From: Joe.Hersey@uscg.mil on behalf of Hersey, Joe [Joe.Hersey@uscg.mil]
Sent: donderdag 8 februari 2007 21:47
To: Arroyo, Jorge; dski@radioaid.rdc.uscg.gov; Cairns, William
Cc: Alan Stewart; wvanderheijden@zonnet.nl; mahesha@wanadoo.fr
Subject: RE: Re; 1371-3(3.5.1.4)

Jorge, depending what you learn at eNav02, we or they meant to think about an input paper to IMO NAV.  A requirement for undefined preformatted messages will lead to unexpected distress and SSAS alerting which we and all administrations will need to plan how to handle.  Maybe a simple way out is IMO/eNAV guidance saying these preformatted messages should not include distress or SSAS alerts unless approved for that purpose by an Administration...

-----Original Message-----
From: Arroyo, Jorge
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:15 AM
To: dski@radioaid.rdc.uscg.gov; Cairns, William
Cc: Alan Stewart; wvanderheijden@zonnet.nl; Hersey, Joe; mahesha@wanadoo.fr
Subject: RE: Re; 1371-3(3.5.1.4)

As good engineers you all are, you gave us the bat and ball, but, leave it up to us to define the rules of the game!

With the Chairman's concurrence, I hope to bring the matter up at ENAV02 for discussion.  Given our recent experience here, I think it's best we standardize many of them, and, provide some clearer guidance to manufacturer.  Also, given the import of SRM's, it may also be prudent to more thoroughly test (IEC) the functionality.  Lets see what the committee members view is--I hope it will be more tasking for AIS TWG!

Thanks, Jorge


 -----Original Message-----
From: dski@radioaid.rdc.uscg.gov [mailto:dski@radioaid.rdc.uscg.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:40 PM
To: Arroyo, Jorge
Cc: Alan Stewart; wvanderheijden@zonnet.nl; Cairns, William; Hersey, Joe
Subject: Re: Re; 1371-3(3.5.1.4)

Currently, the selection of the pre-configured contents is left to the judgment of the manufacturer.  For Class B CS, the message must be short - to fit in a single slot.  I assume equipment, required by a regulation to transmit certain minimum messages, would need to have the specifics described in the regulation. 

There was no discussion at IEC (IALA or ITU) about standardizing the message content - only that the option for message transmission existed.  

There is no "MKD" requirement.  So, the initiation of a pre configured message is left to the manufacturer.  The manufacturer would also need to address issues, such as, the priority for different messages they provide. 

I don't believe there is any test or review of the pre configured message content. 

The general objective was to permit a very limited messaging capability with no general messaging capability being available to an external device. 

Did I hit all your items? 

Regards, 

Dave 

----- 

"Arroyo, Jorge" wrote: 

	1371-3

	3.5.1.4 Short safety-related messages 

	- Short safety-related messages, if transmitted, should be in compliance with  3.12, Annex 8 and should use pre-configured contents. 

	It should not be possible for the user to alter the pre-configured contents. 

	Dave 

	Are these pre-configured contents the manufacturers own choosing?  

	Any limit to the number they can configure or how their sent, i.e. one-button, multiple button/keying? 

	Any discussion on standardizing them? 

	Prioritizing them, i.e. MAYDAY, PAN PAN, SECURITE? 

	Will they be tested to ensure they're safety related?  

	Brgds/Jorge

-- 

David Pietraszewski
Office:  860-441-2676 
Cell:    none 
E-mail:  dski@radioaid.rdc.uscg.gov 
FAX:     860-441-2792 

USCG Research and Development Center
1082 Shennecossett Road
Groton, CT 06340-6096 
  