**INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION**

**ASIA AND PACIFIC OFFICE**

![](media/image1.emf){width="1.5138888888888888in"
height="1.2291666666666667in"}

**REPORT OF THE FIFTH (a) MEETING OF THE ICAO**

**REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMA IMPLEMENTATION**

**TASK FORCE (RVSM/TF/5a)**

HONOLULU, HAWAII, U.S.A.

20-22 JANUARY 2000

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The views expressed in this Report should be taken as those of the    |
|                                                                       |
| Task Force and not the Organization                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Published by the ICAO Asia/Pacific Regional Office, Bangkok

Page

**History of the Meeting**

Introduction i

Attendance i

Officers and Secretariat i

Documentation and Working Language i

#### **Summary Report of the Meeting**

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda 1

Agenda Item 2: Operational Considerations 1

Agenda Item 3: Issues Relating to Airworthiness and Operation of
Aircraft 2

Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations 3

Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Considerations 7

Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items 8

Agenda Item 7: Future Work -- Meeting Schedule 8

Agenda Item 8: Other Business 9

#### **Appendices**

Appendix A: Terms of Reference of the ICAO RVSM Implementation TF A-1

Appendix B: Terms of Reference of the ICAO RVSM TF Work Groups B-1

Appendix C: Agenda C-1

Appendix D: List of Participants D-1

*Appendix E: Intentionally Blank E-1*

*Appendix F: Intentionally Blank F-1*

*Appendix G: Intentionally Blank G-1*

Appendix H: Asia/Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Plans Status Report
H-1

Appendix I: Task List I-1

Appendix J: List of Papers J-1

1.1 **Introduction**

1.1.1 The Fifth (a) Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Implementation
Task Force Meeting (RVSM/TF/5a) was hosted by the United States Federal
Aviation Administration and was held at the Ilikai Hotel, Honolulu from
20-22 January 2000.

2.  The terms of reference for the Task Force are contained in Appendix
    A.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Attendance**

1.2.1 Sixty-four participants attended the meeting from Australia,
Cambodia, China, Fiji, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand,
Republic of Korea, United States, Viet Nam IATA, IFATCA, and IFALPA. A
complete list of participants is in Appendix D.

1.3 **Officers and Secretariat**

1.3.1 Ms. Leslie McCormick, International Program Officer, Federal
Aviation Administration, United States continued as Chairperson of the
Task Force. Mr. Owen Dell, Regional Officer/Air Traffic Management from
the ICAO Regional Office, Bangkok acted as the Secretary for the
meeting.

1.3.2 Mr. Roy Grimes, CNS Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,
United States continued as Chairperson of the Aircraft Operations &
Airworthiness Working Group. Ms. Roberta Leftwich, Manager (Acting),
Oceanic Procedures Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, United
States continued as Chairperson of the ATC Operations Working Group and
Mr. Brian Colamosca, Manager, NAS & International Airspace Analysis
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, United States
continued as Chairperson of the Safety & Airspace Monitoring Working
Group.

1.4 **Documentation and Working Language**

1.4.1 The working language of the meeting as well as all documentation
was in English.

1.4.2 Six Working Papers and four Information Papers were presented to
the meeting.

**Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda**

1.1 The meeting reviewed the provisional agenda presented by the
Secretariat and adopted it as the agenda for the meeting. This agenda is
in Appendix C to the report.

**Agenda Item 2: Operational Considerations**

> **[Implementation Issues]{.underline}**

2.1 At the RVSM/TF/2 meeting, held in February 1999, issues that must be
resolved by States before RVSM implementation were identified and the
associated risk of timely completion was assessed. States have provided
updates to that assessment at each subsequent meeting. The results of
the discussion from this meeting are reflected in Table 2.1 below,
changes from the RVSM/TF/5 meeting assessment are shown as strikeout.

  -------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------
  **State**      **Issue**                                 **Associated
                                                           Risk**[^1]

  United States  Flight plan equipment suffix adaptation   LOW

                 Display RVSM status to controller         LOW

                                                           

  Australia      TAAATS software change to indicate RVSM   LOW
                 status                                    

                                                           

  Fiji           EASY system software changes              LOW

                                                           

  New Zealand    ~~OCS system must come on-line~~          ~~LOW~~

                 OCS software changes                      ~~LOW~~ MED

                                                           

  Japan          ~~Establish transition areas~~            ~~LOW~~

                                                           

  All States     ~~Obtain 90% Operator Approval~~          ~~LOW~~
  -------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------

**Table 2.1 -- Implementation Issues**

> **[90% Operations Approval Target]{.underline}**

2.2 The group examined the results of the RVSM Readiness Assessment
prepared by the Safety and Airspace Monitoring Working Group. The
assessment indicated that the Oakland, Anchorage, Naha, and Tokyo FIR's
are projected to have an approval rate of at least 90%. The meeting
agreed that the target had been reached for those FIR's.

2.2.1 The assessment indicated that the projection for the Auckland FIR
was 87%, Brisbane FIR 82%, and Nadi FIR 82%. The meeting made a careful
examination of the characteristics of the unapproved operators including
such factors as type, area of operation, and time of operation. After
discounting several types of operation which were considered to have no
impact on RVSM implementation, it was agreed that Auckland, Brisbane,
and Nadi FIR's could implement based on the current approval
projections.

2.2.2 Traffic information from the Tahiti FIR, which was provided during
the course of the meeting, indicates that an approval rate of 98%, in
airspace where RVSM will be applied, has been achieved.

1.  Traffic information from the Port Moresby FIR was not available and
    therefore a projection for this FIR could not be undertaken.

**[ATC Operations Working Group Assessment of Readiness]{.underline}**

2.3 With respect to ATC Operations, the meeting agreed that the target
RVSM implementation date of 24 February 2000 remained valid.

**[Application of Cruising Levels]{.underline}**

2.4 The meeting considered the question of the appropriate ICAO Table of
Cruising Levels to be applied in the case of a non-RVSM approved
aircraft and an RVSM approved aircraft operating within RVSM airspace.
It was agreed that the Table of Cruising Levels that appears in ICAO
Annex 2, Appendix 3a would apply.

**Agenda Item 3: Issues Relating to Airworthiness and Operation of
Aircraft**

**[Large Height Deviations]{.underline}**

1.  The meeting reviewed large height deviation data as part of the
    safety assessment process. The meeting identified the sources of the
    errors and characterized the errors for inclusion in the safety
    assessment.

    **[RVSM Documentation]{.underline}**

    The meeting reviewed the following documents:

-   Operator Checklist: RVSM Area New to the Operator

-   Flight Level Orientation Scheme

-   Dispatcher Guidance for RVSM Operations

-   Pacific RVSM Operational Policy/Procedures Revision

-   Revised Wording for Doc 7030 Weather Deviation Procedures

-   Draft Lateral Offset Guidance

-   Suggested Additions/Revisions to Pacific Charts

The meeting made revisions to the Dispatcher Guidance for RVSM
Operations document and the Suggested Additions/Revisions to Pacific
Charts. In addition, the meeting agreed to develop a distribution list
to address changes to RVSM documentation (RVSM Implementation Plan Task
\# 48).

# [Global RVSM Approvals Data Base]{.underline}

3.3 The OPS/AIR Working Group Chairman agreed to investigate the current
status of the Asia/Pacific Approvals Registry and Monitoring
Organization (APARMO) discussions with other regional monitoring
agencies for a common global data base of approvals.

**[Follow-On Monitoring Program]{.underline}**

3.4 The meeting discussed the follow-on monitoring program and agreed
that the program would be finalized at the RVSM/TF/7 Meeting, 17-18
April 2000.

> **[Implementation Readiness]{.underline}**

3.5 With respect to the Airworthiness and Operation of Aircraft, the
meeting agreed that the target RVSM implementation date of 24 February
2000 remained valid.

## 

## Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations

> **[Assessment of the Readiness of Pacific Operators & Aircraft for
> RVSM Implementation]{.underline}**

4.1 The meeting considered WP/4 under this topic. It was recalled that
among the duties and responsibilities of the APARMO was the requirement
\"to develop the means for summarizing the content of relevant databases
to ICAO RVSM Task Force decision makers for use in agreeing on the
timing and extent of RVSM application within the airspace under their
administration.\" The APARMO described its work in this regard as it
related to assembling information on the readiness of operators and
aircraft for Pacific RVSM implementation. The APARMO noted that the
approach to developing this readiness assessment consisted of:

1)  gathering samples of traffic movements from FIRs;

2)  assembling notifications of State RVSM approvals and the results of
    operator readiness surveys; and

3)  forecasting the proportion of operations shown in the traffic
    samples as operating in airspace which will be State approved on 24
    February 2000.

> **[Review of Pacific FIRs where RVSM Will be Applied & of Traffic
> Movement Data used by the APARMO in its Readiness
> Assessment]{.underline}**

4.2 The APARMO informed the meeting that it had received traffic
movement samples from the Brisbane, Nadi, Tokyo/Naha, Auckland and
Anchorage/Oakland FIRs and that the majority covered a common period of
1 April through 30 September 1999. It was noted that the samples were
each processed to ensure that only commercial operations conducted from
FL290 through FL390 inclusive were included.

> **[Use of State RVSM Approvals & Results of Readiness
> Surveys]{.underline}**

1.  The APARMO described the sources of information used to project
    operator RVSM readiness. The meeting was informed that the APARMO
    took into account the following sources:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  full and airworthiness State approvals communicated directly to the
    APARMO;

2)  full and airworthiness approvals on file with the NAT Central
    Monitoring Agency database;

3)  RVSM monitoring applications sent to the APARMO;

4)  the results of a February 1999 IATA operator survey; and

5)  results from an operator survey conducted on behalf of the APARMO in
    December 1999.

> **[Readiness Evaluation Levels used by the APARMO]{.underline}**

4.4 The meeting was informed that the APARMO considered three different
scenarios as means to examine the readiness of operators and aircraft
for 24 February 2000 implementation of the RVSM. The first consisted of
identifying operator/aircraft-type pairs with full State RVSM approval
as of 14 January 2000. The second focused on operator/aircraft-type
pairs with at least State RVSM airworthiness approval as of 14 January
2000. The final one included all members of the second as well as those
operator/aircraft-type pairs which had been identified in either of the
readiness surveys as intent upon being State RVSM approved by 24
February 2000 and also those for which the APARMO had monitoring
applications in hand.

> **[Composition of the Readiness Assessment]{.underline}**

4.5 The meeting agreed with the APARMO\'s approach to assessing operator
readiness: for each scenario, matching the operator/aircraft-type pairs
with the proportion of operations for which they accounted in each of
the five Pacific region traffic movement samples.

> **[Results of Meeting Enhancements to the APARMO\'s Readiness
> Assessment]{.underline}**

4.6 WP/4 presented the results of the readiness assessment by FIR-based
sample for each of the scenarios. The meeting considered these results
and brought additional information to bear. After analyzing the contents
of WP/4 and updating the expected approval status of certain operators,
the meeting agreed that the proportions of operations in each of the
FIR-based samples which should be considered in making the Pacific RVSM
implementation go/no-go decision were as contained in the following
table:

+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| **FIRs/  | **Proportion   | **Proportion  | **Proportion | **Pr     |
| Region** | RVSM Ready**   | RVSM Ready**  | RVSM Ready** | oportion |
|          |                |               |              | RVSM     |
|          | **(SAM WG      | **(Survey     | **(A/w       | Ready**  |
|          | Analysis of    | "Promises"    | Approval as  |          |
|          | survey         | and/or A/w    | of           | **(Ops   |
|          | "promises" and | Approval as   | 1/14/2000)** | Approval |
|          | approvals as   | of            |              | as of    |
|          | of             | 1/14/2000)**  |              | 1/14     |
|          | 1/19/2000)**   |               |              | /2000)** |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| Auckland | 0.87           | 0.84          | 0.81         | 0.78     |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| An       | 0.90           | 0.87          | 0.69         | 0.54     |
| chorage/ |                |               |              |          |
|          |                |               |              |          |
| Oakland  |                |               |              |          |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| Brisbane | 0.82           | 0.78          | 0.74         | 0.72     |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| Naha/    | 0.90           | 0.90          | 0.80         | 0.59     |
|          |                |               |              |          |
| Tokyo    |                |               |              |          |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| Nadi     | 0.82           | 0.63          | 0.59         | 0.50     |
+----------+----------------+---------------+--------------+----------+

In reviewing these results by FIR-based sample, the meeting noted the
effect which some operators with unique institutional an/or operating
conditions had on achieving the 90-percent readiness goal.

> **[APARMO Height Keeping Performance Monitoring
> Function]{.underline}**
>
> **[Status of APARMO Monitoring System]{.underline}**

4.7 The meeting considered IP/2 under this agenda item. The meeting
noted that the APARMO\'s GMU Support Contractor has processed monitoring
results from 80 aircraft flights, covering more than 70 individual
airframes, and sent corrected GPS information to the APARMO. It was
reported that altimetry system error (ASE) results were available for
roughly 25 airframes and that more results would be provided in the very
near future.

> **[RVSM Safety Assessment]{.underline}**
>
> **[Review of Overall Safety Assessment Process]{.underline}**

4.8 The meeting recalled that the Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning
and Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) had adopted a Target Level
of Safety (TLS) value of 5 x 10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour as
the safety goal to be satisfied as prerequisite for Pacific RVSM
implementation. The meeting noted the agreement for application of this
safety goal: the TLS value of 5 x 10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour
would be the upper bound on the risk of collision in the vertical plane
due to all causes after RVSM implementation. The meeting also recalled
the APANPIRG agreement that, in addition to satisfying this overall TLS
value, it would also be necessary that the risk of collision due to
correctly established 1 000-ft vertical separation not exceed 2.5 x
10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour. The meeting further recalled
that it had adopted the term \"technical risk\" to describe the
component of overall vertical collision risk associated with the height
keeping performance of State RVSM-approved aircraft. The meeting also
noted its prior conclusion that the overall vertical collision risk
would be strongly influenced by the frequency of operational errors in
Pacific airspace where the RVSM would be applied.

4.9 The meeting was informed that the APARMO had assembled information
from several sources in order to estimate both the technical and overall
collision risk which would pertain after Pacific RVSM implementation.

4.10 The APARMO stated that it had assessed monitoring results from the
Pacific and concluded that, as anticipated, they were consistent with
those available from North Atlantic RVSM application. As a result, both
had been used in assessing technical risk. In addition, Pacific reports
of turbulence-induced large height deviations and vertical displacements
due to TCAS resolution advisories had been employed in developing an
estimate of technical risk.

4.11 The meeting was informed that estimation of overall collision risk
associated with RVSM implementation had been aided by archived reports
of large height deviations provided by the Airways Corporation of New
Zealand, Airservices Australia and the FAA\'s Anchorage and Oakland
oceanic centers. It was also noted that these organizations, as well as
the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau and Airports Fiji Limited, had informed
the APARMO that there had been no instances of large height deviations
since October 1999 in the portions of Pacific airspace under their
respective control. The APARMO also reported that it had made use of
information concerning Pacific large height deviations uncovered in
several aviation safety databases.

> **[Results of the Safety Assessment]{.underline}**

4.12 The APARMO noted that, in accordance with Task Force agreements, it
had produced a single assessment of safety associated with Pacific RVSM
implementation. In so doing, the APARMO noted that it had made estimates
of technical and overall risk for sub-regions of the Pacific and had
then combined them into single values. As an aid to this process, the
APARMO had examined traffic samples provided by ATS providers as part of
the readiness assessment. The examination indicated that roughly 82
percent of Pacific flight time between FL290 and FL390 -estimated to be
about 1 million flight hours per year - was accounted for by operations
conducted in airspace north of Hawaii, with the remaining 18 percent to
the south.

4.13 The APARMO reported that its estimate of technical risk for
operations in the northern portion of the Pacific was 1.24 x 10^-10^
fatal accidents per flying hour. The meeting noted that this value was
roughly 20 times less than the TLS applicable to technical risk, 2.5 x
10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour. The APARMO reported that its
estimate of technical risk for operations in the southern part of the
Pacific was about 2.4 x 10^-10^ fatal accidents per flying hour.

4.14 The meeting agreed that both of these estimates demonstrated that
the safety goal for technical risk had been met.

4.15 The APARMO informed the meeting that, as expected, operational
errors had been the dominant influence on the estimated overall risk of
collision associated with Pacific RVSM implementation. The meeting noted
that analysis of reports concerning these types of errors reported for
calendar year 1999 had been the subject of a joint meeting of its
Operations/Airworthiness and Safety and Airspace Monitoring working
groups.

4.16 The APARMO reported that its estimate of the overall risk
associated with RVSM implementation in the northern portion of Pacific
airspace was roughly 4 x 10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour.

4.17 It was noted that this value was less than the applicable TLS value
of 5 x 10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour, although the risk
estimate did not address all Pacific airspace where the RVSM would be
applied.

4.18 Because of the need to obtain an estimate of a critical collision
risk model parameter appropriate to characterizing aircraft proximity in
the southern Pacific, the APARMO reported that it had not yet completed
an estimate of overall collision risk for this sub-region. The APARMO
noted that completion of necessary work would likely require an
additional week to 10 days after conclusion of the RVSM/TF/5a meeting.

4.19 The APARMO informed the meeting that, as long as the value of this
parameter for the southern portion of the Pacific did not exceed 70
percent of the corresponding value determined for the northern portion,
the TLS for overall risk would be met. The APARMO further informed the
meeting that it expected this required result to be confirmed.

> **[Monitoring of Airspace Use After RVSM Implementation]{.underline}**

4.20 The meeting considered WP/5 under this agenda item. The WP presents
a means for identifying non-RVSM-approved operators using Asia/Pacific
airspace where RVSM is applied and notifying the appropriate State
approval authority. The meeting agreed that the approach presented in
the paper was a useful course of action for the APARMO. It is intended
that this matter be addressed further at the RVSM/TF/7 meeting scheduled
for April 2000.

> **[The Navigation Accuracy Measurement System (NAMS)]{.underline}**

4.21 The meeting noted with satisfaction a report on the current status
of the Navigation Accuracy Measurement System (NAMS) presented by the
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau. The report, contained in IP/4 and prepared
by the Japan Ministry of Transport\'s Electronic Navigation Research
Institute (ENRI), notes that flight tests of the system were carried out
in December 1999 and that the results of these tests are currently under
review. IP/4 further informed the meeting that the NAMS has been
collecting data on the geometric height of aircraft in the vicinity of
Semine. This location allows observation of aircraft operating between
the R220 fix NODAN and the Niigata (GTC) VORTAC.

## Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Considerations

### 

[Task Force Work Groups]{.underline}

5.1 The meeting continued with the decision that in order to accomplish
the tasks in the action plan, the Task Force should be divided into
smaller work groups. The following Work Groups continued their work:

a)  Safety & Airspace Monitoring;

b)  ATC Operations; and

c)  Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness

5.2 The terms of reference of the Work Groups are in Appendix B to the
report and the discussion from these groups is contained under Agenda
Items 2, 3 & 4.

> [Progress of Tasks compared to Action Plan]{.underline}

5.3 The meeting reviewed the progress of tasks and compared them to the
Implementation Action Plan.

a)  Safety & Airspace Monitoring

    The Safety & Airspace Monitoring Working Group has completed most
    tasks assigned and has planned to complete all remaining required
    tasks prior to RVSM implementation.

b)  ATC Operations

    The ATC Operations Working Group has identified the outstanding
    tasks which must be completed prior to implementation and has a high
    level of confidence that these tasks will be achieved in a timely
    manner.

c)  Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness

> The Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness Working Group has completed
> all tasks assigned.

**Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items**

6.1 The meeting reviewed and updated the Pacific RVSM Implementation
Plan Task List. The revised Task List is in Appendix I to the report.

## Agenda Item 7: Future Work -- Meeting Schedule

7.1 The meeting agreed on the following schedule of Task Force meetings:

Implementation Pacific 24 February 2000

> RVSM Seminar/3: 16-17 March 2000 in Manila (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/6: 10-14 April 2000 in Singapore (Western Pacific/South China
> Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/7: 17-18 April 2000 in Honolulu (Pacific Review focus)
>
> RVSM TF/8: 4 days August 2000 location TBA (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/9: 3 days January 2001 location TBA (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/10 2 days February 2001 in Auckland (Pacific Review focus)
>
> RVSM Seminar/4: 2 days February 2001 location TBA (Western
> Pacific/South China Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/11: 3 days May 2001 location TBA (Western Pacific/South China
> Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/12: 3 days August 2001 location TBA (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea focus)
>
> RVSM TF/13: 2 days December 2001 location TBA (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea focus)
>
> (Target Implementation Western Pacific/South China Sea AIRAC date
> February 2002)

**[RVSM Implementation Status]{.underline}**

### 

### 7.2 The meeting reviewed the Asia Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Status Report, based on information available from the States in attendance at the meeting. The Status Report is at Appendix H and will continue to be updated at future meetings of the Task Force. 

### 

### 

## Agenda Item 8: Other Business

1.  No other business was identified.

\* \* \* \* \* \*

The terms of reference for the RVSM Implementation Task Force are as
follows:

-   To continue the work already undertaken by States for the Pacific
    routes;

-   To develop strategic, benefits-driven implementation plans for RVSM
    operations within selected areas and airspace for the Pacific
    routes;

-   To identify, in concert with airspace users and based on cost
    benefit studies, other areas and airspace within the Asia/Pacific
    region for which there are operational benefits for the
    implementation of RVSM;

-   To complete the guidance material on the implementation of RVSM with
    a collision risk model (CRM) and to consider any amendments that may
    be proposed by States and international organizations;

-   To address any other matters as appropriate and relevant to the
    implementation of RVSM; and

-   The Task Force will include participation from States and
    International Organizations already represented on the Pacific RVSM
    Task Force, and in addition will include participation from other
    Asia/Pacific States that are considering implementation of RVSM.

-   The Task Force will report to the ATS/AIS/SAR Sub-Group.

    . . . . . .

    The Terms of Reference of the RVSM Implementation Task Force Work
    Groups are as follows:

    **[Safety & Airspace Monitoring Work Group (SAM/WG)]{.underline}**

    The SAM/WG is responsible for mathematical and statistical analysis
    to assist with the maintenance and on-going monitoring of safety
    through the assessment of collision risk for Pacific RVSM and other
    tasks as agreed with the RVSM Task Force. The main tasks of the
    SAM/WG are:

-   To develop a monitoring program to ensure that the quantity and
    quality of data are collected to allow an assessment of vertical
    collision risk;

-   To review existing mathematical and statistical techniques to assure
    their appropriateness for Pacific RVSM;

-   To ensure the transferability of aircraft data collected from other
    airspace regions;

-   To support the assessment of the safety of RVSM prior to and during
    the Verification and Operational Trials by the production of
    collision risk assessments based on height deviation incidents and
    height monitoring data to show whether the TLS is being met;

-   To devise suitable methodologies for incorporating the effects of
    projected traffic increases and system changes on occupancy and
    collision risk in the future environment;

-   To identify those elements which are critical in the assessment of
    collision risk and suggest areas where improvements might be
    effective in reducing risk;

-   To establish a policy for investigating those errors that may
    jeopardise the Target Level of Safety (TLS) of RVSM;

-   To estimate periodically the vertical occupancies (traffic
    densities, passing frequencies, etc.) in the Pacific; and

-   To perform periodically other data collections (e.g. ASE stability)
    in order to ensure that the parameter values within the mathematical
    collision risk models remain current.

    **[ATC Operations Work Group (ATC/WG)]{.underline}**

    The ATC/WG is responsible for addressing all matters relating to air
    traffic services within the RVSM and transition airspace, to include
    the following:

-   To identify airspace in which RVSM will be applied based on
    statement of application and develop a regional operational concept;

-   To develop procedures to mitigate wake turbulence;

-   To establish transition areas and develop transition procedures;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To develop contingency procedures; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To consider workload issues and identify the need for controller
    simulations.

    **[Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness Work Group
    (OPS/AIR/WG)]{.underline}**

    The OPS/AIR/WG is responsible for addressing pilot operations,
    airworthiness, and aircraft approval issues, and:

-   To harmonize policy on operations and airworthiness issues related
    to RVSM;

-   To develop and harmonize guidance related to the implementation of
    RVSM and coordinate on issues which may arise in the application of
    the RVSM Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specifications (MASPS);

-   To initiate necessary action to amend aeronautical charts to reflect
    navigational requirements related to RVSM;

-   To develop policy for use of Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems
    (ACAS) as it relates to RVSM; and

-   To review monitoring data prior to implementation and after
    implementation.

**INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION**

**ASIA AND PACIFIC OFFICE**

**FIFTH (a) MEETING OF THE ICAO RVSM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE**

**(RVSM/TF/5a)**

(Honolulu, Hawaii, 20-22 January 2000)

**AGENDA**

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda

Agenda Item 2: Operational Considerations

Agenda Item 3: Issues Relating to Airworthiness and Operation of
Aircraft

Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations

Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Considerations

Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items

Agenda Item 7: Future Work -- Meeting Schedule

Agenda Item 8: Other Business

Appendix D List of Participants---separate file

Intentionally left blank

Intentionally left blank

Intentionally left blank

**Asia Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Plans Status Report**

+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| FIR                   | RVSM      | Comments                         |
|                       | Imple     |                                  |
|                       | mentation |                                  |
|                       | Date      |                                  |
+=======================+===========+==================================+
| Anchorage Arctic      | 24 Feb    | RVSM Transition Airspace only    |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Anchorage Continental | 24 Feb    | RVSM Transition Airspace only    |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Anchorage Oceanic     | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Auckland Oceanic      | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bali                  |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bangkok               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Beijing               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Biak                  |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bombay                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Brisbane              | 24 Feb    | Oceanic East of Australia 24 Feb |
|                       | 2000      | 2000                             |
|                       |           |                                  |
|                       |           | Remainder of FIR March 2001      |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Calcutta              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Colombo               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Dhaka                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Delhi                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Guangzhou             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hanoi                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ho-Chi-Minh           |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hong Kong             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Honiara               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Jakarta               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Karachi               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kathmandu             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kota Kinabalu         |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kuala Lumpur          |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kunming               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Lahore                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Lanzhou               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Madras                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Male                  |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Manila                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Melbourne             | March     |                                  |
|                       | 2001      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Nadi                  | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Naha                  | 24 Feb    | Oceanic (non-exclusive RVSM      |
|                       | 2000      | airspace)                        |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Nauru                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| New Zealand           | 13 July   | Non-exclusive                    |
| (Domestic)            | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Oakland Oceanic       | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Phnom-Penh            |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Port Moresby          | 24 Feb    | FL 310-390                       |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Pyongyang             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shanghai              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shenyang              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Singapore             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taegu                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tahiti                | 24 Feb    | Non-exclusive RVSM airspace      |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taibei                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tokyo                 | 24 Feb    | Oceanic                          |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ujung Pandang         |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ulan Bator            |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Urumqi                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Vientiane             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Wuhan                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Yangon                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+

Revised Task List (Separate file)

**LIST OF WORKING AND INFORMATION PAPERS**

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Number**   **Working Papers**                                **Presented
                                                                 by**
  ------------ ------------------------------------------------- -------------
  1            Provisional Agenda                                Chairperson &
                                                                 Secretariat

  2            Task List                                         Chairperson &
                                                                 Secretariat

  3            Proposed Agenda for the Safety and Airspace       SAM WG
               Monitoring Working Group                          Chairperson

  4            Pacific RVSM Readiness Assessment (SAM)           United States

  5            Means for Identifying Non-approved Operators      United States
               Using Asia Pacific RVSM Airspace                  

  6            Asia Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Plans     Secretariat
               Status Report                                     
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Number**   **Information Papers**                           **Presented
                                                                by**
  ------------ ------------------------------------------------ -------------
  1            Proposed Order of Business                       Chairperson &
                                                                Secretariat

  2            Status of GMU Monitoring Flights                 United States

  3            RVSM Implementation                              China

  4            Present Status of a NAMS-Based Height Monitoring Japan
               System Installed at Semine                       
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[^1]: The risk associated with completion of the required task before
    the RVSM target implementation date of 24 February 2000.

    LOW - greater than 80% chance of timely task completion;

    MED -- 50% chance of timely task completion;

    HIGH -- less than 20% chance of timely task completion.