EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group PARIS (France, Europe) , 26–30 September 2011

1. EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group PARIS (France, Europe), 26–30 September 2011 CSG Progress Report Meeting Objectives Work Organisation Jane HAMELINK , (THANE) RTCA CSG Co-Chair Thierry LELIEVRE, (ALTRAN) EUROCAE CSG Co-Chair

2. SC214/WG78 CSG Meetings and Webex (sinceSub-Group Meeting, Washington, June 2011) • SPR/INTEROP Editors Meeting, Toulouse, August 2011 • Improvement of SPR/INTEROP Consistency • Review and Resolution of CPLDC Message Set Issues • Progress one FIM Message Definition • Progress on D-TAXI Message assessment (from SESAR) • CSG Webex on a weekly basis • CPDLC Message Set Assessment • Resolution of open PDRs/Issues

3. Maintenance of SPR/INTEROP (version H) • 290 PDRs (263 since Washington, june) createdagainst version H: • List of PDRs are accessible on https://sc214wg78.egis-avia@egis.fr/csg/ • 34 PDRs are still “New/Working”: • 20 for SPR • 12 for INTEROP • 2 for Tech Manual

4. Maintenance of SPR • 166 PDRs (including [SPR/INTEROP] PDRs) • 20 PDRs are still New (4) / Working (16) : • 1 PDRs are related to CPLDC/ADS-C OPA • 9 PDRs are related to CPLDC/ADS-C OSA • 10 PDRs are related to OSD (Most of them from Message Set Assessemnt Feedback

5. Maintenance of INTEROP • 124 PDRs : 16 ATS Technical Manual + 108 INTEROP • For INTEROP: • 19 PDRs are still « Working / Proposed»: • 12 PDRs are related to INTEROP ATN • 4 PDRs are related to INTEROP FANS 1/A+ • 1 PDR isrelated to PICS • 2 PM-FIS & PM-ADS

6. Overview of main achievementssince SG Meeting (Wash.DC) • SPR/INTEROP 19 August 2011 Release is available on our SC214/WG78 website • Update of ATS Function • Correlation of Interop / Performance Designator with ATS Function and Flight Plan identifier • Alignment of SPR/INTEROP documents (Message set, ADS-C capabilities, …) • Progress CPLDC Message Set Assessment (See next slides) • 245 UM / 119 DM are “Required” => Closer to the operational needs • Proposal Flight Deck Automation Definition / FMS Integration Definition • SC214/WG78 Response to ICAO NAT ATM&CNS Issues => Some are still under discussion • Renumbering of existing CPDLC Messages (part of Doc 4444 ed.15) in order to ensure MsgID consistency with ICAO Doc 4444 Message set • Use of the same Msg ID number with an indication of revision (e.g. : UM117 is replaced by UM117R) • Assessment of DATACom validation report on Interoperability validation activities => New PDRs • Consolidation of CPDLC OSA / OPA (Oceanic Integration) • Initial draft of ADS-C OSA / OPA

7. CPDLC Message Set AssessmentHistory • Increase of the CPLDC Msg Set (as per Doc 44444 Ed 15) to support: • New datlinkoperations (NEXGEN/SESAR): • Interval Management, • Surface Operations (D-TAXI), • 4DTrajectory Management (4DTRAD) • Improvment of existingdatalinkoperations (LINK2000+, Oceanic) • Daily DL operations use a small CPDLC msg set : • OCR (FANS): • S-Pac: ~ 25 msgs out of 182 UM & 80 DM • NAT: Similar figures expected • LINK2K+: • ANSPs select small # of UMs • Growingmsg set is a concern: • More difficult to manage by flight crew • Increaseavionicscosts • HumanFactorsAnalysis (FAA/VOLPE) • => CPLDC MESSAGE SET OPTIMIZATION HAS BEEN REQUIRED! • Triggered by OPLINKP • Delegated to WG78/SC214 • Coordination withRegional groups (NAT, PAC, LINK2K+ ,etc) • Final Approval of Msg set in hands of OPLINKP • Assessmentstarted in Jan. 2011 • Initial feedbacks from AIRBUS, BOIENG, ISAVIA, NAT, EUROCONTROL, FAA • Coordination withRegional groups (NAT (coordinator : Leifur Hákonarson (Iceland) , PAC, LINK2K+ ,etc) and OPLINK

8. CPDLC Message Set AssessmentOverview The CPLDC message set is optimized to be more consistent with operational (Oceanic & Continental) needs • New capabilities : • Surface Ops (D-TAXI) • 4D Trajectory Mgt • FIM • Tailored Arrival, OPD,… • Not used/Useless messages are removed • New messages are added or existing messages are updated to support current operations • Experience from Oceanic use of DL and LINK2000+ • Convergence with GOLD • ASAS, ITP (ADS-B ops),… • Messages leading critical/safety issues are removed or reworded or replaced

9. CPDLC Message Set AssessmentOverview 73 New UM (+ ~ 20 FIM Msgunderdefinition) Focus on UPLINK 114 UM Unchanged 172 UM Doc 4444 Ed.15 245 UM Required (+ ~ 20 FIM Msg underdefinition) 32 UM Reworded 99 UM Not Required 26 UM Replaced (New variable/Parameter) 26 UM Replaced Doc 4444 Ed.15 73 UM Doc 4444 Ed.15 SPR version I (14Sept 2011)

10. CPDLC Message Set AssessmentOverview 35 New DM (+ ~ 8 FIM Msgunderdefinition) Focus on DOWNLINK 66 UM Unchanged 84 DMs Doc 4444 Ed.15 119 DM Required (+ ~ 8 FIM Msg underdefinition) 6 UM Reworded 46 DM Not Required 12 UM Replaced (New variable/Parameter) 12 DM Replaced Doc 4444 Ed.15 46 UM Doc 4444 Ed.15 SPR version I (14Sept 2011)

11. 245 UPLINK / 119 DOWNLINK are Required (+ ~ 20 UM / 8 DM FIM Msgunderdefinition) • 172 UM / 84 Messages are kept from Doc 4444 Ed.15 • 114 UM / 66 DM are unchanged • 32 UM / 6 DM are reworded, with no change of Message ID, usually to be avoid misleading/confusion: • AT [time) / BY [time] reworded respectively in AT OR AFTER TIME [time] / AT OR BEFORE [time] • AT [position] / BY [position] reworded respectively in AFTER PASSING [Position] / BEFORE PASSING [position] • Other wording improvement examples: • e.g. UM7 EXPECT CLIMB AT [time] is reworded in UM7 EXPECT HIGHER AT TIME [time] • e.g. DM44 ENSUING WAYPOINT (position) is reworded in DM44 NEXT PLUS ONE WAYPOINT (position) • 26 UM / 12 UM are replaced due to new variable/parameter definition to support advanced DL capabilities/services (e.g. 4DTRAD, DCL, Tailored arrival) • some [time] are required to support time expressed in second to support 4DTRAD • e.g. DM34 NEXT WAYPOINT ETA [time] is replaced by DM34R NEXT WAYPOINT ETA [timesec] • some [time] are required to support time expressed in second with a time tolerance to support 4DTRAD e.g. UM58 CROSS [position] AT [time ] AT [level] is replaced by UM58R CROSS [position] AT [RTAtimesec] AT [level] • Main parameters changes: • [Route clearance] replaced by [Route Clearance Enhanced] notably to provide a “Clearance Limit” and a time expressed in seconds. • [Departure Clearance] => [Departure Clearance Enhanced] including more capabilities to provide departure route indication • [Procedure Name ] => [Name Instruction] including more capabilities to provide procedure indication

12. 245 UPLINK / 119 DOWNLINK are Required (+ ~ 20 UM / 8 DM FIM Msgunderdefinition) • 73 UM / 35 DM are New Messages • To support new datalink services (as defined in SESAR/NEXGEN) • 4DTrajectory Management • e.g. UM337 CLEARANCE LIMIT [position] / DM157 PLANNED SPEED IN THE CLIMB [speed schedule] • Surface Operations / D-TAXI • e.g. UM329 INTERSECTION DEPARTURE [intersection] / DM151 REQUEST TAXI UPDATE [position information] • To improve existing operations • ITP • e.g. UM341 ITP [aircraft reference list] • Convergence with GOLD: • some preformatted free text are translate in new CPDLC Message • e.g. UM363 RELAY TO [aircraft flight identification] [unit ID] [relay text] / DM171 RELAY FROM [aircraft flight identification] [relayed text response]

13. 99 UPLINK / 46 DOWNLINK are Not Required • All 99 UM / 46 DM are removed from Doc 4444 Ed.15 CPLDC Message Set • 26 UM / 12 DM are replaced due to new variable/parameter definition to support advanced DL capabilities/services (e.g. 4DTRAD, DCL, Tailored arrival) • 73 UM / 34 DM are removed due to: • No identified operational needs / Not often used in current datalink operations(e.g. CRUISE Messages) • Redundantcy with other Messages (e.g; UM189 ADJUST SPEED TO [speed] is deemed redundant with UM106 MAINTAIN [speed]) • “Misleading/Confusing” Messages (e.g. some EXPECT messages) • Messages leading a safety issue (e.g. UM165 THEN) • Messages that can be accommodated by combination of existing/new messages (e.g. EXPEDITE / IMMEDIATELY Messages)

14. CPDLC Message Set Assessment – Planning overview

15. ONGOING TASK / OPEN ISSUES • CPLDC Message Set Assessment • Addition of FIM Messages (around 20 UM / 8 DM) – Definition is still under progress • Consolidation of Definition of Flight Deck Automation Status • Clarification is also required on how to handle/to consider such avionics capabilities in our SPR Standard (Requirement? Recommendation? …) • Usability of DM164 [traffic description] SIGHTED AND PASSED & DM165 [traffic description] NOT PSIGHTED. • In many cases, pilots will not have the ability to specify the [trafficDescription] (or A/C Flight Id as per PDR 202) parameter. • Proposal is to get rid of the [traffic description], the traffic description being provided in the Uplink or to limit the traffic description to the Aircraft type. • Status of SQUAWK / ADS-B Messages • UM168 DISREGARD • Proposal is to provide an indication of the clearance type it refers to. e.g. DISREGARD [level/speed/crossing/route/etc] CLEARANCE • Assessment of D-TAXI (in consequence of SESAR WP Feedback) • Assessment of proposal for new messages (from FAA/ZNY) • AT [time] CLEARED [route] (proposed by FAA) • CROSS [specifieddistance][direction] OF [position] AT [time] AT [level] AT [speed] (proposed by FAA) • CPLDC “Silence” as per doc ICAO Doc 4444 Ed15: • UM ((call sign) or ALL STATIONS) STOP SENDING CPDLC REQUESTS [UNTIL ADVISED] [(reason)] • DM ((call sign) or ALL STATIONS) RESUME NORMAL CPDLC OPERATION • No display of RTA Tolerance in “RTAtime” message: Is it an issue? • Use of DCL Message => Feedback from FAA DCL trial ?

16. ONGOING TASK / OPEN ISSUES • ADS-C • (NAT Comment) ADS-C Contract Report  Priorities / Sending ADS-C Report first to the CDA • Depending on the order the ADS-C contracts were established, it can take some time for the current control authority’s turn to come when reports are being sent to multiple addresses. NAT groups recommend, in the case where multiple ADS connections are established, that ADS reports are sent FIRST to the CDA (if there is also a CPDLC connection). • IMPORTANT: Due to this “queuing” issue, the RCP applicable to ADS-C in NAT region may be not met in certain situations for the last “served” grounds.  So this issue is more critical than serving first the CDA! • Avionic may mitigate it by allocating priority on ADS-C Contracts according to the nature/type of the Ground (e.g. ATC, Non ATC, CDA, Futur CDA) • Issues:  In the current use of ADS-C, the highest priority may be certainly allocated to the CDA. But in the future use of ADS-C (e.g. 4DTRAD environment) the highest priority may be allocated to a ground other than the CDA (e.g. a “broker” or a downstream ATSU requiring to monitor some 4DTRAD constraints in its airspace). • Two alternatives: • No change on ADS-C.  Is it operationally acceptable? How many times a CDA is not “served” in due time? • Management of ADS-C Contract priority: By the Avionic? By the Ground?

17. ONGOING TASK / OPEN ISSUES • FIS • D-OTIS / D-RVR • No new issues (document addressing issue for FIS – close PROPOSED PDRs) • On-going validation D-ATIS (SESAR) • Progress on D-HZWX OSD (FIS Tiger Team) • Selection services (non time sensitive services): • D-SIGMET (Significant MET Info) [mature] • D-SAR (Special Air Reports) [work in progress] • D-WR (Wake Vortex) [not confirmed for Dec 2011 SPR] • INTEROP D-SIGMET • Standard D-FIS Contract (Demand and Update) • No need for a SIGMET Reception Service / no need for a ground initiated service • SIGMET Report Message Definition • Based on Appendix 6 of ICAO Annex 3 and ICAO EUR SIGMET GUIDE (Doc 014 – 2nd Edition 2010) • Draft definition of SIGMET Report • Under informal review by CSG • Need for a structure SIGMET (vs. free text) • State Deviations (e.g. US) • Agenda item for Cedar Rapids Meeting

18. ONGOING TASK / OPEN ISSUES • To review/To agree on OSA / OPA • New version for CPDLC OSA (SPR-I-AnnexB-CPDLC-OSA-19Sep11) • OceanicIntegration of SRs • FIM safetyanalysis • Graphical D-TAXI • Changes to FTs for hazards OH-CPDLC-2 through 6 (FTs for OH-CPDLC-7 through 9 stillneedwork) • Relevant changes to SRsbased on changes to FTs(not all changes to SRs have been reflected in the summary of SRsat the end) • Betterexplanation of unit conversions used in FTs/SRs • Explanationof humanerror model • ADS-C OSA • Issues? Wim • New version of OPA (SPR-I-AnnexesEFGHI-OPA-13Sep11) • RCP specifications right in the spirit of GOLD • integrationwith the Oceanicside • No update of ADS-C/FIS OPA • Issues? Wim

19. SC214/WG78 CSG Meeting Objectives • Resolution of DO305/ED154 – FRAC Comments • Review of ATS Function Update and Correlation of Interop / Performance Designator with ATS Function and Flight Plan identifier • Backward compatibility issue raised by Boeing? To be confirmed by Boeing • To finalize as much as possible the CPLDC Message Set Assessment • Review, resolution and Agreements on proposals/open issues (listed before) • Review of proposed news messages including FIM Messages To be confirmed by Jane • Assessment the operational need for (pending) new messages • Assessement of Feedback from [SESAR 6.7.2 Project] regarding D-TAXI messages • (Position Paper - SESAR Project 6 7 2 - Analysis of DTAXI messages_V9.doc) • (SESAR Project 6 7 2 - Analysis of DTAXI messages_V9.xls) • The main purposes of this document are: • to introduce the need for simplification, modification and clarification of existing requirements within the D-TAXI service in SPR version H based on review conducted from the standpoint of SESAR project 6.7.2 (A-SMGCS planning and routing functions) and project 6.7.3 (A-SMGCS Guidance function). • to inform the standardization group about the set of candidate D-TAXI message elements selected for the SESAR validation • FAA Issues :Use of DCL Message (tbc) • Management of ADS-C Contract Priorities • Review of the D-HZWX / SIGMET report message (To be postpone for Cedar rapids?) • To review the CPLDC OSA-OPA Results and ADS-C OSA-OPA Results

20. CSG Work organisation

21. Remark ? Comment ? 21

22. SPARE 22

23. CPDLC Message Set Assessment 271 UM Required -------------------- 341 UM 40 PANS ATM Message « Replaced » 12 Messages « Not Used » 18 Reserved 245 UM Required (+ ~ 20 FIM Msgunderdefinition) ------------------- 365 UMs 245 OperationallyRequired 99 Not Required 21 Messages « Not Assigned » 227 UM Required ------------------ 245 UM 18 reserved 135 DM required ------------------- 161 DM 18 PANS ATM Messages « Replaced » 7 Messages « Not Used » 1 Reserved 119 DM Required (+ ~ 8 FIM Msgunderdefinition) ------------------- 172 DM 119 Operationallyrequired 46 Not Required 7 Messages « Not Assigned » 117 dMRequired ------------------- 118 DM 1 reserved ICAO PANS ATM DOC 4444 Ed15 SPR version I (14Sept 2011) SPR version H

24. CPDLC Message Set Assessment • From DOC 4444 Ed 15 (245 UMs) • 172 Uplink are operationally Required • 114 are Unchanged (including the one for which there is a recommendation for display or propose and proposal for intent) • 58 are changed: • 32 UM Rewording of the Message element text • 26 UM have been replaced due to new variable/parameter • 73 Not required (including 18 “reserved”) • From DOC 4444 Ed 15 (118 DMs) • 84 Req • 66 are Unchanged (including the one for which there is a recommendation for display or propose and proposal for intent) • 18 are changed: • 6 UM Rewording of the Message element text • 12 UM have been replaced due to new variable/parameter • 46 Not Required • New messages that are replaced by the old ones (restored) (e.g; “Timesec” messages not requiring time in seconds) • Redundant Messages (e.g; UM189 ADJUST SPEED TO [speed] is redundant with UM106 MAINTAIN [speed]) • “Confusing” Messages (e.g. some EXPECT messages) • Messages not Operationally Required / Rarely Used (e.g. CRUISE Messages) • Messages leading a safety issue (e.g. UM165 THEN) • Messages replaced by new one(s) ( e.g. new ALTIMETER Message in replacement of the UM153, UM178, UM213 and UM282) • Messages that can be accommodated by combination of existing/new messages (e.g. EXPEDITE / IMMEDIATELY Messages)