1. INTRODUCTION
ECC Report 093 considers the technical compatibility between GSM equipment on board aircraft and terrestrial
networks. The report addresses the impact on terrestrial mobile networks of introducing a GSM service onboard
aircraft (GSMOB) operating at a height of at least 3000m above ground level in the 1800MHz band (17101785MHz for uplink (terminal transmit, base station receive) / 1805-1880MHz for downlink (base station transmit,
terminal receive)).
This paper provides an outline of the different operational scenarios we believe must be considered with respect
to the introduction of UMTS and LTE systems onboard aircraft (UMTSOB and LTEOB).
2. PROPOSED SCOPE OF STUDIES
Report 093 identifies the terrestrial frequency bands and the expected operational scenarios for assessing
compatibility issues of operating GSM systems onboard aircraft with terrestrial networks. When considering the
compatibility issues arising from the operation of UMTS and LTE systems onboard aircraft, the analysis needs to
be repeated assuming the UMTS or LTE base station onboard the aircraft. Similarly the impact on terrestrial LTE
networks should be included.
All other parameters relating to terrestrial networks as ‘victim’ links or ‘interfering’ links remain unchanged from
the GSM case.
2.1. Terrestrial frequency bands
We propose that the updated analysis includes the following terrestrial frequency bands when considering mobile
terminals onboard aircraft to an onboard picocell and to prevent interaction with terrestrial systems (controlled
bands)
Connectivity band:
Controlled bands:
1920-1980 MHz and 2110-2170MHz (UMTS, LTE)
2500-2570 MHz and 2620–2690 MHz (LTE)
1710–1785 MHz and 1805–1880 MHz (LTE)
791 – 821 MHz (LTE downlink)
921-960 MHz (GSM900 (incl. GSM-R) and WCDMA (UMTS 900) downlink band)
1805-1880 MHz (GSM1800 downlink band)
1805-1880 MHz (LTE)
2110-2170 MHz (WCDMA (UMTS) 2 GHz FDD core band downlink)
460-470 MHz (CDMA450 / FLASH-OFDM downlink band)
2500-2690 MHz (WCDMA, LTE)
Table 2.1 – Controlled bands
2.2. Connectivity bands and technologies
We propose that the updated analysis only considers the 2GHz bands and 2500MHz (FDD mode) at this time.
The reason for this choice is that these bands are seen as the primary bands for UMTS and LTE in Europe,
hence it can be assumed that they are supported by the onboard customers’ terminals .
LTE 1800 MHz 1710-1785MHz (terminal transmit, base station receive)
1805-1880MHz (base station transmit, terminal receive)
UMTS 2 GHz: 1920-1980MHz (terminal transmit, base station receive)
2110-2170MHz (base station transmit, terminal receive)
LTE 2600MHz 2500-2570 MHz (terminal transmit, base station receive)
2620-2690 MHz (base station transmit, terminal receive)
Band
1800
2100 FDD
Technology
on board
GSM
LTE
In-band sharing with
terrestrial systems
GSM, LTE
GSM, LTE
UMTS
UMTS
Adjacent-band sharing with terrestrial
systems
Page 1/17
2600 FDD
LTE
LTE
RAS (2690-2700), Radars (2700-2900)
2600 TDD
NCU bands & technologies
Band
Sharing with terrestrial systems
450
CDMA450, FlashOFDM
800
LTE
900
GSM, UMTS, LTE, WiMAX
1800
GSM, UMTS, LTE, WiMAX
2100 FDD
UMTS, LTE
2600 FDD
UMTS, LTE
2600 TDD
UMTS, WiMAX, LTE
Technologies highlighted in turquoise in the NCU table will probably not need to be studied in the NCU section
again since they will be already covered in the connectivity section and the impact on terrestrial systems of a
technology used for connectivity is always larger than one used for the NCU as the connectivity power is always
higher than the NCU power
2.3. Identification of scenarios
The considered UMTS / LTE system onboard is designed to ensure that a mobile terminal on an aircraft (ac-UE)
is unable to communicate with terrestrial networks, whilst providing onboard connectivity to ac-UE in theLTE
1800MHz, UMTS 2100 MHz or LTE 2600MHz frequency bands.
We would therefore propose that the updated Report 093 studies the impact of the:



Network control unit (NCU) emissions in the Terrestrial Downlink (base station transmit  mobile
station receive link)(the new bands for control) ;
Aircraft base station (ac-NodeB) emissions in the Terrestrial Downlink (base station transmit 
mobile station receive link), at 1800MHz (LTE) 2100MHz(UMTS) and 2600MHz (LTE) only;
Mobile terminal on aircraft (ac-UE) emissions in the Terrestrial uplink (mobile station transmit  base
station receive link), at 1800MHz (LTE), 2100MHz (UMTS) and 2600MHz (LTE).
Figure 2.3.1: UMTS / LTE and terrestrial cellular system interference scenario
Page 2/17
We propose that the following six scenarios should be studied:

Scenario 1: Impact of ground base station (g-NodeB) to the ac-UE. This scenario, using a minimum
coupling loss (MCL) approach, identifies the conditions in which the mobile terminal on aircraft (acMS/UE) will have visibility of the terrestrial networks. Note that the NCU and aircraft base station (acNodeB) are not taken into account in this scenario.

Scenario 2: Impact of the ac-UE to g-NodeB. This scenario, using both MCL approach and SEAMCAT
analysis, assessed in which conditions the ac-UE will have the ability to connect to terrestrial networks,
and in that case, the impact on other terrestrial links. Note that the NCU/ac-NodeB are not taken into
account in this scenario.

Scenarios 3 and 4: Impact of onboard NCU and ac-NodeB emissions to the Downlink of terrestrial
networks, for single (Scenario 3) and multiple (Scenario 4) aircraft respectively;

Scenarios 5 and 6: Impact of ac-MS emissions to the uplink of terrestrial networks, for single (Scenario 5)
and multiple (Scenario 6) aircraft respectively.
Scenario
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
Interferers
Interfered system
g-NodeB
ac-UE
ac-UE
g-NodeB
NCU and acTerrestrial network downlink
NodeB
Multiple aircraft
Terrestrial network downlink
NCU and acNodeB
ac-UE
Terrestrial network uplink
Multiple aircraft
Terrestrial network uplink
ac-UE
Table 2.3 – Modelling scenarios
The SEAMCAT scenario definition and elements had been used to define the scenarios necessary to assess the
impacts between the two systems (terrestrial vs. UMTSOB, terrestrial vs. LTE), as shown in Fig. 2.3.2.
Figure 2.3.2: SEAMCAT Scenario Definition
Page 3/17
Scenario 1: Impact of g-NodeB on ac-UE (UMTSOB / LTEOB not active)
This scenario assesses in which conditions the ac-UE will have visibility of the terrestrial networks, by using MCL
calculations. It was identified as a starting point for the study and the results will be used as inputs for Scenarios
3 and 4.
The scenario assumed one g-NodeB (using various cellular bands), and the UMTS equipment on-board
(UMTSOB) / LTE equipment on-board (LTEOB) systems are disregarded, i.e. both ac-NodeB and NCU are
inactive.
Figure 2.3.3: Scenario 1 where g-NodeB signal is received by onboard mobile terminals
Page 4/17
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
Interfering transmitter
Position of transmitter
Transmitter frequencies
Technologies
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Victim receiver
Criteria
1
3000 m to 10000 m
Various angles from g-NodeB
single g-NodeB
Static
450 MHz, 800MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2 GHz, 2.5 GHz
GSM, UMTS (WCDMA), CDMA2000, LTE, WiMax(?)
Free space path loss
single ac-UE
Received power by ac-MS/UE from g- compared to ac-MS/UE
sensitivity as function of altitude
Aim
Assess if an onboard terminal will have visibility of terrestrial
networks
Modelling approach
MCL
Simulation cases
6) LTE800
9) LTE2.5GHz
Table 2.3.1: General summary of Scenario 1 (two new bands in addition to what is already covered in R093
Scenario 2: Impact of ac-UE on g-NodeB (UMTSOB / LTEOB not active)
This scenario assesses in which conditions the onboard ac-UE will have the ability to connect to terrestrial
networks, by using both MCL calculations and SEAMCAT simulations, and the resulting potential impact on other
terrestrial links. The scenario consists of one victim link (terrestrial uplink), and a single onboard ac-UE, with
UMTSOB / LTEOB system disregarded, i.e. both ac-NodeB and NCU inactive.
Figure 2.3.4: Scenario 2 where ac-UE signal is received by g-NodeB (no NCU)
Page 5/17
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
Interfering Transmitter
Interfering Transmitter power
1
3000 m to 10000 m
Transmitter frequency
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Victim receiver
Criteria
450 MHz, 800MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2 GHz, 2.5GHz
Free space path loss
Various angles from a g-BTS
single ac-UE
Full power depending on the frequency band
single g-BTS
Received power by a g-BTS from ac-MS/UE (GSM or UMTS)
compared to the g-BTS’s sensitivity
Aim
Assess whether an ac-UE can communicate with the terrestrial
network
Modelling approach
MCL, SEAMCAT
Simulation cases:
1) LTE 800MHz
2) LTE 1800MHz
3) UMTS 2100MHz
LTE 2600MHz
Table 2.3.2: General summary of Scenario 2, two additional cases compared to R093
Scenario 3: UMTSOB / LTEOB impact on the terrestrial communication link (g-BTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE
(downlink)) from a single aircraft
This scenario assesses the impact of onboard NCU (and ac-NodeB) emissions on the terrestrial g-UE receivers,
by using both MCL calculations and SEAMCAT simulations. This scenario consists of a single interfering link (the
NCU and ac-NodeB emissions directed to ac-UE) whose emissions could impact a single victim link (terrestrial
Downlink). NCU is operating and there is onboard connectivity at 2GHz (UMTS) and 2.5GHz (LTE).
Figure 2.3.5: Scenario 3: UMTSOB/LTEOB interfering terrestrial victim Downlink (g-BTS/NodeB to gMS/UE)
from a single aircraft
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
1
3000 m to 10000 m
Various angles from terrestrial link
Page 6/17
Interfering Transmitter (1)
Transmitter frequency (1)
Interfering Transmitter (2)
Transmitter frequency (2)
Victim receiver
Wanted transmitter
Victim link
Position of victim receiver
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Criteria
Aim
Modelling approach
Simulation cases
ac-NodeB (Leaky cable)
1800MHz, 2100MHz and 2600MHz
NCU (Leaky cable)
450 MHz, 800MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2 GHz, 2.5GHz
single g-MS/UE
single g-BTS/NodeB
g-BTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE
Typical outdoor distribution illustrating noise-limited network (rural
area)
Free space path loss
Interference criterion I: C/(N+I)
Interference criterion II: (I/N)
To determine the probability of the ac-NodeB/NCU interfering with
the g-BTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE communication link.
MCL, SEAMCAT
1) NCU interferer  g-UE LTE800
2) NCU interferer  g-UE LTE1800
3) NCU interferer  g-UE 2600GHz
4) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE UMTS 1800 MHz
5) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE UMTS 2 GHz
6) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE LTE 2600MHz
Table 2.3.3: General summary of Scenario 3 (NCU transmissions in two new bands (LTE) and onboard 2G
UMTS and 2,5 GHz LTE Node B
Scenario 4: UMTSOB impact on the terrestrial communications link (g-BTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE (downlink))
from multiple aircraft
This scenario assesses the impact of UMTSOB / LTEOB in several aircraft, resulting from their onboard NCU
(and ac-NodeB) emissions, on the terrestrial g-MS/UE receiver, by using SEAMCAT simulations.
The scenario consists of multiple UMTSOB / LTEOB interfering links (multiple aircraft) where emissions of their
NCU and/or ac-NodeB could impact a victim link (terrestrial Downlink). NCUs are operating and there is onboard
connectivity (at 2 GHz UMTS and 2.5 GHz LTE) in all modelled aircraft.
Page 7/17
Figure 2.3.6: Scenario 4: UMTSOB/LTEOB interfering terrestrial victim Downlink (g-BTS/NodeB to gMS/UE) from multiple aircraft
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
Interfering Transmitter (1)
Transmitter frequency (1)
Interfering Transmitter (2)
Transmitter frequency (2)
Victim receiver
Position of victim receiver
Wanted transmitter
Position of wanted receiver
Victim link
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Criteria
Aim
Modelling approach
Simulation cases
Airport distribution
Altitude, position and direction distribution
Various angles from terrestrial link
ac-NodeB (Leaky cable)
1800 MHz, 2100MHz and 2600 MHz
NCU (Leaky cable)
450 MHz, 800MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2 GHz, 2.5GHz
Single g-MS/UE
Typical MS/UE distribution
g-BTS/NodeB
Typical outdoor distribution illustrating noise-limited network (rural
area)
g-BTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE
Free space path loss
Interference criterion I: C/(N+I)
Interference criterion II: (I/N)
To determine the probability of the ac-BTS interfering with the gBTS/NodeB to g-MS/UE communication link for multiple aircraft.
SEAMCAT
1) NCU interferer  g-UE LTE800
2) NCU interferer  g-UE LTE1800
3) NCU interferer  g-UE 2600GHz
4) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE UMTS 1800 MHz
5) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE UMTS 2 GHz
6) ac-NodeB Interferer  g-UE LTE 2600MHz
Table 2.3.4: General summary of Scenario 4 (NCU transmissions in two new bands (LTE) and onboard 2G
UMTS and 2,5 GHz LTE Node B)
Page 8/17
Scenario 5: UMTSOB / LTEOB impact on the terrestrial communications link (g-UE to g-NodeB (uplink))
from a single aircraft
This scenario assesses the impact of onboard ac-UE emissions on the terrestrial g-BTS/NodeB receiver, by using
both MCL calculations and SEAMCAT simulations.
This scenario considers ac-UE as an interferer whose emissions could have impact on a single victim link
(terrestrial uplink). NCU is operating and there is onboard connectivity (at UMTS 2GHz or LTE 2,5GHz).
Figure 1: Scenario 5: UMTSOB/LTEOB interfering terrestrial uplink (g-MS/UE to g-BTS/NodeB)
from a single aircraft
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
Interfering Transmitter
Transmitter frequency
Victim receiver
Position of victim receiver
Wanted transmitter
Position of wanted transmitter
Victim link
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Criteria
Aim
Modelling approach
Simulation cases
1
3000 m to 10000 m
Various angles from terrestrial link
Single ac-UE
1800MHz, 2100MHz and 2600MHz
1 g-/NodeB
Fixed
1 g-UE
Typical distribution illustrating noise-limited network (rural area)
g-UE to g-NodeB
Free space path loss
Interference criterion I: C/(N+I)
Interference criterion II: (I/N)
To determine the probability of the ac-UE interfering with a g-MS
to g-NodeB and g-UE to g-NodeB communication link
MCL, SEAMCAT
1) ac UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB LTE 1800Hz
2) ac-UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB UMTS 2GHz
3) ac-UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB LTE 2.5GHz
Table 2.3.5: General summary of Scenario 5
Scenario 6: UMTSOB / LTEOB impact on the terrestrial communication link (g-UE to g-NodeB (uplink))
from multiple aircraft
This scenario assesses the impact of onboard ac-UE emissions on the terrestrial g-BTS/NodeB receivers, by
using SEAMCAT simulations.
Page 9/17
The scenario consists of a multiple interfering links (multiple aircraft) where emissions of their ac-UEs could
impact a victim link (terrestrial uplink).
Figure 2.3.8: Scenario 6: UMTSOB/LTEOB interfering terrestrial uplink (g-UE to g-NodeB) from multiple
aircraft
Number of aircraft
Altitude of the aircraft above
ground level
Elevation
Interfering Transmitters
Transmitter frequency
Victim receiver
Position of victim receiver
Wanted transmitter
Position of wanted transmitter
Victim link
Path loss between aircraft and
ground networks
Criteria
Aim
Suggested modelling approach
Simulation cases
Airport distribution
Altitude, position and direction distribution
Various angles from terrestrial link
Assumed average number of mobiles transmitting per aircraft: 4
1800MHz, 2100MHz (UMTS) and 2600MHz (LTE)
single g-NodeB
Fixed
single g-UE
Typical distribution illustrating noise-limited network (rural area)
g-UE to g-NodeB
Free space path loss
Interference criterion I: C/(N+I)
Interference criterion II: (I/N)
To determine the probability of the ac-UE interfering with the g gUE to g-NodeB communication links for multiple aircraft near an
airport.
SEAMCAT
1) ac UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB LTE 1800Hz
2) ac-UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB UMTS 2GHz
3) ac-UE Interferer on g-UE  g-NodeB LTE 2.5GHz
Table2.3.6: General summary of Scenario 6
3. TERRESTRIAL NETWORK PARAMETERS USED FOR MODELLING LTE 800 MHz, LTE 1800 MHz AND
LTE 2600 MHz PROPOSED SCOPE OF STUDIES
Page 10/17
The following table provides the parameters used in the studies:
Table 3.1: LTE parameters in the 800 MHz band
LTE
Parameter
Antenna input Power
dBm /
channel
Receiver bandwidth
MHz
Channel bandwidth
MHz
Masking factor
Reference System noise figure (taken from
values quoted in standards)
BS
23
55
4.5, 9, 13.5 and 4.5, 9, 13.5 and
18
18
5, 10, 15 and
5, 10, 15 and 20
20
dB
dB
Reference Noise level (taken from values
quoted in standards)
dBm /
channel
Reference Receiver Sensitivity (taken from
values quoted in standards)
dBm /
channel
Interference criterion I (C/(N+I) )
Interference criterion II (I/N)
Channel Spacing
Maximum antenna gain
Antenna height
Feeder loss
MS
dB
dB
MHz
dBi
m
dB
9
5
-98 in 5 MHz
-95 in 10 MHz
-92 in 20 MHz
–100 in 5 MHz
–97 in 10 MHz
–94 in 20 MHz
-102 in 5 MHz
-99 in 10 MHz
-96 in 20 MHz
-101.5
-6
5,10,20
0
1.5
0
5,10,20
15
20 to 30
3
Table 3.22: LTE parameters in the 1800 MHz band
LTE
Parameter
MS
Antenna input Power
Receiver bandwidth
Channel bandwidth
Masking factor
Reference System noise figure (taken from
values quoted in standards)
Reference Noise level (taken from values
quoted in standards)
Reference Receiver Sensitivity (taken from
values quoted in standards)
Interference criterion I (C/(N+I) )
Interference criterion II (I/N)
Channel Spacing
Maximum antenna gain
Antenna height
Feeder loss
BS
dBm /
channel
MHz
MHz
dB
dB
dBm /
channel
dBm /
channel
dB
dB
MHz
dBi
m
dB
Table 3.3: LTE parameters in the 2.6 GHz band
LTE
Parameter
Antenna input Power
dBm /
channel
Receiver bandwidth
MHz
Channel bandwidth
MHz
MS
BS
23
43 in 5 MHz
46 in 10, 15, 20 MHz
4.5, 9, 13.5 and
18
5, 10, 15 and 20
4.5, 9, 13.5 and 18
5, 10, 15 and 20
Page 11/17
LTE
Parameter
Masking factor
Reference System noise figure (taken from
values quoted in standards)
BS
9
5
dB
dB
Reference Noise level (taken from values
quoted in standards)
dBm /
channel
Reference Receiver Sensitivity (taken from
values quoted in standards)
dBm /
channel
Interference criterion I (C/(N+I) )
Interference criterion II (I/N)
Channel Spacing
Maximum antenna gain
Antenna height
MS
dB
dB
MHz
dBi
m
-102 in 5 MHz
-98 in 5 MHz
-99 in 10 MHz
-95 in 10 MHz
–97.2 dBm in 15 MHz
-92 in 20 MHz
-96 in 20 MHz
–100 in 5 MHz
–97 in 10 MHz
-101.5
–95.2 in 15 MHz
–94 in 20 MHz
-6
5,10,20
0
0
5,10,20
17
30
4. ADJACENT BAND CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Radio Astronomy Service Parameters
RAS protection requirements
Recommendation ITU-R RA.769 provides the protection criteria for radio astronomical measurements. The
appropriate value for the band 2690-2700 MHz is -207 dBW/10MHz or -177 dBm/10MHz, which applies to all
systems operated in the adjacent band 2670-2690 MHz at, or near the location of the radio telescope.
Parameters for radio astronomy stations
The ECC Report 045 provides the relevant parameters for the radio astronomy stations in Europe using the
2690-2700 MHz band.
Place
Latitude
N
Longitude
E
Heigth
above sea
level (m)
Diameter
(m)
Minimum
elevation
(°)
Ondrejov1)
49°54'38"
14°47'01"
525
3
7,5
0
0
Nançay
47°23'26"
02°12'00"
180
200 x 40
Germany
Effelsberg
369
100
7
Westerbork
Kalyazin
Pushchino
Zelenchukska
ya
Bleien1)
50°31'32"
52°55'01"
06°53'00"
Netherlands
06°36'15"
16
14 x 25
0
57o 13'22"
54o 49'00"
43o 49'53"
37o 54'01"
37o 40'00"
41o 35'32"
195
200
1000
64
22
32
0
6
-5
47°22'36"
08°33'06"
469
7
5
Cambridge
52°09'59"
00°02'20"
24
60 x 5
0
Jodrell Bank
53°14'10"
-02°18'26"
78
76
32
13
-1
0
0
Country
Czech
Republic
France
Russia
Switzerland
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
3.6
Typical maximum antenna gain: 69.0 dBi
Note1): solar observations;
[The status of Radio astronomy station is dated from January 2004 which may have changed since].
Page 12/17
RAS antenna gain
Recommendation ITU-R SA.509 provides the radio astronomy reference antenna radiation pattern for use in
interference calculations which is as follows:
G = 32 – 25 log 
G = - 10 (dBi) for  > 48°

Page 13/17
4.1.1
RADAR PARAMETERS
Table 1 provides the technical characteristics of radar in the band above 2700 MHz.
Table 1: Radar characteristics
Parameter
Unit
Category
Maximum antenna
gain
Antenna pattern
Antenna height
Polarization
Feeder loss
Minimum
elevation angle
Protection level
(Note 1)
1 dB compression
point
Blocking level
(Note 2)
Transmission
power
Reference
bandwidth
20 dB bandwidth
40 dB bandwidth
Out of band roll off
Spurious level
dBi
Type 1
Frequency
hopping
Type 2
>40
33
Type 3
ATC and defense
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
Type 7
35
34
2 to 4 frequencies
34
34
Not given
33.5
Vertical pattern cosecant-squared
m
5-40 (normal 12)
3
2.8
0.5
Not given
10
35
°
<1
Not given
2 (see ITU-R M.1851Error! Reference source not found.)
Not given
dBm/MHz
-122
dBm
-20 (see ITU-R M.1464)
Not given
-42 dBm
kW
1000
400
22
750
kHz
2500
1000
1000
1200
2500
5.2
16.8
22
Not given
55
MHz
MHz
dB/decade
dBc
43
ITU-R F.1245
7-21 (normal
13)
H/V
2
Circular
dB
Meteorology
Type 8
Single
frequency
Not given
9.5
20
20
-60
24
Not given
-28 dBm
Not given
30
Not given
794
60
Not
given
Not
given
800
800
Not given
1000
2
1.4
Not given
Not given
4
2
20
Not given
Not given
-60
Not given
40
-60 for old
radars and -75
to -90 for new
Page 14/17
Parameter
Unit
ATC and defense
Unwanted
emission mask
Pulse repetition
rate
Pulse duration
Rise and fall time
Antenna rotation
Scan in elevation
Meteorology
radars
To be calculated using elements above
Hz
<300
~1000
~1000
1000
µs
% of pulse
length
20 and 100
1
1
0.085
1%
10%
10%
0.015 µs
RPM
6-12
12-15
12-15
15
Not given
Not given
1100
0.4
0.015
µs
40
Not
given
15
Fixed
825
1
0.169
µs
100
Not
given
15
Not given
250 - 1200
(See ITU-R
M.1849)
0.8-2
Not given
10%
Not given
Not given
See ITU-R
M.1849
See ITU-R
M.1849
Note 1: This protection level is derived from measurements as explained in recommendation ITU-R M.1464-1).
Note 2: The blocking levels quoted for Types 4 – 6 are given as an absolute level (in dBm) measured at the receiver input before the LNA.
Page 15/17
5. ADJACENT BAND CONSIDERATIONS
ECC Report 093 considers the technical compatibility between GSM equipment on board aircraft and
terrestrial networks. The report addresses the impact on terrestrial mobile networks of introducing a
GSM service onboard aircraft (UMTSOB) operating at a height of at least 3000m above ground level
in the 1800MHz band (1710-1785MHz for uplink (terminal transmit, base station receive) / 18051880MHz for downlink (base station transmit, terminal receive)).
This paper considers the impact to the interference environment of terrestrial mobile services where
UMTS technology is used to provide on board connectivity ain the 2GHz frequency band. Specifically,
the paper assesses the impact of UMTSOB in relation to Scenarios 3 and 5, as defined in Report 93.


Scenarios 3: Impact of on board NCU and ac-NodeB emissions to the Downlink of terrestrial
networks, for single aircraft; and
Scenarios 5: Impact of ac-UE emissions to the uplink of terrestrial networks, for single
aircraft.
5.1 SCENARIO 3 – impact of on board NCU and ac-Node B emissions on the Downlink of
terrestrial networks for a single aircraft
Prec_g-UE = EIRPac-NodeB – LAircraft – Lprop – Gg-UE
EIRPac-NodeB : EIRP of the ac-Node B or the NCU signal (dBm)
LAircraft : Attenuation due to aircraft (dB)
Lprop : Propagation loss between aircraft and g-UE (dB)
Gg-UE : Antenna gain og the g-UE (dBi)
The increase in noise floor at the g-UE receiver is given by:
 N g  MS thermal mW   I rec _ g MS mW  
 N 


  10.log 

N g  MS thermal mW 
 N dB


N g MS thermal
: Noise level of the g-UE without interference from other sources
I rec _ g  MS
: Interference received by g-UE
Altitude (Km)
Max received from
ground (dBm)
Required C/n
Radiation factor (dB)
Aircraft attenuation (dB)
Ac-Node B total power
inside aircraft (dBm)
Ac-Node B equivalent
EIRP (dBW/3.84MHz)
Path loss (dB)
Maximum received
noise in g-UE (dBm)
g-UE thermal noise +
receiver noise
(dB/3.84MHz)
3
4
5
6
7
8
-99.7
24
71
10
9
100.5
24
71
10
10
-92.6
24
71
10
-94.8
24
71
10
-96.4
24
71
10
-97.7
24
71
10
-98.8
24
71
10
-101.2
24
71
10
2.4
0.2
-1.4
-2.7
-3.8
-4.7
-5.5
-6.2
-7.6
108
115.6
-9.8
110.5
-11.4
112.4
-12.7
114
-13.8
115.3
-14.7 -15.5
116.5 117.5
-16.2
118.5
-120.3
-123.8
-126.7
-129.1
-131.2
-133
-134.7
-101
-101
-101
-101
-101
-101
-101
-101
Page 16/17
Increase in nioise floor
(dB)
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.2 SCENARIO 5: UMTSOB impact on the terrestrial communications link (g-/ue to g-nodeb
(uplink)) from a single aircraft
Prec_g-Node BUE = EIRPac-UE – LAircraft – Lprop – Gg-Node B
EIRPac-UE : EIRP of the ac-UE when the NCU is active (dBm)
LAircraft : Attenuation due to aircraft (dB)
Lprop : Propagation loss between aircraft and g-UE (dB)
Gg-Unode B: Antenna gain og the g-Node B (dBi)
The increase in noise floor at the g-UE receiver is given by:
 N g  BTS  thermal[ mW ]  I rec _ g  BTS [ mW ] 
 N 


  10. log 
 (dB)
N
 N [ dB]
g

BTS

thermal
[
mW
]


N g  BTS  thermal
Noise power level of the g-BTS
:
I rec _ g  BTS :
Interference received by the g-BTS
N g  BTS  thermal
: Noise level of the g-Node B
I rec _ g  BTS
: Interference received by g-Node B
The table below assesses the change to inteference level of user terminal on board aircraft at
different altitudes.
For the purposes of this analysis the following assumptions are used:
Number of simultaneous users, 6
ac-UE EIRP, -6dBm
Altitude (Km)
ac-UE EIRP
Simultaneous users
Aircraft attenuation
Minimum loss from
aircraft to g-Node B
(dB)
Maximum interference
received by g-Node B
(dBm)
g-Node B thermal noise
+ receiver noise (dBm)
Increase in noise floor
(dB)
3
-6
7.8
5
4
-6
7.8
5
5
-6
7.8
5
6
-6
7.8
5
7
-6
7.8
5
8
-6
7.8
5
9
-6
7.8
5
10
-6
7.8
118.82
121.24
123.10
124.6
125.8
126.9
127.8
128.7
-122.0
-124.4
-126.3
-127.8
-129.0
-130.1
-131.0
-131.9
-104
-104
-104
-104
-104
-104
-104
-104
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Page 17/17