A5-5 19 FR Comment: we might be missing the one for [Editors 21 March]: Already in. Closed – UM93 EXPECT APPROACH CLEARANCE Covered by UM226 and UM93. Suggested Change: Write [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – FURTHER/APPROACH or add new message March]: Agree with Editors. Table A5-5 21 FR Comment: How about speed and altitude [Editors 21 March]: No use case Closed – UM336 restrictions cancellations? identified for that. new clearance without these constraints can be Suggested Change: UM116, UM222 can be use for Speed constraints cancellation. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – March]: Agree with Editors. A5-5 38 AW 1. Suggest removing reference to 1 – approval’ in the message intent; e.g. 1 - [Editors 21 Agreed with Closed ‘granting – the UM82R/UM246 Intent change granting approval to deviate proposal. “Instruction approving a deviation up to the specified distance(s) from the cleared route in the specified direction(s). Not only defined for being used wit AIDC There are also concerns with regard to the changes made to the deviation 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – direction/distance. Currently a weather March]: Agree with change in deviation can be up to a specified distance on message intent. one side of route or the other, or the same 2 – distance on either side. The change allows Closed different distances on either side of route (e.g. 2 - [Editors 21 March]: Agreed and – 20NM left & 30NM right). The coordination of already done in the SPR. Error in such a clearance is NOT supported by the OPLINK Paper
A5-5 UM93 19 FR Comment: we might be missing the one for EXPECT APPROACH CLEARANCE Suggested Change: Write FURTHER/APPROACH or add new message [Editors – 21 March]: Already in. Covered by UM226 and UM93. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with Editors. Closed Table A5-5 UM336 21 FR Comment: How about speed and altitude restrictions cancellations? Suggested Change: [Editors – 21 March]: No use case identified for that. new clearance without these constraints can be UM116, UM222 can be use for Speed constraints cancellation. [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with Editors. Closed A5-5 38 AW 1. Suggest removing reference to ‘granting approval’ in the message intent; e.g. “Instruction granting approval to deviate approving a deviation up to the specified distance(s) from the cleared route in the specified direction(s). There are also concerns with regard to the changes made to the deviation direction/distance. Currently a weather deviation can be up to a specified distance on one side of route or the other, or the same distance on either side. The change allows different distances on either side of route (e.g. 20NM left & 30NM right). The coordination of such a clearance is NOT supported by the 1 - [Editors – 21 Agreed with the UM82R/UM246 Intent change proposal. Not only defined for being used wit AIDC 1 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: Agree with change in message intent. 2 - [Editors – 21 March]: Agreed and already done in the SPR. Error in OPLINK Paper 1 – Closed 2 – Closed
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx