NO YES
. avoid conflict points close to the boundary of a sector for entering traffic (increasing
NO YES
II. Sector Functions/Specialisation
.
in order to enhance sector capacity the functions (arrival, departure and en-route) carried out by one sector should be minimised
.
‘Flight Level Allocation’ procedures should be evaluated and the optimum system applied
Note:
Due to the upstream and downstream impact such procedures should be
coordinated.
III.
Sector Size (Big Sectors←一→ Small Sectors)
.
The shape and size of a sector is a function of the tasks which can be efficiently carried out in the sector. The configuration and size of the sector therefore involves trade offs involving traffic volume, complexity and control task.
.
regarding vertical and horizontal extension a sector should be: small enough to accommodate sector functions, while providing a balanced workload,
and allow: * one specialised function
*
high rate of entering traffic
*
short transit time and low instantaneous loads
and at the same time
big enough to accommodate sector functions while not imposing an
excessive workload and allow:
*
anticipation and resolution of conflicts with a minimum of co-ordination
*
the establishment of holding patterns without requiring co-ordination
*
RNAV offset procedures
*
radar vector separation techniques
*
tactical direct routings
*
reasonable transit time (less co-ordination)
Page 4-24 – Annex 4B Released Issue Edition: 2.0
Low traffic density allows bigger sectors, whereas as density increases, a resizing into smaller ones becomes inevitable. The relative benefits from different sizes of sectors can be indicated as follows:
big sector .. versus .. small sector
better flexibility better productivity
better anticipation better efficiency through
specialisation more appropriate for more rigid varying flow demand
The optimum size of sectors will therefore depend upon a case-by-case analysis.
IV.Sector Boundaries/Sector Shape
Sectorisation architecture should:
.
be based on operational requirements rather than national boundaries
.
promote overall system flexibility (grouping/de-grouping of sectors/collapsed sectors be-cause of FUA/CDRs or during low traffic periods)
.
reduce co-ordination/workload and facilitate radar hand-over
.
avoid too short a transit time within one sector, e.g. by delegating a part of the airspace (ATS delegation)
S3 S4
S3S4
S1S2 S1S2
NO NO
Same ACC or different
S4 S3
S3
S2
S1S
S4
S1
YES Same ACC or different
YES
Edition: 2.0 Released Issue Annex 4B – Page 4-25
.
shaped along main traffic flows
.
take into account the ideal profile and performance of aircraft
(U) SARR + DEP
(L) SARR + DEP
NO
YES
.
promote overall system flexibility in support of fuel-efficient direct routes
.
have varying division levels/level splits all over Europe depending on traffic pat-terns/source of traffic and the performance of aircraft (this means that a “standard” division FL 245 between Upper and Lower Airspace could be a constraint)
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(56)
