曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專(zhuān)營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

encompassing the 99.5 per cent containment values do not
overlap. When implementing a spacing encompassing less
than the 99.5 per cent containment values, radar monitoring is
required.
3. Spacing between parallel tracks or
between parallel RNAV route centre lines
based on RNP type
3.1 It should be noted that, where indicated, the spacings
depicted below are based on safety assessments performed
specifically for a particular network of tracks or routes. As
such, the assessments evaluated traffic characteristics which
might be unique to the network being assessed. For example,
some of these characteristics are traffic density, the frequency
of aircraft passing with minimum separation, communication
and surveillance facilities, etc. Additional information on
performing safety assessments is contained in the Manual on
Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of
Separation Minima (Doc 9689).
3.2 When determining the spacing between parallel tracks
or ATS routes (hereinafter referred to as a “system”), the safety
assessment, involving an examination of items such as those
listed in 3.1 above, should be performed against a minimum
acceptable safety level.
3.2.1 Where “fatal accidents per flight hour” is considered
to be an appropriate metric, a target level of safety (TLS) of
5 × 10–9 fatal accidents per flight hour per dimension should be
applied for determining the acceptability of future en-route
systems that will be implemented after the year 2000. Until
then, a TLS of 2 × 10–8 fatal accidents per flight hour per
dimension may be applied for this purpose.
3.2.2 However, where “fatal accidents per flight hour” is
not considered to be an appropriate metric, justifiable
alternative metrics and methods of assessment providing an
acceptable level of safety may be established by States and, as
appropriate, be implemented by regional agreements.
3.3 If, at the time a system is established or upon a
subsequent system safety assessment, it is determined that the
system does not meet the appropriate level of safety for the
method of assessment being used, a reassessment should be
considered. This assessment should be undertaken in
accordance with Doc 9689 to determine if a level of safety
equivalent to or better than the minimum acceptable level can
be met.
3.4 Examples of spacings for systems in specific areas or
regions based on RNP type are provided below. Where these
spacings are based on the characteristics of a specific area or
region (reference system), other States or regions will need to
evaluate their own systems for comparability with the reference
system.
3.4.1 For procedural environments:
a) RNP 20
Spacing: 185 km (100 NM);
Basis: Existing usage, based on long-standing,
operational experience; and
Minimum ATS requirements:
NAV — All aircraft need RNP type 20 approval
appropriate for the routes/tracks to be flown
COM — Voice communications through a third party
SUR — Procedural-pilot position reports.
b) RNP 12.6
Spacing: 110 km (60 NM);
Basis: Collision risk model performed for NAT
Organized Track Structure (Report of the Limited/North
Atlantic Regional Air Navigation Meeting (1976)
(Doc 9182)); and
Minimum ATS requirements:
NAV — All aircraft need RNP type 12.6 approval
appropriate for the routes/tracks to be flown
COM — Voice communications through a third party
SUR — Procedural-pilot position reports
Other — System safety must be evaluated periodically.
Note.— Direct controller/pilot communications may
be desirable in certain areas, such as areas of known
convective weather.
Attachment B Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services
ATT B-3 1/11/01
c) RNP 10
Spacing: 93 km (50 NM);
Basis: Collision risk model performed by the United
States Federal Aviation Administration for the Pacific
Region based on North Pacific traffic characteristics;
and
Minimum ATS requirements:
NAV — All aircraft need RNP type 10 approval
appropriate for the routes/tracks to be flown
COM — Voice communications through a third party
SUR — Procedural-pilot position reports
Other — System safety must be evaluated periodically.
Note.— Direct controller/pilot communications may
be desirable in certain areas, such as areas of known
convective weather.
d) RNP 5 (or RNP 4 or better)
Spacing: 30.6 km (16.5 NM) in a unidirectional system
33.3 km (18 NM) in a bi-directional system;
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Traffic Services 附件11(55)