LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT RNAV(GNSS) CERT/ENG

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT RNAV (GNSS) APPROACHES

FRAMEWORK BRIEFING DOCUMENT

CERT/ENG/140602/4402 ISSUE 3

©2015 ATCSL, Certisa. All rights reserved. The information contained within this document must not be disclosed, copied or reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission from ATCSL and Certisa. Distribution of this document shall only be as stated in Table 1 unless otherwise agreed by ATCSL and Certisa.

Please consider the environment before printing this document. This document has been formatted to be printed double sided which significantly reduces paper usage and transportation emissions. For full details please see www.certisa.com/environment

Produced for ATCSL by Certisa International Ltd 3000 Hillswood Drive Chertsey Surrey KT16 0RS www.certisa.com

Certisa is ISO9001:2008 certified for the production of safety assurance documentation by Bureau Veritas

Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Framework Briefing Document

Document no: CERT/ENG/140602/4402 Issue 3 Document date: 01-Aug-15 ©2016 ATCSL, CIL COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 2 of 46

INTENTIONALLY BLANK



Table of Contents

Document Approval ................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 9 1. Project Key Points ............................................................................................................. 10 2. Airspace Change Proposal Requisites ................................................................................ 12

2.1 Justification for Change ....................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Original Plan for RNAV (GNSS) IAP ............................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Options Considered ...................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Justification for RNAV (GNSS) Baro VNAV .................................................................... 16

2.2 Design Overview .................................................................................................................. 17 2.2.1 Design Organisation ..................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Design ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Runway 09 Example ‘Plate’ .......................................................................................... 20 2.2.4 Runway 27 Example ‘Plate’ .......................................................................................... 21 2.2.5 Comparison with Existing ILS IAP ................................................................................. 22 2.2.6 Design Validation .......................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Preliminary Airspace User Impact Assessment ................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Airline Operators .......................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 General Aviation ........................................................................................................... 24 2.3.3 Military Aviation ........................................................................................................... 24 2.3.4 Other Airspace Activity ................................................................................................ 24

2.4 Environmental Aims and Assumptions ................................................................................ 25 2.5 Initial Assessment of Environmental Implications .............................................................. 26

2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 26 2.5.2 Track Analysis ............................................................................................................... 26 2.5.3 In the Airport Vicinity ................................................................................................... 28 2.5.4 Arriving Traffic .............................................................................................................. 29 2.5.5 Departing Traffic ........................................................................................................... 30 2.5.6 Further Afield ............................................................................................................... 30 2.5.7 General Distribution of Traffic ...................................................................................... 31 2.5.8 Traffic Forecasts ............................................................................................................ 31 2.5.9 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 31 2.5.10 Visual Impact and Tranquillity ...................................................................................... 31 2.5.11 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 31

2.6 Consultation Plan ................................................................................................................ 31 2.6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 31 2.6.2 Methodology for Selecting Consultees ........................................................................ 32 2.6.3 Consultation Information and Format ......................................................................... 32 2.6.4 Press Release ................................................................................................................ 33 2.6.5 Consultation Period ...................................................................................................... 33 2.6.6 Noise and Air Quality Consultants ............................................................................... 33 2.6.7 Local Authorities .......................................................................................................... 33 2.6.8 Interest Groups ............................................................................................................ 34



2.6.9 Neighbouring ATS Units ............................................................................................... 34 2.6.10 Airline and Air Operators ............................................................................................. 34 2.6.11 General Aviation ........................................................................................................... 35 2.6.12 National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC) ............................. 35 2.6.13 Full List of Consultees ................................................................................................... 35 2.6.14 Consultation Follow-up ................................................................................................ 36

2.7 Impact on Arrangements with Adjoining States ................................................................. 37 2.8 Connectivity to European Airspace Programmes ................................................................ 37

2.8.1 Single European Sky / CAA Future Airspace Strategy .................................................. 37 2.8.2 Northern Terminal Control Area .................................................................................. 38

2.9 Proposal Summary .............................................................................................................. 41 2.9.1 Safety ............................................................................................................................ 41 2.9.2 Airspace Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 41 2.9.3 Airspace Users .............................................................................................................. 41 2.9.4 Interests of Other Parties ............................................................................................. 42 2.9.5 Environmental Objectives ............................................................................................ 42 2.9.6 Integrated Operation of ATS ......................................................................................... 42 2.9.7 National Security .......................................................................................................... 43 2.9.8 International Obligations ............................................................................................. 43 2.9.9 Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................... 43 2.9.10 Consultation ................................................................................................................. 43

3. Annex 1: CAP 670 NAV 07 Compliance ............................................................................... 44 4. Annex 2: CAP 168 Facilities Assessment ............................................................................. 46

Figures

Figure 1: Original transition procedure airspace issue ...................................................................... 14 Figure 2: Original procedure environmental issue ............................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Runway 09 lateral design .................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Runway 27 lateral design .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5: Runway movements January to December 2012 ............................................................... 27 Figure 6: Georeferencing / correlation of track data ......................................................................... 28 Figure 7: Radar tracks runway 09 01-Jan-15 to 23-Apr-15................................................................. 29 Figure 8: Radar tracks runway 27 01-Mar-15 to 31-Mar-15 .............................................................. 30 Figure 9: Runway 09 intermediate (dashed) and final segments ...................................................... 34 Figure 10: Runway 27 intermediate (dashed) and final segments .................................................... 34 Figure 11: Proposed NTCA arrival routes to runway 09 ..................................................................... 39 Figure 12: Proposed NTCA arrival routes to runway 27 ..................................................................... 39 Figure 13: Correlation between georeferenced chart and OS coastline ............................................ 40



Acronyms

ACP Airspace Change Proposal ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ATC Air Traffic Control ATCB Air Traffic Control Building CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAP Civil Aviation Publication CAT Commercial Air Transport CCO Continuous Climb Operations CDA Continuous Descent Arrivals CTA Control Area FAF Final Approach Fix FAT Final Approach Track FMS Flight Management System GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System HAZID Hazard Identification IAP Instrument Approach Procedure ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IF Intermediate Fix IFP Instrument Flight Procedure ILS Instrument Landing System LJLA Liverpool John Lennon Airport LNAV Lateral Navigation LoA Letter of Agreement NDB Non-directional Beacon NTCA Northern Terminal Control Area PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Operations RESA Runway End Safety Area RNAV Area Navigation RWY Runway SARPS Standards and Recommended Practices SID Standard Instrument Departures SiS Signal in Space STAR Standard Arrivals TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area VNAV Vertical Navigation



References

[1] CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process, Civil Aviation Authority, document reference CAP 725.

[2] Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Airport Master Plan to 2030 Part 1, Peel Airports, 2007.

[3] Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions, Department of Transport, January 2014.

[4] Aviation Policy Framework, Secretary of State for Transport, March 2013, ISBN 9780101858427.

[5] Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Aircraft Operations, Volume 2, Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures, International Civil Aviation Organisation, document reference 8168 OPS/611.

[6] Proposal for PBN Instrument Flight Procedures – Liverpool Airport (EGGP), Davidson Ltd, document reference 20150624EGGP.

[7] Liverpool John Lennon Airport Noise Action Plan, LJLA Environment Team, 2013. [8] Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to

the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions, Department of Transport, 2014. [9] Future Airspace Strategy Deployment Plan, Level 1, The FAS Industry

Implementation Group, December 2012. [10] Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Safety Case, Certisa

International Ltd, document reference CERT/ENG/140602/4301. [11] Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the

Production of Safety Cases: For Aerodrome Operators and Air Traffic Service Providers, Civil Aviation Authority, document reference CAP 760.

[12] CAA website, Introduction to Bowtie and Significant Seven Bow-Tie templates www.caa.co.uk/bowtie.

[13] Compliance with ICAO SARPS for RNAV GNSS Instrument Approach Procedures supporting LNAV and LNAV/VNAV, Civil Aviation Authority.

[14] Liverpool RNAV IAP Minutes of Design Review, Certisa International Ltd, document reference CERT/ENG/140602/8001.

[15] Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Validation Plan and Report, Certisa International Ltd, document reference CERT/ENG/140602/4501.

[16] Policy Statement – Validation of Instrument Flight Procedures, CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, June 2009.



Executive Summary

Air Traffic Control Services Ltd (ATCSL) are the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) for Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). Certisa have been tasked by ATCSL to support the implementation of new Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) based Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for both runways at LJLA.

As the name implies, GNSS IAP use satellite navigation technology to provide aircraft flight path guidance. This technology reduces the cost of the required ground infrastructure and therefore has an advantage over conventional, ground-based systems such as Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Non-directional Beacon (NDB). Furthermore, GNSS RNAV can facilitate more efficient and flexible use of airspace.

Changes to airspace and flight routings in the UK are governed by the process described in Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725 and changes require the formal submission of an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP).

An ACP is normally initiated by the ANSP, the airport operator or both. In the ACP process the initiator is referred to as the ‘sponsor’ of the change. For this project the airport operator – Liverpool Airport Ltd are sponsoring the change but have delegated the majority of the change process to ATCSL.

Stage 1 of the ACP is the opportunity of the change sponsor to meet with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and discuss the change proposal early in the process within a ‘Framework Briefing’. An initial Framework Briefing took place 28 May 2015, however it was quickly clear that the planned consultation process was inadequate for the scope of the change. This was because the proposed transition element of the procedure design would cause a noticeable change to aircraft flight paths.

Following the initial Framework Briefing it was decided to change the scope of the IAP design such that there is no longer a transition element. The new ‘centreline only’ design will allow Liverpool Air Traffic Control (ATC) to continue to provide radar vectors to aircraft in a similar way to the existing IAP meaning that the difference to current flight tracks is minimal. ATCSL have also revised the proposed consultation process such that it now follows the guidance presented in CAP 725 and provides the statutory minimum of 12-week consultation period.

This document provides preparatory material for the Framework Briefing. Key points made in this briefing include:

■ A demonstration that the new RNAV approaches replicate as closely as possible the designs for the existing ILS IAP and that adverse environmental effects have been minimised;

■ A robust stakeholder consultation process is planned that includes Local Authorities, special interest groups, ATC and airspace users;

■ A design has been produced by an Approved Procedure Designer (APD) and is ready for review;

■ The original designs have been validated by EasyJet in a full-flight simulator. A further flyability assessment is planned for the new centreline only design.



1. Project Key Points

1.1 The following table provides a very short overview and some key points about the project.

Background and justification for change:

Liverpool currently operates Instrument Landing System (ILS) precision approaches to both ends of a single runway. Airlines and aircraft operators are fitting approach capable GNSS receivers to their fleets. There is an emerging global trend to use GNSS as a primary or secondary instrument approach system. 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 and delays leading to loss of revenue and confidence by users.

Design summary: Two new Lateral Navigation (LNAV) with Vertical Navigation (VNAV) GNSS approaches have been proposed. The VNAV component is based on barometry (Baro VNAV). Each design begins at its respective IF located 3.4 / 3.5 nautical miles on an extended centreline from the FAF. The intermediate segment connects the IF and FAF. The RNAV FAF and final approach segment replicate the ILS FAF and final approach segment.

Impact on airspace users:

The procedures provide an additional option to operators when selecting an instrument approach. The procedures also provide the ability to continue operations in the event of an outage of the conventional equipment. LJLA do not believe that there will be any noticeable negative impacts on airspace users. However LJLA are very willing to understand any concerns identified during consultation.

Environmental aims: It is a project objective that the environmental impacts resulting from this change shall be kept to an absolute minimum.

Consultation plan: Stakeholders will be notified of the IAP design and presented with information explaining the nature of the change and its effect on traffic flows and patterns. Consultation will consist of information packs and response forms. These will be sent to Local Authorities whose areas of responsibility lay below the intermediate and final approach segments. Local air operators, adjacent Air Traffic Service (ATS) units and other aviation groups will also be consulted. The consultation will run for a 12-week period. LJLA will carefully consider all stakeholder responses and make changes or otherwise address any concerns raised.



Adjoining States: No impacts are foreseen on airspace arrangements with adjoining states as a result of this change.

European Airspace Programmes:

Liverpool will be affected by the planned Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA) airspace change and the implementation of Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) and Continuous Descent Arrivals (CDA). The new LNAV/VNAV procedures may therefore may be adapted to integrate with new Standard Instrument Arrival (STAR) procedures.

Status and comments:

A preliminary design exists for the RNAV (GNSS) IAP. A Notification of Intended Airspace Change Proposal or Procedure Design Activity (form 1916) has been submitted to the CAA and a Safety Case is being prepared.

1.2 This document has been structured in accordance with the suggested Framework Briefing

contents listed within CAP 725 Stage 1 – Framework Briefing section “Outline Intentions”.

1.3 During the initial Framework Briefing it was commented that a more complete proposal should be presented prior to the Framework Briefing meeting and this document attempts to address that comment. It was understood however that this is still an early part of the ACP process and modifications to some of the contents of this document are likely.



2. Airspace Change Proposal Requisites

2.1 Justification for Change

2.1.1 Background

2.1.1.1 LJLA is an international airport serving the city of Liverpool and the broader North-West region of England. LJLA is located 6 nautical miles to the south east of Liverpool city centre on the northern banks of the Mersey Estuary.

2.1.1.2 The airport’s neighbours include the residential communities of Speke to the north and Hale Village, within the Borough of Halton, to the east. To the north west, LJLA borders Liverpool International Business Park (on the site of the former airfield) and the grounds of Speke Hall which is a National Trust property with a significant number of visitors. Further to the north are the communities of Garston and Allerton. To the south, between the runway and the estuary, is agricultural land known as ‘the Oglet’. A new control tower and radar installation are situated within the Oglet and are accessed separately from the main site. To the west of the airport and to the south of the Oglet are several kilometres of unpopulated tidal estuary.

2.1.1.3 LJLA was for a time one of the fastest growing airports in Europe, with passenger numbers increasing from just under 689,500 in 1997 to just under 5.5 million in 2007. Following the financial crisis and other pressures, passenger numbers have decreased and now stand at just under 4 million per annum.

2.1.1.4 The following table provides some basic facts about LJLA.

Aspect Details Runway dimensions 2285 x 46 metres Airspace Liverpool Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) 2.5 nautical miles radius

(Class D) Liverpool Control Zone (CTR) (Class D) (see Figure 1)

Air Traffic Service (ATS) Communication

Liverpool Radar/Approach (H24) Liverpool Tower (H24) Liverpool Ground (by ATC) ATIS

Radar Separation Minima 3 nautical miles

Table 1: Background information



2.1.1.5 The following table provides some further statistical information:

Statistic (2014 unless stated)

Value

Terminal Passengers 3.984 million UK ranking (by passenger numbers) 13 Freight (tonnes) 236 UK ranking (by tonnes freight) 25 Commercial Air Transport Movements 30,789 General Aviation / Other Movements 21,460 Total movements 52,249 Number of instrument approaches runway 09 6,411 Number of instrument approaches runway 27 10,651 Total duration ILS 09 unavailable (excluding schedule maintenance) (Jun 2014 – June 2015)

981 minutes (Availability 99.826%)

Total duration ILS 27 unavailable (excluding schedule maintenance) (Jun 2014 – June 2015)

15 minutes (Availability 99.997%)

Table 2: Background statistics

2.1.1.6 LJLA is situated 20 nautical miles west of Manchester Airport. With such close proximity there is inevitably a degree of competition between the two airports. The LJLA Master Plan (ref. [2]) therefore includes the primary objectives of:

■ Developing the airport to provide affordable access for business and leisure travellers;

■ Complementing the Port of Liverpool to create opportunities for multimodal freight transportation.

Consequently, it is important that the LJLA provides a safe, reliable and economically attractive offering to air operators.



2.1.3 Options Considered

2.1.3.1 Prior to deciding on the proposed RNAV (GNSS) with Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro-VNAV) design, LJLA considered a number of different options.

2.1.3.2 The following table summarises the options considered along with a short discussion as to why they were discounted in favour of the design proposed in this document.

No. Option Discussion 1 Do nothing Some elements of the existing ILS, DME and NDB

navigation aids are approaching the end of their useful lives. Therefore, the equipment may suffer from more frequent or extended periods of unserviceability and more frequent maintenance interventions. Such events may impair operational capability LJLA, potentially resulting in passenger inconvenience, increased costs for air operators, reduced revenues, increased fuel burn and CO2 emissions.

2 Implement RNAV(GNSS) LNAV NDB overlay

The original ATC operational requirement was for an ‘overlay’ of the existing NDB procedure. This option was discounted during an preliminary consultation with a key airspace user (easyjet) because a LNAV/VNAV design offers precision guidance and a lower Decision Altitude (DA).

3 Implement RNAV(GNSS) LNAV/VNAV with full transition

This option was initially the preferred option. However, once the design had been completed it became clear that there were some significant drawbacks such as the proximity to Manchester airspace and a change in nominal flightpaths when compared with the current situation.

4 Replace all existing ILS, DME and NDB equipment

This option would require a very significant investment by the airport operator and could impact on the ability to achieve the stated objective (ref. [2]) to provide affordable access for business and leisure travellers. Furthermore, this option does not provide the flexibility of adding a RNAV (GNSS) option or resilience in the event of maintenance or unserviceability.

5 Implement RNAV(GNSS) with SBAS VNAV

During the initial airline discussions it was highlighted that easyJet (one of main airlines at LJLA) aircraft are currently Baro-VNAV equipped but not SBAS equipped. Therefore SBAS is a less preferable option.

Table 3: Options considered



2.1.4 Justification for RNAV (GNSS) Baro VNAV

2.1.4.1 All current IAP at LJLA rely on ground based navigational aids, specifically ILS and NDB. An increasing number of aircraft are equipped with GNSS based RNAV equipment that allows Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures to be flown.

2.1.4.2 A key advantage of RNAV (GNSS) procedures is that they do not require expensive ground navigation equipment, but the technology also provides more accurate guidance than NDB which can potentially lead to improvements in safety.

2.1.4.3 The proposed designs include a VNAV component (Baro-VNAV) which mean that pilots are provided with vertical and horizontal guidance.

2.1.4.4 For now, LJLA are committed to maintaining the existing ground based navigation aids. Therefore, the RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be providing an option available to pilots of suitably equipped aircraft and allow continued operations in the event of ILS unavailability.

2.1.4.5 The CAA is leading the development of a Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) for the UK. A subpart of the FAS is the development of the Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA). One of the key advantages of the NTCA will be the ability for aircraft to perform Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) and Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), these reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions.

2.1.4.6 It is understood that the CDO in the NTCA will be PBN derived (ref. [3]). The proposed GNSS (RNAV) IAP have the potential to interface to the PBN / CDO STAR that are being considered as part of the NTCA design. A side-effect of the decision to remove the transition element of the procedures is that the currently proposed IAP could possibly be connected to a NTCA STAR without change.

2.1.4.7 In summary, the implementation of the RNAV (GNSS) procedures is justified because:

■ Adding RNAV (GNSS) IAP provides greater flexibility to airspace users;

■ RNAV (GNSS) provides a contingency for occasions when the ground based navigation aids are unavailable;

■ RNAV (GNSS) is more accurate than older NDB technology. When combined with Baro-VNAV, RNAV (GNSS) IAP provide both lateral and vertical guidance to pilots.

2.1.4.8 Furthermore, the implementation of the RNAV (GNSS) at Liverpool is consistent with the FAS strategy because it:

■ Is aligned with the UK/Ireland Functional Airspace Block (FAB) aspirations of developing P-RNAV and progressing to Advanced Required Navigational Performance (A-RNP);

■ Reduces reliance on ground-based navigation aids;

■ Supports the development of (A-)RNP arrival procedures;

■ Supports the development of requirements for Precision Approach Landing.



2.2 Design Overview

2.2.1 Design Organisation

2.2.1.1 The RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed Davidson Ltd who are a CAA approved Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) design organisation.

2.2.1.2 Contact details for the IFP designer and design organisation are as follows:

2.2.1.3

2.2.2 Design

2.2.2.1 This section is a short summary of the detailed design description provided in the IFP designer’s Final Report (ref. [6]).

2.2.2.2 The basic operational requirement for the design was to develop LNAV and LNAV/VNAV IAP for runways 09 and 27 at Liverpool which replicate as far as possible the existing approach procedures, but to remain in accordance with the criteria detailed in ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS Volume 2 (ref. [5]).

2.2.2.3 The design was based on the following data:

■ Aerodrome obstacle survey data and threshold co-ordinates provided by Paul Fassam Geomatics;

■ Aeronautical data extracted from the UK Aeronautical Information Package (AIP);

■ Topographical data extracted from Ordnance Survey Open Data;

All co-ordinates used in the design were based on data provided by Paul Fassam Geomatics and the UK AIP.

2.2.2.4 The nominal tracks in the initial proposal for approaches to runways 09 and 27 can be seen at Figure 1. The entry points were established at TIPOD and KEGUN with a slightly modified ‘T-bar’ approach to runway 09 and downwind legs connecting the entry points with the classic T-bar to runway 27.



2.2.3 Runway 09 Example ‘Plate’



2.2.4 Runway 27 Example ‘Plate’



2.2.5 Comparison with Existing ILS IAP

The following tables provide a comparison of key elements between the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP and the existing ILS IAP.

Runway 09 Element RNAV (GNSS) IAP ILS IAP

STAR to IAP transition (normal operations)

ATC radar vectors to IF or to intercept extended centreline

ATC radar vectors to intercept extended centreline

IF bearing to THR 088°M (extended centreline) N/A IF distance to THR 10.9 nautical miles N/A IF altitude 2500 feet AMSL N/A FAF bearing to THR 088°M (extended centreline) 088°M (extended centreline) FAF distance to THR 7.5 nautical miles 7.5 nautical miles FAF altitude 2500’ AMSL 2500’ AMSL GP gradient 3° 3° OCA 360’ (CAT A – D) 205’ (CAT A) / 241’ (CAT D) Missed approach Straight ahead to LPL climbing

2500’ Straight ahead to LPL climbing 2500’

Table 4: Comparison between RNAV and ILS IAP runway 09

Runway 27 Element RNAV (GNSS) IAP ILS IAP

STAR to IAP transition (normal operations)



IF bearing to THR 268°M (extended centreline) N/A IF distance to THR 9.4 nautical miles N/A IF altitude 2000 feet AMSL N/A FAF bearing to THR 268°M (extended centreline) 268°M (extended centreline) FAF distance to THR 5.9 nautical miles 5.9 nautical miles FAF altitude 2000’ AMSL 2000’ AMSL GP gradient 3° 3° OCA 390’ (CAT A – D) 229’ (CAT A) / 263’ (CAT D) Missed approach Straight ahead to 1500’ then

right to LPL climbing 2000’ Straight ahead to 1500’ then right to LPL climbing 2000’

Table 5: Comparison between RNAV and ILS IAP runway 27



2.2.6 Design Validation

2.2.6.1 A full flight validation process was conducted for the original RNAV 09, RNAV 27 and RNAV 27 alternate procedures (including transitions) on 17 February 2015. The validation was conducted in accordance with the Validation Plan and Results (ref. [15]) which has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the CAA Policy Statement on the Validation of Instrument Flight Procedures (ref. [16]).

2.2.6.2 The validation was performed by EasyJet / CAE using a full motion A320 simulator. In order to realistically evaluate the procedure a special database was encoded for the simulator’s Honeywell Flight Management System (FMS).

2.2.6.3 Overall the procedure design was given the maximum score of 9 out of 9 against the criteria of “General impression of the procedure”. There were no adverse observations and only three comments. Two of the comments related to the initial / transition segments of the procedure and are therefore no longer relevant. The remaining comment relates to the hold design as follows:

“The hold speed of 185 kts at LPL Non-directional Beacon (NDB) requires holding with slats extended on an A320 which leads to higher fuel consumption. Airbus recommends that slats are not extended during holding in icing conditions. It is recommended that the hold is reviewed.”

2.2.6.4 The EasyJet evaluation was based on the full procedure, however it has been agreed with SARG that the results of this evaluation are acceptable for the centreline only designs. EasyJet have also confirmed that their aircraft equipment is able to ‘capture’ a GNSS approach profile from a radar vectored intercept.

2.2.6.5 The hold is based on the existing hold for the ILS and NDB approaches. It is of course possible to design a new hold for the RNAV procedures, but this hold is only practically used in the event of a radio failure. LJLA would like to avoid a change that may result in any negative environmental impact. The hold design has subsequently been discussed and accepted by easyJet.

2.2.6.6 A further validation assessment is planned to be conducted by Ravenair in a PA-34 Seneca light twin-engine aircraft. The assessment will also be conducted in accordance with the documented Validation Plan. The primary objective of the Ravenair assessment is to establish the controllability and flyability of radar vectoring to intercept the IAF – FAF segment. The flights will also validate the flyability of the procedure in a GA aircraft and visually validate obstacle and terrain clearance.

2.3 Preliminary Airspace User Impact Assessment

2.3.1 Airline Operators

2.3.1.1 The implementation of the RNAV (GNSS) IAP has been requested by airlines that currently operate at Liverpool, in particular easyJet and Ryanair. These airlines have been involved in the decision process since the early stages and have been instrumental in selecting a VNAV and centreline only option.



2.3.1.2 One impact may be that an airline which is not GNSS / Baro VNAV equipped could be conceivably disadvantaged against those that are, especially if maintaining ILS / NDB serviceability is given a lower priority. However LJLA have stated that this will not happen as they are committed to keeping the existing navaids in operation. Furthermore, RNAV (GNSS) IAP are becoming increasingly commonplace throughout Europe so an airline that is not equipped would be generally disadvantaged in any case. A fuller picture of which airlines are RNAV(GNSS) Baro-VNAV equipped is expected to emerge during the consultation.

2.3.1.3 With the exception of the above, it is difficult to identify further adverse impacts at this stage on airline operators resulting from the change.

2.3.2 General Aviation

2.3.2.1 It was discussed early in the design considerations that GA aircraft are more likely to be equipped with Space Based Augmentation System (SBAS) VNAV equipment than the airlines. This means that GA operators may not benefit from the full advantages of the Baro-VNAV designs.

2.3.2.2 The proposed change includes both LNAV/VNAV and LNAV designs, so GNSS equipped GA aircraft will still be able to use the new procedures for a non-precision approach.

2.3.2.3 The airport operator has committed to maintaining the existing ground based navaids for the immediate future. Therefore, there will normally be little detrimental when compared to the current situation unless there is a significant rise in the unavailability of the ILS.

2.3.3 Military Aviation

2.3.3.1 There were 348 military movements at LJLA in 2014. This represents less than 1% of total movements.

2.3.3.2 As with GA, the only detrimental impact of this change would be if the airport operator attaches less importance to the availability of the ground based navaids, however this is not intended to be the case.

2.3.4 Other Airspace Activity

2.3.4.1 It is not foreseen that this change will have any impact on airspace users outside of the Liverpool CTR. The centreline only design is contained completely within airspace delegated to Liverpool.

2.3.4.2 There is no significant increase in traffic forecast by LJLA as a result of the change. Therefore, it is difficult to identify any impact on airspace users other than those already discussed.



2.4 Environmental Aims and Assumptions

2.4.1 LJLA takes their statutory and social responsibilities very seriously and has published a 43-page Noise Action Plan (ref. [7]) in 2013. To comply with the Noise Action Plan, it has always been a core objective of this project that adverse environmental impacts resulting from the change shall be kept to an absolute minimum and that every opportunity should be taken to reduce environmental noise and pollution.

2.4.2 To meet this objective, the original transition design attempted to replicate the mean flow of existing flight tracks, however in order to meet PANS-OPS criteria the design required an IF that is further from the FAF than the current radar vectored ILS intercepts. The fact that this could result in a shift in noise footprint as well as increased fuel burn / CO2 emissions was central to the decision not to implement the full design.

2.4.3 It is assumed that there will be no significant increase in air traffic as a direct result of the change. This assumption is justified as follows:

■ The airport operator has committed to maintain the ILS and NDB in service for the time being. Most commercial aircraft will be equipped with ILS and NDB receivers for the foreseeable future, therefore it is unlikely that a commercial operator would choose Liverpool purely on the basis that RNAV (GNSS) is available;

■ An aircraft arrival may be made possible using the RNAV (GNSS) IAP that otherwise would not be achievable if the ILS was unavailable. However, it is also conceivable that a NDB approach may have been attempted resulting in a missed approach and diversion. Such a manoeuvre would give rise to significantly greater noise / fuel burn / CO2 emissions than a successful RNAV approach;

■ There might be a slight increase in General Aviation (GA) aircraft flying practice RNAV (GNSS) procedures. It is thought that this will have a minimal effect due to the significantly lower fuel burn / emissions of light aircraft. (GNSS) IAP are becoming increasingly widespread so Liverpool would be only one of a number of possible options for training.



2.5 Initial Assessment of Environmental Implications

2.5.1 Introduction

2.5.1.1 The CAA requires sponsors of airspace changes to take due regard for the need to reduce, control and mitigate as far as possible the environmental impacts of aircraft operations, including disturbance caused to the general public arising from aircraft noise and emissions from aircraft engines.

2.5.1.2 The new RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed with the explicit criteria that changes to existing aircraft routings should be kept to an absolute minimum and that there should be no changes to noise abatement procedures.

2.5.1.3 In the short term the introduction of the RNAV (GNSS) IAP has the potential to lower fuel burn and CO2 emissions by reducing the likelihood of aircraft making missed approaches, diverting or holding. It is difficult to quantitatively estimate the net effects, which are in any case relatively small due to the low number of missed approaches and/or diversions at Liverpool. However, the following should be considered:

■ For an Airbus A320, one missed approach, diversion to Manchester (without holding) followed by a later repositioning of the aircraft back to Liverpool can use up to 3 tonnes of fuel and a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions;

■ An aircraft diversion represents disruption for travellers and a significant financial cost for an airline, potentially running to tens of thousands of pounds;

■ The mean number of arrivals by aircraft with more than 100 passenger seats is approximately 38 per 24 hours.

Liverpool ATC are investigating whether it is possible to provide data on diversions and holding times to further assess the above.

2.5.2 Track Analysis

2.5.2.1 LJLA has invested in a Brüel and Kjær (B&K) Noise Monitoring and Track Keeping System (NM&TKS). This system enables the airport to accurately the record and monitor the altitude, position, aircraft type and noise generated by each aircraft movement. LJLA has an annual contract with the NM&TKS suppliers to ensure that the equipment remains calibrated.

2.5.2.2 The NM&TKS collects information from three main sources:

■ Noise data from the Noise Monitoring Terminals (NMT) at Hale, Eastham and a mobile site. The noise data is correlated with aircraft track data to identify specific aircraft noise events;

■ Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) from NATS at Manchester Airport provides information about the position, altitude and speed of aircraft near LJLA. This enables specific aircraft movements to be identified, their altitude at a specific time to be established and a noise event at one of the NMTs to be correlated;

■ The Airport’s Operation Database (AMOSS) provides information about the aircraft using LJLA such as the aircraft type, airline, origin or destination. This information can be correlated with the track data to make the information easier to interpret.



2.5.2.3 Two sets of data were extracted from the NM&TKS to allow evaluation of the existing mean aircraft track paths. The first set is comprised of Commercial Air Transport (CAT) IFR aircraft inbound to LJLA runway 09 between 1 January and 23 April 2015. The second set is comprised of CAT IFR aircraft inbound to LJLA runway 27 between 1 March and 31 March 2015. The larger time span was needed for runway 09 tracks because the prevailing winds at LJLA are westerlies and therefore runway 09 usage is significantly less (see Figure 5).

2.5.2.4 The B&K NM&TKS overlays the recorded track data on a standard Ordnance Survey of Great Britain (OSGB) topographical map, the result is then output as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file.

Figure 5: Runway movements January to December 2012

2.5.2.5 In order to correlate the recorded track data with the procedure design a Geographic Information System (GIS) tool was used. The NM&TKS PDF file was georeferenced using the Easting / Northing grid printed on the OS topographical map and then re-projected using the British National Grid / OSGB 1936 Coordinate Reference System (CRS). OSGB 1936 was used because it is the same CRS that is used for the procedure design files.

2.5.2.6 To confirm that the plots have been correctly georeferenced, the OSGB 10 kilometre grid and the OSGB high water coastline file were also imported into the GIS tool. The following image shows that the georeferencing of the track data PDF was suitably accurate.



2.5.7 General Distribution of Traffic

2.5.7.1 Aircraft that are using the RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be affected in the ways described in the preceding paragraphs.

2.5.7.2 The distribution of aircraft should not otherwise be discernibly affected by this change.

2.5.8 Traffic Forecasts

2.5.8.1 The change sponsors have not identified any quantifiable increase in traffic as a result of this change. Therefore, no revision to the current overall traffic forecasts has been made at this time.

2.5.8.2 Potential users of the RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be canvassed on their anticipated use of the new procedures. A quantitative estimate for the use of the new procedures will be provided as part of the final operational and environmental reports.

2.5.9 Climate Change

2.5.9.1 As described in the introduction to this section on page 26, it is not anticipated that there will be any negative impacts on fuel burn or CO2 emissions.

2.5.9.2 The implementation for the RNAV (GNSS) IAP has the potential to reduce the number of weather related missed approaches and diversions.

2.5.10 Visual Impact and Tranquillity

2.5.10.1 If the runway 09 IF is used regularly as a waypoint, the reduction of deviations along the intermediate segment may have a net effect of reducing visual impact and increasing tranquillity for those who were affected by the broader swathes. However, it is impossible to quantify at this stage because it is not known how many aircraft will use the new procedures until after the consultation takes place.

2.5.10.2 A Noise and Air Quality Report has been commissioned by LJLA. Bickerdike Allen Partnership, who are experts in the field, are writing the environmental noise section.

2.5.11 Air Quality

A Noise and Air Quality Report has been commissioned by LJLA. Air Quality Consultants Ltd, who are experts in the field, are writing the air quality section. A copy of the Noise and Air Quality Report will be attached to the final Environmental Report submission.

2.6 Consultation Plan

2.6.1 Overview

2.6.1.1 This section sets out the rationale and methodology for the consultation process that will be undertaken by LJLA. It is intended to be a live communication vehicle between the consultation team and the regulator.

2.6.1.2 The primary scope of the consultation is to inform local stakeholders of the change. LJLA also plan to use the consultation as an opportunity to explain that:



■ There is no change to the current forecast for commercial traffic levels, however it is considered that some additional GA aircraft may choose to use Liverpool because of the new procedures;

■ Any increases in exposure to noise are planned to be minimal;

■ Any impacts on fuel burn and CO2 emissions are planned to be minimal;

■ There should not be any measurable change to local air quality.

2.6.1.3 A comprehensive safety case is being developed for the new IAP. Consultation on air safety matters will take place during the Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) and risk assessment process.

2.6.2 Methodology for Selecting Consultees

2.6.2.1 Consultees have been selected based upon the following criteria:

■ A person, group or organisation that represents those who may be environmentally affected by the introduction of the new IAP;

■ A person, group or organisation that represents those whose operational activities may be affected by the introduction of the new IAP;

■ A person, group or organisation that represents potential users of the new IAP.

2.6.2.2 Sections 2.6.7 to 2.6.12 below identify specific consultees in accordance with the above selection criteria and describe the consultation actions for each group.

2.6.3 Consultation Information and Format

2.6.3.1 Consultees are to be provided with a consultation pack containing:

■ A covering letter;

■ A professionally produced, brochure style information document of 8 pages. The document explains in layman’s terms what an RNAV (GNSS) approach is, details of the designs being proposed at LJLA and why there will be only a very minor difference to aircraft flight paths and heights as a result of their introduction;

■ A response form.

2.6.3.2 An early draft (not yet typeset) of the information document and proposed response form is attached (Attachment A).

2.6.3.3 Four ‘drop in’ consultation sessions have been arranged as follows:

■ Wednesday 19th August 2015 (10:00 to 12:00);

■ Saturday 5th September 2015 (10:00 to 12:00);

■ Monday 14th September 2015 (17:00 to 19:00);

■ Friday 9th October 2015 (14:00 to 16:00).

These have been deliberately scheduled on different days of the week and at different times of day to make it as practical as possible for interested parties to attend.



2.6.3.4 A consultation web page is being created on the LJLA website. As well as providing an overview of the change and consultation process, visitors will be able to download the information document and response form.

2.6.3.5 A bespoke email address and voicemail box will be arranged. These will provide further options for consultees to

communicate their thoughts and opinions on the proposal. The email address and telephone number will be clearly presented in the information document and on the consultation web page.

2.6.4 Press Release

A press release has been issued on 22 July 2015 and has been sent to the following media outlets:

2.6.5 Consultation Period

2.6.5.1 The consultation period is commenced on the 22 July 2015 and will run for 12 weeks until 14 October 2015.

2.6.5.2 The period launched with consultation being made available on the airport’s website. The website has a page dedicated to the change with an invitation for visitors to download the information document and response form.

2.6.5.3 Hard copy consultation packs were also be sent out shortly after the 22 July 2015 to the named stakeholders.

2.6.6 Noise and Air Quality Consultants

2.6.6.1 LJLA has asked Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP) and Air Quality Consultants (AQC) to review the proposed procedures. Both companies are independent experts in their respective fields of environmental noise and air pollution. A short Noise and Air Quality Report has been commissioned, an overview of which will be presented in the information document.

2.6.6.2 LJLA believe that the change in the effects of noise and air quality will be hardly discernible as a result of the introduction of the new procedures. It is expected that the report will either validate that belief or indicate that the proposed design needs reassessment from an environmental perspective.

2.6.7 Local Authorities

2.6.7.1 Six Local Authorities have the theoretical potential to be affected by the changes.

2.6.7.2 The following two diagrams show the intermediate and final segments for runway 09 and runway 27 overlaying a map of the local authority areas. The runway is shown with red dashes.



Figure 9: Runway 09 intermediate (dashed) and final

segments

Figure 10: Runway 27 intermediate (dashed) and final

segments

2.6.7.3 Each Local Authority will be provided with a consultation pack and face-to-face meetings are to be scheduled for each authority. These meetings will be an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the RNAV IAP introduction.

2.6.8 Interest Groups

2.6.8.1 Members of the Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) will be sent a copy of the consultation pack. A presentation on the new procedures will be given at the regular ACC meeting on 11 September 2015.

2.6.8.2 The Noise Monitoring Subgroup (NMS) is a subgroup of the ACC and its members will also be sent the consultation pack. A presentation on the new procedures will be given at the regular NMS meeting on 17 July 2015, assuming that the consultation process is agreed with the CAA.

2.6.9 Neighbouring ATS Units

2.6.9.1 A consultation pack will be sent to the two Air Traffic Service Units (ATSU) whose areas of interest adjoin Liverpool airspace and the Air Traffic Control Centre (ATCC) that provides the area service to Liverpool.

2.6.9.2 Each unit will be telephoned or emailed after approximately one week to confirm they have received the consultation pack and again approximately two weeks before the end of the consultation period.

2.6.10 Airline and Air Operators

2.6.10.1 A consultation pack will be sent to based operators. Based operators were invited to attend a Hazard Identification (HAZID) workshop on 8 July 2015.

2.6.10.2 Each operator will be either telephoned or emailed after approximately one week to confirm they have received the consultation pack. They will be contacted again approximately two weeks before the end of the consultation period.

Contains OS data © Crown copyright 2015 Contains OS data © Crown copyright 2015



2.6.11 General Aviation

General Aviation (GA) stakeholders who have aircraft based at Liverpool will be invited to attend any of the drop in sessions.

2.6.12 National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC)

A consultation pack will be sent to NATMAC along with an offer of further packs if required. It is anticipated that NATMAC will provide confirmation that the pack has been received.

2.6.13 Full List of Consultees

Interest Groups Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) Noise Monitoring Subgroup (NMS) Local Authorities Cheshire West and Chester Flintshire Halton Liverpool Warrington Wirral Neighbouring ATS Units Manchester Airport ATSU Hawarden Airport ATSU Prestwick ATCC Airlines Blue Air Easyjet Flybe Ravenair Ryanair Wizz



NATMAC Aviation Environment Federation Airport Operators Association Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association British Airways British Aerospace Systems British Airline Pilots Association British Air Transport Association British Balloon & Airship Club BBGA (Business & General Aviation) British Gliding Association British Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association British Microlight Aircraft Association British Model Flying Association British Parachute Association British Helicopter Association Civil Aviation Authority General Aviation Safety Council Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers Helicopter Club of Great Britain Heathrow Airport Ltd Heavy Airlines Light Aircraft Association Light Airlines Low Fares Airlines Ministry of Defence NATS PPL/IR Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Association UK Flight Safety Committee

Table 6: Full list of consultees

2.6.14 Consultation Follow-up

2.6.15 All written (including email and where possible voicemail) responses to the consultation will be acknowledged. If further clarification is required on comments, ATCSL may contact respondents if their contact details have been provided on the response form.

2.6.16 The responses will be analysed to identify common themes in any comments. If necessary, a response will be developed to address significant or widely held concerns.

2.6.17 A summary of the results from the consultation will be posted on the airport’s website following the completion of the consultation period.

2.6.18 A full copy of all responses received will be provided as part of the ACP submission.



2.7 Impact on Arrangements with Adjoining States

No impact on arrangements with adjoining states can be foreseen by this change. The IAP are entirely contained within Liverpool CTR which itself is contained within UK airspace.

2.8 Connectivity to European Airspace Programmes

2.8.1 Single European Sky / CAA Future Airspace Strategy

2.8.1.1 The CAA has been working since 2009 to develop a Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) for the period up to 2030. The CAA’s primary objective is to develop a “safe, efficient airspace that has the capacity to meet reasonable demand, balances the needs of all users and mitigates the impact of aviation on the environment”.

2.8.1.2 The FAS aligns with UK commitments under the Single European Sky (SES) legislation, including implementation of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme and the creation of an Anglo-Irish Functional Airspace Block (FAB).

2.8.1.3 Following development and consultation with industry, the FAS was presented in June 2011 and set out the need to address:

■ Existing pressures on airspace;

■ The challenges arising from future air traffic growth;

■ The development and implementation of new technology;

■ The requirement to mitigate aviation’s impact on the environment.

2.8.1.4 The FAS Industry Implementation Group launched its plan in 2012 for delivering Phase 1 of the FAS up to 2025. A considerable component of the plan is the need to redesign UK terminal airspace to make it more efficient. PBN is seen as a key enabler for improving efficiency. In their December 2013 interim report, the Airports Commission expressed their support for the FAS and the introduction of PBN.

2.8.1.5 The Department for Transport (DoT) Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions (ref. [8]) summarises parts of the FAS and the Airport Commission’s interim report. It has the following comments on the advantages of PBN:

■ PBN provides enhanced navigational accuracy;

■ PBN reduces the amount of ground-based navigational-related infrastructure needed;

■ PBN allows for a safer and more efficient ATC system requiring less controller intervention;

■ PBN allows more efficient aircraft operations leading to less cost, flying time and emissions;

■ PBN provides the ability to allow more predicable patterns of over flight as well as stabilised arrivals and approaches which can generate less noise.



2.8.1.6 The DoT guidance then concludes:

“When combined, these benefits will enable a significant improvement to be made to the overall efficiency and capacity of the UK airspace network which will allow the sustainable development of the air traffic network to accommodate future traffic levels.”

“The move to PBN will require the updating of existing route structures such as Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARS) and Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs). Updating individual routes in terminal areas can fall into one of two categories: "replication" where the existing route alignment is preserved as much as possible whilst catering for the greater navigational accuracy of PBN, or "redesign" where seeking to optimise the introduction of PBN will require consideration of a different alignment.”

2.8.1.7 It can therefore be concluded that the replication of the existing ILS procedures by RNAV (GNSS) PBN is entirely consistent with current DoT guidance and the CAA FAS.

2.8.2 Northern Terminal Control Area

2.8.2.1 The Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA) (ref. [9]) is a project to develop and deliver optimised terminal airspace by redesigning the airspace over Manchester and the north of England. The NTCA is a component of the FAS along with the London Airspace Management Project (LAMP) and a redesign of airspace within the Scottish Flight Information Region (FIR).

2.8.2.2 The general objectives of the NTCA project are the same as those of the umbrella FAS. Tangible objectives are to reduce the number of unnecessary track miles flown by aircraft arriving and departing airports within the area. This will yield primary benefits in reducing cost, noise and CO2 emissions. Airlines and travellers will benefit from better on-time performance.

2.8.2.3 In addition, airports will be able to have better runway utilisation, increased capacity and on time performance. Local communities will benefit as aircraft have a better climb profile and enhanced track adherence which creates an improved environmental climate for CO2, noise and visual impact.

2.8.2.4 LJLA has been working with NERL during the consultation and design of the NTCA. Preliminary arrival routes have been developed and provisionally agreed by Liverpool ATC. The proposed routes are not based on existing intersection waypoints and therefore require a redesign of the current SID and STAR.

2.8.2.5 The proposed RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been primarily designed to replicate the existing ILS IAP as a standalone project and are not specifically integrated into the NTCA change. However, because the designs are now limited to a simple centreline configuration there is no reason (at this stage) why the NTCA STAR designs cannot be interfaced to the proposed RNAV IAP. Partially for this reason, the original lengths of the RNAV (GNSS) IAP intermediate segments have been retained. This allows transition segments of up to 90 degrees from the intermediate segment to be designed if necessary.



2.8.2.6 Figure 11 and Figure 12 on the previous page have been derived from an informal discussion document provided to LJLA by NERL. The figures have been extracted as bitmaps and georeferenced using a similar technique to that described in section 2.5.2, however, as there are no gridlines prominent coastline points and airports were used.

2.8.2.7 Figure 13 shows that this has been reasonably successful (the fine blue line is the OS derived coastline), but because this is a less accurate method there may be some distortions and therefore the figures should be used with caution.

Figure 13: Correlation between georeferenced chart and OS coastline

2.8.2.8 As can be seen from Figure 11 and Figure 12 the RNAV (GNSS) IAP are broadly compatible with the preliminary design of the NTCA arrival procedures.

2.8.2.9 It should be noted that the implementation of the NTCA is a complex project involving a large number of stakeholders. Although it is currently scheduled for realisation in 2018, there is a realistic possibility that the project may be delayed for a significant period or even abandoned entirely. The RNAV (GNSS) IAP are ‘standalone’ procedures and are not reliant on the success of NTCA in achieving the principle objectives cited at section 2.1.

Contains OS data © Crown copyright 2015 NTCA mapping copyright © NATS 2015



2.9 Proposal Summary

2.9.1 Safety

2.9.1.1 LJLA is developing a safety case (ref. [10]) for the implementation of the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP. The safety case safety objectives are derived from a HAZOP that took place on 08 July 2015 at Liverpool Airport. The HAZOP was performed in accordance with CAA guidance (ref. [11]).

2.9.1.2 The identified risks were assessed using the Bow-Tie barrier risk model and validated against the CAA risk model templates (ref. [12]). The risk associated with each hazard is assessed as ‘acceptable’ or ‘tolerable’ in accordance with the ANSP’s Safety Management System (SMS) Risk Classification Scheme (RCS). All risk mitigating measures identified as ‘barriers’ are planned be implemented through the ANSP’s ATS operating procedures.

2.9.1.3 The use of GNSS as a navigation source relies on the integrity and availability of the satellite signals. The GPS signal field data has been analysed for the area related to the LJLA RNAV (GNSS) IAP using the methodology described in the relevant CAA guidance material (ref. [13]) and found to be compliant with the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) for radio navigation aids Signal in Space (SiS) performance.

2.9.2 Airspace Efficiency

2.9.2.1 In the short term, the implementation of the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP provides an opportunity for improvements in airspace efficiency by potentially reducing the number of occurrences of missed approaches, diversions and delays due to holding.

2.9.2.2 In the longer term the RNAV (GNSS) IAP have the potential to play a role in the implementation of the NTCA, including CCO and CDO. Together these measures offer significant opportunities to reduce noise, CO2 emissions and delays.

2.9.3 Airspace Users

2.9.3.1 The new IAP will be of benefit to airline and CAT users by providing an operational alternative to ILS and resilience against the failure of ground based navigation equipment. Although considered an airline benefit, the airline’s primary activity is to service the market demands of their customers. Therefore, the new IAP will be of incremental benefit to travellers using LJLA as they may avoid the inconvenience of delays and diversions.

2.9.3.2 GA may not benefit to the same extent as airlines because a lower percentage of GA operates under IFR, but suitably equipped GA aircraft will gain the same benefits as the airlines. The only identified disadvantage to GA is that the new IAP may lead to an earlier withdrawal from service of the conventional navaids. This is mitigated for the time by a commitment by LJLA to keep the ILS, DME and NDB in service.

2.9.3.3 Other airspace users such as gliders and paragliders are unlikely to experience any noticeable effects from this change.

2.9.3.4 Airspace users are comprehensively represented by the stakeholders in the consultation process. LJLA are fully committed to carefully consider any objections raised by airspace users and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns.



2.9.4 Interests of Other Parties

2.9.4.1 It is conceivable that LJLA may be a more attractive prospect to airlines if the RNAV (GNSS) IAP are implemented. It is difficult to quantify this in any way because expansion of a route network is a far more complex decision for an airline than simply the availability of a specific type of approach. LJLA is not planning to make any revision to the forecast traffic levels or mix if the procedures are implemented.

2.9.4.2 The new IAP are a close replication of the existing ILS that is currently used by the majority of non-visual IFR traffic, therefore the adverse effects to non-aviation parties are likely to be minimal or even negligible.

2.9.4.3 Conversely non-aviation parties stand to benefit if the new IAP allows an aircraft to complete its approach and landing rather than execute a missed approach. Although perfectly safe and a normal part of aviation, weather related missed approaches inherently generate a large noise and CO2 emission footprint because they require ‘go-around’ thrust at low height / speed with the aircraft in a high drag configuration.

2.9.4.4 Non-aviation parties are comprehensively represented by the stakeholders in the consultation process. LJLA are fully committed to carefully consider any objections raised by non-aviation stakeholders and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns.

2.9.5 Environmental Objectives

2.9.5.1 LJLA takes their statutory and social responsibilities very seriously and has developed a robust Noise Action Plan. In accordance with the plan it has always been a core objective of this project that all environmental impacts resulting from the change shall be kept to an absolute minimum and that every opportunity should be taken to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

2.9.5.2 To achieve this aim LJLA abandoned the idea of a full RNAV transition as it was identified that this may affect some of the flight routes and could lead to potentially longer tracks being flown by aircraft. The currently proposed designs have been assessed as having little or no adverse effects on noise, fuel burn and CO2 emissions.

2.9.5.3 As already described, the primary reason for implementing the IAP is to reduce the likelihood of an aircraft executing a missed approach, diverting and/or holding. If the new procedures are successful in that objective, then a net environmental benefit will be realised.

2.9.6 Integrated Operation of ATS

2.9.6.1 The new IAP are fully contained within the Liverpool CTR and delegated airspace, however the ATS units that interface with LJLA are included in the consultation process. It is not anticipated that there will be any noticeable effect on other ATS units, however LJLA will consider any comments raised by other ATS units and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns.



2.9.6.2 The possible integration of the new procedures with the proposed NTCA element of the FAS has been considered in this report. LJLA will continue to liaise with NERL on the NTCA design and integrate the proposed RNAV procedures if practicable.

2.9.7 National Security

2.9.7.1 The MOD are included in the consultation process through the NATMAC portal. It is not anticipated that there will be any noticeable effect on national security, however LJLA will consider any comments raised by the MOD and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns.

2.9.8 International Obligations

2.9.8.1 The RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed in accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS criteria. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the design and operational environment satisfy the requirements of CAP 670 section NAV 07 and appropriate portions of CAP 168.

2.9.8.2 The navigation system performance has been assessed as meeting the requirements of Annex 10 to the International Convention on Civil Aviation.

2.9.9 Environmental Considerations

2.9.9.1 The environmental objectives of the change have already been described in a previous paragraph.

2.9.9.2 LJLA has commissioned an Environmental Noise and Air Quality Report. The report has been written by recognised experts on aircraft environmental noise and air quality effects. A copy of the report is attached to this briefing document.

2.9.9.3 LJLA has identified that the proposed RNAV (GNSS) IAP have the potential of reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in the event of adverse weather and a failure of ground based navaids.

2.9.10 Consultation

2.9.10.1 LJLA has proposed a comprehensive consultation that encompasses stakeholders from Local Authorities, the ACC, neighbouring ATS units, airspace users and NATMAC.

2.9.10.2 The planned consultation includes face-to-face meetings, printed informational material, web and email campaigns. Consultees will be given a 12-week period in which to respond. Responses can be made verbally, by post, telephone or email.

2.9.10.3 LJLA are fully committed to carefully consider any comments or objections raised by the consultation stakeholders and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns.

2.9.10.4 Following the conclusion of the consultation period, all responses will be analysed and the results published in accordance with CAA requirements (CAP 725).



3. Annex 1: CAP 670 NAV 07 Compliance

Compliance with paragraphs NAV07.4 to NAV07.8 by the IFP design and the associated aerodrome infrastructure is demonstrated in the safety case (ref. [10]). The compliance summary presented in the safety case is reproduced in the table below.

Ref. Requirement Compliance NAV07.4 In addition to any safety

requirements identified by the ATS Provider the GNSS Signal in Space (SiS) must meet the SARPs as defined in ICAO Annex 10 Volume 1, Chapter 3 Table 3.7.2.4-1.

Requirements for service continuity are identified through a risk assessment and confirmation using the ICAO Annex 10 Volume 1 Attachment D guidance.

Requirements for accuracy and integrity are taken from the CAA guidance material.

Satisfaction of the continuity, accuracy and integrity requirements is demonstrated in [the safety case].

NAV07.5 The CAA allows, at suitable aerodromes, the provision of published RNAV (GNSS) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs), supported by the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS).

General note.

NAV07.6 Applications for an Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) supported by GNSS should be made in accordance with the requirements in CAP 785 Approval Requirements for Instrument Flight Procedures in UK Airspace.

The IAP have been designed by a CAA Approved Procedure Design Organisation (Davidson Ltd).

The IAP have been designed in accordance with ICAO Doc 8468-OPS/611 (PANS-OPS Vol II).

A statement of compliance, narrative and design rationale have been submitted.

NAV07.7 ATS providers intending to facilitate RNAV (GNSS) IAPs must provide the usual notice of the intended change to the CAA in accordance with CAP 670 Part A Regulatory Framework, paragraph A88 Change Notification Requirements.

A procedure design activity notification has been submitted on Form DAP 1916.



Ref. Requirement Compliance NAV07.8 RNAV (GNSS) IAPs must be

supported by safety assurance documentation arguing the adequate safety of the proposed IAP in accordance with the proposer’s SMS and should be submitted to the appropriate CAA Regional Office in parallel with the application for the IFP referred to in paragraph NAV07.6 above.

This safety case provides a safety argument a summary of the safety assurance evidence for the introduction of the two new IAP.

Table 7: CAP 670 NAV07 compliance



4. Annex 2: CAP 168 Facilities Assessment

The RNAV procedures are based on the existing ILS procedures for runways 09 and 27. The procedure for runway 09 is a category 1 (CAT I) ILS whilst runway 27 has the higher precision category 2 (CAT II) ILS.

The aerodrome regularly reviews compliance with CAP 168 criteria and has four variations approved. The variations are documented on form 10G/28/95/1, they consist of two small penetrations of the protected surfaces, a reduced Runway End Safety Area (RESA) and the absence of centreline lighting on the Western Apron taxiway.

Documents

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT RNAV(GNSS) CERT/ENG