Table A5-19 50 AW DM156 157: [Editors 21 March]: Agreed that Open – – What is the intended use of these downlinks? clarification is required about the use Is it in response to an uplink REPORT (speed cases for these messages. They are in types) SPEED, or CONFIRM ASSIGNED support of ITBO but no UM are SPEED? triggering them. To be discussed with 4DTRAD/ITBO experts. Suggest that the current message wording be amended, for example, is the following [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 21 – actually the (i.e. flight planned) March]: OPLINKP needs more details “planned” speed, the speed or the assigned about the operational intent. Action ‘intended’ speed (or even the speed)? for WG-78/SC-214 to seek ‘current’ clarification from 4DTRAD/ITBO PLANNED SPEED IN THE CLIMB (speed experts. schedule) Table A5-2 14 FR Comment: Why not just use 27 [Editors 21 March]: Open – UM 27-209 CLIMB/DESCEND were required by Eliminate 1 message to FAA. Up to the group to decide. (note Suggested Change: reduce the size of the message set there was a typo in message number when Editors originally commented, 209 was mistakenly 29). [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 21 – Recommend deleting UM March]: 209, when it is concatenated with a climb, it is the same as UM 27, and UM 47 can be used with more clarity. Table A5-2 15 FR Why not just use 28 Open Comment: [Editors 21 March]: – UM28-192 CLIMB/DESCEND were required by Suggested Change: Eliminate 1 message to FAA. Up to the group to decide. reduce the size of the message set
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
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx