2 Global Communications Harmonization Plan Future Convergence strategy High Level Road Map Operational improvement blocks Development of benefit metrics Prepare for the future. Rationalise: CPDLC application ADS-C application AIDC application D-FIS application Consider also where the global data link plan and other deliverable material would reside Note: when looking at applications, this includes feedback to SC214/WG78, and is wider than just the message sets and the plan. Also includes HMI considerations and procedures. G. M. J. Condis R. Mead A. Krebber D. Nguyen D. Cherry 3 Propose amendments to RCP Manual 9869 WP08 Put in manageable format, ie WORD Use comment matrix, and mark-ups to support comment matrix T. W. Brondsema N. Dwyer 4 Operational Data Link guidance material. Merge GOLD and L2K+ a) Monitor progress of inter-regional activity including EANPG and GOLD Ad Hoc Working Group b) Review CPDLC Guidance material (Appendix L of the OPLINKP Report, Sep 2005) against GOLD and consider potential amendments to GOLD. L2K+ GOLD P. A. Krebber T. C. Kwek W. Brondsema 5 Global SATCOM guidance material a) Identify need for SARPs and where in ICAO Annex or PANS provisions SATCOM S. T. Kraft E. Harrell C. Yeo 6 Proposed amendments to amend Doc 9694 Proposal is to remove obsolete a) Monitor progress of inter-regional activity on development of ICD for AIDC. b) Refer to the future WP deliverables for GLOBAL AIDC c) Check for cross references in ICAO material P. N. Dwyer A OPERATIONAL
material (All except AIDC material) 7 Report to ANC - response to High Safety Conference. Data link initiatives relating to advancing safety in air navigation Prepare WP for ANC review planned for June 2011 4444, 9 – FIS HLSC O. C. Cirilo J. Roustan S. Arnold J. Condis 8 Global issues/resolutions database Plan for CRA Europe Current CRA & databases (ISPACG/NAT DLMA, Japan + ???) GOLD P. — — — — — — — — A
“In the new scheme, the urgency of the messages may still determine the ordering of messages in a queue so that urgent messages would still be displayed” 4.15 56 GS Jerome has put in a comment on this, but we need to make it clear that we do NOT support any requirements to change the ordering of message display based on message attributes of any kind. See Comment 3 (above). Open 4.2.4 1 JC Comment: In order to clarify rationale for change, it would be helpful to distinguish “Requests for immediate report or confirmation” (e.g. REPORT PRESENT LEVEL for report and “CONFIRM ASSIGNED LEVEL”) and “Instruction to report upon a specific event” (e.g. REPORT MAINTAINING [level single]). 4.2.4 shall apply to the first category only. Second category shall still be tagged as “instructions” (W/U resp attribute). Suggested Change: Requests for immediate report or confirmation were formed as “Requests” rather than “Instructions” as in the past (e.g., UM132 REPORT POSITION, “Instruction to report the present position” was revised to “Request to report the present position”). R [CSG Webex – 14 March]: Agreed with the suggested change [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agree with the suggested change, 4.2.4 revised to the following: Requests for immediate report or confirmation were formed as “Requests” rather than “Instructions” as in the past (e.g., REPORT POSITION, “Instruction to report the present position” was revised to “Request to report the present position”). Closed
It must be recognised that the alternative in many cases is HF voice which may result in a delay of several minutes in issuing a ‘time critical’ clearance. It must also be recognized that some States may use the message elements in the CPDLC message set to communicate clearances via their HF operator. Deletion of these message elements may also prevent them being transmitted by HF! as needed. This concatenation could be a part of ground automation. This also provides the opportunity to create any new emergency messages as needed (applies also to Comment 33). 4.6.1 33 AW The creation of standalone message elements “IMMEDIATELY” and “EXPEDITE” appears to contradict the reason in the previous paragraph for the deletion of the IMMEDIATELY/EXPEDITE message elements! IMMEDIATELY & EXPEDITE are terms generally used when ATC requires the clearance to be executed without delay. However the actual creation of the message (and finding that rarely used :IMMEDIATELY” message element) will probably do more harm than good. are also human factors issues with regard to whether the additional message element is appended or pre-pended to the clearance, and how this combination of message elements is displayed. [Editors – 21 March]: It can be completely transparent for the controller depending of the implementation. Concatenations could be “pre-formatted” and proposed by the system according to the operational context. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agree with Editors above. See also status of Comment 32. Closed
could be used to clear “step climbs (or descent)” in cruise. Suggested Change: An instruction to assign an altitude constraint to a downstream waypoint does not convey any clearance to maintain this level beyond the constrained waypoint. … Table A5-1 4 JC Comment: is a request for a report. Suggested Change: Move into Table A5-8. R [CSG Webex – 14 March]: Agreed with the suggested change. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agreed with suggested change. Closed Table A5-1 UMs 164, 177, 247 13 FR Comment: Are these messages really conveying a different message? Not sure what is different between when ready and when able Suggested Change: Eliminate one or 2 messages to reduce the size of the message set [Editors – 21 Both are already and currently used. Political decision! [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: OPLINKP recommends retaining “WHEN READY” (UM164) and deleting UMs 177 and 247. Open Table A5-1 35 AW 1. The message intent of some message elements commences with “Indication”, whilst others commence with “Indicates”. It isn’t a huge issue, but let’s standardize it. 2. UM1: Suggest adding the words “has been received” to the message intent: “Indication that the message has been received and will be responded to shortly.” 1 - [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed to change “Indicates” to “Indication” (to be consistent with other type of messages (e.g. instruction to…)) 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agree with proposed change. 2- [Editors – 21 March]: – Support to change it to “Indication that the 1 – Closed
flight identification) (FIM target aircraft routing) TERMINATE AT (position ATW) ASSIGNED SPACING INTERVAL PENDING Given the deletion of a number of “EXPECT” messages due to their ‘lack of operational use’, is there really any perceived use for this message element? I can’t really see any controller going through the effort of constructing this message when it is just an expectation… recommended changes and will take this back to the FIM Tiger Team. Table A5-15 47 AW IMMEDIATELY Suggest delete this proposed message element. Its only real use appears to be to append it to a small number of message elements (e.g. CLIMB TO [level]) to create a message similar to a deleted message element “IMMEDIATELY CLIMB TO [level]”!!! However the “immediately” aspect is lost when you consider the extra time required to find the little used “IMMEDIATELY” message element to append to the CLIMB TO [level] element! There can be no automation associated with the IMMEDIATELY message element, whereas there couple potentially be with an IMMEDIATELY CLIMB TO [level] message element [Editors – 21 Duplicate comment with cmt#33? It can be completely transparent for the controller depending of the implementation. Concatenations could be “pre-formatted” and proposed by the system according to the operational context. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agree with Editors above. See also status of Comment 32. Closed
Table A5-19 50 AW DM156 – 157: What is the intended use of these downlinks? Is it in response to an uplink REPORT (speed types) SPEED, or CONFIRM ASSIGNED SPEED? Suggest that the current message wording be amended, for example, is the following actually the “planned” (i.e. flight planned) speed, the ‘intended’ speed or the assigned speed (or even the ‘current’ speed)? PLANNED SPEED IN THE CLIMB (speed schedule) [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed that clarification is required about the use cases for these messages. They are in support of ITBO but no UM are triggering them. To be discussed with 4DTRAD/ITBO experts. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: OPLINKP needs more details about the operational intent. Action for WG-78/SC-214 to seek clarification from 4DTRAD/ITBO experts. Open Table A5-2 UM 27-209 14 FR Comment: Why not just use 27 Suggested Change: Eliminate 1 message to reduce the size of the message set [Editors – 21 March]: CLIMB/DESCEND were required by FAA. Up to the group to decide. (note there was a typo in message number when Editors originally commented, 209 was mistakenly 29). [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Recommend deleting UM 209, when it is concatenated with a climb, it is the same as UM 27, and UM 47 can be used with more clarity. Open Table A5-2 UM28-192 15 FR Comment: Why not just use 28 Suggested Change: Eliminate 1 message to reduce the size of the message set [Editors – 21 March]: CLIMB/DESCEND were required by FAA. Up to the group to decide. Open
[OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Same recommended resolution as Comment 14, except this addresses time rather than position. Recommend deleting UM 192. A5-2 UM 28-192 16 FR Comment: Why not just use 28; same comment at 15. Suggested Change: Eliminate 1 message to reduce the size of the message set [Editors – 21 CLIMB/DESCEND were required by FAA. Up to the group to decide. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Comment duplicated. See comment 15. Open Table A5-2 58 GS Is part of DCL? I question why free text is not used for this part of the clearance. That would make this element a candidate for deletion. [Editors – 21 Yes part of DCL. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: This is a PANS-ATM requirement, cannot delete. See comment 36-7. Closed A5-2 36 AW 1. UM8R, UM10R: Suggest replacing “descend” with “descent” in the message intent: “Notification that a descent descend instruction may be issued at the specified position.” 1 - [Editors – 21 It is UM9 not UM8R. Editor change proposal on EXPECT LEVEL Message Text: Note: time/position condition moved to first place (to be consistent with expect speed messages) UM7 AT TIME (time) EXPECT HIGHER LEVEL CLEARANCE 1 – Closed
message elements: “CLIMB TO F350. HIGHER LEVEL NOT AVAILABLE”? While the ATC intent is (obviously) that a level higher than F350 is not available, that is not necessarily how the message may be interpreted. 6. Is the intent that this is an instruction (in which case should it have a W/U attribute)? Is it to be carried out in conjunction with another vertical clearance (in case suggest that is added to the intent) Is the message element intended to apply to the leaving the current level by the specified time, or any intermediate level (because intermediate levels are already covered by UM192R) 7. UM302: A new “EXPECT” message that appears to meet all the reasons that the other EXPECT messages were deleted!!! Is this a message that flight crews/ATC really require? If this message element is really required in its present form, I suggest a reword of the message intent. The best I can come up with is: “Notification that at the specified amount of time departure, a climb instruction may be issued”. 3- [Editors – 21 March]: Preference is for 192R Intent that has been change according to CSG consideration. But that change has not been applied to 209 yet. 3- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: OPLINKP proposes these messages for deletion (see comment 14), Francois (ICAO Secretariat of OPLINKP) will gather more information on this based on comment 14/15. 4 - [Editors – 21 March]: Standalone UNABLE is a valid response. It could be concatenated with a level clearance (in response to the request) with a different level in order to justify why the requested level is not proposed. It should avoid any further level requests 4 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: OPLINKP Disagreed with AW comment. Keep UM 261, this helps prevent error in conjunction with issuing the clearance. Clarify in message intent that this is only used in conjunction with a climb clearance when it is different than is what requested. UM 325 is not a suitable 4 – Open 5 – Open
2- [Editors – 21 March]: Request sent to the Downstream ATSU. (not to the CDA) 2- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with the Editors. A5-22 10 JC Comment: As per WG78 discussions, DM113R, DM76R, DM114, DM102, DM104R, DM105, DM106R and DM109R are reponses to report requests. They are not notifications. Suggested Change: Update Message Intents by replacing “Notification…” with “Report indicating…” R [CSG Webex – 14 March]: Agreed with the suggested change It is applicable to every “Notification” (e.g. DM78R) [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 Agreed with the suggested change, recommend double-checking its applicability to all messages. DM113R Intent shall be updated according to SPR Intent. – added as comment 26 Closed A5-22 11 JC Comment: As per WG78 discussions, DM79 is not a notification. Suggested Change: Update Message Intents by replacing “Notification…” with “Confirmation…” R [CSG Webex – 14 March]: Disagreed with the suggested change and Proposed “Report indicating…” [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with CSG above and proposed change (“Report indicating…”). Need to determine how this applies to emergency messages (that are notifications). Open
Table A5-22 12 JC Comment: DM167 reponse and alert attirbutes are missing. Suggested Change: Add attributes for DM167., “M” and M” R, E [CSG Webex – 14 March]: Agreed with the suggested change. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed. Closed Table A5-22 DM113R 26 TL Comment: Need to make sure intent matched intent from SPR (also noted above from CSG, comment 10) Suggested Change: Currently “Notification of the requested Should be revised to: “Notification of the speed defined by the specified speed types is the specified speed.” E [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed to be done. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed. Closed A5-22 53 AW 1. DM78R (distance) FROM (positionR) The same comment to that made in Comment 12 regarding the (to/from) variable 2. 165 The variable (traffic type and or location) does not support options such as “crossing”, “opposite direction” etc 3. DM167 WE WILL MAINTAIN (level single)AT TIME (time) Minor typo – add <space> between “)” and “AT” 1- [Editors – 21 March]: It refers to comment 41. No (to/from) variable. 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Implement a “to/from” variable. See also comment 29. “To” should be used when the ground ATC wants to refer to a downstream waypoint in the route (e.g. aircraft will report the flying distance up to this waypoint in the FMS flight plan). “From” should be used in any other case, including to request distance from a waypoint that is not part of the Flight Plan. 2- [Editors – 21 March]: Neither in GOLD the initial definition of TrafficTypeLocation paramater contained this information. CSG 1 – Closed
WHEN CAN WE EXPECT CLEARANCE TO REJOIN BACK ON ROUTE Request for the earliest time that a clearance to rejoin the cleared route can be expected. If the above is agreed to, it may be necessary to resurrect UM70 & 71 EXPECT BACK ON ROUTE BY (position/time), although with slightly different wording 2. DM115 WE CAN ACCEPT (level) AT (positionR) Should be replaced with (level single) (as per 81R) 3. DM81R: Suggested correction to the wording of the message intent: “Indication that the specified can be accepted at the specified time.” 2- [Editors – 21 DM115 is already a single level in SPR and INTEROP. Error in the OPLINK paper. 2- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed; editorial. 3- [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed. It is what we have in SPR and INTEROP. Error in the OPLINK paper. 3- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed; editorial. 2 – Closed 3 – Closed Table A5-29 Range and Resolution Table 27 TL Comment: Position should be Position R Suggested Change: Add “R” E [Editors – 21 Agreed. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed; editorial. Closed Table A5-29 55 AW 1. (assigned time type): “CTOT”, 1 -[Editors – 21 1 – Open
“In Accordance with” “At or After”, “At or Before” the specified time” The “Parameters” are “none” Shouldn’t the definition be something like: “Indication of when the associated instruction is to be performed relative to the specified time”, and the parameters be something like: “Choice: “At”; or “In Accordance with”; or “At or After”; or “At or Before”” The same comment applies to many of the variables No. Style issue. 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed with Editors. Table A5-3 UM56 17 FR Comment: CROSS (position ATW) AT OR LESS THAN (speed) Suggested Change: CROSS (position ATW) AT(speed) OR LESS to be consistent with 108/109 [Editors – 21 March]: Disagreed. Style is consistent with other CROSS. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: OPLINK disagrees with the Editors and recommends this should be consistent with the speed instructions. Open Table A5-3 UM57 18 FR Comment: (position ATW) AT OR GREATER THAN (speed) [Editors – 21 Disagreed. Style is consistent with other CROSS. Open
Suggested Change: CROSS (position ATW) AT(speed) OR GREATER to be consistent with 108/109 [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: OPLINK disagrees with the Editors and recommends this should be consistent with the speed instructions. Table A5-4 5 JC Comment: UM70R perfectly fulfil criterias for deletion as defined in §4.5.1.3. Suggested Change: Remove (and add it in the list of deleted EXPECT messages in §4.5.1.3). R [CSG Webex – 14 March] Agreed with the suggested change. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with suggested change. UM69 shall be reinstated as UM69R “REJOIN ROUTE AT OR BEFORE TIME (time)” -- added as comment 28, from CSG discussion on 14 March Closed Table A5-4 UM69 28 US, CSG Comment: UM69 shall be reinstated as UM69R -- see comment 5 Suggested Change: Add UM69R “REJOIN ROUTE AT OR BEFORE TIME (time)” R [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with suggested change. Closed Table A5-4 37 AW 1. UM69 REJOIN ROUTE BY (time): Recommend that this message element (currently proposed for deletion) be retained. Some ATSUs that use a conflict probe to calculate a ‘conflict start time’ for an off-track aircraft may use the REJOIN ROUTE BY (time) in preference to the REJOIN ROUTE BY (position) option. 1 -[Editors – 21 March]: Agreed 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree, see comment 28. 1 – Closed
A5-5 UM93 19 FR Comment: we might be missing the one for EXPECT APPROACH CLEARANCE Suggested Change: Write FURTHER/APPROACH or add new message [Editors – 21 March]: Already in. Covered by UM226 and UM93. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with Editors. Closed Table A5-5 UM336 21 FR Comment: How about speed and altitude restrictions cancellations? Suggested Change: [Editors – 21 March]: No use case identified for that. new clearance without these constraints can be UM116, UM222 can be use for Speed constraints cancellation. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with Editors. Closed A5-5 38 AW 1. Suggest removing reference to ‘granting approval’ in the message intent; e.g. “Instruction granting approval to deviate approving a deviation up to the specified distance(s) from the cleared route in the specified direction(s). There are also concerns with regard to the changes made to the deviation direction/distance. Currently a weather deviation can be up to a specified distance on one side of route or the other, or the same distance on either side. The change allows different distances on either side of route (e.g. 20NM left & 30NM right). The coordination of such a clearance is NOT supported by the 1 - [Editors – 21 Agreed with the UM82R/UM246 Intent change proposal. Not only defined for being used wit AIDC 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with change in message intent. 2 - [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed and already done in the SPR. Error in OPLINK Paper 1 – Closed 2 – Closed
AIDC application (ground-ground coordination) The same comment(s) to UM246 2. UM96: Suggest removing either the word “present” or “current” from the message intent: “Instruction to continue to fly on the current present heading” 3. UM284 DESCEND OUT OF CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: a) Does this message element belong in A5-5? Maybe A5-2 would be more appropriate? b) Suggest that the message element text be revised, to match the voice phraseology:- e.g. LEAVE CONTROL AIRSPACE DESCENDING Maybe UM236 could even be adapted to: LEAVE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE [new_variable], where [new_variable] is a choice of NONE, DESCENDING or CLIMBING. 2 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 Agree; editorial. 3 - [Editors – 21 March]: a) b) to be discussed with the group. It could be a vertical instead of route. 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with AW. Delete UM284, modify UM236 to accommodate parameter for none, descending, and climbing. But, keep message in Table 5-5. 4 - [Editors – 21 March]: To be discussed in the group. Rationale to keep AT was: A procedure (named_instruction) has to be started at the position which is the first position in the procedure. 4 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with the Editors. 5 - [Editors – 21 March]: To be discussed with the group 3 – Closed 4 – Open 5 – Closed
4. UM292 AT (positionR) DESCEND VIA (named_instruction) Won’t this new message element potentially cause the same problems that were attempted to be corrected in UM22 & 25? Suggest that “AT” is replaced with “AFTER PASSING”; i.e. “AFTER PASSING AT (positionR) DESCEND VIA (named_instruction)”. The same comment applies to UM295. Also suggest that the message intent for both message elements be changed – replace “when reaching” with “after passing” 5. UM303 CLEARED TO DEVIATE UP TO (number of degrees) DEGREES (direction) OF ROUTE Is this message element really, really required? Just very recently I had an aircraft ask for a heading due to weather (which I issued for the fun of it). 3 heading changes later, the aircraft finally cleared the weather. This workload could have been replaced with a single request for 30NM left of route! 6. REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED 5 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: There is an operational need for this message element per 5.4.1.2.1.2 in PANS-ATM, therefore retain message. 6 - [Editors – 21 March]: Required by FAA. 6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 Agree with AW and recommend deletion of UM289. 6 – Closed
4 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: OPLINKP agrees with AW proposal. 12.4.1.6. (c) in PANS-ATM uses “MAINTAIN” Table A5-6 62 GS Um308 (calling for maximum and minimum speed don’t sound like they’d be common datalink messages. They appear to be candidates for deletion. [Editors – 21 March]: Up to the Group [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Operational need for messages identified, retain messages. Closed A5-7 6 JC Comment: As per §4.2.1, message intent should indicate the controller does not have to contact ATC by voice. Suggested Change: Update message intent with : “Instruction to change to and monitor the specified frequency of the specified ATS Unit name. The flight crew is not required to establish voice contact on the frequency” R [CSG Webex – 14 March] Agreed with the suggested change. Applicable to UM120R, UM121R, UM122R and UM296. Chapter §4.2.1shall be updated accordingly. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agreed with the suggested changes and CSG above. Closed A5-7 UM361/362 22 FR Comment: Wording is inadequate. Pilots may turn off ADS-C Suggested Change: ADS-C TERMINATED…. [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed with the issue. Up to the group. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Modify message element to replace “SHUT DOWN” with “ADS-C OUT OF SERVICE” as in the voice phraseology in PANS-ATM (12.5.1). Closed
This covers both termination and shut down. Table A5-7 40 AW 1. (Multiple message elements): Should consideration be given to including “Flight Service” as an option in the facility_functionR variable? 2. The (position_ground_air) variable is extremely complicated! 3. The (time_ground_air) variable is a little confusing. (time_ground_air) is a choice of (time) or (assigned_time_value) <OK> (assigned_time_value) is a sequence of (time_preposition) (O), (assigned_time_type) (O) and (time) (M) (time_preposition) is “AT”, “AT or before” etc (assigned_time_type) is “CDOT”, “EOBT” etc (time) is simply the time in and minutes So a (time_ground_air) value could be “AT OR BEFORE EOBT 2200” Is that correct? 4. UM240, 241, 242 Is there a reason why the ADS-B-related message elements were deleted? 1 - [Editors – 21 March]: What is a Flight Service? Up to the group 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agree with AW. Add “Flight Service” to the list. 2 - [Editors – 21 March]: We don’t think so. It is choice between an Air position and a Gnd position. 2 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agree with Editors above. 3 - [Editors – 21 March]: There are possible combinations that do not make sense. Up to the ground to provide a valid one. 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agree with Editors. 4 - [Editors – 21 March]: Generic messages for Surveillance have been defined. They could be used whatever the surveillance means are. 1 – Closed 2 – Closed 3 – Closed 4 – Closed
“CPDLC WITH (unit id) NOT AVAILABLE REQUIRED EXPECT NEXT CPDLC FACILITY (unit id)” 6. UM352 Suggest an amendment to the message intent: “Notification that a SELCAL check an HF communication is expected on the specified frequency.” 7. UM363 RELAY TO (aircraft flight identification) (unit id) (relay text) Should a (frequency) (or (frequencyR)) variable be included here to advise the aircraft which frequency to transmit on? Or is it expected that this would be included as free text in the (relay text)? 6 - [Editors – 21 March]: – Up to the group 6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: OPLINKP agrees with the modification of message intent from AW, but proposes this message for deletion. 7 - [Editors – 21 March]: Yes a frequency could be added. Up to the group 7- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 Agree with AW, add frequency. 6 – Open 7 – Closed Table A5-7 63 GS Um361 and um362 seem to be there exclusively to cover cases of ground system failures. I don’t think the airbornes systems should be complicated with special messages to cover ground system failures. Free text could be used for the rare cases where these might be used. They are candidates for deletion. [Editors – 21 Up to the group [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Disagree with GS, retain messages to avoid standardized free text since an operational need is identified. Closed Table A5-8 7 JC Comment: R [CSG Webex – 14 March] Agreed with the suggested change Closed
Note. The (from) variable in the proposed UM181R should actually be text “FROM” (this feedback has already been provided to the WP authors) A5-8 42 AW 1. UM294 and UM307 appear to be duplicated – possibly an inadvertent “paste” 2. UM349 REPORT SIGHTING AND PASSING OPPOSITE DIRECTION (traffic type and location) (ETP time) The variable (traffic type and location) does not allow for the altitude displacement of the aircraft; e.g. 1000FT ABOVE, 2000FT BELOW – it simply permits “above” or “below” 3. REPORT STARTING INTERVAL SPACING Is this message text intuitive for a flight crew to easily understand its meaning? Would replacing “STARTING” with “COMMENCING” make it any clearer? 1 - [Editors – 21 Agreed. UM307 shall be REPORT REQUIRED RVR 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agreed, editorial. 2 - [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed. To be discussed. 2 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Operational use usually specifies vertical displacement. Traffic type and location would have to include an additional variable to include feet above and below. 3 - [Editors – 21 March]: To be discussed with FIM Tiger Team. 3 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 23 March]: Agree with Editors. Discuss with FIM Tiger Team. 1 – Closed 2 – Open 3 – Open A5-8 64 GS Um 128R, 129R, 180R, 130R, 181R, 132, 133 and 146 are really surveillance data requests. This information should be available from [Editors – 21 March]: Up to the group to decide. Closed