曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

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
Air,~/~acP.elu rlt~itrg Methodology ,for the Deterrnitlatiotl of
Septrrutiotl Mirlirrrcr (Doc 9689).
3.2 When determining the spacing between parallel tracks
or ATS routes (hereinafter referred to as a "system"), the safety
asessment, involving an cxamination of items such as those
listed in 3.1 above, should be performed against a minimum
acceptable safety level.
3.2.1 Whcre "fatal accidents per flight hour" is considered
to be an appropriate metric. a target level of safety (TLS) of
5 x IVY fatal accidents per flight hour per dimension should be
applied for dc~crrr~inil~llc~ ga cceptability u l luturt. en-route
systcrns that will he implemented after the year 2000. Until
then, a TL.S of 2 x 10.' fatal accidents per flight hour per
din~ensiorl may be applied for this purpose.
3.2.2 Howevcr, where "fi~tol accidents per flight hour" is
not consitlered to he on 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 tM
method of assessment being used, a reassessment should be
considered. This assessment should be undertaken il(
accordance with Doc 9689 to determine if a level of safetp
equivalent to or better than the minimum acceptable level ciul
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 dt
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 approvd
appropriate for the routesltracks to be flown
COM - Voice communications through a third party
SUR - Procedural-pilot position reports.
b) RNP 12.6
Spacing: 1 10 km (60 NM);
Basis: Collision risk model performed for NA?
Organized Track Structure (Report of the Limited/North
Atlantic Regional Air Navigation Meeting (1976)
(Doc 9 182)); and
Mitrirrllcnz ATS requirements:
NAV - All aircraft need RNP type 12.6 approvd
appropriate for the routesltracks to be flown
COM - Voice communications through a third party
SUR - Procedural-pilot position reports
Other - System safety must he evaluate~lp eriodically.
Note.- Direct controller//~iloct ,onrttl~rr~icat~omnasp
be desirable in certaitr areus, s1rc.11tr s oreas of knowh
convectir,e weather:
Attachment B Annex I I - Air Traffic Services
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 routesltracks to be flown
COM - Voice communications through a third party
SUR - Procedural-pilot position reports
Other - System safety must be evaluated periodically.
Note.- Direct contmller/pilot communications may
be desirable in certain areas, such as areas of known
convective weathe,:
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;
Basis: Comparison to a high-density continental
reference system (VOR spacing) as described in
Attachment A; and
Minimum ATS requirements:
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：附件11--空中交通服務an11_13ed(54)