It is a fundamental premise that the design of Terminal Airspace should ensure, be conducive to and supportive of safe operations within the airspace. Furthermore, ICAO Annex 11 requires any design (or modification) of any aspect of an airspace to be subjected to a safety assessment. To these ends, ICAO PANS-ATM states (at Page 2-3):
2.6 SAFETY ASSESSMENTS 2.6.1 Need for safety assessments 2.6.1.1 A safety assessment shall be carried out in respect of proposals for significant airspace reorganizations, for significant changes in the provision of ATS procedures applicable to an airspace or an aerodrome, and for the introduction of new equipment, systems or facilities, such as: a) a reduced separation minimum to be applied within an airspace or at an aerodrome; b) a new operating procedure, including departure and arrival procedures, to be applied within an airspace or at an aerodrome; c) a reorganization of the ATS route structure; d) a resectorization of an airspace; e) physical changes to the layout of runways and/or taxiways at an aerodrome; and f) implementation of new communications, surveillance or other safety-significant systems and equipment, including those providing new functionality and/or capabilities. Note 1.— A reduced separation minimum may refer to the reduction of a horizontal separation minimum, including a minimum based on required navigation performance (RNP), a reduced vertical separation minimum of 300 m (1 000 ft) between FL 290 and FL 410 inclusive (RVSM), the reduction of a radar separation or a wake turbulence separation minimum or reduction of minima between landing and/or departing aircraft. Note 2.— When, due to the nature of the change, the acceptable level of safety cannot be expressed in quantitative terms, the safety assessments may rely on operational judgement. 2.6.1.2 Proposals shall be implemented only when the assessment has shown that an acceptable level of safety will be met.
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
i
r
s
p
a
c
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
-
P
a
r
t
A
Principle P.1.3 which speaks to the analysis, evaluation and validation of any design suggests that a qualitative analysis and evaluation be undertaken before quantitativeanalysis, evaluation and validation. The reason for recommending this sequence of action is as follows: a qualitative analysis and evaluation of an airspace refers to the process whereby it is determined to what extent the airspace designed meets international standards, recommended practices and Terminal Airspace design guidelines. At the most basic level, the qualitative phase may be described as the ‘drawing board’ stage where inconsistencies are detected and impracticable elements of the design are discarded by expert judgement of the airspace designers. As importantly, passing through this phase reduces the likelihood of resources being wasted at the quantitative stage normally undertaken by means of (expensive) real-time simulation. Furthermore, sound qualitative analysis and evaluation ensures that viable designs can be thoroughly analysed and evaluated at the quantitative phase.
2.2.2 P.2 -OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
P.2 TERMINAL AIRSPACE DESIGN SHOULD BE DRIVEN BY OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO -
P.2.1 BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND AIRSPACE USERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE POLICY (also see P.3.1);
P.2.2 PROMOTE THE USE OF THE FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE CONCEPT (FUA) WHERE APPROPRIATE.
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 1(104)
