that a speed instruction “Notification may be issued at the specified position.” 2. UM23, 24: Suggest replacing with UM102R AT LEVEL (level single) “a” “the” in the message intent: EXPECT SPEED CLEARANCE that a instruction “Notification that a descent to the a specified may be issued at the specified time.” “Instruction or vertical range is to commence and once reached is to be maintained.” Is it useful to specify HIGHER / LOWER Speed? Do we need to 3. The message intents of UM192R and specify the speed value? are markedly different, despite them being similarly intentioned message elements. Consider changing UM302 as well? Suggest using the intent of UM209R in UM192R (making appropriate changes to 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 21 – allow for the (time) variable instead of the March]: Disagree with Editors’ (positionR) variable change of message elements (above), 2 – but agree with proposed change in Closed 4. UM261: Surely UNABLE says the same message intent. thing? Or if a clearance is issued that is different to that requested wouldn’t UM325 be used? The danger that is faced is the scenario 2 - [Editors 21 March]: Agreed – where an aircraft requests FL350 (say), and the (and done in SPR/INTEROP) controller simply responds with REQUESTED LEVEL IS NOT AVAILABLE, rather than Same has to be done for UM20, UNABLE UM215R, DM143 Suggest UM261 is not required. 2- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 21 – March]: Agree with comment and 3 Open – 5. UM262, 263: Is there the possibility of Editors resolution (above). confusion with the following combination of
2. UM23, 24: Suggest replacing “a” with “the” in the message intent: “Instruction that a descent to the a specified or vertical range is to commence and once reached is to be maintained.” 3. The message intents of UM192R and are markedly different, despite them being similarly intentioned message elements. Suggest using the intent of UM209R in UM192R (making appropriate changes to allow for the (time) variable instead of the (positionR) variable 4. UM261: Surely UNABLE says the same thing? Or if a clearance is issued that is different to that requested wouldn’t UM325 be used? The danger that is faced is the scenario where an aircraft requests FL350 (say), and the controller simply responds with REQUESTED LEVEL IS NOT AVAILABLE, rather than UNABLE Suggest UM261 is not required. 5. UM262, 263: Is there the possibility of confusion with the following combination of “Notification that a speed instruction may be issued at the specified position.” UM102R AT LEVEL (level single) EXPECT SPEED CLEARANCE “Notification that a instruction may be issued at the specified time.” Is it useful to specify HIGHER / LOWER Speed? Do we need to specify the speed value? Consider changing UM302 as well? 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Disagree with Editors’ change of message elements (above), but agree with proposed change in message intent. 2 - [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed (and done in SPR/INTEROP) Same has to be done for UM20, UM215R, DM143 2- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 21 March]: Agree with comment and Editors resolution (above). 2 – Closed 3 – Open