Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRAINING BOOKLET
0.1 List of Abbreviations:
ACAS Airborne Collision Avoidance System
ACC Area Control Centre
ACH ATC Flight Plan Change Message
ACI Area of Common Interest
ACT Activation Message (OLDI)
ADEP Aerodrome of Departure
ADES Aerodrome of Destination
AFIL Flight Plan Filed in the Air
AFP ATC Flight Plan Proposal Message
AIC Aeronautical Information Circular
AIP Aeronautical Information Publication
AMC Airspace Management Cell
ANT Airspace and Navigation Team
APDSG ATM Procedures Development Sub-Group
APL ATC Flight Plan Message (IFPS)
ASE Altimetry System Error
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATS Air Traffic Service
CDB Central Data Base
CFL Cleared Flight Level
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
CVSM Conventional Vertical Separation Minimum
EANPG European Air Navigation Planning Group
EATCHIP European Air Traffic Control Harmonisation and Integration Program
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
FAA Federal Aviation Administration (USA)
FDPS Flight Data Processing System
FIR Flight Information Region
FL Flight Level
FLAS Flight Level Allocation Scheme
FMP Flow Management Position (ACC)
FPL Flight Plan
GAT General Air Traffic
GMU GPS Height Monitoring Unit
GPS Global Positioning System
HMU Height Monitoring Unit
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFPS Integrated Initial Flight Plan Processing System
IFPZ IFPS Zone
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
JAA Joint Aviation Authorities
JAA AMC JAA Acceptable Means of Compliance
JAR Joint Aviation Requirements
RFL Requested Flight Level
RGCSP Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel
RNAV Area Navigation
RNP Required Navigation Performance
RPL Repetitive Flight Plan
RTF Radiotelephony
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum of 300 m /1 000 ft Between FL 290 and
FL 410 Inclusive
SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices
SDB State Data Base
SSEC Static Source Error Correction
SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar
STCA Short Term Conflict Alert
TA Traffic Advisory (ACAS)
TGL Temporary Guidance Leaflet (JAA)
TLS Target Level of Safety
TSA Temporary Segregated Area
TSE Total System Error
TVE Total Vertical Error
UAC Upper Area Control Centre
UIR Upper Flight Information Region
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VSM Vertical Separation Minimum
LoA Letter of Agreement
MASPS Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specification
MNPS Minimum Navigation Performance Specification
MTCD Medium Term Conflict Detection
NAT North Atlantic
NAT CMA North Atlantic Region Central Monitoring Agency
NATSPG North Atlantic Systems Planning Group
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
OAT Operational Air Traffic
OLDI On-Line Data Interchange
RA Resolution Advisory (ACAS)
REJ Reject message (IFPS)
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF RVSM
2.1 BACKGROUND
In the late 1970s, faced with rising fuel costs and growing demands for a
more efficient use of the available airspace, the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) initiated a comprehensive programme
of studies to examine the feasibility of reducing the 2000 ft Vertical
Separation Minimum (VSM) applied above FL 290, to the 1000 ft VSM
used below FL 290. Throughout the 1980s, various studies were
conducted, under the auspices of ICAO, in Canada, Europe, Japan, and
the USA.
The underlyning approach of the programmes was to:
· determine the height keeping accuracy of the altimetry systems
of the then current aircraft population;
· establish the causes of observed height keeping errors;
· determine the required safety levels for the implementation and
use of a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum of 1000 ft at/above
FL 290;
· define a Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specification
(MASPS) - for aircraft altimetry and associated height keeping
equipment - which would improve height keeping accuracy to a
standard compatible with the agreed safety requirements for
RVSM;
· determine whether the global implementation and use of RVSM
was :
1. technically feasible, subject to the overriding need to satisfy the
agreed safety standards; and
2. cost beneficial.
The results of these exhaustive studies demonstrated that the global
reduction of vertical separation was safe, feasible - without the
imposition of unduly demanding technical requirements, and cost
beneficial.
The studies also showed that the types of aircraft and the essentially
unidirectional tidal flow of traffic in the North Atlantic (NAT)
Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) airspace
made this Region an ideal candidate for the first implementation of
RVSM.
Planning for RVSM in the NAT Region commenced in 1990. The first stage
of the Operational Evaluation phase, using the 1000 ft RVSM, began on
the 27th March 1997 at and between FL 330 and FL 370 inclusive. A
second stage will extend the use of RVSM to between FL 310 and FL
390 inclusive, in October 1998.
From the outset it was clear that the complex nature of the European Air
Traffic Services route structure, characterised by its wide variety of
aircraft types, high traffic density and the high percentage of climbing
and descending aircraft, would be a more demanding environment
than the NAT Region for the implementation of RVSM. Thus safety
considerations were given a high priority in the initial ECAC RVSM
feasibility studies, which were conducted under the auspices of the
EUROCONTROL Airspace and Navigation Team (ANT). These studies
indicated that, subject to aircraft meeting the technical requirements
set out in the MASPS, RVSM could be introduced into the European
Region without prejudice to the required safety standards, and also
that it would provide a positive benefit to cost ratio over a wide range
of assumptions regarding future developments within the European
aviation environment.
2.2 The Need for RVSM
Over the last five years the improvements brought about by the
EUROCONTROL European Air Traffic Control Harmonisation and
Integration Program (EATCHIP) have contained the duration, and
frequency of occurrence, of ATC delays despite a yearly traffic
increase of between 3 to 10%.
However current forecasts indicate that air traffic movements will
continue to rise, and will more than double by 2015 compared to 1996
figures. The anticipated trends are illustrated below:
It is accepted that major changes to the Air Traffic Management (ATM)
systems will be necessary in order to cope with this continued traffic
growth. Of the various measures under consideration, the application
of RVSM is considered to be the most cost-effective means of meeting
this need.
RVSM will provide six additional flight levels for use in the highly
congested airspace between FL 290 to FL 410 inclusive, resulting in
the following benefits:
2.3 Optimum Route Profiles
The availability of the additional flight levels in this altitude band will
allow Operators to plan for, and operate at or closer to, the optimum
vertical route profile for the particular aircraft type. This will provide
fuel economies in terms of both the fuel carried, and the fuel burn, for
the flight. The economies are estimated at between 0.5% and 1% of the
total fuel burn.
2.4 Increased ATC Capacity
A series of ATC Real Time Simulations carried out at the EUROCONTROL
Experimental Centre (EEC) at Bretigny have provided evidence that
RVSM can reduce controller workload. With the same sectorisation
and traffic flow, controller workload in an RVSM environment would
not reach today's levels until an increase in traffic growth of around
20% had been experienced. There is also potential for further growth,
through a revised airspace structure including, for example, the
introduction of additional sectors.
The presence of non-RVSM approved State aircraft flying along the route
network is likely to decrease the expected capacity gains.
2.5 Cost Benefit Assessment
A Cost Benefit Assessment (CBA) of the implementation of RVSM in the
European RVSM Area was conducted by first establishing a "do
nothing" baseline whereby only the capacity gains derived from
existing approved EATCHIP Programs are achieved. In this situation
the anticipated traffic growth would ultimately exceed capacity and
delays and congestion, and the consequent financial penalties would
become increasingly severe over time. The additional capacity, which
will result from the implementation of RVSM, could significantly
reduce these delays and hence generate large benefits.
Assumptions regarding the anticipated traffic growth rates used in the
CBA varied from 1.9% (Low) to 3.1% (Medium) to 3.8 % (High). The use
of midrange values indicated that the implementation of RVSM would
provide a Benefit to Cost ratio of 11:1 over the period 1997 to 2016. As
current European traffic growth rates are at the high end of the above
range, and are expected to remain so over the next decade, there is
every expectation that the quoted benefit to cost ratio can be
achieved.
3. RVSM - System Safety Standards
The safety standards appropriate to operations in an European RVSM
environment have been derived from those developed by the ICAO
Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP) in which
the agreed tolerable level of risk is defined as a Target Level of Safety
(TLS) which is expressed in terms of fatal accidents per aircraft flight
hour. Based upon TLS values derived in the 1970s in the establishment
of route spacing, and taking into account the subsequent increases in
traffic, the RGCSP adopted a TLS of 2.5 x 10-9 fatal accidents per
aircraft flight hour as a consequence of technical (altimetry) errors,
for the implementation of RVSM. This TLS was used as the basis of the
development of the Global RVSM MASPS.
To-date the program has followed the general strategy set out in the ICAO
Doc. 9574 - Manual on the Implementation of RVSM, which proposed a
multi-step approach within four distinct phases:
Phase 1: Initial Planning
· Step 1: Assessment of System Safety
· Step 2: Assessment of Costs and Benefits from RVSM
· Step 3: Elaboration of program plans and production of technical
specifications
This phase was completed in June 1997. The EATCHIP Project Board
reviewed the progress made on the RVSM Program and recommended
that work should continue so that full implementation can be
achieved on the target date of November 2001.
This phase was completed by the endorsement of the program by the ICAO
European Air Navigation Planning Group (EANPG) in December 1997.
Phase 2: Advanced Planning and
Preparation
In this phase the emphasis of the work program will move from the theory
and initial design of the total system to the practical application and
introduction of the system requirements.
The objectives of this phase are:
· Step 1: to commence the preparation of the ATS environment for
RVSM operations.
· Step 2: to prepare the aircraft for RVSM operations.
· Step 3: to prepare a monitoring environment to allow confirmation
of the technical performance of aircraft.
Steps 2 and 3 above will allow Phase 3 to start. Step 1 above has to be
complete before RVSM (Phase 4) can be implemented.
Phase 3: Verification of Aircraft
Performance
The purpose of the Verification Phase is to confirm, in a 2000 ft vertical
separation environment:
· the effectiveness of the RVSM approval process;
· the efficacy of the MASPS, by measuring the height keeping
performance accuracy of the maximum possible number of aircraft
which have obtained RVSM airworthiness approval;
· that the safety levels of the proposed 1000 ft RVSM system will
remain at, or better than, that established by the TLS.
This phase will continue until all aspects of the work program necessary
to the successful completion of the verification process, and to the
introduction of RVSM, have been completed. This is expected to take
approximately one year.
Phase 4: Introduction of RVSM
The introduction of RVSM does not mark the end to the Program. This phase
will be used to confirm that:
· all elements of the total system are operating satisfactorily, and
· the level of "vertical" risk in the system is below that tolerated by
the TLS.
This phase will support the resolution of any operational issues, which
might be revealed following the implementation of 1,000 ft VSM.
Phase 4 will continue until it is possible to confirm that the long-term
safety of 1,000 ft VSM can be assured without further monitoring.
Figure 3 is the presently proposed timetable for the introduction of RVSM.
The ability to meet this timescale depends on all stakeholders being
able to complete the tasks for which they are responsible in sufficient
time.
3.2 Key Elements of the RVSM Program
This section provides a summary of the key elements of the future work
program to implement RVSM in the airspace of the European Member
States and other Participating States
3.2.1 Aircraft Requirements
3.2.1.1 Approval For RVSM Operations
To operate in the notified European RVSM Airspace, both the Operator and
the aircraft will need to be RVSM approved. This approval consists of:
1. RVSM Airworthiness Approval. This is the approval granted by the
State Authority to indicate that an aircraft has been modified and/or
inspected in compliance with the applicable approval criteria (eg.
Service Bulletin, Supplemental Type Certificate), and is therefore
eligible for monitoring as part of the Verification Phase.
2. RVSM Operational Approval. This is the approval granted by the State
Authority to the Operator to indicate that:
· the aircraft holds RVSM airworthiness approval;
· the operating procedures and continued air worthiness procedures
(maintenance and repair procedures) are acceptable; and,
· the approval of an Operations Manual, where required.
Approval criteria for RVSM Operations will be stated in JAA Temporary
Guidance Leaflet No. 6 (due to be published in spring 1998). The
basic technical criteria of this leaflet will be identical to that
previously published in JAA Information Leaflet No. 23, which it
replaces, and will be the JAA MASPS for RVSM.
3.2.1.2 Airspace and ATC Requirements
3.2.1.2.1 Airspace Organization
Work is in progress to define the airspace requirements for RVSM
operations. These requirements can be divided into three distinct but
overlapping packages:
· The definition of the continuous area of RVSM applicability.
Note: ICAO have urged non-ECAC States with an operational
interface with the ECAC area, in particular those which would
make the RVSM area an operationally coherent and acceptable
airspace, to work closely with ECAC States to introduce RVSM
within the same timescales through active participation in related
RVSM activities.
· The evaluation of the impact of RVSM on the Route Network and
the adaptation, as required, of the Route Network and associated
Flight Level Allocation System.
· The adaptation, as required, of the airspace structure and ATC
sectors.
3.2.1.2.2 ATC Procedures
The development of ATC Operational Procedures for the European RVSM
airspace is being finalised. The main areas of work are:
· Flight Planning Procedures
· Contingency Procedures
· Transition Procedures
· Procedures for handling non-RVSM approved State aircraft
These procedures, once endorsed, will be the basis for the development of
an RVSM Operations Manual and ATC Training Syllabi to support
RVSM.
3.2.1.2.2 ATC System Support Facilities
Two items have been assessed as having significant safety implications:
· To permit operations by non-RVSM approved State aircraft, ATC will
be obliged to apply two distinct vertical separation minima within
RVSM airspace.
· ATC will need to ensure that non-RVSM approved aircraft, other
than State aircraft, are not cleared into the RVSM airspace.
An accurate, timely and unambiguous display of information to the
controller will be necessary to ensure the safe handling of this mix of
aircraft in the RVSM airspace. The safe application of RVSM will
require procedures for handling non-RVSM approved State aircraft.
Operation of these procedures requires the provision of specialised
ATC system support tools which:
· ensure that ATC can readily identify the non-RVSM approved State
aircraft and can apply 2000 ft vertical separation from other
aircraft; and
· prevent increased controller workload created by the handling of
non-RVSM approved State aircraft.
Dependent upon the nature of the sector, the means of meeting these
requirements could include the modification of the controller’s
display. This requirement could be one of the critical tasks of the
program.
3.2.2 Monitoring Requirements
A prerequisite for the implementation of RVSM is the monitoring of the
overall system performance to ensure that the system safety targets
are:
· achieved - during the Verification phase; and
· maintained - once full implementation has been introduced.
The monitoring process is based upon the application of the principles of
the traditional Reich Collision Risk Model which employs data inputs
on airspace and aircraft parameters in order to model operations in
the particular airspace. The most important of these parameters, and
the most difficult and costly to acquire, is an accurate measurement of
the height keeping performance of the aircraft population.
Currently there are two accepted methods of obtaining the necessary data.
· Height Monitoring Unit (HMU). This is a fixed ground based system
which employs a network of a Master and 4 Slave Stations to receive
aircraft SSR Mode A/C signals to establish the three dimensional
position of the aircraft. The geometric height of the aircraft is
measured to an accuracy of 50 ft (1 Standard Deviation (SD)). This is
compared, in near real time, with meteorological input data on the
geometric height of the assigned Flight (Pressure) Level to obtain a
measurement of the Total Vertical Error (TVE) of the target aircraft.
The aircraft SSR Mode C data is also recorded to determine the
extent of any Assigned Altitude Deviation (AAD) and for subsequent
aircraft identification, when the SSR Mode S response is not
available.
· GPS Monitoring Unit (GMU). A GMU is a portable "box" (contained
in a carry case approximately 45 x 40 x 30 cm3) which contains a
GPS receiver and a device for storing the GPS three dimensional
position data, and two separate GPS receiver antenna's which need
to be attached to aircraft windows using suction pads. The GMU is
positioned on board the candidate aircraft and, being battery
powered, functions independently of the aircraft systems. Following
the flight, the recorded GPS data are sent back to a central site
where, using differential post processing, aircraft geometric height
is determined.
It is intended that the European Monitoring System should be a hybrid
system of HMUs and GMUs, which makes optimum use of the
advantages offered, by each system. Thus the strategic characteristics
of the HMU - providing a predictable rate of collection of high quality
data with relatively high installation and low maintenance/ongoing
operating costs - can be blended with the tactical flexibility of the
GMU which permits the targeting of specific aircraft at a low initial
purchase price, and relatively high operating costs in both manpower
and logistics.
It is planned that there should be four European HMUs (three new
facilities plus the Strumble HMU, which was sited for the monitoring
of the NAT traffic). The new HMUs have been positioned so as to
obtain the maximum number of measurements of aircraft operating
on their normal routes, as shown in figure 5. The primary means of
monitoring the aircraft of those operators whose routes do not pass
near to an HMU, will be a GMU. In some cases it may be necessary to
request an Operator to make a minor deviation from the normal route
in order to overfly an HMU. Routing an aircraft over an HMU during a
non-revenue flight (eg. maintenance) is another alternative.
All data from the HMUs and GMUs will be collected and processed at a
designated Monitoring Cell. The anticipated functions of the Cell will
include:
· maintaining a data base of aircraft approvals and measured height
keeping performance;
· analysis of height keeping performance data to:
1. initiate appropriate follow up action with the Operator of any aircraft
having a large height keeping error (eg. more than 300 ft); and
2. attempt to establish the cause of any large deviations.
· execution of such measures as necessary to confirm that action has
been taken to correct the cause of the deviation;
· assessment and evaluation of the risk of collision (in the vertical
plane) in the RVSM airspace;
· provision of periodic reports on the safety of the system to the
designated authority.