message elements: TO F350. 3- [Editors 21 March]: Preference “CLIMB – HIGHER LEVEL NOT AVAILABLE”? is for 192R Intent that has been change While the ATC intent is (obviously) that a according to CSG consideration. But level higher than F350 is not available, that is that change has not been applied to not necessarily how the message may be 209 yet. interpreted. 3- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 21 – 6. Is the intent that this is an instruction March]: OPLINKP proposes these (in which case should it have a W/U attribute)? messages for deletion (see comment 4 Open – 14), Francois (ICAO Secretariat of Is it to be carried out in conjunction with OPLINKP) will gather more another vertical clearance (in case suggest information on this based on comment that is added to the intent) 14/15. Is the message element intended to apply to the 4 - [Editors 21 March]: Standalone – leaving the current level by the specified time, UNABLE is a valid response. It could or any intermediate level (because intermediate be concatenated with a level clearance levels are already covered by UM192R) (in response to the request) with a different level in order to justify why 7. UM302: A new message that the requested level is not proposed. It “EXPECT” appears to meet all the reasons that the other should avoid any further level requests EXPECT messages were deleted!!! 4 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – Is this a message that flight crews/ATC really March]: require? If this message element is really OPLINKP Disagreed with AW required in its present form, I suggest a reword comment. Keep UM 261, this helps of the message intent. The best I can come up prevent error in conjunction with with is: issuing the clearance. Clarify in message intent that this is only used in that at the specified amount of conjunction with a climb clearance 5 Open “Notification – time departure, a climb instruction may be when it is different than is what issued”. requested. UM 325 is not a suitable
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
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx