曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
the use of civil military airspace and to reduce
the number of RADs where possible;
RAD & CDRs
The Route Availability Document (RAD)
collects restrictions that govern and limit
the use of the route network. RAD
restrictions contribute to the safety and
capacity by ensuring that the ATCO’s
workload is not impacted by traffic flying
unusual routes.
Conditional Routes (CDRs) are nonpermanent
routes of the route network
usually established through shared
airspace (civil/military) or to address
specific ATC conditions (sectorisation,
etc.). They can be planned and used under
specific conditions.
efficient TMA design and utilisation, through the implementation of advance
navigation capabilities, and CDAs; and,
Optimising airport operations, through Airport Collaborative Decision Making.
5.3.14 The average route extension in 2009 (compared to great circle distance) was 47.6 km
(5.4%), of which 32.3 km (3.7%) is attributable to the efficiency of the en-route network
and 15.3 km (1.7%) to the interfaces with the TMAs, as outlined in Figure 65.
En-route
extension
922 km
890 km
874 km
Actual route
(A)
Great Circle
(G)
Direct Course
(D)
Direct route
extension
47.6
5.4%
3.7%
1.7%
TMA interface
32.3
15.3
4.1%
4.1%
4.0%
4.0%
3.9%
3.7%
6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
TMA interface Direct route extension
Flight distance compared to great circle
Figure 65: En-route flight efficiency indicator
PRR 2009 Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance
54
5.3.15 Horizontal en-route flight efficiency has been measured since 2004 and a target was set
by the Provisional Council in 2006. Although the target has not been met, the results in
2009 show improvement in all 3 components of en-route flight efficiency and confirm the
trend initiated in 2008. This demonstrates that the establishment of clear performance
measures and targets is a powerful instrument in driving the performance of the European
system.
5.3.16 As shown in Figure 66, for a better understanding of the various areas where ANS has an
impact, direct route extension is broken down into three components: (1) en-route
airspace design, (2) route utilisation and (3) ATC routing.
Direct route
extension
Actual route
(A)
Shortest Route
(S)
Filed Route
(F)
ATC routing
Route utilisation
En-route design
Direct Course
(D)
-0.8%
0.6%
3.9%
- 6.9 km
+ 5.0 km
+ 34.2 km
3.7%
+ 32.3 km
Flight distance compared to direct
course (D)
4.1%
4.1%
4.0%
4.0%
3.9%
3.7%
4.9%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.6%
4.5%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.0%
3.9%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Actual vs. direct course
Filed vs. direct course
Shortest planned vs. direct course
Figure 66: Direct route extension by components
EN-ROUTE ROUTE DESIGN
5.3.17 The en-route design component relates the shortest available route (S) to the direct course
(D). As can be seen in Figure 66, it is by far the most important driver of horizontal enroute
extension (3.9% in 2009).
5.3.18 The improvement of the route network is a Pan-European issue as the improvement of
flight efficiency within individual States/FAB may not deliver the desired objective,
especially if the airspace is comparatively small and the interface between States/FAB is
not addressed properly.
5.3.19 For this reason, one of the European Union wide performance targets within the SES II
performance scheme should be the development of an improvement plan for the Pan-
European network in collaboration with States/FABs (see also environmental assessment
in Chapter 7).
5.3.20 There is also scope for improving flight efficiency at network, State or local level through
the development and deployment of new concepts. Initiatives aimed at free route selection
(Sweden, Portugal, and Ireland) or the stepped deployment of the European night direct
routes network (FABEC, BLUEMED – Italy Greece, Spain, UK, Austria, Slovenia)
further help improving flight efficiency within States and within the network once they
are operational (Figure 67).
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Performance Review Report 2009(44)
