[DLK] FW: (Forward to others) WebEx meeting invitation: A622-5

Wed Nov 30 06:33:33 EST 2016

Dear Data Ladies and Gentlemen,

In preparation for today’s ATS Wind Web Conference, the following inputs have been received from Rochelle Perera (The Boeing Company), Dr. Christine Haissig (FAA Consultant) and Tom McGuffin (Honeywell).

The WebEx conference invitation can be found at the end of the email string below.

These inputs for Draft 3 of Supplement 5 to ARINC Specification 622 - ATS Data Link Applications over
ACARS Air-Ground Networks will be discussed during today’s web conference, when we plan to further develop the draft 3 strawman.

…Multiple FIMS makes it more complex.
If you are going to define multiple FIMs then you need to define how to determine which one is the master. It needs to be standardized so every CMU uses the same logic and works with every FIM.
Similar to the FMS logic.

Do we really need three FIMS?

Suggested changes to section titles to improve consistency

6.0              Air Traffic Services Wind.. 50

6.1              Notional Architecture. 50

6.2              Air Traffic Services Wind Uplink Message Types. 50

6.2.1                 Uplink Wind Data for FMS (PWI) 50

6.2.2                 Uplink Wind Data for FIMS (PWF): 51

6.3              Air Traffic Services Wind Downlink Message Types. 51

6.3.1                 Responses for PWI Uplink. 52

6.3.2                 Responses for PWF Uplink. 52
6.4          Air Traffic Services Wind Uplink Message Routing  52

Tom McGuffin
Honeywell Aerospace - Electronic COE
Datalink System Engineer

From: Perera, Rochelle E [mailto:Rochelle.E.Perera at boeing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Christine Haissig <christine.haissig at ix.netcom.com<mailto:christine.haissig at ix.netcom.com>>; Nguyen, Dung Q <dung.q.nguyen at boeing.com<mailto:dung.q.nguyen at boeing.com>>
Cc: Jose Godoy <jose.godoy at sae-itc.org<mailto:jose.godoy at sae-itc.org>>
Subject: RE: Comments/Questions on Latest Draft of ARINC 622 for ATS Winds

Hi Christine,

   Thanks for reviewing it. I was out on vacation so didn’t get a chance to respond till now. I have some comments below and have attached a working copy with the updates mentioned below. We can discuss this tomorrow.

Thanks,

Rochelle Perera
Flight Management Systems | The Boeing Company
Datalink
Phone: 425.237.6306
rochelle.e.perera at boeing.com<mailto:rochelle.e.perera at boeing.com>

Rochelle/Dung:

I was reviewing the latest draft of ARINC 622 in preparation for the meeting on the 30th and have a few comments/questions

1.       I noticed that the version that Jose sent out via e-mail reverted to the older version of Figure 6.1, where we don’t show PWI going into the FIMS. I know there was a version at one time with the figure that Rochelle updated. We’ll want to make sure that we have the updated figure in the version that goes forward.
REP>> You’re correct, it seems to have an older version of the picture. I updated it in the attached copy.

2.       I noticed that PWF is not defined in Appendix A Acronyms and Glossary.
REP>> Good catch! I updated this as well.

3.       Section 6.2.1 describes the PWI uplink for the FMS and Section 6.2.2 describes the PWF uplink for FIMS. Neither section addresses the PWI uplink for FIMS. It seems that we need some text describing that piece. Do you recommend modifying Section  6.2.1 to discuss PWI for both FMS and FIMS? Or modifying Section 6.2.2 to add PWI for FIMS? Or something else? Similarly, section 6.3.1 discusses the responses to the PWI uplink assuming that it is received by the FMS but does not cover responses to the PWI uplink by the FIMS.
REP>> I added the PWI IMI to the FIMS section. For the response section, I just changed the titles to Responses from the FMS and Responses from the FIMS. The basic difference in response sets really isn’t tied to the IMIs, it’s tied to the systems since they will process the winds slightly differently.

4.       It isn’t clear to me how the ground system will specify whether the PWI is intended for the FMS or FIMS and how the CMU/CMF will know whether the PWI uplink is intended for the FMS or FIMS.

5.       REP>> The ground system will address this via the label/sublabel. The active route winds going to the FMS will have an IMI of PWI but a label/Sublabel of HI/MD. The active route winds going to the FIMS will also have an IMI of PWI but a label/sublabel of HI/ID. So when the uplink gets to the CMU/CMF, it won’t see the IMI portion, it’ll just see the label/sublabel and will route it accordingly. Then the end system (either the FMS or FIMS) will be the one that processes the IMI and the data associated with it.

6.       In section 6.3.2 describing the responses to the PWF Uplink, I suggest modifying RESPWF/AK to specifically state traffic winds, as in “ATS traffic winds acknowledge……”. Similarly for RESJPWF “ATS traffic winds rejection by FIMS”.

REP>> I modified this section to include the active winds for the FIMS. Basically I added the words “active route” for those associated with PWI and “target route” for those associated with PWF. Since we have used the terminology of “target route” previously in document I’d like to keep it consistent and use those words for PFW here too. Let me know what you think.

7.       In section 6.5.2, the first bullet says “PWI: Wind message for active route in FMS”. Suggest modifying this to make clear PWI is used for both the FMS and FIMS, such as “PWI: Wind message for active route in FMS and in FIMS.”

REP>> I changed it to say “PWI: Wind message for active route”. That way it applies to all current (and any future) systems which may want to use active winds without specifying just the FMS. Since we’ve noted in other sections that the PWI IMI could go to the FIMS, I think this should cover all our bases but leave it generic enough for any future uses.

8.       In section 6.6.2, the first bullet says “PWI: Used for active route”. Suggest modifying this to make clear PWI is used for both the FMS and FIMS, such as “PWI: Use for active route in FMS and in FIMS.”

REP>>I made some slight adjustments but it agrees with the changes in section 7 (basically took out any reference to which system/application hosts the active/target routes. This will fit whatever architecture or implementation people come up with.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on the items I’ve listed, especially items 3 and 4. I don’t have good insight on the best way to specify PWI for FMS versus PWI for FIMS.

Thanks,

Christine

Dr. Christine M. Haissig
FAA Surveillance Broadcast Systems Support
Christine Haissig Consulting LLC
christine.haissig at ix.netcom.com<mailto:christine.haissig at ix.netcom.com>
612 208 5430 (mobile)
952 474 0318 (land line)

You are invited to attend the following AEEC Web Conference:

Supplement 5 to ARINC Specification 622 (add ATS Winds)
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
11:00 am | Eastern Standard Time (New York, GMT-05:00) | 2 hrs

JOIN WEBEX MEETING
https://sae.webex.com/sae/j.php?MTID=m1578f97861473592159debd80cce27e1
Meeting number: 621 088 235
Meeting password: 20Nov2016

JOIN BY PHONE
1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
1-650-429-3300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Access code: 621 088 235

Global call-in numbers:
https://sae.webex.com/sae/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=501346057&tollFree=1

Toll-free dialing restrictions:
https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

Add this meeting to your calendar (Cannot add from mobile devices):
https://sae.webex.com/sae/j.php?MTID=ma2cfe4eef3d856d61f0a3c39a2dfa38f

Best Regards,

José Godoy
ARINC Industry Activities (IA)
An SAE-ITC Industry Program
cell +1  443-534-8925

Ref:

From: Moin.Abulhosn at faa.gov<mailto:Moin.Abulhosn at faa.gov> [mailto:Moin.Abulhosn at faa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:03 PM
To: Jose Godoy <jose.godoy at sae-itc.org<mailto:jose.godoy at sae-itc.org>>; Eldridge.Frazier at faa.gov<mailto:Eldridge.Frazier at faa.gov>
Subject: RE: Supplement 5 to ARINC Specification 622 (add ATS Winds)

Jose, Can you please send me an invite or a telecom number to call.

Moin Abulhosn, Aerospace Engineer AIR 132
FAA AFSCME Local 1653 AVS VP
(202) 267 8571.

Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or proprietary material. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.sae-itc.org/pipermail/dlk/attachments/20161130/a204b42c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WebEx_Meeting.ics
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1943 bytes
Desc: WebEx_Meeting.ics
URL: <http://mailman.sae-itc.org/pipermail/dlk/attachments/20161130/a204b42c/attachment-0001.obj>