RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services1800 N. Kent St., Suite 1060

Arlington, Virginia 22209-2109www.rtcm.org hq@rtcm.org

Telephone: +1-703-527-2000 Telefax: +1-703-351-9932

September 7, 2011

SUMMARY RECORD

Meeting of RTCM Special Committee 101GPS-equipped Portable VHF-FM Radios

Time / Dates: 09:30 p.m. Monday, August 15, 2011

Location: RTCM HQ, Arlington, VA

1 Call to order, introduction of attendees, and approval of agenda

The chairman called the meeting to order. Those present introduced themselves and are listed below. The agenda was approved as written.

Chris Hoffman, Chairman

ACR Electronics +44-1489880326chris.hoffman@cobham.com

Masaaki Takahashi ICOM +1 425 450 6043masaakiTakahashi@icomamerica.com

Ross Norsworthy REC, Inc. +1 727 515-8025Ross_Norsworthy@msn.com

Bob Markle RTCM +1 703 527-2000rmarkle@rtcm.org

Mark Turner U.S. Coast Guard +1 202 374-0089mark.w.turner@uscg.mil

2 Approval of summary record of previous meeting ( paper 082-2011-SC101-259 )

The Summary Record was approved as written.

3 Outcome of CDV vote and review of CDV comments

The CDV was not approved due to the number of comments received. The comments are summarized in paper 161-2011-SC101-263. Since we started this project, ETSI has developed a standard on handheld VHF radios which was published in February (ETSI

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

300 338-5). Some of the provisions were taken from our work, but others were not, so some of the comments reflected those differences.

It was decided to review the comments and then decide on whether it makes sense to reference the ETSI document or produce a complete RTCM standard. The results of the review are at appendix 1.

4 Alignment of draft RTCM standard with ETSI EN 300 338-5

There are a number of features that RTCM wants to have that exceed or diverge from ETSI EN 300 338-5. It appears that the best way forward is to reference ETSI EN 300 338-5 for the radio requirements and identify RTCM differences where necessary / required. It was decided that partly due to the complex structure of ETSI testing standards and the need to use several documents and partly due to the fact that FCC testing requirements in the USA can be quite different, that it would be better if the RTCM testing requirements remained substantially as they are in the current draft standard.

5 Revision of draft standard

See action items below.

6 Based upon discussions under agenda items 3, 4 and 5; development of the future work plan for SC101.

See section 4 above.

7 Other business

The proposed amendments to ITU-R. 585 were discussed. These amendments would establish an MMSI-like identification for handheld radios in the format:8 M I D X X X X XA handheld radio carried exclusively on one ship would normally carry the ship’s MID, but mobile handhelds could be assigned a number in the new format. This version of ITU-R.585 is expected to be approved in November absent any significant opposition.

8 Assignment of Action Items for next meeting

M. Takahashi to contact Pete Hizzey and determine how ETSI 302 885-1 (a new standard) aligns with 300 338-5 and advise.

M. Takahashi to confirm agreement with the comment resolutions in Appendix 1.

C. Hoffman to rewrite sections 4 and 5 of the draft standard, replacing them with reference to ETSI 300 338-5 plus RTCM exceptions. Update the standard in accordance with the comment resolutions and refine the testing section where necessary.

2

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

9 Date and Venue for next meeting Monday December 5th, 2011 starting at 09:30 AM at the RTCM offices in Arlington VA.

3

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Appendix 1

Consolidated comments on RTCM CDV 10123.0(comment resolutions from August 2011 Meeting in RED text)

Standard numbering

Select a number for this standard in the form RTCM 101XX.10100.0 or 10101.0 are undesirable because RTCM already has a standard numbered 11000.X and another 11010.X and they are easy to confuse.10123.0 is undesirable because of possible confusion with 12301.X. Agreed new number to be assigned by R Markle.

Clause 1 : Scope.I wonder if 3 classes are necessary? The difference between Class1 and Class2 is related to whether it will float or not. This is not a radio related requirement and floating or not should be a manufacturer related option. Not agreed keep Class 1 and Class 2 for ease of USCG / FCC reference.

I would argue for two classes only. The general unit class [Class 1 ] which may or may not float and the IMO SOLAS version [Class 3] that apart from the additional hardware requirements for dedicated Chan 70 Receiver will also float.

Clause 4.2

Classes of Radio. See above. See above.

Clause 4.5

Operating Frequencies. It is possible that manufacturers may produce a reduced channel capable product for simplicity. Therefore there should be a minimum number of channels and so I would suggest the following change made for Class 3 3rd Para (additional text in italics)

‘Class 3 radios shall be capable of operation as a minimum on the frequency 156.8000MHz …. One channel not acceptable to IMO, two channels minimum required, change wording to agree with IMO but allow extra channels in accordance with Radio Regs Part 18.

Clause 4.6

CANCEL / CLEAR: to revert to the initial display or to silence the aural alarm and visual indication used to indicate receipt of a DSC alert. The cancel function shall take place automatically after a maximum of 5 min of inactivity. Agreed change to 10 min to agree with ITU.

Section 5.6.3 Cancellation of alarms (Page 14)In the event that an alarm is not cancelled manually, then automatic cancellation shall take place after 2 min. Agreed change to 10 min to agree with ITU.

Comments:Above statement does not agree.

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

ITU-R M.493-13 Annex1, 12.2 Inactive Timer specified for 10 min. and would like to see harmonizing with ITU.

Clause 4.7.3

4th Para. Default nature of distress should be ‘undesignated’ but usershould be able to select the nature of distress as designated in M.493 symbol table. This feature can complicate operation of the radio and may lead to the wrong type of distress call, however as it is an ITU requirement we will allow it, but require the option to select the nature of distress to be buried in a menu, so that it does not hinder or confuse a casual user. Revised wording to be added to the standard.

If position is not available from the internal GNSS Receiver then the DSC expansion message shall still be transmitted, but with default position. The radio shall automatically monitor the status of the internal GNSS Receiver output for a period of at least [5] minutes after the transmission of a distress call. If during this time a position or updated position is provided by the GNSS Receiver then the radio shall automatically repeat the distress call sequence followed by another DSC expansion message giving the position (updated position). We can agree with the ETSI wording, but it does not go far enough in defining what happens if you don’t have a position quickly, so we need to add extra words to cover this point. Also if you turn the radio on and off, how do you know how old the position is and is time sent with the position? Note 493-13 message position is time stamped, enhanced 821 message is not time stamped, but needs to be linked to 493-13 message time. We need words to cover this. Check position is updated in next set of 5 distress alerts. Comments:The operation is not agree with EN300 338-5, and would like to see harmonizing with European standard.

If while the radio is making a distress call or waiting for a distress acknowledgement another call is initiated, then after this call is made, the radio shall automatically return to the original distress call procedure and continue from where it left off. Agreed adopt ETSI call priority list.

Comments:

5

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

This seems to be call priority issue, and EN300 338-5 has addressed as shown below.So I would like to see harmonizing with this standard.

Switching times between channels shall not exceed 40ms. Agreed change to ETSI 60ms.

Section 5.1 Switching time (Page 11)During dual watch, tri-watch and scanning operations the time to automatically switch between channels shall not exceed 40ms. Agreed change to ETSI 60ms.

Comments:As shown below, EN300 338-5 channel switching time is 60ms, and would like to see harmonizing with this standard.

6

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Any scanning or tri-watch functions on the radio shall automatically be disabled when a DSC distress call is made and the radio shall automatically return to a dual watch on channels 70 and 16 only, until scanning or tri-watch is either manually re-enabled or a distress acknowledgement is received.

Comments:My understanding is Class 1 and Class 2 radio will stay for receiving acknowledgement after sent distress call. However document does not explain the details.We recommends harmonize with EN300 338-5 below. Agreed accept ETSI clarified wording.

The radio shall not display channel 70 and shall display channel 16 and any other working channels, if the PTT key is pressed the radio shall if necessary switch from channel 70 to channel 16 or other appropriate tx channel. This wording relates to what happens after the distress call has been made and acknowledged, not during the distress call, add words to clarify this.

Comments:The display requirement of EN300 338-5 is quite different, and I would like to harmonize with this standard. Agree we can adopt the ETSI format for what happens during a distress.

7

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Display example

Clause 4.7.4

Repeating Distress Calls. 2nd Para. The Distress Alert process if activeshould also continue after a battery change. This is not clear from 4.7.4 and see 5.3.5below. Agreed will add words to ensure radio remembers what it was doing and carry on.

Clause 4.7.5

In the case of incoming distress and urgency calls the radiotelephone shall automatically switch to channel 16 and automatically select the maximum transmitter power. Not clear if you can then tune the radio to another channel if required add words to address this point.

Comments:EN300 338-5 allows operator to select action, and would like to harmonize this standard.

8

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Class 1 and Class 2 radios not capable of continuously receiving DSC calls while also receiving other calls shall as a minimum: Receive all DSC distress calls on Channel 70

Monitor at least Channels 16 and 70, for as long as it takes to detect a signal, at least once every 2 sec

May enter a power saving mode to conserve battery capacity at other times Change to ETSI way of monitoring each channel every 60ms

Comments:EN300 338-5 declares “Standby” and would like to harmonize with this standard.

Class 1 and Class 2 radios not capable of continuously receiving DSC calls while also receiving other calls shall, while receiving a call on a voice channel, continue to monitor Channel 70 for DSC Distress calls at least once every 2 seconds, even if this necessitates briefly interrupting reception of the voice call. Agreed accept ETSI wording, note this implies that you might need to make multiple calls to get through to someone.

9

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Comments:RTCM requires DSC check once every 2 seconds even if briefly interrupting reception of voice call.However EN300 338-5 does not requires this.Also if the radio interrupted incoming call, I have a problem with the receiver measurement.Can we remove this statement?

Reception of DSC calls shall take precedence over the reception of all other calls. Clarify wording if receive signal on Ch70 then stay on Ch70 until message received, don’t carry on switching channels.

Comments:Please specify other calls means

Clause 4.9

The display should be as large as practical. The minimum display character size shall be 2.0 mm however menus and headings shall be at least 3.0 mm.

Comments:Please harmonize with EN300 338-5 below. Agree will accept 2mm minimum

Clause 4.12

Third paragraph - not stated well. Why not just say class 1,2 and 3 devices shall be capable of being operated with either primary or secondary batteries. Not accepted Class 3 must come with Primary and may work with Secondary as well, Class 1 and 2 can come with either. Tidy up wording in standard to make intent clearer.

Clause 4.12.1

Third paragraph - this is the only place where there is a requirements on the battery, but not on the unit Agreed but we believe this is valid as it applies to the batteries to go with the product, no changes required.

Clause 4.12.2

Third paragraph - Is it the intention to incorporate a testing requirement (6.8.2) as a operational requirement on the radio? Does the unit itself have to operate over the full temp range? Yes, testing is defined in section 6.16 of the draft standard.

10

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

The capacity of the secondary battery shall be sufficient to operate the equipment continuously for at least five hours at any temperature condition (see clause 6.8.2) with a 1:19 transmit to receive duty cycle at the highest rated transmit power.

This duty cycle is defined as:

- 3 s transmit at full RF output power without modulation, 3 s reception with an RF input signal at the nominal frequency of the receiver at a level of +60 dBμV using normal test modulation (see clause 6.8.5); and the audio volume control of the receiver set at maximum followed by 54 s reception without input signal and the squelch control operational (muted). This comment doesn’t make sense, so no action has been taken for now.

Clause 4.14

After being switched on, the equipment shall be operational within 5 s. Clarify what we mean by operational i.e. should be able to send and receive voice communications, but maybe not to specification limits.

Section 6.2 Warm-up period (Page 14)The requirements of this standard shall be met after a maximum warm-up period of [5] min. Confirm that this means GPS obtained position and radio fully meeting all specifications. We don’t agree with ETSI 300 338-5 4.18.2 30 minute period, this is too long.

Comments:Above section does not agree, and I would like to harmonize with EN300 338-1 below.

Clause 5.3.5

2nd para. No. The radio should continue to transmit the Distress Alertcall until a Distress Acknowledgment is received or the Distress Alert is cancelled bythe user. If the battery runs down and is replaced the unit should continue to transmitthe Distress Alert as before the battery was replaced. Agreed will modify words to say remember settings in radio if battery replaced and carry on working from where left off.

11

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

The equipment shall not be provided with facilities for automatic re-transmission of distress calls from others, that is the radio shall not be able to transmit Distress Relay calls.The radio shall continue to transmit self initiated Distress Alert calls until a Distress Acknowledgement is received or until the battery in the radio is exhausted.

Comments: Agreed we can accept this change but require more than one action to cancel a distress call for safety reasons.The radio does not have cancelling distress call option, and would like to harmonize with EN300 338-5 section 6.4.2

Clause 5.5

DSC message structure is not defined in this standard. Is it referenced somewhere? ITU 493-13 is a normative reference which defines this, so OK as is, however add iaw 493-13 for clarity.

Clause 5.5.2

4th Para. GNSS receiver should comply with IEC 61108-1 for all classesof unit, not only Class 3. Committee previously decided that to keep costs down IEC 61108-1 compliance would only be required for Class 3, Classes 1 and 2 radios it is up to the manufacturer to pick a GPS Receiver that provides enough performance, however radios must still meet the RTCM standard and the TTFF requirements etc in the standard.

Clause 5.5.3

“encoded into a DSC message - ” - Message structure? This is covered by 493-13, but we could add a comment to clarify this.

“Failure to update the position shall result in a warning alarm to indicate to the operator of the radio that an ‘old’ position is stored in the radio ” - Is this fact transmitted in the DSC message (i.e. it’s an old position?) No the radio does not transmit the fact that the GPS position is old, but it does time stamp the position and thus this can be deduced by comparing the transmission time to actual time.

Clause 5.6.1

2nd para. Distress Relay and DROBOSE Calls can be RECEIVED butnot Transmitted for this class of product. It is important that a handheld DSC unit iscapable of receiving calls of this type. Certainly do not want it to be able to transmit

12

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

then, but receiving them and decoding and displaying information about the distress isrequired. See comments on Annex A later. The problem is that ITU 493-13 isn’t correct, we note the concerns but prefer to wait until ITU resolves the 493-13 issues in Nov 2011 and then update the standard accordingly. But note front section of RTCM standard states that you can add any additional DSC functions in 493-13 at the manufacturers discretion.

Clause 5.6.4

The acoustic alarm shall initially be of a level that is clearly distinguishable, but does not interfere with, radiotelephone communications. If not manually cancelled within 10 s, the power should rise to a level of at least 80 dB(A) at a distance of 1 m from the equipment before automatic cancellation. Agreed accept ETSI wording.

Comments:I would like to harmonize with EN300 338-5 Annex C.3 below.

Clause 5.7

The radio shall be provided with an automatic built-in test facility designed to ensure that the radio is functioning correctly, as a minimum this facility shall check for correct operation of any processors within the radio at least once every time the radio is turned on. Indication of any failure shall be provided to the user.

Comments:EN300 338-1 section 4.13 does have built-in test facility. However not at power on.I would like to harmonize with this standard. We would like to keep the power up self test as this is a useful feature, however it should be a simple test that only takes one or two seconds designed to ensure as much as possible that the radio can transmit a distress call. We will also add in a requirement for the ETSI routine test to maintain compatibility.

Clause 6.8.2

Is this operational range a testing requirement or the operational range requirement on the unit? This is the only place this range appears. Both it is referred to elsewhere in the standard, text OK as is.

For tests at extreme temperatures, measurements shall be made in accordance with the procedure specified in IEC 60945.Applicable operational temperature range: –20°C to +55°C. See below

13

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Comments:I know we asked you to changed 5:5:90 for Class 1 and 2 batteries. However we discovered EN302 885-1 standard, can you harmonize this standard? Held pending better understanding of ETSI VHF radio standards, how does 302 885-1 align with 300 338-5, Masaaki Takahashi of Icom to discuss with Pete Hizzey at Icom and advise.

Also Extreme test conditions specified -20 degrees. IEC 60945 says -15C for protected equipment and -20C for Portable equipment, thus we believe the temperature to be correct however we will review Lithium-Ion rechargeable battery minimum operating temps and advise if this is considered practical.About lithium Ion battery has problem with such low temperature, and we cannot guarantee the operation at such low temperature.

Clause 6.15

Where compliance to IEC 62238 or FCC Part 80 applies whichever is themost stringent requirement must apply. IEC 62238 Tests that are M for Class 3 mustalso be M for Class 1 and 2. This is especially true in the Electrical Performance Testsfor Transmitter and Receiver. Class 1 and 2 radios deliberately only required to meet FCC rules not IEC unless manufacturer wants to sell in Europe as well, so text considered OK as is.The use of the Optional Flag ‘O’ is confusing to me, as in some places it indicates thatfor Class 1 and 2 certain tests are optional, but the manufacturer has to provide aconfirmation letter [SL] or actual Test House Report [TR] to the FCC for compliance.

The problem that I have, is that some of these parameters and tests directly affect theability of other equipment to successfully receive and decode DSC messages and ifthere is no requirement for the manufacturer to test and show that they have actuallychecked that their unit meets the signalling requirements of IEC 62238, then theopportunity for encoding and decoding errors is increased. I think that DSC signallingparameter testing should be mandatory for all classes of unit. There may be mistakes in the table with some items listed as optional by mistake, we will check the table for validity of tests.

Clause 7.10

Duty cycle not defined. Agreed missing text will be added.

Clauses 8-11

14

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

CFR47 Part 80.225 (3) states the following:

3) Beginning March 25, 2012, the Commission will not accept new applications (but will continue toprocess then-pending applications) for certification of handheld, portable DSC equipment that does notmeet the requirements of ITU-R Recommendation M.49:>-11, "Digital Selective-calling System for Use inthe Maritime Mobile Service," with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and, in the case of Class D DSC equipmentonly, lEe 62238, First edition, J'Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systemsVHFradiotelephone equipment incorporating Class 'D' Digital Selective Calling (DSC)-Methods oftesting and required test results, " March 2003.

While IEC 62238 is primarily aimed at "non-portable" Class D equipments, this does indicate thatcompliance with IEC 62238 is necessary in order to meet the FCC rules, even for portableequipments.

The RTCM paper however, appears to contradict Part 80.225. Many of the tests detailed in theRTCM paper state that the tests are "optional" for radios which are to be sold in the U5A. Anexample is Clause 9.2 (the test for "Audio frequency response") shown below:

9.2 Audio frequency response

This test is optional for Radios for sale in the USA (except Glass 3 radios for which it ismandatory). Radios for sale elsewhere shall be subjected to the harmonic distortion andaudio power test as defined in lEG 62238 Section 9.2 (or equivalent).

Taking CFR47 Part 80.225 at face value, it appears that full compliance with IEC 62238 is mandatory.The RTCM paper appears to indicate otherwise. This is confusing and is in need of clarification. We expect the FCC and the USCG to permit hand held radios to this standard once it is published, by Waiver of the rules until the rules can be updated to include the new HH RTCM standard.

Clause 8

Transmitter Tests. Some of the tests in this clause define compliance to IEC62238 or FCC Part 1, 2 or 80 as appropriate. Where these requirements are contrary toeach other the most stringent should apply. If both IEC 62238 and FCC tests apply to a radio then the most stringent should apply. However if only one set of tests is required (e.g. just FCC) then this is deemed to be satisfactory for radios sold in the USA and the IEC tests are then only required for radios to be sold in the EU. Text considered OK as is.

15

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

Clause 9.11 and 9.12

Squelch operation and hysteresis. There is no definition of Digital squelch and therefore I do not understand why these requirements are excluded for radios with digital squelch.

The majority of conventional and conventional VHF radios use a form of digitalsquelch control today for voice squelch control where the incoming signal isconverted to a digital number through a D/A converter and integrated over time, theresulting signal strength is compared to another D/A input driven by a rotary encoderor simple UP <> DOWN switches and the audio muted accordingly.

DSC signalling on Channel 70 does not have any squelch control signal applied asthis would adversely affect the perceived sensitivity and range of the unit. Othercriteria like BER (Bit Error Rate), symbol synchronisation and ECC are used todetermine whether the data received is accurate or not.

If digital squelch means something different from above please explain, otherwise Isuggest removal of the exclusion for Digital Squelch. Needs checking against latest IEC and ETSI standards, think intent is to not test Automatic Squelch just manually operated squelch, agree it should not matter if the manual function is achieved by analogue or digital means.

Clause 10.

DSC Transmitter Tests. See my comments for 6.15 regarding signallinginteroperability. See comments to section 6.15 above.

Annex A normative. A.1

DSC call types.The table is inconsistent with its own entries.

Distress Relay, Handheld DSC units should be able to receive the same calls as forClass D RX in column 4.

Handheld Class D is shown as able to transmit Individual R/T Distress Relay ACK;but is not able to receive the associated Distress Relay Individual RT call type.

Distress Relay ACK for Individual EPIRB, All Ships RT and All Ships EPIRB shouldbe able to be received by Handheld DSC radios in the same way that Class D is ableto receive but not transmit.Urgency and Safety calls. All Modes RT should be able to be sent by DSC handheldradio .Remove Note 1 and replace by black circle.

Urgency and Safety Calls [Individual and ACK] Position Request and Position ACKTX and RX should be allowed for both Class D and Handheld DSC radios. The abilityto send and receive position requests and ACKs is increasingly a mandatoryrequirement for both flotilla cruising as well as offshore and ocean racing.

16

RTCM Paper 184-2011-SC101-264

The Unable to Comply ACK for this class of call is not needed unless the appropriatecall types are allowed to be received. For example Duplex RT is a call type that theradio cannot use and therefore would need to transmit the Unable to Comply ACKsignal if it was received, but the table does not allow the Handheld or Class D radio toreceive that call type, therefore the Unable to Comply ACK would not be needed.

Routine Individual Calls and ACK. Polling and Polling ACK TX and RX should beallowed for both Class D and Handheld DSC radios for the same reason as givenabove for Position Request and ACK. Unable to Comply should be enabled for bothTX and RX for Class D and Handheld DSC as it is possible for a handheld radio tosend for example a Polling request to another radio that cannot support that call type[ old or not fully compliant radio] and without the ability to receive and decode theUnable to Comply message will cause the other radio to consider the call as notcomplete.

In general my view is that from a protocol point of view, every Class D unit be it ahandheld or fixed unit, should be able to receive any permitted call type and eitherignores it, responds as required if addressed or sends ‘unable to comply’ if the calltype is not supported or permitted in the Class D or Handheld DSC unit class.

The fact that a called unit responds ‘Unable to Comply’ does give the sending stationsome confidence that the call got through and so there is no need to try again with thesame call type, whereas if there is no response because the called unit is not allowedto receive or respond to that call, the sending station will retry the call again and againpotentially causing congestion in busy waters. The table is an exact copy of 493-13, the RTCM standard says that manufacturers can add additional DSC functionality over and above the minimum if they want to. Until ITU finalizes what it is doing in relation to updating 493-13 it is difficult for us to change this.

Clause B.1Essential patents??? This is an RTCM standards requirement, we are not aware of any essential patents at this time.

Discussion on ITU 585 and MMSI draft numbering proposals

Consider having radio send distress alert when red button pressed even if no MMSI entered in radio. However NO other functions of radio should work until MMSI number is entered, screen needs to warn customer of this as does the user manual and / or a label on the radio. Do we want to remove restriction of the user not being able to enter different MMSI numbers e.g. for when the radio is moved from one vessel to another. Need to review use of numbers in ITU 585 and MMSI numbering and 8MIDXXXXX numbering in radios.

Probably need to add extra section into standard to cover the above points.

17