EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 2(20)

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

It is opportune to add that because most Terminal airspace re-designs rely, for the most part, on existing ICAO provisions and do not involve radical changes such as those introduced with the RVSM example, the comparative/relative method is likely to remain the most frequently used (subject to certain conditions). In order to gain a greater appreciation of these two methods, readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the introductory chapters of ICAO Doc. 9689 and requirements of ESARR 4. Ref.1: Manual on Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of Separation Minima, Ch. 6. Ref. 2: Annex 11, Attachment B, paras. 1.1 & 3.1 in particular.
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
C

T
H
E
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
A
S
E
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H

The Member States of ECAC are required to comply with ESARR/4. Whilst ESARR/4 is regulatory in nature, guidance documents have been provided to ECAC States which explain how to undertake a safety assessment. One such document is entitled Air Navigation System Safety Assessment Methodology (SAM3).
ESARR/4 and SAM are characterised by a holistic approach, a risk based approach and system approach to safety assessment.
Significantly a…” Safety Assessment should be holistic: it should consider all the implications of new systems within the widest context and at all stages in the life-cycle.” This includes (investigating) “The complete chain of events in which the system may be involved in accident and incident causation: the potential consequences of system failures (hazards), their possible consequences on aircraft operations and their possible causes (deficiency of system elements and external events”). This suggests that such assessments are also made with other elements of the airspace operation e.g. aircraft, systems, procedures etc.
Therefore, the pre-implementation process involves the development of a safety case comprising a reasoned safety argument based on a Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA) and Preliminary System Safety Assessment (PSSA). After implementation, the safety case is revised as well as a System Safety Assessment (SSA). – See diagram below.

Figure 3 - 3: ESARR Safety Case Approach
O
T
H
E
R
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
C
R
I
T
E
R
I
A

Performance criteria relate to the way in which the success of a Terminal Airspace design is measured. Whilst ‘safe’ performance may be viewed as the ‘first’ measurement of success, it is not enough for a Terminal Airspace to be safe if it does not deliver the performance expected in terms of capacity and environmental mitigation amongst others.
3 Air Navigation System Safety Assessment Methodology, EUROCONTROL, 17 April 2000 (SAF.ET1.ST03.1000-MAN-01-00),
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
C

As with the safety criteria, Performance criteria are closely linked to the Design Objectives described in Part B (and, of necessity, the generic set of ATC Objectives described by ICAO in Annex 11). The Performance criteria to be selected become evident when answering the question “What determines the success of the Terminal Airspace design?” Differently put, How can one confirm that the objectives have been met?
　
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 2(20)