Post Consultation Report. Hawarden Airport. Proposal to Adopt GNSS Approaches and amend Conventional Instrument Flight Procedures at Hawarden Airport

Transcription

1 Hawarden Airport Proposal to Adopt GNSS Approaches and amend Conventional Instrument Flight Procedures at Hawarden Airport (Annex B) Post Consultation Report ISSUE 1 Date 28 th February 2018 Serco UK & Europe Enterprise House 11 Bartley Wood Business Park Bartley Way, Hook Hampshire RG27 9XB United Kingdom Document Copyright 2018 Serco Group This document is the property of Airbus Operations Ltd HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 1 of 45 Issue 1

2 DOCUMENT APPROVAL This document has been prepared, authorised and approved by the individuals listed in the following table: Authority Name and Signature Responsibility Date Manager Air Traffic Services Mark Downes Author Head of Aviation Safety & Compliance Matt Wilshaw-Rhead Reviewer Senior Air Traffic Control Officer Mark Spedding Authorisation Head of Aerodrome Management Paul Bastock Authorisation HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 2 of 45 Issue 1

3 DOCUMENT STATUS ISSUE RECORD Issue Date Comments Initial Issue AMENDMENT RECORD Page Number Change Number Issue Number Description of Change Date HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 3 of 45 Issue 1

4 DISTRIBUTION LIST Copy No Recipient / Location 01 Hawarden Airport Air Traffic Services Unit 02 CAA SARG Kingsway HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 4 of 45 Issue 1

5 Introduction Hawarden Airport is operated as an EASA certificated aerodrome by Airbus Operations Ltd. Airbus Operations Ltd contracts the provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS) to Serco, who are an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 7 of the European Commission Regulation 550/2004. The primary purpose of the airport is to facilitate the transport of wings and large components for the production of Airbus aircraft; this is achieved using a fleet of 5 x A300/600 Super Transporter aircraft which have been in service for 16 years. In 2019 this role will be phased over to the replacement A330 XL Super Transporters. In addition to the freight operations, site to site transport for Airbus staff is undertaken (currently contracted to Eastern Airways using E145, E170, JS41 or Saab 2000 aircraft). Over and above this, several maintenance organisations are based at the airport together with several flying training organisations, based corporate aircraft, aerial surveying companies and visiting aircraft of various sizes and weights. Hawarden is also frequented by non-based flying organisations for instrument navigation training including Shropshire Aero Club, RAF Valley & RAF Shawbury. Aviation movements at Hawarden for 2017 were and are forecast to be in the region of 19,000 for Of these, 1202 in 2017 were Airbus Transport International (ATI) flights, planning to rise to 1400 in 2018 and plateau at 1600 in A moderate increase in overall movements is expected over the coming years in line with national forecasts. Hawarden Airport is currently equipped with; A Medium Frequency (MF) Non-Directional Locator Beacon (NDB); Category 1 Instrument Landing System (ILS) to runways 22 and 04; Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) frequency paired to the ILS and zero ranged to respective thresholds; Easat radar proving Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA). The NDB/ILS/DME facilities support both ILS/DME and Localiser LLZ/DME Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the final approach track on each runway. Whilst there is no plan to remove any of the current conventional airport based Navaids from service, consideration of GNSS approaches has identified the following advantages; Resilience for Navaid failure; Enhanced flying training opportunities; Removal of reliance on NDB availability (single point failure). There are no connected Standard Arrival Routes (STARS) associated with the ground based Navaids at Hawarden. As such, arriving aircraft are routed in accordance with standard radar vectored patterns to the conventional Instrument Flight Procedures, or by using their own navigation to position on the same. Accordingly, this gives a spread of the tracks aircraft fly on approach within the constraints of the local airspace. Aircraft interpreted ILS and NDB based approaches are infrequently flown primarily for training purposes. Based upon the prevailing winds and traffic Runway 22 is used 70% of the time and Runway 04 30%. Airbus Transport International (ATI) has stated a company requirement to have GNSS procedures at Hawarden to align with similar requirements at all other Airports the airline operates to. Numerous other based and non-based operators have also made clear the advantages of having GNSS procedures available at Hawarden for their own operations. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 5 of 45 Issue 1

6 In addition to the implementation of GNSS approaches, a routine review of conventional Instrument Flight Procedures identified some changes required which may have an impact on both aviation and non-aviation stakeholders due to the amendment of procedure commencement points. Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725 sets out the processes that are to be followed in applying for a change to any airspace. This Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) is being developed in accordance with the requirements specified in CAP 725. CAP 725 requires the sponsor (Serco) of the ACP to carry out a consultation with the airspace users who may be directly or indirectly affected by the change and with organisations representing those who may be affected on the ground by the environmental impact of the change. This document is the Sponsor Consultation Document developed in accordance with the provisions of CAP 725. Background Information of this document explains the process of the consultation. It also provides some basic background information about the Airport, the current airspace arrangements and an outline of the current Air Traffic Management (ATM) procedures. The ACP section of this document describes in detail the various elements of the proposed airspace change, including the options that have been considered for each element. Through a process of option consideration and development, and taking into account external influences on the airspace configuration, Hawarden Airport has reached a balanced judgement on the changes presented in this consultation. This consultation document was released on 9 th November 2017 to the consultees listed at Appendix B (primarily via ) on 8 th January 2018 and again on 2 nd February The consultation closed on 9 th February This document is the Post Consultation Report and forms Annex B to the Airspace Change Proposal. The document describes the processes followed within the consultation and records the level of responses and engagement from consultees. It also outlines common issues and attempts to respond to and address these. A number of Appendices provide amplifying detail where necessary, including a comprehensive Glossary of the aviation terminology used. Additionally, as the required changes affected by requirements arising from a number of UK, European and International Policies and Strategies, a list of source documents is included for reference by consultees. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 6 of 45 Issue 1

7 Table of Contents 1 DOCUMENT APPROVAL 2 DOCUMENT STATUS 3 ISSUE RECORD... 3 AMENDMENT RECORD... 3 DISTRIBUTION LIST 4 Introduction 5 List of Abbreviations 8 1. Overview 10 2 Early stakeholder engagement Overview of Responses 11 4 Useable responses 12 5 Adaptions to the proposal 13 5 Next Steps 15 Appendix A - Consultation Methodology 16 A.1 Introduction 16 A.2 Consultation Methodology 16 A.3 Consultees 17 Appendix B List of Consultees 18 Airport user consultees B.3 Off-airport aerodrome and airspace user consultees B.4 NATMAC Consultees B.5 NATMAC military consultees B.5 Local Parish and District Councils Appendix C Common Comments Raised & Responses 22 Appendix D Airspace Development Options Considered 23 D.1 Introduction D.2 Do nothing D.3 Amend the conventional IFPs D.4 Develop GNSS arrival and departure procedures which are connected to the airways structure D.5 Develop GNSS procedures (non-connected) Appendix D Current Conventional IFPs 29 Appendix E Proposed amendments to Conventional IFPs 37 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 7 of 45 Issue 1

8 List of Abbreviations aal above aerodrome level ABAS Aircraft Based Augmentation System ACP Airspace Change Proposal ADI Aerodrome Control Service (Instrument) Agl above ground level ALT Altitude amsl above mean sea level ANO Air Navigation Order (2008) ANSP Air navigation Service Provider AOA Airport Operator s Association APS Approach Control Service (Surveillance) ARP Aerodrome Reference Point ATI Airbus Transporte International ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Service ATZ Aerodrome Traffic Zone BGA British Gliding Association CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAP Civil Aviation Publication CCP Continuous Climb Profile CDA Continuous Descent Approach CTA Control Area CTR Control Zone DAATM Defence Airspace and Air Traffic Management DME Distance Measuring Equipment FAF Final Approach Fix FUA Flexible Use of Airspace GA General Aviation GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System IAF Initial Approach Fix IAP Instrument Approach Procedure ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFP Instrument Flight Procedure IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILS Instrument Landing System LJAO London Joint Airspace Organisation LP Localizer Performance LPV Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance LNAV Lateral Navigation NATMAC National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee NATS National Air Traffic Services NDB Non-Directional Beacon NDB (L) Non-Directional Beacon (Locator) nm Nautical Mile NWHGPC North Wales Hang-gliding and Para Gliding Club PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation - Operations PSR Primary Surveillance Radar RMA Radar Manoeuvring Area RNAV Area Navigation RNP Required Navigation Performance HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 8 of 45 Issue 1

9 RotAR Rules of the Air Regulations (2007) RTF Radio Telephony SARG Safety and Airspace Regulatory Group SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System SID Standard Instrument Departure SOC Standard Outbound Clearance SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar STAR Standard Arrival Route TMA Terminal Control Area UK AIP United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication VFR Visual Flight Rules VNAV Vertical Navigation VRP Visual Reference Point HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 9 of 45 Issue 1

10 Post Consultation Report 1. Overview 1.1 Chester Hawarden Airport is proposing to submit to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) a case for the establishment of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) approaches to the runways at Hawarden Airport. 1.2 This consultation is additionally about some changes that are required to be made to the conventional Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) proposal to establish GNSS approaches to the runways at Hawarden Airport. 1.3 Hawarden Airport management believes that the provision of GNSS approaches are necessary to provide the required support to the primary operator together with providing desired resilience and to future proof the airport s operations. This will be explained in detail, together with the options that have been considered, in the body of this Consultation Document. 1.4 An Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the CAA as detailed in CAP 725 CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process. 1.5 This process requires that the Sponsor of the change, carries out a comprehensive consultation with organizations and individuals that may be affected by the proposed change. 1.6 This document is the Report of the Sponsor Consultation carried out by Hawarden ATC between 9 th November 2017 and 9 th February 2018 in accordance with the requirements of CAA Document CAP 725. As such it will form part of the formal ACP to be submitted to the CAA. 1.7 The background to the consultation and the methodology used is detailed at Appendix A of this Report. 1.8 The consultation process requires that Hawarden Airport should take a balanced view on the key issues raised by consultees and, if appropriate and feasible within the safety and regulatory requirements, adapt the proposal to address objections or concerns identified. Where appropriate, issues arising from the consultation have been, or are aiming to be, addressed by continuing dialogue with relevant parties and with the CAA. 1.9 This Report provides statistical analysis of the consultation and identifies the main issues raised by consultees who responded to the consultation. It provides the Hawarden Airport view on the issues identified and outlines post-consultation action that has been, or is planned to be, undertaken by Hawarden Having carried out a Sponsor Consultation in accordance with the CAA s requirements, Hawarden Airport intends to continue with the submission of a formal proposal to the CAA in accordance with the provisions of CAP Hawarden Airport thanks all consultees who took part in the consultation of the proposal to adopt GNSS Approaches and amend Conventional Instrument Flight Procedures at Hawarden Airport. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 10 of 45 Issue 1

11 2 Early stakeholder engagement 2.1 Throughout the consultation process, Hawarden ATC followed the 7 stage process as laid out in CAP 725. In addition to this Hawarden ATC elected to engage early with aviation stakeholders, this allowed the sponsor to identify issues early in the airspace design process. 2.2 Engagement was primarily via s which were sent to 147 identified potential stakeholders. The consultation was also promoted on the Hawarden Airport Website which included contact details and other relevant information. 2.3 The early engagement allowed more of a collaborative approach to the approach procedure design and for two-way discussions to take place, both on-line and face to face. This permitted Hawarden ATC to elaborate on the issues and plans and for stakeholders to voice their concerns and for flight crews to have an input in to the design. 2.4 The presentations and feedback identified key stakeholders that would require further development of the proposal in order to, as far as possible, address their concerns. This led to specific liaison between the procedures designers and ATI. 3 Overview of Responses 3.1 A total of 147 aviation and potentially affected organisations, representatives or individuals were consulted. The aviation consultees included local airspace user organisations, national representative bodies and Air Traffic Management organisations. Responses were received from 11% of the consultees. A higher response would have been desirable however 2 communications were sent in January and February 2018 to remind consultees of the closure date for the consultation. The second of these communication included voting buttons in an attempt to elicit a higher response. Total consultees (147) responded 11% no response 89% HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 11 of 45 Issue 1

12 3.1 The consultees comprised; Local parish & district councils - 78 Hawarden based aviators - 15 Adjacent airports, ATC units & airspace users - 27 NATMAC - 27 Local parish and District Councils Hawarden Based Aviators Adjacent airports, ATC units and airspace users NATMAC 3.2 It is notable that several of the individuals or organisations did not respond individually but responded as part of their relevant national organisation. This was the case for the local gliding sites. For these grouped responses, the individuals were identified but counted as a single consultee and responding consultee for statistical purposes. 4 Useable responses 4.1 As the consultation was focussed on eliciting objections and that the engagement and hastener communications clarified that no response would be read as no objection, a no-response is considered as usable. 4.2 All 4 respondents who were non-supportive of the proposal also supplied comments and or points for clarification. This lead to further engagement in order to address some of the issues raised. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 12 of 45 Issue 1

13 4.3 A graph showing the ratio of objections versus no objections is shown below Consultee responses (of 147) 0 No objection Objection 4.4 The comments and clarifications contained within the responses provided only a handful of issues. The common issues are tabulated at Appendix C. This tabulation also lays out the responses, actions and comments of Hawarden ATC. 4.5 Following liaison with Liverpool airport, outline agreements on implementation, operation and review of the proposed procedures have been made, resulting in withdrawal of their objection. 4.6 The objection raised by the BGA (also representing North Wales Gliding Club and Lleweni Parc gliding site) was not in relation to the core proposal but in regard to the associated warnings and publication of the Llantisilio Gliding site on the approach plates. 4.7 Whilst the BGA registered an objection, the objection was not raised in respect of the flight procedures. The objection raised concerns regarding implementation of the IFPs, which are acknowledged and will be addressed through the implementation phase. 5 Adaptions to the proposal 5.1 As no material concerns were raised by any consultees in relation to the proposed adoption of GNSS approaches or amendment to conventional instrument approaches, no adaptions are deemed necessary. The comments raised by the BGA will be forwarded to the CAA and discussed for possible adoption. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 13 of 45 Issue 1

14 6 Conclusions 6.1 The Sponsor Consultation has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the CAA as detailed in CAP 725. A comprehensive cross-section of Industry consultees has been included. The Industry consultees included representation at local and national level and included both airspace users and ATS provider interests. 6.2 Provision was made for individual members of the aviation community or individual members of the public to participate in the consultation and make their views known. Due regard has been taken of such submissions received. 6.3 A less than ideal response rate (11%) has been achieved. However, the communications to consultees clearly stated that a nil response would be counted as no objection to the proposal. Adequate opportunity was given for consultees to raise any objection. 6.4 Furthermore, the objections by the BGA were not specifically in relation to the design of the GNSS procedures or the amended conventional instrument approach procedures. 6.5 The issues raised by Liverpool airport have and will be addressed by close ongoing liaison and Letters of Agreement between the respective ATC units. 6.6 Hawarden ATC has found that no new or unexpected issues have arisen which would materially affect the fundamental case for the introduction of GNSS approach procedures or the amendment of conventional instrument approach procedures. 6.7 Hawarden ATC concludes, therefore, that given the safety responsibilities and accountabilities placed upon it under the Air Navigation Order and EC Regulations 550/2004 and 1035/2011, there are no material issues arising from objections to the proposal that would justify withdrawal of the proposal. 6.8 Consequently, Hawarden Airport remains convinced that the case for the adoption of GNSS approach procedures or the amendment of conventional IAPs is sound and, a formal ACP will be submitted to the CAA. 6.9 Hawarden Airport would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who took part in the consultation and provided valuable input to the process. We look forward to continue working with stakeholders as the ACP process progresses. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 14 of 45 Issue 1

15 7 Next Steps 7.1 Hawarden ATC will continue to prepare its formal submission to the CAA for the introduction of GNSS approach procedures and the amendment of conventional IAPs. The CAA requires that all consultation material, including responses to the consultation and the Hawarden ATC analysis are included in the formal submission. This Report, together with any follow-up correspondence and review documentation, will also form part of the submission. 7.2 It is planned that the formal ACP will be submitted to the CAA in March Following receipt of the formal proposal, the CAA will carry out a documentation check to ensure that the Hawarden Airport submission is complete and will request clarification and/or additional information if necessary. A Case Study will then be carried out by the CAA leading to a Regulatory Decision by the Head of the SARG. This decision will normally be reached within a period of 17 weeks. 7.4 In the event that the Regulatory Decision supports the proposal then the Implementation Phase, taking a further absolute minimum of 56 days from the time that the necessary documentation is submitted to the Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) in accordance with the international requirements for the promulgation of aeronautical information. 7.5 It is anticipated that the new and amended IAPs could be adopted by 27th September 2018 (AIRAC 9/18). HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 15 of 45 Issue 1

16 Appendix A - Consultation Methodology A.1 Introduction A.1.1 The CAA sets out its regulatory requirements and process for applications to change the status of airspace or associated arrangements in CAP 724 The Airspace Charter and CAP 725 CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process. An essential element of the airspace development process is for the Change Sponsor, in this case Hawarden ATC, to carry out an extensive consultation with the airspace users who may be directly or indirectly affected by the change and with organisations representing those who may be affected by the environmental impact of the change. A.1.2 The adoption GNSS approach procedures or the amendment of conventional IAPs is not a change of classification of airspace; however, it could have an effect on the distribution of aircrafts flight tracks. Additionally, it does have a potential impact on airspace users which has to be assessed. The established method for doing this was to follow the process of airspace changes detailed in CAP 725 requiring a full Industry consultation. A.1.3 Thus the airspace proposal development and Sponsor Consultation has been conducted in accordance with the CAA requirements. A.2 Consultation Methodology A.2.1 A comprehensive Sponsor Consultation Document was prepared by Hawarden ATC. The CAA also provided advice on the development of the Sponsor Consultation Document prior to its release. A.2.2 The consultation invitation letter was distributed to Consultee Organisations by , noting the Hawarden Airport website and detailing response details. Electronic distribution of and website access to consultation material is acceptable to the CAA and now forms the standard method of undertaking such consultations. A.2.3 Paper copies of the Consultation Document were available to consultees on request. A.2.4 The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the CAA requirements specify a minimum period of 12 weeks for consultation. Hawarden ATC carried out this Consultation between 8 th November 2018 and 8 th February 2018, allowing a 12-week period (plus a week for the Christmas holiday period). A.2.5 Within the consultation period consultees were asked to consider the proposal and submit a response to Hawarden ATC, by mail or . A.2.6 Additionally, a number of the consultee aviation organisations publicised the consultation on their websites or industry publications. Thus a wide spectrum of individual airspace users were made aware of the consultation. A.2.7 Once the formal consultation was under way the opportunity for additional presentations and meetings was made available. Only Liverpool airport was engaged in this manner. A.2.8 All consultee responses were acknowledged on receipt. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 16 of 45 Issue 1

17 A.2.9 Consultees that raised objections or issues for resolution were contacted and either a dialogue via /letter or face to face meetings, were held to attempt to resolve any identified issues. An overview of the issues raised and the Hawarden responses are tabulated at Appendix C. A.2.10 Ongoing communication is being continued with Liverpool airport that will be subject to a letter of agreement in relation to the operation of the GNSS approach procedures. A.2.11 On the conclusion of consultation this post consultation report was produced, submitted to SARG and will be made available on the Hawarden Airport website. A.2.12Following issue of this post consultation report an Aispace Change Proposal, Economic Impact Report and Environmental Report will be produced and published. A.3 Consultees A.3.1 Development of the Consultee List is defined by the CAA requirements of CAP 725. Hawarden ATC sought appropriate advice from the CAA in developing an appropriate list. A.3.2 The CAA requires that the consultation must be addressed, to UK National Aviation Organisations on the CAA s National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC). The list of NATMAC organisations and their representatives was provided by CAA SARG. It should be noted that a number of NATMAC organisations field more than one representative. A.3.3 Additionally, local airspace user groups who had previously participated in the pre consultation stakeholder engagement together with local airport users and off-airport airspace user organisations and local aerodromes that may be affected by the airspace change were included in the consultation. A.3.4 The complete list of consultees is reproduced at Appendix B. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 17 of 45 Issue 1

18 Appendix B List of Consultees Airport user consultees Eastern Airways Flintshire Flying School National Police Air Service Airbus Helicopters Aviation Park Group Raytheon Systems Ltd Airbus Transport International Airbus PR Office APEM Limited JD Aviation Grosvenor North Wales Military Aviation Services (NWMAS) Exec Jet Charter (Williams) Signum Jefferson Air Photography B.3 Off-airport aerodrome and airspace user consultees NWHPGC Liverpool Airport ATC Warton ATC PC Wal Sector RAF Valley RAF Shawbury Sleap Airfield North Wales Gliding Club Ashcroft Farm Airstrip Poulton South Airfield Bryngwynbach Airstrip Rhedyn Coch Airstrip Gresford Airstrip North West Air Ambulance Helicopter and Aviation Services Skydive Tilstock Manchester Airport ATC Cheshire Microlights Denbigh Gliding Club Mid Wales Airport Shropshire Aero Club Manchester City Airport Lancashire Aero Club Mersey Flight Liverpool Flying School Lomac Aviators Raven Air HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 18 of 45 Issue 1

19 B.4 NATMAC Consultees AOA Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) BAE Systems British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) British Balloon & Airship Club (BBAC) British Gliding Association (BGA) British Helicopter Association (BHA) British Model Flying Association (BMFA) European UAV Systems Centre Ltd Guild of Air Pilots & Air Navigators (GAPAN) Helicopter Club of Great British (HCGB) National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Aviation Environment Federation British Air Transport Association (BATA) British Airways British Business & General Aviation Association (BBGA) British Hand Gliding & Paragliding Association (BHPA) British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA) British Parachuting Association (BPA) General Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) Light Aircraft Association (LAA) PPL/IR Europe CAA Light Airlines B.5 NATMAC military consultees DAATM B.5 Local Parish and District Councils Abenbury Community Council Acton Community Council Bangor Isycoed Community Council Bronington Community Council Broughton Community Council Caia Park Community Council Cefn Community Council Gresford Community Council Gwersyllt Community Council Holt Community Council Llay Community Council Pen-y-cae Community Council Rhosddu Community Council Rossett Community Council Argoed Community Council Broughton and Bretton Community Council Brynford Community Council Buckley Town Council Cilcain Community Council Connah's Quay Town Council HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 19 of 45 Issue 1

20 Flint Town Council Gwernaffield and Pantymwyn Community Council Gwernymynydd Community Council Halkyn Community Council Hawarden Community Council Higher Kinnerton Community Council Holywell Town Council Hope Community Council Leeswood and Pontblyddyn Community Council Llanfynydd Community Council Mold Town Council Mostyn Community Council Nannerch Community Council Nercwys Community Council Northop Community Council Penyffordd Community Council Queensferry Community Council Saltney Town Council Sealand Community Council Shotton Town Council Treuddyn Community Council Aldford and Saighton Parish Counci Alvanley Parish Council Backford Parish Council Christleton Parish Council Churton Parish Council Coddington and District Parish Council Dodleston Parish Council Dunham on the Hill and Hapsford Parish Council Eaton and Eccleston Parish Council Elton Parish Council Farndon Parish Council Great Boughton Parish Council Guilden Sutton Parish Council Handley Parish Council Helsby Parish Council Huntington Parish Council Ince Parish Council Kingsmead Parish Council Lea By Backford Parish Council Little Stanney Parish Council Littleton Parish Council Mollington Parish Council Poulton and Pulford Parish Council Rowton Parish Council Saughall and Shotwick Park Parish Council Thornton Le Moors Parish Council Upton-by-Chester Parish Council Waverton Parish Council Bryneglwys Parish Council Clocaenog Parish Council Cyffylliog Parish Council Efenechtyd Parish Council Llanarmon yn Iâl Parish Council HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 20 of 45 Issue 1

21 Llandegla Parish Council Llanfair Dyffryn Clwyd Parish Council Llanferres Parish Council Llantysilio Parish Council HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 21 of 45 Issue 1

22 Appendix C - Comments Raised & Responses Issue Raised Adoption may have a detrimental effect on adjacent airports. The proposal included draft approach plates which did not depict and adjacent cable launched gliding site nor include warning in relation to the site. Hawarden ATC Response Use of the full GNSS procedure (Rwy 22) would normally only be for training and will be subject to constraints on usage similar to procedural approaches and the normal flight priorities as defined in MATS Part 1. Radar vectoring to the FAF (or IAF to be evaluated and agreed) will be treated in the same way as radar vectoring for the ILS 22 (providing Hawarden traffic is contained within the current RMA). Should there be any significant change in traffic levels (at either unit), frequency of use of the procedures or changes in any associated procedures, a review will be undertaken. Any issues or concerns identified with these reviews will be addressed by the units normal change processes. We note your comments and suggestions. We will include your comments in the post consultation report and any subsequent application to change airspace (to adopt the GNSS procedures). We already have very close coordination with the North Wales Gliding Club who operate from Llantysilio and have extant procedures to accommodate the existing conventional Instrument Approach Procedures. Additionally the gliding site is depicted on the radar displays at Hawarden. In principle I agree that greater awareness of gliding activity will increase safety for all, but note that a similar suggestion of annotating approach plates was declined by the CAA due to the potential for clutter and confusion. One counter argument that could be raised is that although a winch launch site introduces the hazard of a cable and will inevitably have a higher concentration of aircraft taking off and landing, the entire Clywdian range is a focal area for gliding activity, so awareness of gliding activities in the whole area should be promoted. We will however discuss the possibility of incorporation of the gliding site on the chart with the CAA. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 22 of 45 Issue 1

23 Appendix D Airspace Development Options Considered D.1 Introduction D.1.1 CAP725 requires that in developing proposals to change airspace, the change sponsors should consider a range of options, including the Do Nothing option. D.1.2 This appendix outlines the options considered by Hawarden Airport in order to arrive at the configuration and procedures being proposed. D.1.3 It is important to note that the information contained within this Appendix is provided purely to illustrate the options considered. Other than the final design of the conventional IFPs and the GNSS procedures, the options outlined in this Appendix are not being considered for implementation and can be considered as having being rejected as unsuitable. D.2 Do nothing D.2.1 In respect of the conventional IFPs; if no change were made the instrument approached would be non-compliant with the design requirements. This means that separation from obstacles would be less than the require minima. As a result suspension of the procedures would be a possibility. D.2.2 In respect of the GNSS IFPs; if no change were made aircraft would not have the option to use the procedure, whilst the conventional IFPs remain available for use this impact is somewhat mitigated; however, the key operational requirement of ATI could not be met. A lack of adoption would also mean passing the opportunity for adoption of increased resilience at Hawarden Airport D.3 Amend the conventional IFPs D.3.1 This is the only viable option to maintaining the conventional IFPs. D.4 Develop GNSS arrival and departure procedures which are connected to the airways structure D.4.1 Whilst this would be an ideal theoretical solution. There are several issues which preclude this as a viable option. (i) Hawarden Airport is located outside controlled airspace and therefore connected STARs and SIDs could not be adhered to. (ii) Complexity and limitation of the surrounding and adjacent airspace. D.5 Develop GNSS procedures (non-connected) D.5.1 This option would achieve the operational requirement of ATI and would also provide the additional resilience desired by Hawarden Airport. From this high level option it was then necessary to define what type or types of GNSS should be developed. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 23 of 45 Issue 1

24 D.5.2 The ATI requirement is for a full LPV approach which is commensurate with the equipage of the aircraft. Accordingly this design needs to be developed. However, if no other designs were developed, lesser equipped aircraft or pilots/operators without relevant approvals could not utilise these approaches. D.5.3 Based upon the current based and typical operators qualifications and aircraft equipage the development of LNAV, LNAV/VNAV is supported. D.5.4 The remaining option of LP approaches only is discounted as it provides no vertical guidance element. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 24 of 45 Issue 1

25 D.5.5 The proposed GNSS procedures for runways 04 and runway 22 are depicted below; Proposed Hawarden GNSS Approach Runway 04 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 25 of 45 Issue 1

26 Proposed Hawarden GNSS Approach Runway 22 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 26 of 45 Issue 1

27 D.5.6 In order to assess the impact on consultees the typical flight tracks of aircraft currently using Hawarden were plotted in relation to the proposed GNSS procedures for both runways 04 and 22. These are depicted below: Current sample IFR arrival traffic for Hawarden runway 04 compared to typical proposed GNSS arrival tracks. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 27 of 45 Issue 1

28 Current sample IFR arrival traffic for Hawarden runway 22 compared to typical proposed GNSS arrival tracks. HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 28 of 45 Issue 1

29 Appendix D Current Conventional IFPs HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 29 of 45 Issue 1

30 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 30 of 45 Issue 1

31 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 31 of 45 Issue 1

32 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 32 of 45 Issue 1

33 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 33 of 45 Issue 1

34 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 34 of 45 Issue 1

35 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 35 of 45 Issue 1

36 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 36 of 45 Issue 1

37 Appendix E Proposed amendments to Conventional IFPs HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 37 of 45 Issue 1

38 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 38 of 45 Issue 1

39 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 39 of 45 Issue 1

40 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 40 of 45 Issue 1

41 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 41 of 45 Issue 1

42 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 42 of 45 Issue 1

43 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 43 of 45 Issue 1

44 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 44 of 45 Issue 1

45 HAW-E HSE PRO GNSS ACP PCR 45 of 45 Issue 1