1

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

EUROPEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC OFFICE

SUPPLEMENT
TO
EUR FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT MANUAL (EUR DOC 011)

for
Aeronautical Mobile
and
Aeronautical Radio Navigation

Edition November 2016

November 2016
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. GUIDANCE ON BI-LATERAL FREQUENCY COORDINATION 3

B. GUIDANCE ON THE COORDINATION OF COMMON ASSIGNMENTS 4

C. TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF TERRAIN

IN COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT 4

D. PRIMARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR 7

E. GNSS RFI INTERFERENCE REPORTING FORMS 16

November 2016
 3

A. GUIDANCE ON BI-LATERAL FREQUENCY COORDINATION

1 Introduction

1.1 This section provides guidance material on the conditions under which the bi-lateral
coordination of a frequency assignment may take place. Provision is also made for the inclusion of
text detailing novel or refined planning criteria which has not received full endorsement from FMG
for inclusion in Part II or Part III of this Manual.

2 General

2.1 States may agree on a bi-lateral basis to a frequency allocation that does not comply with
the general Doc 011 planning criteria providing there is no impact on other States. The
compatibility between this frequency allocation and those of non-participating States shall conform
to the applicable planning criteria contained within Part II and Part III of this Manual.

2.2 A State coordinating a frequency proposal agreed under a bi-lateral arrangement should
record the rationale in the ‘remarks’ field of the coordination message using the following codes:

Code Reason
TERRAIN The existence of terrain reduces sufficiently the probability
of interferences.
DIST The incompatibility involves a very small distance.
AREA The incompatibility involves a very small area.
NIO The incompatibility has no impact on the Operational
Service (e.g. the incompatible assignments are never
operational at the same time)
DIR The use of directive antennas ensures that the
incompatibility has no impact on the operational service.
OST Other reasons for which suitable justification can be
provided on request.

3 Inclusion of Detailed Refined Planning Criteria

3.1 Full details of novel or refined planning criteria which has not received full endorsement
from FMG for inclusion in Part II or Part III of this Manual may be published in the subsequent
paragraphs within this section subject to the following approval requirements:

3.1.1 Approval for its inclusion has been given by a majority of FMG members at an FMG
plenary, or

3.1.2 Approval for its inclusion has been given by a majority of FMG members through the
issuance of a State Letter by the ICAO secretariat.

November 2016
 4

B. GUIDANCE ON THE COORDINATION OF COMMON ASSIGNMENTS

1 Introduction
1.1 This section provides guidance material on the coordination of Common Assignments in the
EUR Region. It also contains an approach for the compatibility assessment between common
assignments.

2 General
2.1 Common assignments are a specific type of national frequency assignments1 where a channel is to
be reserved for a common use over several States. Common assignments are treated as national frequency
assignments with the following special features:
 Common assignments receive the same protection as national frequency assignments;
 Common assignments on the same channel are considered to be compatible with each
other, allowing neighbouring States to create common assignments on the same channel
for the same purpose;
 Independent discrete assignments for other operational purposes on a ‘common channel’
can also be created. Such assignments, however, are not considered a priori compatible
with any of the existing assignments and, therefore, are subject to coordination.

3 Coordination of Common Assignments

3.1 A state proposing a Common assignment shall include in the Remarks field of the coordination
request the word ‘’ Common’’ and the purpose of the assignment. Whereever possible, the expected channel
occupancy should be provided as well.
3.2 A table with the agreed Common channels is available on the EUROCONTROL RFF
OneSky Teams site and accessible to all SAFIRE Frequency Managers

C. TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF TERRAIN

IN COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT

1 Introduction

1.1 The ICAO EUR Doc 011 VHF communications co-channel (COM 2) planning rules are currently
applied using free space attenuation and a spherical earth model. This approach assumes that there is direct
line of sight between an interfering transmitter and a victim receiver at any distance up to the radio horizon.
In the real environment, in the event that the path profile between a transmitter and a receiver is intersected
by terrain, the resulting field strength at the receiver will be lower than that which would have occurred if
there was direct line of sight. It is possible to make use of this factor when calculating the compatibility of
co-channel frequency assignments.

1.2 Highly sophisticated computer modelling tools are available for the calculation of radio
propagation. These are based on various propagation models, most usually those provided in ITU-R
Recommendations. These modelling tools tend to be complex and expensive, particularly where high levels
of accuracy are required. As an alternative, the following simplified approach is recommended for the
inclusion of terrain masking when calculating the compatibility of co-channel frequency assignments.

November 2016
 5

2 Path Loss

2.1 In the event that the path profile of the undesired co-channel transmission is intersected by terrain,
it is possible to calculate the effect of atmospheric refraction and surface diffraction on the received field
strength as compared to the free space attenuation over the same distance.

2.2 In practical terms, line of sight propagation occurs only when the first Fresnel ellipsoid between the
transmitter and receiver does not intersect the earth’s surface or obstacles upon it. Conversely, propagation
by diffraction will occur when the first Fresnel ellipsoid does intersect surface obstacles.
The minimum additional path loss compared to free space attenuation can be calculated using the following
assumptions:

a) The path profile is based on k = 1.331 to take atmospheric refraction into account;
b) Only the largest surface obstacle is taken into consideration;
c) Any additional protrusion of the largest surface obstacle above the path profile will be ignored for
the calculation of path loss;
d) The largest surface obstacle is assumed to be an isolated knife-edge obstacle.

Figure 1 – Simplified Diffraction Loss Model

2.3 ITU-R Recommendation P.526-13 provides guidance on the calculation of propagation by

diffraction. Single knife-edge diffraction should be used because this is the case where forward diffraction is
at a maximum (i.e. where the undesired path loss will be least). If terrain intersects with the path profile, by
the application of this recommendation2 it can be shown that the field strength is reduced to no more
than 50% of its unobstructed value, which entails that the minimum increase in path loss compared
to free-space attenuation is approximately 6dB.

3 Equating D/U to Distance

3.1 When considering the undesired signal, in cases where free space attenuation applies (i.e. where,
for all practical purposes, there is no diffraction) a 6 dB reduction in interfering field strength equates to a
50% reduction in separation distance between interferer and victim. This is because, in accordance with ITU-
R Recommendation P.525-2, the basic transmission loss in dB is proportional to 20*log distance (NM).

1
This assumption is already applied in Doc 011 for the calculation of the radio horizon distance.
2
In P.526-13, Section 4.1, Equation 26 and Figure 9 can be used to calculate the additional path loss attributable to a
single knife-edge obstacle. The equations are used to derive a single dimensionless parameter, v, that can be used to
read-off the additional path loss, J(v) dB, in Figure 9. As the obstacle is assumed to coincide with the path profile, the
value of v will be 0 in accordance with Equation 26. Consequently, from Figure 9, the value of J(v) will be 6 dB
regardless of its position along the signal path.

November 2016
 6

4 Applying Revised Compatibility Calculations to 5:1 Cases

4.1 This calculation applies in cases where ICAO EUR Doc 011 requires that the separation distance
between the interferer and victim must be at least 5 times the length of the desired path. This criterion applies
to circular-versus-circular and circular-versus-broadcast cases. It is also used for the part of the area-to-
broadcast case where the aircraft taking the broadcast service is the victim and the aircraft on the edge of the
area service is the interferer.

4.2 The 5:1 distance ratio equates to a D/U of at least 14dB as described in ICAO Annex 10 Volume V
Attachment A. In cases where the undesired ray path is intersected by terrain, the D/U ratio will be
preserved. Thus compatibility will be achieved, providing the undesired-to-desired distance ratio is not less
than 2.5:1.

5 Applying Revised Compatibility Calculations to RLOS Cases

5.1 This calculation applies in cases where ICAO EUR Doc 011 requires that the minimum separation
distance between DOC-edges is the sum of the RLOS distances of the two services. This criterion applies to
area-versus-circular and area-versus-area cases. It is also used for the part of the area-to-broadcast case
where the aircraft taking the area service is the victim and the broadcast transmitter is the interferer.

5.2 The use of the RLOS distance as the compatibility criterion is based on the requirements of ICAO
Annex 10 Volume V, which states: "The geographical separation between facilities operating on the same
frequency shall, except where there is an operational requirement for the use of common frequencies for
groups of facilities, be such that the protected service volume of each facility is separated from the protected
service volume of the other facility by a distance not less than that required to provide a desired to undesired
signal ratio of 20 dB or by a separation distance not less than the sum of the distances to associated radio
horizon of each service volume, whichever is smaller."

5.3 Applying the 20 dB D/U calculation in cases where the undesired ray path is intersected by terrain,
the minimum D/U criterion will be met providing the undesired-to-desired distance ratio is not less than 5:1.
In cases where the desired path length is not known (i.e. where the location of the desired ground station has
not been coordinated) it is recommended that the desired path length is taken to be 70% of the length of the
maximum diagonal of the desired polygon. A value of 70% is recommended on the basis that the desired
ground station can normally be expected to be close to the centre of the polygon.

5.4 The 70% value is considered to be safe because, in the worst case, if the 70% criterion is applied
and the ground station is at the farthest possible distance from the victim aircraft, the D/U ratio would fall to
17 dB in the event that the EIRP of the ground station was identical to that of the aircraft. However, it can be
expected that the typical ground station EIRP will be at least 50W and the maximum aircraft EIRP will be
25W, and in this case the 20 dB D/U value would be achieved.

6 Mechanism for Identifying Cases of Terrain Masking

6.1 MANIF AFM contains a feature to identify cases where the undesired signal path is intersected by
terrain. Details are provided in section 4 of the user manual. When AFM makes terrain computations
between a circular or area DOC versus another circular or area DOC, the terrain computation is carried out
on various lines joining the two volumes (see Figure A-2). For AFM to declare the two DOCs potentially
compatible, all the ray path lines must be blocked by an obstacle.

November 2016
 7

Note: The terrain calculation features of MANIF AFM and the supporting database are intended purely for
use in the assessment of frequency assignment compatibility. These are not intended for use in the
calculation of aeronautical information services such as obstacle clearance data etc.

Figure 2 – MANIF AFM Terrain Computation – Polygon vs Circle

7 Terrain Database

7.1 It is recommended that the SRTM_GTOPO_u30_DEMETER database is used for compatibility

assessment. This provides a digital terrain model based on a grid of 30 arc-seconds, which equates to
approximately 0.3-0.5 NM in Europe. The database is available in the MANIF AFM folder on the RFF One
Sky Team.

D. PRIMARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR

1. Introduction

1.1 The diversity of radar characteristics, in terms of frequency, power, antenna properties and
waveforms define an extremely complex electromagnetic environment. Most radar systems operate in the
scanning mode and cover a 3-dimensional service volume. Coupled with the fact that radar systems are
operated from fixed and mobile land sites, aboard ship and aircraft and from space vehicles, the potential for
interference between radar systems and other services requires careful consideration.

1.2 In ICAO EUR Region, the frequency bands 1215 – 1400 MHz, 2700 – 3300 MHz and 9000 – 9500
3
MHz are extensively used for primary surveillance radar, mainly providing long, medium and short range

3
See ICAO Doc 9718 Volume I for details on the frequency allocation tables.

November 2016
 8

independent non-cooperative airspace surveillance. Often, these bands are shared with other radar users
including military, maritime and meteorological services.

1.3 This Chapter considers some general regulatory and technical aspects of the frequency assignment
and licensing process for aeronautical primary radar systems, which must provide for the normal operation of
existing radar systems as well as new systems with a specified performance.

1.4 Since there are no ICAO Standards detailing performance requirements for radar systems, no
uniform frequency planning criteria, agreed within the ICAO framework, are available. Protection
requirements of radars are heavily dependent on their characteristics and specifications. Various ITU-R
Recommendations (see reference section) provide typical radar characteristics intended to support frequency
compatibility studies but do not cover the complete set of radar systems being in operation. Thus radar
assignment planning needs to be performed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the relevant
protection requirements.

2. Frequency Assignment Planning and Coordination Fundamentals

2.1 Radar frequency assignment planning is performed on a national basis. For this a national process
of assigning frequencies should be implemented to ensure that new frequency use does not cause
unacceptable interference to existing users on a national and international basis.

2.2 Coordination among national radio regulatory authorities is the usual mechanism for bilateral and
multilateral discussions. Such a process may include the compatibility analysis for proposed radar services,
and the assignment of frequencies in accordance with the national frequency allocation plan.

2.3 This process may also include actions necessary to protect the national radar systems from potential
interference from international assignments published in the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau International
Frequency Information Circular (BR IFIC).

2.4 BR IFIC is a consolidated regulatory publication issued on a regular basis by the ITU
Radiocommunication Bureau. It contains information on the frequency assignments/allotments submitted by
administrations to the Radiocommunication Bureau for recording in the Master International Frequency
Register.

3. International Registration

3.1 International registration of a national radar frequency assignments in the BR IFIC provides
international recognition and protection for the station's operations. It is in the best interest of an
administration and its operators to register with the ITU all its radar frequency assignments which it feels
needs protection from interference from other international users. It is usual to notify international frequency
use after coordination with any other country has been successfully completed. Aviation frequency managers
are encouraged to pre-coordinate through information exchange with adjacent States, as appropriate.

3.2 It is also the responsibility of national radio regulatory authorities to examine any new radar
frequency proposals, or modifications to existing frequency assignments, circulated through the BR IFIC.
The examination should ensure that any of these published international frequency requirements that may
cause harmful interference to existing or planned national radar assignments are commented upon by the due
date. Note that International Frequency Information Circulars requiring comment by a particular date as
included in the circulars.

November 2016
 9

3.3 It should also be noted that not all radars, e.g. military stations, are registered by administrations
through the ITU process.

4. Methods of interference analysis for frequency-site planning

4.1 The need for an interference analysis arises when performing frequency-site planning for radar
stations and in carrying out frequency coordination between national radio regulatory authorities of different
countries.

4.2 The acceptability of frequency assignment requests, including specific technical parameters of the
systems, are to be agreed by the national radio regulatory authorities in close cooperation with the operators.
In particular, the received interference power needs to be compared with the maximum tolerable interference
power. Moreover, the effects of various signal types such as constant or pulse like interference need to be
considered appropriately.

4.3 Interference analysis starts with determination of the power of interfering signals at a receiving
point, and the comparison with requirements for a maximum tolerable interference power level and
associated protection ratios for the particular type of interfering signals.

5. Interference Analyis

Step 1: determination of the interference power level at the receiver

5.1 Basically the interference power level at the receiver is a function of Pt - the interferer transmitter
power, Gt - the gain of the interferer antenna in the direction of the receiver (dBi), Gr - the gain of the
receiver antenna in the direction of the interferer (dBi), Lb(d) - the basic loss based on free-space propagation
for a separation distance d between the receiver and the interferer, and FDR (Δf) - the frequency dependent
rejection depending on Δf, as prescribed in Recommendation ITU-R SM.337, and is expressed by:

𝐼 = 𝑃𝑡 + 𝐺𝑡 + 𝐺𝑟 − 𝐿𝑏 (𝑑) − 𝐹𝐷𝑅(∆𝑓)

5.2 The frequency dependent rejection is a function of Δf which is the difference between the interferer
tuned frequency and the receiver tuned frequency. It is also dependent on the characteristics of the receiver.

 P( f )df
FDR(f )  10 log  0

 P( f ) H ( f + f )
2
df
0

where:
P(f): power spectral density of the interfering signal equivalent intermediate frequency (IF);
H(f): frequency response of the receiver
f = ft – fr

where:
ft: interferer tuned frequency;
fr: receiver tuned frequency.

November 2016
 10

5.3 Another general characteristic regarding radio interference in a multiple source interference
environment is that the total interference power is the sum of individual interference powers:

𝐼 = 𝐼1 + 𝐼2 + ⋯ + 𝐼𝑘

5.4 Alternatively, if individual interference power levels are difficult to determine, an allowance should
be made for such aggregate interference (e.g. 6 dB to cater for circumstances with four similar interference
signals being “visible” for a victim receiver at the same time).

5.5 When two or more radars with rotating antennas operating within line of sight of each other, these
radars may not need to be considered as multiple interference sources because of the low probability of
coincidence when interference signals from these radars are received simultaneously.

Step 2: Evaluation of the maximum tolerable interference power level

5.6 The maximum aggregate value of interference signal power that still allows the radar to meet its
performance requirements need to be determined in close cooperation with the operator.

5.7 There are two primary interference mechanisms that affect radar receivers. The first is higher
power level interference resulting in front-end saturation and the generation of inter-modulation products.
The second is lower power level emissions that fall within the receiver IF pass-band, leading to
desensitisation and performance degradation.

5.8 The effects of interference on aeronautical surveillance radars can be determined through testing,
calculation or a combination of both. Testing can be accomplished by injecting simulated known targets into
the radar, and visually determining the interference effects including range reduction, dropped tracks, track
seduction and false targets, the last of which is less common in modern radars due to the use of constant false
alarm rate (CFAR) circuits and pulse compression. The effect of low-level interference is insidious so it is
not generally sufficient to assess performance solely through visual observation of the radar screen.
Consequently, this technique needs to be supplemented by theoretical calculation and/or measurement.

5.9 Even though the protection criteria for radars are dependent on their technical characteristics and
operational environment, it is generally accepted that, for constant interference, an I/N = −10 dB delivers an
acceptable degradation in radar performance compared to the "no interference" case. This I/N level
represents an increase of about 0.4 dB in the effective noise power of the receiving channel, which equates to
a degradation of around 1.5% for a nominal probability of detection (PD) of 0.9. This criterion is consistent
with existing ITU R Recommendations, i.e. M.1464 which states "the results of two administrations’ tests on
aeronautical radionavigation radars … concludes that a -10 dB I/N protection criteria will fully protect those
types of radars [aeronautical] in the frequency band 2700-2900 MHz band".

5.10 For pulsed interference, analysis and tests have shown that, depending on characteristics of the
interfering and victim systems (primarily pulse repetition frequency (PRF) and pulse width), a higher I/N
relating to the peak power of the pulsed interference is possible. This is due to the widespread use of
interference suppression techniques such as interference rejection (IR), pulse compression, moving target
detection (MTD), CFAR and binary integration (see ITU-R M.1372). As further described in ITU-R M.1372,
low-duty cycle asynchronous pulse interference in the order of 1%, will allow a radar to meet its system
performance requirements until I/N ratios are in the order of 30 dB. For higher duty cycles pulse signals,
these techniques are moderately effective. The figure below shows the impact of interference suppression
techniques for various interference duty cycles.

November 2016
 11

60

Tolerable I/N Ratio (dB) 50

40

30

20

10

0
0.1 1 10 100
Interferer duty cycle (%)

Figure 1: Effect of interference suppression at various interference duty cycles

Note: Asynchronous co-frequency interfering signals that are similar or identical to the victim radar's own
transmissions are likely to pass through its pulse compression circuits with less degradation than other types
of interference. Typically these are detected at levels 10 dB or more lower than for other types of
interference.

5.11 In addition, the applicability of an aeronautical safety margin (e.g. 6 dB) should be considered in
order to take into account various uncertainties in the compatibility analysis (see also ITU-R
Recommendations M.1477 and M.1535).
Step 3: comparison of the maximum tolerable with the received interference power levels

5.12 If the model indicates that the received interference power level exceeds the maximum tolerable
level that would impair the proper function of the radar, a more detailed and dynamic analysis may be
required.
6. Simplified Generic Model for the Evaluation of interference to radar systems

6.1 A simplified static model, based on the interference analysis as outlined above, can be used for the
initial evaluation of the potential for interference to aeronautical primary radar systems from emissions of
other interference sources.

Step 1: determination of the interference power level at the receiver

November 2016
 12

Parameter Comments
a) Pt – interferer
transmit power density
(dBW/MHz)
b) Gt – interferer Gain of the interferer antenna in the direction of the radar receiver
antenna gain (dBi) antenna
c) Gr - Radar Radar receiver antenna gain towards the interference signal
receiver antenna gain including polarization loss. See also section on antenna coupling.
(dBi)
d) Lb(d) – Basic path Free space propagation loss between the radar receiver antenna and
loss between radar the interference source (see Recommendation ITU-R P.341):
receiver antenna and
interference source (dB) 𝐿𝑏 (𝑑) = 20 log 𝑓(𝑀𝐻𝑧) + 20 log 𝑑(𝑚) − 27.55

e) I - interference 𝐼 = 𝑃𝑡 + 𝐺𝑡 + 𝐺𝑟 − 𝐿𝑏 (𝑑) − 𝐹𝐷𝑅(∆𝑓)

power density level at the
receiver (dBW/MHz)

Step 2: Evaluation of the aggregate interference power level tolerable at radar receiving antenna’s output
(depends on radar system design)
Parameter Comments
f) Maximum aggregate Maximum value of interference signal power referenced to its
interference power density passive antenna terminals that still allows the radar to meet its
measured for the radar performance requirements. To be derived by measurements, and
(dB(W/MHz)) the result may be specific to the interference signal waveform
tested.
For such measurements, a reduction in 1% probability of
detection has been accepted in the past on various occasions as
an interference criterion.
g) Aeronautical safety The applicability of an additional margin for the protection of
factor (dB) the safety service (e.g. 6 dB) may be considered in order to take
into account various uncertainties in the compatibility analysis
(see also ITU-R Rec. M.1477 and M.1535).
h) Aggregate Maximum tolerable interference power density level,
interference power density h = f – g
level tolerable at receiver
(dB(W/MHz))
i) Multiple interference If there is a potential for more than one source of interference at
source factor (dB) the same time, an allowance should be made for the aggregate
interference.

Step 3: comparison of the maximum tolerable with the received interference power levels

November 2016
 13

Parameter Comments
j) I (dB(W/MHz)) Interference power density level at the receiver, j = e
k) Iaggregate Aggregate interference power density level tolerable at receiver
(dB(W/MHz)) (dB(W/MHz)), k = h - i
If 𝐼 < 𝐼𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑔𝑡𝑒 , compatibility can be assumed.

In case Iaggregate exceeds at the specified distance from the radar

receiver antenna, and the simplified model indicates a potential for
interference that would impair the proper function of the radar, a
more detailed and dynamic analysis may be required.

7. Additional Guidance on a more detailed and dynamic analysis

7.1 For a more detailed and dynamic analysis, the general formula, as introduced in section 5, can be
expanded to include additional factors thus:

𝐼 = 𝑃𝑡 + 𝐺𝑡 + 𝐺𝑟 − 𝐿𝑡 − 𝐿𝑟 − 𝐿𝑏 (𝑑) + 𝑃𝑓 + 𝐹𝑡 + 𝐹𝑟 + 𝐹𝑝 + 𝐶𝑎−𝑎 − 𝐹𝐷𝑅(∆𝑓)

Where
Lt: insertion loss in the interfering radar transmission line (dB)
Lr: insertion loss in the victim radar receiving line (dB)
Pf: propagation factor (dB)
Ft: interfering antenna pattern correction (dB)
Fr: victim antenna pattern correction (dB)
Fp: polarisation factor (dB)
Ca-a: antenna-to-antenna coupling (dB)

Notes:

(a) Pf, the propagation factor, takes into account the difference in free space propagation loss compared
to a path loss which takes significant interference propagation mechanism into account, such as
multipath propagation, diffraction and refraction. This will often be calculated using sophisticated
modelling software. Previous radar compatibility studies have tended to use a propagation loss of 6
dB less than free space loss (for multipath) for short separation distances of a few kilometres and
within radio line-of-sight, and a value derived in accordance with ITU-R P.452 for longer distances.
(b) Ft and Fr are correction factors to take account of the reduction in antenna gain compared to the
direction of maximum radiation. In flat terrain, radar antennas are typically installed with an up-tilt
of 2-3° and the reduction in gain at 0° elevation is typically in the order of 3-4 dB.
(c) Fp, the polarisation factor, takes into consideration the losses due to polarization mismatch between
transmitting and receiving antennas. Values are provided in the following table:

November 2016
 14

Antenna 1 Antenna 2 Fp (dB)

Circular (RH or LH) Vertical -3
Circular (RH or LH) Horizontal -3
Circular (RH or LH) Slant (45 or 135°) -3
Circular RH Circular RH 0
Circular LH Circular LH 0
Circular RH Circular LH -20*
Vertical Vertical 0
Vertical Horizontal -20*
Vertical Slant (45 or 135°) -3
Horizontal Horizontal 0
Horizontal Slant (45 or 135°) -3
* Typical cross-polarisation isolation

(d) Ca-a addresses interactions between the scanning of two radar antenna beams. In the case of primary
radars with rotating antennas, the interference power level varies greatly with time due to the highly
directive nature of their antennas, and that the impact of the interfering signal is a function of both its
amplitude and the probability of occurrence. For example, a typical S-band aeronautical radar will
have a 3 dB horizontal beam-width of 1.5°. The maximum antenna main-beam-to-main-beam
coupling between two radars occurs with a probability of less than 0.000017. It should be noted that
reflector type antennas typically have a main-beam gain of around 30 dBi and an average antenna
back-lobe levels of -10 dBi. Consequently, back-lobe-to-back-lobe coupling is typically 70 to 80 dB
weaker than main-beam-to-main-beam coupling.

8. Reference Material

Recommendation ITU-R SM.337 – Frequency and distance separations

Recommendation ITU-R P.341 – The concept of transmission loss for radio links

Recommendation ITU-R P.452 – Prediction procedure for the evaluation of interference between stations on
the surface of the Earth at frequencies above about 0.1 GHz

Recommendation ITU-R M.1372 – Efficient use of the radio spectrum by radar stations in the
radiodetermination service

Recommendation ITU-R M.1461 – Procedures for determining the potential for interference between radars
operating in the radiodetermination service and systems in other services

Recommendation ITU-R M.1463 – Characteristics of and protection criteria for radars operating in the
radiodetermination service in the frequency band 1 215 - 1 400 MHz

Recommendation ITU-R M.1464 – Characteristics of and protection criteria for radionavigation and
meteorological radars operating in the frequency band 2 700 – 2 900 MHz

Recommendation ITU-R M.1796 – Characteristics of and protection criteria for terrestrial radars operating in
the radiodetermination service in the frequency band 8 500-10 680 MHz

Recommendation ITU-R M.1851 – Mathematical models for radiodetermination radar systems antenna
patterns for use in interference analyses

November 2016
 15

Recommendation ITU-R M.2069 – Antenna rotation variability and effects on antenna coupling for radar
interference analysis

REPORT ITU-R M.2112 – Compatibility/sharing of airport surveillance radars and meteorological radar
with IMT systems within the 2 700-2 900 MHz band

REPORT ITU-R M.2136 – Theoretical analysis and testing results pertaining to the determination of relevant
interference protection criteria of ground-based meteorological radars

EUROCONTROL-SPEC-0147 – Specification for ATM Surveillance System Performance (Volume 1 and

Volume 2 Appendices)

__________________________

November 2016
 16

E. GNSS RFI INTERFERENCE REPORTING FORMS

1 Guidance on GNSS Interference Reporting to ICAO

(Source: ICAO NSP SeptOct 2014WG1&2 Flimsy 9)

Before approaching ICAO in case of GNSS interference, it is recommended to take into account all suitable
measures for dealing with interference laid down in Article 15 of the ITU Radio regulations.

Moreover, please note the “Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) between ICAO and the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) for Providing a Framework for Enhanced Cooperation Regarding the
Protection of the Global Navigation Satellite System from Harmful Interference with a Potential Impact on
Aviation Safety” has established a framework for enhanced cooperation between the Parties in matters
related to harmful interference to GNSS with a potential impact on international civil aviation safety.

In this MOC the following Cooperation Procedure was agreed:

ICAO will institute a process whereby ICAO Member States and relevant aviation stakeholders will report to
ICAO cases of harmful interference to international civil aviation uses of
GNSS.
 ICAO will perform a prompt analysis of the interference reports with regard to their impact on
safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation.
 In cases where the analysis determines that there is a significant impact on air navigation with an
international scope, ICAO will transmit the results of the analysis to ITU without delay.
 ITU will duly consider and, as appropriate, take into account the information received from ICAO
when providing assistance to administrations to ensure a prompt resolution of the problem of
interference pursuant to Article 15 of the Radio Regulations.
 ICAO will make aeronautical expertise available to ITU on request, if needed to assist ITU in
settlement of the problem.
 ITU will keep ICAO informed of the progress in application of the procedure defined in Article 15
of the Radio Regulations, Section VI, for the cases of harmful interference to GNSS identified by
ICAO.
 ITU will notify ICAO as soon as the interference incident can be considered as settled.

Interference reporting to ICAO shall focus on the reporting of cases with cross-border impact, which cannot
be solved nationally or internationally through routine procedures and which therefore may need to be also
reported to ICAO for coordination with ITU on the basis of the Memorandum of Cooperation between ICAO
and the ITU for Providing a Framework for Enhanced Cooperation Regarding the Protection of the Global
Navigation Satellite System from Harmful Interference with a Potential Impact on Aviation Safety”. This
procedure does in no way replace the reporting requirements identified within an individual State.

The following details are be deemed useful for reporting GNSS interference cases to ICAO:
 Originator of this report [Originating State , Organisation, Address]
 Description of interference
o Affected GNSS Service [GNSS constellation, SBAS, GBAS]:
o Observablility of the interference [ Interference was noticeable only on board of
aircraft, only on ground, both]

November 2016
 17

o Degradation of GNSS performance [Large position errors, Loss of integrity, loss of

single/multiple satellites in view]
o Problem duration [duration time, continuous/intermittent impact]
o Affected area [local/wide spread]
o Operational Impact [loss of navigation, need to change the navigation procedure]
o Information on presumed source of interference
 Actions taken to rule out that the interference source is domestic
 Presumed location of interference source/country
 Interfering frequency
 Interference signal strength and reference bandwidth
 Presumed possible causes
 Actions taken to mitigate the interference
 Was a “Report of an irregularity or infringement” submitted to ITU? (as foreseen in Article 15
with a reporting from provided in Article 9 of the ITU radio regulations)
 Attachments [Spectrum plot, Map, Log entries, recorded GNSS data]
________

2 Guidance for GNSS interference reporting to States

(Source: ICAO NSP SeptOct 2014WG1&2 Flimsy 8)

GNSS interference reporting form to be used by ATS personnel:

Originator of this report:

Organisation:
Department:
Street / No.:
Zip-Code / Town:
Name / Surname:
Phone No.:
E-Mail:
Date and time of report:

Description of interference
Affected GNSS Element: [ ] GPS
[ ] GLONASS
[ ] other constellation
[ ] EGNOS
[ ] WAAS
[ ] other SBAS
[ ] GBAS (VHF data-link for GBAS)
Observablility of the interference: Interference was noticeable:
[ ] only on board of aircraft

November 2016
 18

[ ] only on ground
[ ] both
Source of initial interference report: Pilot [ ],
Engineer/Technician [ ],
Other [ ]
Degradation of GNSS performance: [ ] Large position errors (details):
[ ] Loss of integrity (RAIM warning/alert):
[ ] Complete outage
[ ] Loss of satellites in view/details:
[ ] Lateral indicated performance level changed from:___to ___
[ ]Vertical indicated performance level changed from: __ to __
[ ] Indicated Dilution Of Precision changed from __ to__
[ ] Information on PRN of affected satellites (if applicable)
[ ] Low Signal-to-Noise (Density) ratio
[ ] other
In case of report by Pilot:
Airline Name:
Aircraft Type and Registration:

Flight Number:
Airway/route flown:

Coordinates of the first point of UTC: Lat: Long:

occurrence / Time (UTC):
Coordinates of the last point of UTC: Lat: Long:
occurrence / Time (UTC):
Flight level or Altitude at which it
was detected:
Affected ground station Name/Indicator;
[e.g. GBAS] Lat: Long:

In case of report by ATS personnel

Coordinates of the first point of UTC: Lat: Long:
occurrence / Time (UTC):
Coordinates of the last point of UTC: Lat: Long:
occurrence / Time (UTC):
Affected area:
Affected flight route:
Problem duration: Days, Hours, Minutes, Seconds____________
_______________________
[ ] continuous
[ ] intermittent

Information on presumed source of interference

Presumed location of interference Lat/Long:
source: or
Nearest City or Landmark
Interfering frequency (if known:)
Signal strength and reference
bandwidth: (if known)
Further descriptions of the [ ] Spectrum plot
interference case: [ ] Map
Other material:

November 2016
 19

GNSS interference reporting form to be used by pilots:

Note: Only applicable fields need to be filled!
Originator of this report:
Organisation:
Department:
Street / No.:
Zip-Code / Town:
Name / Surname:
Phone No.:
E-Mail:
Date and time of report

Description of interference
Affected GNSS Element [ ] GPS
[ ] GLONASS
[ ] other constellation
[ ] EGNOS
[ ] WAAS
[ ] other SBAS
[ ] GBAS (VHF data-link for GBAS)
Aircraft Type and Registration:

Flight Number:
Airway/route flown:

Coordinates of the first point of UTC: Lat: Long:

occurrence / Time (UTC):
Coordinates of the last point of UTC: Lat: Long:
occurrence / Time (UTC):
Flight level or Altitude at which it
was detected:
Affected ground station Name/Indicator;
(if applicable) [e.g. GBAS]

Degradation of GNSS performance: [ ] Large position errors (details):

[ ] Loss of integrity (RAIM warning/alert):
[ ] Complete outage
[ ] Loss of satellites in view/details:
[ ] Lateral indicated performance level changed from:___to ___
[ ]Vertical indicated performance level changed from: __ to __
[ ] Indicated Dilution Of Precision changed from __ to__
[ ] information on PRN of affected satellites (if applicable)
[ ] Low Signal-to-Noise (Density) ratio
[ ] other
Problem duration: [ ] continuous
[ ] intermittent

-- END --

November 2016