6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – March]: Agreed on editorial change. OPLINKP also agreed with Editors on the need to assess to use case; could this message be sent alone and if so, how? 7 - [Editors 21 March]: To be – discussed. 7 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – March]: There is a PANS requirement to provide the pilot with an EXPECT (lvl) when issuing a departure clearance if the cleared altitude is different than the flight plan altitude. The risk associated with this element is minimal since this is normally happening while the AC is still at the gate. Agree with editorial: level instead “a” of level”. “at Table A5-20 51 AW DM20, 21 Agreed and Closed [Editors 21 – Suggest that two message elements could proposed be combined into one, using the proposed (frequencyR) variable: UM21R REQUEST VOICE CONTACT (frequencyR)
6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agreed on editorial change. OPLINKP also agreed with Editors on the need to assess to use case; could this message be sent alone and if so, how? 7 - [Editors – 21 March]: To be discussed. 7 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: There is a PANS requirement to provide the pilot with an EXPECT (lvl) when issuing a departure clearance if the cleared altitude is different than the flight plan altitude. The risk associated with this element is minimal since this is normally happening while the AC is still at the gate. Agree with editorial: “a” level instead of “at level”. Table A5-20 51 AW DM20, 21 Suggest that two message elements could be combined into one, using the proposed (frequencyR) variable: [Editors – 21 Agreed and proposed UM21R REQUEST VOICE CONTACT (frequencyR) Closed