**INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION**

**ASIA AND PACIFIC OFFICE**

![](media/image1.wmf)

**REPORT OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE ICAO**

**REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMA IMPLEMENTATION**

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

TOKYO, JAPAN, 4-5 NOVEMBER 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**

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**

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: List of Papers J-1

Appendix K: Procedures for Aircraft found to be Non-Compliant Through

Monitoring K-1

1.1 **Introduction**

1.1.1 The Fifth Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Implementation Task
Force Meeting (RVSM/TF/5) was hosted by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau
and was held at the Aviation Building, Tokyo from 4-5 November 1999.

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

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

1.2.1 Seventy-seven participants attended the meeting from Australia,
Cambodia, Fiji, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Papua
New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand, United States, 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, 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 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 Thirteen Working Papers and six 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.

+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
|            | **     | **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                   | N     | No         |
|            | 90-390 |                          | o[^2] |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Papua New  | 3      | Single                   | Yes   | Yes        |
| Guinea     | 10-390 |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| Indonesia  | 2000   | \-                       | \-    | \-         |
|            | ft VSM |                          |       |            |
+------------+--------+--------------------------+-------+------------+
| 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}**

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

  -------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------
  **State**      **Issue**                                 **Associated
                                                           Risk**[^3]

  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

                                                           

  Japan          Establish transition areas                LOW

                                                           

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

**Table 2.2 -- Implementation Issues**

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

2.2 Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Tahiti had agreed to issue notification
of their intent to implement RVSM by 15 September 1999. Fiji and Papua
New Guinea confirmed publication of NOTAM. Tahiti advised that their
ground systems are ready, the AIC is expected to be published late
November or early December and the NOTAM will be issued immediately
following the Go/No Go decision.

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

2.3 Suggested procedures for the accommodation of certain unapproved
ferry or maintenance flights into exclusionary RVSM airspace were
discussed and a generic NOTAM/AIP Supplement was agreed at the RVSM/TF/4
meeting. It was agreed that these procedures would be published as soon
as possible after TF/5. The agreed wording is reproduced at Appendix E.

2.4 Suggested procedures for the accommodation of unapproved State
aircraft into exclusionary RVSM airspace were discussed and a generic
NOTAM/AIP Supplement was agreed at the RVSM/TF/4 meeting. It was agreed
that these procedures would be published as soon as possible after TF/5.
The agreed wording is reproduced at Appendix F.

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

2.5 The suggested operational procedures AIP/Chart Supplement which was
developed at TF/4 was further revised and wording agreed. The meeting
agreed that this AIP/Chart Supplement would be published by States as
soon as possible after TF/5. The agreed suggested wording is reproduced
at Appendix G.

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

2.6 The meeting 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% and that it
should be assessed at TF/5A, which is scheduled for 20-22 January 2000
in Honolulu. Previously published NOTAM require the user community to
attain a 90% approval level by 1 January 2000.

# [Pilot Readback Of Assigned Altitude]{.underline}

2.7 The meeting discussed a proposal that consideration be given to a
mandatory pilot report upon reaching assigned altitude as an additional
safeguard against pilots leveling at the wrong altitude. The meeting
agreed that a mandatory report in other than radar or ADS coverage was
appropriate. Wording was developed and incorporated into the procedures
AIP/Chart Supplement reproduced in Appendix G.

**[VFR Operations in RVSM Airspace]{.underline}**

2.8 ICAO Annex 2, paragraph 4.5, prohibits VFR operations in RVSM
airspace. Australia and New Zealand expressed concern that this
provision impacts their RVSM implementation plans. The meeting recalled
that Regional Procedures cannot conflict with any SARP provisions. The
meeting agreed to add a task aimed at assessing the safety implications
of allowing RVSM-approved VFR aircraft to operate within RVSM airspace
to the Task List.

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

**[Draft AIP Supplement]{.underline}**

3.1 The meeting reviewed suggested changes to AIP Supplement (RVSM
Procedures), and proposed additional changes to the document. A change
was made to paragraph 3.1 to clarify that operators must obtain
operational and airworthiness approval to conduct RVSM operations from
the State of the operator or State of registry, *as appropriate.* The
meeting agreed to coordinate with the APARMO the development of guidance
concerning State of the operator and State of registry reporting of
approvals.

# [RVSM Approvals]{.underline}

2.  It was agreed to clarify with the APARMO:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  the relationship between regional data bases

b)  State of operator versus State of registry approval scenarios

**[Dispatcher RVSM Guidance]{.underline}**

3.3 The meeting agreed to further develop dispatcher guidance for RVSM
operations based on the meetings review of the first draft and
coordinate it via email.

## [Procedures for Aircraft Found to be Non-Compliant Through Monitoring]{.underline}

3.4 The meeting reviewed the draft Procedures for Aircraft Found to be
Non-Compliant Through Monitoring and recommended changes. The revised
version is contained in Appendix L to the report. This information will
be published on the FAA RVSM web site and incorporated in the ICAO
Pacific RVSM Guidance Material.

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

3.  The meeting reviewed and discussed the Follow-On Monitoring Program.
    It was agreed that:

-   There will be a Follow-On Monitoring Program

-   A census of the Pacific RVSM fleet is not required

-   The Safety and Airspace Monitoring Workgroup Chairman and the
    Operations and Airworthiness Workgroup Chairman will develop new
    goals for the Follow-On Monitoring Program

-   The follow-on monitoring goals may be adjusted based on monitoring
    results observed.

## 

## Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Considerations

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

4.1 The meeting considered WP/9 under this topic. It was recalled that
among the duties and responsibilities of the Asia/Pacific Approvals
Registry and Monitoring Organization (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 several FIRs and
determining, by sample, the number of operations conducted by each
distinct commercial operator/aircraft-type pair, (2) combining RVSM
approvals reported directly to the APARMO with those available from the
North Atlantic Central Monitoring Agency (CMA), and (3) tabulating the
proportion of operations in each traffic sample which were conducted by
operator/aircraft-type pairs which have at least one airframe registered
as RVSM-airworthiness-approved with either the APARMO or the CMA.

> **[Review of Traffic Movement Data used by the APARMO in its Readiness
> Assessment]{.underline}**

4.2 The APARMO reported that it had a sample of traffic movement data
from Auckland (covering the period 1 January through 30 June 1998),
Brisbane (1 April through 30 September 1999), Naha and Tokyo (2 July
1999), and Anchorage and Oakland (1 December 1997 through 30 April 1999,
excluding October through December 1998).

> **[Use of Pacific RVSM Approvals Communicated to the APARMO and
> Relevant North Atlantic RVSM Airworthiness Approvals]{.underline}**

4.3 The APARMO informed the meeting that several States had notified it
of RVSM airworthiness and full operational approval of operators for
Pacific RVSM operation, with the approvals received as of 29 October
used in the readiness assessment. In addition, the APARMO had searched
the October 18 update of the CMA database and extracted approvals for
commercial operator/aircraft-type pairs which had been observed in the
traffic movement samples.

> **[Results of Readiness Assessment]{.underline}**

4.4 The APARMO noted that there was no common time interval among the
traffic movement samples which it used to conduct the readiness
assessment. Thus, it is necessary to view the readiness assessment for
each of the four FIRs or FIR combinations as if each sample represented
the current commercial operator/aircraft-type profile in the airspace.
Under this assumption, the APARMO reported that, expressed as
percentages, roughly 74 of the commercial operations in the Auckland
sample are conducted by RVSM approved aircraft. The corresponding
percentages for the Brisbane, Naha/Tokyo and Anchorage/Oakland FIRs are
87, 70 and 70, respectively.

> **[Improvements to the APARMO Readiness Assessment Tool]{.underline}**

4.5 The Task Force directed the APARMO to enhance the Readiness
Assessment tool in several respects. First, the meeting agreed that the
APARMO should examine in detail its assumption that the appearance of
even one airframe of a particular operator/aircraft-type combination is
sufficient justification for representing all operations of that
operator/aircraft-type as RVSM approved. In this respect, the meeting
was informed that at least one major operator was experiencing
difficulty in procuring equipment necessary to bring its entire fleet of
a particular type into compliance with RVSM requirements, although the
operator had previously obtained approval for two airframes of the type.
Secondly, the APARMO was directed to obtain details of approval plans
from operators of unapproved aircraft types which account for
significant percentages of operations. The meeting considered such
information vital as an aid to decision makers in assessing the
likelihood that, as from 24 February 2000, 90 percent of operations
would be conducted by operators and aircraft types with RVSM approval.
Thirdly, the meeting agreed that the APARMO should assemble a more
recent and comprehensive traffic sample characteristic of all Pacific
airspace where the RVSM will be applied. Accordingly, the meeting
directed that the APARMO collect traffic movement data from each source
previously used, plus Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tahiti. This sample
should be from the period 1 April through 30 September 1999, should be
limited to operations between FL290 and FL390, and should allow
identification of operator/aircraft-type pairs and origins/destinations
of movements. The meeting agreed that ATS authorities could provide the
necessary information on either a movement-by-movement basis for each
day of the six-month period or as counts summarized by
operator/aircraft-pair for each origin/destination pair. The meeting
also directed the APARMO to use the origin/destination information of
samples to characterize the readiness of significant flows between and
within FIRs, and to communicate all readiness information to Task Force
decision makers by e-mail at a frequency established by them.

> **[Need for a Single Worldwide Database of RVSM
> Approvals]{.underline}**

4.5 Based on decisions of States and information shared within the Task
Force\'s Operations and Airworthiness Working Group, the meeting
developed the view that a State will grant a single RVSM approval to an
operator for each qualified airframe. These approvals will be
communicated formally to the regional monitoring agency (RMA) of the
first airspace in which the operator requires RVSM approval. Approvals
by the State for operation in another airspace will be based on this
first approval and may not be communicated formally to the RMA providing
safety oversight in that airspace, with the State assuming that RMA\'s
are sharing information on approvals. The Task Force considered
information concerning such sharing. Based on its review of recent
communications between a State in the Asia and Pacific Region and one
such RMA, it became clear to the Task Force that State approvals
forwarded to an RMA are not always entered into that RMA\'s database
unless those approvals pertain to operation in that airspace. The Task
Force expressed its concern about the potential for this occurrence in
the future, especially in view of plans for additional RVSM
implementation activities within the Asia and Pacific Region and
elsewhere. The Task Force foresaw that RMA\'s should be discouraged from
maintaining isolated databases of RVSM approvals applicable only within
a particular airspace. As a result, the Task Force strongly urged ICAO
to foster development of a single worldwide database of RVSM approvals
and to encourage strongly that RMAs share mutually all information on
State RVSM approvals.

> **APARMO HEIGHT KEEPING PERFORMANCE MONITORING FUNCTION**
>
> **[Status of APARMO Monitoring System Infrastructure]{.underline}**

4.6 Fulfilling a pledge made at RVSM TF/4 (paras 4.6 and 4.7 of the
Report of RVSM TF/4 refer) to provide an update on this topic, the U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) informed the meeting that it had
recovered custody of 10 GPS monitoring units on 9 September 1999.
Further, it was stated that, despite disagreements about ownership of
software which the FAA had funded a private-sector firm to develop, the
APARMO now had computer programs capable of collecting of GPS
information with the GMUs and conducting post-flight processing of the
information. The FAA stated further that it had nearly resolved a
dispute with the same firm about the availability of FAA-funded GMU
Supplementary Type Certificates.

> **[Monitoring Results to Date]{.underline}**

4.7 The meeting was informed that roughly 20 individual airframes had
been monitored since the initiation of the use of the GMS. All estimates
of ASE calculated by the APARMO to date had shown aircraft compliance
with the MASPS.

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

4.8 The Task Force examined relevant portions of Pacific RVSM guidance
material as a review of the overall safety assessment process. In so
doing, the meeting noted that much of the necessary material had been
assembled, although there was still a low return in reporting instances
of large height deviations.

> **[Large Height Deviations: Importance, Current Reporting Status and
> Proposed Actions]{.underline}**

4.9 The meeting considered WP/6 under this topic. The APARMO informed
the meeting that it had received a comprehensive archive of such events
occurring over the past several years form one Pacific ATS provider and
had also been notified of a few large height deviation instances via
individual reports. However, the APARMO stated that comprehensive
information from all portions of the Pacific had not yet materialized.
The meeting noted this circumstance and endorsed the need for each
Pacific ATS unit to report the occurrence of any large height deviations
monthly, with a report of no occurrences required if such would be the
case.

> **[AirServices Australia Safety Assessment]{.underline}**

4.10 The Task Force considered WP/10 under this topic. The meeting was
presented with an assessment of the risk of collision due to correctly
established vertical separation in the Tasman. The study took special
account of the crossing-traffic operational environment in the area and
also considered the effect on risk if non-RVSM-approved aircraft were
inadvertently cleared at RVSM levels. The meeting agreed that the safety
assessment demonstrates that the risk estimated for approved aircraft
after RVSM implementation in the Tasman would meet the TLS. The study
also indicates that, based upon differences in the height keeping
performance of approved and unapproved aircraft, it would be necessary
to limit the unintended occurrence of this event to a frequency of less
than 1 in 30. Based upon the modern aspects of The Australian Advanced
Air Traffic System (TAAATS), it was agreed that a conservative upper
bound on this sort of critical failure would be 1 in 100.

> **MONITORING OF HEIGHT KEEPING PERFORMANCE**
>
> **[Current APARMO Planning and Schedule for Monitoring Operators and
> Aircraft]{.underline}**

4.11 The meeting reviewed the planning tool used by the APARMO to track
operators and aircraft preparing for monitoring. The tool indicated that
several operators were preparing to complete monitoring requirements
during November 1999.

> **[Other Sources of Height Keeping Performance Monitoring
> Data]{.underline}**

4.12 The meeting noted with great appreciation a report on the current
status of the Navigation Accuracy Measurement System (NAMS) provided by
the Japan Ministry of Transport\'s Electronic Navigation Research
Institute (ENRI). It was stated that the NAMS had been moved to Semine
between NODAN and Niigata near NOPAC route R220 after earlier testing at
Sendai Airport. This testing had pointed to the need for technical
modifications to the NAMS in order to improve accuracy. A 9-foot antenna
has been installed in place of the original 6-foot equipment, resulting
in a narrower beamwidth and improved accuracy. ENRI informed the meeting
that a radio license had been obtained on 15 October for a period of
five years, the same duration as the lease on the land where the NAMS is
positioned. It is expected that calibration of the system will be
completed in December, after which it will be available for data
collection. Examination of traffic movement data indicates that the NAMS
will be able to observe roughly 25 percent of the traffic exiting from
R220. The Task Force encouraged ENRI to continue its development work
toward establishing the NAMS as a Pacific RVSM height monitoring system.

> **[Mode C Data from ATS Providers]{.underline}**

4.13 The Task Force was informed that the ICAO Bangkok Office will soon
begin establishing contacts with ATS providers in the Asia and Pacific
Region in order to provide Mode C for use by the GMS. One ATS provider
State noted that the requirement for Mode C must be established in a
timely manner to avoid lengthy data retrieval procedures after the
source information is archived.

> **[Discussion of Pacific Height Keeping Performance Monitoring after
> RVSM Implementation]{.underline}**

4.14 The Task Force recalled statements in the Pacific RVSM Guidance
Material calling for a census of all RVSM-approved airframes within a
two-year period. Recognizing that the goal of long-term monitoring is
provision of assurance that the systems remains safe and that the TLS is
met, the Task Force reaffirmed its commitment to continued monitoring
after RVSM implementation. However, the Task Force agreed to reconsider
the form of such monitoring at its next meeting and tasked the Safety
and Airspace Monitoring Working Group with developing information about
various monitoring strategy options for its consideration at that time.

**[Application Of RVSM In Non-Exclusionary Airspace]{.underline}**

4.15 The Task Force agreed that material presented in the AirServices
Australia RVSM safety case noted in section 4.10 above was relevant to
determining if the risk associated with non-exclusionary RVSM airspace.
Accepting the need for a modern automated ATC system as a controller
decision support aid as a prerequisite, the Task Force agreed that a
properly implemented set of procedures administered with proper
oversight should control risk acceptably in a non-exclusionary airspace
characterized by low traffic volumes.

> **[Error Investigation Policies]{.underline}**
>
> **Process for following up report of large height deviation for
> notifying State/operator regarding observation of non-compliant
> performance during height keeping performance monitoring**

4.16 The Task Force considered WP/11 under this topic. The working paper
addresses APARMO actions upon identification of large height errors
resulting from inadequate aircraft height keeping performance and other
factors. After review by State authorities and operators, the Task Force
agreed that, after incorporating suggested changes, draft letters
proposed for use by the APARMO in WP/11 should be used for communication
with State authorities and with operators concerning such errors.

> **Same Route / Opposite Direction at Adjacent RVSM Flight Levels**

4.17 The Task Force considered concerns expressed by a representative of
the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA)
relating to aircraft flying on the same route in opposite directions at
adjacent RVSM flight levels. The representative said that, although
IFALPA had not developed a formal position on the matter, concern was
growing within its membership as the result of recent clarification of
flight level orientation schemes to be used in some areas of the Pacific
after RVSM implementation. The IFALPA concerns were said to be based on
the operational judgement that opposite-direction aircraft pairs at
adjacent RVSM flight levels would present possible wake turbulence and
TCAS alert threats to each other. Furthermore, any instance of an
operational error involving such a pair would be less easily resolved
due to the high relative speeds involved coupled with the lack of
broad-area surveillance and rapid communication links. The Task Force
noted current ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel
(RGCSP) work to consider the use of lateral offsets as a strategic means
of decreasing risk and related factors in RVSM airspace. The IFALPA
representative noted this development with satisfaction and expressed
the view that such offsets would likely mitigate the growing IFALPA
concerns. The Task Force will follow the work of the RGCSP on the
subject.

## 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 all due
> tasks assigned and has planned to meet milestones as they occur.

b)  ATC Operations

> The ATC Operations Working Group has completed all due tasks assigned
> and has planned to meet milestones as they occur.

c)  Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness

> The Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness Working Group has completed
> all major tasks assigned and has planned to meet milestones as they
> occur.

**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:

RVSM TF/5a meeting: 20-22 January 2000 in Honolulu (Pacific focus)

(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 location TBA (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 MEETING OF THE ICAO RVSM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE**

**(RVSM/TF/5)**

(Tokyo, Japan, 4-5 November 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    | 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**

+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **Num | **Working Papers**                              | **        |
| ber** |                                                 | Presented |
|       |                                                 | by**      |
+=======+=================================================+===========+
| 1     | Provisional Agenda                              | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
|       |                                                 | &         |
|       |                                                 | Se        |
|       |                                                 | cretariat |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 2     | Task List                                       | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3     | Proposed Agenda for the Safety and Airspace     | SAM WG    |
|       | Monitoring Working Group                        | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 4     | Proposed Agenda for the                         | OPS/AIR   |
|       | Operations/Airworthiness Working Group          | WG        |
|       |                                                 | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 5     | Proposed Agenda for the ATC Operations Working  | ATC WG    |
|       | Group                                           | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 6     | Reporting of Large Height Deviations in the     | United    |
|       | Pacific:                                        | States    |
|       |                                                 |           |
|       | Need for Continued Emphasis                     |           |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 7     | Implementation of RVSM                          | United    |
|       |                                                 | States    |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 8     | United States Pacific RVSM Implementation       | United    |
|       | Strategy                                        | States    |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 9     | Pacific RVSM Readiness Assessment               | United    |
|       |                                                 | States    |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 10    | RVSM Safety Assessment for the Australian FIRs  | Australia |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 11    | Proposed Large Height Deviation Reporting       | United    |
|       | Policy                                          | States    |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 12    | Asia Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Plans   | Se        |
|       | Status Report                                   | cretariat |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 13    | Suggested Changes to AIP Supplement (RVSM       | ATC/WG    |
|       | Procedures)                                     | Ch        |
|       |                                                 | airperson |
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------+

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

  2            RVSM -- Pacific Canadian Domestic Airspace       Canada

  3            Implementation of RVSM within the New Zealand    New Zealand
               Domestic FIR                                     

  4            Implementation of RVSM in United States Domestic United States
               Airspace                                         

  5            Status of Pacific Height Keeping -- Monitoring   United States
               Activity                                         

  6            Operational Implementation Plan in the Port      Papua New
               Moresby FIR                                      Guinea
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT FOUND TO BE NON-COMPLIANT THROUGH MONITORING

1\. **[ACTION IF ALTIMETRY SYSTEM ERROR (ASE) FOR ONE AIRCRAFT FOUND TO
EXCEED THRESHOLDS:]{.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 MAY BE FLOWN IN RVSM        |
|            | AIRSPACE IF:                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | A)  CORRECTIVE ACTION IS COMPLETED                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | B)  PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE WITH ATC                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | 4\. APARMO ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP MONITORING FLIGHT AS SOON  |
|            | AS POSSIBLE                                             |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

2\. **[ACTIONS IF ALTIMETRY SYSTEM ERROR (ASE) FOR TWO AIRCRAFT FOUND TO
EXCEED THRESHOLDS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD:]{.underline}**

> A. APARMO NOTIFY STATE AUTHORITY AND OPS/AIR CHAIRMAN.
>
> B. OPERATOR INVESTIGATE ERROR TO IDENTIFY TECHNICAL OR OPERATIONAL
> CAUSES AND REPORT TO STATE AUTHORITY.
>
> C. STATE AUTHORITY REPORT INVESTIGATION RESULTS TO APARMO.
>
> D. APARMO ARRANGE FOR MONITORING OF AT LEAST 2 ADDITIONAL AIRFRAMES
> FROM THE OPERATORS FLEET. AIRCRAFT TYPE TO BE REMONITORED TO BE
> DETERMINED THROUGH APARMO COORDINATION WITH THE STATE AUTHORITY AND
> OPERATOR.
>
> E. STATE REPORT TO APARMO ASAP CAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANT PERFORMANCE AND
> CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN.
>
> F. IF STATE JUDGES OPERATOR RESPONSE TO BE INADEQUATE, STATE SHOULD
> CONSIDER SUSPENSION OF RVSM AUTHORITY.

[^1]: Japan -- Phase I: Tokyo FIR exclusive except G581 and western
    A590, G339 will be exclusive and apply altitudes per ICAO Annex 2,
    Appendix 3b (CVSM); Naha FIR non-exclusive; Phase II: expand
    exclusive area; Phase III: exclusive in all of Tokyo and Naha FIRs.

[^2]: Tahiti -- Non-exclusive until 24 August 2000, exclusive
    thereafter.

[^3]: 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.