1、DOC 9574-ANJ934 16/4/02 CORRIGENDUM (ENGLISH ONLY) MANUAL ON IMPLEMENTATION OF A 300 m (1 O00 ft) VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMUM BETWEEN FL 290 AND FL 410 INCLUSIVE SECOND EDITION - 2002 CORRIGENDUM 3. Please replace the following pages by the attached new pages: 5-3, A-2, A-7, A-12 and A-13. Record th
2、e entry of this corrigendum on page (ii). 4. Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS under license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS under license w
3、ith ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-Published in separate English, French, Russian and Spanish editions by the International Civil Aviation Organization. All correspondence, except orders and subscriptions, should be addressed to the Secretary Gen
4、eral. Orders should be sent to one of the following addresses, together with the appropriate remittance (by bank draft, cheque or money order) in U.S. dollars or the currency of the country in which the order is placed. Credit card orders (American Express, MasterCard and Visa) are accepted at ICAO
5、Headquarters. International Civil Aviation Organization. Attention: Document Sales Unit 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 Telephone: +I (514) 954-8022; Facsimile: +I (5 14) 954-6769; Sitatex: YULADYA; E-mail: sales-uniticao.int Egypt. ICAO Regional Director, Middle East Office,
6、 Egyptian Civil Aviation Complex, Cairo Airport Road, Heliopolis, Cairo 11776 Telephone: +20 (2) 267-4840; Facsimile: +20 (2) 267-4843; Sitatex: CAICAYA 92522 Neuilly-sur-Seine (Cedex) Tlphone: +33 (1) 46 41 85 85; Tlcopieur: +33 (I) 46 41 85 00; Sitatex: PAREUYA or 17 Park Street, Calcutta 700016 T
7、elephone: +91 (11) 331-5896; Facsimile: +91 (11) 332-2639 Telephone: +8 I (3) 3503-2686; Facsimile: +81 (3) 3503-2689 P.O. BOX 46294, Nairobi Telephone: +254 (2) 622-395; Facsimile: +254 (2) 226-706; Sitatex: NBOCAYA Masaryk No. 29-3er. piso, Col. Chapultepec Morales, Mxico, D.F., 11570 Telfono: +52
8、 (55) 52 50 32 1 I; Facsimile: 152 (55) 52 03 27 57; Sitatex: MEXCAYA Nigeria. Landover Company, P.O. Box 3 165, Ikeja, Lagos Telephone: +234 (1) 4979780; Facsimile: +234 (1) 4979788; Sitatex: LOSLORK Peru. Director Regional de la OACI, Oficina Sudamrica, Apartado 4127, Lima 100 Telfono: +51 (I) 302
9、260; Facsimile: +51 (I) 640393; Sitatex: LIMCAYA Russian Federution. Aviaizdat, 48, 1. Franko Street, Moscow 121351 Telephone: +7 (095) 417-0405; Facsimile: +7 (095) 417-0254 Senegal. Directeur rgional de IOACI, Bureau Afrique occidentale et centrale, Bote postale 2356, Dakar Tlphone: +221 8-23-54-5
10、2; Tlcopieur: +221 8-23-69-26; Sitatex: DKRCAYA Slovakia. Air Traffic Services of the Slovak Republic, Letov prevdzkov sluzby Slovenskej Republiky, State Enterprise, Letisko M.R. Stefnika, 823 07 Bratislava 21, Slovak Republic Telephone: +421 (7) 4857 11 11; Facsimile: +421 (7) 4857 2105 Telephone:
11、27 (I I) 315-000314; Facsimile: +27 (1 1) 805-3649; E-mail: Planta Tercera, Despacho 3. 11, 28027 Madrid Telfono: +34 (91) 321-3148; Facsimile: +34 (91) 321-3 157; Correo electrnico: sscc.ventasoaciaena.es Thailand. ICAO Regional Director, Asia and Pacific Office, P.O. Box 1 I, Samyaek Ladprao, Ba
12、ngkok 10901 Telephone: +66 (2) 537-8189; Facsimile: +66 (2) 537-8199; Sitatex: BKKCAYA United Kingdom. Airplan Flight Equipment Ltd. (AFE), la Ringway Trading Estate, Shadowmoss Road, Manchester M22 5LH Telephone: +44 161 499 0023; Facsimile: +44 161 499 0298; E-mail: ; World Wide Web: http:/ France
13、 Directeur rgional de IOACI, Bureau Europe et Atlantique Nord, 3 bis, villa fimile-Bergerat, India. Oxford Book and Stationery Co., Scindia House, New Delhi 110001 Japan. Japan Civil Aviation Promotion Foundation, 15- 12, 1-chome, Toranomon, Minato-Ku, Tokyo Kenya. ICAO Regional Director, Eastern a
14、nd Southern African Office, United Nations Accommodation, Mexico. Director Regional de la OACI, Oficina Norteamrica, Centroamrka y Caribe, South Africa. Avex Air Training (Pty) Ltd., Private Bag X102, Halfway House, 1685, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa Spain. A.E.N.A. - Aeropuertos Espaoles
15、y Navegacin Area, Calle Juan Ignacio Luca de Tena, 14, 1/02 Catalogue of ICAO Publications and Audio-visual Training Aids Issued annually, the Catalogue lists all publications and audio-visual training aids currently available. Monthly supplements announce new publications and audio-visual training
16、aids, amendments, supplements, reprints, etc. Available free from the Document Sales Unit, ICAO Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS under license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-a Doc 9574 AN1934 Manual on Impl
17、ementation of a 300 m (I O00 ft) Vertical Separation Minimum Between FL 290 and FL 410 Inclusive Approved by the Secretary General and published under his authority Second Edition - 2002 a International Civil Aviation Organization Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS u
18、nder license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-AMENDMENTS The issue of amendments is announced regularly in the ICAO Journal and in the monthly Supplement to the Catalogue of ICAO Publications and Audio-visual Training Aids, which holders of th
19、is publication should consult. The space below is provided to keep a record of such amendments. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA AMENDMENTS No. 1 Date- I Date of issue entered Entered by (ii) CORRIGENDA No. I of Date issue +- I= Date I Entered entered by I Copyright International Civil Aviation O
20、rganization Provided by IHS under license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1 . Introduction 1-1 1.1 Background . 1-1 1.2 Purpose of manual 1-2 1.3 Content and presentation . 1-2 1.4 List of acronyms . 1-3 1.5 Lis
21、t of definitions 1-3 Chapter 2 . General requirements 2-1 2.1 Safety objectives . 2-1 2.2 Global system performance specification . . 2-2 2.3 Global height-keeping performance specification . 2-3 Chapter 3 . Implementation planning . 3-1 3.1 Implementation considerations 3-1 3.2 Operating conditions
22、 3-1 3.3 Implementation strategy . 3-2 Chapter 4 . Aircraft requirements and approval 4-1 4.1 RVSM height-keeping performance 4-1 Page 4.2 Airworthiness approval 4-1 4.3 State RVSM approval . 4-2 Chapter 5 . Procedures 5-1 5.1 Flight crew operating procedures 5-1 5.2 ATC procedures 5-2 Chapter 6 . S
23、ystem performance monitoring . 6-1 6.1 Requirement for monitoring 6-1 6.2 Monitoring the technical performance . 6-1 6.3 Assessment and evaluation of operational errors and in-flight contingencies 6-4 6.4 Responsibilities of the authorities 6-5 Appendix A . performance monitoring . A-1 Quantitative
24、aspects of system Appendix B . Reference documentation B-1 (iii) Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS under license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.1.1 In the late 1950s i
25、t was recognized that, as a result of the reduction in pressure-sensing accuracy of barometric altimeters with increasing altitude, there was a need above a certain flight level (FL) to increase the prescribed vertical separation minimum (VSM) of 300 m (1 O00 ft). In 1960, an increased VSM of 600 m
26、2 O00 ft) was established for use between aircraft operating above FL 290 except where, on the basis of regional air navigation agreement, a lower flight level was prescribed for the increase. The selection of FL 290 as the vertical limit for the 300 m (1 O00 ft) VSM was not so much an empirically-
27、 based decision but rather a function of the operational ceiling of the aircraft at that tirne. In 1966, this changeover level was established at FL 290 on a global basis. At the same time, it was considered that the application of a reduced VSM above FL 290, on a regional basis and in carefully pre
28、scribed circumstances, was a distinct possibility in the not too distant future. Accordingly, ICAO provisions stated that such a reduced VSM could be applied under specified conditions within designated portions of airspace on the basis of regional air navigation agreement. 1.1.2 It has long been re
29、cognized that any decision concerning the feasibility of reducing the VSM above FL290 could not be based upon operational judgement alone, but would need to be supported by a rigorous assessment of the risk associated with such a reduction of separation. The lack of a clear-cut method of achieving s
30、uch an assessment was the primary cause of the failure of various attempts to determine the feasibility of a reduced VSM. 1.1.3 In the mid-l970s, the series of world fuel shortages and the resultant rapid escalation of fuel costs, allied to the growing demand for a more efficient utilization of the
31、available airspace, emphasized the necessity for a detailed appraisal of the proposal to reduce the VSM above FL 290. Thus, at its fourth meeting (in 1980), the ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP) concluded that, despite the cost and time involved, the potential benefits o
32、f reducing the VSM above FL 290 to 300 m (1 O00 ft) were so great that States should be encouraged to conduct the major evaluations necessary. 1.1.4 In 1982, coordinated by the RGCSP, States initiated programmes to study comprehensively the question of reducing the VSM above FL 290. Studies were car
33、ried out by Canada, Japan, Member States of EUROCONTROL (France, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of the Netherlands and United Kingdom), Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and United States, and in December 1988 the results were considered by the RGCSP at its sixth meeting (RGCSP/6). 1.1.5 The
34、se studies employed quantitative methods of risk assessment to support operational decisions concerning the feasibility of reducing the VSM. The risk assessment consisted of two elements: first, risk estimation, which concerns the development and use of methods and techniques with which the actual l
35、evel of risk of an activity can be estimated; and second, risk evaluation, which concerns the level of risk considered to be the maximum tolerable value for a safe system. The level of risk that is deemed acceptable was termed the target level of safety (TLS). 1.1.6 The process for the estimation of
36、 risk in the vertical plane using the collision risk model (CRM) assumed that collisions result solely from vertical navigation errors of aircraft to which procedural separation had been correctly applied. The TLS was derived to apply to this contribution of collision risk alone; it does not address
37、 risk from other sources, such as height deviations due to turbulence, responses to airborne collision avoidance system alerts, emergency descents and operational errors in the issuance of, or compliance with, air traffic control (ATC) instructions. 1.1.7 The recognition of several sources of risk i
38、n addition to vertical navigation errors played a role in the choice of TLS values by various States during their studies. Several approaches wert! followed in order to establish an appropriate range of values, including all en-route mid-air collisions and the implicit period between collisions, and
39、 1-1 Copyright International Civil Aviation Organization Provided by IHS under license with ICAONot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-Manual on Impiementatiori of a 300 rn (1 OOOfr) Vertical Separation Minimum Between FL 290 and FL 410 Inclusive planned ver
40、tical separation as a consequence of such events should receive attention at least equal to that devoted to limiting the effects of technical errors (errors of aircraft height-keeping systems). Therefore, in addition to the TLS for technical errors, Le. 2.5 x fatal accidents per aircraft flight hour
41、 an overall TLS of 5 x fatal accidents per aircraft flight hour resulting from a loss of vertical separation due to any cause was adopted. 1-2 adjusting the TLS until the period of time became acceptable. Nevertheless, the primary approach, and the traditional manner, was to use historical data fro
42、m global sources, predicted forward to approximately the year 2000 to provide a safety improvement and to apportion resultant risk budgets to derive the vertical collision risk element. 1.1.8 The derived values for the TLS ranged between 1 x lo* and 1 x lo- fatal accidents per aircraft flight hour.
43、On the basis of these figures, it was agreed that an assessment TLS of 2.5 x fatal accidents per aircraft flight hour would be used to assess the technical feasibility of a 300 m (1 O00 fi) VSM above FL 290 and also to develop aircraft height-keeping capability requirements for operating in a 300 m
44、I 000 ft) VSM. 1.1.9 Using the assessment TLS of 2.5 x fatal accidents per aircraft flight hour, RGCSP/6 concluded that a 300 m (1 O00 ft) VSM above FL 290 was technically feasible. This technical feasibility refers to the fundamental capability of aircraft height-keeping systems, which could be bu
45、ilt, maintained and operated in such a manner that the expected, or typical, performance is consistent with safe implementation and use of a 300 m (1 O00 ft) VSM above FL 290. In reaching this conclusion on technical feasibility, the panel found it necessary to establish: a) airworthiness performanc
46、e requirements embodied in a comprehensive minimum aircraft system perform- ance specification (MASPS) for all aircraft utilizing the reduced separation; b) new operational procedures; and c) a comprehensive means of monitoring the safe operation of the system. 1.1.10 It is important to emphasize th
47、at the assess- ment TLS did not address all causes of risk of collision in the vertical plane. In the first edition of this guidance material, regional planning authorities were advised of the necessity to institute measures to ensure that the risks associated with operational errors and emergency a
48、ctions did not increase in the 300 m (1 O00 ft) VSM environment. In the North Atlantic (NAT) Region, which on 27 March 1997 became the first ICAO region to implement the reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM), it was agreed that a more formal approach was necessary to assessing all causes of ris
49、k in the vertical plane. On the basis of the experience gained in the monitoring and analysis of the causes of operational errors in NAT minimum navigation performance specification (MNPS) airspace, the NAT Systems Planning Group (NAT SPG) agreed that limiting the risk of collision due to the loss of 1.2 PURPOSE OF MANUAL 1.2.1 The basic purpose of this m
