4.3.3 Summary of Specific RVSM Criteria for Version 4
4.3.3.1 The implementation of RVSM will alter the vertical distribution of traffic as extra flight levels become available for use and the density of traffic on each flight level reduces. This should enable more aircraft to fly at, or close to, their optimum FL and permit a relaxation of the level capping restrictions on short haul city pairs. In order to manage this change in vertical distribution it will be necessary, where traffic levels dictate, to re-evaluate the Division Flight Level (DFL) between sectors based on 500ft intervals.
4.3.3.2 The criteria applicable to sector development are common to both core EUR RVSM and EUR RVSM Transition Airspace. Changes to the vertical dimension of sectors within Transition airspace are not considered necessary for RVSM implementation, but States may take this opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of introducing a DFL. In this case the possible increase in the climbing and descending traffic close to FL 290 should be taken into consideration.
4.3.3.3 Within the core EUR RVSM airspace the change in DFL should be based on operational needs and should:
.
result from the ‘natural’ vertical traffic distribution rather than ‘force’ traffic to fit in with the vertical sector design.
.
consider all airspace from ground to unlimited (including lower airspace) when planning the DFL.
.
seek to balance the traffic loads between layers, avoiding unnecessary vertical co-ordination between the sectors.
4.3.3.4 The criteria for route network development includes specific guidance for Transition Airspace where route structure solutions involving uni-directional routes or Flight Level Allocation Schemes, ease the Transition Task in sectors where traffic levels warrant a structural solution. The increased use of uni directional and specialised routes for segregating and integrating departure traffic with overflying routes, is also valid in core EUR RVSM airspace.
Edition: 2.0 Released Issue Page 4-9
4.3.3.5 The design and application of a FLAS is complex and the studies have shown that it should be designed using common planning principles, which avoid possible conflict over the choice of FLs on individual routes and permit extension if required. The selection of the preferred/blocked FLs should be kept to a minimum, be co-ordinated along the length of a route and be made according to a global rule in order to avoid frequent changes in FL. Although the FLAS options tested in the simulations were not advantageous to the ATS system as a whole there are instances where the controller workload can be reduced through its application. Therefore, it is recommended that the application of FLAS be restricted to major confluences and crossing points within EUR RVSM airspace and, when a route network solution cannot be found, to route segments close to the EUR RVSM/non-RVSM boundary in Transition Airspace.
4.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL ROUTES (CDR)
4.4.1 General Presentation of the CDR Concept
4.4.1.1 The Conditional Route (CDR) concept encompasses, by definition, all non-permanent ATS routes. CDRs are non-permanent parts of the published ATS route network that are usually established:
-through areas of potential temporary reservation (e.g. TRA or TSA), with CDR opening/closure resulting from associated military activities, and/or -
-to address specific ATC conditions (e.g. traffic restrictions or ATC sectorisation compatibility) with CDR opening/closure resulting from purely civil needs.
4.4.1.2 CDRs will be established by the Level 1, allocated at Level 2 by the AMC and utilised at Level 3 by ACCs. CDRs will usually be established and utilised as pre-planned routing scenarios. CDRs will permit the definition of more direct and alternative routes by complementing and linking to the existing ATS route network.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 1(48)
