1 / 9

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Plenary #19 Koln, Germany 26-30 August 2013

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Plenary #19 Koln, Germany 26-30 August 2013. CSG Progress Report. Jane HAMELINK , (THANE) RTCA CSG Co-Chair Thierry LELIEVRE , (ALTRAN) EUROCAE CSG Co-Chair. Overview of SPR/INTEROP Comment Resolution. 77 Comments have been closed during this week

matana
Download Presentation

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Plenary #19 Koln, Germany 26-30 August 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Plenary #19 Koln, Germany 26-30 August 2013 CSG Progress Report Jane HAMELINK , (THANE) RTCA CSG Co-Chair Thierry LELIEVRE, (ALTRAN) EUROCAE CSG Co-Chair

  2. Overview of SPR/INTEROP Comment Resolution • 77 Comments have been closed during this week • 77 and 43 Comments remain respectively OpenandWorking + 14 VSG Comments • 76 Related to OPA • 26 Related to OSA • Resolution is under progress

  3. Overview of some of « Working » issues • Cmt#205,#206,#207 / Loading “HOLD” Message • Plenary#19:Action Airbus/Boeing: to confirm what the exact behavior for Nav database regarding the load of HOLD messages • By end of next week? • ADS-C / Aircraft ADS-C Connection Priority Allocation for ADS-C Reporting • Plenary#19: Agreed with adding a Priority Flag in ADS-C Event Contract request. Priority Flag has High, Medium, Low or Null values. Allocation of ADS-C priority has to be coordinated by grounds. • Action Christopher to propose a mechanism to manage priority allocation when receiving request with a priority already allocated to an existing ADS-C connection. • By end of next week? • Revision of Annex H – EPP data provision • CSG reviewed figures proposed by Gordon and solved open issues by fixing the content of EPP. • Action Joachim to update annex H notably with approved figures and planary#19 agreement on EPP content. • By end of next week?

  4. Overview of some of « Working » issues • Proposal to eliminateCPLDC/ADS-C Duplication (prepared by BOEING / AIRBUS) • Action to AIRBUS/BOEING: To prepare a position paper for Plenary#19 (August 2013) for approval to be proposed as an input for next OPLINK meeting. • Plenary#19: Agreed with submitting this proposal to next OPLINK (next October) for approval before integration to the SC214/WG78 SPR/INTEROP. No change will be made to the SPR/INTEROP for FRAC. If OPLINK approves the proposal, then this will be considered as part of the FRAC Comments. • Not an Issue for FRAC version. • Promotion of the “CM Server Concept” • Action to AIRBUS: to propose B2 Standards modifications in order to reinforce capabilities that support CM Server solution for ATN connection initiation. • Plenary#19:Agreed that If not available before FRAC version it will come as a FRAC comment. • Not an Issue for FRAC version. • Editorial -References to IM and ITP SPR in section 3 • See comment#383 : Agreed to add ref FIM and ITP SPR when known. • To be discussed at next plenary how to handle such references.

  5. SPR/INTEROP Document Status • PU-10 SPR • Section 1 – Introduction • Section 2 – ATS Functions : • RCP Values to be updated according to OPA results • Missing values for Non Data communication assumption (e.g. RNP xx for CDP) • Section 3 – Service Description • Section 4 – CM Application • Section 5 – CPLDC • Section 6 – ADS-C • New format for ADS-C Variable, Range and Resolution Table to be done • OSA/OPA Results to be integrated • OSA Annexes • To be updated with comment resolution and plenary#19 agreements • OPA Annexes • To be updated with comment resolution and plenary#19 agreements • Annex H - EPP Data Provision • To be updated with comment resolution and plenary#19 agreements • Annex I – Rules for FMS Loading • PU-20 Baseline 2 INTEROP • Update of CPLDC PI/OCS under progress • PU-30 FANS/Baseline 2 INTEROP • Update of ADS-C under progress • PU-40 PM ADS-C • PU-70 Baseline 2 with B1 BC INTEROP

  6. Objective for nexttwoweeks Consolidate the version M of SPR/INTEROP • Clean version to be posted on FAA Website • Editors will keep the redline version against version K • Separate files (as done for version K and L) • Question: FRAC comment matrix template? To bedelivered for FRAC by 16 September 2013

  7. Thankyou for your contribution 7

  8. Overview of some of « Closed » issues • How to handleLevel/Speed/Heading confirmation with R-ATSU duringtransfer? • Plenary#19: Agreed with creating new message to advise assigned Level, speed and/or Heading to the next ATSU (“receiving” ATSU”). • New UM334 shall allow the following combinations: UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED HEADING TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED SPEED TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED LEVEL TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED HEADING AND SPEED TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED HEADING AND LEVEL TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED LEVEL AND SPEED TO [unit id] UM334 ADVISE ASSIGNED HEADING, LEVEL AND SPEED TO [unit id] • “N” Response Attribute • No restriction for concatenating this new message. It could be append to CONTACT or MONITOR when appropriate • Cmt#346 / UM293 VERIFY MONITORING FREQUENCY [frequencyR]seemsUseless/Ambiguous • Plenary#19: Agreed to keep this message in the message set but it shall not be systematically sent when MONITOR is used. This message could be used by the R-ATSU Controller when appropriate (when confirmation of monitored frequency is required by the controller). • The message's intent has been clarified to avoid pilot to change frequency. • DSC Removal position paper prepared by BOEING / AIRBUS • Plenary#19: Agreed with the following: • To remove the DSC from Baseline 2 Standards • To keep OCL service.

  9. Overview of some of « Working » issues • Proposed changes in Route Clearance Parameters and Messages • Some CPDLC ORs are restricting the provision of departure or arrival information in the [route clearanceR] parameter depending if it is used in UM79, UM80, UM83. • Instead of having such ORs and associated Error cases, Editors propose to constraint the use of departure and arrival information at ASN-1 level: • Removal of dep/arr information from [route clearanceR] parameter; • Definition of new [departure dataO] and [arrival approach dataO] parameters containing respectively the departure and arrival information; • Modify the message containing route clearanceR parameter as follow: • UM79 CLEARED TO [positionR] VIA [departure dataO][ [route clearanceR] • UM80 CLEARED [departure dataO] [route clearanceR][arrival approach data] • UM83 AT [position ATW] CLEARED [route clearanceR] [arrival approach data] • DM24 REQUEST CLEARANCE [departure dataO][route clearanceR][arrival approach dataO] • DM40 ASSIGNED ROUTE [departure dataO][route clearanceR][arrival approach dataO]   • To be discussed Friday

More Related