**INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION**

**ASIA AND PACIFIC OFFICE**

![](media/image1.wmf)

**REPORT OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE ICAO**

**REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMA IMPLEMENTATION**

**TASK FORCE (RVSM/TF/4)**

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, 10-12 AUGUST 1999

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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** {#summary-report-of-the-meeting .unnumbered}

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda 1

Agenda Item 2: Operational Considerations 1

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

Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations 4

Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Considerations 8

Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items 9

Agenda Item 7: Future Work -- Meeting Schedule 9

Agenda Item 8: Other Business 10

#### **Appendices** {#appendices .unnumbered}

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: Proposed Text for RVSM Implementation NOTAM E-1

Appendix F: Proposed Text for RVSM Implementation State Aircraft NOTAM
F-1

Appendix G: Proposed Text for RVSM Implementation AIP Supplement G-1

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

Appendix I: Task List I-1

Appendix J: Documents & Process for RVSM Aircraft & Operator Approval
J-1

Appendix K: List of Papers K-1

Appendix L: Draft Procedures for Aircraft found to be Non-Compliant

Through Monitoring L-1

Appendix M: Draft Policy for Post Implementation Monitoring Programme...
M-1

1.1 **Introduction**

1.1.1 The Fourth Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Implementation Task
Force Meeting (RVSM/TF/4) was hosted by Airservices Australia, the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority of Australia, QANTAS and Ansett Australia and
was held at the Brisbane Marriott Hotel, Brisbane from 10‑12 August
1999.

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

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

1.2.1 Seventy participants attended the meeting from Australia,
Cambodia, China, Hong Kong China, French Polynesia, Fiji, Indonesia,
Japan, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, United States, Viet Nam,
IATA, IFATCA, IFALPA and ARINC. 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, Oceanic Operations
Specialist, 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 acted 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 Ten Working Papers and ten 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**

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

2.0 The meeting reviewed State RVSM implementation plans and noted new
information and revisions provided by several States. A summary of the
information is presented in Table 2.1.

1.  Papua New Guinea presented specific information concerning their
    plans for RVSM implementation.

2.  The agreed definition of the term "exclusive" was clarified and
    amended. New text appears in Table 2.1.

+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
|            | **     | **Flight Level           | *     | **Phased   |
|            | Flight | Orientation Scheme       | *Excl | Implem     |
|            | Le     | (FLOS) (single alternate | usive | entation** |
|            | vels** | / double alternate)**    | Airsp |            |
|            |        |                          | ace** |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Australia  | 2      | Single                   | Yes   | No         |
|            | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Fiji       | 2      | Single                   | Yes   | No         |
|            | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Japan      | 2      | Single                   | Vari  | Yes[^1]    |
|            | 90-390 |                          | es^1^ |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| New        | 2      | Single                   | Yes   | No         |
| Zealand    | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| United     | 2      | Single                   | Yes   | No         |
| States     | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Tahiti     | 2      | Single                   | No    | No         |
|            | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Papua New  | 2      | Single                   | Yes   | Yes        |
| Guinea     | 90-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Indonesia  | 3      | Single                   | No    | Yes        |
|            | 30-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| P          | 2000   | \-                       | \-    | \-         |
| hilippines | ft VSM |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| **Note:    |        |                          |       |            |
| "          |        |                          |       |            |
| Exclusive" |        |                          |       |            |
| means      |        |                          |       |            |
| no         |        |                          |       |            |
| n-approved |        |                          |       |            |
| aircraft   |        |                          |       |            |
| may NOT    |        |                          |       |            |
| flight     |        |                          |       |            |
| plan into  |        |                          |       |            |
| RVSM       |        |                          |       |            |
| altitudes. |        |                          |       |            |
| Aircraft** |        |                          |       |            |
|            |        |                          |       |            |
| **that     |        |                          |       |            |
| have not   |        |                          |       |            |
| received   |        |                          |       |            |
| State RVSM |        |                          |       |            |
| approval   |        |                          |       |            |
| may be     |        |                          |       |            |
| cleared to |        |                          |       |            |
| operate in |        |                          |       |            |
| airspace   |        |                          |       |            |
| where RVSM |        |                          |       |            |
| may be**   |        |                          |       |            |
|            |        |                          |       |            |
| **applied  |        |                          |       |            |
| in         |        |                          |       |            |
| accordance |        |                          |       |            |
| with       |        |                          |       |            |
| policy and |        |                          |       |            |
| procedures |        |                          |       |            |
| e          |        |                          |       |            |
| stablished |        |                          |       |            |
| by the ATS |        |                          |       |            |
| Provider   |        |                          |       |            |
| States     |        |                          |       |            |
| provided   |        |                          |       |            |
| that**     |        |                          |       |            |
|            |        |                          |       |            |
| **2,000 ft |        |                          |       |            |
| vertical   |        |                          |       |            |
| separation |        |                          |       |            |
| is         |        |                          |       |            |
| applied.   |        |                          |       |            |
| Some       |        |                          |       |            |
| States may |        |                          |       |            |
| choose to  |        |                          |       |            |
| allow      |        |                          |       |            |
| non-RVSM   |        |                          |       |            |
| State      |        |                          |       |            |
| aircraft   |        |                          |       |            |
| to flight  |        |                          |       |            |
| plan into  |        |                          |       |            |
| RVSM       |        |                          |       |            |
| a          |        |                          |       |            |
| irspace.** |        |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+

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

2.3 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 provided
updates to that assessment at this meeting. The results of this
discussion are reflected in Table 2.2 below.

  -------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------
  **State**      **Issue**                                 **Associated
                                                           Risk**[^2]

  United States  Procedures to accommodate the phased      LOW
                 implementation plans of Japan             

                 Flight plan equipment suffix adaptation   LOW

                 Display RVSM status to controller         LOW

                                                           

  Australia      TAAATS software change to indicate RVSM   LOW
                 status                                    

                 90% operations approval                   LOW

                                                           

  Fiji           EASY system software changes              LOW

                                                           

  New Zealand    OCS system must come on-line              LOW

                 OCS software changes                      LOW

                                                           

  Japan          Flight plan equipment suffix display to   LOW
                 controller                                

                 Establish transition areas                LOW

                 Manage controller workload (coordinate    LOW
                 with ZOA)                                 

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

**Table 2.2 -- Implementation Issues**

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

2.4 States had been tasked at the previous meeting with providing
notification to users of their intent to implement RVSM. Fiji, Papua New
Guinea, Tahiti and Indonesia have agreed to issue notification of their
intent to implement RVSM by 15 September 1999. Other States have issued
this notification previously.

> **[Procedures for Exceptions into RVSM Stratum]{.underline}**

2.5 Procedures for the accommodation of certain unapproved ferry or
maintenance flights into exclusionary RVSM airspace were initially
discussed and a generic RVSM Implementation NOTAM/AIP Supplement was
developed at the RVSM/TF/3 meeting. These procedures were refined at
this meeting and an amended RVSM Implementation NOTAM/AIP Supplement is
reproduced in Appendix E. It was agreed that the NOTAM/AIP Supplement is
to be published by States, specific to their airspace, immediately
following the Go/No Go decision.

2.6 Procedures were initially developed for the accommodation of
unapproved State aircraft into exclusionary RVSM airspace at the
RVSM/TF/3 meeting; these procedures were reviewed and amended at this
meeting and a generic RVSM Implementation State Aircraft NOTAM/AIP
Supplement is reproduced in Appendix F. It was agreed that the NOTAM/AIP
Supplement should be published by States, if their application of RVSM
requires prior approval/notification by State aircraft, immediately
following the Go/No Go decision.

> **[Operational Procedures Notification]{.underline}**

2.7 The meeting discussed the information offered in Working Paper 4,
presented by New Zealand, which contained information to be distributed
via AIP or Chart Supplement with regard to general RVSM operational
procedures. The procedures were amended by the group and the agreed
wording is contained in Appendix G. It was further agreed that these
procedures would be published by States immediately following the Go/No
Go decision.

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

2.8 The group discussed whether, based on the updated State RVSM
implementation plans, the 90% operations approval goal was still sound.
All were in agreement that the target should remain at 90%.

> **[Formation Flights]{.underline}**

2.9 The subject of formation flights in the RVSM stratum was discussed.
The clear understanding of the group is that the only formation flight
to which RVSM may be applied is a flight of two C17's.

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

> **[Aircraft Approval and Airworthiness Documentation]{.underline}**

3.1 The meeting reviewed the status of document updates. The FAA offered
to establish a link on the FAA web page to the Joint Airworthiness
Regulations, if possible. The meeting agreed to attach the Documents and
Process for Pacific RVSM Aircraft and Operator Approval (Appendix J) to
the meeting report for further distribution to operators and States.

> **[Operations Programs: Pilot and Dispatch Programs]{.underline}**

2.  It was agreed that a draft chart panel addressing RVSM would be
    developed.

3.  The meeting also agreed that OPS/AIR Work Group Chairman and Delta
    Airlines would develop contingency procedures for dispatchers and
    forward the information to the OPS/AIR working group for comment.

4.  The meeting agreed to recommend that operators upgrade to TCAS
    Version 7 as soon as possible. It was also requested that ICAO Asia
    Pacific Office issue a State Letter recommending operators upgrade
    to TCAS Version 7.

> **[Air Traffic Policy and Procedures]{.underline}**

5.  The meeting reviewed the wake turbulence offset procedures and
    agreed to add a further review of the procedures and their use to
    the Task List for post-implementation follow-up. Co-ordination will
    take place with the FANS-1 users and ATS providers to identify the
    best CPDLC message set to use for wake turbulence offsets.

6.  The meeting reviewed the readiness of ATS providers to accept "/W"
    in ICAO flight plans. All States indicated they can accept the RVSM
    suffix.

3.7 The meeting reviewed the procedures for a non-approved aircraft to
climb through RVSM flight levels and determined that the procedures will
be published in RVSM AIP supplements.

> **[Monitoring Programs]{.underline}**

3.8 The meeting reviewed the Draft Procedures for Aircraft Found to be
Non-Compliant Through Monitoiring (Appendix L) and agreed that it be
added to the Pacific RVSM Guidance Material. It also agreed to review
the policy again at the RVSM/TF/5 meeting.

3.9 The meeting reviewed the status of the collection of GPS data for
monitoring with the ACMS and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System
(EGPWS). The meeting requested updates from the airlines involved at
subsequent meetings.

3.10 The meeting agreed that the OPS/AIR Work Group should have the
following added to its Terms of Reference: - "To review monitoring data
prior to implementation and after implementation".

3.11 The meeting reviewed the draft policy for follow-on monitoring
(Appendix M). It was agreed to evaluate the policy and review it at the
RVSM/TF/5 meeting.

> **[Sequence of Events for Implementation]{.underline}**

3.12 The meeting agreed a Draft Sequence of Events for Implementation
and incorporated it into the Task List.

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations {#agenda-item-4-safety-and-airspace-monitoring-considerations .unnumbered}

> **[Asia/Pacific Approvals Registry & Monitoring Organization
> (APARMO)]{.underline}**
>
> [Organizational Accomplishments]{.underline}

4.1 The meeting recalled that the APARMO was established to provide a
centralized safety oversight function and that this function would be
provided by the FAA Technical Center as a service. The meeting recalled
further that the list of APARMO duties and responsibilities was
contained at Appendix L of the Report of RVSM/TF/3 Meeting. The meeting
was informed that the Technical Center had engaged in a series of
internal organizational activities including development of the
technical aspects of a database of operators and aircraft with State
approval for operation in Pacific airspace where the RVSM would be
applied. In addition, the meeting received information about an ongoing
informational campaign intended to introduce the APARMO and to describe
its functions to States and operators in the Asia/Pacific Region. A key
objective of this campaign is to identify individuals within State and
operator organizations who will serve as contact points for reception
and transmission of information concerning State RVSM approvals, height
keeping performance monitoring and other matters associated with the
duties and responsibilities of the APARMO. Using information supplied by
the ICAO Asia and Pacific Office and the International Air Transport
Association and gleaned from the reports of the RVSM/TF/1 and RVSM/TF/2
meetings, the APARMO launched the informational campaign on 8 May 1999
with electronic mail messages to individuals deemed to be potential
State and operator contacts. This initial broadcast was supplemented by
fax messages sent on 7 June 1999. The meeting reviewed the initial
results of these efforts, which were presented in IP/6.

> [Contact with operators]{.underline}

4.2 The meeting was informed that the informational campaign had
resulted in establishment of formal contact with an individual at a
total of 35 Asia/Pacific Region operators to date. In establishing these
contacts, the APARMO has provided substantial information concerning the
importance of the RVSM State approval process and has responded to
numerous requests from operators for details about application of the
GPS Monitoring System (GMS). The meeting noted that selection of the
APARMO GMU Support Contractor was completed in early July and was
informed that the APARMO is now supplying information concerning the
process of engaging this contractor\'s services as part of it continuing
informational campaign.

> [Contact with States]{.underline}

4.3 The meeting noted the importance of the APARMO establishing contact
with State authorities who will grant Pacific RVSM approvals in order to
develop the means of receiving notification of such approvals and
posting them in the APARMO approvals database. The meeting was informed
that the APARMO has established formal contact with 12 civil aviation
authorities to date, with such contacts identifying the person within
the State authority who is responsible for overseeing the RVSM approval
process.

> [Plans]{.underline}

4.4 The meeting was informed that the APARMO plans additional broadcast
messages to States and operators with whom it has yet to establish
formal contact. In addition, in mid-August the APARMO will begin posting
its database of RVSM approvals on the APARMO Internet web page.

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

4.5 The meeting reviewed the responsibility of the APARMO for
application of the GMS and took into account the agreements concerning
height keeping performance monitoring presented in para 3.7 of the
Report of the RVSM/TF/3 Meeting: (i) an operator\'s monitoring
requirements must be satisfied within three or six months - depending
upon its previous RVSM experience - after receipt of full State RVSM
approval or the start of Pacific RVSM operations, and (ii) the Task
Force would consider a preliminary plan for follow-on monitoring at this
meeting. In light of these agreements, the meeting reviewed the status
of the GMS for use in the Pacific as presented by the APARMO.

> [Availability of GPS Monitoring Units (GMUs)]{.underline}

4.6 The meeting recalled that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) was taking steps to recover for use in the Pacific 10 GPS
Monitoring Units (GMUs) from the consignment of 45 pledged as part of
the U.S. commitment to North Atlantic RVSM implementation. The meeting
was informed that the FAA had processed, signed and sent to ICAO
Headquarters an amendment to the ICAO/FAA agreement on North Atlantic
height monitoring, specifying as 35 the number of GMUs covered by that
agreement. The meeting was also informed that ICAO was prepared to sign
the amendment, pending clarification of some administrative details
concerning identification of the actual units to be returned to the FAA.
The meeting noted that the FAA expects to be in possession of the 10
GMUs by the end of August.

> [Readiness of APARMO Monitoring System Infrastructure: Post-flight
> Processing of GMU-collected GPS Pseudoranges, Estimation of Altimetry
> System Error]{.underline}

4.7 The meeting recalled that the FAA had indicated its intention to
arrange for enhancement of software which performs post-flight
processing of GMU-collected data in order to ensure its suitability for
use in conjunction with monitoring aircraft anywhere within the Region.
The meeting was informed that the enhancement was being delayed due to a
dispute between the FAA and the private-sector firm which will perform
the enhancement. The meeting noted that the FAA expected satisfactory
resolution of the matter shortly and did not anticipate that timely
application of the GMS would be inhibited.

4.8 The FAA cited its experience with application of the GMS within the
Region and indicated that aircraft of several major Asia/Pacific
operators had been monitored successfully during flights conducted
within the Region.

> [APARMO GMU Support Contractor]{.underline}

4.9 The meeting considered IP/8 under this topic. The paper presented
procedures for use of the GMS in conducting aircraft height-keeping
performance monitoring in support of RVSM implementation. The meeting
noted that the paper presented a figure describing the process for
application of the GMS and a form to be used by operators in formally
scheduling the services of the GMU support contractor.

> [APARMO Assessment of Pacific Operator/Aircraft RVSM Readiness
> Status]{.underline}

4.10 The meeting considered IP/5 and IP/7 under this topic. The meeting
was informed that the Airways Corporation of New Zealand had provided
the APARMO with a six (6) month sample of traffic movement data for
Auckland FIR. The APARMO also developed a sixteen (16) month traffic
sample from the Oakland and Anchorage FIRs. The meeting also noted, with
satisfaction, the Airservices Australia contribution of a six (6) month
traffic sample of Brisbane FIR provided during work group discussions.

> [Assessment Tools]{.underline}

4.11 The meeting reviewed the APARMO's approach to developing insight
into the readiness for RVSM implementation in Pacific FIRs. The approach
consisted of processing the available traffic samples from Auckland and
Oakland/Anchorage to identify operator/aircraft types and counting the
number of flights for each such pairing. Using a recent posting of the
North Atlantic (NAT) Central Monitoring Agency (CMA) RVSM approvals
database, the operator/aircraft type pairings were compared to the
entries in the database and matches were recorded. The proportion of
flights in each such pairing was estimated.

4.12 The meeting accepted this approach as a useful means for assessing
Pacific RVSM readiness. However, the meeting agreed that certain
enhancements to the basic procedure be adopted. In addition to reviewing
the traffic samples to ensure their accuracy, it was agreed that a
separate means to evaluate the readiness of State aircraft should be
provided. In addition, it was found useful to develop a list of those
operators and aircraft types which would not plan to operate in Pacific
airspace where RVSM will be applied. Finally, the meeting agreed that
the APARMO should establish a process for determining the progress of
major Pacific operators in obtaining State RVSM approval.

4.13 The meeting concluded that, with the addition of Airservices
traffic sample, the sources available to the APARMO would be sufficient
to support the RVSM readiness assessment process.

> [Assessment Results]{.underline}

4.14 The meeting reviewed the results of applying the readiness
assessment to the Auckland and Anchorage/Oakland traffic samples,
presented in IP/7, and noted that 43% and 60%, respectively, of
operations were being conducted by aircraft/operators with State RVSM
approval.

> [Data Collection and Monitoring]{.underline}

4.15 The meeting discussed the necessity of the provision of Mode C
information to the APARMO in support of the application of the GMS. The
meeting agreed that the ICAO Asia/Pacific Office should be requested to
approach all States providing radar coverage within the Region in order
to determine the willingness to provide Mode C data to APARMO. During
this process, the meeting agreed that the ICAO Asia Pacific Office
should be requested to obtain a contact point within each facility to
provide Mode C data, and further, should determine the overall procedure
to be followed by APARMO in requesting Mode C data for a monitored
flight.

> **[Safety Analysis Tools]{.underline}**
>
> [Update: Effect of GPS equipped aircraft on Probability of Lateral
> Overlap]{.underline}

4.16 The meeting was informed that the FAA Technical Center had not made
significant progress in expanding the sample of GPS-navigational
performance presented at the RVSM/TF/3 meeting. However, it was
anticipated that the results of this work would be available for the
next RVSM/TF meeting.

> [Lateral offsets and system risk]{.underline}

4.17 The meeting considered Working Papers 8 and 9 under this topic.
WP/9 addressed the increase in lateral collision risk associated with
tactical use of a lateral offset of 2nm in a parallel track system with
a lateral separation standard of 50nm. This working paper assessed risk
increase for various proportions of flights employing lateral offsets
under two (2) scenarios of navigational performance. In the first
scenario, system lateral path keeping was taken to be exactly compliant
with the requirements of RNP-10: under the latter scenario RNP-4
performance was assumed.

4.18 The meeting noted that WP/9 estimated a 6% increase in lateral
collision risk under the assumption of RNP-10 performance when 50% of
operations employed lateral offsets. The increase to risk when assuming
RNP-4 performance was estimated to be roughly 0.01%.

4.19 The meeting focused on the increase in risk, given the scenario of
a parallel track system with 50nm lateral separation, where lateral
navigation performance complies exactly with RNP-10 requirements, and
50% of the operations employ a 2nm lateral offset. The meeting agreed
that given that the system meets the established Target level of safety
(TLS), the 6% increase in lateral collision risk presented in WP/9 is
within the uncertainty associated with estimated risk using the
collision risk model.

[Estimation of Collision Risk Model Parameters]{.underline}

4.20 The meeting considered WP/10 under this topic. This working paper
considers the standard collision risk model for aircraft separated
vertically on crossing tracks and suggests that using occupancy to
calculate passing frequency would be better than calculating passing
frequency directly because of the very small time the aircraft would
actually be in horizontal overlap. The standard model is compared to a
recently proposed model and it was shown, that the 2 models are
essentially the same since the horizontal overlap time can be taken to
be the same for all aircraft and can be calculated algebraically.

4.21 The meeting agreed to support further development and application
of this technique in assessing the probability of horizontal overlap at
the intersection of crossing tracks. The meeting further agreed that for
the traffic flow rates considered, WP/10 provides further evidence that
the risk due to the loss of vertical separation at intersections would
easily meet the established TLS.

> [Non-exclusionary Airspace]{.underline}

4.22 The meeting was informed that Airservices Australia is developing a
safety case for airspace where RVSM will not be applied in an
exclusionary manner. It was noted that the safety case, which is
scheduled to be completed by 20 September 1999, will not depend heavily
on the ICAO collision risk model approach, but instead will identify
hazards and associated probabilities of occurrence, and will assess the
likely consequences of such occurrences.

> [Error Investigation Policies]{.underline}

4.23 The meeting re-affirmed the earlier APANPIRG decision that the
APARMO should be the focal point for reports of large height deviations
occurring in airspace where Pacific RVSM will be applied. The meeting
agreed that the APARMO should archive and summarize all such reports and
assist in periodic reviews of these records by specialists within the
Region. The meeting further affirmed that the APARMO should contact the
State and operator concerned upon receipt of a large height keeping
error. The APARMO would then request information from the State with
regard to the cause of the error and consequent actions taken by the
State.

4.24 The meeting noted with concern that the APARMO has yet to receive
the first report of a large height-keeping deviation occurrence within
the airspace where the RVSM will be applied. The meeting agreed that
this situation should be communicated to the APANPIRG at its coming
meeting accompanied by the request for actions which will lead to the
routine reporting of large height deviations to the APARMO.

## Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Considerations {#agenda-item-5-implementation-management-considerations .unnumbered}

###  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

[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.

[Actions by China]{.underline}

5.3 China advised the meeting of the response and action taken by the
General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) with respect to
the implementation of RVSM in Pacific airspace. CAAC has developed its
own temporary provisions for flight in Pacific RVSM airspace according
to the ICAO and associated guidance materials. CAAC has established an
RVSM operational approval programme for aircraft and operators
registered in China.

**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 {#agenda-item-7-future-work-meeting-schedule .unnumbered}

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

RVSM TF/4 meeting: 10-12 August 1999 in Brisbane (Pacific focus)

RVSM TF/5 meeting: 4-5 November 1999 in Tokyo (Pacific focus)

(Implementation Pacific 24 February 2000)

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

7.2 The meeting was advised that the APANPIRG ATS/AIS/SAR Sub-group, at
its last meeting, Bangkok 12-16 July 1999, noted that the RVSM/TF had
discussed other suitable areas for RVSM implementation, following the
Pacific implementation. The Sub-group meeting noted that, in addition,
some States in the Region have unofficially been discussing RVSM
implementation in their sovereign airspace. The Sub-group considered
that it would now be timely to seek the RVSM implementation plans and
likely time frames from all individual States in the Region. It was
considered that this information would be of considerable benefit to
airspace users in arranging their fleet modification and approval
programmes to coincide with those States RVSM implementation plans.
Accordingly the ATS/AIS/SAR Sub-group meeting developed the following
Decision:

> **ATS/AIS/SAR Sub-group Decision 9/5 -- Further Implementation of
> RVSM**
>
> That, the RVSM Task Force, based on information received from States,
> prepare and maintain an Asia Pacific Region status report, detailing
> RVSM implementation plans.

###  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

### 7.3 The meeting prepared an initial 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 be updated at future meetings of the Task Force. The ICAO Secretariat will attempt to obtain information for the Status Report from States not represented at Task Force meetings. {#the-meeting-prepared-an-initial-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-be-updated-at-future-meetings-of-the-task-force.-the-icao-secretariat-will-attempt-to-obtain-information-for-the-status-report-from-states-not-represented-at-task-force-meetings. .unnumbered}

###  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

### 7.4 Australia advised the meeting of their intention to implement RVSM within the Australian domestic environment by March 2001. A recent study of the number of aircraft that flight planned within Australian FIRs above FL290 revealed that the majority of aircraft within this airspace are likely to be capable of achieving RVSM approval. Analysis of flight plans from July 1998 until April 1999 indicated that of the 285,640 flights planned, 40% were Qantas, 33% Ansett Australia, 20% internationals, 3% regular public transport (excluding Qantas and Ansett Australia), 3% general aviation flights and 1% military. Australia intends to attain a 90% aircraft approval rate before implementing RVSM within domestic airspace. {#australia-advised-the-meeting-of-their-intention-to-implement-rvsm-within-the-australian-domestic-environment-by-march-2001.-a-recent-study-of-the-number-of-aircraft-that-flight-planned-within-australian-firs-above-fl290-revealed-that-the-majority-of-aircraft-within-this-airspace-are-likely-to-be-capable-of-achieving-rvsm-approval.-analysis-of-flight-plans-from-july-1998-until-april-1999-indicated-that-of-the-285640-flights-planned-40-were-qantas-33-ansett-australia-20-internationals-3-regular-public-transport-excluding-qantas-and-ansett-australia-3-general-aviation-flights-and-1-military.-australia-intends-to-attain-a-90-aircraft-approval-rate-before-implementing-rvsm-within-domestic-airspace. .unnumbered}

###  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

## Agenda Item 8: Other Business {#agenda-item-8-other-business .unnumbered}

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**

**FOURTH MEETING OF THE ICAO RVSM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE**

**(RVSM/TF/4)**

(Brisbane, Australia, 10-12 August 1999)

**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

1\. EFFECTIVE 24 FEBRUARY 2000, 0700 UTC, IN THE XXX OCEANIC FIR, RVSM
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ACFT TO OPERATE WITHIN RVSM AIRSPACE BETWEEN
FLXXX AND FLXXX INCLUSIVE. NON-RVSM CIVIL ACFT UNABLE TO FLY TO AN
APPROPRIATE DESTINATION AT OR BELOW FLXXX AND UNABLE TO FLY AT OR ABOVE
FLXXX MAY FLIGHT PLAN AT RVSM FLIGHT LEVELS IN THE RVSM STRATUM
PROVIDED:

> A: THE ACFT IS BEING INITIALLY DELIVERED TO THE STATE OF REGISTRY OR
> OPERATOR; OR
>
> B: THE ACFT WAS FORMERLY RVSM APPROVED BUT HAS EXPERIENCED AN
> EQUIPMENT FAILURE AND IS BEING FLOWN TO A MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR
> REPAIR IN ORDER TO MEET RVSM REQUIREMENTS AND/OR OBTAIN APPROVAL; OR
>
> C: THE ACFT IS BEING UTILISED FOR MERCY OR HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES.

2\. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS REQUESTING APPROVAL AS ABOVE SHALL:

> A: IF DEPARTING WITHIN XXX FIR, OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE XXX OCEANIC
> CONTROL CENTRE NORMALLY NOT MORE THAN 12 HRS AND NOT LESS THAN 4 HRS
> PRIOR TO THE INTENDED DEPARTURE TIME; OR
>
> B: IF TRANSITTING XXX FIR, NOTIFY THE XXX OCEANIC CONTROL CENTRE AFTER
> APPROVAL IS RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST AFFECTED CENTRE AND PRIOR TO
> DEPARTURE. (NOTE THAT FILING OF THE FLIGHT PLAN IS NOT APPROPRIATE
> NOTIFICATION), AND
>
> C: INCLUDE THE REMARKS "APVD NON-RVSM" IN FIELD 18 OF THE ICAO FLIGHT
> PLAN

3.  CONTACT DETAILS FOR APPROVAL REQUEST OR NOTIFICATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

> TELEPHONE:
>
> TELETYPE:
>
> FAX:

4\. NON-RVSM ACFT OPERATING IN THE RVSM STRATUM WILL BE SEPARATED FROM
ALL OTHER ACFT BY A MINIMUM 2000 FT VERTICAL SEPARATION.

5\. THIS APPROVAL PROCESS IS INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES
INDICATED ABOVE AND NOT AS A MEANS TO CIRCUMVENT THE NORMAL RVSM
APPROVAL PROCESS.

1\. EFFECTIVE 24 FEBRUARY 2000, 0700 UTC, IN THE XXX OCEANIC FIR, RVSM
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ACFT TO OPERATE WITHIN RVSM AIRSPACE BETWEEN
FLXXX AND FLXXX INCLUSIVE. NON-RVSM STATE AIRCRAFT MAY FLIGHT PLAN AT
RVSM FLIGHT LEVELS PROVIDED PREVIOUS COORDINATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

2\. STATE AIRCRAFT OPERATORS REQUESTING THIS SERVICE SHALL:

> A: IF DEPARTING WITHIN XXX FIR, OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE XXX OCEANIC
> CONTROL CENTRE NORMALLY NOT MORE THAN 72 HRS AND NOT LESS THAN 12 HRS
> PRIOR TO THE INTENDED DEPARTURE TIME; OR
>
> B: IF TRANSITING XXX FIR, NOTIFY THE XXX OCEANIC CONTROL CENTRE OF
> INTENTIONS PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. (NOTE THAT FILING OF THE FLIGHT PLAN IS
> NOT APPROPRIATE NOTIFICATION. NOTIFICATION CONSTITUTES APPROVAL).

3\. CONTACT DETAILS FOR COORDINATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TELEPHONE:

TELETYPE:

FAX;

4\. NON-RVSM ACFT OPERATING IN THE RVSM STRATUM WILL BE SEPARATED FROM
ALL OTHER ACFT BY A MINIMUM 2000 FT VERTICAL SEPARATION.

Appendix G, Proposed text for RVSM AIP Implementation Supplement - see
separate File

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

+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| FIR                   | RVSM      | Comments                         |
|                       | Imple     |                                  |
|                       | mentation |                                  |
|                       | Date      |                                  |
+=======================+===========+==================================+
| Anchorage Arctic      | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Anchorage Continental |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Anchorage Oceanic     | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Auckland Oceanic      | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bali                  | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bangkok               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Beijing               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Biak                  | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bombay                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Brisbane              | 24 Feb    | Oceanic East of Australia 24 Feb |
|                       | 2000      | 2000                             |
|                       |           |                                  |
|                       |           | Domestic implementation March    |
|                       |           | 2001                             |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Calcutta              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Colombo               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Dhaka                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Delhi                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Guangzhou             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hanoi                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ho-Chi-Minh           |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hong Kong             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Honiara               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Jakarta               | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| 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                    |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Oakland Oceanic       | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Phnom-Penh            |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Port Moresby          | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Pyongyang             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shanghai              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shenyang              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Singapore             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taegu                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tahiti                | 24 Feb    | Non-exclusive RVSM airspace      |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taibei                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tokyo                 | 24 Feb    | Oceanic                          |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ujung Pandang         | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ulan Bator            |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Urumqi                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Vientiane             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Wuhan                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Yangon                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+

Revised Task List (Separate file)

**[DOCUMENTS AND PROCESS FOR PACIFIC RVSM]{.underline}**

**[AIRCRAFT AND OPERATOR APPROVAL]{.underline}**

**OBJECTIVE**: the following was developed by the FAA Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division (AFS-400) on behalf of the Pacific
RVSM Task Force. It provides an outline of the aircraft and operator
approval process as applied in the Pacific region and also provides
document references for those processes.

**I. [FAA RVSM WEBSITE ADDRESS ]{.underline}**

# FAA RVSM Website including PACIFIC RVSM and APARMO (Asia/Pacific RVSM and Asia-Pacific APPROVALS REGISTRATION AND MONITORING Organization) Website Access:

-   http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm1.htm

    Or

-   http://www.faa.gov, QUICK JUMP MENU, RVSM, GO

**II. [PACIFIC RVSM SECTION WEBSITE DOCUMENTS]{.underline}**

1\. OAKLAND/ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL NOTAM**.** Announces intent to
implement RVSM in Oakland and Anchorage oceanic airspace between FL 290
and 390 (inclusive) on

24 February 2000. Includes basic ground rules for implementation.

**III. [WEBSITE CONTENT: *RVSM
DOCUMENTATION*]{.underline}**[.]{.underline} To access documents on FAA
RVSM Website, Click on "RVSM DOCUMENTATION".

NOTE: UPDATES. When documents are being updated, it is noted below.

[The following is a list of documents applicable to all RVSM
operations:]{.underline}

1\. [FAA INTERIM GUIDANCE 91-RVSM ***WITH CHANGE 1 (6/30/99)
INCORPORATED:***]{.underline} primary source document for RVSM aircraft
and operator approval criteria and processes. PARAGRAPH 11 IS
"OPERATIONAL APPROVAL". IT OUTLINES MAJOR APPROVAL PROCESS EVENTS.

1A. [CHANGE 1 TO IG 91-RVSM (6/30/99).]{.underline} This document
contains only IG 91-RVSM pages on which changes were made.

[UPDATES:]{.underline} Paragraphs containing **Change 1 word changes are
preceded by an asterisk.** Updates and clarification in paragraph 11 and
Appendices 4 and 5 are incorporated in Change 1. Clarifications have
been added in the following sections of the document:

> a\. Para 11b. Clarification of worldwide aircraft RVSM approval and
> operational approval for RVSM areas of operation new to the operator.
>
> b\. Para 11d(1). Clarification of acceptable RVSM airworthiness
> documents for in-service and in-production aircraft.
>
> c\. Para 11d(3). Clarification of acceptable forms for operators to
> show pilot training or pilot knowledge of RVSM practices and
> procedures.
>
> d\. Para 11g (Form of Authorizing Documents). Clarification of
> Operations Specification (OpSpec) and Letter of Authorization (LOA)
> policy for RVSM areas of operation new to the operator.
>
> e\. Appendix 4. Updates to reflect practices already adopted in RVSM
> operations incorporated in asterisked paragraphs.
>
> f\. Appendix 5. Updates make Appendix 5 generic to **oceanic**
> operations. It no longer applies to North Atlantic operations only.
> Contingency scenarios in paragraphs 5 and 6 updated and re-formatted.
> Also, revised guidance for pilot action if primary altimeters become
> unreliable.

2.  [TRAINING FOR USING TCAS II (VERSION 6.04) IN RVSM AIRSPACE
    (6/30/99).]{.underline} [UPDATES:]{.underline} minor word changes to
    1996 version of paragraph 1 ( Introduction) and added recommendation
    to operators to install TCAS version 7 for aircraft used in RVSM
    operations. The update will be placed on the web ASAP.

3\. [EXAMPLE OPERATOR APPLICATION FOR RVSM APPROVAL.]{.underline}
[UPDATES:]{.underline} minor word changes.

4\. [MANUFACTURERS SERVICE BULLETIN STATUS.]{.underline} Updated as
required.

5\. [MANUFACTURER'S POINTS OF CONTACT.]{.underline} Updated as required.

6\. [MASTER MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST (MMEL)]{.underline} (Global Change
59, 15 Aug 97). No change.

7.  [FAA REGIONAL RVSM FOCAL POINTS.]{.underline} Updated as required.

**[*PACIFIC RVSM DOCUMENTATION SECTION*.]{.underline}** The following
are documents applicable specifically to Pacific RVSM:

1\. [DOCUMENTS AND PROCESS FOR PACIFIC RVSM AIRCRAFT AND OPERATOR
APPROVAL.]{.underline} The current version of the document you are
reading will be placed on the website ASAP.

2\. [PACIFIC CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY CONTACTS:]{.underline} contacts
for RVSM aircraft and operator approval issues

3\. [PACIFIC RVSM GUIDANCE MATERIAL.]{.underline} For aircraft and
operator RVSM approval, we recommend that operators and States use the
documents shown in the Approval Process Events list below. Although some
of those documents are attached to the Pacific Guidance Material, the
Pacific Guidance does not have to be consulted independently.

> NOTE: Joint Airworthiness Authority (JAA) Temporary Guidance Leaflet 6
> is attached. (TGL 6 does not currently contain pilot/controller
> contingency procedures for Pacific operations).

#4. [LATERAL OFFSET PROCEDURE FOR WAKE TURBULENCE.]{.underline} To be
added in the near future.

#5. [SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR IN-FLIGHT CONTINGENCIES.]{.underline} The
updated paragraph 4 of the ICAO Pacific and Mid-Asia Regional
Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030) will be added in the near future.

#### IV. ASIA-PACIFIC APPROVALS REGISTRY AND MONITORING ORGANIZATION (APARMO) SECTION OF RVSM WEBSITE. **Alternate access address:**

-   **http://www.tc.faa.gov/act500/rvsm/aparmo_intro.html**

    **[CONTENT:]{.underline}**

    1\. [APARMO GUIDANCE AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ***REGISTRATION*** OF
    RVSM APPROVALS IN THE PACIFIC REGION]{.underline}

    2\. [GPS-BASED MONITORING SYSTEM (GMS) MONITORING FLIGHT
    BRIEF.]{.underline} Contains contacts and procedures for operators
    to obtain aircraft monitoring to meet minimum Pacific requirements.
    See below.

    3\. [PACIFIC RVSM MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.]{.underline}
    Current version is on the web. It contains information on minimum
    operator requirements for the Pacific monitoring program.

    **V. [FAA FARS AND INSPECTOR HANDBOOKS AND BULLETINS WEB SITE
    ADDRESS]{.underline}**

-   **http://www.faa.gov/avr/afshome.htm**

    **Or**

-   **http://www.faa.gov: QUICK JUMP MENU, AVIATION FLIGHT STANDARDS
    SERVICE, GO,**

-   **FAA AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTOR HANDBOOKS AND BULLETINS**

-   **CURRENT FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS**

**[CONTENT:]{.underline}**

1\. [HANDBOOK BULLETIN 97-02 (APPROVAL OF AIRCRAFT AND OPERATORS FOR
RVSM):]{.underline} approval of aircraft and operators for RVSM.
Provides guidance to FAA inspectors for aircraft and operator approval.
UPDATES: updates in progress to address Pacific RVSM implementation.

2\. [FSAW 97-14 (ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR RVSM
OPERATIONAL APPROVAL).]{.underline} No change.

3\. [FAR Part 91, Section 91.706:]{.underline} Operations Within
Airspace Designated as RVSM Airspace

4\. [FAR Part 91, Appendix G:]{.underline} Operations in RVSM Airspace

**VI.** **[OUTLINE OF EVENTS IN THE RVSM APPROVAL PROCESS]{.underline}**

See the next page for an outline of the events and references (REF) for
the RVSM approval process

**NOTE: some events will [not]{.underline} be in sequence but will be
carried out in parallel.**

+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| **RVSM APPROVAL PROCESS EVENT**                  | **IG 91-RVSM REF  |
|                                                  | PARA OR**         |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | **DOCUMENT ON     |
|                                                  | WEBSITE**         |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Operator Establishes Need to Obtain Approval to  | 6c(1) & (2);      |
| Conduct RVSM Operations                          | International     |
|                                                  | NOTAM for         |
| NOTE: Pacific ATS providers have published AIP's | Oakland/Anchorage |
| and NOTAMS announcing intent to implement RVSM   |                   |
| from FL 290-390 on 24 Feb 2000.                  |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| ## Operator Contacts Aircraft Manu               | ## 11b            |
| facturer or Design Organization and obtains airc |                   |
| raft approval documents for RVSM , if available. | ##                |
|                                                  |                   |
| > Manufacturer advises operator whether aircraft | ##                |
| > is covered by group approval or is considered  |                   |
| > as a non-group aircraft                        | ## Manufactur     |
| >                                                | er's Contact List |
| > Manufacturer advises operator on obtaining     |                   |
| > airworthiness approval documents:              | Mftr Service      |
|                                                  | Bulletin (SB)     |
| 1\. [For In-service aircraft:]{.underline} e.g., | Status            |
| Service Bulletin, Aircraft Service Change,       |                   |
| Supplemental Type Certificate;                   |                   |
|                                                  |                   |
| 2\. [For New or In-production                    |                   |
| aircraft:]{.underline} e.g., Airplane Flight     |                   |
| Manual statement, Type Certificate Data Sheet    |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Operator contacts the appropriate civil aviation | 11.c              |
| authority (CAA) to arrange a pre-application     |                   |
| meeting to discuss requirements for approval.    |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Operator submits to CAA an application for       | 6c, 11b, 11d      |
| operational approval                             |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Content of Application:                          | 11d; Example      |
|                                                  | Application       |
| Airworthiness Documents                          |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(1); Mftr SB   |
| Description of Aircraft Equipment                | Status            |
|                                                  |                   |
| Operations Training Programs and Operating       | 11d(2)            |
| Practices and Procedures (including TCAS and     |                   |
| wake turbulence training)                        | 11d(3);           |
|                                                  | Appendices 4 & 5; |
| Operations Manuals and Checklists.               |                   |
|                                                  | Training for TCAS |
| Past Performance.                                | in RVSM;          |
|                                                  |                   |
| Minimum Equipment List.                          | ICAO Contingency  |
|                                                  | Procedures;       |
| Maintenance Program.                             |                   |
|                                                  | Wake Turbulence   |
| Plan for participation in                        | Offset Procedures |
| Verification/Monitoring Programs                 |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(4); Ref same  |
| Plan for reporting altitude-keeping errors       | as for 11d(3)     |
|                                                  | above             |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(5)            |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(6); MMEL GC59 |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(7)and 10      |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | 11d(8), 11h;      |
|                                                  | APARMO website    |
|                                                  | for Pacific       |
|                                                  | monitoring        |
|                                                  | requirements and  |
|                                                  | GMS monitoring    |
|                                                  | procedures.       |
|                                                  |                   |
|                                                  | 11i               |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| CAA reviews application                          | 11e               |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| CAA registers RVSM approved airframes and        | APARMO Website    |
| operators with APARMO.                           | Guidance for      |
|                                                  | Registration of   |
| NOTE: as individual airframes receive            | RVSM approvals    |
| airworthiness approval, they should be           |                   |
| registered on the APARMO database.               |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| For U.S. operators: validation flight completed, | 11f               |
| if required                                      |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| When operator completes airworthiness, continued | 11.g              |
| airworthiness and operations program             |                   |
| requirements, CAA grants operational approval    |                   |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+

**LIST OF WORKING AND INFORMATION PAPERS**

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

  2            Task List                                         Chairperson

  3            Further Implementation of RVSM                    Secretariat

  4            Suggested Format for the RVSM Implementation AIP  New Zealand
               Supplement                                        

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

  6            Proposed Agenda for the Operations/Airworthiness  OPS/AIR WG
               Working Group                                     Chairperson

  7            Proposed Agenda for the ATC Operations Working    ATC WG
               Group                                             Chairperson

  8            Effects on Collision Risk of the Systematic Use   United States
               of Lateral Offset                                 

  9            Effects on Collision Risk of the Use of Lateral   United States
               Offsets to Avoid Wake Turbulence                  

  10           Crossing Track Occupancy                          Australia
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  2            CAAC Comply with the Implementation of RVSM      China
               within Pacific Airspace                          

  3            Australia's ATC/Pilot Procedures and Associated  Australia
               Information for Entry into MATS & AIP            

  4            Notification of Australia's Intention to         Australia
               Implement RVSM Airspace Within the Domestic      
               Environment by March 2001                        

  5            Pacific Operators & Aircraft Types as Determined United States
               from Samples of Traffic Movement Data            

  6            APARMO Organisational Status                     United States

  7            Initial Pacific RVSM Operator Readiness          United States
               Assessment                                       

  8            GMS Monitoring Procedures                        United States

  9            Operational Implementation Plan in the Tokyo and Japan
               Naha FIRs                                        

  10           Administrative Arrangements for the Fifth        Japan
               Meeting of the ICAO RVSM Implementation Task     
               Force (RVSM/TF/5)                                
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# DRAFT PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT FOUND TO BE NON-COMPLIANT THROUGH MONITORING {#draft-procedures-for-aircraft-found-to-be-non-compliant-through-monitoring .unnumbered}

**1. [ACTIONS IF GMS MONITORING SHOWS NON-COMPLIANCE:]{.underline}**

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| **ERROR    | **APARMO, STATE, OPERATOR ACTIONS**                     |
| CATEGORY** |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ABERRANT   | 1\. APARMO COMPARE WITH PREVIOUS MEASUREMENTS OF SAME   |
|            | AIRFRAME, OPERATOR, AND AIRCRAFT TYPE                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | 2\. ARRANGE REPEAT MEASUREMENT, WHEN PRACTICAL          |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| NON        | 1\. SAME AS #1 ABOVE                                    |
| -COMPLIANT |                                                         |
|            | 2\. APARMO REQUIRE STATE AND OPERATOR TO INITIATE       |
|            | INVESTIGATION.                                          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | 3\. OPERATOR TAKE MAINTENANCE ACTION IAW                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | IG 91-RVSM, PARA 10E TO IDENTIFY MALFUNCTION AND CARRY  |
|            | OUT CORRECTIVE ACTION. AIRCRAFT NOT TO BE FLOWN IN RVSM |
|            | AIRSPACE UNTIL CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETED.             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | 4\. APARMO ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP MONITORING FLIGHT AS SOON  |
|            | AS POSSIBLE.                                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

2\. **[ACTIONS IF 2 MONITORING FLIGHTS FOUND TO BE NON-COMPLIANT FOR AN
OPERATOR WITHIN 12 MONTH PERIOD:]{.underline}**

A.  APARMO NOTIFY STATE AUTHORITY AND OPS/AIR CHAIRMAN.

B.  OPERATOR INVESTIGATE ERROR

C.  APARMO ARRANGE FOR MONITORING OF AT LEAST 2 ADDITIONAL AIRFRAMES
    FROM THE OPERATORS FLEET. (IF THE OPERATOR HAS A 3-4 AIRFRAME FLEET
    THAN ALL AIRFRAMES SHOULD BE MONITORED).

D.  STATE REPORT TO APARMO ASAP CAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANT PERFORMANCE AND
    CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN.

E.  IF STATE JUDGES OPERATOR RESPONSE TO BE INADEQUATE, STATE SHOULD
    CONSIDER SUSPENSION OF RVSM AUTHORITY.

**[DRAFT POLICY FOR POST IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
PROGRAM:]{.underline}**

A. PRINCIPLES OF FOLLOW-ON MONITORING

\(1\) all present and future NAT monitoring results will contribute
toward achieving the Pacific census.

\(2\) all GPS Monitoring System results accumulated while operators are
completing their initial Pacific monitoring requirements will contribute
to achieving the Pacific census.

\(3\) all monitoring results obtained by Eurocontrol during the
implementation of European RVSM will contribute to achieving the Pacific
census.

\(4\) the FAA Technical Center will cooperate with the Japan Electronic
Navigation Research Institute (ENRI) in attempting to make ENRI\'s
Navigation Accuracy Measurement System (NAMS) the basis for ground-based
monitoring of aircraft with full Pacific RVSM approval

\(5\) after Pacific RVSM implementation, the APARMO will assess the
likelihood of achieving a census of aircraft with full Pacific RVSM
approval - taking into account:

> \(i\) anticipated monitoring results from the NAT and Eurocontrol
> and..
>
> \(ii\) contributions to achieving the Pacific census expected from the
> NAMS - and... will develop a plan for completion of the census using
> the GPS Monitoring System and any other means which may be available

B. PROPOSED GOALS AND TIMEFRAME FOR FOLLOW-ON MONITORING:

\(1\) in accordance with the Pacific RVSM guidance material, the
long-term monitoring program should have as its goal a census of all
airframes with full approval for operation in Pacific airspace where the
RVSM is applied.

\(2\) the census of all aircraft with full Pacific RVSM approval on
February 24, 2000 should be planned for completion by TBD.

\(3\) the monitoring census of operator/aircraft-types approved after
February 2000 should be planned for completion within TBD years of
approval.

\(4\) height keeping performance monitoring results for aircraft with
full Pacific RVSM approval are equally applicable to completion of the
census regardless of the Region in which the results are obtained.

[^1]: Japan -- Phase I: Tokyo FIR exclusive except G581 and western
    A590; Naha FIR non-exclusive; Phase II: expand exclusive area; Phase
    III: exclusive in all of Tokyo and Naha FIRs.

[^2]: 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.