1. CLARIFICATIONS FROM ICAO - ICAO EUR FPL2012 Workshop
Kiev, Ukraine
29 June – 1 July 2010
This presentation reviews the information provided in the companion document – “Clarifications from ICAO Headquarters”. For the complete texts of the questions and the related responses, please consult the companion document.

2. Questions & Comments Mainly from the ICAO FPL2012 Task Force
General topics:
Inconsistencies or errors in the amendment
Requests for additional explanations
Requests for additional provisions
Regional requirements
Requests to change the amendment 2

3. Inconsistencies/Errors
Appendix 3, Field 10b inconsistency with Appendix 2, Item 10 – missing “N” in Appendix 3
Appendix 3, Field 13b, messages transmitted before departure – should only refer to “messages”
Appendix 3, Field 13b not included – paragraphs and missing reference to 13b
Appendix 3, Field 16 – missing RQP
Field 17 – arrival aerodrome when no ICAO indicator assigned
Appendix 3 is specific to ATS Messages.
In the revised text, the possibility to insert “N” in Field 10b (Equipment and Capabilities – surveillance equipment and capabilities) was inadvertently not included. The “N” is specified for Item 18b on the flight plan form as shown correctly in the amendment.
In Appendix 3, concerning Field 13 (Departure Aerodrome and Time), the provision currently refers to “messages transmitted before departure”. It was pointed out that it was not logical to include the ARR (Arrival) and RQS (Request Supplementary Flight Plan) messages in a list of messages “transmitted before departure” and the suggestion was made to remove those words. This suggestion was accepted.
In the amendment (and the current PANS ATM), mention of the Departure Aerodrome and Time, TIME, (Field 13b) was not in the examples of ATS messages provided in paragraphs and This will be corrected.
In the table listing the previous and following fields for Field Type 16 (Destination aerodrome and total estimated elapsed time, destination alternate aerodrome(s) ), the information for the RQP (Request Flight Plan) message is missing. This was true in the amendment and the current PANS ATM, and will be corrected.
Field Type 17 — Arrival aerodrome and time – when there is not an ICAO Location Indicator assigned for the arrival aerodrome. Amendment added a Note to refer to ZZZZ being shown in Field Type 18. this is incorrect and will be corrected when final amendment is published. The current provision, of being able to add ZZZZ in 17a will be kept and 17c will continue to be used to provide the name and location 3

4. Inconsistencies/Errors
Significant Point –defined in relation to itself
Degrees True/Degrees Magnetic –when to use Degrees True in position information
Paragraph Difference between Russian and English Language versions
All inconsistencies and errors will be corrected in the amendment
With regard to provisions where a route would be described, one of the ways to describe a “significant” point that had no coded designator, began with text describing how to define it from a “significant point”. The text will be revised so it is clear that a “significant point” may be defined by referring to a “reference point” – the reference point may have a designator or be a navaid.
There was inconsistencies when describing how to refer to bearings from points or navaids. In areas of high latitude, where it is determined by the appropriate authority that reference to degrees magnetic is impractical, degrees true may be used. This idea was not consistently indicated.
In paragraph , the Russian Language version incorrectly states that “Flight plans shall be submitted not later than 120 hours before the estimated off-block time of a flight”.
The correct provision is that flight plans shall NOT be submitted MORE THAN 120 hours before the EOBT. 4

5. Additional Explanations
Guidance Material - Item 18 DAT – translating from NEW to PRESENT correctly - S, H, V and M
Syntax for information following RMK/
Date of Flight (DOF)
In CHG messages
Relationship between DOF and EOBT
FITS provides examples
How to amend DOF
The process to amend DOF and any other information in flight plan message not changed
The S (for Satellite data link), H (for HF data link), V (for VHF data link) and M (for SSR Mode S data link) are still valid descriptors if needed. It is true that DAT/ can contain freetext, but if there is freetext in addition to the S, H, V or M, it can be linked appropriately and therefore translated.
For Appendix 2, it is specified that Item 18 (Other information) may not contain / (oblique strokes) or hyphens except as prescribed. The use of / following RMK/ is not prescribed.
The same is true for Field 18 in Appendix 3 (ATS Messages).
There is a warning in both places that “use of indicators not included under this item may result in data being rejected, processed incorrectly or lost”.
There were a number of requests to clarify Date of Flight (DOF), how it is shown in various messages, its relationship to the Estimated off-block time (EOBT) and how it should be handled when there are changes. Numerous scenarios and situations are described in FITS (the information available when this was prepared is reproduced in the hand out).
It should be noted that there were no changes to the provisions regarding how to amend information that has been previously sent. To amend a Field (ie a piece of information in an ATS Message – see Appendix 3), the complete and amended data of the field should be indicated in Field Type 22 (Amendment).
If it is considered necessary, further examples may be included in future amendments. 5

6. Additional Explanations
Changes to current Regional and State documents
Regional coordination is encouraged. Follow current procedures and recommendations concerning differences from PANS-ATM.
There are no special procedures or processes to amend documents. The current procedures will be followed. States are encouraged to review any provisions they might have in AIP and ensure they are updated appropriately. 6

7. Additional provisions?
Phraseology to describe equipment capabilities
Advising originators when flight plans are rejected/not processed
Advising of limitations in acceptance of flight plans ahead of time of flight
Use current provisions. Ensure AIP provides necessary information
Limiting AIRAC changes effective on 15 November 2012
Consider Regional coordination
There was a request to create phraseology for the additional equipment and capabilities that may now be notified in the flight plan. It was considered that current phraseology was sufficient – it should be noted that the equipment is not changing, only how it might be indicated in the flight plan.
There was a suggestion that States should be encouraged to notify when flight plans are rejected or not processed. PANS ATM requires that acceptance of the flight plan or changes thereto be indicated to the originator.
There was a concern expressed that it might not be clear to operators what limitations might apply to their flight plans being accepted – such as time limitations on the acceptance of VFR flight plans. Such limitations, which differ from the PANS ATM provisions, should be notified in AIP.
It was suggested that ICAO consider somehow limiting or encouraging States to limit the number of AIRAC changes that would be effective on 15 November If this is deemed a good idea, such an effort should be coordinated between States or regionally. 7

8. Regional Requirements
Reasons for special handling
Plain text following RMK/
Do not repeat STS following RMK/
Create special codes – publish in AIP and/or Doc 7030
Exemptions
There have been numerous concerns expressed that certain requirements are not met by the amendment. It is reinforced that anything not covered by a specific indicator should be put into Item 18, following RMK/. There cannot be any / (oblique strokes) or hyphens following RMK/, nor can there be a repeat of STS (that is now a specific indicator that should be included BEFORE RMK). The idea is that plain text should be used. If a special indicator is needed, then it should be notified in the appropriate documentation – AIP or Doc 7030 as appropriate. Care should be taken if an indicator is created, because it will be in flight plans that go to other States or Regions. Coordination is encouraged.
This is equally true for exemptions. The indicator ATFMX may be inserted after STS/ to indicate that the flight has been approved for exemption from ATFM measures by the appropriate ATS authority. More information would likely be required, via another STS indicator or following RMK/. 8

9. Change the Amendment?
Appendix 2, Item 10a – no limit on number of characters that could be in Item 10a
Amendment deliberately does not specify limit. Regional coordination is encouraged.
There was a concern expressed that there was no limit specified as to the number of characters that could be included Item 10 (Equipment and capabilities – Radio, communication, navigation and approach aid equipment and capabilities). Theoretically, this field could contain 63 characters. It was proposed that a limit should be imposed. This proposal was not accepted. If there are system limitations to the number of characters that can be accepted in Item 10a, they should be notified in AIP. 9

10. New Questions/Issues
Any questions or concerns may be forwarded to the EUR/NAT Office of ICAO:
Carole Stewart-Green 10