30/5/00

Transmittal Note

SUPPLEMENT TO

ANNEX 10 — AERONAUTICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

VOLUME I
(RADIO NAVIGATION AIDS)

(Fifth Edition)

1. The attached Supplement supersedes all previous Supplements to Annex 10, Volume I, and includes differences
notified by Contracting States up to 30 May 2000 with respect to all amendments up to and including Amendment 74.

2. This Supplement should be inserted at the end of Annex 10, Volume I (Fifth Edition). Additional differences
received from Contracting States will be issued at intervals as amendments to this Supplement.
 SUPPLEMENT TO
ANNEX 10 — AERONAUTICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Volume I
(Radio Navigation Aids)

(Fifth Edition)

Differences between the national regulations and practices of Contracting States

and the corresponding International Standards and Recommended Practices
contained in Annex 10, Volume I, as notified to ICAO in accordance with
Article 38 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Council’s
resolution of 21 November 1950.

MAY 2000

I N T E R N AT I O N A L CIVIL AV I AT I O N O R G A N I Z AT I O N
(ii) SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10, VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION)

RECORD OF AMENDMENTS TO SUPPLEMENT

No. Date Entered by No. Date Entered by

AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX 10, VOLUME I, ADOPTED OR APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL

SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIFTH EDITION ISSUED JULY 1996

Date of Date of
adoption or Date adoption or Date
No. approval applicable No. approval applicable
72 not applicable to Volume I
73 19/3/98 5/11/98
74 18/3/99 4/11/99

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10, VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) (iii)

1. Contracting States which have notified ICAO of differences

The Contracting States listed below have notified ICAO of differences which exist between their national regulations and
practices and the International Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 10, Volume I (Fifth Edition), up to and
including Amendment 74, or have commented on implementation.

The page numbers shown for each State and the dates of publication of those pages correspond to the actual pages in this
Supplement.

Date of Pages in Date of

State notification Supplement publication

Canada 1/10/99 1 30/5/00

China (Hong Kong SAR) 11/9/99 1 30/5/00
Denmark 29/6/99 1 30/5/00
France 21/9/99 1 30/5/00
Ireland 4/10/99 1 30/5/00
Italy 28/3/00 1 30/5/00
New Zealand 24/9/99 1 30/5/00
Sweden 24/9/99 1 30/5/00
United Kingdom 30/9/99 1 30/5/00

2. Contracting States which have notified ICAO that no differences exist

Date of Date of
State notification State notification

Argentina 17/9/99 Namibia 30/6/99

Australia 27/7/99 Netherlands 8/9/99
Bahrain 8/5/00 Norway 9/7/99
Barbados 27/8/99 Pakistan 13/10/99
Chile 11/6/99 Paraguay 16/9/99
Colombia 15/7/99 Portugal 1/10/99
Cuba 19/7/99 Republic of Korea 4/10/99
Egypt 18/7/99 Republic of Moldova 5/10/99
Gambia 27/9/99 Russian Federation 8/7/99
Georgia 15/10/99 Slovakia 4/10/99
Germany 1/10/99 Sri Lanka 30/7/99
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 28/7/99 Switzerland 29/9/99
Japan 21/7/99 Tunisia 7/10/99
Jordan 26/9/99 Uganda 14/7/99
Malaysia 20/7/99 United Arab Emirates 15/5/99
Mauritius 1/10/99 United Republic of Tanzania 8/7/99
Mexico 27/7/99 United States 17/3/00
Monaco 1/10/99 Uruguay 14/7/99
Morocco 19/10/99

30/5/00
(iv) SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10, VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION)

3. Contracting States from which no information has been received

Afghanistan Ghana Poland

Albania Greece Qatar
Algeria Grenada Romania
Angola Guatemala Rwanda
Antigua and Barbuda Guinea Saint Lucia
Armenia Guinea-Bissau Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Austria Guyana Samoa
Azerbaijan Haiti San Marino
Bahamas Honduras Sao Tome and Principe
Bangladesh Hungary Saudi Arabia
Belarus Iceland Senegal
Belgium India Seychelles
Belize Indonesia Sierra Leone
Benin Iraq Singapore
Bhutan Israel Slovenia
Bolivia Jamaica Solomon Islands
Bosnia and Herzegovina Kazakhstan Somalia
Botswana Kenya South Africa
Brazil Kiribati Spain
Brunei Darussalam Kuwait Sudan
Bulgaria Kyrgyzstan Suriname
Burkina Faso Lao People’s Democratic Republic Swaziland
Burundi Latvia Syrian Arab Republic
Cambodia Lebanon Tajikistan
Cameroon Lesotho Thailand
Cape Verde Liberia The former Yugoslav Republic of
Central African Republic Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Macedonia
Chad Lithuania Togo
China Luxembourg Tonga
Comoros Madagascar Trinidad and Tobago
Congo Malawi Turkey
Cook Islands Maldives Turkmenistan
Costa Rica Mali Ukraine
Côte d’Ivoire Malta Uzbekistan
Croatia Marshall Islands Vanuatu
Cyprus Mauritania Venezuela
Czech Republic Micronesia (Federated States of) Viet Nam
Democratic People’s Republic of Mongolia Yemen
Korea Mozambique Zambia
Democratic Republic of the Congo Myanmar Zimbabwe
Djibouti Nauru
Dominican Republic Nepal
Ecuador Nicaragua
El Salvador Niger
Equatorial Guinea Nigeria
Eritrea Oman
Estonia Palau
Ethiopia Panama
Fiji Papua New Guinea
Finland Peru
Gabon Philippines

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10, VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) (v)

4. Paragraphs with respect to which differences have been notified

Differences Differences
Paragraph notified by Paragraph notified by

2.7.1 France 3.1.7.6.2.1 Denmark

Italy New Zealand
New Zealand United Kingdom
Sweden 3.1.7.6.3.1 New Zealand
United Kingdom 3.1.7.6.6 United Kingdom
3.3.5.2 France
3.1.2.1 France 3.3.6.5 Sweden
3.1.3.3 China (Hong Kong SAR) 3.3.7.1 Canada
New Zealand New Zealand
3.1.3.5.4 Ireland 3.3.8 Canada
3.1.4 Canada China (Hong Kong SAR)
China (Hong Kong SAR) France
France New Zealand
New Zealand 3.3.8.3 Sweden
3.1.4.3 Sweden 3.4.5.4 France
3.1.5.1.2.1 Denmark 3.4.8 United Kingdom
3.1.5.1.5 Canada 3.4.8.2 New Zealand
3.1.5.3 China (Hong Kong SAR) 3.4.8.4 New Zealand
New Zealand 3.5.4.7.2 Canada
Sweden 3.5.4.7.2.1 New Zealand
3.1.7 Canada 3.5.4.7.2.3 New Zealand
3.1.7.1 China (Hong Kong SAR)

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) CANADA 1

CHAPTER 3

3.1.4 Receivers are not required to meet this Standard in Canada because the frequency requirements are
engineered, using a system of prediction techniques, coordination procedures and controls of FM
station operating parameters, to eliminate interference problems and ensure that aviation operations
can be conducted safely without the need for this requirement.

3.1.5.1.5* This specification is followed for new ILS, but for some existing ones, the height of the reference
datum may be as low as 45 ft.

3.1.7 ILS installations and back-course localizers do not have VHF marker beacons. NDB and DME
installations will provide for the functions marker beacons previously fulfilled.

3.3.7.1 Certain VOR/DME used solely for en-route navigation do not provide an indication at a control point.
These facilities will be annotated as “unmonitored” on the navigation charts.

3.3.8 Receivers are not required to meet this Standard in Canada because the frequency requirements are
engineered, using a system of prediction techniques, coordination procedures and controls of FM
station operating parameters, to eliminate interference problems and ensure that aviation operations
can be conducted safely without the need for this requirement.

3.5.4.7.2 Certain VOR/DME used solely for en-route navigation do not provide an indication at a control point.
These facilities will be annotated as “unmonitored” on the navigation charts.

* Recommended Practice

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) CHINA (HONG KONG SAR) 1

CHAPTER 3

3.1.3.3 The RWY 07L and 07R localizers do not meet standard coverage criteria due to terrain limitations.
The RWY 25L and 25R localizers do not meet standard coverage criteria due to terrain limitations.

3.1.4 Compliance is applicable to the ILS and VOR installed on Hong Kong registered aircraft which are
to be used in controlled airspace IFR operations (all ILS and VOR installed on Hong Kong registered
aircraft, except those that are Civil Aviation Department approved in the light aircraft Class 3
category, shall comply with the FM broadcast immunity requirements with effect from 1 January
2001). Aircraft with ILS or VOR which do not meet the FM immunity standards may be subject to
operating restrictions that deny those aircraft the use of routes, terminal areas and instrument
approach procedures affected by interference.

3.1.5.3 The RWY 25L and 25R glide paths do not meet standard coverage criteria due to terrain limitations.

3.1.7.1 DME co-located with the glide path equipment is installed as an alternative to VHF marker beacons
for both 07L and 25R ILS.

3.3.8 Compliance is applicable to the ILS and VOR installed on Hong Kong registered aircraft which are
to be used in controlled airspace IFR operations (all ILS and VOR installed on Hong Kong registered
aircraft, except those that are Civil Aviation Department approved in the light aircraft Class 3
category, shall comply with the FM broadcast immunity requirements with effect from 1 January
2001). Aircraft with ILS or VOR which do not meet the FM immunity standards may be subject to
operating restrictions that deny those aircraft the use of routes, terminal areas and instrument
approach procedures affected by interference.

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) DENMARK 1

CHAPTER 3

3.1.5.1.2.1* A small number of glide paths will, for operational reasons, be retained with a glide path angle of
2.75E.

3.1.7.6.2.1* The middle markers are not located at standard distances, but are preferably located where the glide
path height is 300 ft ± 20 ft above THR-level.

* Recommended Practice

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) FRANCE 1

CHAPTER 2

2.7.1 In France, NDBs are not subject to periodic flight tests.

CHAPTER 3

3.1.2.1 Most of the marker beacons installed in France and in the overseas departments and territories do not
comprise remote control equipment, since they are designed to operate on a continuous basis. More
and more aerodromes equipped with an ILS no longer have marker beacons which are replaced by
landing DMEs.

3.1.4 France will only require the carriage of receivers meeting these immunity criteria as of
1 January 2001.

3.3.5.2 The depth of modulation of the radio frequency carrier due to the 30 Hz or 9 960 Hz signals, as
observed at any angle of elevation up to 5 degrees, is within the limits of 25 and 35 per cent.

3.3.8 Aircraft operated in IFR in French airspace will only be required to be equipped with receivers
meeting these immunity criteria as of 1 January 2001. Aircraft registered in France and operated in
VFR are not subject to the requirement for the carriage of equipment meeting these immunity criteria.
From 1 January 2001, only new installations will be subject to this requirement.

3.4.5.4 Most of the MF beacons in France operate in A0/A1 to facilitate frequency allocations for the very
large number of facilities so that the bandwidth occupied by the emission is reduced from 850 Hz to
100 Hz in the case of A2 modulation.

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) IRELAND 1

CHAPTER 3

3.1.3.5.4* Verification that undesired frequency modulation and/or phase modulation of ILS RF carriers is less
than the preferred maximum levels indicated in Attachment C, 2.15.5 has not yet been completed.
Ireland intends to comply with this requirement by 30 April 2000.

*Recommended Practice

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) ITALY 1

CHAPTER 2

2.7.1 Non-directional beacons are not subject to periodic flight tests.

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) NEW ZEALAND 1

CHAPTER 2

2.7.1 Some non-directional beacons and locator beacons are not the subject of periodic flight tests.
Stand-alone NDBs are only flight tested as required for special or post-accident/incident inspection.

CHAPTER 3

3.1.3.3 Because of siting problems and terrain limitations, some localizers do not meet Category I facility
performance criteria for off-course clearance. Details of limitations are published in the AIP.

3.1.4 Not a mandatory requirement for ILS localizer receiving systems fitted to New Zealand registered
aircraft.

3.1.5.3 Because of siting problems and terrain limitations, some glide paths do not meet Category I facility
performance criteria up to 8 degrees in azimuth on each side of the centre line. Details of limitations
are published in the AIP.

3.1.7.6.2.1* Due to topographical limitations, middle markers are not always at 1 050 m plus or minus 150 m
from the landing threshold.

3.1.7.6.3.1* Due to topographical limitations, outer markers are not always located between 6.5 and 11.1 km from
the landing threshold.

3.3.7.1 Certain remotely sited VOR do not provide an indication at a control point.

3.3.8 Not a mandatory requirement for VOR receiving systems fitted to New Zealand registered aircraft.

3.4.8.2* Mandatory standard.

3.4.8.4* Mandatory standard.

3.5.4.7.2.1 a) Certain remotely sited DME do not provide an indication at a control point.

3.5.4.7.2.3* Mandatory standard.

* Recommended Practice

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) SWEDEN 1

CHAPTER 2

2.7.1 Non-directional and locator beacons are not subject to periodic flight tests.

CHAPTER 3

3.1.4.3 Not applicable in order to avoid a lot of foreseen exemptions. General aviation does not need to
comply with the new requirements until 1 January 2001.

3.1.5.3 Some Category I glide paths do not meet the requirement of coverage up to ± 8 degrees on each side
of the centre line. Details are published in the AIP. The reason for this is that radiation is shadowed
by mountainous terrain.

3.3.6.5 Some VORs are transmitting identification signals at a speed of 10 words per minute.

3.3.8.3 Not applicable in order to avoid a lot of foreseen exemptions. General aviation does not need to
comply with the new requirements until 1 January 2001.

30/5/00
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 10 — VOLUME I (FIFTH EDITION) UNITED KINGDOM 1

CHAPTER 2

2.7.1 Under United Kingdom legislation, non-directional and locator beacons in the United Kingdom may
be individually exempted from periodic flight checks.

CHAPTER 3

3.1.7.6.2.1* In the United Kingdom, ILS middle markers are located to enable the Standard of 3.1.7.6.2 to be met,
but in a number of cases this location does not comply, in respect of distance from the landing
threshold, with the Recommended Practice of 3.1.7.6.2.1.

3.1.7.6.6 DME may be installed as an alternative to VHF marker beacons whether or not the installation of
marker beacons is impracticable.

3.4.8 The monitoring of non-directional beacons in the United Kingdom does not always follow the precise
requirements of the SARPs under 3.4.8. Normally, monitoring is provided but its periodicity and
scope differ between different installations.

* Recommended Practice

30/5/00