EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 2(9)

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

Comment It is fair comment that the creation of the design concept and its qualitative analysis are relatively inexpensive when compared to later stages identified as Assessment and Validation (usually undertaken by Fast-or real-time simulation). This is one – but certainly not the main– reason why it is advisable to subject the design concept to rigorous qualitative analysis before moving to the Assessment and Validation phase. From a practical perspective, some airspace studies have shown that high calibre qualitative analyses make it possible to skip the Assessment and move directly to validation using, for example, a real-time simulation (normally, these are for relatively simple airspace developments). In similar circumstances, high-quality fast-time simulations can serve both the quantitative analysis and validation phase – which may allow for by-passing validation by real-time simulation and proceeding directly to implementation. It is commonly believed that results from real-time simulation are better than those provided by fast-time simulation (and that the same is true of fast-time simulation as regards airspace modelling or creation of the design concept). This is not necessarily true: the value of any validation steps could be questioned if poor assumptions are made and/or poor formulation occurs.
1.2.1 POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF THE DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Four situations may be envisaged when seeking to employ the Design Methodology.
(i)  
Re-design/modification of an existing Terminal Airspace in response to a particular problem or with a view to a future development;

(ii)  
the creation – for the first time – of a new Terminal Airspace at an existing airport;

(iii)  the design of a Terminal Airspace for an airport which has yet to be built, where the runway orientation for the airport is known;
(iv)  the design of a Terminal Airspace for an airport which has yet to be built and the runway orientation will be selected from a pre-defined set as a function of the preferred Terminal Airspace design amongst other factors.
Whilst the first option (i) is by far the most common and the incidence of options (iii) and (iv) quite rare, option (ii) is rapidly gaining prominence due to an increasing tendency for low-cost airlines to locate their centre of operations at (previously) ‘quiet’ regional airports.
Edition: 2.0 Released Issue Page C-1-5 Amendment 1 – 17/01/05
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

Of particular interest, as regards options (ii) to (iv), is the fact that no Reference (Terminal Airspace) Scenario exists and as such, it is not ‘available’ for comparison with the Design Concept. In the absence of a Reference Scenario, another benchmark is required and the Design Guidelines together with designer experience can provide adequate benchmarks.

Figure 1- 1: Design Methodology without Reference Scenario
1
.
3
U
N
D
E
R
L
Y
I
N
G
A
S
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
S

1.3.1 METHOD
Although this chapter – and indeed, this document – lays considerable emphasis on the importance of following a method when designing a Terminal Airspace, it is necessary to state that successful design is not guaranteed if the methodology is followed in form but not in substance. Adherence to a process and working one’s way through a checklist is not enough: the planning methodology used in the process needs to be underpinned by a clear set of objectives (see Part B para. 1.3.1) as well as a realistic view of Terminal Airspace operations both present and future. Thus, for example, if the design objective of the design project is to find a way to reduce track mileage on a certain STAR, the solution might be to design a STAR for use by aircraft that are P-RNAV certified. This said, the STAR should only be designed if the aircraft for whose use it is intended are likely to be P-RNAV certified.
　
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(9)