FAA Implementation of Amendment 1

Presented to: ICAO FPL 2012 Vendor Conference

By: Ray Ahlberg

Date: 7-8 December, 2011

Federal AviationAdministration (FAA)

FAA Implementation of Amendment 1Vendors Conference

Discussion

2 2Federal AviationAdministration

FAA Amendment 1 Implementation26-28 September, 2011

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– 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



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’



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.



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



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



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 itThere 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



Regional FPL Variations via SUPPS

No known new variations expected in NACC



ANSP Variations via AIP: FAA

• Non-standard Field 18 Indicator: IRMK/• Continued use of PBN information in NAV/• Early filing of Flight Plans

Documents

FAA Implementation of Amendment 1