| File
Names (*.PDF) |
Date |
Description |
| Section
2.2.2.1.1.4 |
7/23/02 |
Working
Paper WP-12-07 proposed reducing the range of allowed output
power level for Class A3 Extended Squitter airborne equipment.
There were several objections from the manufacturers
in WG-3, but after discussion, WG-3 agreed to insert a Note
into section 2.2.2.1.1.4 indicating that future versions of
the MOPS might require a different minimum peak power. |
| Section
2.2.2.2 |
8/27/01 |
The reason why DO-260 limited the use of non-transponder
devices to class A0 is that the NTD does not use the spectrum
as efficiently or provide the system benefits that can be obtained
with a transponder implementation of Extended Squitter. A “Note” was proposed to be added to Section 2.2.2.2 based
on WP-6-05 to clarify this issue. |
| Section
2.2.3.2.7.1 |
8/27/01 |
DO-260 set the TCP Valid Flag to zero (0) in subparagraph
2.2.3.2.7.1.4, indicating that all TCP/TCP+1 data was not valid.
A “Note” was proposed in WP-6-01 to be added to subparagraph
2.2.3.2.7.1 explaining the status of TCP/TCP+1 in DO-260A, assuming
that no further changes were implemented to TCP/TCP+1 based
on proposed changes currently proposed for the ADS-B MASPS,
DO-242. |
Section
2.2.3.2.7.3
Section 2.2.3.2.7.3.5 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2, the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message. The purpose
of this subfield is to define the Version Number of the formats
and protocols in use by the transmitting device. Figure
2-10 in section 2.2.3.2.7.3 was modified to include the Version
Number subfield. Also, subparagraph 2.2.3.2.7.3.5 was
renamed to define the "Version Number Subfield," and
the existing subparagraph 2.2.3.2.7.3.5 was renumbered to become
2.2.3.2.7.3.6. |
| Section
2.2.3.3.2.4 |
2/5/01 |
Proposed correction/addition based on WP-2-04,
which indicates that a requirement was placed into Appendix
A of DO-260 that was not translated into a requirement in Section
2.2 or 2.4. |
| Section
2.2.3.3.2.6 |
8/27/01 |
During Meeting #2 it was agreed that a Version
Number would be necessary.
At Meeting #3 in WP-3-01A a Version Number was suggested
to be added to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
During Meeting #6, while discussing other Section 2.2
and 2.4 changes necessary to implement the Version Number, it
was agreed that the TCP/TCP+1 Message(s) must
be halted during the transmission of the high-speed transmission
of the Status Message, and that the transmission rate of the
Aircraft Operational Status Message must be increased.
Subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.1 was modified to insert a new
subparagraph “c” to indicate that the Aircraft Trajectory Intent
Message(s) shall not be transmitted during the high-rate transmission
of the Aircraft Operational Status Messages as defined in the
modified subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.3.
Subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.3 was modified to eliminate
the original subparagraph “a” that restricted initialization
of the Aircraft Operational Status Message to situations when
there was CC or OM data available.
And, to replace that subparagraph “a” with a new subparagraph
that defines a high-rate transmission. |
| Section
2.2.3.3.2.12 |
11/18/02 |
During
Meeting #15, it was agreed that a new requirement should be
inserted into §2.2.3.3.2.12 to satisfy requirement R3.6 in RTCA
DO-242A, which states that “ADS-B transmissions from Ground
Vehicles (Class B2) shall be automatically prohibited
when those vehicles are outside of the movement area.”
Working Paper WP-15-14R1 proposes text of the new requirement,
which was agreed to by WG-3 during Meeting #15. |
| Section
2.2.4.3.1.2 |
5/15/02 |
Based
on work presented in Working Paper WP-11-02, the Working Group
agreed during Meeting 11 to make changes to Section 2.2.4.3.1.2
entitled "Re-Triggerable Capability," as described
in the Minutes to Meeting 11, Item 6. |
| Section 2.2.4.4 |
7/25/02 |
One
of the objectives of DO-260A was to provide details of Enhanced
Squitter Reception Techniques. Working
Paper WP-12-10, which was the 9th draft of proposed
sections 2.2.4.4 and 2.4.4.4 for Enhanced Reception Techniques
and their test procedures, was accepted by WG-3 for inclusion
into DO-260A. |
| Section 2.2.5.1.44 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
Section 2.2.5.1.44 was added to define the Version Number
Data. |
| Section
2.2.8.2.17 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message. Section 2.2.8.2.17
was added with supporting text defining the Version Number in
the Mode Status Report as shown in Table 2-70. |
| Section
2.2.8.4 |
11/1/01 |
Proposed deletion of Sections 2.2.8.4.1 and 2.2.8.4.2
based on acceptance of WP-7-09 and the deletion of the Range
Monitoring Technique. This causes previous Section 2.2.8.4.3
to be promoted to become 2.2.8.4, as the sole remaining subparagraph
in that section of text. |
| Section
2.2.10.3 |
4/1/01 |
Proposed changes identified in WP-2-03 extending
the proposed coast time in global decode from 25 to 120 seconds. |
| Section
2.2.17 |
7/26/02 |
Working
Paper WP-9-02 was accepted by WG-3 as the 6th draft
of TIS-B materials, which WG-3 agreed to place in section 2.2.17.
Working Paper WP-12-06 was accepted by WG-3 as materials
for 2.2.17.4 concerning TIS-B Message Processing and Reporting. |
| Section
2.4.3.2.6.1.12 |
5/15/02 |
Working
Paper WP-11-11 raised a question received from Industry on the
coding of the Vertical Rate and the Geometric Altitude Difference
from Barometric Altitude Fields. After discussion during
Meeting 11, the Working Group agreed to change the last line
of the last paragraph in Step 3 of Section 2.4.3.2.6.1.12, as
documented in the Minutes to Meeting 11, Item 11. |
| Section
2.4.3.2.6.1.15 |
5/15/02 |
Working
Paper WP-11-11 raised a question received from Industry on the
coding of the Vertical Rate and the Geometric Altitude Difference
from Barometric Altitude Fields. After discussion during
Meeting 11, the Working Group agreed to change the last line
of the last paragraph in Step 3 of Section 2.4.3.2.6.1.15, as
documented in the Minutes to Meeting 11, Item 11. |
| Section
2.4.3.2.7.3.3.1 |
2/5/01 |
Proposed changes as per WP-2-12, plus open discussion
at Meeting #2, Melbourne Florida, as a result of an initial
request by Bob Hilb at the June 2000 Plenary which approved
DO-260, to add TCAS and CDTI operational status information
to the CC_4 subfield of the Aircraft Operational Status Message. |
| Section
2.4.3.2.7.3.5 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
Section 2.2.3.2.7.3.5 was modified to define the Version
Number and section 2.4.3.2.7.3.5 was modified to provide verification
during test procedures. |
| Section
2.4.3.3.2.4 |
4/1/01 |
Proposed changes identified in WP-3-10A, plus open
discussion at Meeting #3, Phoenix Arizona, as a result of additions
made to Section 2.2.3.3.2.4 identified in WP-2-04, which was
initially proposed because of a requirement that was placed
into Appendix A of DO-260 that was not translated into a requirement
in Section 2.2 or 2.4. |
Section
2.4.3.3.2.6.1
Section 2.4.3.3.2.6.3 |
1/9/02 |
With
the implementation of the Version Number, it was agreed that
the TCP/TCP+1 Message(s) must be halted during the transmission
of the high-speed transmission of the Status Message, and that
the transmission rate of the Aircraft Operational Status Message
must be increased.
Subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.1 was modified to insert a new
subparagraph “c” to indicate that the Aircraft Trajectory Intent
Message(s) shall not be transmitted during the high-rate transmission
of the Aircraft Operational Status Messages as defined in the
modified subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.3.
Subparagraph 2.2.3.3.2.6.3 was modified to eliminate
the original subparagraph “a” that restricted initialization
of the Aircraft Operational Status Message to situations when
there was CC or OM data available.
And, to replace that subparagraph “a” with a new subparagraph
that defines a high-rate transmission.
These test procedures were added to verify the changes
made in the respective 2.2 sections. |
| Section
2.4.4.3.1.1.2 |
3/28/02 |
During the June 2000 RTCA SC-186 Plenary that approved
DO-260, a new paragraph was inserted at Section 2.2.4.3.1.1.c,
but there was no associated test procedure drafted to test the
added paragraph. This change inserts the proposed changes
identified in WP-10-01 by adding a new Step 4 into subparagraph
2.4.4.3.1.1.2. |
| Section
2.4.4.4 |
7/25/02 |
One
of the objectives of DO-260A was to provide details of Enhanced
Squitter Reception Techniques. Working
Paper WP-12-10, which was the 9th draft of proposed
sections 2.2.4.4 and 2.4.4.4 for Enhanced Reception Techniques
and their test procedures, was accepted by WG-3 for inclusion
into DO-260A. |
| Section
2.4.4.4.2.2 - 2.4.4.4.2.3 |
11/19/02 |
Working
Paper WP-15-15R1 proposes changes to Section
2.4.4.4.2.2 and 2.4.4.4.2.3 for Four-Pulse Preamble Detection
Tests that were written to test the enhanced preamble detection
process when it was defined in Appendix I with an 8 MHz sampling
rate. Appendix I now attempts to present the techniques independent
of sampling rate but bases the description on a 10 MHz sampling
rate for A3 equipment and an 8 MHz sampling rate for A2 equipment.
The
Four-Pulse Preamble Detection Test as defined in
these sections before these proposed changes pose problems for
equipment that use either sampling rate. The proposed changes
in WP-15-15R1 attempts to solve these problems. |
| Section
2.4.4.4.2.4 - 2.4.4.4.2.6 |
11/19/02 |
Working
Paper WP-15-08R1 presents a revision to the
Enhanced
Squitter Reception Test Procedures that separates the performance
required of A2 class equipment from that of A3 class equipment.
The intent is to base the required performance of A2
class equipment on the performance measured using an 8 MHz sampling
rate implementation and to use the 10 MHz sampling rate implementation
results to set the required performance for A3 class equipment. |
| Section
2.4.5.1.44 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
Section 2.2.5.1.44 was added to define the Version Number
Data.
Section 2.4.5.1.44 was added to provide verification
of the requirement in 2.2.5.1.44. |
| Section 2.4.8.2.17 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message. Section 2.2.8.2.17
was added with supporting text defining the Version Number in
the Mode Status Report as shown in Table 2-70. 2.4.8.2.17
was added to provide verification of the requirement in 2.2.8.2.17. |
| Section
2.4.8.4 |
11/1/01 |
Proposed deletion of Sections 2.2.8.4.1 and 2.2.8.4.2,
based on acceptance of WP-7-09 and the deletion of the Range
Monitoring Technique, require deletion of corresponding Sections
2.4.8.4.1 and 2.4.8.4.2. This causes previous Section
2.4.8.4.3 to be promoted to become 2.4.8.4, as the sole remaining
subparagraph in that section of text, and to correspond to the
same changes made in Section 2.2.8.4. |
| Section
2.4.10.3 |
4/1/01 |
Proposed changes identified in WP-2-03 extending
the proposed coast time in global decode from 25 to 120 seconds. |
| Section
3.0 |
7/18/01 |
Add a Note in Section 3.0 indicating that
installation of non-transponder based 1090 MHz ADS-B equipment
in airplanes equipped with Mode-S transponders is prohibited,
as agreed to by WG-3 in Meeting #5. |
| Section
3.3.4.5.2 |
7/23/02 |
Working
Paper WP-12-08 identified a series of typographical errors that
have been carried forward from the TCAS MOPS into DO-260 in
a formula in section 3.3.4.5.2 wherein the formula for Distance
Area Calculations has the “primes” typed in the wrong places
and a phrase which had been omitted in the paragraph below the
formula. |
| |
|
|
| Figures-2-16abc |
4/1/01 |
Proposed changes identified in WP-2-03 and WP-3-13A
extending the proposed coast time in global decode from 25 to
120 seconds. |
| Figure
A-12 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
The purpose of this subfield is to define the Version
Number of the formats and protocols in use by the transmitting
device.
Figure A-21 was added in section A.4.11.11 to define
the Version Number subfield.
Figure A-12 was updated to include the Version Number
subfield definition. |
| Table
2-1 |
8/27/01 |
As identified by a reader of DO-260, and documented
in WP-6-10, there is no specific statement of requirement for
antenna diversity accept in subparagraph 3.3.1.
Table 2-1 was modified as per the suggested change in
WP-6-10 and discussion during meeting #6, to indicate that A1,
A2 and A3 class equipment require antenna diversity and a reference
to subparagraph 3.3.1 was placed in a “Note.” |
| Tables-2-3+2-4 |
11/1/01 |
(1) Proposed changes as per WP-4-01 where WG-3
agreed to explicitly state that the Aircraft Operational Status
Message should be transmitted by all Class A Aircraft, as well
as Class B1 Aircraft.
It was additionally agreed that a “Note” would be added
to the list of Notes following Tables 2-3 and 2-4, indicating
that if the formats for Class B2 and B3 Aircraft changed in
the future, then they would be required to transmit the Message
containing the Version Number.
(2)
Proposed changes per WP-6-02 where WG-3 agreed to specify
only the MS-P and not distinguish a MS Report for IFR and
VFR, and to correct a mistake in the original DO-260 in regards
to compliance with DO-242 paragraph 3.4.3.2 and Tables 2-2
and 3-2.
|
| Table
2-5(1+2)
Table
2-5(3)
|
11/1/01
5/15/02
|
(1) Proposed changes as per WP-6-03 to define enhanced
classes of 1090 MHz ADS-B receivers and to note the limitations
of the receivers that do not incorporate the enhanced reception
techniques to be outlined in DO-260A, subparagraph 2.2.4.4.
(2)
Proposed changes per WP-6-02 where WG-3 agreed to specify
only MS-P and not distinguish a MS Report for IFR and VFR,
and to delete notes related to specifying a deferent SV Report
for Class B1.
(3)
Originating with the changes defined in (1) and (2) above,
and based on a Working Group decision to require all A1, A2
and A3 class equipment to support the Enhanced Reception Technique,
changes were made during Meeting 11 as identified in the Minutes
to Meeting 11, removing the A2E and A3E class designators
and defining the remaining A1, A2 and A3 Classes as "Enhanced"
only.
|
| Table
2-54 |
2/5/01 |
Proposed changes as per WP-2-12, plus open discussion
at Meeting #2, Melbourne Florida, as a result of an initial
request by Bob Hilb at the June 2000 Plenary which approved
DO-260, to add TCAS and CDTI operational status information
to the CC_4 subfield of the Aircraft Operational Status Message. |
| Table
2-70 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
Table 2-70 was modified with the addition of the Version
Number as Item #17 in the definition of the Mode Status Data
Elements, and the adjustment of the number of total bytes of
the MS to accommodate the size of the Version Number. |
| Tables
2-89+2-90+2-91 |
2/5/01 |
Proposed
changes as per WP-2-07, with input from WP-2-05 and open
discussion and analysis at Meeting #2, Melbourne Florida, as
a result of requests after the production of DO-260 to add columns
to the tables expressing the Hexadecimal values of the Angular
Weighted Binary Latitude and Longitude values which were already
shown in degrees. |
| Table
A-13 |
2/5/01 |
Proposed changes as per WP-2-12, plus open discussion
at Meeting #2, Melbourne Florida, as a result of an initial
request by Bob Hilb at the June 2000 Plenary which approved
DO-260, to add TCAS and CDTI operational status information
to the CC_4 subfield of the Aircraft Operational Status Message. |
| |
|
|
| Appendix A.4.11.11 |
1/9/02 |
At
Meeting #2 the Working Group agreed to add a Version Number
to the Aircraft Operational Status Message.
The purpose of this subfield is to define the Version
Number of the formats and protocols in use by the transmitting
device.
Figure A-21 was added in section A.4.11.11 to define
the Version Number subfield. |
| Appendix
A.7.8 |
7/17/01 |
At Meeting #4 it was agreed by WG-3 that Range-based
Decoding should be eliminated from DO-260.
Working Paper WP-5-01 proposed specific text to be changed
or eliminated from Appendix A in Sections A.7.8.2 through A.7.8.4. |
| Appendix A-TIS-B |
7/24/02 |
At
Meeting #10 Working Paper 1090-WP-10-03 was presented, representing
draft 6 of a proposed addition of TIS-B materials to Appendix
A. The material was accepted by Working Group 3. At previous
meetings, it had already been agreed by WG-3 to re-number all
of the DO-260 version of Appendix A to A.1.x, and make the TIS-B
addition into section A.2. |
| Appendix
A-DO-242A |
10/4/02 |
At
Meeting #14 Working Paper WP-14-09 was presented and revised
during the meeting to produce WP-14-09R1 which represents the
changes to Appendix A because of all of the agreed upon changes
previously made in the ADS-B MASPS (DO-242A) which include,
but are not limited to, items such as (1) replacing NUC with
NIC/NAC/SIL (2) Replacing TCP/TCP+1 with Long-Term and Short-Term
Intent, (3) Overall change of the structure of Capability Class
(CC) and Operational Mode (OM) Codes, (4) Update of messages
and report structures leading to the State Vector, Mode Status
and On-Condition Reports, (5) Deletion of the Turn Indicator,
and (6) The deletion of the Aircraft Operational Coordination
Message agreed to by WG-3 in previous meetings. |
| Appendix D1 |
7/22/02 |
In
WP-9-04, it was proposed to revise Appendix D to include TIS-B
Ground Processing. In order to accomplish this, (a) section
D.1 was revised to discuss ATC Surveillance and TIS-B, (b) the
numbering of all sections of Appendix D was revised to make
the DO-260 version of Appendix D numbered as D.2, and (c) section
D.3 was proposed to cover TIS-B Ground Processing. WP-12-11
was proposed to revise some of the text in section D.3 |
| Appendix
I6
Appendix
I7
Appendix
I8
Appendix
I9
Appendix
I10
|
3/15/02
7/22/02
7/22/02
8/28/02
10/03/02
|
(1) Modified as per WP-2-09
and WP-2-11, plus open discussion at Meeting #2, Melbourne
Florida. With
corrected Figures I-2 and I-3.
(2) Modified as per WP-3-05 and WP-3-07 discussed at Meeting
#3, Phoenix Arizona.
(3) Modified sections I.3.3.2 and I.4.3.2 as per WP-4-04 and
WP-5-02A, to clarify conservative error correction
(4)
Modified section I.4.1.2.2.2 as per discussions during Meeting
#5 arising from WP-5-08, which discussed conditions for declaring
preambles in reference to lead edge positions.
(5) Changes
identified in WP-6-09 to accommodate enhanced DMTL techniques
(6) Changes identified in WP-9-06 to include an additional
enhanced bit and confidence declaration technique, editing
section I.4.2.3.3
(7) Changes identified in WP-10-05 to include a new paragraph
at the end of section I.4.2.1 as an introduction to the differences
between Center Sample Technique and Multi-Sample Technique.
This paragraph was modified in WP-12-12 to clarify the use
of Center Sample with respect to classes of equipment.
(8) Changes identified in WP-12-04 to include a diagram in
section I.4.3.4, which helps describe the three primary techniques
for error detection and correction, showing how they contribute
to the total process.
(9) Changes identified in WP-13-16R1 that place the "multiple
sample technique without table lookup" method for bit
and confidence declaration as the first in the discussion
of multi-sample techniques, in accordance with Action Item
12-05. As identified in WP-13-16R1, all changes are
in section I.4.2.
(10)
Changes identified in WP-14-05 that reorganize Section I.4.1
to enhance readability.
Additionally, Figure I-2 was replaced with a new Figure
consistent with the main example which shows 10 samples per
microsecond.
|
| |
|
|
Broad &
Sweeping
Changes |
|
The following set of identified
changes mostly relate to broad and sweeping changes in DO-260
brought about as a result of the changes agreed to by RTCA SC-186
Plenary to produce the revision to the ADS-B MASPS (DO-242A).
In the following changes, it is not always possible to identify
individual sections as has been done above. |
| 1090-WP-12-01R2
|
7/30/02 |
This Working Paper deals primarily
with, but is not limited to, those changes required to DO-260
as a result of changes to Intent Reporting. DO-260A is
expected to accommodate the Trajectory Change (TC) Reports identified
in DO-242A. This Working Paper basically proposes replacing
section 2.2.3.2.7 and its subsections, and creates section 2.2.3.3.1.4
to deal with Broadcast Rates in light of the new requirements. |
| 1090-WP-12-02R3
|
8/6/02 |
This Working Paper deals primarily
with, but is not limited to, those changes required to DO-260
as a result of changes to the State Vector, Mode Status and
On-Condition Reporting identified in DO-242A. This Working
Paper primarily addresses sections 2.2.8.1, 2.2.8.2 and 2.2.8.3
and introduces the Air Referenced Velocity Report and makes
changes to 2.2.10 with respect to the required Report changes
identified in 2.2.8 subsections. |
| 1090-WP-12-13R2
|
8/8/02 |
This Working Paper deals primarily
with, but is not limited to those changes required to DO-260
as a result of changing from the NUC Codes to the NIC/NAC/SIL
Codes identified as required by DO-242A. It also deals
with changes to the Capability Codes (CC) and Operational Mode
(OM) Codes in the Aircraft Operational Status Message, which
were also revised in DO-242A. |
| 1090-WP-13-04R1
|
8/27/02 |
This Working Paper is an examination
of 31 Issue Papers that were addressed in Revision A of the
ADS-B MASPS (DO-242A), and what corresponding changes are needed
in Revision A of the 1090 MHz Extended Squitter MOPS.
WG-3 Working Papers and draft MOPS sections that were introduced
at meetings of WG-3 prior to Meeting 13 are cited for those
Issue Papers whose topics and MASPS changes are already being
working on by WG-3 members. The most significant change
specifically addressed in this Working Paper is the removal
of the "Turn Indicator" and all references to "Turn
Rate Date." |
| 1090-WP-15-11R1
|
11/19/02
|
This Working Paper proposes a
change to the time limit for Global Decoding when receiving
messages from a transmitter on the Airport Surface. Given
that the transmitted rate on the surface may be only once per
5 seconds, the previously stated 10 second time limit for the
receipt of both an "even" and "odd" position
squitter should be increased to 50 seconds. WP-15-11R1
proposes several changes in section 2.2.10 and Appendix A to
accommodate this proposed change. |
| 1090-WP-16-04
|
12/16/02
|
This
Working Paper proposes changes to the Environmental Test Procedures
section 2.3 based on all of the other changes that have been
made up to this point in the test procedures section of the
draft of DO-260A.
Primary additions include additional test procedures
to account for the Enhanced Processing Techniques and the addition
of TIS-B. |
For more information on this group's activities please
contact the group's secretary Gary Furr at:
email: Gary.CTR.Furr@tc.faa.gov
phone: (609) 485-4254
