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

with the following:
2.2.2 Radar monitoring studies indicate that any potential
reduction of the protected airspace is closely related to traffic
characteristics, information available to the controller, and
sector workload. Finally, it is worth considering that the
analysis of RNAV accuracy performed in terms of containment
measurements by some European States has shown that flights
with RNAV capability were within 5 NM of the route centre
line for 99.5 per cent of the time (EUR Doc 001, RNAV/4
refers). If the appropriate ATS authority considers that more
protection is required, e.g. because of proximity of prohibited,
Percentage containment
95 96 97 98 99 99.5
km ±7.4 ±7.4 ±8.3 ±9.3 ±10.2 ±11.1
NM ±4.0 ±4.0 ±4.5 ±5.0 ±5.5 ±6.0
Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services Attachment B
12/81/111//0012 ATT B-2
No. 41
restricted or danger areas, climb and descent paths of military
aircraft, etc., additional buffers should be provided.
2.2.3 Where there is an angular difference of more than
25 degrees between route segments, additional protected
airspace, as indicated in Attachment A, 3.5 to 3.12 and
Section 7, should be provided.
Note.— Different levels of navigation accuracy may be
required by States for operations of RNAV-equipped aircraft.
These requirements are not covered by this guidance material
and may necessitate changes to protected airspace criteria.
2.3 Spacing between parallel RNAV routes
based on RNP 4
When utilizing protected airspace as described in 2.2, route
centre lines may be spaced such that the protected airspaces
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
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：附件11 第十三版 第44次修訂(92)