Airspace Change Proposal Operational Assessment Page 1 of 16 · 2016-04-28 · Safety and Airspace...

Safety and Airspace Regulation group DAP 1C

Doc Type: Annex C Version: 1/2012

Title: Airspace Change Proposal Operational Assessment of 16

Title of Airspace Change Proposal Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches

Change Sponsor Air Traffic Control Services Ltd.

AAA AR Project Leader

Case Study commencement date 28 October 2015

Case Study report as at 10 February 2016

Instructions

In providing a response for each question, please ensure that the ‘Status’ column is completed using the following options:

Yes

No

Partially

N/A To aid the DAP Project Leader’s efficient Project Management it may be useful that each question is also highlighted accordingly to illustrate what is

resolved not resolved not compliant as part of the AR Project Leader’s efficient project management.

Amber RedGreen




1. Justification for change and “Option Analysis” Status 1.1 Is the explanation of the proposed change clear and understood? YES

The proposed change is the implementation of GNSS Lateral Navigation (LNAV) and combined Lateral/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for runways 09 and 27 at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). The proposed VNAV component of the procedures is Baro‐VNAV. It is proposed that the procedures will be used as a contingency for when the Instrument Landing System (ILS) is unavailable but it is also recognised that the procedures may be used for training and currency purposes. The proposed changes are contained entirely within controlled airspace and closely replicate the current approach procedures.

1.2 Are the reasons for the change stated and acceptable? YES The reasons for the change are summarised in the operational report as follows:

RNAV (GNSS) provides a contingency for occasions when the ground based navigation aids are unavailable Adding RNAV (GNSS) IAP provides greater flexibility to airspace users RNAV is potentially more accurate than older NDB. When combined with Baro‐VNAV, RNAV (GNSS) IAP provide both lateral and

vertical guidance to pilots. Any outage of the glidepath or localiser transmitters at LJLA will result in a non‐precision approach with higher minima and the risk of diversions, holds or delays. The stated reasons are therefore acceptable as the procedures would provide operational resilience while replicating what is currently flown for the ILS approach. The CAA Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) for the United Kingdom 2011‐2030 also details the future modernisation of the overall airspace system to enable more flexible and efficient use of UK airspace. Specifically, ES15 Navigation states: Today, aircraft navigate primarily using ground‐based navigation aids. In the future, the application of space‐based aids will increase




navigational accuracy and resilience, and reduce the costs of maintaining and replacing ground‐based aids. This proposal helps to realise this future state while remaining flexible enough to interface with any network level terminal airspace redesigns.

1.3 Have all appropriate alternative options been considered, including the ‘do nothing’ option? YES The initial designs discussed with the CAA included transition elements with protection areas that infringed airspace not delegated to LJLA. Additionally, the nominal tracks for the transition elements did not closely replicate the existing tracks flown by runway 27 arrivals. Having decided that the proposal should replicate the existing tracks as closely as possible, the sponsor has examined several options that would take advantage of advances in aircraft equipage of GNSS systems to fleets using LJLA as well as considering the ‘do nothing’ option. The sponsor examined four options for RNAV IAPs (including the proposed option) as well as examining the possibility of investing in new ILS, DME and NDB equipment to mitigate the possibility of equipment failure. More detailed description of the options considered and the discussion surrounding each option can be found in the sponsor’s Operational Report Para 1.2 (page 14).

1.4 Is the justification for the selection of the proposed option sound and acceptable? YES The proposed option meets the airport’s requirement to replicate the existing tracks. This option also meets the relevant airline stakeholder requirement to introduce RNAV (GNSS) procedures that utilise vertical guidance systems (Baro‐VNAV) installed on a large number of the fleet at LJLA.




2. Airspace Description and Operational Arrangements Status 2.1 Is the type of proposed airspace clearly stated and understood? YES

The IAP are ‘centreline only’ ‐ they consist of a single, straight line. An intermediate segment, a final approach segment and a missed approach segment.

2.2 Are the hours of operation of the airspace and any seasonal variations stated and acceptable? YES There are no changes to the hours of operation in this proposal.

2.3 Is any interaction with adjacent domestic and international airspace structures stated and acceptable including an explanation of how connectivity is to be achieved? Has the agreement of adjacent States been secured in respect of High Seas airspace changes?

N/A

There are no international airspace interaction issues. Existing operating arrangements between Liverpool and Manchester airports will remain in place. When Manchester airport is operating on Runway 05, co‐ordination must be agreed with Manchester Approach before Liverpool ATC can clear an aircraft to enter airspace to the east of the airport (with certain caveats) and this is captured in the LJLA MATS Part 2. More detailed description of the operating arrangements between Liverpool and Manchester airports can be found in the sponsor’s Operational Report Para 2.5 (pages 20‐21).

2.4 Is the supporting statistical evidence relevant and acceptable? YES The sponsor has provided statistics for forecast usage of the proposed procedures, based on the forecast traffic numbers and the historic




availability figures for the ILS equipment. This gives very low usage figures of 18 RNAV (GNSS) instrument approaches per year for runway 09 and 30 RNAV (GNSS) instrument approaches per year for runway 27 if the procedure was only used during periods when the ILS was unavailable. Following informal discussions with Liverpool based airlines, charter operators and flying schools about the introduction of RNAV (GNSS) IAPs, it was indicated that they may request up to 1 in 10 instrument approaches as RNAV (GNSS) for training and currency purposes. This would equate to 900 RNAV (GNSS) instrument approaches per year for runway 09 and 1,500 RNAV (GNSS) instrument approaches per year for runway 27 which would represent approximately 3.7% of all aircraft movements at the airport. The statistics do not support the technical proposal, however they do reinforce the fact that the usage of the RNAV (GNSS) IAPs would be relatively low, whether or not the procedure was used for training purposes in addition to periods when the ILS was unavailable.

2.5 Is the analysis of the impact of the traffic mix on complexity and workload of operations complete and satisfactory? YES

The proposal is to introduce new IAPs that are not expected to increase traffic levels or change the traffic mix, therefore this will not impact complexity or workload.

2.6 Are any draft Letters of Agreement and/ or Memoranda of Understanding included and, if so, do they contain the commitments to resolve ATS procedures (ATSD) and airspace management requirements? YES

A review of all Letters of Agreement currently in place was conducted by Air Traffic Control Services Ltd. and no requirement was found to modify them. A list of the relevant LoAs and the way in which their appropriateness was validated is contained in the proposal Operational Report Para 2.7 (pages 25‐26).




2.7 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, what action has the sponsor carried out to resolve any conflicting interests?

N/A

N/A

2.8 Is the evidence that the Airspace Design is compliant with ICAO SARPs, Airspace Design & FUA regulations, and Eurocontrol Guidance satisfactory? YES

The draft procedures were designed by an appropriately authorised IFP design company (Davidson Ltd.) and have been approved subject to a small number of minor amendments.

2.9 Is the proposed airspace classification stated and justification for that classification acceptable? YES There is no change to airspace classification.

2.10 Within the constraints of safety and efficiency, does the airspace classification permit access to as many classes of user as practicable? YES

There is no change to airspace classification or access arrangements.

2.11 Is there assurance, as far as practicable, against unauthorised incursions? (This is usually done through the classification and promulgation) YES

There is no change to airspace classification.




2.12 Is there a commitment to allow access to all airspace users seeking a transit through controlled airspace as per

the classification, or in the event of such a request being denied, a service around the affected area? YES

The current arrangements will remain.

2.13 Are appropriate arrangements for transiting aircraft in place in accordance with stated commitments? YES There are no changes to how aircraft transiting the area will operate.

2.14 Are any airspace user group’s requirements not met? NO No.

2.15 Is any delegation of ATS justified and acceptable? (If yes, refer to Delegated ATS Procedure). N/A N/A

2.16 Is the airspace structure of sufficient dimensions with regard to expected aircraft navigation performance and manoeuvrability to contain horizontal and vertical flight activity (including holding patterns) and associated protected areas in both radar and non-radar environments?

YES

The obstacle protection areas for the proposed procedures overlap adjoining airspace. In particular, the obstacle protection area for the missed approach from runway 09 infringes the Manchester CTA. The nominal track remains within the Liverpool surveillance area and the majority of the primary obstacle protection area also lies within delegated airspace. All of the procedures will remain within controlled airspace and Manchester ATC have been kept informed throughout the design process and participated in the consultation through a face‐to‐face meeting. Both Manchester and Liverpool ATC have concluded that the new design does not impact on existing arrangements and that no new arrangements are required.




The RNAV (GNSS) IAPs will only be available when Liverpool radar is operational.

2.17 Have all safety buffer requirements (or mitigation of these) been identified and described satisfactorily (to be in accordance with the agreed parameters or show acceptable mitigation)? (Refer to buffer policy letter). N/A

N/A

2.18 Do ATC procedures ensure the maintenance of prescribed separation between traffic inside a new airspace structure and traffic within existing adjacent or other new airspace structures? YES

As aircraft will be radar vectored onto the final approach path in the same way as they currently are for the ILS, current ATC procedures will continue to ensure the maintenance of prescribed separation.

2.19 Is the airspace structure designed to ensure that adequate and appropriate terrain clearance can be readily applied within and adjacent to the proposed airspace? YES

The ACP involves no new airspace structure. The existing airspace structure (and of course the RNAV IAPs themselves) will necessarily take into account terrain clearance issues and have been appropriately assessed by AR IFP Designers.

2.20 If the new structure lies close to another airspace structure or overlaps an associated airspace structure, have appropriate operating arrangements been agreed? YES

Manchester ATC have been kept informed throughout the design process and participated in the consultation through a face‐to‐face meeting. Both Manchester and Liverpool ATC have concluded that the new design does not impact on existing arrangements and that no new arrangements are required.




2.21 Where terminal and en-route structures adjoin, is the effective integration of departure and arrival routes

achieved? YES

The ACP involves no changes to airspace where terminal and en‐route structures adjoin.

3. Supporting Resources and CNS Infrastructure Status

3.1 Is the evidence of supporting CNS infrastructure together with availability and contingency procedures complete and acceptable? The following are to be satisfied:

Communication: Is the evidence of communications infrastructure including RT coverage together with availability and contingency procedures complete and acceptable? Has this frequency been agreed with AAA Infrastructure? YES

There are no new communications infrastructure requirements. The proposed routes are contained within the lateral dimensions of controlled (Class D) airspace currently populated with routes where radar and R/T coverage is well proven and the ATC system is demonstrably appropriate for the task.

Navigation: Is there sufficient accurate navigational guidance based on in-line VOR 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? Eg. Navaids - has coverage assessment been made eg. a DEMETER report, and if so, is it satisfactory?

YES

The procedures were designed by an appropriately authorised IFP design company (Davidson Ltd.) and have been approved subject to a small number of minor amendments. Surveillance: Radar Provision – have radar diagrams been provided, and do they show that the ATS route / airspace

structure can be supported? YES




The proposed RNAV procedures require no additional surveillance infrastructure. The proposed routes would be contained within airspace where radar and R/T coverage is well proven and the ATC system is demonstrably appropriate for the task.

3.2 Where appropriate, are there any indications of the resources to be applied, or a commitment to provide them, in line with current forecast traffic growth acceptable? YES

The proposal is not directly linked to any anticipated growth in traffic or to overcome complexity or efficiency issues at LJLA. There are no resource implications from this proposal.

4. Maps/Charts/Diagrams Status

4.1 Is a diagram of the proposed airspace included in the proposal, clearly showing the dimensions and WGS84 co-ordinates? (We would expect sponsors to include clear maps and diagrams of the proposed airspace structure(s) – they do not have to accord with AC&D aeronautical cartographical standards (see CAP725), rather they should be clear and unambiguous and reflect precisely the narrative descriptions of the proposals. AC&D work would relate to regulatory consultation charts only).

YES

Charts are included which clearly depict the IAPs. There is no associated requirement for new controlled airspace. Draft versions of the procedure design charts have been produced by the sponsor and have been approved subject to a small number of minor amendments.

4.2 Do the charts clearly indicate the proposed airspace change? YES Draft design plates detailing the RNAV procedures have been prepared by Davidson Ltd. and have been approved subject to a small number of minor amendments.




4.3 Has the Change Sponsor identified AIP pages affected by the Change Proposal and provided a draft amendment? NO

This work will be completed prior to Stage 6 (Implementation).

5. Operational Impact Status 5.1 Is the Change Sponsor’s analysis of the impact of the change on all airspace users, airfields and traffic levels, and

evidence of mitigation of the effects of the change on any of these, complete and satisfactory? Consideration should be given to: a) Impact on IFR GAT, on OAT or on VFR general aviation traffic flow in or through the area.

YES

No additional restriction on non‐participating aircraft. b) Impact on VFR Routes. YES There is no direct impact upon existing VFR routes. c) Consequential effects on procedures and capacity, ie on SIDS, STARS, holds. Details of existing or planned

routes and holds. YES

The proposed procedures will not have any effect on other procedures or on capacity. d) Impact on Airfields and other specific activities within or adjacent to the proposed airspace. YES Other airfields that were engaged through the consultation process have indicated that there would be no impact on their operations.




e) Any flight planning restrictions and/ or route requirements. YES

None.

5.2 Does the Change Sponsor Consultation letter reflect the likely operational impact of the change? YES Yes. The consultation document highlights that these procedures replicate the final approach track of the existing ILS procedures.

6. Economic Impact Status 6.1 Is a provisional economic impact assessment to all categories of operations and users likely to be affected by the

change included and acceptable? (This may include any forecast capacity gains and the cost of any resultant additional track mileage).

NO

As the procedures are intended to be used as a contingency for the failure of other navaid equipment, and the fact that the procedures replicate closely the procedures currently in place for the final approach the airport has concluded that it would be “impracticable to determine any meaningful, quantitative financial value that may be saved or expended as a result of the change”.

Case Study Conclusions – To be completed by DAP Project Leader Yes/No Has the Change Sponsor met the DAP Airspace Change Proposal requirements and Airspace Regulatory requirements above?

YES

In combination the ACP proposal and supporting documentation successfully develops a case to support the introduction of new RNAV (GNSS) IAPs.




Outstanding Issues Serial Issue Action Required

Additional Compliance Requirements (to be satisfied by Change Sponsor) Serial Requirement

Recommendations Yes/No Is the approval of the SoS for Transport required in respect of the Environmental Impact of the airspace change? NO No. Is the approval of the MoD required in respect of National Security issues surrounding the airspace change? NO No.




General Summary This proposal to introduce RNAV (GNSS) approach procedures at LJLA, that closely replicate existing IAPs, will not change the current traffic patterns and will not have an environmental impact. The new procedures will provide a degree of resilience in the event of an ILS failure. This ACP has met with no operational objections. It is anticipated that the procedures will be used only on a limited number of occasions when the ILS is not functioning or when specific training is necessary. Significantly, the proposal is not a prerequisite for growth in traffic numbers, requires no change to airspace classification and has no impact upon local area traffic not using Liverpool airport. Comments

Observations

Airspace Change Proposal Operational Assessment Page 1 of 16 · 2016-04-28 · Safety and Airspace...

Documents

Transcript of Airspace Change Proposal Operational Assessment Page 1 of 16 · 2016-04-28 · Safety and Airspace...