This guideline aims to enhance the efficiency of the holding pattern by assuring that aircraft are not required to make excessive turn manoeuvres when leaving the holding pattern and thus risk over-shooting the turn. If such excessive turn manoeuvres are inevitable, a speed restriction could be included into the procedure to reduce the risk of overshooting the turn.
A A
H2 H2
Figure 5- 14: Track Alignment, H.2
5
.
5
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Design Guidelines for the design of Routes and Holding areas have been presented in this chapter. To the extent possible, designers are encouraged to apply the above guidelines when designing arrival and departure routes. In most instances, these guidelines are applied in combined form. Where specification situations render it impossible to successfully apply combinations of guidelines, trade-offs are required. (See Chapter 7).
The attention of designers is drawn to the fact that these guidelines do not constitute design criteria. It is incumbent upon designers to use the design criteria for Routes and Holds contained, inter alia, in ICAO Doc. 8168 and Annex 11 when designing these routes and holds. A full set of document references pertaining to Terminal Airspace design are located at Part C, Chapter 1 Attachment C.1-1.
A checklist for undertaking the Conceptual design of Routes and Holds can be found at Chapter 8, Attachment C.8-5.
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
Attachment C.5-1
RNAV Routes & Holds
Although the guidelines contained in this chapter make several references to RNAV-based terminal routes, some additional information concerning RNAV Routes and Holds is provided in this Attachment in recognition of the increased use of RNAV in European Terminal Airspaces. A comparison between Conventional and RNAV routes is provided and particular information is provided on route information and the design of turns in RNAV routes.
This attachment is of relevance to paras. 5.2.1 & 5.4 of this chapter, as well as Attachment C.3-1 of Part C, Chapter 3.
Differences and Similarities between Conventional and RNAV Routes
.
Route Placement
The most obvious difference between RNAV and conventional routes concerns the freedom the designer has as regards route placement. In contrast to conventional terminal routes, RNAV routes need not be designed so as to pass directly over or be aligned directly with a ground-based navigation aid. This means that although RNAV-based routes rely on the navigation infrastructure (including GNSS which is not used to design conventional Routes), greater flexibility is provided as regards where the routes can be placed. 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(48)
