Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvain: if we currently have temperature compensation, we have no way to take credit for this. MarkS: there is a note on some procedures that temperature compensation does not apply to systems that have compensation. Section 3.5 TOAC MikeJ: ETA min/max description is currently min/max speed, whereas SESAR / WG85 propose a 95% reliable definition. This area needs study to harmonize. Section 3.6 user interface MikeC / JohnH: Table 3-4 needs to be revisited Times to seconds, Altitudes, etc. Section 3.7.2.1.2 Frank: we need to put something about user defined fixes in approaches and missed approaches, that this is not intended. We need this to be clear that this is not allowed. User defined fixes prohibited on instrument approaches and limited in use for departure procedures where obstacles or environment is an issue Frank: we should discuss a minimum requirement for automatic sequencing for missed approach transition, from TOGA to LNAV. Section 3.7.3 navigation aid selection JohnH: there are parts of the navaid selection that needs fixing. Section 3.7.8 TOAC Frank: we will want to add discussion of single vs. multiple time constraint, and en-route vs. terminal. Sylvain: what does it mean to minimize throttle activity MarkH: we need to be careful commanding speeds near the edges of the envelope. Sylvain: we can have pilot entry of min/max RTA speeds to keep the RTA speeds away from the edges of the envelope. MarkH: we may need to communicate these limitations to ATC before we get cleared for something we can’t do. This should get done from dispatch time onwards. MikeJ: the ETA min/max capability is intended to cover this once the aircraft is airborne, to prevent the issuance of clearances that cannot be complied with. MarkH: we should consider supporting two time constraints, one en-route, one terminal. Frank: we should tie the RTA tolerance to the flight phase. Sylvain: no we should not Frank: there are issues with details of speed control that affect how the aircraft meet the time constraints. Section 4.2.3 TOAC performance Sylvain: wind modeling errors affects achievable performance Thursday, 3/8 Meeting Schedule and Scope Dave presented two possible meeting schedules, 3 month or 2 month cycle and opened discussion related to picking meeting dates. The considerations raised: 18
concern that we don’t have momentum yet and think a 2 nd meeting soon is appropriate before we go to a 3 month cycle. (JamesN) (General agreement that this is a good suggestion.) concern that Europe may need some time to get new scope added to WG85 to support joint activities. (Sylvain) SC214 Plenary meetings this year are June 4-8 and Dec 10-14. (MikeJ) Meeting a 15 month cycle will be a lot of work. This is our big chance to open up the box and fix it, and we don’t want to miss the chance. Mark H suggested the committee go to 5 day meetings. The end date is chosen mainly to allow interaction and influence to the other active standards, in particular SC214 and SC186. The nav standard publication may be able to be delayed some, but we must work to ensure the collaboration with SC214 and SC186 occurs before they publish. (Jarrett) The committee agreed to 5 day meetings to support the current document due dates. In light of the plan to have a harmonized activity with a re-tasked WG85, meetings will also be planned in European venues. When this will take place will depend on the speed in which EUROCAE changes to the WG85 terms of reference are approved and navigation system specialists and experts can be found to participate in WG85. 2 nd meeting May 7-11, after that a three month interval as well as meetings in Europe is likely. 3 rd meeting July 30 – Aug 3, tentatively, possibly Toulouse. Part of our charter from the ATMAC/NAC is to find and resolve gaps in the other activities. We need to study the operational concepts they are working towards and buy in to them or take issue with them. The TOps Concept of Use contained in the JPDO Aircraft WG’s Avionics Roadmap will be used on the US side. Dave re stated that the committee has 2 main tasks, fixing what is there, and adding new capabilities (4D TBO). But, we need to be careful about splitting into sub-groups to ensure that we keep a critical mass of expertise working on both aspects. For now we will plan to stay as one group. How this affects the current Terms of Reference is not clear. However, what is clear is that for now the June 13 date is firm for the efforts for trajectory operations with regard to navigation function, data and interfaces associated with SC214 and SC186. The MASPS update/fix effort remains consistent with the terms of reference as well and will continue. The magnitude of updates may lead to a different end date. However, until we know better, i.e. at the next meeting, it is hard to say what it will be. The committee agreed that we will stay with the current TORs for now. A question was raised with regard to FMS specification efforts at AEEC for ARINC 702A. It was pointed out that the ARINC characteristic contains a lot of installation and interface oriented guidance and requirements. And there are areas that appear to set design/implementation that overlap what is contained in the MASPS. For now the focus is with the MASPS/MOPS and coordination with AEEC will follow as appropriate. Sam: SAI has deferred opening up ARINC 702 because it was too much to be done to do now. Their focus will be on 660A. A number of the committee members commented on the need for broader subject matter expertise for this activity, which proved to be part of the reason for the success and acceptance of the SC-181/WG-13 MASPS. In particular, air traffic control was mentioned. Jarrett L will coordinate in the FAA to identify experts who will participate and support this effort. There will be outreach to other areas as well. 19
Page 1 and 2: Summary of the First Meeting Specia
Page 3 and 4: NEXTGEN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (NGIP)
Page 5 and 6: NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP)
Page 7 and 8: • flight deck display of speed cu
Page 9 and 10: Powerpoint: “3a Standards of Navi
Page 11 and 12: Sharing of common flight plan betwe
Page 13 and 14: Q: what is the impact on economy of
Page 15 and 16: Section 1.1 para 3 is significant.
Page 17: David DS: network and flow manageme
Page 21: Prioritization and Scope of Updates

Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?