[flight_planning] Clarify OffNominal definition #23
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, the wording "performing nominally" does not accurately capture the purpose of OffNominal and Contingent, which are to indicate status of conformance to intent (OffNominal = temporarily not conforming, Contingent = permanently not conforming). Specifically, it would not be justified to expect a USS to transition the operational intent of a flight that was "not performing nominally" to the ASTM F3548-21 state of NonConforming because the flight could still be fully-conformant with its volumes while it was "not performing nominally". This PR clarifies the definition to assure that a USS should transition the operational intent of an OffNominal flight to ASTM F3548-21 Nonconforming.