revised ats route structure over the irish sea · revised ats route structure over the irish sea...

Revised ATS route structure over the Irish Sea (Isle of Man and Antrim Sectors)

Airspace Change Proposal

Prepared by CPW

Peer-reviewed by JB

NATS Future ATM & Policy - Airspace Change Assurance Team

Issue 1.0

29th

March 2017

IOM & Antrim Airspace Change

Table of contents 2

References 4

1 Introduction 5

1.1 The Isle of Man and Antrim Airspace Sectors 5

2 Justification and Objectives 6

2.1 Justification 6

2.2 Objectives 6

2.3 PC Antrim 6

2.4 Alignment with the CAA’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) Principles 6

2.5 Enabler for network changes in Manchester TMA and Scottish TMA 6

3 Current Airspace 7

3.1 Description 7

3.2 Modernising the air route infrastructure 7

3.3 Revision of minimum radar separation 7

3.4 Traffic Figures & Aircraft Types for the year 2016 9

3.5 Traffic Forecasts 10

3.6 Operational Efficiency, Complexity, Delays & Choke Points 10

3.7 Environmental Issues 11

3.8 Safety 11

4 Proposed Airspace 12

4.1 Requirements 12

4.2 What Would Not Change Under the Proposal 12

4.3 What Would Change Under the Proposal 12

4.4 RNAV equipage 16

4.5 Route allocation 16

5 Impacts of Airspace Change 17

5.1 Net Impacts Summary for Proposed Routes 17

5.2 Noise, tranquillity, stakeholders on the ground, air quality, biodiversity 17

5.3 CO2 emissions & fuel burn 17

5.4 Delays to air traffic 18

5.5 General Aviation (GA) airspace users 18

5.6 Impact on Aviation Safety, including safety analyses and complexity. 18

5.7 Non-NATS Units Affected by the Proposal 19

5.8 IAA - UK-Ireland Functional Airspace Block (FAB) Partners 19

5.9 MoD including BAE Systems 19

5.10 Commercial Air Transport Impact & Consultation 19

Table of contents


5.11 Economic Impact 19

5.12 Sponsoring Unit Training Requirements 20

6 Analysis of options 21

6.1 Introduction 21

6.2 Design Principles and Envelope discussion 21

6.3 Design Options – General 21

6.4 Design Options - Direct Route Airspace 23

7 Airspace Description Requirement 25

8 Supporting Infrastructure & Resources 26

9 Operational Impact 27

10 Airspace & Infrastructure Requirements 28

11 Environmental Requirements 30

12 Appendix A: List of LoAs to update 37

13 Appendix B: List of Proposed Amendments to the AIP 38


Reference 1: Consultation Document.

Reference 2: Feedback Report

Reference 3: CAP725 CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process.

Reference 4: CAP1385 PBN Enhanced Route Spacing Guidance

Reference 5: Evidence supporting the use of CAP1385 in an en-route environment (to follow early April)

Reference 6: Evidence supporting the use of 2nm minimum CAS containment for RNAV1 environment

Reference 7: Project Safety Assurance and Human Factors Plan

Reference 8: Project Safety Hazard Identification and Human Error Safety Assurance Process

Reference 9: Route Design Analysis Report

Reference 10a, 10b, 10c:

(a) Environmental and ATC Conflict Fast-Time Sim analysis report (b) Delay cost analysis report (c) Benefits summary report, combining (a) and (b).

Reference 11: Airspace Design Definition ADD

Reference 12: Chart of the region (switchable layers)

Reference 13: Draft AIP submission (from standard CAA Excel sheet for WGS84 coordinate & bearing/distance validation)

Reference 14: Draft Training Plan

Reference 15: Air Traffic Project Safety Assessment APSA (to follow pre-implementation)

Reference 16: Report on RNAV1 coverage for the Irish Sea region

Reference 17: Validation Simulation Report (to follow early/mid-May)

Reference 18: Zip file of emails from senior aerodrome managers giving NATS permission to truncate certain STARs

References


NATS is proposing changes to the ATS route structure over the Irish Sea.

We propose to introduce a system of RNAV1 routes, for flights in the Isle of Man and Antrim Sectors of NATS’ Prestwick Area Control Centre. This is part of a phased delivery of a wider programme agreed with our customers under the NATS Long Term Investment Plan (LTIP).

By taking advantage of modern navigation performance known as RNAV1, routes can be spaced more closely than the legacy route structure which is based on VOR and NDB radio beacons. This will allow enhanced systemisation and enable more efficient use of the airspace.

We consulted with aviation stakeholders from 4th

July to 30th

August 2016 and made changes to the design based on their feedback (Refs 1 & 2).

If the proposal is approved by the CAA, implementation of the airspace change is planned for 09 Nov 2017.

1.1 The Isle of Man and Antrim Airspace Sectors

NATS Prestwick Centre (PC) manages all en-route air traffic in the northern half of the UK. The PC Isle of Man (IOM) sector of airspace handles much of the air traffic between Dublin and the UK/Europe, and also some of the UK’s transatlantic arrivals/departures. PC Antrim sector handles all traffic to/from Northern Ireland, and traffic routing from western Scotland/Scandinavia to Eire.

The current network is operating at capacity in the IOM sector. This proposal would provide additional capacity in the IOM sector, reducing the likelihood of delays in the region. It would also modernise this part of the network to take advantage of newer technology available on modern aircraft.

Figure 1 Prestwick Centre’s Isle of Man (FL45-FL285) and Antrim (FL45-FL255) sectors.

(Only the areas of PC IOM and PC Antrim sectors relevant to this proposal are shown.)

PC IOM and PC Antrim sectors lie beneath PC Rathlin, Swanwick Centre’s Sector 7 (SWN S7) and Sector 4 (SWN S4), these are not shown here due to chart complexity. There are also interfaces with the adjoining IAA Dublin and Shannon units, and other SWN/PC sectors.

PC Antrim

PC IOM

1 Introduction


2.1 Justification

Capacity limitations in the IOM sector often result in the application of short-term ATC measures1 (STAMs). A typical

example is where Dublin declares dual runway operations, which enables them to expedite first rotation departures. The majority of these departures route through IOM sector in the climb to cruising levels. This situation quickly leads to the IOM sector reaching maximum capacity, which then result in STAMs being required at Dublin.

If traffic continues to increase as forecast (or above), increasing levels of delay in the IOM sector are predicted.

NATS is obliged through its operating licence to ‘avail on a continuing basis any reasonable level of overall demand’ and it specifies this in terms of the provision of ‘core services’.

The delays justify the necessity to make changes to the airspace to increase ATC capacity.

2.2 Objectives

The current Monitor Value2 (MV) for the IOM sector is 43. The objective of this proposal is to increase this by 10%,

to 47. This would enable the region to operate with fewer flow restrictions being applied and hence less delay.

We would achieve this objective by:

a. Increasing the number of parallel east-west routes over the Irish Sea and the number of routes oriented northwest-southeast linking Northern Ireland and the mainland via the Isle of Man, increasing ATC capacity; and

b. Optimising the route spacing in accordance with updated guidance from the CAA taking advantage of modern navigation performance; and

We minimised the additional controlled airspace (CAS) required to contain these routes.

2.3 PC Antrim

PC Antrim interacts very closely with the adjacent PC IOM. The proposed route changes to PC Antrim are required to deliver the increased ATC capacity and improved Monitor Value in PC IOM. PC Antrim sector would naturally benefit, but the specific justification for the changes to Antrim remain the forecast delay reduction in the adjacent IOM sector.

2.4 Alignment with the CAA’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) Principles

A contiguous design of routes in these sectors would improve systemisation. Systemisation is the aim of most future airspace designs. The CAA’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) is the UK’s strategy for modernising the air route infrastructure.

2.5 Enabler for network changes in Manchester TMA and Scottish TMA

The proposed IOM & Antrim changes are part of the Prestwick Lower Airspace Systemisation (PLAS) programme of NATS LTIP changes. The changes described herein serve as an enabler for further changes planned to the ATS network in the Manchester and Scottish TMAs. These changes will bring further efficiencies across the network.

1 STAMs include Minimum Departure Intervals (MDIs), Miles in Trail (MIT), Airfield Reasonable Departure Separation (ARDS), Average Departure Interval (ADI), all of which are measures that can be applied to regulate the flow of traffic departing from airports. 2 Monitor Value is a guide value for the ATC supervisor. The greater the MV, the greater the hourly throughput of the sector under normal conditions, before the supervisor considers taking measures to regulate the anticipated flow.

2 Justification and Objectives


3.1 Description

The charts on the next page illustrate the current ATS route structure from a flight-planning point of view, and also how the airspace volume is currently used in practice.

Parallel routes are common in the ATS route network. PC IOM currently has a structure incorporating three east-west parallel ATS routes which are separated by 12nm (see Figure 2 on page 8 (U)L70, (U)L975 and (U)Y124).

Currently ATC uses these routes for flight planning and navigation. When climbing and descending, conflicting aircraft are often tactically vectored off two of the flight-plan ATS routes: (U)L70 and (U)L975, creating sets of offset parallel tracks within the existing CAS volumes (see Figure 3). Traffic using (U)Y124 is generally left on its own navigation. A similar structure occurs in the airspace between BEL VOR and WAL VOR, this is also managed tactically by ATC to increase efficiency (see Figure 3 on page 8).

This tactical vectoring requires the controller to be constantly monitoring the aircraft headings to ensure radar separation is maintained between all flights – a relatively intense task - but it makes far more efficient use of the available airspace. Parallel vectoring means more aircraft can be simultaneously climbed and descended to their desired levels than if all flights follow the centre of the ATS routes, in trail.

The proposal would provide the greater efficiency of systemised parallel routes. By using systemised routes rather than vectoring, controller workload will be reduced which will in turn reduce the likelihood of error and increase the capacity of the airspace.

In order to achieve this objective two things are required: modernising the air route infrastructure, and revising the minimum radar separation.

3.2 Modernising the air route infrastructure

As per the consultation document and feedback report, we propose to establish RNAV1 routes in this region, with updates to CAS volumes at the same time (a small increase in Class C CAS is required in a non-contentious region).

Most commercial aircraft already have the ability to conform to RNAV1. The equipage rate for aircraft which are RNAV1 capable in the IOM sector is currently 94%

3. The CAA’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS)

4 also recommends

that the ATS route network is improved, to take advantage of available technology such as RNAV1.

3.3 Revision of minimum radar separation

In order to comply with CAP1385 requirements, PC implemented 3nm radar separation5 on the 2

nd March 2017.

Specifically for this proposal, 3nm radar separation applies in the IOM sector up to FL285, and in the Antrim sector up to FL255.

MATS Part 2 procedures ensure appropriate separation is maintained during the transition between 3nm and 5nm environments, and adjacent ANSPs/non-PC sectors.

3 NATS PBN equipage survey Jan-Feb 2017, % of airframes for flights through the IOM sector. 4 Civil Aviation Authority, Future Airspace Strategy for the United Kingdom 2011 to 2030 www.caa.co.uk/FAS 5 Between PC controllers under specified conditions in specified areas (details not included here).

3 Current Airspace


Figure 2 IOM and Antrim existing RNAV5 routes & CAS

Figure 3 IOM and Antrim existing tactical vectoring system used by controllers


3.4 Traffic Figures & Aircraft Types for the year 2016

The following data tables describe the aircraft types using the existing RNAV5 ATS routes within the region.

The tables below detail the most frequent aircraft types using each route. The aircraft types covering 90% or more of the flights using each route are shown.

(U)L70 UNDUX-BAGSO (U)L975 LIFFY-LYNAS

63847 flights in 2016 74998 flights in 2016

AC Type Count Percent AC Type Count Percent

B738 22257 34.9% B738 24692 32.9%

A320 9805 15.4% A320 12578 16.8%

AT76 3765 5.9% AT76 4081 5.4%

B763 2877 4.5% B763 3630 4.8%

A321 2193 3.4% A332 3032 4.0%

A332 2149 3.4% A321 2752 3.7%

A333 1944 3.0% A333 2432 3.2%

RJ85 1901 3.0% B77W 2381 3.2%

B77W 1574 2.5% B744 2134 2.8%

B752 1496 2.3% B752 1899 2.5%

B744 1460 2.3% B772 1527 2.0%

B772 988 1.5% A319 1449 1.9%

B788 926 1.5% B788 1389 1.9%

E170 803 1.3% DH8D 690 0.9%

E190 765 1.2% B764 661 0.9%

A319 756 1.2% RJ85 648 0.9%

B764 658 1.0% B77L 628 0.8%

DH8D 643 1.0% E190 551 0.7%

B77L 516 0.8% E170 529 0.7%

Figure 4 Current traffic types by route: (U)L70, (U)L975

(U)Y124 DEXEN-LUTIP P6 REMSI-NELBO



A320 5275 36.3% A319 5609 41.9% B738 4924 33.9% A320 2924 21.9% A321 789 5.4% B738 1317 9.8% A319 625 4.3% B733 1148 8.6% B752 573 3.9% B734 425 3.2% B763 542 3.7% F70 291 2.2%

B734 464 3.2% E170 262 2.0%

B762 232 1.7%

Figure 5 Current traffic types by route: (U)Y124, P6


L10 NW-bound FL255- via KELLY L10 SE-bound FL255- via KELLY

23121 flights in 2016 307 flights in 2016 (see also Figure 7)


DH8D 10340 44.7% BN2T 154 50.2%

A319 3204 13.9% PA31 32 10.4%

AT75 2853 12.3% DA42 19 6.2%

SB20 1041 4.5% BE20 10 3.3%

A320 848 3.7% A319 7 2.3%

ATP 593 2.6% C310 7 2.3%

L410 561 2.4% ATP 6 2.0%

E170 381 1.6% DH8D 5 1.6%

BE20 332 1.4% A332 4 1.3%

PA31 327 1.4% C130 4 1.3%

B738 260 1.1% F406 4 1.3%

A306 258 1.1% A320 3 1.0%

B763 3 1.0%

PC12 3 1.0%

A310 2 0.7%

B733 2 0.7%

B77W 2 0.7%

BE40 2 0.7%

C208 2 0.7%

C56X 2 0.7%

Figure 6 Current traffic types by route: L10 FL255-, split by direction of flight*

*Note that this is L10 traffic SE-bound excluding EGNS departures, due to a quirk in the data tool. See below right for EGNS departures via L10 SE-bound.

(U)L15 PEPOD-SOSIM EGNS departures via L10 (SE-bound)



DH8D 9983 32.5% AT75 2845 32.0%

A319 8828 28.7% L410 1614 18.2%

A320 4632 15.1% A319 1148 12.9%

B738 2072 6.7% SB20 1034 11.6%

B733 1301 4.2% C310 348 3.9%

E170 515 1.7% ATP 284 3.2%

B734 441 1.4% DH8D 278 3.1%

E170 130 1.5%

BE20 120 1.4%

PA31 120 1.4%

AT76 99 1.1%

AT72 96 1.1%

Figure 7 Current traffic types by route: (U)L15, and SE-bound EGNS departures via L10

3.5 Traffic Forecasts

The traffic using each route in these sectors (the “count” columns, para 3.4 above) is forecast to increase as follows:

2016 (source data) to 2018 (first full year of implementation): 2016 + 4.8%* 2016 (source data) to 2023 (implementation +5 years): 2016 + 17.1%*

* NATS 2016 Base Case Traffic Forecast.

3.6 Operational Efficiency, Complexity, Delays & Choke Points

See para 2.1 for capacity limitation in IOM sector. See para 2.2 for objectives on Monitor Value. See para 3.1 for use of manual tactically-vectored parallel routes in the region.


3.7 Environmental Issues

As per the consultation document para 6.2 (Ref 1), we aim to match the proposed route structure to the current vectoring system, thereby reducing controller workload and thus increasing capacity.

The lengths of tracks flown by aircraft using the proposed route structure are likely to be comparable to the lengths of tracks flown by aircraft using the original (current) route structure. However they will be doing so in a more systemised way, and the flight plans will be a closer reflection of the actual route of flight.

The consultation feedback report (Ref 2) para 4.1 discusses feedback from Dublin-based operators regarding the costs of a small increase in flight plan fuel burn vs the benefits of a reduction in delays.

See paragraph 5.3 on page 17 for details of the environmental impacts of the proposal.

3.8 Safety

There are no specific safety issues that this proposal is attempting to solve, but we are reducing controller workload to allow for increased capacity.

See paragraph 5.6 on page 18 for safety details for this proposal.


4.1 Requirements

› Maintain or improve the level of safety in the affected and neighbouring sectors;

› Reduce ATC workload (per flight);

› Increase sector capacity (measured by sector monitor value);

› Minimise additional controlled airspace required for changes (minimal impact on GA);

› Have negligible/no impact on military operations.

4.2 What Would Not Change Under the Proposal

Existing RNAV5 routes would remain in place, but operators will be encouraged to file the RNAV1 routes via RAD restrictions.

4.3 What Would Change Under the Proposal

See maps at Figure 8 and Figure 9 below. This proposal would:

› introduce four parallel RNAV1 routes over the Irish Sea between Wallasey (WAL) and Dublin; two eastbound and two westbound split by a tactical vectoring area, mimicking the current vectoring practice (see Feedback Report para 5.1);

› introduce five RNAV1 routes in the current airspace volume between WAL and Belfast (BEL), also mimicking the current vectoring practice (see Feedback Report para 5.1);

› introduce four RNAV1 link routes to ensure network connectivity is maintained or improved (see Feedback Report para 5.3);

› extend existing ATS route Y124 and adjust existing ATS route Q4 to improve network connectivity (see Feedback Report para 5.3);

› make minor amendments at high FLs to the STARs for Manchester, Liverpool, London City, Luton, Stansted and Southend airports, to align with the proposed routes (see Feedback Report para 5.3);

› simplify the CAS definitions & arrangements in the region (see Feedback Report para 5.2); and

› require a small strip of additional CAS over the Irish Sea as consulted upon (at least 15nm from any land and none below FL75).

4 Proposed Airspace


Figure 8 Proposed RNAV1 routes with additional CAS strip highlighted

New controlled airspace

LISTO

Y124 extended to LISTO for STAR connectivity

NUGRA

Z196 link added for additional connectivity

to NW from the E

TRA004


Figure 9 Draft schematic of proposed route usage


Figure 10 Proposed CAS arrangements (up to FL195)

Class D

Class E TMZ

EGNS CTR/CTA Class D beneath en-route CAS(no change)

Class C

Class E TMZ beneath Class C


4.4 RNAV equipage

The equipage rate for aircraft which are RNAV1 capable in the IOM sector is currently 94%6.

RNAV5 aircraft would flight-plan the existing RNAV5 routes and would be monitored by ATC to ensure radar separation is maintained from all other traffic.

Restrictions would apply to the retained RNAV5 routes in order to reduce the overall complexity of the network.

4.5 Route allocation

The draft flight-plan route allocation is shown on Figure 9 on page 14.

This route allocation system would not preclude controllers from vectoring flights, or from giving “tactical directs”, if they perceive an advantage in flexibility or efficiency.

The overall requirement for vectoring would, however, be reduced, so the IOM sector capacity would increase.

In accordance with the principle of “best-equipped, best-served” RNAV1 capable aircraft will be best served by flight-planning the RNAV1 routes. Level restrictions will be in place on the RNAV5 routes, and flight planning systems will default to flight plan RNAV1 aircraft on the RNAV1 routes. There will be no advantage to RNAV1 aircraft filing on RNAV5 routes, and this will be discouraged.

See also the Airspace Design Definition (ADD, Ref 11).

6 NATS PBN equipage survey Jan-Feb 2017 based on % airframes using PC IOM sector.


5.1 Net Impacts Summary for Proposed Routes

Category Impact Evidence

Safety/Complexity Systemisation of route structure leads to conflict reduction of 53% (IOM sector) and 35% (Antrim sector)

See Para 5.6

Capacity/Delay

Increased MV by 10%

Reduce total forecast delay by 100,000+ minutes per year (2023) compared with do-nothing.

Reduced likelihood of STAM until 2021/22.

See Para 5.4

Fuel Efficiency/CO2

System average 3.0kg/flight fuel disbenefit (2018)

System average 3.3kg/flight fuel disbenefit (2023)

Most affected individual route disbenefit 11kg/flight

See Para 5.3

Noise – Leq/SEL No impact See Para 5.2

Tranquillity, visual intrusion

(AONBs & National Parks)

No impact See Para 5.2

Local Air Quality No impact See Para 5.2

Other Airspace Users Minimal impact See Paras 5.5, 5.8, & 5.9

Table 1: Net Impacts Summary

5.2 Noise, tranquillity, stakeholders on the ground, air quality, biodiversity

Under this proposal, all changes to flight-paths would be above FL75 (the majority would be above FL170). The great majority of the affected airspace is over the Irish Sea. The routes cross land at the following points (see Figure 8 on page 13):

The northern edge of Anglesey (this route is 2nm south of the existing RNAV5 route, typically aircraft would be FL170 or higher).

The south & central Isle of Man (the new routes mimic the current vectoring patterns, typically aircraft would be FL170 or higher).

In the mainland area roughly bounded by WAL-AMPIT-NUGRA-LISTO, extended or amended routes are mostly FL150+ except Z197’s lowest useable FL90 within the busy MTMA.

Therefore we assess that there would be no noticeable noise or visual intrusion impact to stakeholders on the ground in these areas, no changes to local air quality, and no direct impact on flora, fauna or biodiversity due to the height of the proposed changes.

5.3 CO2 emissions & fuel burn

This proposal aims to systemise the route structure and make it similar to the current vectoring system, reducing controller workload and thus increasing capacity. Systemising the routes would reduce the difference between the flightplanned track and the actual track flown. This has the effect of causing some flightplan routes to slightly increase or decrease in length to more accurately reflect the likely actual track. Consequently, the predictability of fuel uplift for this portion of the route is improved.

In response to the consultation, some Dublin-based operators focused on the increase in proposed track lengths. As a result, these Dublin-based operators provided negative feedback on the basis of there being a small increase in flightplan fuel uplift. Users flight planning the proposed route M145 (Dublin jet arrivals) would typically be required to uplift an extra 11kg of fuel per flight. Other routes would benefit, including Dublin jet departures, whilst the reduction in complexity (quantified by calculated reduction in ATC conflicts) decreases greatly (see para 5.6). The Feedback Report para 4.1 (Ref 2) compared predicted costs due to additional fuel uplift with the benefit of reduced delays. See para 5.11 on page 19 for an updated prediction of these costs.

Excluding the benefits of reduced delays, overall there would be a fuel disbenefit, summarised as:

2018 increased fuel uplift 519T Ref 10a,c 2023 increased fuel uplift 633T Ref 10a,c

Note that flightplan fuel uplift does not necessarily translate into an actual increase in fuel burnt.

5 Impacts of Airspace Change


5.4 Delays to air traffic

The objective of this proposal is to systemise the proposed route structure by mimicking the current vectoring system. This will reduce controller workload and hence reduce the requirement for STAM flow regulations, allowing for the Monitor Value (MV) of the IOM sector to increase by 10%.

See also paragraph 2.2 on page 6 and Feedback Report para 4.1 (Ref 2).

The delay predictions from the Feedback Report (Ref 2) have been updated. If this proposal was implemented, we predict minimal delays in the region until 2021/22.

For this para, the results of delays and costs avoided (compared to the “do nothing” scenario) summarise as:

Year Delay minutes avoided Cost avoided Refs

2018 7,081 £290k Ref 10b,c

2023 108,827 £5.8m Ref 10b,c

Total over 5yrs 2018-23

266,051 £13.8m Ref 10b,c

5.5 General Aviation (GA) airspace users

The location and altitude of the proposed additional CAS (over the Irish Sea, FL75+ with the majority FL115+) means these proposed changes would have minimal impact on GA/VFR stakeholders.

5.6 Impact on Aviation Safety, including safety analyses and complexity.

The main design principle behind this proposal was to reduce manual ATC vectoring (hence complexity), allowing greater capacity for the same controller workload. See para 2.2 for the objectives, para 3.1 for how the current airspace is managed, para 4.3 for how the region would change, and para 6.2 for the design principles of this proposal.

Safety plan, information and analysis

(Refs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15.)

Ensuring the safety of proposed changes is a NATS priority. The proposal has been developed, and will be implemented in accordance with, NATS safety management systems. See the Project Safety Assurance and Human Factors Plan (Ref 7), the Project Safety Hazard Identification and Human Error Safety Assurance Process (Ref 8) and the APSA (Ref 15, supplied pre-implementation).

The Route Design Analysis Report RDAR (Ref 9) demonstrates compliance with CAP1385 (Ref 4) and also contains a total design risk calculation.

Compliance with CAP1385 (Ref 4) is relevant in the en-route environment. As recommended in CAP1385, assessment has been made of the increased altitude on the nominal navigation performance and the potential impact on route spacing. The assessment was made by the NATS “PBN High Level High Speed” trial (Ref 5) which specifically investigated the track keeping performance of aircraft at higher altitudes and speeds. The conclusion of this trial was:

“altitude and speed do not affect conformance to RNAV1 PBN straight leg routes and that the existing theoretical distribution for straight leg deviations is suitable for use in a high-level high-speed environment as well as in low level terminal airspace for a typical UK fleet mix.”

Hence in accordance with CAP1385 and the additional evidence provided by the HL-HS trial, the proposed route separations have been deemed to exceed the requirements for minimum route separation. The minimum CAS containment required for this proposal is 2.5nm, in order to reduce the volume of airspace required. Typically 3nm is the norm according to the CAA Controlled Airspace Containment Policy (Jan 2014). We have provided evidence that RNAV1 routes are safe using 2nm CAS containment (Ref 6). In due course NATS will propose to the CAA that 2nm becomes the norm for RNAV1 routes, and will request an update to the containment policy (outwith this proposal).

Safety representatives from SARG have had oversight of the safety assurance process.

Conflict analysis

A fast-time simulation was carried out, comparing conflicts generated by the baseline airspace with those generated by the proposed structure, for forecast 2019 traffic levels.


PC IOM’s conflicts decreased by 53%, PC Antrim’s conflicts decreased by 35%. This is a significant complexity benefit, leading to improved capacity as per the objectives of this proposal. See Ref 10a para 4.2 for details.

5.7 Non-NATS Units Affected by the Proposal

The IAA’s Shannon and Dublin units were engaged (see para 5.8 below), as was the MoD and BAE Systems Warton (see para 5.9 below).

Isle Of Man Ronaldsway Airport was also engaged and had no objection.

Airports where STARs would change/truncate at high level were also notified of the proposed change and had no objection (Manchester, Liverpool, London City, Luton, Stansted, Southend).

5.8 IAA - UK-Ireland Functional Airspace Block (FAB) Partners

NATS’ UK-Ireland FAB partners the IAA were identified as a key stakeholder in the proposed changes, as PC IoM sector has a direct interface to both the IAA’s Shannon and Dublin units. The IAA has contributed to design workshops and simulations to ensure that the impact of the designs does not detrimentally impact the FAB airspace.

During consultation, the IAA stated that some of their Dublin-based customers had raised concerns regarding additional costs this proposal might have on their operation (see para 4.1 of the feedback report Ref 2), and that there could be issues caused by changing the presentation of westbound traffic.

Following engagement with the IAA we have mitigated their concerns regarding presentation of traffic. We acknowledge the comments of the IAA’s customers as per para 5.3, which led to the IAA’s reservations about the impact this proposal could have. We are continuing to work with the IAA on interface agreements using the modified design proposed in this document, mitigating impacts as far as reasonably possible.

At the request of the IAA the proposed route structure interfaces with the existing arrival transitions and SIDs at Dublin, hence there are no changes to the COPs at the FIR boundary (see para 6.3.2 re Dublin’s proposed new parallel runway and associated implications).

5.9 MoD including BAE Systems

The MoD (DAATM) and BAE Systems Warton were identified early on as the stakeholders having the most interest in these changes due to their operations in this area. There was pre-engagement with these stakeholders (see Feedback Report para 2.1 Ref 2).

Extract from MoD (DAATM SO3) letter, our ref NTMAC26-1:

Having reviewed the stakeholder consultation document, dated June 2016, the MOD has no objections to the implementation of RNAV 1 systemised procedures or the additional airspace proposed to facilitate these routes.

Extract from BAE Systems letter, our ref NTMAC03-1:

Providing NATS can assure Warton that it can manage Warton’s entry into the airspace, and that the Unit has autonomy within it, we do not object to the proposal.

Both the MoD and BAE Systems queried the proposed upgraded classification of Y911 to C. That upgrade has been deleted from the final proposal, which would remain Class E TMZ.

5.10 Commercial Air Transport Impact & Consultation

Most commercial air transport operators supported or had no objection to the proposal.

As per para 5.3 above, some Dublin-based operators fed back concerns that the proposed airspace arrangement would cause increased costs to their operation. This concern was answered in the Feedback Report para 4.1 (Ref 2), which compared the predicted small increases in fuel uplift with the benefit of reduced delays. See next para for more details.

5.11 Economic Impact

The Feedback Report para 4.1 (Ref 2) contained a table for forecasts regarding predicted delay avoidance vs potential fuel costs with respect to Dublin operators.

This has been updated for the ACP, for 2018 (first full year of operation) and 2023 (five years after implementation).

The Benefits Summary report Ref 10c combines and summarises the more detailed evidence in Ref 10a and Ref 10b.


Whilst Dublin arrivals in particular would accrue additional fuel costs per flight of 11kg, this is partly mitigated by other routes in the proposed structure (eastbound), and also greatly outweighed by the benefits of systemisation i.e. reduced complexity/conflicts leading to fewer delays.

Over the five years 2018-2023 the predicted net benefit of delay cost avoidance vs additional fuel cost would accumulate to c.£12m.

5.12 Sponsoring Unit Training Requirements

See Ref 14 for draft training plan.


6.1 Introduction

The NATS model for end-to-end airspace design is characterised by steps, starting with ‘design principles’, through ‘design envelopes’ and finally to specific route alignments.

Each step reduces the number of options whilst increasing the detailed understanding of those options that move through to the next stage. The finalised design proposed here is the result of the refinement of the options.

6.2 Design Principles and Envelope discussion

CAS volumes in part of the region are being redefined as specified CTAs rather than based on widths of ATS routes (CAA AIC Yellow Y068/2016 refers), and much of the region is being converted from Class A to Class C.

CAS containment has been designed to 3nm in general and 2.5nm in specific places. Evidence supplied by NATS Analytics (referenced in paragraph 5.6) shows that 2nm containment would be acceptable under RNAV1 conditions for this proposal. (A parallel review of CAS Containment Policy for RNAV1 routes is ongoing. This piece of evidence will form part of NATS’ basis for requesting a permanent change to the CAA Containment Policy Statement).

The proposed routes have been designed in accordance with the CAA PBN enhanced route spacing guidance in a terminal environment (CAP1385) using a minimum radar separation (MRS) of 3nm. Further supporting evidence supplied by NATS Analytics (referenced in paragraph 5.6 on page 18) shows that the spacings defined in CAP1385 can be expanded to include the en-route high speed high level environment.

The design takes into account the constraints of the neighbouring sectors, where flights have an MRS of 5nm. Sector procedures will ensure safe, efficient interactions when transiting between sectors. These have been based on current-day vectoring practices with the proposed aircraft flows being positioned in the same general areas as today.

Flight planning rules will ensure that aircraft are flight planned to follow the appropriate route, and each route will keep aircraft separated safely when they are established on the parallel sections. ATC will continue to monitor the traffic flows but intervention will be required much less often.

The current RNAV5 routes will need to remain because they provide flight-planning connectivity for non-RNAV1-capable aircraft within the region.

The overlying Swanwick Sector 7 and the IAA’s Shannon sector have 5nm radar separation environments. Hence (for example) traffic climbing from IOM into SWN S7 will transition from MRS 3nm to MRS 5nm. For this reason the proposed eastbound routes, Q36 & Q37, are spaced 5.5nm apart since traffic on these routes will typically climb into the overlying sector. The route spacing has been optimised to take account of the differing radar separation standards, ensuring that transfer to the next sector would always give at least the required 5nm radar separation.

Likewise on the proposed westbound routes M144 & M145, aircraft will often be descending from SWN S7 MRS 5nm into the MRS 3nm of IOM. So these routes are separated by 5nm.

Flexible Central Tactical Vectoring Area concept

The central tactical track allows for the airspace to be systemised for the majority of traffic, but will allow for vectoring flexibility when required. This is the first piece of en-route RNAV1 “systemised airspace” in the UK, however it is still completely surrounded by non-systemised airspace, and includes a small proportion of traffic which is not yet RNAV1-capable. As the wider network is optimised and systemised over time, the need for tactical vectoring will diminish, however in the near term a degree of tactical intervention will be essential. Aircraft will continue to be monitored by ATC to ensure separation.

6.3 Design Options – General

6.3.1 Do nothing (rejected)

In the short term, fuel use for Dublin arrivals would not increase as it would under the proposed systemised structure (see para 5.3 on page 17).

However, in the longer term delays would build up as para 5.4 on page 18.

These delay costs rapidly outweigh the fuel disbenefit over the next five years, hence doing nothing was rejected.

6 Analysis of options


6.3.2 New Coordination points (COPs) at UK/Ireland FIR boundary (rejected)

The current route structure links to the coordination points (COPs) BAGSO and LIFFY at the UK/Ireland FIR boundary. New COPs had been considered, as has using current COP BOYNE in a different way, however the IAA has requested that the proposed IOM routes terminate at COPs BAGSO and LIFFY so that the Dublin SIDs & STARs will be unchanged. When the planned Dublin new parallel runway is brought into service, provisionally in 2021, the SIDs & STARs for Dublin will be changed, and at that time it is proposed to introduce more COPs and review the interface with the IOM routes, potentially changing the use of current COP BOYNE.

6.3.3 CAS containment options (3nm and 2.5nm progressed, 2nm rejected)

Variations of the minimum CAS containment have been considered. The first is based on the extant minimum CAS containment, i.e. 3nm distance between the outer-most route centre-line and the edge of CAS. This requires a greater overall volume of CAS, however it is in line with extant CAA guidelines. 3nm containment has been used for all new routes except to the NE of P6 in the Antrim sector, where this would require an additional 0.5nm wide strip of CAS to accommodate the proposed M148.

In order to avoid adding this 0.5nm fillet, 2.5nm CAS containment is the preferred option in this area. See Design Principles paragraph 6.2 on page 21.

6.3.4 Closer route spacing, to CAP1385 minima (rejected)

If the absolute minimum route separations as described in CAP1385 were used between the routes, the routes could be spaced slightly closer together. The reason for choosing 5nm/5.5nm spacing is due to the transitions between MRS 3nm and MRS 5nm as discussed in the Design Principles paragraph 6.2 on page 21.

This design option for route separations of significantly less than 5nm was therefore not progressed.

6.3.5 Place RNAV1 route(s) coincident with original RNAV5 routes (partially progressed)

One option considered involved overlaying the IOM sector’s extant RNAV5 routes (L975 and L70) with RNAV1 routes, and inserting two new RNAV1 routes between them. This would require that the minimum route spacing as per CAP1385 were utilised. This option was not progressed for the reasons in 6.3.4 above.

However in the proposed route structure the existing IOM RNAV5 route L70 would be partly overlaid with a new RNAV1 route (M144), and the Antrim RNAV5 route L15 would be partly overlaid with a new RNAV1 route (Q38). It is possible to have coincident route segments (with different designators) using the same waypoints, one RNAV5 and the other RNAV1.

Hence whilst we are not seeking to overlay all the RNAV5 routes with RNAV1 routes, there are two instances of this in the proposed design.

6.3.6 Additional airspace south of L975 (rejected)

One option considered extending the airspace to the south of L975. This was discounted due to the impact on military operations in the North Wales Military Training Area (NWMTA).

6.3.7 Airspace Classification (Class C favoured over Class A)

PC IOM is currently a mix of Class C (at all levels) and Class A (below FL195). PC Antrim is a mix of Class C (above FL195), and Classes E, D and A (below FL195).

These CAS volumes are all defined in UK AIP ENR3.1 via ATS routes, airway widths, intersections and complex additional volumes.

We propose that, within the region covered by PC IOM and PC Antrim SE of the IOM VOR:

ATS-route Class A definitions are changed to Class C in UK AIP ENR3.1;

Matching Class C CTAs are established, defined in UK AIP ENR2.1 (incorporating the additional 3nm fillet) so that, in time, CAS defined by ATS routes can be withdrawn leaving the CTAs in place, with ATS route centrelines moving to UK AIP ENR3.3;

Matching Class D CTAs are established, unchanged in extents from today for the same reason, except for minor modifications to Strangford CTAs; and

The complex confluence of Classes A C, D and E TMZ in the vicinity of BOYNE and IOM VOR would be simplified.

Changing the classification of Y911 from Class E TMZ to Class C was consulted upon, considered but discounted (see Feedback Report para 4.57).

See Figure 10 on page 15 for overview. See chart Ref 12, selecting appropriate layers.


6.4 Design Options - Direct Route Airspace

Currently, when aircraft transition between DRA airspace and lower airspace (using the Belfast TMA) they file direct (DCT) routes to enable a continuous flight planned climb or descent.

This flight planning technique works well within the current airspace network.

To fully utilise the proposed structure, aircraft need to be flying on the RNAV1 route and not on DCTs even if they are coincidental, as the aircraft could be flying to an unknown navigation standard. This issue has a greater effect on Belfast TMA inbounds as it has the potential to increase either the fuel uplift for aircraft by forcing early descent onto the proposed structure, or to not take full advantage of the systemised route spacing. The following options are possibilities to reduce/negate this:

6.4.1 Replicate the current DCTs (rejected)

Replicate the REMSI DCT NELBO with a REMSI DCT LIMKA (M146) and a DCT from REMSI to UVPOK and then ROBOP (M147).

It would eliminate the systemisation for the equivalent routes (M146/M147)

6.4.2 Introduce DCTs for the shortest allowable time/distance (rejected)

Introduce REMSI DCT NINEB (M146) and REMSI DCT UVPOK (M147).

It would create a fuel disbenefit as aircraft would have to plan on being at FL250 by NINEB and UVPOK which is too low, especially for BTMA easterly operations. This would, however, allow the aircraft to use the systemised routes after NINEB/UVPOK and take advantage of the reduced route spacing earlier than in option 1 & 3.

6.4.3 Introduce middle distance DCTs (rejected)

Introduce REMSI DCT NINEB DCT IDGAS (M146) and REMSI DCT UVPOK DCT MATUT (M147)

Whilst allowing for more efficient flight planning, there is no flexibility for differing rates of descent. If aircraft are at FL250 before IDGAS/MATUT they cannot be treated as being on the systemised routes, which might increase the level of monitoring and therefore the workload of the controllers. This option is better than the previous two, but not ideal.

6.4.4 Install routes into DRA airspace for a limited area (progressed)

For BTMA arrivals, M147 and M148’s upper limit would be FL460 within a limited area in the DRA, and RAD restricted to limit their use. Aircraft would fly the routes but tactically separated above FL255. As soon as they descend through FL255, systemised separation can be applied. BTMA arrivals must be FL250 by IDGAS/MATUT – this is a reasonable expectation for BTMA arrivals.

For BTMA departures, Q38 and Q39’s upper limit would be FL460 within a limited area in the DRA, and also RAD restricted. This would allow BTMA departures to have continuous flight planned climb at a flexible rate using the systemised routes until passing FL255 when tactical separation would be applied.

Route M146 would climb traffic into the DRA or would continue below, without the need for special arrangements. Route Z198 would only be used for traffic below the DRA linking to M148.

This option provides a good balance between allowing flexible descent/climb profiles out of/into the DRA, and using the underlying systemised routes for a sustained period of time, reducing controller workload.

6.4.5 Introduce RNAV1 STARs into the Belfast TMA (not progressed, potential future development)

BTMA arrivals could transit from the upper air routes at the entry point to the DRA, and join RNAV1 STARs for the appropriate airfield.

This is the most flexible method for BTMA arrivals and would not involve level restrictions being imposed on inbounds, replicating the descent profile of today’s operation.

This is not a solution for BTMA departures – either RNAV1 SIDs or other RNAV1 solution would be required simultaneously. This is a potential future solution.

6.4.6 DRA Summary

The solution we are progressing is detailed in para 6.4.4.

Whilst we believe a good solution for inbounds would be the introduction of RNAV1 STARs, a future project may be tasked with making Belfast TMA changes and the introduction of RNAV1 STARs would be under that project’s remit. The STAR method also does not address the systemisation of BTMA departures, requiring a solution to be implemented at the same time.


This would allow routes into the DRA for a limited area, RAD restricted to ensure they are only used for Belfast TMA arrivals/departures. Aircraft could flight plan for continuous descent (in most scenarios) as well as enabling controllers to take advantage of route systemisation once aircraft have entered PC Antrim’s airspace (below FL255 NW of REMSI). It has the added benefit that controllers can take advantage of route systemisation for BTMA departures until they pass FL255.

The other DRA options provide less satisfactory solutions, and hence were not progressed:

6.4.1 is the most flexible for descent profile but doesn’t allow for route systemisation;

6.4.2 is the least flexible and most restrictive but uses route systemisation; and

6.4.3 sits between the others without adequately allowing for the differences in descent profile between BTMA easterly and westerly operations.


CAP 725 Appendix A Paragraph A5 provides a list of requirements for a proposed airspace description. These are listed below:

CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph 5 Requirement. “The proposal should provide a full description of the proposed change including the following:”

Description for this Proposal

a The type of route or structure; e.g. Airway, UAR, Conditional Route, Advisory Route, CTR, SIDs/STARs, Holding Patterns, etc;

See para 4.3

b The hours of operation of the airspace and any seasonal variations;

As per current hours/conditions of operation

c

Interaction with domestic and international en-route structures, TMAs or CTAs with an explanation of how connectivity is to be achieved. Connectivity to aerodromes not connected to CAS should be covered;

See para 4.5 and ADD Ref 11.

d Airspace buffer requirements (if any); N/A

e

Supporting information on traffic data including statistics and forecasts for the various categories of aircraft movements (Passenger, Freight, Test and Training, Aero Club, Other) and Terminal Passenger numbers;

See paras 3.4 and 3.5

f Analysis of the impact of the traffic mix on complexity and workload of operations;

RNAV1 vs RNAV5 traffic would be split, and airframes that are RNAV1-equipped exceed 94% in the IOM sector.

g

Evidence of relevant draft Letters of Agreement, including any arising out of consultation and/or Airspace Management requirements;

See section 12 Appendix A: List of LoAs to update (LoAs will be updated pre-implementation, presuming approval)

h

Evidence that the Airspace Design is compliant with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and any other UK Policy or filed differences, and UK policy on the Flexible Use of Airspace (or evidence of mitigation where it is not);

CAP1385 applied, with supporting evidence, also CAS containment evidence See para 5.6 and Refs 4, 5, 6, 9.

i The proposed airspace classification with justification for that classification;

Majority changed from Class A to Class C. See Figure 10, design principles para 6.2 and chart Ref 12.

j

Demonstration of commitment to provide airspace users equitable access to the airspace as per the classification and where necessary indicate resources to be applied or a commitment to provide them in-line with forecast traffic growth. 'Management by exclusion' would not be acceptable;

The classification of the airspace volumes would be honoured as per AIP ENR 1.4

k Details of and justification for any delegation of ATS.

No change to delegation of ATS to the IAA at the western FIR boundary adjacent to Dublin.

7 Airspace Description Requirement


CAA CAP725 Appendix A Paragraph A6 provides a list of requirements for supporting infrastructure/resources. These are listed below:

CAA CAP725, Appendix A Paragraph 6, general Requirements

Evidence of Compliance/Proposed Mitigation

a

Evidence to support RNAV and conventional navigation as appropriate with details of planned availability and contingency procedures.

See Report on RNAV1 coverage (Ref 16)

b

Evidence to support primary and secondary surveillance radar (SSR) with details of planned availability and contingency procedures.

No change, demonstrably adequate for purpose

c

Evidence of communications infrastructure including R/T coverage, with availability and contingency procedures.

No change, demonstrably adequate for purpose

d

The effects of failure of equipment, procedures and/or personnel with respect to the overall management of the airspace must be considered.

Failure modes will be analysed and appropriate contingency procedures established as per NATS safety management

e

The Proposal must provide effective responses to the failure modes that will enable the functions associated with airspace to be carried out including details of navigation aid coverage, unit personnel levels, separation standards and the design of the airspace in respect of existing international standards or guidance material.

Failure modes will be analysed and appropriate contingency procedures established as per NATS safety management

f A clear statement on SSR code assignment requirements is also required.

No change to SSR code allocation.

g

Evidence of sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff required to provide air traffic services following the implementation of a change.

Suitably trained staff will be in place before implementation (see draft training plan Ref 14).

8 Supporting Infrastructure & Resources


CAA CAP725 Appendix A Paragraph A7 provides a list of requirements for operational impact. These are listed below:

CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph A7 requirements. “An analysis of the impact of the change on all airspace users, airfields and traffic levels must be provided, and include an outline concept of operations describing how operations within the new airspace will be managed. Specifically, consideration should be given to:”


a Impact on IFR General Air Traffic and Operational Air Traffic or on VFR General Aviation (GA) traffic flow in or through the area;

See Sections 4 & 5

b Impact on VFR operations (including VFR Routes where applicable);

See para 5.5

c Consequential effects on procedures and capacity, i.e. on SIDs, STARs, and/or holding patterns. Details of existing or planned routes and holds;

See Sections 4 & 5 esp 5.7 for STARs, feedback report Ref 2 pages 16-20 for draft STAR charts

d Impact on aerodromes and other specific activities within or adjacent to the proposed airspace;

See section 5. No change to operation or use of danger areas, TRAs etc.

e Any flight planning restrictions and/or route requirements. See Section 5 and Ref 11 (ADD)

9 Operational Impact


CAA CAP725 Appendix A Paragraphs A11-A14 provide a list of requirements for airspace and infrastructure. These are listed below:

CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph A11: General Requirements


a

The airspace structure must be of sufficient dimensions with regard to expected aircraft navigation performance and manoeuvrability to fully contain horizontal and vertical flight activity in both radar and non-radar environments;.

See Section 4, para 5.6, and Refs 4 & 5.

b

Where an additional airspace structure is required for radar control purposes, the dimensions shall be such that radar control manoeuvres can be contained within the structure, allowing a safety buffer. This safety buffer shall be in accordance with agreed parameters as set down in SARG Policy Statement 'Special Use Airspace - Safety Buffer Policy for Airspace Design Purposes’;

N/A The proposed new CAS volume is not adjacent to any Special Use structures such as danger areas.

c

The Air Traffic Management (ATM) system must be adequate to ensure that prescribed separation can be maintained between aircraft within the airspace structure and safe management of interfaces with other airspace structures;

The ATM system in the airspace is currently adequate for tactical vectoring to 3nm MRS. The ATM system is currently adequate for maintaining separations within the airspace and safe management of the interfaces. The proposed systemised route structure will improve the safe management of the airspace. See Section 4, para 5.6, and Refs 4 & 5.

d

Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures are to ensure required separation between traffic inside a new airspace structure and traffic within existing adjacent or other new airspace structures;

ATC procedures will ensure this. See Section 4, para 5.6, and Refs 4 & 5.

e Within the constraints of safety and efficiency, the airspace classification should permit access to as many classes of user as practicable;

Majority Class C, see Figure 10 on page 15 for overview and chart Ref 12.

f There must be assurance, as far as practicable, against unauthorised incursions. This is usually done through the classification and promulgation.

This will be promulgated via AIRAC cycle.

g

Pilots shall be notified of any failure of navigational facilities and of any suitable alternative facilities available and the method of identifying failure and notification should be specified;

Should such a failure occur, pilots will be notified by NOTAM and advised of appropriate measures required to be taken.

h

The notification of the implementation of new airspace structures or withdrawal of redundant airspace structures shall be adequate to allow interested parties sufficient time to comply with user requirements. This is normally done through the AIRAC cycle;

This will be promulgated via AIRAC cycle.

i There must be sufficient R/T coverage to support the ATM system within the totality of proposed controlled airspace.

Minimal change from today’s region. New CAS is inside the overall extent of the IOM airspace. Demonstrably adequate.

j

If the new structure lies close to another airspace structure or overlaps an associated airspace structure, the need for operating agreements shall be considered;

LoAs will be signed and agreed in good time (see section 12 Appendix A: List of LoAs to update)

k

Should there be any other aviation activity (low flying, gliding, parachuting, microlight site, etc.) in the vicinity of the new airspace structure and no suitable operating agreements or ATC Procedures can be devised, the Change Sponsor shall act to resolve any conflicting interests;

There are no known aviation activities requiring additional operating agreements. Should such a conflict occur, the sponsor will act to resolve it.

10 Airspace & Infrastructure Requirements


CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph A12: ATS Route Requirements


a

There must be sufficient accurate navigational guidance based on in-line VOR/DME or NDB or by approved RNAV derived sources, to contain the aircraft within the route to the published RNP value in accordance with ICAO/EuroControl Standards;

Navaid coverage supports RNAV1 in the region from FL75+. See Report on RNAV1 coverage (Ref 16).

b Where ATS routes adjoin Terminal Airspace there shall be suitable link routes as necessary for the ATM task;

Appropriate link routes are part of this proposal (see para 4.3, Figure 8 and chart Ref 12.

c All new routes should be designed to accommodate P-RNAV navigational requirements.

New routes will be RNAV1. Current routes that get amended will remain RNAV5.

CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph A13: Terminal Airspace Requirements


a

The airspace structure shall be of sufficient dimensions to contain appropriate procedures, holding patterns and their associated protected areas;

No relevant changes to Terminal Airspace except minor amendments to some STARs at high level and appropriate link routes as part of this proposal (see para 4.3, Figure 8 and chart Ref 12.

b

There shall be effective integration of departure and arrival routes associated with the airspace structure and linking to designated runways and published IAPs;


c Where possible, there shall be suitable linking routes between the proposed terminal airspace and existing en-route airspace structure;


d

The airspace structure shall be designed to ensure that adequate and appropriate terrain clearance can be readily applied within and adjacent to the proposed airspace;

No terrain clearance issues for this proposal.

e

Suitable arrangements for the control of all classes of aircraft (including transits) operating within or adjacent to the airspace in question, in all meteorological conditions and under all flight rules, shall be in place or will be put into effect by Change Sponsors upon implementation of the change in question (if these do not already exist);.

Suitable arrangements for control of all classes of aircraft exist in the airspace. These will be applied appropriately according to the proposed classification of the airspace.

f

Change Sponsors shall ensure that sufficient VRPs are established within or adjacent to the subject airspace to facilitate the effective integration of VFR arrivals, departures and transits of the airspace with IFR traffic;

No VRP issues for this proposal.

g There shall be suitable availability of radar control facilities;

Radar control will be provided.

h

Change Sponsors shall, upon implementation of any airspace change, devise the means of gathering (if these do not already exist) and of maintaining statistics on the number of aircraft transiting the airspace in question. Similarly, Change Sponsors shall maintain records on the numbers of aircraft refused permission to transit the airspace in question, and the reasons why. Change Sponsors should note that such records would enable ATS Managers to plan staffing requirements necessary to effectively manage the airspace under their control;

No change to existing procedure

i

All new procedures should, wherever possible, incorporate Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) profiles after aircraft leave the holding facility associated with that procedure.

N/A for this proposal

CAA CAP725, Appendix A paragraph A14: Off Route Airspace Requirements


There are no proposed changes to off route airspace structures.


This section details the required elements of an Environmental Assessment for ACP development, based upon CAP 725 Appendix B.

The requirements in this section are grouped by the degree of compliance expected from airspace change sponsors. In following this guidance:

Must – change sponsors are to meet the requirements in full when this term is used.

Should – change sponsors are to meet these requirements unless there is sufficient reason which must be agreed in writing with the SARG case officer and the circumstances recorded in the formal airspace change documentation.

May – change sponsors decide whether this guidance is appropriate to the circumstances of the airspace change.

Requirement Ref. Page

1

In order to ensure that the various areas for environmental assessment by SARG are addressed, Change Sponsors should submit the documentation with the following clearly defined sections:

Description of the airspace change (refer to 28 – 33);

Traffic forecasts (refer to 34 – 38);

An assessment of the effects on noise (refer to Sections 4 and 5);

An assessment of the change in fuel burn/CO2 (refer to Section 6);

An assessment of the effect on local air quality (refer to Section 7); and

An economic valuation of environmental impact, if appropriate (refer to Section 9).

General Para 2 B-1

See Section 4 for description.

This change would not influence the growth of traffic, but a forecast is provided in para 3.5.

See Section 5 for assessments of changed impacts on noise, fuel burn/CO2, and local air quality.

No economic valuation of environmental impact has been performed.

2

It is considered unlikely that airspace changes will have a direct impact on animals, livestock and biodiversity. However, Change Sponsors should remain alert to the possibility and may be required to include these topics in their environmental assessment.

General Para 18 B-4 No change in impact, see para 5.2

3 Environmental assessment should set out the base case or current situation so that changes can be clearly identified.

General Para 19 B-4 See para 0 and environmental report Ref 10.

4 Environmental assessment should follow the Basic Principles listed in CAP 725.

General Para 20 B-4 CAP725 basic principles have been followed

5 A technical document containing a comprehensive and complete description of the airspace change including the environmental impact will be required and must be produced for all airspace changes.

General Para 25 B-6 See Sections 4 & 5 and environmental report Ref 10.

6

It may be appropriate for Change Sponsors to produce a more general description of the airspace change and the rationale for its proposal in an easy-to-read style for public consumption. If such an additional separate document is produced, it must contain details of the environmental impact of the proposal.

General Para 25 B-6 N/A

7

The environmental assessment must include a high quality paper diagram of the airspace change in its entirety as well as supplementary diagrams Illustrating different parts of the change. This diagram must show the extent of the airspace change in relation to known geographical features and centres of population

Airspace Design

Para 28 B-7

PDF chart supplied, with switchable layers

(Ref 12).

8

The proposal should consider and assess more than one option, then demonstrate why the selected option meets safety and operational requirements and will generate an overall environmental benefit or, if not, why it is being proposed.

Airspace Design

Para 29 B-7 See Section 6.

11 Environmental Requirements


9

The Change Sponsor must provide SARG with a complete set of coordinates describing the proposed change in electronic format using World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84). In addition, the Sponsor must supply these locations in the form of Ordnance Survey (OS) national grid coordinates.

Airspace Design

Para 30 B-7 See Ref 13 Draft AIP data

10

This electronic version must provide a full description of the horizontal and vertical extent of the zones and areas contained within the airspace change. It must also include coordinates in both WGS 84 and OS national grid formats that define the centre lines of routes including airways, standard instrument departures (SID), standard arrival routes (STAR), noise preferential routes (NPR) or any other arrangement that has the effect of concentrating traffic over a particular geographical area.

Airspace Design

Para 30 B-7 See Ref 13 Draft AIP data

11

Change Sponsors should provide indications of the likely lateral dispersion of traffic about the centre line of each route. This should take the form of a statistical measure of variation such as the standard deviation of lateral distance from the centre line for given distances along track in circumstances where the dispersion is variable.

Airspace Design

Para 31 B-7

See para 4.3 – design concept is to mimic current day vectoring by installing RNAV1 routes own-nav.

See also Refs 4, 5 and 9 for CAP1385 compliance.

12

Sponsors may supply the outputs from simulation to demonstrate the lateral dispersion of traffic within the proposed airspace change or bring forward evidence based on actual performance on a similar kind of route. It may be appropriate for Sponsors to explain different aspects of dispersion e.g. dispersion within NPRs when following a departure routeing and when vectoring – where the aircraft will go and their likely frequency

Airspace Design

Para 31 B-7 See validation sim report Ref 17 (to be supplied subsequently)

13

Change Sponsors must provide a description of the vertical distribution of traffic in airways, SIDs, STARs, NPRs and other arrangements that have the effect of concentrating traffic over a particular geographical area

Airspace Design

Para 32 B-7 Mimics current operations

14

For departing traffic, sponsors should produce profiles of the most frequent type(s) of aircraft operating within the airspace. They should show vertical profiles for the maximum, typical and minimum climb rates achievable by those aircraft.

Airspace Design


15 A vertical profile for the slowest climbing aircraft likely to use the airspace should also be produced.

Airspace Design


16 All profiles should be shown graphically and the underlying data provided in a spread sheet with all planning assumptions clearly documented.

Airspace Design


17 Change Sponsors should explain how consideration of CDA and LPLD is taken into account within their proposals

Airspace Design

Para 33 B-8 This change will not affect the ability of IFR traffic to perform CDAs & LPLD

18 In planning changes to airspace arrangements, sponsors may have conducted real and/or fast time simulations of air traffic for a number of options.

Traffic Forecasts

Para 34 B-8 See validation sim report Ref 17 (to be supplied subsequently)

19 Change Sponsors must include traffic forecasts in their environmental assessment.

Traffic Forecasts

Para 35 B-8 Sector forecast is provided in para 3.5.

20

Information on air traffic must include the current level of traffic using the present airspace arrangement and a forecast. The forecast will need to indicate the traffic growth on the different routes contained within the airspace change volume.

Traffic Forecasts


21 The sources used for the forecast must be documented. Traffic Forecasts



22

Typically, forecasts should be for five years from the planned implementation date of the airspace change. There may be good reasons for varying this – for example, to use data that has already been made available to the general public at planning inquiries, in airport master plans or other business plans

Traffic Forecasts


23

It may also be appropriate to provide forecasts further into the future than five years: examples are extensive airspace changes or where traffic is forecast to grow slowly in the five-year period but faster thereafter.

Traffic Forecasts

Para 36 B-8 N/A

24

It may be appropriate for Change Sponsors to outline the key factors [affecting traffic forecasts] and their likely impact. In these circumstances, Sponsors should consider generating a range of forecasts based on several scenarios that reflect those uncertainties – this would help prevent iterations in the assessment process.

Traffic Forecasts

Para 37 B-8 A range of forecasts has not been produced – Base Case only.

25

Traffic forecasts should contain not only numbers but also types of aircraft. Change Sponsors should provide this information by runway (for arrivals/departures) and/or by route with information on vertical distribution by height/altitude/flight level as appropriate.

Traffic Forecasts

Para 38 B-9 Aircraft type mix – see para 3.4

26

Types of aircraft may be given by aircraft type/engine fit using ICAO type designators. If this is not a straightforward exercise, then designation by the UK Aircraft Noise Contour Model (ANCON) types or by seat size categories would be acceptable

Traffic Forecasts

Para 38 B-9 Aircraft type mix – see para 3.4

27

Change Sponsors must produce Leq, 16 hours noise exposure contours for airports where the proposed option entails changes to departure and arrival routes for traffic below 4,000 feet agl based on the published minimum departure and arrival gradients. Under these circumstances, at least three sets of contours must be produced:

Current situation – these may already be available as part of the airport’s regular environmental reporting or as part of the airport master plan;

Situation immediately following the airspace change; and

Situation after traffic has increased under the new arrangements (typically five years after implementation although this should be discussed with the SARG Project Leader).

Noise Para 44 B-11 N/A

28

The contours should be produced using either the UK Aircraft Noise Contour Model (ANCON) or the US Integrated Noise Model (INM) but ANCON must be used when it is currently in use at the airport for other purposes.

Noise Para 46 B-12 N/A

29 Terrain adjustments should be included in the calculation process (i.e. the height of the air routes relative to the ground are accounted for).

Noise Para 47 B-12 Not Applicable

30 Contours must be portrayed from 57 dBA Leq, 16 hours at 3 dB intervals.


31 Contours should not be produced at levels below 54 dBA Leq, 16 hours because this corresponds to generally low disturbance to most people.


32 Change Sponsors may include the 54 dBA Leq, 16 hours contour as a sensitivity analysis but this level has no particular relevance in policy making.


33

A table should be produced showing the following data for each 3 dB contour interval:

Area (km2); and

Population (thousands) – rounded to the nearest hundred.



34

It is sometimes useful to include the number of households within each contour, especially if issues of mitigation and compensation are relevant:

This table should show cumulative totals for areas/populations/households. For example, the population for 57 dBA will include residents living in all higher contours.

The source and date of population data used should be noted adjacent to the table. Population data should be based on the latest available national census as a minimum but more recent updated population data is preferred.

The areas calculated should be cumulative and specify total area within each contour including that within the airport perimeter.


35

Contours for assessment should be provided to SARG in both of the following formats:

Electronic files in the form of a comma delimited ASC2 text file containing three fields as an ordered set (i.e. coordinates should be in the order that describes the closed curve) defining the contours in Ordnance Survey National Grid in metres:

Field Name Units

1 Level dB

2 Easting six figure easting OS national grid reference (metres)

3 Northing six figure northing OS national grid reference (metres)

Paper version overlaid on a good quality 1:50 000 Ordnance Survey map. However, it may be more appropriate to present contours on 1:25 000 or 1:10 000 Ordnance Survey maps.


36

Contours for a general audience may be provided overlaid on a more convenient map (e.g. an ordinary road map with a more suitable scale for publication in documents). The underlying map and contours should be sufficiently clear for an affected resident to be able to identify the extent of the contours in relation to their home and other geographical features. Hence, the underlying map must show key geographical features, e.g. street, rail lines and rivers.


37

SEL footprints must be used when the proposed airspace includes changes to the distribution of flights at night below 7,000 feet agl and within 25 km of a runway. Night is defined here as the period between 2300 and 0700 local time. If the noisiest and most frequent night operations are different, then footprints should be calculated for both of them. A separate footprint for each of these types should be calculated for each arrival and departure route. If SEL footprints are provided, they should be calculated at both 90 dBA SEL and 80 dBA SEL.


38 SEL footprints may be used when the airspace change is relevant to daytime only operations. If SEL footprints are provided, they should be calculated at both 90 dBA SEL and 80 dBA SEL.


39

SEL footprints for assessment should be provided to SARG in both of the following formats:

Electronic files in the form of a comma delimited ASC2 text file containing three fields as an ordered set (i.e. coordinates should be in the order that describes the closed curve) defining the footprints in Ordnance Survey National Grid in metres:

Field Field Name Units

1 Level dB

2 Easting six figure easting OS national grid reference (metres)

3 Northing six figure northing OS national grid reference (metres)

Paper version overlaid on a good quality 1:50 000 Ordnance Survey map. However, it may be more appropriate to present footprints on 1:25 000 or 1:10 000 Ordnance Survey maps.



40

SEL footprints for a general audience may be provided overlaid on a more convenient map (e.g. an ordinary road map with a more suitable scale for publication in documents). The underlying map and footprints should be sufficiently clear for an affected resident to identify the extent of the footprints in relation to their home or other geographical features. Hence, this underlying map must show key geographical features, e.g. streets, rail lines and rivers. Calculations should include terrain adjustments as described in the section on Leq contours


41

Change Sponsors may use the percentage highly annoyed measure in the assessment of options in terminal airspace to supplement Leq. If they choose to use this method, then the guidance on population data for noise exposure contours set out should be followed. Sponsors should use the expression and associated results in calculating the number of those highly annoyed. If they wish to use a variant method, then this would need to be supported by appropriate research references.


42

Change Sponsors may use the LDEN metric but, if they choose to do so, they must still produce the standard Leq, 16 hours contours as previously described. If airspace change sponsors wish to use the LDEN metric they must do so in a way that is compliant with the technical aspects of the Directive and any supplementary instructions issued by DEFRA. Sponsors should note the requirement for noise levels to be calculated as received at 4 metres above ground level. In particular, the guidance on how contours are to be portrayed, as described in the section dealing with Leq contours applies. Calculations should include terrain adjustments as described in the section on Leq contours. An exception regarding LDEN contours is the production of a table showing numerical data on area, population and households which should be presented by band (e.g. 55 dBA to 60 dBA) rather than cumulatively as for UK Leq contours (e.g. >55 dBA). Change Sponsors should make it clear where areas/counts are by band or cumulative.

Noise

Para 67 & 69 & 70

B-15 & B-16

Not Applicable

43

Change Sponsors may use the LNight metric within their environmental assessment and consultation. If they do so, SEL footprints must also be produced. Calculations should include terrain adjustments as described in the section on Leq contours.


44 Change Sponsors may use difference contours if it is considered that redistribution of noise impact is a potentially important issue.


45 Change Sponsors may use PEI as a supplementary assessment metric. Noise Para 85 B-19 Not Applicable

46 Change Sponsors may use the AIE metric as a supplementary assessment metric. If the sponsor uses PEI as a supplementary metric then AIE should also be calculated as both metrics are complementary.


47 Change Sponsors may vary the information displayed in Operations Diagrams providing that the diagram is a fair and accurate representation of the situation portrayed.


48

Change Sponsors may use maximum sound levels (Lmax) in presenting aircraft noise footprints for public consumption if they think that this would be helpful. This does not replace the obligation to comply with the requirement to produce sound exposure level (SEL) footprints, where applicable.


49

Change Sponsors may produce diagrams portraying maximum sound event levels (Lmax) for specific aircraft types at a number of locations at ground level beneath the airspace under consideration. This may be helpful in describing the impact on individuals. It is usual to include a table showing the sound levels of typical phenomenon e.g. a motor vehicle travelling at 30 mph at a distance of 50 metres.



50

Change Sponsors must demonstrate how the design and operation of airspace will impact on emissions. The kinds of questions that need to be answered by the sponsor are:

Are there options which reduce fuel burn in the vertical dimension, particularly when fuel burn is high e.g. initial climb?

Are there options that produce more direct routeing of aircraft, so that fuel burn is minimised?

Are there arrangements that ensure that aircraft in cruise operate at their most fuel-efficient altitude, possibly with step-climbs or cruise climbs?

Climate Change

Para 102

B-22 See Section 5

51

Change Sponsors should estimate the total annual fuel burn/mass of carbon dioxide in metric tonnes emitted for the current situation, the situation immediately following the airspace change and the situation after traffic has increased under the new arrangements – typically five years after implementation. Sponsors should produce estimates for each airspace option considered.

Climate Change

Para 106

B-23 Not applicable

52

Change Sponsors should provide the input data for their calculations including any modelling assumptions made. They should state details of the aircraft performance model used including the version numbers of software employed.

Climate Change

Para 107

B-23 Not Applicable

53

Where the need to provide additional airspace capacity, reduce delays or mitigate other environmental impact results in an increase in the total annual fuel burn/ mass of carbon dioxide in metric tonnes between the current situation and the situation following the airspace change, Sponsors should provide justification.

Climate Change

Para 108

B-23 Not applicable

54

Change Sponsors must produce information on local air quality only where there is the possibility of pollutants breaching legal limits following the implementation of an airspace change. The requirement for local air quality modelling will be determined on a case by case basis as discussed with the SARG Project Leader and ERCD. This discussion will include recommendations of the appropriate local air quality model to be used. Concentrations should be portrayed in microgrammes per cubic metre (μg.m-3). They should include concentrations from all sources whether related to aviation and the airport or not. Three sets of concentration contours should be produced:

Current situation – these may already be available as part of the airport’s regular environmental reporting or as part of the airport master plan;

Situation immediately following the airspace change; and

Situation after traffic has increased under the new arrangements – typically five years after implementation although this should be discussed with the SARG Project Leader.

Local Air Quality

Para 115

B-25 Not Applicable

55

Contours for assessment should be provided to SARG in similar formats to those used for noise exposure contours. Where Change Sponsors are required to produce concentration contours they should also produce a table showing the following data for concentrations at 10 μ.m-3 intervals:

Area (km2); and

Population (thousands) – rounded to the nearest hundred.

Local Air Quality

Para 116

B-25 Not Applicable

56

The source and date of population data used should be noted adjacent to the table. Population data should be based on the latest available national census as a minimum but more recent updated population data is preferred.

Local Air Quality

Para 117

B-25 Not Applicable


57

Change Sponsors may wish to conduct an economic appraisal of the environmental impact of the airspace change, assessing the economic benefits generated by the change. If undertaken, this should be conducted in accordance with the guidance from HM Treasury in the Green Book (HM Treasury, 2003). If Change Sponsors include a calculation of NPV then they must show financial discount rates, cash flows and their timings and any other assumptions employed. The discount rate must include that recommended in the Green Book currently set at 3.5%. Additionally, other discount rates may be used in a sensitivity analysis or because they are representative of realistic commercial considerations

Economic Valuation

Para 124 & 126

B-27 No such appraisal has been undertaken.


12.1.1 ACC Dublin – NATS (PC)

CAA, IAA, ACC Dublin

EDIT AND RE-SIGN – major changes

12.1.2 ACC Shannon – NATS (PC)

CAA, IAA, ACC Shannon

EDIT

12.1.3 Warton LoA – NATS (PC and LAC)

BAE Warton, RAF(U) Swanwick

EDIT and RE-SIGN

12.1.4 SCP – NATS

HQ Air, HQ Navy, BAE Warton

EDIT

12.1.5 TRA(G)s – NATS (PC and LAC)

RAF(U) Swanwick, BGA, BAE Warton

EDIT (one map)

12.1.6 NATS (PC and LAC) – ASACS

Battlespace Management FHQ

LOA in draft, Annex B will need editing

12.1.7 NWMTA – NATS (PC and LAC)

HQ Air, Aberporth, RAF Valley, BAE Warton, RAF(U) Swanwick

EDIT and possible RE-SIGN

12.1.8 Other interface agreements

Belfast airports, Ronaldsway, Liverpool

No editing required, but procedures to be checked.

12.1.9 Not impacted

Woodvale, AMPIT Triangle, Tilstock

12 Appendix A: List of LoAs to update


13.1.1 Permission from aerodrome management to truncate STARs

See Ref 18.

13.1.2 ENR 1.4

Update Class A, Class C, Class D and Class E as per Ref 13.

13.1.3 ENR 2.1

As per Ref 13.

13.1.4 ENR 3.1, 3.2, 3.3

As per Ref 13.

13.1.5 ENR 4.4

As per Ref 13.

13.1.6 ENR 6 charts

6.1.4.1 6.1.4.2 6.1.15.7 6.2.1.4 6.2.2.1.6 possibly 6.2.2.1.7 6.2.2.4.1 6.3.1.1 6.3.1.2 6.3.2.1 6.5.1.3 possibly All as per Ref 12 chart, using Ref 13 data.

13.1.7 VFR Charts

As per Ref 12 chart, using Ref 13 data.

13.1.8 AD-2-EGCC

MIRSI STAR chart updated as per Ref 2 Fig 8 page 16

13.1.9 AD-2-EGGP

TIPOD STAR chart updated as per Ref 2 Fig 9 page 17

13.1.10 AD-2-EGGW and AD-2-EGSS

LOREL and ASKEY STAR charts updated as per Ref 2 Fig 10 page 18

13.1.11 AD-2-EGLC

JACKO STAR chart updated as per Ref 2 Fig 11 page 19

13.1.12 AD-2-EGMC

SPEAR STAR chart updated as per Ref 2 Fig 12 page 20

13.1.13 Other

SRD and RAD to be updated.

Some aerodromes will need modified textual data due to the new ATS routes.

Some SIDs will also need to clarify the ATS routes to be used from the end of the SID, vice-versa for some STARs.

These aerodromes will be fully identified as part of the AIP submission – a first pass indicates EGBB, EGNX, EGNM, EGNR will require minor AIP updates, in addition to those aerodromes previously mentioned.

End of document

13 Appendix B: List of Proposed Amendments to the AIP

revised ats route structure over the irish sea · revised ats route structure over the irish sea...

Documents