Presentation of GSA Survey

1. THE PERSPECTIVE OF BEACON
MANUFACTURERS
GALILEO SAR Workshop
European Space Solutions 2016
The Hague, 2nd June 2016

2. Survey launched in October 2015
Responses 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?

3. Do your beacons include a navigation receiver,
or can be connected to one?
Most beacons include location protocol

4. Multiconstellation GNSS receiver with Galileo is foreseen by most manufacturers
Which navigation systems do you include in
your current product line and next roadmaps?

5. Most important feature for GNSS receiver selection is power consumption
Main factors evaluated by manufacturers to
choose their receivers

6. Galileo Return Link Service is foreseen in most of new developments
Features foreseen in future beacons

7. 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%

8. 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

9. DISCUSSION TIME
THANK YOU!
Carmen Aguilera, Carmen.Aguilera@gsa.europa.eu
Manuel Lopez Martinez, Manuel.LopezMartinez@gsa.europa.eu

10. Navigation solutions powered by Europe
10
Discussion
European Space Solutions Conference
Moderator: Xavier Maufroid (European Commission)
Xavier.Maufroid@ec.europa.eu
Navigation solutions powered by Europe

11. 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

12. 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

13. Navigation solutions powered by Europe
THANK YOU!