held less than five years
|
||
ago will be stored on the Secretariat premises.
|
||
All documents submitted to Programme meetings are to be digitized and stored
|
||
indefinitely on the Secretariat server and backed up using the routine Cospas-Sarsat server
|
||
back-up rules, which include a yearly DVD or electronic-drive backup of the year’s
|
||
documents sent to an off-site archive facility for safekeeping.
|
||
– END OF SECTION 7 –
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
ANNEXES TO THE
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT PROGRAMME
|
||
MANAGEMENT POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
C/S P.011
|
||
|
||
A-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX A:
|
||
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
|
||
A full list of acronyms can be found in document C/S S.011 – Glossary.
|
||
- END OF ANNEX A -
|
||
|
||
B-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX B: RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COSPAS-SARSAT COUNCIL
|
||
PART I - COMPOSITION
|
||
Rule 1: Participation and Attendance
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council, established in accordance with Article 7 of the International Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Programme Agreement, shall be composed of one Representative from each
|
||
Party. The Representative may be accompanied by deputies, technical advisers, and
|
||
industry representatives who are the members of the delegation of his/her Party.
|
||
B.
|
||
Representatives of the Parties shall be accredited to participate in the Council either
|
||
on a permanent basis or for a limited number of sessions. A competent national
|
||
authority shall accredit the Representative by letter, telex or telegraph addressed to
|
||
other Parties through the Secretariat. The Representative shall notify the Secretariat
|
||
of the names and functions of the members of his/her delegation, before the
|
||
beginning of the session.
|
||
C.
|
||
The Head of the Secretariat, as well as the Secretariat staff, shall attend Council
|
||
sessions and support the Council as requested.
|
||
D.
|
||
The Chairperson of any subsidiary organ of the Council may be invited to attend a
|
||
Council session. Other entities may attend as the Parties may decide by consensus
|
||
to invite.
|
||
E.
|
||
The Representative of a Party must ensure that members of his/her delegation
|
||
represent the views of the Party and speak under the authority of that
|
||
Representative.
|
||
PART II - SESSIONS
|
||
Rule 2: Location of Sessions
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council shall meet at the location of the Secretariat unless the Council decides
|
||
otherwise.
|
||
B.
|
||
Sessions may be held elsewhere provided the prospective host agrees to defray the
|
||
additional expense involved.
|
||
Rule 3: Regular Sessions
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council shall meet as often as may prove necessary for the efficient discharge
|
||
of its functions but not less than once in any twelve-month period.
|
||
|
||
B-2
|
||
|
||
B.
|
||
The Council shall normally decide at each session the date of the following session.
|
||
C.
|
||
Council sessions shall consist of open and / or closed meetings.
|
||
D.
|
||
Closed meetings shall be restricted to the Parties.
|
||
Rule 4: Extraordinary Sessions
|
||
A.
|
||
Party can at any time seek the concurrence of the other Parties for the convening of
|
||
an extraordinary session stating the purpose for which the session is required.
|
||
B.
|
||
The extraordinary session of the Council shall be convened as soon as practicable
|
||
with the concurrence of all the other Parties.
|
||
PART III - OFFICERS
|
||
Rule 5: Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
|
||
A.
|
||
A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be selected from among the
|
||
Representatives of the Parties on a rotational basis.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall remain in office for two (2) successive
|
||
regular sessions of the Council. The Vice-Chairperson will normally succeed the
|
||
Chairperson in office.
|
||
C.
|
||
If the Chairperson is unable to carry out his/her duties, the Vice-Chairperson shall
|
||
take over the functions of the Chairperson.
|
||
D.
|
||
The Chairperson of the Council remains the Representative of his/her Party and
|
||
shall designate a deputy from his/her delegation to present the views of his/her Party
|
||
as appropriate. In the event the Chairperson chooses to present his/her Party's
|
||
position in any meeting, he/she shall indicate clearly that he/she is doing so as
|
||
Representative of his/her Party
|
||
Rule 6: Responsibilities of the Chairperson
|
||
A.
|
||
The Chairperson shall exercise his/her responsibilities under the authority of the
|
||
Council.
|
||
B.
|
||
During the meetings of the Council, the Chairperson shall act in accordance with
|
||
customary practice. The Chairperson shall open and close the meetings, direct the
|
||
deliberations, give the floor to speakers in the order in which they request it, strive
|
||
to seek unanimous approval and announce decisions adopted and prepare and issue
|
||
a Summary Record.
|
||
C.
|
||
Between the Council sessions, the Chairperson shall:
|
||
-
|
||
ensure, in cooperation with the Secretariat, the preparation and distribution of
|
||
Council documents;
|
||
|
||
B-3
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
ensure the coordination with each Party's Representative before taking action
|
||
on behalf of the Council towards either the Secretariat or third parties.
|
||
PART IV - PROCEDURE FOR THE SESSIONS
|
||
Rule 7: Session Preparation
|
||
A.
|
||
Agenda:
|
||
A.1 Provisional agenda items for the next regular Council session shall be established
|
||
at the conclusion of the session.
|
||
A.2 Additional items may be added to the provisional agenda at the request of a Party
|
||
up to 90 days prior to the opening date of the Council session.
|
||
A.3 The Council may add items relating to urgent matters at any time upon agreement
|
||
of all Representatives of the Parties.
|
||
A.4 The Head of the Secretariat shall prepare the provisional agenda of the Council
|
||
session under the direction of the Chairperson, and distribute the provisional agenda
|
||
at least six weeks before the date of the Session.
|
||
A.5 The provisional agenda will be subject to the approval of the Council as the first
|
||
item of business of the session.
|
||
B.
|
||
Documents for Council Sessions:
|
||
B.1 Council papers addressing items of the provisional agenda that recommend changes
|
||
to System technology, current operations or policy shall be submitted to the
|
||
Secretariat for translation, formatting and distribution at least four weeks prior to
|
||
the opening date of the Council session. The Secretariat shall make these documents
|
||
available to Representatives as soon as possible, in accordance with Council
|
||
guidance.
|
||
B.2 Council papers submitted for information only or in response to another document
|
||
submitted in accordance with Rule B.1, shall be provided to the Secretariat not later
|
||
than two weeks before the opening date of the Council session.
|
||
B.3 When documents are submitted after the applicable deadlines, the Chairperson of
|
||
the Council may decide, in conjunction with the Secretariat, either to accept these
|
||
documents if they address an urgent matter or to defer their consideration until the
|
||
next session of the Council.
|
||
B.4 Information papers submitted for establishing proposed agenda items for
|
||
subsequent sessions may be presented during a Council session.
|
||
|
||
B-4
|
||
|
||
Rule 8: Quorum
|
||
A quorum shall consist of the Representatives of all of the Parties.
|
||
Rule 9: Proceedings
|
||
A.
|
||
Representatives of the Parties may submit proposals for Council discussion during
|
||
the course of a Council session.
|
||
B.
|
||
Proposals relating to procedural motions and points of order shall be given priority.
|
||
C.
|
||
No commercial marketing activity shall take place during the sessions of the
|
||
Council. However, presentations on commercial products for the purpose of
|
||
providing technical information to delegates may be made at the request of Party
|
||
Representatives, or Heads of Delegations from Non-Party Participants, with the
|
||
approval of the Chairman of the Council.
|
||
Rule 10: Council Decisions
|
||
A.
|
||
Only Representatives of the Parties may participate in Council decision-making.
|
||
B.
|
||
Decisions of the Council shall be taken unanimously.
|
||
Rule 11: Council Records
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council shall approve official documents and, before the end of each session,
|
||
a Summary Record.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Summary Record approved by the Council shall be the only official record of
|
||
a Council session.
|
||
C.
|
||
A Representative of a Party may request the inclusion of his/her statement in the
|
||
Summary Record.
|
||
D.
|
||
Items of the Summary Record shall be recorded as “NOTED” and “DECIDED”.
|
||
(i)
|
||
The following shall be recorded as “NOTED”:
|
||
-
|
||
reports and proposals submitted for Council consideration;
|
||
-
|
||
the principal relevant points raised during the course of the discussion.
|
||
(ii)
|
||
The decisions taken by the Council shall be recorded as “DECIDED”.
|
||
(iii) The Recommendations and Resolutions approved by the Council shall be
|
||
appended to the Summary Record in the form of annexes, except for System
|
||
documents or revisions of System documents submitted to Council for
|
||
approval in accordance with Rule 11.E.
|
||
E.
|
||
Draft of new System documents, or draft revisions of System documents prepared
|
||
by subsidiary organs upon request of the Council and submitted for approval in
|
||
|
||
B-5
|
||
|
||
accordance with these Rules of Procedure, shall not be appended to the Summary
|
||
Record of the Council session after approval, unless they are amended during the
|
||
Session. Only amendments made during the Session to the draft System documents
|
||
or to the draft revisions of the System documents submitted to the Council shall be
|
||
included as annexes to the Summary Record.
|
||
PART V – NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS
|
||
Rule 12:
|
||
A.
|
||
Non-Party Participants having met the requirements of Article 11 or Article 12 of
|
||
the Agreement are entitled to attend Open Council meetings, receive all the relevant
|
||
documents pertaining to the meeting, submit papers, propose agenda items and
|
||
participate in the discussion.
|
||
B.
|
||
Heads of Delegations of Non-Party Participants attending meetings of the
|
||
Programme shall be accredited as representing these Non-Party Participants either
|
||
on a permanent basis or for a limited number of sessions. The Head of Delegation
|
||
shall be accredited by competent national authority by letter, telex or telegraph
|
||
addressed to the Secretariat.
|
||
C.
|
||
The Council may invite national agencies and international organizations to attend
|
||
its open meetings on mutually agreed terms and conditions.
|
||
D.
|
||
Each Head of Delegation shall notify the Secretariat of the names and functions of
|
||
members of his/her delegation before the beginning of the session.
|
||
E.
|
||
Heads of Delegations may invite deputies, technical advisers and industry
|
||
representatives to attend Council meetings as part of his/her delegation. Each Head
|
||
of Delegation must ensure that technical advisers and industry representatives from
|
||
his/her delegation represent the views of the Participant, and speak under the
|
||
authority of that Head of Delegation.
|
||
PART VI - SUBSIDIARY ORGANS
|
||
Rule 13: Subsidiary Organs
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council may establish subsidiary organs according to Article 7.2 of the
|
||
International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement as necessary.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Council decides the establishment of these organs, defines their Terms of
|
||
Reference and decides on their Rules of Procedure.
|
||
C.
|
||
Non-Party Participants referred to in Part V shall have the right to be represented in
|
||
appropriate subsidiary organs.
|
||
D.
|
||
All reports of the subsidiary organs shall be transmitted to the Council for
|
||
consideration and approval as necessary.
|
||
|
||
B-6
|
||
|
||
PART VII - MISCELLANEOUS
|
||
Rule 14: Public Relations
|
||
The Council shall decide upon press releases and other public relations initiatives
|
||
concerning its proceedings and decisions.
|
||
Rule 15: Languages
|
||
A.
|
||
The languages of the Council shall be English, French and Russian.
|
||
B.
|
||
Speeches in meetings of the Council may be made in English, French or Russian
|
||
and shall be interpreted into the other two languages.
|
||
C.
|
||
Other documents of the Council sessions may be written in one of the languages of
|
||
the Council.
|
||
D.
|
||
Correspondence from the Secretariat shall be written in the language of the Council
|
||
which is appropriate to the recipient.
|
||
E.
|
||
Official Programme documents issued by the Secretariat, on the authority of the
|
||
Council, shall be available in English, French and Russian.
|
||
Rule 16: Amendments
|
||
A.
|
||
The Council may amend these Rules after a proposed amendment has been placed
|
||
on the agenda for discussion at the Council session and adopted unanimously by
|
||
the Council.
|
||
B.
|
||
The amendment shall enter into force at the end of the session at which it has been
|
||
adopted.
|
||
Rule 17: Conflicts with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement
|
||
In the event of a conflict between these Rules of Procedure and the International
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall
|
||
prevail.
|
||
- END OF ANNEX B -
|
||
|
||
C-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX C: RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COSPAS-SARSAT JOINT
|
||
COMMITTEE
|
||
PART I - COMPOSITION
|
||
Rule 1: Participation and Attendance
|
||
A.
|
||
The Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee (the Joint Committee), established by the
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Council (the CSC) in accordance with Article 7 of the International
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement, shall be composed of the Heads of
|
||
Delegations from the Parties and from States associated with the Programme in
|
||
accordance with Article 11 or 12 of the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme
|
||
Agreement. The Heads of Delegations may be accompanied by deputies, technical
|
||
advisers, and industry representatives who are the members of the Participant’s
|
||
delegation.
|
||
B.
|
||
Heads of Delegations shall be accredited to participate in the meetings of the Joint
|
||
Committee either on a permanent basis or for a limited number of meetings. The
|
||
Head of Delegation shall be accredited by the competent national authority by letter,
|
||
telex or telegraph addressed to the CSC through the Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat (the
|
||
Secretariat). Each Head of Delegation shall notify the Secretariat of the names and
|
||
functions of the members of his/her delegation, before the beginning of the meeting.
|
||
C.
|
||
The Head of the Secretariat, as well as the Secretariat staff, shall support the
|
||
meetings of the Joint Committee, as directed by the CSC.
|
||
D.
|
||
States having met the requirements of Article 11 or Article 12 of the Agreement are
|
||
entitled to attend the meetings of the Joint Committee, receive or access all the
|
||
relevant documents pertaining to the meeting, submit papers, propose agenda items
|
||
and participate in the discussion.
|
||
E.
|
||
Each Head of Delegation must ensure that members of his/her delegation represent
|
||
the views of the Participant and speak under the authority of the Head of Delegation.
|
||
PART II - MEETINGS
|
||
Rule 2: Location of Meetings
|
||
The Joint Committee shall meet at the location of the Secretariat unless the CSC
|
||
decides otherwise.
|
||
Rule 3: Dates of Meetings
|
||
A.
|
||
The Joint Committee shall meet as decided by the CSC, normally once a year.
|
||
|
||
C-2
|
||
|
||
B.
|
||
The dates of meetings of the Joint Committee shall be approved by the CSC.
|
||
PART III - OFFICERS
|
||
Rule 4: Chairperson
|
||
A.
|
||
The Chairperson of the Joint Committee and the Chairperson of each Working
|
||
Group of the Joint Committee shall be designated by the CSC.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Chairpersons shall normally remain in office for two (2) successive meetings.
|
||
C.
|
||
If a Chairperson is unable to carry out his/her duties during a meeting, an acting
|
||
chairperson shall be selected by the Heads of Delegations.
|
||
D.
|
||
If the Chairperson is also the Head of his/her delegation, the Chairperson should
|
||
designate a deputy from his/her delegation to present the views of his/her delegation
|
||
as appropriate. In the event the Chairperson chooses to present his/her delegation's
|
||
position in any meeting, he/she shall indicate clearly that he/she is doing so as
|
||
member of his/her delegation.
|
||
Rule 5: Responsibilities of the Chairperson
|
||
A.
|
||
The Chairperson shall exercise his/her responsibilities under the authority of the
|
||
CSC and in accordance with the Terms of Reference approved by the CSC.
|
||
B.
|
||
During meetings, the Chairperson shall act in accordance with customary practice.
|
||
The Chairperson shall open and close the meetings, direct the deliberations, give
|
||
the floor to speakers in the order in which they request it, strive to seek consensus,
|
||
announce the conclusions of the discussion and prepare a report to the CSC.
|
||
C.
|
||
The Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that issues brought to the JC, OWG,
|
||
TWG and their subsidiary splinter groups are discussed in a free flowing, friendly
|
||
manner and that discussion time is equitably shared. He/she shall terminate
|
||
discussion of a topic after the discussion has allowed for a fair exchange of opinions.
|
||
If a consensus, i.e. support by all or most participants, has been reached then the
|
||
outcome of the discussion shall be recorded with an offer to include in the report of
|
||
the meeting a statement from those delegates who wish to express a dissenting view.
|
||
If after a reasonable time a consensus cannot be reached and there is considerable
|
||
division of opinion between those present, then the Chairperson shall terminate
|
||
discussions on that topic and notes it in his/her meeting report.
|
||
D.
|
||
Before the meetings, the Chairperson shall:
|
||
(i)
|
||
ensure the appropriate co-ordination with the other Chairpersons of the Joint
|
||
Committee and / or the Working Groups and the designated Agencies from
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Participants; and
|
||
(ii)
|
||
ensure, in co-operation with the Secretariat, the preparation and distribution
|
||
of documents.
|
||
|
||
C-3
|
||
|
||
PART IV - PROCEDURE FOR THE MEETINGS
|
||
Rule 6: Meeting Preparation
|
||
A.
|
||
Agenda:
|
||
A.1 A draft agenda for the subsequent meeting shall be established at the conclusion of
|
||
the meeting.
|
||
A.2 The Head of the Secretariat shall prepare a provisional agenda for the following
|
||
meeting based on the agreed draft and submit this provisional agenda for
|
||
consideration by the CSC. The provisional agenda for the meeting shall be approved
|
||
by the CSC at a Session that precedes the Joint Committee meeting.
|
||
A.3 Items relating to urgent matters may be proposed at any time by Heads of
|
||
Delegations.
|
||
A.4 The Head of the Secretariat shall review the provisional agenda of the meeting in
|
||
co-ordination with the Chairperson of the Joint Committee and may propose
|
||
amendments to the Parties. The Head of Secretariat shall distribute the provisional
|
||
agenda approved by the CSC or amended with the agreement of all Parties at least
|
||
seven weeks before the date of the meeting.
|
||
A.5 The provisional agenda will be subject to approval by the Joint Committee as the
|
||
first item of business of the meeting.
|
||
B.
|
||
Documents for Meetings:
|
||
B.1 Documents addressing items of the provisional agenda that recommend changes to
|
||
System technology, current operations or policy shall be submitted to the Secretariat
|
||
five weeks prior to the opening date of the meeting. Furthermore, these documents
|
||
should address the following criteria for evaluation of change described at section 6
|
||
of this document:
|
||
(i)
|
||
detailed description of the proposed change,
|
||
(ii)
|
||
reason for the change,
|
||
(iii) performance impact of the proposed change,
|
||
(iv) estimated effort or resources required for implementing the change,
|
||
(v)
|
||
proposed implementation schedule for the change,
|
||
(vi) affected entities.
|
||
The Secretariat shall format these documents and place them on the Secretariat
|
||
website as soon as possible for downloading by Participants.
|
||
B.2 Documents submitted for information only shall be provided to the Secretariat not
|
||
later than three weeks before the opening date of the meeting.
|
||
|
||
C-4
|
||
|
||
B.3 Documents submitted in response to another paper submitted in accordance with
|
||
Rule B.1 shall be provided to the Secretariat not later than two weeks before the
|
||
opening date of the meeting.
|
||
B.4 When documents are submitted after the applicable deadlines, the Chairperson of
|
||
the Joint Committee may decide, in conjunction with the Secretariat, either to accept
|
||
these documents if they address an urgent matter or to defer their consideration until
|
||
the next meeting of the Joint Committee.
|
||
B.5 Information papers submitted for establishing proposed agenda items for
|
||
subsequent meetings may be presented during a meeting.
|
||
Rule 7: Proceedings
|
||
A.
|
||
Delegates, under the authority of their Head of Delegation, may submit proposals
|
||
for discussion during the course of a meeting.
|
||
B.
|
||
Proposals relating to procedural motions and points of order shall be given priority.
|
||
C.
|
||
Splinter groups may be established by the meeting Chair(s), with the agreement of
|
||
the meeting delegations. A report of the outcome of a splinter group’s work shall
|
||
be made to the convening body in writing as directed by the Chair of the convening
|
||
body. The splinter group (chair) report shall be reviewed by its participants prior to
|
||
submission to the convening body. If circumstances do not permit review of a
|
||
written report by the splinter group’s participants, the report may be submitted to
|
||
the convening body as a report of the splinter group’s chair, noting that it has not
|
||
been reviewed by the splinter group’s participants. The splinter group report is
|
||
intended to capture all agreements and proposed recommendations and actions that
|
||
are the outcome of the splinter group’s work. The report (whether from the full
|
||
group or the group’s chair) will be reviewed as an input by the convening body. The
|
||
splinter group’s mandate from its convening body, its main conclusions, and any
|
||
proposed recommendations and actions from the splinter group (chair) report will
|
||
be captured in a text box within the meeting Report with the following disclaimer:
|
||
THIS BOX CONTAINS THE SPLINTER GROUP (CHAIR)’S MAIN
|
||
CONCLUSIONS, AND PROPOSED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
|
||
THE FINAL ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CAPTURED
|
||
SEPARATELY IN THIS REPORT AFTER THE REVIEW OF THE SPLINTER
|
||
GROUP (CHAIR’S) REPORT.
|
||
D.
|
||
No commercial marketing activity shall take place during Joint Committee
|
||
meetings.
|
||
E.
|
||
Presentations on commercial products for the purpose of providing technical
|
||
information to delegates may be made at the request of a Head of Delegation, with
|
||
the approval of the Chairman of the Joint Committee.
|
||
|
||
C-5
|
||
|
||
Rule 8: Meeting Records
|
||
A.
|
||
The Joint Committee shall, before the end of each meeting, approve a Report to the
|
||
CSC.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Report to the CSC approved by the Joint Committee shall be the only official
|
||
record of the meeting of the Joint Committee and its Working Groups.
|
||
C.
|
||
Items of the Report shall be recorded as “NOTED" and "RECOMMENDED".
|
||
(i)
|
||
The following shall be recorded as "NOTED":
|
||
-
|
||
reports and proposals submitted for consideration;
|
||
-
|
||
principal relevant points raised during the course of the discussion.
|
||
(ii)
|
||
The proposals agreed to by the Joint Committee shall be recorded as
|
||
"RECOMMENDED".
|
||
(iii) The technical specifications, plans, standards and reports agreed to by the
|
||
Joint Committee for submission to the CSC, shall be appended to the Report
|
||
of the Joint Committee in the form of annexes.
|
||
Heads of Delegations may request the inclusion of statements by his/her delegation in the Report.
|
||
PART V - OTHER PARTICIPANTS
|
||
Rule 9: Observers
|
||
A.
|
||
National agencies and international organisations may be invited by the Cospas-
|
||
Sarsat Secretariat, in accordance with the applicable Council guidelines, to
|
||
participate as observers at the meetings of the Joint Committee.
|
||
B.
|
||
Observers shall notify the Secretariat of the names and functions of members of
|
||
their delegation before the beginning of the meeting.
|
||
C.
|
||
Observers at Joint Committee meetings may receive or access all the relevant
|
||
documents pertaining to the meeting, submit documents for consideration by the
|
||
meeting, and participate in the discussion at the invitation of the Chair.
|
||
PART VI - WORKING GROUPS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
|
||
Rule 10:
|
||
A.
|
||
The establishment of Working Groups of the Joint Committee and their Terms of
|
||
Reference are decided by the CSC.
|
||
B.
|
||
The Rules of Procedure of the Joint Committee are applicable to the Working
|
||
Groups.
|
||
|
||
C-6
|
||
|
||
PART VII - MISCELLANEOUS
|
||
Rule 11: Public Relations
|
||
The Joint Committee may recommend public relations actions to the CSC, but must
|
||
not make press releases or take public relations initiatives without the approval of
|
||
the CSC.
|
||
Rule 12: Languages
|
||
The working languages of the Joint Committee and its Working Groups shall be
|
||
decided by the CSC.
|
||
Rule 13: Amendments
|
||
A.
|
||
The Joint Committee may recommend amendments to these Rules of Procedure for
|
||
CSC approval.
|
||
B.
|
||
The amendment shall enter into force once approved by the CSC.
|
||
Rule 14: Conflicts with the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement
|
||
A.
|
||
These Rules of Procedure shall not conflict with the International Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme Agreement, the Rules of Procedure of the CSC or the Terms of
|
||
Reference for the Cospas-Sarsat Joint Committee and its Working Groups.
|
||
B.
|
||
In the event of a conflict between these Rules of Procedure and the
|
||
above-mentioned documents, the provisions of the International Cospas-Sarsat
|
||
Programme Agreement or the Rules of Procedures of the CSC, or the Terms of
|
||
Reference shall prevail.
|
||
- END OF ANNEX C -
|
||
|
||
D-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX D: DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE AND
|
||
ITS WORKING GROUPS
|
||
(Adopted by Council at CSC-17/OPN)
|
||
D.1.
|
||
CHAIRPERSON OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
|
||
D.1.1
|
||
The Chairperson of the Joint Committee is responsible to the Council.
|
||
D.1.2
|
||
The Chairperson's primary responsibilities are the planning and conduct of the Joint
|
||
Committee Meeting. This task involves close liaison with the Secretariat, well in advance
|
||
of the meeting, to ensure that action items are properly addressed and documents are
|
||
solicited and distributed, as appropriate. Specifically, the Chairperson should:
|
||
a)
|
||
review the Report of the last Joint Committee meeting, the Summary Records
|
||
of previous Council sessions and the reports/output from Task Group
|
||
meetings;
|
||
b)
|
||
become familiar with the current issues concerning the Programme, so as to
|
||
be able to prompt action by the Secretariat and / or Participants;
|
||
c)
|
||
co-ordinate with the Secretariat all actions required for the preparation of the
|
||
Joint Committee meeting;
|
||
d)
|
||
develop a programme of work for the Joint Committee, based on the priorities
|
||
established by Council and the current necessities of the Programme; and
|
||
e)
|
||
report to the Chairperson of the Cospas-Sarsat Council as necessary, and in
|
||
particular consult with the Chairperson of the Council to resolve possible
|
||
conflicts concerning the preparation of the Joint Committee meeting.
|
||
D.1.3
|
||
The programme of work for the Joint Committee should be co-ordinated with the
|
||
Chairpersons of the Operations Working Group (OWG) and the Technical Working
|
||
Group (TWG) to ensure that:
|
||
a)
|
||
all documents submitted for review at the Joint Committee, technical and
|
||
operational issues, and action items, are appropriately addressed by the TWG,
|
||
the OWG or by both;
|
||
b)
|
||
there is no duplication of efforts;
|
||
c)
|
||
sufficient time is allowed for completion of the necessary tasks by the
|
||
appropriate Working Group; and
|
||
d)
|
||
discussions in the working groups are reported to, and recommendations to
|
||
Council are reviewed in the plenary meeting.
|
||
|
||
D-2
|
||
|
||
D.1.4
|
||
The Chairperson should publish a detailed work programme to guide the Joint Committee
|
||
participants in their efforts. Throughout the meeting, the Chairperson should keep abreast
|
||
of progress in respect to all items being addressed and revise the work programme as
|
||
necessary. The Chairperson should summarise the discussion and state the agreed
|
||
conclusion before terminating the review of an item.
|
||
D.1.5
|
||
The Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that contentious issues brought to the Joint
|
||
Committee are discussed in a free-flowing, friendly manner and that discussion time is
|
||
equitably shared. He/she is responsible for terminating discussion of a topic after the
|
||
discussion has allowed for a fair exchange of opinions.
|
||
D.1.6
|
||
The Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that documents submitted with proposed
|
||
changes to System technology, current operations or policy are properly reviewed with
|
||
respect to the change management criteria contained at section 6 of the document
|
||
C/S P.011 (Rule 6.B.1 of the Rules of Procedure for Joint Committee meetings).
|
||
D.1.7
|
||
The Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that the Report to Council prepared by the
|
||
Secretariat reflects the pertinent conclusions of the Joint Committee, highlights national
|
||
positions which Participants wish to bring to the Council's attention, and include a
|
||
complete list of actions for Participants and / or the Secretariat, with completion deadlines
|
||
agreed with all Participants.
|
||
D.1.8
|
||
The Chairperson is responsible for presentation of the Joint Committee Report to the
|
||
Open Meeting of the Council session following the Joint Committee meeting. This
|
||
presentation can be done by the Chairperson of the Joint Committee or be a combined
|
||
presentation by the Chairpersons of the Joint Committee, the OWG and the TWG.
|
||
D.2. CHAIRPERSONS OF THE WORKING GROUPS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
|
||
D.2.1
|
||
The Technical Working Group and the Operations Working Group are sub-groups of the
|
||
Joint Committee, established by the Council to consider matters brought before the Joint
|
||
Committee that are, respectively, of a technical or operational nature. Their objective is
|
||
to agree actions to be performed by Participants in the Programme or the Secretariat,
|
||
prepare recommendations submitted to the Council for adoption, and draft documents for
|
||
approval by the Council.
|
||
D.2.2
|
||
The Working Group Chairperson is responsible for planning and conducting the
|
||
meetings, and reporting on the accomplishments of the Working Group. The activities
|
||
involved are described as follows.
|
||
D.2.3
|
||
In the months prior to the Joint Committee meeting, the Chairperson should gain a
|
||
thorough understanding of issues to be considered, based on the review of the previous
|
||
Joint Committee Reports to Council, decisions from previous Council sessions, action
|
||
items from the last Joint Committee meeting, and consultations with Participants and the
|
||
Secretariat.
|
||
|
||
D-3
|
||
|
||
D.2.4
|
||
When the documents submitted for review by the Joint Committee are distributed, the
|
||
Chairperson should read and understand all papers on subjects of concern to the Working
|
||
Group, conferring with authors and other experts as required.
|
||
D.2.5
|
||
After all papers have been received, and prior to the beginning of the Joint Committee
|
||
meeting, the Chairperson of a Working Group should confer with the Chairpersons of the
|
||
Joint Committee and of the other Working Group and determine the venue (Plenary
|
||
Session, TWG or OWG) for presentation and discussion of each paper. Papers requiring
|
||
action by both Working Groups should be identified, and the handling of such papers
|
||
should be coordinated with the Chairperson of the other group. All Chairpersons should
|
||
agree on a detailed programme of work for the Joint Committee meeting.
|
||
D.2.6
|
||
The Chairperson of a Working Group is responsible for ensuring that documents
|
||
submitted with proposed changes to System technology, current operations or policy are
|
||
properly reviewed with respect to the change management criteria contained at section 6
|
||
of the document C/S P.011 (Rule 6.B.1 of the Rules of Procedure for Joint Committee
|
||
meetings). The Chairperson should summarise the discussion and state the agreed
|
||
conclusion before terminating the review of an item.
|
||
D.2.7
|
||
The Chairpersons of the Working Groups should attend the plenary meetings of the Joint
|
||
Committee and conduct Working Group meetings on the basis of the work programme.
|
||
As meetings progress, the Chairperson of a Working Group should confer periodically
|
||
with the Chairpersons of the Joint Committee and of the other Working Group and adjust
|
||
the work programme as necessary to reflect progress made.
|
||
D.2.8
|
||
The Chairpersons of the Working Groups should review and ensure the accuracy of the
|
||
meeting record prepared by the Secretariat.
|
||
D.2.9
|
||
The Chairpersons of the Working Groups should attend the Open Session of the Council
|
||
subsequent to the Joint Committee meeting to assist the Joint Committee Chairperson and
|
||
the Secretariat in presenting and discussing the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
|
||
D.2.10 At the Council meeting marking the end of their term of service, the Chairpersons of the
|
||
Working Groups should recommend a successor to the Council.
|
||
- END OF ANNEX D -
|
||
|
||
E-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX E: LIST OF ORGANISATIONS THAT HAVE OBSERVER STATUS AT
|
||
COSPAS-SARSAT JOINT COMMITTEE MEETINGS
|
||
CIRM
|
||
Comité International Radio Maritime (International Maritime Radio
|
||
Committee)
|
||
ESA
|
||
European Space Agency
|
||
ETSI
|
||
European Telecommunications Standards Institute
|
||
EUMETSAT
|
||
European Organisation for Meteorological Satellite
|
||
EUROCAE
|
||
European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment
|
||
ICAO
|
||
International Civil Aviation Organisation
|
||
ICS
|
||
International Chamber of Shipping
|
||
IEC
|
||
International Electrotechnical Commission
|
||
IFALPA
|
||
International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations
|
||
IMO
|
||
International Maritime Organisation
|
||
IMSO
|
||
International Maritime Satellite Organisation
|
||
ITU
|
||
International Telecommunication Union
|
||
RTCA
|
||
Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (USA)
|
||
RTCM
|
||
Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (USA)
|
||
UNOOSA
|
||
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
|
||
- END OF ANNEX E -
|
||
|
||
F-1
|
||
|
||
ANNEX F: LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
|
||
A full list of all Reference Documents can be found on the programme website:
|
||
www.cospas-sarsat.int
|
||
- END OF ANNEX F –
|
||
- END OF DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
||
1250 René-Lévesque Blvd. West, Suite 4215, Montreal (Quebec) H3B 4W8 Canada
|
||
Telephone: +1 514 500 7999
|
||
Fax: +1 514 500 7996
|
||
Email: mail@cospas-sarsat.int
|
||
Website: http://www.cospas-sarsat.int |