MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing Aug

2007

ACP-WGF17- /WP15
International Civil Aviation Organization 17/09/2007

WORKING PAPER

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)

SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F

Nairobi 19-25 –September 2007

Agenda Items 1 & 4 related to WRC 20 07, and specifically A.I 1.5 and 1.6 :

Presented by A. DELRIEU, (DGAC/DSNA )

Prepared by A. DELRIEU with the assistance of C. DEHAYNAIN (DGAC/DSNA) , K. CHASSANIOL,
( AIRBUS) G. LEVI , THALES for the MLS tests

Definition of the MLS aggregate in-band interference protection limit based on recent
analytical and test results

As part of the current WRC 2007 preparation , sharing studies of new spectrum allocations in the band 5091-
5150 MHz under agenda item 1.5 and 1.6- for AMS aeronautical mobile telemetry, aeronautical security and
ground AM(R)S applications, have prompted the need to reassess the in-band MLS interference protection
value of -160 dBW/150 KHz, implicitly quoted in ITU-R Rec. S.1342 adopted by WRC 1997 and to
investigate whether it should be taken as an aggregate or single entry value

The most note-worthy developments since WRC 1997 can be summarized as follows:
 about four 4 years ago the need arose to better protect MLS against its own internal MLS emissions
originating from adjacent channel transmissions. Studies and testing done within ICAO concluded on the
need to apply signal to noise ratio (SNR) requirements to the adjacent channel “noise. On that occasion the
MLS SNR requirements were reassessed. They have been found 0,5 dB more demanding than strictly
required by the SARPS minimum signal specifications,
 more recently as part of the current WRC 2007 preparation , sharing studies of new spectrum allocations
in the band 5091-5150 MHz under agenda item 1.5 and 1.6- for AMS aeronautical mobile telemetry,
aeronautical security and ground AM(R)S applications, have prompted the need to reassess this limit value
and to investigate whether it should be taken as aggregate or single entry ;
 within ICAO the current interference limit of -160 dBW/150 KHz, interpreted as an aggregate limit, has
been subjected to extensive questioning. For some it appears too conservative, since it corresponds to a
level some 24 dB below thermal noise, thus it is not detectable nor observable in practice; one
administration presented a theoretical justification for relaxing this limit by about 10 dB, but the majority
view has been to wait for test results as a prerequisite before acceptance could be considered.

This contribution brings forth the requested test results. It offers further analysis detailed in its annex. It
shows that the current limit taken as aggregate can be relaxed by 15 dB to -145 dBW/150 KHz . This is
obtained by revisiting assumptions behind MLS link budgets calculations and in particular the accounting of
safety margins to ensure strict adherence to the usual 6 dB safety margin factor commonly used within ICAO
and ITU for safety of life applications and eliminating double accounting or unjustified margins. . The tests
were performed on ICAO-standard MLS receiver . They confirm the suitability limit of -145 dBW, at aircraft
level, with an 8 dB margin , even in presence of MLS “noise” in the form of adjacent channel emissions being
received in-band within the receiver 150 KHz bandwidth, including for a worst case ICAO compliant receiver
with 11 dB noise figure.

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing

 Analysis and test report on the determination of a revised interference
limit to protect MLS against in-band interference from sources other than
aeronautical radio navigation systems

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The context within ICAO and ITU- R on this subject matter can be summarized as follows :
- As part of the current WRC 2007 preparation , sharing studies of new spectrum allocations in
the band 5091-5150 MHz under agenda item 1.5 and 1.6- for AMS aeronautical mobile
telemetry, aeronautical security and ground AM(R)S applications, have prompted the need to
reassess the in-band MLS interference protection value of -160 dBW/150 KHz, implicitly
quoted in ITU-R Rec. S.1342 and to investigate whether it should be taken as an aggregate or
single entry value.
- About four 4 years ago the need arose to better protect MLS against its own internal MLS
emissions originating from adjacent channel transmissions. Studies and testing done within
ICAO concluded on the requirement to apply signal to noise ratio (SNR) requirements to the
adjacent channel “noise”. The ICAO standards and practises (SARPS) were then revised
accordingly. On that occasion the MLS SNR requirements were reassessed and have been found
0,5 dB more demanding than strictly required by the SARPS minimum signal specifications,
which leaves room to trade signal power for additional noise, thermal or interfering noise,
without having to change existing standards and equipment-units, on the ground and on-board
aircraft
- Within ICAO the current interference limit of -160 dBW/150 KHz has been subjected to
extensive questioning, as being too conservative, since it corresponds to a level some 24 dB
below thermal noise, i.e. not observable in practice. One civil aviation administration presented
a theoretical justification for relaxing this limit by about 10 dB, but the majority view has been
to wait for test results as a prerequisite before acceptance.

In the first part of this annex an analysis is herein proposed to show that the current limit can be
relaxed by 15 dB to -145 dBW/150 KHz , by revisiting assumptions behind SNR and link budgets
calculations and in particular the accounting of safety margins to ensure strict adherence to the usual 6
dB safety margin factor commonly used in ICAO and ITU fora, and eliminating double accounting or
unjustified margins.
The second part reports on the testing done by one civil aviation administration in conjunction with
national avionics and aircraft manufacturing industries to validate the above analytical finding. Test
results have supported the acceptability of such a limit of -145 dBW, at aircraft level, with 8 dB
margin . It is also shown that such a result is valid in presence of MLS “noise” in the form of
received adjacent channel emissions, and for a worst case ICAO compliant receiver with 11 dB noise
figure

2. REVIEW OF STUDY WORK ON MLS INTERFERENCE LIMIT SINCE

WRC 1997
2.1 The ICAO approach at the time of WRC’97
In preparation to WRC 1997, ICAO submitted contributions to the ITU-R preparatory process aiming
at defining susceptibility limits, to protect MLS from both in-and and out-band interference. This
work culminated in the adoption of ITU-R Recommendation S.1342 [Ref 9] which implicitly defines
two limits, for the purpose of determining coordination distances to ensure adequate separation from
MSS feeder link earth stations. The first one of -91 dBW applies to the sum of out-of band
emissions in the band 5091-5150 MHz received by a victim MLS receiver , the second one , of -160
dBW in 150 KHz is an in-band , relative to the MLS bandwidth, protection limit. Partial justifications
for these are to be found in Ref. 7 and 8 for both. This paper however only addresses the latter and
suggests to keep examination of the former as future work.
MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing Aug
2007

As part of the WRC 2007 preparatory on-going feasibility studies of MLS band sharing with
considered new services such as AMS for aeronautical mobile telemetry and aeronautical security, as
well as ground AM(R)S , under Agenda Item 1.5 and 1.6, considerable discussions took place within
ICAO, CEPT/CPG and in ITU-R 8 meetings to understand how that latter in-band limit was
established, since needed details are not documented in neither Ref. 7 nor 8 quoted above.

Central to those discussions has been the consideration on how the acceptable limit on one the key
MLS performance parameters, designated as the Course Motion Noise (CMN) angle and chosen as
the most sensitive to interference(see ref 7 , Annex 2, section 2.1), has been derived . While CMN
does not contribute to deviation of the aircraft from its nominal flight path, it does affect pilot
acceptance of the system as well as the mechanical wear in the aircraft actuators. The relationship
between CMN – viewed as a noise-induced angular error by the aircraft flight controls - and the
receiver signal to noise ratio (SNR) is quoted in The MLS GM (Guidance Material, Ref. 2), section
2.6 as :

(Eqn 1)

where:
 is the beamwidth of the MLS scanning antenna, typically, 1,2 or 3°;
 SNR is the signal to noise ratio at the output of the 26 KHz low-pass filter contained in
the MLS receiver processor,

 g is the ratio where FSR is either equal to 39 Hz for high rate

approach azimuth and elevation scanning or 13 Hz otherwise; the noise bandwidth of the
receiver output filter is calculated , following Ref. 2 guidance .
 is interpreted as a one-sigma error associated with a 2 sigma angle limit not too be
exceeded more than 5 % of the time. For low MLS received signals the 95 % limit is then
0,1°
These discussions in particular focussed on how to calculate the impact of an additional noise input
N, such as due to an interference I , on CMN , i.e. what is the additional error , or ( ),
resulting from =I, assumed to behave as broadband white Gaussian noise.
The ICAO approach used to establish the current MLS protection interference limit of – 160 dBW is
conjectured , from Ref. 4, to have been carried out per the following steps:
i) select an acceptable increase in CMN error. A criterion of 10 % of the allowed one-
sigma 0,05° error defined in the MLS SARPS and GM has been selected, i.e. ≤
0,005°
ii) use this value in Eqn 1 by taking = 0,005° and compute the corresponding SNR
, with = 3° and g as defined in MLS GM (see Ref.2,) which yields 40.6 dB; since
this value is at the output of a 26 KHZ beam envelope filter , it needs to be adjusted for
the receiver IF bandwidth of 150 Khz by subtracting 10 Log 150 /26 = 7.6 dB , thus
SNR(IF) = 33 dB.
iii) subtract this SNR to the minimum MLS signal corresponding to the = 3°
beamwidth , i.e. -86.5 dBm (see table 1 herebelow) ; then subtract 6 dB to account for
a worst case antenna gain towards the interference , which yields – 125.5 dBm; subtract
an additional 5 dB to account for cable loss which finally gives -130.5 dBm , rounded
to -130 dBm.

In retrospect that ICAO approach is questionable on several accounts :

1) mathematically , step ii) above calculates the interference SNR as the ratio S/ , or S/I
(which is signal-to-interference ratio, with = I the quantity to be determined) by
“plugging” the value = 0,005° into Eqn 1 ,

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing

 i.e. 0,005 = , where SNR= SIR is the unknown.

This is erroneous as it can be easily seen by representing as a function of with C a

constant function of and S, also considered as constant, i.e.

= . The differential is not equal to or as implied by

step ii), but to which is a function of both the CMN error limit
and the ration I/N
2) since step ii) above actually calculates a signal to interference ratio (SIR) with the

erroneous relationship = it actually ignores the thermal noise N of the

receiver; physically this is unacceptable since a radio receiver cannot extract a wanted signal
from an interference background without thermal noise being present, i.e. an SIR cannot be
considered in isolation from an S-to-(N+I) ratio, unless N becomes negligible compared to I,
which is certainly not the case here.
3) from an radio-engineering standpoint, there is no reason in step iii) to subtract 5 dB for the
cable loss since this step calculation refers to the aircraft antenna output , as is the chosen
signal level of -86.5 dBm, i.e. at the point before the cable loss. Besides the use of a 6 dB
margin to account for more antenna gain towards interference than the desired MLS,
represents a double accounting since as indicated in the Table 1 herebelow there is already a 6
dB margin for aeronautical safety.

2.2 Protection against both MLS internal and extraneous interferences

Assessing the MLS receiver ability to perform in compliance with its specifications ,
including when subjected to interference, requires that both possible sources of interference,
internal to MLS and extraneous, be taken into account.

About few years ago, ICAO on the advice of its navigation system panel experts amended
the MLS standards and recommended practises (SARPS) to better define the MLS protection
SNR requirements in the case where interference, N, comes from adjacent channels . The
need for those SARPS enhancements is illustrated from the figure 2 extracted from Ref . 10

Fig. 1 MLS Adjacent Channel “noise” and the associated need for an SNR limit for desired channel protection
The MLS ground station successively transmits data preambles using a DPSK modulation on a nearly
omni-directional antenna pattern , and scanning CW signals on narrow antenna beams of 1 to 3° beam-
MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing Aug
2007

width; the purpose of the data preamble is to configure the receiver in different MLS function
reception modes, such as runway azimuth and elevation angles determination. From an interference
standpoint only the DPSK emissions on adjacent channels , with their broad spectrum exceeding the
MLS channelling raster of 300 KHz, are considered to bring interference to the CW scanning beam
reception.
The corresponding SNR requirement specifications, applicable to the 3 rd adjacent channel and beyond,
were recalculated using Eqn. 1 above and presented to ICAO/NSP panels under Ref. 11. After a test
validation campaign, reported in Ref . 10, and after formal approval by ICAO, they have now been
incorporated in the latest MLS SARPS issue (see ref 1) under Annex 10 amendment 81

2. 3 Consideration of interference as “coloured” versus “white” noise

The “noise” due to MLS adjacent channel emissions received in the receiver bandwidth is a
combination of time-limited narrow-band spectral components of DPSK modulation and CW beam
transmissions, both filtered by its front end selectivity filters, and is referred as “coloured”.
By contrast the interferences from MLS extraneous sources, such as FSS non-GSO MSS feeder link
stations , aeronautical mobile telemetry or ground AM(R)S stations being considered respectively
under WRC A.I 1.5 and 1.6 , are continuous broadband and noise-like with a flat spectral distribution
and can be regarded as additive power-wise to MLS thermal “white” noise power.

As the result , the total amount of external MLS interference cannot be deducted analytically from the
sum total of white thermal noise, MLS internal and external interferences, derived from appropriate
SNR requirements, as was proposed in some earlier administration contributions. So experimental
verification in the simultaneous presence of both “coloured” and “white” noise is needed.
Testing with respect to MLS internal interference has already been performed and reported per Ref.
10, leaving the testing of the combination of thermal noise plus MLS external interference to be
done.

2.4 Definition of a suitable I/N ratio to protect against non-MLS interferences

As the result of this MLS SARPS change , and redoing the SNR calculations using Eqn 1 above, it
has been realized that the MLS minimum wanted signal levels are about 0,5 dB more stringent that
they actually need to be applying the above updated SNR requirements (see Ref. 11 for the revised
SNR values now incorporated in the MLS SARPS, Ref 16 for the detailed comparison of the re-
calculated versus required values and Ref. 4 for concurrence)
Because the MLS standards require more minimum wanted signal power than necessary it is
possible to “trade” that additional signal power , S - which increases SNR for an increase in N,
i.e. = I, which reduces it , so that the net result is a null degradation of CMN.
Starting from Eqn (1) above , denoting as (to avoid confusion between and d( )), and
assuming now that both S and N are variable, on can derive:
(Eqn 2)

By forcing to remain 0, an increase of 0,5 dB for S , i.e. allows to compute an

or ratio of 0,122 and in dB, an I/N(B) of -9.1.

On this basis the acceptable MLS white noise interference limit, applicable to the aggregate of broad
band interference other than MLS, can be defined as : N (dBm) –I/N(dB) .
With a noise factor of 11 dB , using Ref. 2 table G2 guidance one derives N as -111 dBm at the
receiver input or -106 dBm at aircraft level, i.e. at its MLS antenna output with a 5 dB cable loss.
Hence a limit I of – 115.1 dBm at the aircraft or -120.1 dBm at receiver levels, both figures rounded
to 115 and -120 dBm respectively.
The table 1 hereunder, which in fact updates the MLS Guidance Material (GM) ( Ref. 2 ) Table G-
2, shows that such an interference limit setting of -120 dBm is compatible with the usual 6 dB
aeronautical safety margin provision for specifying all MLS minimum performance requirements and
for all the MLS functions, i.e; DPSK data demodulation, Clearance indication, scanning Azimuth and

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing

Elevation, Back Azimuth guidance
Note this I/N result has already been established in Ref. 16; the difference between this current
paper approach and that of Ref 16 lies in adopting a single 6 dB aeronautical safety margin , whereas
Ref. 16 introduced an additional 6 dB margin in a form of a 6 dBi airborne antenna gain towards
interference , thus a total of 12 dB safety margin.
Furthermore note that this table 1 presents an additional change compared to the MLS GM (Ref. 2) in
its “DPSK” column regarding the SNR value at the line “72 % decode rate” : it is no longer the 5 dB
figure found in Ref 2 , but 4.7 dB, computed as follows :
- since each MLS signal preamble has 12 bits, the 72 % decode rate corresponds to :
0.72 = [1 –BER]12 . BER is the bit error ratio. Solving for BER yields BER = 0.027

- the necessary carrier-to-noise ratio(CNR) is given by the relation BER =

- hence CNR = ln [1/(2BER] = 2.919 in ratio or 4.7 in dB ,

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing Aug 2007

Table 1 : MLS airborne power budget in presence of interference from other sources than MLS (refer to MLS GM Table G-2)
Approach Azimuth function Elev. function Back Az. function
Angle BW Angle BW Angle BW
DPSK Clearan 1° 2° 3° 3° 1° 2° 1° 2° 3° Comments/Reference
ce (note1)
a SNR: SARPS 3.11.6.1.4, Table X2
a) 72 % decode rate 4,7 was 5 dB: see note 4
b) 0,1° CMN (Note2) 0 8,2 14,3 17,8 13 9,5 11,2 14,8
c) Acquisition 0 5,2 5,2 5,2
(Thermal)Noise Power in 150 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2 -122 -122,2 -122,2 -122,2
b KHz IF bandwidth (dBm) was -122 : see note 5
c (Receiver) Noise figure (dB) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Aggregate External -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120 -120
d Interference, I (dBm)
e (N+ I) at Receiver input (dBm) -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 -110,7 e = 10log [10^(b+c)/10 +10^d/10]
Signal required at Reciver -106,0 -105,5 -102,5 -96,4 -92,9 -97,7 -105,5 -101,2 -105,5 -99,5 -95,9
f Input (dBm) f=e+a
g Cable loss (note 3) (dB) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
h Airborne antenna gain (dBi) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i Aeronautical Margin (dB) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
(Calculated) Signal required at -95,0 -94,5 -91,5 -85,4 -81,9 -86,7 -94,5 -90,2 -94,5 -88,5 -84,9
j aircraft (dBm) j = f+ g+ h + i
SARPS 3.11.4.10.1 -95 -93,5 -91,2 -85,2 -81,7 -86,5 -93,5 -90 -93,5 -88,2 -84,7
k requirement converted in dBm
l Margin (dB) 0,0 1,0 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 1,0 0,2 1,0 0,3 0,2 l=k-l
NOTES: 1. High rate approach azimuth function.
2. 0,2° CMN for the back azimuth function
3. Provides for either front or rear antenna cable losses in typical installations.
4. Above SARPS table X2 states DATA SNR of 5dB. Actual computation yields 4.65 dB
5. Actual computation of KTB at T = 290 °K & B= 150 KHz yields -122.2 dBm

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing

 8

ACP-WGF17/WP- __

3. INTERFERENCE TESTING AND RESULTS

3.1 Test set–up
Illustrated by the following figure:

Figure 2 : Test set-up

The set-up consists of two MLS ground beacon simulators, one used for the desired MLS signal
generation and the other for the interfering MLS adjacent channel emissions falling into the receiver IF
bandwidth. The non MLS interference source is made of an OFDM (orthogonal frequency division
multiplex) chain of equipment comprising a high power (10 W) transmitter operating at 2.7 Ghz , a
frequency converter with its associated local oscillator at 2.4 GHz and series of calibrated attenuators .
Going with a frequency conversion from 2.6 to 5 GHz permits adequate RF isolation from the OFDM
transmitter output to the MLS receive input over a 130 dB dynamic range needed for the tests

The instrumentation PC is a dedicated laboratory facility designed to comply with EUROCAE ED 36

MOPS (Ref 5). It monitors the receiver performance , including its PFE (Path following error) and CMN
(Common Motion Noise) parameters as well as the decoded Azimuth and Elevation angles. It samples
the receiver output signals (which feed into the aircraft flight controls) and integrate them over a 40
second interval . It display flags in case of monitored parameters exceed their specified limits. It assesses
performance on a 95 % time basis . A message NCD (“non computed data”) is displayed in case of
malfunction, normally to be passed to the pilot display, otherwise the display is NO (“normal
operations”). The MLS beacon simulators are standard avionics laboratory equipment units
The MLS receiver unit used for these tests is a standard Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) manufactured by
THALES and bears the following identification marking :
TL 755-14 L3.1 61007797
The characteristics of the OFDM signals are summarized as follows:
 9 ACP-WGF17/WP __

- DVBT (Digital video broadcast , Terrestrial)

- 2048 carriers
- QPSK
- Gard interval : 1/16
- Code rate : 1/2
- Bit rate : 5,85 Mbits
- Occupied bandwidth : 8 MHz
Its transmit spectrum appears reasonably flat within one or two dB as shown by the spectrum analyser
display print-ot of figure 3

:
Figure 3 : OFDM transmit spectrum mask

3.2 Procedure used for these tests:

It is based on the test-plan provided in Ref 15 , which steps can be summarized as follows :
1. Step 1: perform testing on an already certified MLS receiver, per EUROCAE MOPS
36 to verify its performance, using the standard test set-up and test procedure.
2. Step 2 : repeat performance testing, at low and high level inputs in presence of
an MLS undesired signal on adjacent channel, using test procedure introduced in
Ref 10 and subsequently incorporated in the MOPS ED 36 (Ref 5). Under this
procedure the undesired MLS signal level is adjusted to meet the SNR requirements
as specified in ICAO MLS SARPS 3.11.6.1.4 (as depicted in Fig. 1 hereabove)
3. Step 3 : using the same test set-up , inject co-channel interfering signal
starting at a level corresponding to a level of -135 dBm per 150 KHz bandwidth at
receiver input. Progressively increase its level until CMN or PFE(path following
error) errors exceed their specified limits more than 5 % or any other non
conformance flag appears.
The measurements of interference into the receiver were limited to the desired MLS signal with 1° beam-
width as a representative worst case, since it is in that case when the MLS adjacent channel interference
MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing
 10

ACP-WGF17/WP- __
is at it highest. At 1° beam setting for the desired signal, the undesired adjacent channel MLS signal is set
in accordance with the SNR 3.5 dB quoted in Table 1 (column“Elev. Function”, 1° BW ) below the
desired MLS signal in the wanted signal bandwidth of 150 KHz, as illustrated in figure 1. By contrast
for the 2° beam-width setting, the applicable 9.5 dB SNR requirement makes the adjacent. channel
interference appearing in the desired channel bandwidth some 6 dB further down , which reduces the
interfering effect.
All signal settings and measured levels refer to the receiver input
3.3 Measurement results
The testing results show that the OFDM interference level, in presence of MLS adjacent channel
interference, has to be raised up to -109,1 dBm at the input of the receiver to cause its malfunctioning out
of its specifications and up to -106,9 dBm in absence . This former interference level represents about 11
dB margin with the proposed -120 dBm limit introduced in the previous section 2., part c) ..
However since the particular receiver under test features a noise factor of 5 dB, i.e. 6 dB better than the
one quoted in the MLS Guidance Material under Ref.2, it is imperative to adjust the measured I
interference levels to the case of an hypothetical ICAO conformant receiver with 11 dB noise factor.
Knowing that raising the receiver thermal noise by 6dB must be done without changing the sum N+ I
expressed in watts (or mW), the allowable interference level needs to be reduced to a level I’ such
that :
N = I , i.e. 10 11/10 KTB – 10 5/10 KTB = I- I’ with KTB = 10-122.2/10 mW

Hence and with I = 10-109.1/10 mW one obtains:

I’(dB)= I(dB) -2.7 dB = -111.8 dBm rounded down to -112 dBm.

This is the maximum interference level that would be observed on that hypothetical receiver with 11
dB noise factor as triggering out-of-spec functioning.
The corresponding measurement at aircraft level, more precisely at the output of the airborne antenna,
taking into account the 5 dB cable loss is -107 dBm .

4. CONCLUSIONS
 This paper has provided an analysis establishing the in-band interference limit of -115 dBm/150
KHz, at aircraft antenna output level, as compatible with an ICAO compliant MLS receiver with
11 dB noise figure, when the desired MLS signal is at its minimum values defined in the ICAO
SARPS . To that end it has proposed an update of the MLS Guidance Material Table G-2
“airborne power budget” by using the updated SARPS SNR specifications and by reassessing the
SNR and link margins to comply strictly with the usual 6 dB aeronautical safety margin quoted
in the ICAO and ITU-R fora.
 It then reported on the tests recently performed which have shown that an ICAO SARPS
compliant MLS receiver can withhold external interference level of up to -107 dBm at the
aircraft level before causing the receiver to malfunction, including in presence of interfering
MLS signals from adjacent channel emissions. This effectively establishes an 8 dB margin with
respect to the theoretical limit of -115 dBm/150 Khz, even in case the receiver noise figure is 11
dB .
 This implication of these analysis and tests is as follows: by taking this -115 dBm or -145 dBW
in 150 KHz limit value, as an aggregate limit value to be made applicable to all interference
sources other than MLS, it can then be considered compatible with the single entry limit of -
160 dBW /150 Khz quoted in the R.R. in several places and in the appropriate ITU-R
recommendations. The 15 dB difference between the two values is greater than the sum of the 6
 11
ACP-WGF17/WP __

dB inter-service and 6 dB intra-service splits customarily employed in the ITU-R fora to set
regulatory limits to services and systems.

5. REFERENCES

1. ICAO Annex 10, Vol 1, Chapter 3, section 3.10 : Microwave landing System (MLS) characteristics,
including Amendment 81;
2. ICAO Annex 10, Vol 1, Chapter 3, section 3.10 , Attachment G :Information and material for guidance
(also designated as Guidance Material, GM) in the application of the MLS standards and recommended
practices, including Amendment 81;
3. ICAO State Letter AN 7/1.3.87-05/3, dated 21 January 2005 : Proposal for the amendment of Annex 10,
concerning the instrument landing system (ILS), distance measurement equipment (DME) and microwave
landing system (MLS)
note : this is now amendment # 81, approved by ICAO Council for entering in force in Nov. 2006
4. Private conversation with one aviation representative of a country historically active in MLS development,
Geneva , April 2006
5. EUROCAE ED-36B: Draft Minimum operational performance specification for microwave landing
system (MLS) airborne receiving equipment, June 2007.
6. ECC/CPG07/PT3(06) 014, Toulouse, 19-21 April 06 : Protection requirements for the ICAO Microwave
Landing System (MLS), source : ICAO.
7. ITU-R, radio communication study groups, meeting of working party 4A, 26 September to 4 October 1996,
Document 4A/TEMP/84-E : Preliminary Draft Recommendation : Method for determining coordination
distances, in the 5 GHz Band, between Microwave Landing System (MLS) stations operating in the
aeronautical radio navigation service (ARNS) and Feeder Uplinks of the NGSO Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) Stations.
8. ICAO/AWOP/16/montreal, 23 June 4 July 1997, report on Agenda Item 5 , sub-item 5.2 : Coordination
between MLS and NGSO FSS feeder Link in the 5 GHz band, revision to draft ITU-R [4A/XM], .
9. RECOMMENDATION ITU-R S.1342 : Method for determining coordination distances, in the 5 GHz
band, between the international standard microwave landing system stations operating in the aeronautical
radionavigation service and non-geostationary mobile-satellite service stations providing feeder uplink
services
10. ICAO/NSP working group of the whole, meeting, St Petersburg, 25 May to 5 June 2004, NSP WGW –
WP/50 : MLS Spectrum issues validation
11. ICAO/NSP working group of the whole, meeting, St Petersburg, 25 May to 5 June 2004, NSP WGW –
WP/48 : MLS spectrum issues
12. ICAO/NSP/WG1&WG2/ IP03-NSP Spectrum Sub-group (9-11 May 2006, Brussels) meeting report.
13. ICAO/NSP/WGW Oct 06 , working group as whole meeting report, Montreal 10-20 Oct. 2006, attachment
F : Reviewed draft report of the ICAO/NSP Spectrum Sub-Group meeting
14. ICAO/NSP Oct 06 WGW/WP20 Rev1, Montreal 10-20 Oct. 2006 : MLS interference issues
15. ICAO/NSP Oct 06 WGW/WP 42 Rev1, Montreal 10-20 Oct. 2006 : MLS external interference
susceptibility tests plan
16. ICAO/ACP/WGF 16/ WP 14 , Montreal 11-15 December 2006 : Single versus aggregate MLS
interference susceptibility limits

MLS interference susceptibility analysis and testing

 12

ACP-WGF17/WP- __
Note : all references are available from ITU and ICAO sources. ACP/WGF papers are readily available
from the ICAO ACP Web site : www.icao.int/ANB/Panels/ACP