.  R2.1: TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, TERMINAL ROUTES SHOULD CONSISTENTLY BE CONNECTED WITH THE EN ROUTE ATS ROUTE NETWORK IRRESPECTIVE OF RUNWAY IN USE.
The points at which the en route ATS routes and terminal routes connect should – for both arriving and departing flights - remain constant.
Significantly, this Guideline does not imply that precedence should be given to the En Route ATS Route Network i.e. there is no ‘automatic’ requirement for terminal routes to ‘fit in’ with the existing ATS route network (see Part C, Chapter 7, especially Stage 4 and 5 Terminal Airspaces.
Consistent with the General Principle of collaboration (Part A, Chapter 2), adjustments to both the En route ATS route network and terminal routes should be accommodated so as to obtain the best overall result as regards the design and strategic objectives.

 D  D D 
 D  D D 
A  A 
R2.1 
 RWY27  R2.1  RWY09 

Figure 5- 10: Consistent Connectivity, R2.1
Indeed, the entry and exit points of large Terminal Airspaces (e.g. London and Paris) often influence significantly the placement of ATS Routes in the En Route ATS Route Network. The converse is true of smaller Terminal Airspaces, where the placement of terminal routes is driven by the requirements of the EUR ARN.

This Guideline seeks to ensure the same consistency between terminal routes of adjacent Terminal Airspaces as is required in R2.1. Significantly, this Guideline draws attention to the fact that this compatibility be sought even with terminal routes in more ‘remote’ Terminal Airspace – even those located in a different sovereign airspace
.  R2.3: TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, CHANGE TO THE RUNWAY IN USE SHOULD CREATE MINIMUM OPERATIONAL COMPLEXITY TO THE TERMINAL ROUTES STRUCTURE.
Whilst this Guideline effectively repeats the ideas embodied in R2.1 and R2.2, it is stated specifically with a view to drawing attention to the terminal routes inside the Terminal Airspace. As such, this Guideline suggests that the terminal route structure for one runway configuration should seek to mirror that of the inverse runway configuration so as to minimise operational complexity. Naturally, neither R2.1 nor R2.2 should be compromised, as far as practicable.
The difficulty inherent in this guideline occurs particularly in those instances when the geographic distribution of traffic is unequal – as is often the case with Terminal Airspaces located on the geographic periphery of Europe (see Part C, Chapter 4, para. 4.3.1.2).
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
C

In Figure 2-8 below, the crossing point marked with an X may appear to be contradict R1.2 above. This said, a calculation using the Graph 5-1 is likely to reveal that the crossing is workable.

Figure 5- 11: Application R2.3

Whenever possible, this guideline should be applied in particular to VFR routes so as to minimise the likelihood of adding to complex operations when a change is made to the runway in use.
.
R
3
.
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
R
O
U
T
E
S
S
H
O
U
L
D
B
E
M
　
中國航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 2(44)