13
THE PERSPECTIVE OF BEACON MANUFACTURERS GALILEO SAR Workshop European Space Solutions 2016 The Hague, 2 nd June 2016
| Date post: | 15-Apr-2017 |
| Category: |
Engineering |
| Upload: | the-european-gnss-agency-gsa |
| View: | 257 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
THE PERSPECTIVE OF BEACON MANUFACTURERS
GALILEO SAR Workshop
European Space Solutions 2016The Hague, 2nd June 2016
Survey launched in October 2015Responses available from beacon manufacturers producing 33% of type-approved beacons
Involved Beacon manufacturers report largest production of EPIRBs
10.000 to 40.000 units/year/company
Up to 5.000 units/year/company
6.000 to 30.000 units/year/company
No figure reported
Type of beacons manufactured
What types of beacons and other safety alert devices do you produce?
Do your beacons include a navigation receiver, or can be connected to one?
Most beacons include location protocol
Multiconstellation GNSS receiver with Galileo is foreseen by most manufacturers
Which navigation systems do you include in your current product line and next roadmaps?
TODAY
PLANNED
Most important feature for GNSS receiver selection is power consumption
Main factors evaluated by manufacturers to choose their receivers
Galileo Return Link Service is foreseen in most of new developments
Features foreseen in future beacons
Galileo contribution to MEOSAR and added value is acknowledged
High level of awareness with respect to Galileo SAR and its benefits
Did you know that… Percentage that replied Yes
...Galileo provides Search-and-Rescue services to Cospas-Sarsat beacons? 100%
...8 Galileo satellites with SAR support are already in orbit? 90%
...Galileo's SAR services will start to be available during 2016? 60%
...Galileo will provide a SAR return-link service in the near future? 90%
...a return-link service can improve survival rates for people in distress? 100%
Commercial importance of desirable features
Accurate location data and In-flight activation for ELT are considered to provide the biggest benefit
Feature Average response [1-5]
Inclusion of accurate (< 30 m) location data in the beacon message 3.5
Inclusion of accurate (< 50 m) altitude information in the beacon message 2.5
Inclusion of additional information in the beacon message 3.0
In-flight activation (only for ELTs) 3.7
Return-link service for user reassurance and improved rescue operations 3.2
Beacon battery status indicator 3.0
Navigation solutions powered by Europe 10
Discussion
European Space Solutions ConferenceModerator: Xavier Maufroid (European Commission)
Navigation solutions powered by Europe
1. Which additional information would manufacturers need to evaluate to add multiconstellation receivers? Such as technical information, Power consumption, availability, Cospas-Sarsat test procedures
2. Which added-value do you think the Return Link Service can provide for EPIRB and PLBs?
3. Which additional information would manufacturers need to evaluate to add Galileo’s RLS? Such as scheduled availability of the service, finalisation of specs at Cospas-Sarsat, strategy for cockpit integration.
4. What are the main critical elements that will support the adoption of this feature by beacon owners/final users?
5. The Return Link Service could also be used to implement a two-way messaging capability between the RCC and the distress person (for example for inquiring about the status of the person in distress)? Do you consider this to be an interesting feature? The latency of such two-way transmission would be several minutes? Do you consider this to be locking limitation for the use RLS for two-way messaging? Is this useful to detect false alarms?
For discussion
6. The RLS functionality can be used in ELT in order enable remote activation of the beacon in flight. Which are the main difficulties according to you that need to be overcome in order implement this feature?
7. IMO has agreed to introduce as an option the implementation of the RLS Type-1 (automatic approval of the distress reception by the Galileo system) into EPIRBs while is reserved on the use of the Type-2 (acknowledgment done by the RCC through the RLSP). Do you consider that the Galileo Programme should proceed anyway with the Type-2 implementation (allowing beacon to receive acknowledgment from RCC?)
8. Most likely the operational implementation of the RLS will require beacon owners to register their beacon to get access to the RLS service, possibly to a different entity from C/S (to the Galileo SAR Service Provider). Do you consider this as a potential hinder for the adoption the RLS?
For discussion
Navigation solutions powered by Europe
THANK YOU!
