120 likes | 137 Views
The proposal aims to address capacity, routes, user requirements, ANSP requirements, environment, safety working arrangement, and more through collaborative efforts. Detailed discussions on ANC, CP, OPDLWG, DCIWG, WG activities, and meeting formats are provided. Considerations for traffic forecasts, prioritization, and joint activities are emphasized. The need for specific working groups like VCSG for voice communications is explored.
E N D
Capacity • Delays • Routes • User Requirements • ANSP Requirements • Environment • Safety Working Arrangement agreed at CWG/1 ANC Review by PIRGS from Performance Framework CP - Information Management - User Capability (Avionics) - Training (All) - ATM/CNS Infrastructure/ Capability - Routs - Aerodormes - Human/ Economic Resources - Interoperability - Civil/Mil Requirements (incl. SUA) DCIWG OPDLWG Identify Performance and Capability Gaps WG-1 WG-n WG-1 WG-n To Assessment Phase Consider Traffic Forecast (Civil and Mil) Temp Groups Survey Joint WGs/SGs as required. Joint or concurrent meetings as possible. Consider Traffic Forecast (Civil and Mil) Prioritization
This appears complicated….. hence, some explanation is needed!
ANC • Job Cards • Amendments • Reports • Operational Issues Only • Job Cards • Amendments • Reports • Technical Issues Only DCIWG OPDLWG WG-1 WG-n WG-1 WG-n
So far, so good…. but what about the CP itself?
ANC CP DCIWG OPDLWG Temp Groups Joint WGs/SGs as required. Joint Activities
The Proposal • OPLINKP and ACP membership should be retained. • Now OPDLWG and DCIWG members respectively?? • CP on the other hand is another question. • All former ACP and OPLINKP member eligible • Suggest meetings every two years. • Fits in with Amendment cycle.
Possible meeting format PLENARY = CP WGs = DCIWG, OPDLWG
ACP had numerous WGs…. • WG- M (Maintenance) was “special” • It took care of the maintenance of existing provisions. • Many manuals or Chapters of Annex 10 Vol, need occasional tweaking. • Does not justify a dedicated group; • Often resolved in one meeting. • It has been suggested that this be a direct WG of the CP: • Serving the DCIWG and OPDLWG • Sounds Good!. What did the OPDLWG think?? The Answer was NO!
One More Thing… • The Commission also proposed another “specific” WG – The VCSG • The Voice Communications Working Group. • The DCIWG says that voice is…. • Just another data stream… • CWG/1 – Sept. 2015 • Voice is on the work programme???!! • Do we need a specific group to deal with this?
Now ? Lets discuss….