Features

White Paper: the regulation and certification of airline passenger communications systems

The industry’s challenge: By the middle of 2006, the technology will be in place to enable passengers to use their own mobile phones during flights.  In many ways, the technology does not differ from that of networks on the ground; the introduction of the service is not about the development of cutting-edge technology.

The two major hurdles that set this new service apart are the regulatory and certification issues.  No airline will be able to operate a service until the necessary regulatory framework has been put in place by national telecommunications regulators.  That cannot happen until OnAir can show that the signals will not interfere with ground networks.  And the travelling public will not truly know it is safe until the certification authorities have certified that the airborne equipment will allow the safe use of mobile phones in flight without jeopardising the safety of the aircraft.

The two processes go hand in hand.  The regulators will not be comfortable unless the equipment is certified, and the certification bodies will not be comfortable about the equipment being used unless the regulators have approved its use.

The possible regulatory approaches

It is very clear that, in order to use mobile phones on planes, regulated, allocated, GSM spectrum will be needed, just as on the ground.  The question is: whose spectrum is it, and therefore which licensing authority should regulate its use?

There are basically three different approaches to answering this threshold question:

1. The vertical approach

Under this approach, airlines would need to obtain spectrum in accordance with the telecommunications rules of each country over which their aircraft fly.  This would mean an allocation of the relevant spectrum from each country.  It would require the entire set of necessary spectra to be available, and obtained, before the service could be introduced, unless the operator can negotiate with either the regulator or the existing operators for the use of a secondary licence, if one is indeed available.  And it would require assurance

to each country, case by case, that there will be no interference with terrestrial systems.

This is not so much a regulatory framework as such a patchwork quilt of licenses to use the spectrum from countries over which the aircraft flies.

There is a clear advantage for some long-haul flights, for example across the Atlantic, in that no licence would be required when flying over international waters.  Against that, it means that the service cannot be introduced until all the countries over-flown by an airline allocate spectrum.  It also means that aircraft flying over the high seas will not be subject to regulatory oversight.  To date, certain test flights have taken advantage of this loophole to operate limited tests of the equipment.

2. The Nike solution: just do it

The system uses tiny amounts of spectrum, in sealed compartments 10 kilometres above the ground.  An on-board channel selector will prevent any interference with terrestrial networks by ensuring that mobile phones on-board planes select the correct channel to allow passengers to make and receive calls during flight.  Furthermore, the system only operates when the aircraft is in cruise.  That means that the spectrum use is minimal, and signals from mobile phones will stay within the cabin of the plane, so will not be able to interfere with anything on the ground.  So why bother the regulators at all?

Whilst this approach could be cost effective, it is very short sighted.  First, airlines are not likely to invest in equipping their aircraft before being sure that the system has satisfied all regulatory requirements.  Secondly, aviation certification authorities will also need to be satisfied that this is the case.

3. The horizontal approach

Under this approach, the relevant law covering the use of mobile in-flight passenger communications should be the law of the state of registration of the aircraft.  As well as being consistent with the aviation law position generally, the advantage of this approach is that one only needs a licence from one country for each airline’s aircraft.  So for example the British regulator would issue a licence for BA aircraft, wherever they fly.

However, for this type of approach to be adopted, regulators would typically seek assurance, on a regional basis, that such an approach will not cause disruption to their terrestrial operators or their neighbouring countries’ operators.  For this, regulators will seek a harmonised, regional level, framework.  That framework will provide for reciprocal recognition of licences issued by other administrations and the free exchange and use of installed equipment.  The only caveat is that the system must not cause harmful interference to any terrestrial systems.

The novelty in this approach, which has been pioneered by OnAir, is that it extends to the operation of services the ‘free exchange and use’ concept, previously used only for equipment.  That is because only the particular circumstances of aviation, and perhaps the maritime industry, can envisage the ‘movement’ of territory and jurisdiction in this manner.  

‘No harmful interference’

In all cases, a fundamental issue of establishing that this new system is that it does not create harmful interference to existing terrestrial telecommunications networks.  Proving the compatibility of the OnAir system involves showing both that the signals from the on-board system do not extend down to the ground so as to interfere with those networks, and that the ground networks are not visible to mobiles in the aircraft.

Regardless of the regulatory approach to be taken, this requires extensive compatibility modelling, testing and reporting.  It also requires an understanding of what is an ‘acceptable’ level of interference.  That, in turn, requires the support of the existing mobile operators. 

 Certification of the airborne equipment

Airborne equipment needs to be certified before an airworthiness certificate can be issued allowing an airline to use the equipment on board.

There are two approaches to certification:

1. Amendments to the original equipment

This approach requires proving to civil aviation authorities, in Europe for example the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), that any changes to the aircraft design, or any airborne system, will have no detrimental impact on the approved aircraft design, and thus on flight safety.  It is a rigorous process, because the EASA has as its primary objective the safety of the travelling public.  While comfort and convenience are clearly important, nothing takes precedence to safety. 

2. Addition of supplemental equipment

Some national civil aviation bodies allow third party approval agencies to make supplemental changes to certified aircraft plans.  This approach involves working with those agencies to amend existing filed aircraft plans, specific to that particular aircraft.  This process is often used to install test equipment, or to modify aircraft interiors.  It is very unusual to adopt this approach with a system that might have issues of compatibility and interference to the avionic systems.  Such an installation is very likely to have very specific conditions attached to it, such as a restriction on use to non-commercial flying, above a certain altitude and so on.

 OnAir’s position

It is theoretically possible to introduce a passenger communications service without regulatory approval and without certification of the equipment, on a specific plane, flying exclusively over the high seas, subject to various conditions.

However, OnAir fundamentally believes that the right route is a horizontal approach to regulation and a change to the aircraft design approach to certification.  It is the only route that will give the authorities, the airlines and, most importantly, the travelling public confidence that the system is safe and secure, and that it will not in any way jeopardise the safety of the aircraft.

OnAir will not cut corners by going to market with a product until there is an established, clear industry standard for the regulatory process and equipment certification.

Work in progress

Regulation

OnAir is encouraging the development of regional frameworks, which will lay down the requirements to be met for the use of in-flight mobile telephony prior to the issuing of any licenses at national level.  A crucial element in this is proving, on a regional basis, that there will be no interference with terrestrial networks from passenger mobiles on board an aircraft operating the system, or from the system itself.  It is important to acknowledge that each region are quite different and thus in each region, the details of the framework is different, albeit adopting the same basic principles.

In Europe, this is being done by within the European Committee of Posts and Telegraphs administrations (CEPT), working via its Electronic Communications Committee and its various working groups such as the Working Group Spectrum Engineering and the Working Group Regulatory Affairs. Work is also progressing in Asia where a draft framework is currently being considered in the Asia Pacific Telecommunity.  In all cases, the framework sets out that licences should be issued by the state of registration of the aircraft, provided that it can be shown that there is no harmful interference to either avionic or terrestrial systems.

The European framework is likely to be ready in March 2006.  The timing will be clearer by October/November of this year when the ECC makes available for public comment a draft Decision, which in turn will be based on a compatibility study being carried within the Spectrum Engineering Working Group.  The text of the framework is being developed in the Regulatory Affairs Working Group of the CEPT.

In Asia, the Asia Pacific Telecommunity has been considering a draft framework within its APT Wireless Forum.  The framework is expected to be referred to the APT Management Committee for approval as an agreed framework before the end of this year.

In the United States, which is not a region per se, the situation is slightly different.  In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), currently has an outright ban on the use of mobile telephones on board aircraft.  Recently it announced a consultation process with a view to amending this restriction – strictly speaking, it announced a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) of such an amendment.  That consultation process is now in train and OnAir is actively participating in that process.

In the Gulf area, OnAir has started discussions with both regulators and the technical group that is looking at interference issues.

OnAir has been working very closely with the regulatory authorities engaged in the process.  It is unfolding in a very methodical, professional, timely and transparent fashion with one clear objective in mind: the legal and safe use of in-flight mobile telephony in a manner which does not interfere with existing terrestrial networks and does not compromise aviation safety.

Certification

OnAir is focusing on certification by working through its partnership with Airbus, which is one of OnAir’s shareholders.

Airbus is one of the aircraft manufacturers that is accepted by the certification authorities as an Original Equipment Manufacturer.  In that role, it is working with the EASA to ensure that all the airborne equipment that will be used in the OnAir system meets the stringent safety requirements laid down.  Airbus, as an original equipment manufacturer follows the amendment to original equipment approach in all cases.

The work is continuing smoothly and it is expected that it will be concluded by the middle of 2006.  The next step is the agreement with EASA of the critical issues that must be reviewed and tested as part of the certification testing procedure.