Dynamic PORT Boundaries for RPAS CPDLC A Message-Type-Sensitive Conceptual Framework under RCP 240

Mahmoud Eleimat and Arnold Oszi
Additional contact information
Mahmoud Eleimat: Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary
Arnold Oszi: Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

Technium, 2026, vol. 31, 467-493

Abstract: Controller–Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) performance is commonly interpreted within the Performance-Based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) framework through transaction-time metrics and Required Communication Performance (RCP) specifications. In conventional aircraft operations, the aircraft communication end system, cockpit display, and flight crew are located within a single operational environment. In Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations, however, the remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and the responsible remote-pilot (RP) are separated by the command-and-control (C2) link and the Remote Pilot Station (RPS). This distributed architecture creates intermediate transaction states between aircraft-side message receipt and remote-pilot (RP) operational response, making aircraft-side logical acknowledgement an insufficient proxy for pilot awareness, interpretation, or action.This paper develops a message-type-sensitive conceptual framework for interpreting Pilot Operational Response Time (PORT) in RPAS CPDLC transactions under RCP 240 logic. Using structured conceptual synthesis, the framework aligns PBCS/CPDLC transaction logic with RPAS communication architecture and RP human-response considerations. It introduces four analytical constructs: Acknowledgement-State Ambiguity, RPAS Relay Penalty, PORT Encroachment, and Dynamic PORT Boundary. These constructs are organized around a state-transition model that distinguishes ATC uplink initiation, RPA receipt, RPS delivery, RP awareness, pilot response initiation, and ATC-side closure. The framework further classifies CPDLC messages into administrative/informational, communication-management, strategic trajectory/planning, tactical control, and abnormal/contingency/emergency classes. For each class, it links message urgency, acknowledgement-state progression, monitoring evidence, and escalation posture. The proposed framework is conceptual rather than regulatory or empirical; it does not define validated timing thresholds, prescribe operational timers, or claim RCP 240 compliance. Instead, it provides a structured basis for future empirical validation, RPS HMI design, RPAS safety-case development, and RPAS-specific extensions to CPDLC performance monitoring.

Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://techniumscience.com/index.php/technium/article/view/13724 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:tec:techni:ojs:13724

DOI: 10.47577/technium.v31i.13724

Access Statistics for this article

Technium is currently edited by Scurtu Ionut Cristian

More articles in Technium from Technium Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ana Maria Golita ().