l j l a rnav (gnss) a r ert/eng/140602/7501 i 1 · document no: ert/eng/140602/7501 issue 1...

Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Consultation Report

Document no: CERT/ENG/140602/7501 Issue 1 Document date: 16-Oct-15 ©2015 ATCSL, CIL COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE of 55

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT RNAV (GNSS)

APPROACHES

CONSULTATION REPORT

CERT/ENG/140602/7501

ISSUE 1

©2015 ATCSL, Certisa. All rights reserved. The information contained within this document must not be disclosed, copied or reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission from ATCSL and Certisa. Distribution of this document shall only be as stated in Table 1 unless otherwise agreed by ATCSL and Certisa.

Please consider the environment before printing this document. This document has been formatted to be printed double sided which significantly reduces paper usage and transportation emissions. For full details please see www.certisa.com/environment

Produced for ATCSL by Certisa International Ltd 3000 Hillswood Drive Chertsey Surrey KT16 0RS www.certisa.com

Certisa is ISO9001:2008 certified for the production of safety assurance documentation by Bureau Veritas



INTENTIONALLY BLANK



Table of Contents

Document Approval ................................................................................................................... 3

Document Control ...................................................................................................................... 4

1. Confidentiality Statement ................................................................................................... 9

2. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 10

3. Overview of Responses ..................................................................................................... 11

Consultation Process ........................................................................................................... 11

Social Media ........................................................................................................................ 11

Press Release ....................................................................................................................... 11

Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (LACC) .............................................................. 11

Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee (NMSC) ......................................................................... 12

Local Authority (Face to Face) ............................................................................................. 12

Drop in Sessions .................................................................................................................. 12

LJLA Website ........................................................................................................................ 12

Local Flight Safety Committee ............................................................................................. 13

Consultation Response Summary .................................................................................... 13

Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 13

4. Modifications to the Proposal ........................................................................................... 18

Post Consultation Review .................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18

5. Supporting Documentation ............................................................................................... 19

Appendix A – Consultation Record Sheets .......................................................................... 20

5.1.1 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee .................................................................. 20

5.1.2 Noise Monitoring Sub Committee Consultees ............................................................. 24

5.1.3 Other ANSPs ................................................................................................................. 26

5.1.4 Local Authority Consultees (Face to Face) ................................................................... 27

5.1.5 Airlines.......................................................................................................................... 28

5.1.6 Local General Aviation User Consultees ...................................................................... 30

5.1.7 National Air Traffic Monitoring Advisory Committee .................................................. 31

Appendix B – Consultation Publication ............................................................................... 36

Appendix C – Consultee Comment and Sponsor Response ................................................ 44

Appendix D – Table of Consultation Actions ....................................................................... 51

Appendix E – LACC & NMSC minutes .................................................................................. 52

5.5.1 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (29 May 2015) .......................................... 52

5.5.2 Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee (17 July 2015) ........................................................ 52

5.5.3 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (11 September 2015) ............................... 53

Appendix F – GATCO, FOLA & AOPA releases ...................................................................... 54

Appendix G – Flight Safety Committee Minutes (extract) ................................................... 55

Appendix H – GNSS Post Consultation Summary Report .................................................... 55



Figures

Figure 1: Consultation overview ........................................................................................................ 14

Figure 2: % Responses received by group .......................................................................................... 14

Figure 3: Number of responses received by group ............................................................................ 15



Acronyms

ALT Altitude

amsl Above mean sea level

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

ATC Air Traffic Control

AQC Air Quality Consultants

BAP Bickerdike Allen Partners

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CAP725 CAA Guidance on the Application of Airspace Space Change Process

CCO Continual Climb Operations

CDO Continual Descent Operations

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

dB(A) Decibel A-weighted

FAS Future Airspace Strategy

FoLA Friends of Liverpool Airport

GA General Aviation

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ILS Instrument Landing System

LAeq Equivalent Noise Level

LACC Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee

LAQ Local Air Quality

LJLA Liverpool John Lennon Airport

NATS NATS Services Ltd (NSL) – previous known as National Air Traffic Services

NERL NATS En-Route PLC (NERL)

NMSC Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee

PAN-OPS ICAO Document 8168 Volume 2 “Design of Visual & Instrument Flight Procedures

RNAV Area Navigation

RotAR Rules of the Air Regulations

SES Single European Skies

SESAR Single European Skies Air Traffic Management Research

TMA Terminal Control Area

VFR Visual Flight Rules



References

[1] CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process, Civil Aviation Authority, document reference CAP 725.

[2] Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Airport Master Plan to 2030 Part 1, Peel Airports, 2007.

[3] Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions, Department of Transport, January 2014.

[4] Aviation Policy Framework, Secretary of State for Transport, March 2013, ISBN 9780101858427.



1. Confidentiality Statement

The CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG) requires that all consultation material, including copies of responses from consultees and others, is included in any formal submission to the CAA of an Airspace Change Process.

LJLA undertakes that, apart from the necessary submission of material to the CAA, LJLA does not intend to disclose the personal details or content of responses and submissions to any third parties. Hence the table in Appendix C that summarises the responses has retained maximum anonymity for the respondents as this document will be published but they are all recorded and have all been carefully considered.



2. Executive Summary

Air Traffic Control Services Ltd (ATCSL) are the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) for Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). Certisa have been tasked by ATCSL to support the implementation of new Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) based Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for both runways at LJLA.

The consultation has aligned with the requirements and recommendations of the CAP725 wherever possible to ensure that the change process thus far and onward remains cognisant of UK policy.

Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) launched a 12-week stakeholder consultation on 22nd July 2015 seeking comments on the proposed introduction of a centre line instrument approach procedure based on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) for aircraft landing on both runway 09 and 27.

The consultation was targeted primarily at a list of stakeholders defined and agreed in the framework document based on the size and scale of the proposed new procedures deviation from the current ground based Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures. LJLA have ensured that the proportional community engagement has been undertaken to be consistent with the framework document.

The consultation closed on 14th October 2015 having received 50 responses from 92 consultees, this represents a 54% response rate. The level of response is apportioned to aviation stakeholders recognising the negligible degree of airspace change.

Of the 54%, the majority of respondents supported the change with an occasional caveat being raised within a response. A catalogue of stakeholder responses together with sponsor responses is detailed at appendix A.



3. Overview of Responses

3.1 Consultation Process

3.1.1 A total of 92 consultation leaflets titled “Final Approach Global Navigation Satellite System” (see appendix B) that summarises the proposed GNSS procedure at LJLA has been distributed to a defined consultee list of organisations in July 2015. The leaflet was also distributed informally to our organisation (e.g. GMB trade union and visitors to the airport) and protected document format as a download from the website.

3.1.2 LJLA has sort to engage an informed discussion with stakeholders about the proposed GNSS procedure at LJLA in the following ways.

3.2 Social Media

LJLA used social media to help raise aware of the GNSS proposal consultation. Messages relating to consultation drop in sessions were published in advance on Twitter and Facebook. The message went to all the 23,200 followers on Twitter and during the period the GNSS proposal was on the LJLA Facebook page it received 33,500 likes. There are examples of the tweets and Facebook messages in Appendix F.

3.3 Press Release

A Press Release was published in July 2015. A copy of the press release remains on the LJLA website with all the other LJLA press releases in the news section http://www.liverpoolairport.com/ljla-gnss-rnav-introduction/. Please note the LJLA website is being updated in Autumn 2015 so a copy is attached in Appendix G of the report.

3.4 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (LACC)

3.4.1 The LACC has 26 members drawn from a range of bodies on both sides of the Mersey. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee are appointed by the Committee. LJLA have an independent Secretariat, which is undertaken by Cheshire West and Chester Council.

3.4.2 The LACC received a briefing prior to the launch of the consultation on the 29th May and members were requested to report back to their respective organisations to ensure they were the appropriate contact or to suggest others. The members were sent a copy of the consultation leaflet by the Secretariat at the start of the consultation and again before the 11th September 2015 meeting.

3.4.3 At the LACC meeting on the 11th September the members received a further briefing on the GNSS proposal and engagement in the process and comments requested. A copy of the presentation explaining the GNSS approach procedure at LJLA given to LACC Members on the 11th September 2015 is attached to Appendix H. A further reminder and request for comment or questions was sent direct to all members at the end of September. A copy of the minutes from both the LACC and NMSC are shown at Appendix I.



3.5 Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee (NMSC)

The NMSC is the technical working group of the LACC for noise matters; the committee is made up of professional officers from the local authorities, elected members, community groups and airport users. At the NMSC meeting on the 17th July the members had a briefing prior to the official launch of the consultation and were requested to report back to their respective organisations to ensure they were the right person to consult with on this matter. The members of the committee had a copy of the consultation leaflet sent by the Secretariat at the end of July.

3.6 Local Authority (Face to Face)

3.6.1 LJLA requested and gained face-to-face meetings with the six local authorities identified during the framework document development. These are the authorities that are close or under the final approach procedure. Face to face meetings were requested to ensure engagement and give an opportunity to raise questions directly with LJLA and the ANSP to avoid confusion and minimise any hurdles to participation in the consultation process.

3.6.2 LJLA representatives met with six local authorities, Cheshire West & Chester, Flintshire, Halton, Liverpool, Warrington and Wirral.

3.7 Drop in Sessions

The four-drop in sessions had been designed to be informal opportunities for interested individuals to ask LJLA representatives questions face to face. The sessions were held on different days of the week at different times of the day to give the widest possible opportunity for participation in the GNSS consultation process. The sessions were held on:

■ Wednesday 19th August 2015 (10:00 to 12:00)

■ Saturday 5th September 2015 (10:00 to 12:00)

■ Monday 14th September 2015 (17:00 to 19:00)

■ Friday 9th October 2015 (14:00 to 16:00)

3.8 LJLA Website

3.8.1 The LJLA website is being holistically reviewed and updated during Autumn 2015. Hence, any links or content referenced in this or previous consultation documentation is likely to change.

3.8.2 To avoid confusion or communications being mixed up or lost LJLA set up a dedicated 24-hour voicemail box facility and separate email address for the GNSS consultation, 2 responses were received during the evening of the 13th October from the same individual who was confirming that his consultation response was en-route.



3.9 Local Flight Safety Committee

LJLA have a local Flight Safety Committee (FSC) that meets a minimum of 4 times per year. The meeting is run by the ANSP and the members of the committee include local airline operators, flying schools, GA Operators and the Airport. The GNSS Consultation and proposal has been on the agenda at the last FSC meeting and the proposal was explained and participation in the consultation requested, an extract of the relevant minutes is shown at appendix K.

3.10 Consultation Response Summary

A total of 92 formal requests for stakeholder organisations to participate in the LJLA GNSS Approach consultation were issued, these are detailed in appendix A. The stakeholder consultees included all the members of the LJLA Consultative Committee, LJLA Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee, airlines, neighbouring ANSP’s, GA Community, Local Authorities and the CAAs National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC). A total of 50 responses were received representing 54% response.

3.11 Statistical Analysis

The charts below are a summary of the data extract from the consultation responses.

Consultee Groups Number Consulted

Number of Responses

Percentage Response

1 LACC 26 14 54%

2 NMSC 14 11 78%

3 Airlines 6 6 100%

4 GA Community 5 5 100%

5 Local Authorities 6 6 100%

6 NATMAC 32 5 16%

7 Other ANSP 3 3 100%

Total 92 50 54%

Table 1: Response levels by group



Figure 1: Consultation overview

Figure 2: % Responses received by group

Consultation Overview

Number of Consultees

Number of Responses

Responses Recieved %

LACC

NMSC

Airlines

GA

Local Authority

NATMAC

Other Ansp



Figure 3: Number of responses received by group

3.11.1 The majority of responses received by the Airport to the GNSS Consultation were on the form included within the consultation leaflet. Although the response rate was low this is attributed to negligible level of change that is being proposed. A noticeable low response from the NATMAC members was observed. While disappointing, this is not unexpected for this level of change. There is however evidence to demonstrate that documentation was distributed and received by NATMAC members as the GATCO publication “Readability Five” demonstrates at appendix J. In the same manner, evidence of receipt is demonstrated by FOLA & AOPA via their publication as shown at appendix J.

3.11.2 With such an extensive list of stakeholder organisations in a relatively small geographical area there is some overlap with some organisations being consulted. The LACC & NMSC consultation membership does overlap so consultee organisations were asked to give an overall view in a single response and fortunately no conflicting responses were received from where there are two or more representatives from the same organisation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

LACC NMSC Airlines GA LocalAuthority

NATMAC OtherANSP

Responses Sought

Responses Received



4. Modifications to the Proposal

4.1 Post Consultation Review

After due and respectful consideration and analysis of the consultation returns and feedback, LJLA does not consider it appropriate to make any modifications to the proposal consulted on between 22nd July and 14th October 2015. LJLA will seek to further verify the noise reviews with before and after noise analysis of the aircraft before and after the installation.

4.2 Conclusion

After careful consideration of all the responses, LJLA as the sponsor will be submitting the formal application for the adoption of the GNSS Procedures as an ACP as soon as practical. This decision has been reached by LJLA and its ANSP after a systematic review of all feedback from the consultation.



5. Supporting Documentation

The following section collates the supporting documents as required by the CAP 725 in addition to those documents that are cross-referenced in the above text. Each entry will be identified as an individual appendix with corresponding title for ease of reference. For cross mapping and compliance purposes, where appropriate, the requirements from the CAP 725 will also be indicated in the appendices title and are summarised below:

CAP 725 Appendix C Paragraph 6 Sub paragraph

Comments

a) A copy of the original Proposal (or any subsequent Proposals) upon which consultation was conducted;

The Consultation Publication, reproduced at Appendix B, provides a full description of the proposal.

b) Consultation Record Sheets; Consultation record sheets are reproduced at Appendix A.

c) A copy of all correspondence sent by the Change Sponsor to consultees during the consultation exercise;

Details of all correspondence is provided at Appendix C (subject to the confidentiality policy stated at the beginning of this document).

d) A copy of all correspondence received by the Change Sponsor from consultees during consultation;

Details of all correspondence is provided at Appendix C (subject to confidentiality).

e) A tabular summary record of consultation actions;

A table of consultation actions is provided at Appendix D.

f) A map (no smaller than A3 size) showing the location(s) of complainants in relation to proposed airspace boundaries, arrival and departure routes, noise contours, etc.;

Not applicable – there were no complaints received about the proposal.

g) Details of and reasons for any modification to the original Proposal as a result of consultation;

Not applicable – there are no modifications required as a result of the consultation.

h) Details of further consultation (written and verbal) conducted on any revised Proposal;

Not applicable – LJLA do not believe any further consultation is necessary as all responses were neutral or supportive.

i) A record of all the actions taken with all consultees, be it through meetings or verbal contacts, must be maintained. The need to close correspondence is important, especially where objections are dealt through mitigation or agreement;

Minutes of meetings and correspondence placed in the public domain by the consulted organisations are reproduced at Appendix E – G.

j) A copy of the feedback documentation to all consultees;

The GNSS Post Consultation Report is reproduced as Appendix H and as a separate attachment within the electronic submission.



5.1 Appendix A – Consultation Record Sheets

(See CAP 725 – Appendix C, para 6, sub-para b)

5.1.1 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee

Serial Name/Organisation Date

Hastening Letter Sent

Date Response Received

Further Correspondence

Date of Meeting

For/Neutral/Against Proposal

Key Issues/themes

Impact of issues/themes on the design

options.

1

7 Sep, 8 Oct No Response No

29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None

2 7 Sep, 8 Oct 14/10/15 Yes – response 29

29/05 & 11/09

For Much welcomed

None

3 7 Sep, 8 Oct 02/10/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

For

Little to no environmental impact. Supported.

None

4


29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None

5

7 Sep, 8 Oct 12/10/15

Yes – response 19

29/05 & 11/09

Neutral No impact None

6


29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None

7

7 Sep, 8 Oct 09/10/15

Yes – response 12

29/05 & 11/09

For Agrees None

8 7 Sep, 8 Oct 09/10/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral No change None







Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.


29/05 & 11/09

Neutral Minimal impact, welcomed.

None

10 7 Sep, 8 Oct 18/09/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

For

Negligible impact on noise and air quality; improves public and passenger safety, fully supported.

None

11 7 Sep, 8 Oct No Response No 29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None

12 7 Sep, 8 Oct 14/10/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral No negative impact

None


No Response -- None


No Response -- None







Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

15 7 Sep, 8 Oct 20/08/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral

Negligible impact on noise and air quality; shared with Speke & Garston.

None


No Response -- None


29/05 & 11/09


18 7 Sep, 8 Oct 09/10/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral No increase in noise level for property.

None

19


29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None


No Response -- None


No Response -- None

22


29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None







Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

23 7 Sep, 8 Oct 11/09/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral

Highly unlikely to have discernible environmental impact. Good to review introduction of GNSS to ensure all options utilised.

None

24 7 Sep, 8 Oct 14/10/15 No 29/05 & 11/09

Neutral

No change to local air quality or noise levels

None

25


29/05 & 11/09

No Response -- None

26

7 Sep, 8 Oct 12/10/15

Yes – response 21

29/05 & 11/09




5.1.2 Noise Monitoring Sub Committee Consultees

Serial Name/Organisation Date Hastening

Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1 7 Sep, 8 Oct No Response

No 17/07 No Response -- None

2

7 Sep, 8 Oct 09/10/15 Yes –response 8 17/07 Support Welcomed None

3

7 Sep, 8 Oct 02/10/15

Yes – response 33

17/07 For


None


17/07 For

Strongly supported.

Improves safety, More efficient. Allows CDA.

Moves away from obsolete equipment. Platform for future.

None


17/07 Neutral No change None




Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.


17/07 For


None


17/07 Neutral No negative impact

None

8

7 Sep, 8 Oct 20/08/15 Yes – response 9 17/07 Neutral


None

9

7 Sep, 8 Oct 20/08/15 Yes – response 9 17/07 Neutral


None

10 7 Sep, 8 Oct 09/10/15 Yes – response 1 17/07 Neutral No increase in noise level for property.

None




Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

11

7 Sep, 8 Oct

No Response


12

7 Sep, 8 Oct

No Response



17/07 Neutral No change to local air quality or noise levels

None

14

7 Sep, 8 Oct

No Response

Yes – response 21

17/07 Neutral No impact None

5.1.3 Other ANSPs





Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1

28/09/15 29/09/15

Yes – response 15

NA For No impact, fully endorsed.

None

2

-- 24/08/15 Yes – response 17

NA Neutral No impact None

3

28/09/15 08/10/15

Yes – response 13

NA For Support PBN None



5.1.4 Local Authority Consultees (Face to Face)

Serial Name/Organisation

Date Hastening

Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1 7 Sep 02/10/15 Yes – response 33

09/09/15 For


None


20/09/15 Neutral

Clear briefing, impact negligible. No concerns or objections.

None


18/09/15 For


None

4 -- 20/08/15 Yes – response 9 12/08/15 Neutral


None

5 7 Sep, 8 14/10/15 Yes – response 12/08/15 Neutral Highly unlikely None



5.1.5 Airlines


Date Hastening

Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1 NA 04/08/15 Yes – response 4 NA For

Not capable –seeking approval in due course

None

2 14/08/15 14/08/15 Yes – response 2 NA For

Suitable contingency; A319 fleet equipped and certified.

None

Oct 27 to have discernible environmental impact. Good to review introduction of GNSS to ensure all options utilised.

6

7 Sep, 8 Oct

14/10/15 Yes – response 32

11/08/15 Neutral No change to local air quality or noise levels

None




Date Hastening

Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

3 03/10/15 09/10/15 Yes – response 24

NA For

Strongly supported.

Improves safety, More efficient. Allows CDA.

Moves away from obsolete equipment. Platform for future.

None


E195/175/Q400 equipped & certified; More resilient if ILS fails;

None

5 NA 20/08/15 Yes – response 18

NA For

Positive impact. Back up approach.

Easier and safer than SRA and visual approaches. Fully supports.

None




Date Hastening

Letter Sent



Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.


No current approval, seeking in 2016.; Looks suitable.

None

5.1.6 Local General Aviation User Consultees





Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1 NA 30/07/15 Yes – response 6 NA Neutral

Clear brochure; no impact on VFR operations.

None

2

09/10/15 14/10/15

Yes – response 30

NA For Concerned about loss of ILS/DME/NDB

None

3 09/10/15 14/10/15 Yes – response 31

NA Neutral

Significant improvement to local air quality and noise levels

None







Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

4 09/10/15 14/10/15 Yes – response 34

NA Neutral No impact None

5 01/10/15 12/10/15 Yes – response 23

NA For Benefit for pilot training; Positive change

None

5.1.7 National Air Traffic Monitoring Advisory Committee





Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

1 01/09/15

Response part of DAATM response

No NA No Response -- None

2

01/09/15

No Response


3

01/09/15 No Response


4









Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

5

01/09/15

No Response


6



7 01/09/15 No Response


8 01/09/15 03/09/15 Yes – response 22

NA Neutral

No concerns provided no increase in controlled airspace.

None

9

01/09/15

No Response


10

01/09/15

No Response


11



12

01/09/15

No Response


13









Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

14

01/09/15

No Response


15



16

01/09/15

No Response


17

01/09/15 30/07/15 Yes – response 7 NA For Solid support. None

18



19

01/09/15 14/10/15

Yes – response 28

NA For

Supports.

Suggested brochure could be misleading, as multiplicity of paths will not exist.

None

20

01/09/15

No Response








Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.



22

01/09/15

No Response






25



26 28/09/15 08/10/15 Yes – response 13

NA For Supports PBN None

27

01/09/15

No Response




29

01/09/15

No Response


30



31

01/09/15 03/09/15 Yes – response 10

NA Neutral Remains impartial

None







Date of Meeting


Key Issues/themes


options.

32

01/09/15 09/10/15

Yes – response 11

NA No Response

Suggest inclusion of EU ops reminder for CDA.

None



5.2 Appendix B – Consultation Publication

(See CAP 725 – Appendix C, para 6, sub-para a)



5.3 Appendix C – Consultee Comment and Sponsor Response

(See CAP 725 – Appendix C, para 6, sub-para c & d)

Ref. Summary of Recorded Comments LAL Comment

1. Do you have any concerns about the proposed new GNSS arrivals procedure?

Provided that its use does not impact in terms of noise, and associated land under our ownership.

The Airport thanked the representative for their contribution to the GNSS consultation. Then explained that aircraft noise from movements using GNSS or ILS approaches at the location concerned is very unlikely to be noticeable or measurable; therefore, the visitor experience should remain unchanged.

2. Will the proposed GNSS procedure have an impact on you?

Increase of operational reliability as GNSS procedures serve as contingency approach procedure in case of ILS

The Airport acknowledged the response and thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation.


The organisation’s are all approved

for RNAV GNSS approaches to LNAV and LNAV/VNAV (APV Baro) minima

The Airport acknowledged the response and thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation.

4. Your view is important to us therefore do you have any other comments or suggestions on the LJLA GNSS proposal?

The airline is not currently approved for flying GNSS approaches, but we are looking for obtaining this approval in the near future. We appreciate your efforts for creating a backup procedure that could be used in case that the ILS is unusable.

The Airport thanked the airline for their participation in the GNSS Consultation and offered to help if required as the airline works towards their own approval for GNSS approval.

5. The airline is currently not approved for GNSS approaches. The airline is planning to introduce it during 2016. At this stage I cannot comment in detail on your proposal other than to say generally it looks entirely suitable!

The Airport thanked the airline for their participation in the GNSS Consultation and offered to help if required as the airline works towards their own approval for GNSS approval.




6. Our organisation does not feel that the introduction of GNSS will affect our company as we are VFR operators only. Also, looking at the the attached information, it does not appear to affect the VFR inbound/outbound routes for normal VFR.

The pdf (Consultation Leaflet), we thought it was informative, clear and easy to understand for all concerned, including those communities that may not be so familiar with aviation and it’s “terms”!

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation even though they are unlikely to use the proposed procedures when if implemented.

7. On behalf of it’s membership, the organisation fully support the introduction of GNSS procedures at LJLA.

The Airport responded by thanking the organisation for their support and checked that there were no further comment they wished to make as it was one of the first set of comments received.

8. I don’t represent any organisation; I am not offering any official comments. I do, however, think this is the way forward and therefore support the proposal.

The Airport responded by thanking the organisation for their support and checked that there were no further comment they wished to make as it was one of the first set of comments received.

9. Noted the face to face meeting and additional information provided concluding that the proposal for GNSS will have negligible impact in terms of existing air quality and noise levels. The proposal has been shared with

who will contact you directly if they require further information.

The Airport responded by thanking the organisation for their time for the face to face meeting and enquired towards the end of the consultation process if any members had got back in touch with them.

10. Although a member of NATMAC,

mean that I have no remit to comment on airspace consultations so I can’t provide you with anything. Our mandate is simply to

not to comment on airspace change per se.

The Airport responding thanking the organisation for their comments and enquired if they had an opinion on the role of GNSS overall contribution to the reduction of risks rather that LJLA proposal specifically.




11. Is there anything the Airport has missed concerning the introduction of GNSS compared to the ILS approach at LJLA?

These approaches are NPA but effectively replace a precision approach. It might be worth including a reference to the EU-OPS 1.430(d) requirement for Continuous Final Descent technique to be flown. This would remind your overseas visitors (especially US) that “dive and drive” is not acceptable on safety and noise grounds.

The Airport thanked the representative for their participation in the LJLA GNSS Consultation and replied having reviewed EU Ops, we concur that such an inclusion would be beneficial, however, unfortunately due to airspace constraints such an approach is only feasible on runway 09.

12. I have no comments to make, I agree with GNSS in its entirety.

The Airport responded via email to thank them for their participation in the LJLA GNSS Consultation and confirming these were both the comments of the organisation and their personal comments.

13. The organisation supports the establishment of PBN procedures in general as enabling improvements in airspace efficiency under the FAS programme and also by facilitating the modernisation the UK’s conventional navigation infrastructure.

The Airport responded thanking the organisation via telephone for their participation in the LJLA GNSS Consultation.

14. The process highlighted that modelled impacts to the businesses and households in the County will be negligible. As a result, the organisation has no concerns or objections to raise to this proposal.

The Airport responded to thank them for their participation in the LJLA GNSS Consultation.

15. The proposal integrates well with the local ATC procedures and is fully endorsed by our organisation for implementation without alteration.

The Airport responded to thank them for their participation in the LJLA GNSS Consultation.

16. The GNSS proposal, as presented, represents improvements in public and passenger safety and also enhances the efficient operation of the airport. For these reasons the investment being made in LJLA through the GNSS proposal is welcomed. The organisation, therefore, has no objections to the GNSS proposal and is supportive of these improvements.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their contribution to the consultation and noted that the addition of this approach provides an extra level of resilience for the airport operation as it provides another option when the ILS is not available without having to rely on NDB or surveillance radar approaches.





It will positively impact our flight operations, having a backup approach to 09 & 27, easier and safer than SRA & Visual approaches.

If you believe that there will be an increased environmental impact of the GNSS procedures, please explain what they are and how they should be mitigated?

Having operated many RNAV/GNSS approaches that are “ILS Overlays”, there is zero difference to an ILS in practical terms.

Your view is important to us therefore do you have any other comments or suggestions on the LJLA GNSS proposal?

Our organisation supports the introduction of the GNSS Approaches; we advocate and encourage all of our airports to have them.

The Airport responded and thanked the participant for their support and contribution to the consultation.

22. I have no concerns regarding your proposal to introduce GNSS approaches at LJLA as depicted in the consultation documents, providing there is no increase of controlled airspace.

The Airport thanked the NATMAC member for their participation in the LJLA GNSS consultation.


It is beneficial to us to be able to GNSS approaches at Liverpool.

Is there anything the Airport has missed concerning the introduction of GNSS compared to the ILS approach at LJLA?

Seems to be thorough in terms of consideration of environmental impacts, etc.

Your view is important to us therefore do you have any other comments or suggestions on the LJLA GNSS proposal?

Very positive move for Liverpool Airport

Although the GNSS will be there primarily as a contingency it is understood and accepted that pilots will need to train and maintain their recency on such approaches.

The Airport thanked the GA representative for their participation in the LJLA GNSS consultation.




24. Our organisation strongly supports the introduction of the proposed GNSS Final Approach procedures at Liverpool John Lennon Airport for the following reasons:

RNAV (GNSS) approach is a significant improvement in safety where non-precision approach is required. It allows full use of the automation of our

fleet enabling the approach to be flown in the same way as an ILS approach.

It provides an efficient non-precision approach for runway 09. The current SRA is inefficient and carries a higher risk both in safety and successful outcome.

It allows the approach to be flown as a Continuous Descent Final Approach which reduces noise and emissions.

It supports efficient specifications for future aircraft orders and allows a move away from obsolete equipment such as ADF.

It provides a platform for future improvements in instrument approach based on satellite augmentation and relieves the reliance on ground based equipment.

The Airport thanked the representative for their participation in the LJLA GNSS consultation and support for its implementations.

25. In terms of change to the flight paths, the proposed change will only have a minimal impact on the cross sectional area of the area that is within our jurisdiction.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the GNSS consultation and for confirming that the matter was discuss at your meeting on the .

26.1 Any views that we might have on your proposal will be included in the response from .

The Airport called to check if any comments would be coming from The

and to check what the acronym. It was confirm that comments were very unlikely.

1 This response has not been included in the number of responses, noting that DAATM did not respond.




27. recognises that the Civil Aviation Act exempts aircraft noise from statutory nuisance provisions; however we will continue to act in the best interest of our residents. We accept that GNSS, if used as an additional tool to optimise the final approach, is unlikely to have a detrimental effect, providing the routes remain the same.

The council supports any measures that minimise noise and reduce emissions. We would welcome a review of all such systems, including GNSS, the ILS to ensure that these are optimised on all approaches and runways, where possible.

The Airport thanked the representative for participating in the LJLA GNSS Consultation.

The Airport offered the mobile Noise Monitoring Terminal (NMT) to be installed at an agreed location to work together and do some noise monitoring before and after the potential implementation of the new GNSS approaches.

28. Our organisation firmly believes that change is necessary to improve UK airspace, with the aim of making it safer and more efficient while mitigating the impact of aviation on the environment. Thus, the use of technological advances such as RNAV should be encouraged, provided the implementation is carried out in a controlled and thoughtful manner.

However, we would like to highlight a point in the proposal booklet that could be considered misleading as aircraft will continue to be to be vectored to intercept the RNAV approach at the IF or FAF. The multiplicity of paths might reduce to a certain extent but it will not be a single path.

Finally, in order to provide a safe ATC service, it must be ensured that proper training is provided whenever changes are introduced. We are in favour of the proposed new final approach procedures.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation and noted in line with the CAP725 and as part of our safety management protocols a detailed supplementary instruction has been prepared to support the introduction of RNAV approaches together with an appropriate training plan that covers both theoretical and practical elements, the latter element of training being achieved through the use of our approach radar simulator.

With reference to your observation regarding multiplicity of paths, we agree with your comment however did not perceive such an inference from the consultation brochure as we had established a clear association with the proposed RNAV approaches to that of the existing ILS flight profiles through the continued reference to replication and the use of existing noise contour maps.

29. This is a much needed improvement and we welcome its introduction

The Airport thanked the representative for their organisations contribution to the LJLA GNSS consultation




30. If proposed GNSS will mean the loss of ILS/DME it will impact on . The main concern is the loss of ILS/DME and NDB/DME approaches. If a dual system is proposed – no problems.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation and explained its or intention to retain the existing ILS procedures as the primary method of approach. As the NDB supports missed approaches both ILS and GNSS approaches in addition to a standalone approach there are no current plans to remove the "LPL". The approach does not incorporate LPV only LNAV/VNAV and LNAV only.

32. There does not appear to be any significant impact on our residents concerning local air quality or noise exposure.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their comments and offered to work together on before and after noise benchmarking monitoring.

33. The introduction of the GNSS system would have little impact on the environment or on residents of the borough and would also provide an alternative to aid safe landing at the airport should the other methods be unavailable and with this in mind our organisation would support the introduction of the GNSS system.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation.

36. We have looked at the GNSS consultation and we are happy with the proposal and do not believe it will have a negative impact on our residents.

The Airport thanked the organisation for their participation in the consultation.

It should be noted that the numbering is not sequential as this reflects consultees submission who only answered “no” and did not make any comment, a response was issued thanking them for their participation but has not been included above.



5.5 Appendix E – LACC & NMSC minutes

5.5.1 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (29 May 2015)

GNSS RNAV APPROACHES

Leon Gilmour informed the Committee about the potential introduction of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) at Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the possible associated consultation. He explained that GNSS was satellite navigation and it removed absolute reliance on ground based radar (ILS), using waypoints for aircraft to follow as they approached to land at the Airport. It had been previously called Random Navigation (RNAV) as it allowed a straight course which did not utilise waypoints. Any application of the system locally required liaison with adjacent airports. Stakeholders were being identified and the airport would commence a consultation, probably in Summer 2015, for 12 weeks. Members would be requested to identify people in their organisation and inform the Airport or Secretariat of their contact details for the consultation if they were not the person to consult with on this matter. The presentation and consultation leaflet are attached to these minutes. DECIDED: That (1) the presentation on GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) be received, and (2) Members report to the Secretariat with an identified contact for the consultation.

5.5.2 Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee (17 July 2015)

NEW GNSS APPROACH (CENTRE LINE) PROCEDURE

Members were informed about a proposed introduction of Global Navigation satellite System (GNSS) procedures at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The aim was to replicate the existing Instrument Landing System (ILS) centre line and glide path as closely as practical. The intention was for the GNSS procedures to be used as a contingency if the ILS was not available. Therefore it was likely to be used for less than 1% of aircraft movements. The GNSS procedures mean the aircraft use satellite information rather than being dependent upon ground based navigation systems and aids. It was like the satnav in a car. The flight patterns were unlikely to alter as Air Traffic Control will still vector aircraft (issuing headings) in the same way they did before. Liverpool Airport was undertaking a consultation exercise beginning on 22 July to conclude 14 October 2015, and all constituent bodies of the Noise Monitoring Sub-Committee would be contacted during the consultation. Members were asked to go back to their respective organisation to confirm that they were the right person to express their opinion or identify the right contact. The additional environmental impact was considered to be negligible for noise, CO2 and local air quality as the GNSS procedure was to replicate the existing ILS.



5.5.3 Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (11 September 2015)

NEW GNSS APPROACH (CENTRE LINE) PROCEDURE

Andrew Dutton, Environment Manager at Liverpool Airport, and Leon Gilmour updated the Committee on the consultation on the introduction of a backup system to the ground based Instrument Landing System for approaches to the Airport from around 9 miles. The consultation had involved face to face meetings with Councils closest to the Airport or under the flight path including Cheshire West and Chester, Warrington, Wirral, Liverpool and Flintshire. Their presentation slides are attached as Appendix B. Andrew Dutton encouraged members to respond to the Airport before 14 October 2015 if they were not the right person within their organisation to participate. Members had received the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) final approach leaflet before the meeting and a subsequent reminder. There would a future proposal to extend the use of the technology across the airspace of Northern England in the next few years as part of the NTCA (Northern Terminal Control Area) but this must not be confused with the GNSS consultation proposal. There was a discussion about light aircraft, which tended not to have the technology but the existing ILS system would remain in operation. DECIDED: That members to reply to the consultation to Andrew Dutton as soon as practical and before 14 October 2015.



5.6 Appendix F – GATCO, FOLA & AOPA releases



5.7 Appendix G – Flight Safety Committee Minutes (extract)

Liverpool John Lennon Airport

Flight Safety Committee Meeting 3 of 2015

The Cavern Suite

20th August 2015

MINUTES

RNAV approaches. Currently in the consultation process. We are not expecting any issues. Everyone is

working hard to bring forward the introduction date. Currently planned for March 2016, but we hope

to bring that forward. Have the GA Operator’s received a copy. Can everyone respond ASAP if they

haven’t already. GM Has sent this off to Aircraft Operations

5.8 Appendix H – GNSS Post Consultation Summary Report

(See CAP 725 – Appendix C, para 6, sub-para j)

The Post Consultation Summary Report has been attached as a separate document within the electronic submission package.

The hardcopy submission has been bound into the back of this report.

l j l a rnav (gnss) a r ert/eng/140602/7501 i 1 · document no: ert/eng/140602/7501 issue 1...

Documents