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
To the extent possible, designated VFR routes should be segregated from IFR arrival and departure routes. To this end, visual reporting points (see para. 2.2) should be carefully selected.
R1.1 R1.1
Figure 5- 7: Application R1.1
. R1.2: TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, TERMINAL ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ROUTES SHOULD BE VERTICALLY SEGREGATED FROM EACH OTHER AS A FUNCTION OF AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE: WHERE ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ROUTES ARE REQUIRED TO CROSS EACH OTHER, THE CROSSING POINT SHOULD BE CHOSEN SO THAT THE ‘OPTIMUM’ VERTICAL PROFILES OF CLIMBING AND DESCENDING HAVE A MINIMUM CONSTRAINING EFFECT ON EACH OTHER.
Fulfilment of this Guideline requires an understanding and appreciation of aircraft performance. Given that the General Principles elaborated in Part A, Chapter 2 encourage a collaborative approach to Terminal Airspace design, aircraft performance information could be obtained from pilots on the design team. (Of special interest would be optimum aircraft performance i.e. not constrained by ATC or environmental requirements).
The aircraft performance in question concerns primarily the aircraft’s speed and rate of climb and descent in a temperature band common to the operating environment. Given that a Terminal Airspace usually caters to a wide range of different aircraft (this can be determined from the traffic sample – see Part C, Chapter 4), account will need to be taken of this performance range. Designers should be aware that the same aircraft type may operate quite differently with different payloads or during different seasons. Seeing as some Terminal Airspaces are subjected to seasonal traffic peaks (See Part C, Chapter 4), the overall design plan should strive, as far as practicable, design routes in a manner that satisfies those (seasonal) peaks . However, the final result is likely to be a compromise.
Used together, Figure 5-7, Figure 5-8, and Graph 5- 1 can serve to illustrate the application of this Guideline. The left hand sketch of Figure 5- 8 shows that the departing aircraft has flown ±7NM from take-off when the arrival is ±30NM from touchdown. By referring to Graph 5- 1, this crossing can be considered feasible because a departure at ± 7NM after take-off is likely to be at approximately 3500 feet AMSL (and accelerating to 250kts, for example) when arriving aircraft at ±30NM from touchdown are likely to be between 7500 and 10,000 feet (dependent on the Rate of Descent). Thus the minimal vertical distance likely to exist between arriving aircraft and departing aircraft on ‘optimum profiles’ at this crossing point is 4000 feet.
Using the right hand sketch in Figure 5-8 together with Graph 5- 1, a different situation emerges, between the two arrival slopes and two departure gradients at 7% and 10% respectively. At the point marked CP, the right hand sketch of Figure 5-8 shows that the departing aircraft has flown ±22NM from take-off when it crosses the arrival which is ±32NM from touchdown. This is an unsuitable crossing because departures at ±22 NM after takeoff on a 7% or 10% gradient are likely to be between 7600 feet and 11,000 feet respectively when the arriving aircraft at ±32 NM from touch down are likely to be 7930 feet and 10,225 feet respectively. Given that it is desirable to ensure that the optimum profiles facilitate
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
i
r
s
p
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(40)
