4. UM292 AT (positionR) DESCEND VIA (named_instruction) 5 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – March]: There is an operational need Won’t this new message element potentially for this message element per cause the same problems that were attempted 5.4.1.2.1.2 in PANS-ATM, therefore to be corrected in UM22 & 25? retain message. 6 – Suggest that is replaced with Closed “AT” “AFTER PASSING”; i.e. PASSING AT “AFTER (positionR) DESCEND VIA 6 - [Editors 21 March]: Required – (named_instruction)”. The same comment by FAA. applies to UM295. 6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 22 – Also suggest that the message intent for both Agree with AW and message elements be changed replace recommend deletion of UM289. – “when reaching” with passing” “after 5. UM303 CLEARED TO DEVIATE UP TO (number of degrees) DEGREES (direction) OF ROUTE Is this message element really, really required? Just very recently I had an aircraft ask for a heading due to weather (which I issued for the fun of it). 3 heading changes later, the aircraft finally cleared the weather. This workload could have been replaced with a single request for 30NM left of route! 6. REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED
4. UM292 AT (positionR) DESCEND VIA (named_instruction) Won’t this new message element potentially cause the same problems that were attempted to be corrected in UM22 & 25? Suggest that “AT” is replaced with “AFTER PASSING”; i.e. “AFTER PASSING AT (positionR) DESCEND VIA (named_instruction)”. The same comment applies to UM295. Also suggest that the message intent for both message elements be changed – replace “when reaching” with “after passing” 5. UM303 CLEARED TO DEVIATE UP TO (number of degrees) DEGREES (direction) OF ROUTE Is this message element really, really required? Just very recently I had an aircraft ask for a heading due to weather (which I issued for the fun of it). 3 heading changes later, the aircraft finally cleared the weather. This workload could have been replaced with a single request for 30NM left of route! 6. REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED 5 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 March]: There is an operational need for this message element per 5.4.1.2.1.2 in PANS-ATM, therefore retain message. 6 - [Editors – 21 March]: Required by FAA. 6 - [OPLINKP WG/WHL/4 – 22 Agree with AW and recommend deletion of UM289. 6 – Closed
OPLINKPWGWHL-4-APR.docx