**INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION**

**ASIA AND PACIFIC OFFICE**

![](media/image1.wmf)

**REPORT OF THE TENTH MEETING OF THE ICAO**

**REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMUM IMPLEMENTATION**

**TASK FORCE (RVSM/TF/10)**

HONOLULU, HAWAII, U.S.A.

29-30 JANUARY 2001

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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

Opening of the Meeting i

Documentation and Working Language i

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

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda 1

Agenda Item 2: Operational Issues 1

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

Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Issues 5

Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Issues 8

Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items 9

Agenda Item 7: Future Work 9

Agenda Item 8: Other Business 11

#### **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: Asia/Pacific Region RVSM Implementation Plans Status Report
E-1

Appendix F: Task List F-1

Appendix G: List of Papers G-1

Appendix H Large Altitude Deviation Report Form H-1

Appendix I: Duties and Responsibilities of the APARMO I-1

Appendix J: RVSM Website Content J-1

1.1 **Introduction**

1.1.1 The Tenth Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Implementation Task
Force Meeting (RVSM/TF/10) was hosted by the United States Federal
Aviation Administration and was held at the Ilikai Hotel, Honolulu from
29-30 January 2001.

1.1.2 The Terms of Reference for the Task Force are contained in
Appendix A.

2.  **Attendance**

1.2.1 Forty-seven participants attended the meeting from Australia,
China, Fiji, French Polynesia, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea,
Thailand, United States, IATA, IFATCA and one industry group. A complete
list of participants is in Appendix D.

1.3 **Officers and Secretariat**

1.3.1 Ms. Leslie McCormick, Acting Deputy Manager ATS International
Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, United States continued as
Chairperson of the Task Force. Mr. Owen Dell, Regional Officer, Air
Traffic Management from the ICAO Asia/Pacific Regional Office, Bangkok
served as the Secretary for the meeting.

1.3.2 Mr. Roy Grimes, National Resource Specialist for CNS, Federal
Aviation Administration, United States continued as Chairperson of the
Aircraft Operations & Airworthiness Working Group. Ms. Roberta Leftwich,
Manager (Acting), Oceanic Procedures Branch, Federal Aviation
Administration, United States continued as Chairperson of the ATC
Operations Working Group. Unfortunately Ms. Leftwich was unable to
attend the meeting and consequently Ms. Carol Might, Air Traffic Control
Specialist, Oceanic Procedures Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
United States, moderated the ATC Operations Working Group discussions on
her behalf. 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 **Opening of the Meeting**

1.4.1 Ms. McCormick opened the meeting, and noted that this was the
one-year follow up to Pacific RVSM implementation and the last scheduled
opportunity to address any outstanding issues relating to Pacific RVSM.
She outlined the goals of meeting, which were to address any ATC
operational and aircraft operational/airworthiness issues which required
resolution; discuss a draft plan for ongoing monitoring of aircraft;
review the Asia Pacific Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organization
(APARMO) safety oversight report; review the full Pacific RVSM safety
assessment; review airline and ATS provider benefits achieved; and most
importantly, to declare full operational capability.

1.5 **Documentation and Working Language**

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

1.5.2 Ten Working Papers and six Information Papers were presented to
the meeting. A list of papers is included at Appendix G.

**Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda**

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

**Agenda Item 2: Operational Issues**

> **[Post Implementation Reports]{.underline}**

2.1 The meeting noted that in general, the implementation of RVSM has
been successful and the use of RVSM is reported as being operationally
beneficial. Specifically the implementation of RVSM has reduced crossing
situation problems but increased controller workload with requests for
1000 ft climbs. As a result, block altitude clearances are often issued.

2.2 The United States advised the meeting that on 5 October 2000,
Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) expanded the
implementation of RVSM from FL 290 -- FL 410. The airspace remained
exclusionary from FL 290 -- FL 390.

2.3 Australia advised the meeting that it had delayed the expansion of
RVSM up to FL 410 until the full safety assessment for both the initial
implementation and the extension to FL 410 had been published. Australia
also advised that the lack of a uniform upper RVSM level limit caused a
number of problems between Australia and the adjacent FIRs. There have
been a number of instances where pilots were not aware that in Brisbane
oceanic airspace, RVSM only extended up to FL 390. Controllers in FIRs
bordering Australian airspace also did not always appear to be aware of
the different upper limit of RVSM airspace. However, these complications
may be rectified on 22 March 2001 when RVSM is proposed to be applied
from FL 290 to FL 410 throughout Australia's FIRs.

2.4 New Zealand advised the meeting that RVSM implementation between FL
290 and FL 390 in the Auckland Oceanic FIR on 24 February 2000 and the
later extension of the upper limit to FL 410 on 5 October 2000 caused no
air traffic management problems. Air traffic controllers appreciated the
extra flight levels due to the reduced workload, and an improved service
to aircraft operators was noted. New Zealand also advised that, in the
domestic RVSM environment, RVSM levels are used on a tactical basis
between specific routes and oceanic flights or between RVSM aircraft
where possible. It is New Zealand's intention to designate exclusive
RVSM airspace in the New Zealand FIR as soon as the main non-RVSM
compliant aircraft population movements (B737-200) reach a manageable
level.

# 

# 2.5 Fiji advised the meeting that they intend to extend the implementation of RVSM from FL 390 to FL 410 on 22 March 2001.

# 

# 2.6 Japan advised the meeting that on 5 October 2000, Japan expanded RVSM airspace up to FL 410 in the Tokyo and Naha FIRs.

# 

# [Procedures For Suspension Of RVSM]{.underline}

2.7 The meeting recalled that the suspension of RVSM is to be based on
actual reports of greater than moderate turbulence, not forecasts.
Oakland ARTCC reported that Oakland rarely receives reports of greater
than moderate turbulence, but recently RVSM had been suspended on one
occasion due to severe turbulence. It was noted that European procedures
still required suspension of RVSM for forecast greater than moderate
turbulence. Pacific experience has indicated that suspension due to
forecast severe turbulence alone is not practicable, due to the
relatively common occurrence of these forecasts.

# 

> **[Operation by Non-RVSM Approved Aircraft in Airspace where RVSM may
> be Applied]{.underline}**

2.8 The meeting was advised that operators occasionally wished to
operate a non-RVSM aircraft through RVSM exclusive airspace for reasons
other than those promulgated in the various State AIPs. The principal
limitations in some States' AIPs were the words "initially delivered"
and "State of Registry." It was recommended that State documentation be
amended on the May AIRAC date to remove the word "initial" from the
statement "initial delivery", and to remove the requirement for the
delivery to be to the "State of Registry". The meeting agreed to this
recommendation. Existing coordination requirements would remain
unchanged.

2.9 The meeting was informed that the carriage of a spare engine pod in
some cases rendered an aircraft non-RVSM approved. It was agreed that
spare engine pod carriage was an appropriate exception and should come
under the same category as ferry and maintenance flights.

**[Wake Turbulence -- Opposite Direction Traffic]{.underline}**

2.10 The meeting was advised that on occasions, wake turbulence has been
experienced by opposite direction aircraft vertically spaced by 1000 ft.
QANTAS has reported one significant event and three lesser events due to
opposite direction traffic.

> **["No Call For Release" Test for San Francisco to Hawaiian Island
> Departures]{.underline}**

2.11 Oakland ARTCC advised the meeting on an ongoing trial in which
traffic departing the San Francisco Bay area destined to the Hawaiian
Islands no longer are required to call for release. To date this test
has proven to be very successful in reducing co-ordination between the
towers and the Center, reducing delays and controller workload. It is
currently limited to the Hawaii tracks. Airlines requested that this
procedure be considered for application on the Los Angeles to South
Pacific routes. These were given as examples where RVSM provided a
"hidden" potential in decreasing workload and reducing delays. Oakland
advised that ATC procedures that were established prior to RVSM should
be reviewed to investigate further potentials of RVSM to further reduce
air traffic delays.

**[RVSM Related Incidents]{.underline}**

2.12 Oakland reported one occurrence in which an aircraft had
experienced a loss of required separation due to inadequate notification
of non-RVSM capability. Full details are still under investigation.
Tokyo reported two similar occurrences and Fiji one.

**[Phraseology Related to RVSM Operations]{.underline}**

2.13 The standard phraseologies planned for use in the EUR RVSM airspace
were reviewed by the meeting. The meeting agreed that this issue needed
to be considered further and requested the Chairperson to co-ordinate it
among the Task Force.

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

> **[ATS Provider Publication of Revised Contingency, Weather Deviation
> & Offset Procedures]{.underline}**

3.1 Representatives from the Pacific Oceanic ATS Provider States
reviewed the previously co-ordinated revisions to contingency, weather
deviation and RVSM offset procedures and:

a)  Confirmed that each ATS Provider State will publish a revised AIP or
    NOTAM reflecting the agreed wording on 22 February 2001;

b)  Noted that the Ops/Air Working Group Chairman, in co-ordination with
    ICAO Bangkok, will develop formal revisions to the Regional
    Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030) reflecting this wording. Also
    noted that in the formal Doc 7030 revision process, a request to
    consider application of the weather deviation procedures to
    non-radar airspace other than oceanic would be explored.

3.2 The meeting noted the adoption of the weather deviation procedures
for the North Atlantic. It was agreed that ICAO should be requested to
initiate a process to publish these procedures for worldwide
application.

**[RVSM Website Organization & Content]{.underline}**

3.3 The meeting reviewed the organization and content of the RVSM
website that is maintained by the FAA on behalf of the Task Force. It
was noted that the website is organized into a section that contains
documents and policy applicable to all RVSM operations and other
sections that contain guidance applicable to individual areas of
operation such as the North Atlantic, Pacific and Europe.

3.4 A table showing website content for general applications and for the
Pacific area is at Appendix J.

**[RVSM Aircraft and Operator Approval Registration on Regional
Databases]{.underline}**

3.5 The meeting expressed its concern that individual regional
monitoring agencies required separate notification of both airworthiness
and operational approval. The meeting noted that aircraft approved for
RVSM in accordance with existing FAA, European Joint Airworthiness
Authorities (JAA) or equivalent State documents are eligible for RVSM
operations worldwide. It also noted that existing ICAO standards and
State regulations require that operator pilot and dispatch training and
policy reflect policies/procedures effective in individual regions.

3.6 The meeting concluded that the Task Force leadership should
co-ordinate with the other Regional Monitoring Agencies to:

> a\) Advocate that once an operator has received operational approval
> to use a specific aircraft type in RVSM operations, it should be
> considered RVSM eligible for RVSM operations world-wide;
>
> b\) Advocate that regional authorities recognize that existing ICAO
> Standards and State regulations require operators to adopt regional
> policy/procedures and therefore separate notification should not be
> required;
>
> c\) Advocate that RMA's utilize databases from other regions to the
> maximum extent possible;
>
> d\) Advocate that individual regions clearly explain on websites and
> in appropriate documents, RVSM implementation policies that are unique
> to that region in such areas as ATS policies, contingency procedures
> and monitoring.

**[Revision to Procedures for Operation of Non-RVSM Approved
Aircraft]{.underline}**

3.7 The following word changes were agreed for publication in ATS
Provider AIP's and/or NOTAM's. Word changes are shown in bold and
italics.

**x.x Procedures for operation of Non-RVSM Compliant Civil Aircraft in
RVSM airspace**

x.x.x Non-RVSM compliant civil aircraft may not flight plan between
FL290 and FL390 inclusive within RVSM airspace, ***except*** non-RVSM
civil aircraft unable to fly to an appropriate destination at or below
FL280 and unable to fly at or above FL410 may, after special
co-ordination as detailed in x.x.x below, flight plan at RVSM flight
levels in the RVSM stratum provided the aircraft:

a.  ***is being delivered for initial acceptance, change of ownership or
    lease (see paragraph xx.x below for another option for delivery
    flights); or***

b.  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 is transporting
    externally a spare engine or strut assembly*** or

c.  is being utilized for mercy or humanitarian purposes

x.x.x Aircraft operators requesting approval as above shall:

a.  if departing within \_\_\_\_FIR, obtain approval from
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_Center normally not more than 12 hrs and not less than
    4 hrs prior to the intended departure time. (The \_\_\_Center will
    provide notification of approval); or

b.  if transiting \_\_\_\_\_\_\_FIR, notify \_\_\_\_\_\_\_Center after
    approval is received from the first affected Center 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.

x.x.x Contact details for approval request or notification are as
follows:

> Telephone:
>
> AFTN:
>
> Fax:
>
> E-mail:

x.x.x Non-RVSM aircraft operating in the RVSM stratum will be separated
from all other aircraft by a minimum 2000 ft vertical separation.

x.x.x This approval process is intended exclusively for the purposes
indicated above and not as a means to circumvent the normal RVSM
approval process.

**Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Issues**

> **[Update Of the Pacific RVSM Safety Assessment]{.underline}**

4.1 The meeting considered WP/3 under this topic. The meeting recalled
that the APARMO had presented a provisional safety assessment at
RVSM/TF/5a in January 2000. That analysis showed that the risk of
collision due to the loss of 1000-ft vertical separation, regardless of
cause, would meet the agreed Asia/Pacific safety goal, a Target Level
Safety (TLS) value of 5 x 10^-9^ fatal accidents per flying hour. The
meeting also recalled that the APARMO required more information in order
to do a complete safety assessment in advance of the 24 February 2000
date planned for Pacific RVSM implementation. The meeting noted that,
after completing its analysis, the APARMO had provided assurance prior
to 24 February 2000 that the TLS would be met and that implementation
had gone forward as planned. The meeting also recalled that the APARMO
had reviewed its completed pre-implementation safety assessment at
RVSM/TF/7 in April 2000.

4.2 The APARMO presented the meeting with an updated version of the
pre-implementation safety assessment which takes into account
refinements in source data used to estimate the frequency and duration
of large height deviations arising from errors in following or granting
ATC clearances. The updated version of the safety assessment also
incorporates all values of risk model parameters agreed during the
course of Task Force deliberations prior to the Pacific RVSM
implementation date. The APARMO also informed the meeting that the
safety assessment now includes a new estimated value for a key risk
model parameter, the relative crosstrack speed between a pair of
aircraft assigned to the same ground track at adjacent flight levels. In
so doing, the APARMO noted that risk assessments have used this value
since 1968 when it was estimated as the result of North Atlantic data
collections.

4.3 The APARMO informed the meeting that the overall result of updating
the pre-implementation safety assessment was that the overall risk of
collision associated with the RVSM was now estimated to be about 30
percent below the TLS value. The meeting noted with satisfaction that
this updated estimated risk value was lower than that which was taken
into account when making the decision to implement the RVSM.

4.4 With respect to ongoing safety assessment, the APARMO informed the
meeting that it has continued to receive monthly reports concerning
instances of errors in granting or following ATC clearances in Pacific
airspace where the RVSM is applied. The meeting noted with satisfaction
that the APARMO's review of these reports indicates that the frequency
and duration of such errors has decreased in relation to that observed
in the 12 months prior to RVSM implementation.

> **[Policy For Long-Term Monitoring Aircraft Height-Keeping Performance
> In The Asia/Pacific Region]{.underline}**

4.5 The meeting agreed that there was a need to monitor factors
affecting the continued safe use of the RVSM in Pacific airspace. In
this regard, the meeting endorsed the long-term requirement for
collection and analysis of information related to instances of large
height deviations arising from turbulence, incorrect application of
aircraft contingency procedures, response to airborne collision
avoidance system alerts and errors in granting or following ATC
clearances. Accordingly, the meeting agreed that current requirements
for reporting such events to the APARMO should continue. In particular,
the meeting reaffirmed the requirement that ATC units in the Pacific
continue their monthly reports to the APARMO concerning the occurrence
of errors in granting or following ATC clearances.

4.6 The ICAO Asia/Pacific Office Secretariat informed the meeting that
there were efforts underway in several ICAO bodies aimed at developing
requirements for the long-term monitoring of aircraft height keeping
performance in connection with continued use of the RVSM. In reviewing
these activities, the Secretariat placed special emphasis on the
conclusion adopted at the September 2000 meeting of the Asia Pacific Air
Navigation Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) calling
for formulation and implementation of an Asia/Pacific Region policy for
the long-term monitoring of aircraft height-keeping performance.

4.7 The Secretariat noted work underway in the ICAO Separation and
Airspace Safety Panel, formerly the Review of the General Concept of
Separation Panel, to develop a long-term policy addressing aircraft
height-keeping performance monitoring. Indicative of widespread interest
in the topic, the Secretariat informed the meeting that the ICAO EUR-NAT
Office had facilitated a 24-25 January 2001 EUROCONTROL-hosted meeting
of representatives from the NAT Central Monitoring Agency, EUROCONTROL,
the APARMO and other bodies working to implement RVSM regionally. The
agenda for this gathering included formulation of a long-term monitoring
policy, among other topics. Noting that the APARMO did not offer any
contributions to development of such a policy, the Secretariat stated
that no firm conclusions resulted from this EUROCONTROL-hosted meeting.

4.8 After reviewing the overall status of height-keeping performance
monitoring in the NAT and EUR Regions, the meeting agreed to establish
an ad-hoc working group in order to pursue development of contributions
to a policy for long-term monitoring of aircraft height-keeping
performance in the Asia/Pacific Region.

4.9 The meeting considered WP/4 in relation to development of a policy
for long-term monitoring. The meeting first reviewed the history of
establishing the APARMO as the official monitoring agency for the
Asia/Pacific Region and selecting of a private-sector firm to act on its
behalf in administration of the GPS Monitoring Units (GMUs) used to
monitor aircraft height-keeping performance. The meeting agreed that any
region is free to establish its own regional monitoring agency, to
determine how monitoring will be done within the region and what sources
of data will be used, and to set standards governing the acceptability
of height-keeping performance monitoring results which will be accepted
by the Region. With respect to RVSM implementation work in other
regions, the meeting agreed that the NAT and EUR Regions had established
valid regional monitoring agencies whose State approval registries and
monitoring results should be accepted by the Asia/Pacific Region. The
meeting then affirmed some principles governing actions by the APARMO
and guiding RVSM safety oversight in the Region. Firstly, the APARMO
will act on behalf of the Asia/Pacific Region to set standards for
recognition of the State approvals provided by any newly established
regional monitoring agencies. Secondly, the APARMO is empowered to
establish standards related to the acceptability of aircraft
height-keeping performance monitoring source data and results developed
within the Asia/Pacific Region. Thirdly, the APARMO is not obliged to
accept monitoring results from another Region unless those results meet
standards set by the APARMO. Fourthly, the APARMO is not obliged to
accept any ground-based or GMU data collected within the Asia/Pacific
Region unless such data meets standards established by the APARMO.

> **[Assessment Of Operators And Aircraft Operating In Pacific RVSM
> Airspace Without State Approval]{.underline}**

4.10 The meeting considered WP/5 and WP/8 under this topic. The meeting
considered the results of an APARMO examination of the State approval
status of operations within Pacific airspace where RVSM is applied. The
examination was based on samples of traffic movements for the month of
June 2000 from the Anchorage, Auckland, Fiji and Oakland FIRs. The
APARMO reported that there were roughly 3500 flights in the Auckland
sample and more than 1900 in the Fiji sample. The samples from Anchorage
and Oakland were combined and provided a total of about 15,000 flights
for analysis.

4.11 The APARMO examined the State approval status of each traffic
movement in each sample using its database of State approvals,
consisting of those issued in connection with Pacific RVSM
implementation as well as those from the NAT CMA archives. The meeting
was informed that only the Auckland sample provided registration numbers
for commercial aircraft flights. Hence, the APARMO was able to compare
commercial aircraft registration numbers in its database to those of
traffic movements only for his sample. For the other samples, the APARMO
had to infer the approval status of a commercial flight based on the
operator/aircraft-type combinations in its database.

4.12 The meeting was informed that the examination of approval status of
operations showed that the vast majority of flight movements in Pacific
RVSM airspace were conducted by operators and aircraft with State
approval.

4.13 The APARMO did note, however, instances in which
operator/aircraft-type combinations did not appear in its database.
Careful examination of each such instance, plus correspondence with
State authorities where appropriate, led to development of a series of
recommendations which were considered by the meeting.

4.14 Of particular concern were instances in which the State approval
status of an operator or operator/aircraft-type combination was rendered
unclear due to one or more of the following circumstances: the aircraft
was "wet-leased" by Operator A to Operator B, the aircraft was
"dry-leased" by Operator A to Operator B, the aircraft was operated as a
charter flight, the aircraft was operated under a code-sharing agreement
between operator A and Operator B, the aircraft was owned by multiple
operators -- an arrangement termed "fractional ownership."

4.15 In light of the problems uncovered in examination of the State
approval status of operations in the June 2000 traffic samples, the
meeting agreed that the APARMO should enhance its procedures for
registration of State approvals in its database to take into account the
special circumstances described in paragraph 4.14. The meeting directed
the APARMO to work with State authorities in the Region in order to
develop such enhanced procedures.

4.16 The meeting agreed that a sample of traffic movements during the
month of April 2001 be gathered in each Pacific FIR where the RVSM is
applied. The meeting agreed that these samples should be forwarded to
the APARMO for an analysis similar to that conducted using the June 2000
samples. The meeting directed the APARMO to finish its analysis in time
for presentation for results to the June 2001 meeting of the ATS/AIS/SAR
Subgroup of the APANPIRG.

4.17 In order to facilitate this analysis, the meeting agreed that the
April 2001 traffic samples should contain the registration number and
filed RVSM approval status of each traffic movement.

## 

###  

## Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Issues

### 

**[Economic Benefit of RVSM]{.underline}**

5.1 IATA advised the meeting that the effect of reducing VSM above
flight level 290 has the dual results of increasing airspace capacity
and allowing flight 2000 ft closer to optimum cruise levels. The
economic argument for VSM introduction would be quite different
depending on the importance of airspace capacity. Within the
Asia/Pacific Region there is generally a lesser emphasis on the airspace
capacity problem, but a greater emphasis on cruise flight efficiency. So
the economic and operational arguments for the introduction of 1000 ft
VSM are far less obvious to the airspace users and managers.

5.2 The meeting recalled that airlines in the North Atlantic have
consistently been quoted as saying the fuel burn in the cruise was
reduced between 0.5% and 1.0 % annually by being able to always fly
close to the aircraft's optimum cruise level. The North Pacific routes
are approximately twice the flight time of the North Atlantic, but the
flight numbers are about half therefore flight hours per annum in each
of these airspace's is approximately equal. The fuel tonnage burned on
the Pacific is however greater as the average aircraft size is
significantly greater. This occurs because of the predominance of the
larger B747 in the Pacific Ocean operations.

5.3 IATA advised that one airline in the Asia/Pacific region did their
own pre-1000' VSM implementation study in 1997 and came up with the
familiar 0.5% to 1.0 % reduction in fuel burn number for their fleet in
Australasian operations, based on flight efficiency in the cruise, not
airspace capacity reasons.

5.4 IATA considered that using the North Atlantic and Australasian
examples of a percentage fuel burn reduction using optimum flight levels
to calculate a North Pacific economic result would probably be valid.
The fuel burn reduction would be applicable to the 203 average flights
per day across the North Pacific where the average oceanic cruise flight
times are approximately eight or nine hours. This constitutes about 50%
of the Pacific traffic. The fleet fuel cost, at the current fuel
price[^1] of jet fuel, would be reduced something like US \$8.0 million
per year for the modest 0.5% fuel burn reduction.

5.5 The meeting noted that of additional importance is the fact that
reduced fuel burn also translates directly into reduced air pollution
and that this should not be overlooked in reporting the benefit of
implementing 1000 ft VSM in the region.

### 

5.6 United Airlines informed the meeting that the reductions in delays
had been significant since the implementation of RVSM in the Pacific
Region. The delay reduction had reduced the number of missed connections
for passengers at the hub airports. United Airlines also advised that
they have reduced fuel burn by reducing the number of re-routes for
aircraft, particularly in the North Pacific (NOPAC). With the
ever-increasing cost of fuel, the savings amount to millions of dollars.
The most notable benefit was seen as the availability of 1000 ft climbs,
particularly on the South Pacific routes.

5.7 Air New Zealand noted that the availability of 1000 ft incremental
flight levels had enabled the removal of the 10-minute spacing between
aircraft departing Los Angeles for the South Pacific, which had been of
considerable benefit.

**[Full Operational Capability]{.underline}**

5.8 After a full review of all aspects of the implementation of RVSM in
the airspace of the Pacific since 24 February 2000, the meeting
considered it timely and appropriate to declare full operational
capability.

5.9 The meeting noted with appreciation the efforts made by all
concerned parties in achieving this significant milestone for
international civil aviation.

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

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

## Agenda Item 7: Future Work

**[Long Term Monitoring of Aircraft Height Keeping
Performance]{.underline}**

7.1 As discussed under Agenda Item 4, the meeting agreed that work
needed to continue on the matter of long-term monitoring of aircraft
height-keeping performance. An Ad Hoc Working Group led by Mr. Roy
Grimes was established to consider the issues and develop a plan for
long-term monitoring of aircraft height-keeping performance. This plan
would be co-ordinated with members of the Task Force and provided to the
Chairperson for presentation to the APANPIRG ATS/AIS/SAR/SG meeting in
June 2001.

7.2 The meeting agreed that the Ad Hoc Long Term Monitoring Working
Group (LTM/WG) would:

> a\) Emphasize the continuation of the following monitoring activities
> by addressing:
>
> i\) Approval scrutiny
>
> ii\) Height deviation/gross navigation error reporting
>
> iii\) Submission of traffic data by ATS Providers
>
> b\) Review non-compliant and aberrant data for trends (LTM/WG Chair
> and APARMO)
>
> c\) Investigate additional sources of monitoring data (LTM/WG Chair
> and APARMO)
>
> d\) Document ASE stability
>
> e\) Clearly define a programme to allow operators and States to plan
> for monitoring activity
>
> f\) Develop a regional funding mechanism

7.3 Further meetings of the full Task Force relating to the Pacific
implementation were not considered to be necessary.

**[Future RVSM Meeting Schedule]{.underline}**

7.4 The meeting noted the following schedule of RVSM related Task Force
meetings:

> MID RVSM Seminar/1: 7-9 April 2001 in Dubai (Middle East focus)
>
> MID RVSM/TF/2: 10-11 April 2001 in Dubai (Middle East focus)
>
> RVSM Seminar/4: 25-27 April 2001 in Kuala Lumpur (Asia focus)
>
> RVSM TF/11: 30 April -- 4 May 2001 in Kuala Lumpur (Asia focus)
>
> RVSM TF/12: 5 days August 2001 location TBA (Asia focus)
>
> RVSM TF/13: 14-18 January 2002 location TBA (Asia focus)
>
> (Target Implementation Western Pacific/South China Sea AIRAC date 21
> February 2002)
>
> RVSM TF/14: 2 days May 2002 location TBA (Western Pacific/South China
> Sea Review focus)
>
> RVSM TF/15: 5 days May 2002 location TBA (Asia/Europe South Himalayas
> focus)
>
> RVSM TF/16: 5 days September 2002 location TBA (Asia/Europe South
> Himalayas focus)
>
> RVSM/TF/17: 5 days January 2003 location TBA (Asia/Europe South
> Himalayas focus)
>
> RVSM TF/18: 2 days February 2003 location TBA (Western Pacific/South
> China Sea Review focus)
>
> RVSM TF/19: 5 days May 2003 location TBA (Asia/Europe South Himalayas
> focus)
>
> RVSM/TF/20: 5 days September 2003 location TBA (Asia/Europe South
> Himalayas focus)
>
> (Target Implementation Asia Europe South-of-the-Himalayas AIRAC date
> 27 November 2003)
>
> RVSM/TF/21: 2 days February 2004 location TBA (Asia/Europe South
> Himalayas Review focus)
>
> RVSM/TF/22: 2 days November 2004 location TBA (Asia/Europe South
> Himalayas Review focus)

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

### 

### 7.5 The meeting updated 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 E 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 develop strategic, benefits-driven implementation plans (based on
    cost benefit studies), in concert with airspace users, for RVSM
    operations within selected areas and airspace of the Asia/Pacific
    Region, ensuring inter-regional harmonisation;

-   To consider any amendments to RVSM guidance material that may be
    proposed by States and international organizations;

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

-   The Task Force will include participation from States and
    International Organizations that are considering or involved with
    the implementation of RVSM; and

-   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 Asia/Pacific Region 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 Asia/Pacific Region 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 altitude deviation incidents and
    altitude monitoring data to determine 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 satisfaction of the Target Level of Safety (TLS);

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

-   To perform periodically other data collections (e.g. ASE stability)
    in order to ensure that the parameter values used in 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,
    ensuring inter-regional harmonisation;

-   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 co-ordinate 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**

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

**(RVSM/TF/10)**

(Honolulu, Hawaii, 29-30 January 2001)

**AGENDA**

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda

Agenda Item 2: Operational Issues

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

Agenda Item 4: Safety and Airspace Monitoring Issues

Agenda Item 5: Implementation Management Issues

Agenda Item 6: Review of Action Items

Agenda Item 7: Future Work

Agenda Item 8: Other Business

Appendix D List of Participants---separate file

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

+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| FIR/AOR               | 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                  | Not       | Subject to Indonesia upper       |
|                       | a         | airspace consolidation           |
|                       | pplicable |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Bangkok               | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Beijing               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Biak                  | Not       | Subject to Indonesia upper       |
|                       | a         | airspace consolidation           |
|                       | pplicable |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Brisbane              | 24 Feb    | Oceanic East of Australia 24 Feb |
|                       | 2000      | 2000                             |
|                       |           |                                  |
|                       |           | Remainder of FIR 22 March 2001   |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Calcutta              | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Chennai               | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Colombo               | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Delhi                 | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Dhaka                 | TBD       |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Guangzhou             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hanoi                 | 21 Feb    | Phased Implementation            |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ho Chi Minh           | 21 Feb    | Phased Implementation            |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Hong Kong             | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Honiara               | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Jakarta               | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Karachi               | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kathmandu             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kota Kinabalu         | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kuala Lumpur          | 21 Feb    | Phased Implementation - Western  |
|                       | 2002      | part 27 Nov 2003                 |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Kunming               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Lahore                | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Lanzhou               |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Male                  |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Manila                | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Melbourne             | 22 Mar    |                                  |
|                       | 2001      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Mumbai                | 27 Nov    |                                  |
|                       | 2003      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Nadi                  | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Naha                  | 24 Feb    | Pacific Oceanic (non-exclusive   |
|                       | 2000      | RVSM airspace) Further phased    |
|                       |           | implementation planned           |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Nauru                 | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| New Zealand           | 13 July   | Non-exclusive                    |
| (Domestic)            | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Oakland Oceanic       | 24 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Phnom Penh            | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Port Moresby          | 13 Apr    |                                  |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Pyongyang             |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Sanya AOR             | TBD       |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shanghai              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Shenyang              |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Singapore             | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taegu                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tahiti                | 24 Feb    | Exclusive from 5 Oct 2000 to FL  |
|                       | 2000      | 410                              |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Taibei                | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Tokyo                 | 24 Feb    | Oceanic                          |
|                       | 2000      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ujung Pandang         | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Ulan Bator            |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Urumqi                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Vientiane             | 21 Feb    |                                  |
|                       | 2002      |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Wuhan                 |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Yangon                |           |                                  |
+-----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------+

Revised Task List (Separate file)

**LIST OF WORKING AND INFORMATION PAPERS**

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

  2            RVSM Task Force Action List                       Chairperson

  3            Summary of Pacific Reduced Vertical Separation    United States
               Minimum (RVSM) Safety Assessment                  

  4            RVSM Monitoring Policy for the Asia/Pacific       United States
               Region                                            

  5            APARMO Safety Oversight Report                    APARMO

  6            Introduction of Global RVSM Approvals             New Zealand

  7            Status of Contingency Procedures Review           United States

  8            RVSM Approval Reporting Procedures                Australia

  9            Non-RVSM Approved Aircraft Positioning in RVSM    Air New
               Aircraft                                          Zealand

  10           Reiteration of Requirement to Report Large Height United States
               Deviations in the Asia/Pacific Region and         
               Associated Monthly Report                         
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  2            Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum -- The        Australia
               Australian Experience                             

  3            The Economics of 1000 ft Vertical Separation      IATA
               above Flight Level 290 in the Asia/Pacific Region 

  4            Report of RVSM Impact Within Oakland FIR          United States

  5            "No Call for Release" Test for Bay Area to        United States
               Hawaiian Island Departures                        

  6            Content of RVSM Website                           United States
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message format for a report to the Asia/Pacific Approvals Registry and
Monitoring Organization of an altitude deviation of 300ft or more,
including those due to TCAS, turbulence and contingency events

**REPORT OF AN ALTITUDE DEVIATION OF 300FT OR MORE**

**BETWEEN FL290 & FL410**

> \(1\) Reporting agency

(2) Location of deviation

(3) Date of occurrence (UTC)

> \(4\) NOPAC/CENPAC/CEP/SOPAC/Japan-Hawaii/South China Sea/Other
>
> \(5\) Flight identification and type
>
> \(6\) Flight level assigned
>
> \(7\) Observed/reported final level Mode C/Pilot report
>
> \(8\) Duration at flight level
>
> \(9\) Cause of deviation
>
> \(10\) Other traffic
>
> \(11\) Crew comments, if any, when noted
>
> \(12\) Remarks

When complete please return to the following address:

> William J Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC)
>
> NAS & International Airspace Analysis Branch (ACT-520)
>
> Atlantic City International Airport
>
> Atlantic City, NJ 08405
>
> Telephone: +1 609-485-5475
>
> Fax: +1 609-485-5117
>
> E-Mail: APARMO@tc.faa.gov

[Duties and Responsibilities of the APARMO]{.smallcaps}

The Asia/Pacific Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organization (APARMO)
has the following duties and responsibilities:

a)  to establish and maintain a central registry of State RVSM approvals
    of operators and aircraft using the Asia/Pacific Region airspace
    where RVSM will be applied;

b)  to facilitate the transfer of approval data to and from other RVSM
    regional monitoring agencies;

c)  to establish and maintain a data base containing the results of
    height-keeping performance monitoring and all altitude deviations of
    300 ft or more within Asia/Pacific Region airspace*,* and to include
    in the database the results of APARMO requests to operators and
    States for information explaining the causes of observed large
    height deviations;

d)  provide timely information on changes of monitoring status of
    aircraft type classifications to State authorities and operators;

e)  to assume overall responsibility for

    i\) administration of the Global Positioning System Monitoring
    System (GMS); and

    ii\) assessing compliance of operators and aircraft with RVSM
    height-keeping performance requirements

    in conjunction with RVSM introduction in the Asia/Pacific Region;

f)  to provide the means for identifying non-RVSM approved operators
    using Asia/Pacific airspace where RVSM is applied; and notifying the
    appropriate State approval authority; and

g)  to develop the means for summarizing and communicating 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.

Separate File

[^1]: Singapore December 2000 average