Project Title/No: Glasgow Airport SIDs ACP Meeting Ref: CL-5170-MIN-050-V1.0 Purpose: Framework Briefing Date: 10 Feb 16 Venue: CAA House, K4 Apollo Time: 1130-1400 Attendees: CAA SARG Representatives '''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' Airspace Regulator ''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''' Airspace Regulator '''''''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''' Policy and Programmes (Environment) '''''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''''' IFP Regulator ''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''' ATS Inspector ''''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''' Airspace Regulator ''''''''''' ''''''''''' ''''''' ATS Inspector ''''''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''''''' Airspace Regulator (ACP Policy) '''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' IFP Regulator '''''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''''' Airspace Regulator (ACP Policy) ACP Sponsor Team ''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''' Glasgow Airport Limited (Head of Airside) ''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''' NATS General Manager ATS Glasgow ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' Cyrrus Ltd Project Manager '''''''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''' Cyrrus Ltd IFP Designer '''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''' '''''''' Cyrrus Ltd ATM Consultant Apologies: '''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' CAA SARG Distribution: Attendees Cyrrus File Notes ITEM 1 5170-050-N01 INTRODUCTION '''''' welcomed the ACP Sponsor Team and invited those present to explain their role and responsibility in regards to the change process. '''' thanked the CAA for arranging the Framework Briefing and provided a brief overview of why the introduction of RNAV-1 SIDs was necessary. She explained that last year Glasgow had initiated a Feasibility Study to understand the options available to introduce appropriate PBN procedures to replace the conventional SIDs which were predicated upon the availability of the GOW VOR. The VOR was to be withdrawn as part of the rationalisation of the UK VOR infrastructure under the auspices of the NATS VOR Replacement Programme (approved by the CAA in 2014).
5170-050-N02 ITEM 2 5170-050-N03 5170-050-N04 5170-050-N05 It was recognised that any change would necessitate an ACP, but it was clear that various external CNS/ATM initiatives would influence what change could be implemented. Consequently, it was confirmed that in the event that any innovative solution was to be considered, this would be as part of a separate ACP project which would be applied for as a separate project but the immediate demand was to ensure that business continuity could be sustained when the GOW VOR was withdrawn from use in May 2017. The focus of the replication ACP would be RNAV-1 Replication as completion of the change process (although challenging) was deemed achievable in the timetable set by the withdrawal of the VOR from operational use. ''''' remarked that a second phase could follow although this is not confirmed at present and there was no timetable attached to this aspirational change as the objectives were not yet clear. '''''' added that the objectives of the Glasgow replication ACP were compatible with the objectives set for the Scottish TMA re-design programme. '''''' acknowledged the rationale for separating the replication project from any future plan and that SARG recognised the need to adopt the RNAV-1 Replication for the planned ACP. ''''' invited '''''' to make a presentation about the proposed replication ACP. SPONSOR BRIEFING ''''' provided an overview of the presentation stating the: Objectives; Assumptions upon which the ACP would be executed; Proposed schedule; Options considered for replicating the departures; The project risks and opportunities that this change proposal posed; Environmental considerations to be applied to the ACP. A copy of the presentation was requested by ''''' and ''''' agreed that this would be sent with the minutes of the meeting. ''''' added that the presentation and the official notes taken at the meeting would become part of the public record for the ACP. ''''' acknowledged this requirement. The outline schedule presented was challenging and '''''' advised that some of the stages within the process would be run in parallel in order to achieve key milestone dates. The schedule was discussed in greater detail to examine what activities lay on the critical path and the potential effect on the SARG outline schedule. '''' advised that the feasibility study in summer 2015 revealed that the RNAV-1 designs could be based on TF with some CF in the mix. Although a survey about aircraft avionics and crew capability to use the various facets of PBN technology had been issued, the results received thus far had been inconclusive about the potential use of RF design. It was expected that responses from each of the base airlines contacted would be received before the Focus Group work commenced at the end of Feb 2016. ''''' suggested that the results might indicate that retention of a single conventional procedure for each runway may be a necessary contingency and sought guidance on the possible designs that might be employed including omni-directional departures (ODD).
5170-050-N06 5170-050-N07 5170-050-N08 5170-050-N09 '''''' raised a point for discussion that if a conventional procedure was retained then that will not be defined as a RNAV-1 Replication of the existing SIDs; there would have to be a new conventional procedure. '''''' acknowledged the distinction but advised that the nominal track would be the same as that flown today but potentially using a different type of navigational aid. ''''''' remarked that that was understood but the Sponsor needed to ensure that the extent of the replication and the potential introduction of a new conventional procedure was made clear in the Sponsor Consultation document. '''''' advised that if the conventional procedures were being developed, for example to sustain the public service obligation air routes and for those aircraft responding to air ambulance requirements then this must be articulated and explained in the Sponsor Consultation document. The need for a conventional procedure would be examined further after the planned Focus Group meetings. ''''' asked to be kept informed. ''''' suggested that each SID needs to be identified and the usage by the aircraft operators determined as this data would justify the changes proposed. The potential for any non-rnav 1 equipped aircraft operations could then be identified, and appropriate alternative designs for conventional departures be considered. As this may have the potential to result in a different track over the ground, the impacts of such proposals would have to be made clear in consultation material, as the ACP could become a mix of SID replications and new conventional departures depending on the final solutions determined by the sponsor. It was also important to show existing track dispersion plots for all existing departures, and that this data should be provided to the CAA so that precise consultation requirements can be ratified prior to commencement of consultation. '''' was pleased that there is a willingness to explore options and reiterated Glasgow s unique air operation due to fleet mix and the air services to the outer reaches of Scotland. '''' also noted that the preferred option for Glasgow Airport would not be to undertake the ACP at present and to wait until any future plans for change were understood fully, however, timescales driven by the target date for GOW DVOR switch off would not allow for this approach. ''''' explained that the Sponsor was aware of the design process to be followed and advised that the RNAV-1 design parameters to be applied to the replication of the conventional SIDs would be based upon the results of the airline survey. ''''' asked to what extent there had been consultation with Prestwick Centre (PC) about the proposed changes. ''''''' advised that the Sponsor had been fully engaged with the PC staff through the auspices of the SDDG which was addressing TMA changes. '''' asked if there would be a trial of the new RNAV-1 procedures. '''''' advised that the process for change was clearly defined and that the safety assessment activity undertaken by the ANSP would determine training/trial requirements. ''''' remarked that it would be beneficial to have a further meeting (or a conference call) when the results of the survey and the output from the Focus Groups was available. This was agreed and nominally set for the beginning of March. '''''' advised that CAA would suggest dates so that key personnel in SARG and the Sponsor s team could find a mutually convenient time to conclude discussion on design/consultation matters. ''''''''' was asked to send '''''' the planned schedule for the Focus Group activities.
ITEM 3 5170-050-N10 5170-050-N11 5170-050-N12 5170-050-N13 ITEM 4 ACP REQUIREMENTS ''''''' confirmed that the SARG Policy Statement on Replication (dated 19 August 2013) was current and '''''' advised that the Sponsor should follow the guidance provided within the Statement. '''''' also confirmed that the current CAP 725 (Third Edition [corrected] April 2007) remained extant and should be used by the Sponsor. He advised that the on-going review of the CAP 725 process would culminate in a consultation on the proposed amendment and was due to be launched in the near future, but its outcome would not affect how Glasgow should undertake its consultation on the subject airspace change proposal. It was confirmed that a double-airac would be appropriate for the changes proposed. The CAA would need to confirm that it was satisfied that any RNAV SIDs represent replications of the existing conventional SIDs, as defined in the CAA s Replication Policy. ''''''' suggested that the Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) would be the main non-aviation stakeholders in the ACP. Notwithstanding, the Sponsor was encouraged to consider other bodies/stakeholders not represented on the ACC to ensure there was opportunity for those who wished to be consulted to participate in the process. It was recommended that the Sponsor brief the ACC on: what the consultation was about, who to cascade the information to and seek confirmation that the information would be disseminated appropriately. Although reliance may be placed on ACC members to disseminate the information about the change effectively, it remained the responsibility of the Sponsor to ensure that the process was managed correctly and kept on track. The Sponsor needed to ensure that the consultation included Community Councils. ''''' advised that they were aware of the communities who would be interested in the consultation process and she confirmed that work had commenced on compiling the consultee list. '''''' offered to review the stakeholder list and draft Sponsor Consultation document. '''' thanked him for the offer which would be taken up when the activities were completed. ''''' advised the sponsor that a comprehensive CAA Post Implementation Review for the Gatwick RNAV SIDs implemented in November 2013 had been published in late 2015 on the CAA website. This included the provision of track data plots to show dispersion and vertical profiles. '''''' suggested that it may be helpful for the sponsor to view this data to see how track plots had been portrayed, then the sponsor could determine how to portray the expected potential impacts for the Glasgow replications.''''' noted the comment and advised that the draft Sponsor Consultation document would be shared with SARG staff before distribution. ''''' asked if any of the current operational practices removed aircraft from the SIDs for tactical operational reasons. '''''' advised that this was the case with all departures depending on the tactical situation. In particular, when airborne and the weather permitted, captains of the non-jet aircraft often elected for VFR flight to get more direct routing to their destination; this had been custom and practice for many years and would continue. '''''' advised that if aircraft are vectored in this way, then it should be mentioned in the Sponsor Consultation document. ''''' asked if there were any difference expected in the inter-airfield procedures to which '''''' replied that there would not. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS
5170-050-N14 ITEM 5 5170-050-N15 5170-050-N16 ITEM 6 '''''' advised that the process set out in CAP 725 be followed and asked if the Sponsor understood how the process worked. ''''' acknowledged the requirement and assured SARG that the technical consultants were conversant with the process and was sure that it would be followed assiduously. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS '''''' advised that as there was no change in the profile to be flown by aircraft using the RNAV-1 procedures, there would be no requirement to complete a CO2 assessment because it was implicit in replication that there would be minimal change. The Sponsor was advised that if there was any intention to remove redundant or little used SIDs, appropriate data would be required as part of the submission to CAA and in the Sponsor Consultation documentation to ensure explanation is provided on knock on effect of increase to traffic utilising remaining routes. ''''' stated that he would like to see track dispersion plots as part of the Sponsor Consultation document and formal submission. '''''' suggested that it might be helpful to show the current track plots for each SID and then overlay these on the RNAV-1 design to demonstrate the replication. It is understood that RNAV-1 design should result in greater concentration of traffic along the nominal track, so the depiction will aid understanding of the intent and expected outcome. '''''' advised the Sponsor to follow the DFT guidance on how to address potential noise issues up to 7000ft. SARG advised that it was key for the sponsor to demonstrate that they have considered what changes there might be in noise impacts up to at least 7000ft and portrayed any impacts as best they can. If the sponsor ultimately believes there will be no change in noise impacts, this needs to be conveyed and explained in the consultation and proposal. The sponsor should be mindful of any changes that might arise due to a concentration of traffic, or any change in traffic patterns arising from tactical vectoring. Although, noise contours would not be required to support the change proposal, it might be helpful to present typical noises levels at particular heights and explain how many aircraft use the route routinely. ''''' noted that the AIP entry for Glasgow mentioned NPR; however, the Sponsor had stated that there were only Noise Abatement Procedures in place. ''''' advised that this error had been noted recently and that remedial action would be taken to correct the statement. '''''' asked for a copy of the change for the AIRAC which '''' offered to send in due course. The environmental impacts from any new/redesigned conventional SIDs (for those aircraft that are not RNAV-equipped) would have to be considered and explained/portrayed in both the consultation material and the formal submission to the CAA. VALIDATION OF IFPS
5170-050-N17 5170-050-N18 5170-050-N19 ''''''' remarked that the Validation Plan was an important aspect of the flight procedure design process and he expected each of the SIDs to be stress tested e.g. to include adverse meteorological conditions in any simulation. There was an expectation that the replication be generally benign as the initial part of many of the SIDs was a straight ahead climb for 5NM. '''''' suggested that the Sponsor should consult the base airlines to establish how the current RNAV-overlay procedures had been compiled as this would aid the design process. '''''' remarked that the Plan must be representative of the fleet mix at Glasgow (i.e. to include Airbus, Boeing and Non-Jet types). '''' advised that Glasgow management had preempted the ACP with their customers and emphasised that replication only would form the basis of this change proposal. '''' agreed to engage further with the airline representatives and work collaboratively on the design solution to be consulted upon. ''''' noted that obtaining speedy and timely responses from the data-base coding houses was a challenge. Although the CAP 778 process would be followed by the appointed procedure design house (ASAP sro), he suggested that, in order to preserve the desired in-service date, further discussion take place to optimise the inter-action between designer and regulator. ''''' and '''''''' agreed to consider the request. ''''' asked if the design would be based on GNSS or DME/DME. If the former, then '''''' asked how satellite outages would be accounted for. ''''' advised that the outage issue would be discussed during the Focus Group sessions and analysed during the HAZID that followed in the same week. '''''' remarked that he understood that the DME coverage within the Scottish TMA was inadequate to support DME/DME RNAV procedures and that this situation prevailed for all of the Scottish airports. ''''' remarked that this was an outstanding action of the working group looking at the VOR/DME rationalisation programme. ITEM 7 5170-050-N20 TIMESCALES The Sponsor set out the timeline it wished to follow in order that the proper process could be followed. ''''' advised that SARG needed sufficient time in the process to allow the SARG executive to consider the documentation and advised that the proposal be submitted no later than 29 Aug 2016 in order to meet the target implementation date of 25 May 2017. '''''' advised that this was an unrealistic deadline as it would impede upon the minimum consultation timeframe. '''' advised that this ACP was aligned to the Scottish TMA programme and NATS was keen not to accommodate any schedule slippage as it would impact the strategic plans for Scottish TMA. Moreover, Glasgow did not anticipate that NATS would continue to maintain the equipment after May 2017. Note: Post FB, the CAA has determined that this date may be slipped to Mon 12 September 2016.
5170-050-N21 ITEM 8 5170-050-N22 ITEM 9 5170-050-N23 5170-050-N24 Notwithstanding, the Sponsor s position on the schedule and the rationale for sustaining the planned introduction of the RNAV-1 procedures in May 2017, '''''' queried what contingency would be in place in the event that slippage/delay occurred. '''' stated that the project team was planning out issues to the maximum extent possible and had built contingency to the various activities over which the Sponsor could exercise control. Consequently, the Sponsor would react to the unforeseen as and when it occurred with a suitable mitigation strategy to minimise any disruption to the programme. It was agreed that ''''' would provide a time schedule to allow the Sponsor to map the SARG thinking on timescales. CAA FORMS AND ADMIN ''''' acknowledged the need to use the appropriate forms when submitting the designs to SARG and to ensure that the requisite fees were paid to the CAA. AOB '''''' asked if there was any requirement for 5LNC to be set aside for the SID designs. ''''' advised that the procedure designers would be using the standard SID naming conventions and significant waypoints are expected to be given 5LNC names. '''' was aware of the process to apply for any 5LNC required. ''''' expressed surprise that there was no representation from PC at this Briefing. ''''' advised ''''' that SARG expected that PC would be a key stakeholder in the process and be consulted in an appropriate manner in accordance with the CAP 725 process. For the purposes of the meeting, '''''' confirmed that he was acting on behalf of NATS and would ensure that any feedback required to take to PC would be relayed. Decisions Subject 5170-050-D01 5170-050-D02 5170-050-D03 5170-050-D04 Closed Actions Framework Briefing - Further Meeting Regulatory Framework Sponsor Consultation Sponsor Consultation There should be another meeting (probably via conference call) at the beginning of March, once the results of the survey and the output from the Focus Groups was available. [5170-050-N09] The current CAP 725 (Third Edition [corrected] April 2007) remained extant and should be used by the Sponsor. [5170-050-N10] The stakeholder consultee list would be reviewed by SARG once compiled. [5170-050-N11] The draft Sponsor Consultation document would be shared with SARG staff before distribution. [5170-050-N012] Owner Due Date
Outstanding Actions Owner Due Date New Actions Owner Due Date 5170-050-A01 5170-050-A02 5170-050-A03 5170-050-A04 5170-050-A05 5170-050-A06 5170-050-A07 5170-050-A08 A copy of the presentation to be sent to ''''' along with the draft minutes of the meeting. [5170-050-N03] Send '''''' the planned schedule for the Focus Group activities. [5170-050-N09] Send '''''' a copy of the change request to correct the statement in the AIP relating to NPR. [5170-050-N16] Sponsor to consult the base airlines to establish how the current RNAV-overlay procedures had been compiled. [5170-050-N17] Further discussion to take place to ensure CAP 778 process is optimised to facilitate the desired in-service date. [5170-050-N18] Provide a time schedule to allow the Sponsor to map the SARG thinking on timescales. [5170-050-N21] Sponsor to provide the CAA with track dispersion plots together with altitude attainment points (ideally at 1000ft intervals up to 7000ft). CAA to confirm consultation requirements to the sponsor for any new conventional departures which are non- RNAV 1 SID replications prior to commencement of consultation. '''''''' 15 Feb 16 ''''''''' 12 Feb 16 ''''' 4 Mar 16 '''' 4 Mar 16 '''''' ''''' ' '''''''''' 4 Mar 16 ''''' 4 Mar 16 '''' 15 Apr 16 '''''' 1 Apr 16
Next meeting Date: TBC Time: TBC Venue: TBC