1 / 10

FAA Implementation of Amendment 1

FAA Implementation of Amendment 1. Vendors Conference Discussion. Outline. Issues regarding use of FPL data Regional Variations (SUPPS) FAA Variations (AIP). Issues Regarding use of FPL Data. Length of Field 10, impacts on Line length Fields 09/10 can exceed 69 characters

onaona
Download Presentation

FAA Implementation of Amendment 1

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. FAA Implementation of Amendment 1 Vendors Conference Discussion

  2. Outline Issues regarding use of FPL data Regional Variations (SUPPS) FAA Variations (AIP)

  3. Issues Regarding use of FPL Data Length of Field 10, impacts on Line length Fields 09/10 can exceed 69 characters Where should the line break? Field 10b rules Eligibility to file specific equipment or capability PBN information all ANSP requirements should map to Doc. 9613- must be able to assume that RNP-x means the same thing everywhere ADS-B RTCA-DO-260A versus 260B GBAS Landing System- standards? Augmentation in Field 18

  4. Proposed 10b filing instructions ‘N’ or SSR Modes A and C and S File either ‘A’ or ‘C’ or ‘E’ or ‘H’ or ‘I’ or ‘L’ or ‘P’ or ‘S’ or ‘X’ and/or ADS-B either B1 or B2 or neither and/or either U1 or U2 or neither and/or either V1 or V2 or neither and/or ADS-C Neither, one, or both of the entries ‘D1’ ‘G1’

  5. Issues Regarding use of FPL Data Specificity (or lack thereof) of Instructions/Requirements for Field 18 Resulting inconsistencies, limits Effect of unknown data on ANSPs Difficulties discerning which FIR an entry applies to, e.g. ATFMX Use of STS/NONRVSM Reasons for special handling that are not For active flights, modification of items not relevant to the airspace Use of DOF/ - Early Filing APAC recommends States not initially implement FAA will initially accept DOF/ field, but not process. Plan to implement a rejection for flight more than 24 hours in future.

  6. Issues Regarding use of FPL Data Non-Standard Field 18 Indicators Eurocontrol RVR/, RFP/ FAA IRMK/ APAC guidance recently changed to recommend accepting non-standard indicators Different States will likely handle it slightly differently FAA current plan: Accept known non-standard indicators Accept unknown non-standard indicators, but remove the / and place the information after RMK/ We will consider eventually moving to a rejection of unknown, non-standard indicators

  7. Issues Regarding use of FPL Data Eligibility to file specific equipment or capability PBN information all ANSP requirements should map to Doc. 9613- must be able to assume that RNP-x or RNAV-x means the same thing everywhere Some issues- RNAV-1 for FAA requires DME/DME/IRU (D4) or GNSS (D2). PBN/ lists a code for RNAV-1 using DME/DME (D3), this would not be valid for FAA. ADS-B RTCA-DO-260A versus 260B GBAS Landing System- standards? GNSS Augmentation in Field 18

  8. Issues Regarding use of FPL Data Acknowledgments- Most FAA systems provide an ACK or REJ for a filed FPL, for users that register to receive it There is no ICAO standard for this service, so FAA service is unique Will facilitate 2012 testing for flight plan filers in some cases Another item that should be discussed for standardization

  9. Regional FPL Variations via SUPPS No known new variations expected in NACC

  10. ANSP Variations via AIP: FAA Non-standard Field 18 Indicator: IRMK/ Continued use of PBN information in NAV/ Early filing of Flight Plans

More Related