CONTROLLED AIRSPACE CONTAINMENT POLICY

Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG) 17 January 2014 Policy Statement 1 Overview CONTROLLED AIRSPACE CONTAINMENT POLICY 1.1 UK airspace design policy for ATS Routes, SIDs and STARs is based upon References A- F. However, to assist UK airspace designers in determining the level of protection required for traffic flying within UK Controlled Airspace (CAS) against traffic flying outside CAS, guidance from a number of previous DAP internal documents has now been consolidated and included in this SARG Policy Statement (PS). This PS supplements a number of ICAO, Eurocontrol 1 and CAA publications covering requirements for design and dimensions of CAS for ATS routes, Control Zones (CTRs), Terminal Control Areas (TMAs), Control Areas (CTAs), and requirements for containment of SIDs, STARs and Missed Approaches (MAPs) established within CAS. Policy for Holding Patterns will be published separately. 1.2 This PS is not applicable to Instrument Flight Procedures where they are established for aerodromes outside CAS where such procedures may be established following the normal SARG regulatory approval process and associated Safety Case requirements. 1.3 The volume of controlled airspace shall be the minimum practicable necessary for the effective protection of the ATC operation as defined by an ATS provider and to support a safe service, subject to any identified overriding environmental requirements and the need to avoid over complication of airspace structures. 1.4 This PS assumes that the requirements for obstacle clearance have been met in accordance with PANS OPS design criteria. 2 Scope and Applicability 2.1 Scope. This document outlines guidance for containment policy for traffic using ATS Routes, SIDs and STARs (including RNAV Transitions to Final Approach 2 and Point Merge procedures) within CAS and for CTR, CTA and TMA structures. 2.2 Applicability. This PS is primarily designed to provide guidance for new procedures and airspace designs submitted to the CAA for approval. It is not intended to apply these requirements retrospectively to existing procedures. However, ANSPs are expected to frequently review the design and application of their procedures to ensure that they satisfy changing safety, operational and environmental conditions and requirements. Should changing circumstances warrant changes in procedures, any such amendments to airspace / procedure designs shall be made in accordance with the requirements of CAP 724, CAP 725, CAP 778 and CAP 785 (see reference material). 1 See References A-G for ICAO and Eurocontrol reference material. 2 See explanation of terms at page 4. Civil Aviation Authority CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE www.caa.co.uk Telephone 020 7453 6518 Fax 020 7453 6565 dave.raine@.caa.co.uk

3. Control Zones and Control Areas 3.1 Where established, CAS in the vicinity of aerodromes shall be designed to provide sufficient airspace protection for aircraft established on, or joining, the final approach track (procedurally, or under radar direction), and the integration of aircraft in a radar traffic pattern or carrying out departures (including SIDs where established), or a missed approach. Dimensions for a CTR should be appropriate to meet the requirements of IFPs at the relative aerodrome with relevant distances being measured from the Aerodrome Reference Point; however, another point of reference may be used in order to satisfy local design requirements. 3.2 The lateral dimensions of Terminal CTAs associated with CTRs (as opposed to en-route CTAs) are to be sufficient to permit the effective integration of flights to and from any adjoining route structure where appropriate or the containment of published terminal, holding and instrument approach procedures where necessary. Containment of such procedures should in the first instance be predicated upon primary obstacle clearance areas used in the design. Where competing airspace requirements preclude containment by primary area, containment of the nominal track defined by the procedure may be less than that afforded by the primary area but shall normally not be less than 3NMs from the edge of CAS. In exceptional circumstances, proposals for procedures resulting in less than 3NMs may be acceptable, but such proposals must be completely justified and supported by a safety case. 3.3 ICAO Annex 11 (Air Traffic Services) states that the lower limit of a CTA shall not be less than 700 feet agl. However, wherever practicable, the lower limit of a CTA adjoining a CTR should be no lower than 1500 ft agl in order to permit VFR flights under the CTA to comply with Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 Rule 5. The use of an expanded CTR to permit higher CTA base levels is preferable. 4. Terminal Control Areas 4.1 The complexity of the route structure and interface procedures (particularly interaction with en-route services), together with associated ATC operations, will determine the extent of a TMA. Base levels should be set at the highest practicable levels to contain integrated instrument approach and departure profiles yet simultaneously permit the effective availability of airspace below the base of controlled airspace for the use by transit traffic. Notwithstanding this, the base of a TMA should not be less than 2000 ft agl. 5. SIDs Departing from Aerodromes Within Controlled Airspace. 5.1 As outlined in Reference N, current UK Policy 3 is that a SID provides a specified Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) departure procedure that should remain wholly within Controlled Airspace (CAS) and permits connectivity with the en-route Air Traffic Service (ATS) route system, however, see exception at paragraph 5.2 Note 2. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) uses the term SID and Standard Departure Route (SDR) to identify IFR departure procedures in general. 4 5.2 Note 1: Certain UK aerodromes use the terms Standard Departure Route (SDR), Preferred Departure Route (PDR) or Planned Departure Route (also PDR) to define IFR departure procedures that are not obstacle-cleared and either leave or remain outside CAS 3 CAP 778 Policy for the Design and Operation of Departure Procedures in UK Airspace, Foreword paragraph 2. 4 See ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services and ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations. Continued (2 of 5 pages)

and have no direct connectivity to the en-route ATS system. However, misinterpretation of these terms, inconsistency in their application and potentially a lack of awareness of their not being obstacle-cleared has led to confusion or misunderstandings as to the purpose and status of such procedures. In order to remove such confusion the CAA intends to remove all references of each term. Instead, the use of Omnidirectional Departures as defined by ICAO is intended to become the norm. CAA Policy for Omnidirectional Departures in the UK dated 5 September 2012, facilitates the use of obstacle-cleared instrument departure procedures at aerodromes outside CAS should such aerodromes require them. Note 2: In light of emerging developments regarding the withdrawal of the VOR/NDB infrastructure, in order to provide defined tracks to enable de-confliction of known traffic at aerodromes outside CAS, or to meet specific environmental requirements, in exceptional circumstances, and subject to an acceptable proposal supported by a safety case, to justify why SIDs without CAS are deemed to be appropriate, the establishment of SIDs outside CAS is now being considered by the CAA on a case by case basis. Details will be included in the CAP 778 with the next amendment. 5.3 Vertical Containment. All SIDs established within CAS must be vertically contained within CAS. 5 Where it is necessary to contain a procedure above stepped CAS bases, levels shall be specified which ensure that the flight profile remains at least 500 ft above the base of CAS. In addition, the upper limit of a SID shall be at least 500 ft below the upper limit of CAS. 5.4 Lateral Containment. Lateral containment of SIDs established within CAS, should in the first instance, be based upon the size and shape of the primary area determined for obstacle clearance and applicable to the procedure design. 5.4.1 RNAV 1 SIDs. 6 For RNAV SIDs established within CAS, the nominal track should not be less than 3 NMs from the lateral limits of CAS. This is based upon the Required Navigation Performance (RNP) standard of +/- 1NM for 95% of the flight time 7. It also acknowledges that normal radar vectoring limitations require controllers to ensure aircraft remain not less than 2NM from the edge of CAS 8. 5.4.2 Conventional SIDs. Where it is not possible to introduce RNAV 1 designs due to operating fleet capabilities or other constraints, the nominal track for SIDs established within CAS should in normal circumstances not be less than 5NMs from the limits of CAS 9. Exceptionally, and when this criterion cannot be met, sponsors of conventional SIDs may present alternative proposals with appropriate mitigation supported by a safety case for CAA approval. In such cases, the nominal track must not be less than 3NM from the lateral limits of CAS. 6 STARs and ATS Routes 6.1 STARs and ATS Routes should be contained within CAS, however, see exception at Note 1. For the purposes of this policy statement, STARs are deemed to incorporate RNAV Transitions to Final Approach (see explanation on page 4) and Point Merge procedures. 5 CAP 778 Chapter 3 paragraphs 5.1. 6 RNAV 1 has previously been referred to as P-RNAV. 7 Note: This value is based on the principle that RNAV 1 route navigation performance standard is based on a Total System Error (TSE) for navigational tolerances being + or - 1NM either side of the nominal track for 95% of the total flight time. 8 MATS Part 1 Section 1 Chapter 5 paragraph 13.1.4. 9 Note: This value is based on the principle that RNAV 5 route navigation performance standard is based on a Total System Error (TSE) for navigational tolerances being + or - 5NM either side of the nominal track for 95% of the total flight time Continued (3 of 5 pages)

Note 1: In light of emerging developments regarding the withdrawal of the VOR/NDB infrastructure, in order to provide defined tracks to enable de-confliction of known traffic at aerodromes outside CAS, or to meet specific environmental requirements, in exceptional circumstances, and subject to an acceptable proposal supported by a safety case to justify why STARs without CAS are deemed to be appropriate, the establishment of STARs outside CAS is now being considered by the CAA on a case by case basis. Details will be published in due course. 6.2 RNAV 5 / Conventional STARs and ATS Route Lateral Containment. Specified nominal tracks designed to RNAV 5 and conventional navigational criterion, shall be not less than 5 NM from the limits of CAS(see Footnote 10) except within such notified airways where the boundary is less than 5 NM from the centreline and a safety case supports the safe operation of such a route. 6.3 RNAV 1 STARs and ATS Route Lateral Containment. Specified nominal tracks designed to RNAV 1 (RNP 1) standard should not be less than 3 NM from the limits of controlled/advisory airspace (see paragraph 5.4.1 and Footnote 8) unless new RNAV 1 procedures are established within existing airways where, under previous arrangements, the boundary is less than 3 NM from the centreline and a safety case supports the safe operation of such a route. This circumstance should be the exception rather than a rule as all new procedures should be designed to meet new policy requirements. 6.4 STARs and ATS Route Vertical Containment. Where it is necessary to contain a procedure above stepped CAS bases, levels shall be specified which ensure that the flight profile remains at least 500 ft above the base of CAS. In addition, the upper limit of a STAR/ATS route shall be at least 500 ft below the upper limit of CAS. 7 SIDs and STAR Procedures Outside Controlled Airspace 7.1 Notes at paragraphs 5.2 and 6.1 alluded to exceptions where SIDs and STARs may be permitted outside CAS. Issues to be considered prior to the implementation of these procedures outside CAS are outwith this PS. Details will therefore be published in a separate PS pending incorporation into appropriate CAPs. References: A B C D E F ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air. ICAO Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services. ICAO Doc 4444 PANS-ATM. ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS. ICAO Doc 9426 ATS Planning Manual. DAP Policy Statement The Application of ICAO Airspace Classifications in UK Flight Information Regions (22 August 2013). G DAP Policy for Omnidirectional Departures in the UK (5 September 2012). H Rules of the Air Rule 5. I CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1. J K L M N Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions CAP 724 The Airspace Charter Annexes F-H. DAP MS Process DAP1 Airspace Change Process. CAP 725 Airspace Change Process Guidance Document. CAP 778 Policy and Guidance for the Design and Operation of Departure Procedures in UK Airspace O CAP 785 Continued (4 of 5 pages)

Explanation of Terms - RNAV Transition to Final Approach This is the UK terminology to describe the RNAV initial approach segment from an RNAV Hold Fix to the Final Approach Fix which includes both lateral and vertical guidance (the actual airspace design terminology is known as an Approach Transition). Continued (5 of 5 pages)