ATNB1 - CPDLC
 

Hi, I'm teaching the aircraft side of this at a sim center but would be grateful for an ATC perspective about radio procedures, the GOLD isn't very useful.

Specifically, if you are transiting through different airspace are frequency changes given on the RT with a RT required check-in or is it all via datalink and "monitor" next frequency. One would have thought if immediate ATC RT contact is required then a check in to make sure the radio is working would be in order!

Thanks very much!

While you're waiting for a comment from our ATC colleagues FWIW the only format I have seen from the aircraft side of things for a hand over is (excepting trials) a CPDLC message of
:
"Contact WXYZ" followed by the frequency.

Change over and do the initial contact/check in by voice, then back to the "silent" CPDLC again for direct to's/level changes etc, unless ATC request otherwise.

Hope that's of some use.

In the UK it is as Wiggy says, you will get a CPDLC message to contact the next frequency and you are to switch and check in with voice. CPDLC use is not mandatory so even if you are logged on to a capable unit, the controller may still decide to control only with voice commands and not use CPDLC at all.

tdk - try some of the Eurocontrol documentation on this as it gives the definitive procedures on the European ATN B1 CPDLC system(s).

As has been said, all communication on a new frequency must start with a voice exchange to verify the R/T link before comms can continue on CPDLC (at the discretion of the pilot and controller).

We require all pilots to check in verbally before we will acknowledge any CPDLC requests or free-texts.

The reason for this is that the CPDLC indication on radar may indicate CDA, but in fact the flight is still only receiving message from the previous unit, thus rendering CPDLC useless for the current unit. And, without voice, we cannot communicate with the aircraft.

Does anyone have any current information regarding the whitelist being cancelled and the current state of ATN over EU airspace? I've been hearing that several technical issues have rendered ATN unusable.

White list was declared persona non grata by the ATM overlords in Koln, or so I was lead to belive. FANS works, kinda, but lots of jumping about between physical links. There has been finger pointing at AOC traffic volumes, shall we say poor implementation choices and questions on how representative the validation was of the as deployed conditions.
The majority of aircraft are not equipped yet and it is struggling at sub 10% of flights. Your statement is broadly correct, if understated. It's Donald Ducked.

In other news Italy claims it's bespoke VDL-2 ATN ground network works perfectly.

EU is talking, and making plans (presumably how to accept no responsibility and apportion blame :) ) and something is in the works. Whether the great hope for a "quick fix" solution is terrestrial in origin, who knows. A satcom subgroup kicks off at Eurocae next week. Draw whatever conclusions you like from that...

That said a credible technical solution, implementation of same & enabling institutional activity, so a fit for purpose solution 'O' date not before 2018. Something by 2020?

To add insult to injury EC just doubled down by making ATN-B2 mandatory by ~2024 in the recent PCP regulation. No comment on that one.

Having tried to use ATN CPDLC there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm from either the controllers or the pilots to use it?

As CPDLC isn't instantaneous, there is a massive reluctance to use it in my centre. Hardly anyone uses FANS unless transferring to another centre (so you don't have to disconnect it when it fails). There is such little traffic equipped and logged on that by the time more are able, ATC will have carried on as normal and the system will almost be redundant before it has got off the ground.

But the bean counters are still certain some systems will be CPDLC only somewhere in the foreseeable future......... :D

CPDLC
 

My opinion:

When I used it in Brisbane (FANS1/A) it was wonderful. Lots of different messages to use including differenct route clearances, questions - when can you accept FL370 for eg., freetext messages.

Particularly good for the big procedural sectors and no doubt invaluable for the oceanic sectors. Especially when used in conjunction with ADS-C reporting.

Working with it in upper airspace in Germany?
About as useful as tits on a bull.

Limited message set, in fact off the top of my head can only think of frequency changes and replying to level change requests initated by pilots. also DCT to a waypoint already contained in the flight plan route.

I am sure the message set will improve over time, however. Would be nice to be able to issue headings and route via waypoints not on original route.

Combine that with a lack of equipage amongst operators and sometimes quite a delayed response means it isn't that popular here in Germany.

Of particular note I notice a lot of long range aircraft logging on to Maastricht (who I think are FANS 1/A equipped) but thinking they have logged on to Rhein.

Most likely because the Maastricht identifier is EDYY, which in theory shouldn't correlate to a Dutch centre

GOLD doesn´t establish what´s first, voice or CPDLC. Pargf. 5.1.3.1 says crews should normally chose CPDLC as mean of communication and leave voice as back up. And later appeals to crew to determine which communication medium to use (unless otherwise stated).
It refers you then to ICAO 4444 pargf 8.3.2 that stablishes voice before any surveillence service ,(CPDLC included) quite complementing with Willise´s post.