Graph 5- 1:SAMPLE CLIMB/DESCENT PROFILES
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
. R1.3: TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, TERMINAL [DEPARTURE] ROUTES SHOULD BE LATERALLY SEGREGATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER DEPARTURE, SUBJECT TO GUIDELINES R1.1 AND R.1.2
This Guideline may be considered the converse of Guideline R3 (which requires arrival routes to be merged progressively as they approach the entry point of a Terminal Airspace).
Whilst this Guideline seeks to laterally segregate Terminal Departure Routes as soon as possible after departure, it should only be used within the limits of Guideline R1.2 (see commentary which follows Figure 5- 8, above).
The differences between the designs shown in the two right-hand diagrams in Figure 5- 9 (overleaf) concerns the arrangement of the departure routes. Whereas the departure routes fan-out in the top-right sketch, the departure tracks in the bottom right hand sketch are parallel after the first turn and likely to be spaced by a distance exceeding the Radar Separation minima. This configuration would probably make it easier to manage a relatively complex crossing of the downwind.
If 3NM is the Radar separation used in a Terminal Airspace, will the aircraft operating on parallel RNAV terminal routes spaced at 5NM be ‘procedurally’ separated? No. In order for aircraft to be procedurally separated in such instances, the parallel RNAV terminal routes should be spaced at a distance detailed in ICAO Annex 11 Attachment B. If 3NM is the Radar separation used in a Terminal Airspace, is it possible to design parallelRNAV terminal routes at 5NM? Yes – but the aircraft operating on the centrelines of these routes are not ‘automatically’ separated and it is incumbent upon the Radar Controller to ensure that the 3NM Radar Separation is not infringed. This technique of route design is sometimes used in high-density Terminal Airspace; the publication of such parallel RNAV terminal routes reduces the amount of Radar Vectoring that the controller has to do, though the Radar monitoring workload may be high.
Aircraft performance and RNAV permitting, would be possible to build an altitude restrictioninto the right-turn departure tracks so that they can be ‘hopped over’ the arrival downwind track? Extreme caution should be exercised if an operational requirement is identified for a SID to climb above a STAR, as opposed to the failsafe option of the departure being constrained below an arrival route. This is because the existing PANS-ATM criteria related to the Area of Conflict (see PANS-ATM Chapter 5), are not generally considered useful in ECAC Terminal Airspace. (This is because the PANS-ATM provisions do not provide distances from the crossing point which are considered practicable for ECAC Terminal Airspace operations, most of which are conducted in a Radar environment. Furthermore, PANS-OPS obstacle clearance criteria cannot be used to determine track separation.
When the traffic mix is populated by a high-number of low performance aircraft, it may be useful to design separate Terminal Departure or Arrival Routes to accommodate these aircraft. This can be particularly advantageous as regards noise. Examples include the design of SIDs with ‘early turnouts’ for less noisy aircraft, or the design of Terminal (Arrival) Routes for ‘lower’ performance aircraft (which may also simplify sequencing for ATC_.
Whenever possible, VFR (departure) routes should be designed so as to clear the initial departure area used by IFR routes, as soon as possible
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(42)
