CPDLC/ADS

[MBA747]

Could somebody please explain why when first logging on in Reykjavik and Gander FIR's there is no requirement to send a position report through CPDLC. However when logging on to any of the Australian, Singapore and Chenai FIR's it is a required procedure once log on is established. Perhaps an ATCO can provide the answer.

Thanks

MBA

[MarkerInbound]

It's buried in the ICAO GOLD.

"With the FANS-1/A application, an ATSP receiving a CPDLC transfer does not have confirmation they are current date authority (CDA) until a downlink is received from the aircraft. The ATSPs are unable to reach global agreement on whether this confirmation is needed, and those that require confirmation are unable to reach agreement on a common procedure to achieve this."

As of June 2010, Anchorage, Auckland, Brisbane, Fukuoka, Jo-burg, Mauritius, Melbourne, Nadi, Oakland, Singapore and Tahiti wanted a report crossing the boundry. New York specifically says not to send a PR. Shanwick and Gander only want a message if your next ETA changes 3 minutes or more and Reyk and Santa Maria will confirm CPDLC change over with an uplink message you "roger."

[ghw78]

North Atlantic ADs/CPDLC

Accoss the North Antlantic some areas have limited system capability

Used for Position Reporting only: BODO, GANDER, REYKJAVIK, SANTA MARIA, SHANWICK, SONDERSTROM

ADS C/CPDLC in Designated Airspace only: EDMONTON, MONTREAL

Full ADS C/CPDLC: NEW YORK

Under developement/implementation: SHANNON

Even with Full ADS C/CPDLC there are differing requirements at the boundary entry point but a CPDLC Position Report is required at just about all.

[Intruder]

Automated reports seem to suffice for Edmonton, Oakland, Anchorage, and Tokyo. Only radio/SelCal checks are required.