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 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 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