Again about CPDLC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again about CPDLC
Few nights ago we flew over VECF with annoying HF communication in progress.
We had CPDLC but skipper refused to use it because
quote: "our company did not sign
and agreement with Indian ATC authorities to use it". end quote
My question is: " Do you really need any kind of authorization or approval to use it when the ATC and your A/C and Crew are capable?"
We had CPDLC but skipper refused to use it because
quote: "our company did not sign
and agreement with Indian ATC authorities to use it". end quote
My question is: " Do you really need any kind of authorization or approval to use it when the ATC and your A/C and Crew are capable?"
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try here - where it seems that 'pioneers' are welcomed. 'Authorisation' doesn't seem to fit in with the scheme.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/link2000/.../strategy.html
http://www.eurocontrol.int/link2000/.../strategy.html
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as i understand that controller-pilot-datalink is new to the eurocontrol region. BUT already in use with ATC in india???
no offense intended, but that sounds a little unlikely to me.
no offense intended, but that sounds a little unlikely to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does enybody know, what will be the practical usage of CPDLC in EuroControl area where you have so many FIRs and dense traffic with good radar coverage. Maybe for high level overflights. CPDLC is much slower comparing to voice requests for FLCH or WX avoidance or rerouting....You have to type yor request, than wait for the answer then execute...sometimes it take 10 minutes to get the approval, to climb 2000 Ft or deviate 20 deg to the right. That is why all those FIRs established special procedures for WX avoidance or flight path deviations in case of emergency, without received clearance
CPDLC over India, Pacific, Atlantic regions etc. is very usefull since there is no radar coverage and HF comm is the only way of communicating.
Rgds
L.
CPDLC over India, Pacific, Atlantic regions etc. is very usefull since there is no radar coverage and HF comm is the only way of communicating.
Rgds
L.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are notams covering the use of CPDLC in India, discussing who can use the service.
There are many many places using it... Yangon (amazingly), China, Ujung, India (Kolkata and Chennai have had it for a long time... Delhi has just started) and obviously Australia, Oakland, Auckland, and Maastricht.
In Maastricht, it seems to be used to monitor flights, and occasionally give direct routing clearances. It used to be that a level change instruction given by CPDLC then required a voice readback.
In Maastricht it is a supplemental service, it isn't the primary mode of communication. You are still always on a voice VHF frequency for immediate contactablity if required.
That isn't the case when its used as the primary communication method, for example over the Pacific ocean AUS - US. Lower separation standards are allowed for two aircraft both on ADS.
At the moment it appears India are just using it as a monitoring tool, and a comms method, and not to reduce separation.
We use it all the time, but then, my company tells us to!
There are many many places using it... Yangon (amazingly), China, Ujung, India (Kolkata and Chennai have had it for a long time... Delhi has just started) and obviously Australia, Oakland, Auckland, and Maastricht.
In Maastricht, it seems to be used to monitor flights, and occasionally give direct routing clearances. It used to be that a level change instruction given by CPDLC then required a voice readback.
In Maastricht it is a supplemental service, it isn't the primary mode of communication. You are still always on a voice VHF frequency for immediate contactablity if required.
That isn't the case when its used as the primary communication method, for example over the Pacific ocean AUS - US. Lower separation standards are allowed for two aircraft both on ADS.
At the moment it appears India are just using it as a monitoring tool, and a comms method, and not to reduce separation.
We use it all the time, but then, my company tells us to!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Australia every CPDLC communication I've had has always been backed up with VHF communications from the ATSU in question. Seems pretty pointless using it in Australia when you have VHF contact, maybe the controllers are just bored. Using CPDLC and VHF comms seems to increase pilot workload rather than reduce it.
It's great using it in India where HF comms can be difficult.
At the end of the day you can always log on in order to establish communication if you're experiencing difficulties with HF. If you're not sure about whether your company wants you to use CPDLC then you can always reject any instructions/commands offered and don't ask for any yourself.
It's great using it in India where HF comms can be difficult.
At the end of the day you can always log on in order to establish communication if you're experiencing difficulties with HF. If you're not sure about whether your company wants you to use CPDLC then you can always reject any instructions/commands offered and don't ask for any yourself.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPDLC in Australian Airspace when under VHF is considered a secondary comms method, and ADS is of course useful.
However, VHF remains the primary communication method when within range. All requests are to be by VHF, unless initiated by ATC on CPDLC.
It is used extensively in the Australian FIR's outside VHF range... eg by MEL when going south, and BNE when north of Australia up towards Ujung, or heading off east, when it becomes the primary, with HF being the backup.
You mustn't be venturing far enough from Australia
(The more western routes from SYD to SIN you are out of VHF for 30mins or so.)
However, VHF remains the primary communication method when within range. All requests are to be by VHF, unless initiated by ATC on CPDLC.
It is used extensively in the Australian FIR's outside VHF range... eg by MEL when going south, and BNE when north of Australia up towards Ujung, or heading off east, when it becomes the primary, with HF being the backup.
You mustn't be venturing far enough from Australia
(The more western routes from SYD to SIN you are out of VHF for 30mins or so.)
