WITH (unit id) NOT AVAILABLE 6 - [Editors 21 March]: Up to 6 Open “CPDLC – – – REQUIRED EXPECT NEXT CPDLC the group FACILITY (unit id)” 6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 23 – 6. UM352 March]: OPLINKP agrees with the Suggest an amendment to the message intent: modification of message intent from AW, but proposes this message for that a SELCAL check an HF deletion. “Notification communication is expected on the specified frequency.” 7. UM363 RELAY TO (aircraft flight 7 – identification) (unit id) (relay text) Closed 7 - [Editors 21 March]: Yes a – Should a (frequency) (or (frequencyR)) frequency could be added. Up to the variable be included here to advise the group aircraft which frequency to transmit on? Or is it expected that this would be included as free 7- [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 23 – text in the (relay text)? Agree with AW, add frequency. Table A5-7 63 GS Um361 and um362 seem to be there Up to the group Closed [Editors 21 – exclusively to cover cases of ground system failures. I don’t think the airbornes systems [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 23 – should be complicated with special messages Disagree with GS, retain March]: to cover ground system failures. Free text messages to avoid standardized free could be used for the rare cases where these text since an operational need is might be used. They are candidates for identified. deletion. Table A5-8 7 JC Comment: R [CSG Webex 14 March] Agreed Closed – with the suggested change
“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
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx