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

and definition of course structure for
Facility Performance Categories
2.1.1 The Facility Performance Categories defined in Chapter 3, 3.1.1 have operational objectives as follows:
Category I operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 60 m (200 ft)
and with either a visibility not less than 800 m or a runway visual range not less than 550 m.
Category II operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 60 m (200 ft) but
not lower than 30 m (100 ft), and a runway visual range not less than 350 m.
23/11/06 ATT C-2
Attachment C Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications
ATT C-3 23/11/06
Category IIIA operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft), or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range not less than 200 m.
Category IIIB operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft), or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range less than 200 m but not less than 50 m.
Category IIIC operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual
range limitations.
2.1.2 Relevant to these objectives will be the type of aircraft using the ILS and the capabilities of the aircraft flight
guidance system(s). Modern aircraft fitted with equipment of appropriate design are assumed in these objectives. In practice,
however, operational capabilities may extend beyond the specific objectives given at 2.1.1.
2.1.2.1 The availability of fail-passive and fail-operational flight guidance systems in conjunction with an ILS ground
system which provides adequate guidance with an appropriate level of continuity of service and integrity for the particular
case can permit the attainment of operational objectives which do not coincide with those described at 2.1.1.
2.1.2.2 For modern aircraft fitted with automatic approach and landing systems the routine use of such systems is being
encouraged by aircraft operating agencies in conditions where the progress of the approach can be visually monitored by the
flight crew. For example, such operations may be conducted on Facility Performance Category I — ILS where the guidance
quality and coverage exceeds basic requirements given at Chapter 3, 3.1.3.4.1 and extends down to the runway.
2.1.2.3 In order to fully exploit the potential benefits of modern aircraft automatic flight control systems there is a
related need for a method of describing ground based ILS more completely than can be achieved by reference solely to the
Facility Performance Category. This is achieved by the ILS classification system using the three designated characters. It
provides a description of those performance aspects which are required to be known from an operations viewpoint in order to
decide the operational applications which a specific ILS could support.
2.1.2.4 The ILS classification scheme provides a means to make known the additional capabilities that may be
available from a particular ILS ground facility, beyond those associated with the facilities defined in Chapter 3, 3.1.1. These
additional capabilities can be exploited in order to permit operational use according to 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 to be approved
down to and below the values stated in the operational objectives described in 2.1.
2.1.2.5 An example of the classification system is presented in 2.14.3.
2.1.3 Guidance material relating to airborne equipment tolerances appropriate to the attainment of the objectives of ILS
Operational Performance Categories I and II are given in 2.2.4 and 2.2.5. In the case of Category II operations utilizing
appropriate ILS facilities, it may be feasible to allow operations by aircraft with low approach speeds and adequate
demonstrable manoeuvrability fitted with airborne equipment having tolerances less stringent than those specified for
Category II.
Note.— The following guidance material is intended to assist States when they are evaluating the acceptability of ILS
localizer courses and glide paths having bends. Although, by definition, course bends and glide path bends are related to the
nominal positions of the localizer course and glide path respectively, the evaluation of high frequency aberrations is based
Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications Volume I
on the deviations from the mean course or path. The material in 2.1.6 and Figure C-2 regarding the evaluation of bends
indicates how the bends relate to the mean position of the course and path. Aircraft recordings will normally be in this form.
2.1.4 Course bends. Localizer course bends should be evaluated in terms of the course structure specified in Chapter 3,
3.1.3.4. With regard to landing and rollout in Category III conditions, this course structure is based on the desire to provide
　
中國航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：附件10--航空電信an10_v1_6ed下(25)