Sectors: S -SAirports: A, B, C STAR 1-route changed, new entry point at N1 into S
Routes: STARs -1, 3, 5, 7 ; SIDs -2,4,6; SID 2 -route changed (more trackmiles before entering S at N2)

AE  A)
A
SC slightly smaller (shrunk from south) to accommodate new SID 2;
Figure 2 - 2: Potential Solution Scenario T.1
Development of Scenario A-27 / Test Case A 27-1TA reveals the following:
.  
Even though the traffic at crossing point X has lessened, a new crossing point has been created between RNAV/SID 6 and RNAV/STAR 1, north of X; whether or not this crossing is viable or efficient (as per Part C, Chapter 5), remains to be explored.

.  
Because of the new placement of RNAV/SID 2, the problem between Routes 1 and 2 has been resolved.

As a next step, it is necessary to examine the new crossing point between RNAV/SID 6 and RNAV/STAR 1. What can be expected is that it is unlikely that aircraft operating on these routes will cross each other at the same levels they did when they crossed at X. Again, the Terminal Airspace design team makes use of a flight simulator to examine the unconstrained profiles on RNAV/SID 6 and RNAV/STAR 1. What the flight simulator analysis reveals is that most traffic on RNAV/SID 6 will be above FL90 at the new crossing point, and that on an unconstrained profile, most aircraft on RNAV/STAR 1 would be at FL60 or below.
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
D

Given this promising result, the Terminal Airspace design team decides to test by real-time simulation (RTS) as Test Case A 27-1T – See Part D, Chapter 5. For the most part, the RTS confirms their findings. However, when the RTS results are closely scrutinised, the team realises that the solution presented by Test Case A 27-1T will only be viable as long as traffic increases do not exceed 20% in sector SA.
In view of this, the Terminal Airspace design team asks for a statistical analysis to be undertaken using a forecast traffic sample (See Part B, Chapter 4) and this reveals that it will take seven years for traffic to increase by 20%.
Sample conclusion
Given the above, the Terminal Airspace design team decides to plan for implementation of the new proposals included in Test Case A 27-1T as validated using RTS and Qualitative Assessment. One year later, the Terminal Airspace design team re-opens the dossier in order to prepare the groundwork for a time when the new capacity once again does not meet demand.
Comment: Note the importance of the critical review of the Reference Scenario. This is an essential step for two reasons: (i) it ensures that the appropriate/correct problem is identified so that the link between cause/effect is properly made; and (ii) it permits the problem to be thoroughly analysed before deciding upon a solution. Importantly, therefore, no assumptions should be made as to what the problem is, or the extent of the problem. Note also, that ‘solutions’ to problems require account to be taken of future developments. To this end, future traffic samples were used in the fictitious Scenario T.1 so as to determine the point at which/beyond which the solution presented would no longer meet future demand. Recognition of a need for future developments is an essential element of the assessment/validation process.
A
D
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
S
&
L
I
M
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
S

As stated several times, qualitative and quantitative assessment complement each other in the validation phase. They cannot be separated.
　
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(93)