l j l a rnav (gnss) a o r ert/eng/140602/4405 i 1 · liverpool john lennon airport rnav (gnss)...

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT RNAV (GNSS)

APPROACHES

OPERATIONAL REPORT

CERT/ENG/140602/4405

ISSUE 1

©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 Operational Report

Document no: CERT/ENG/140602/4405 Issue 1 Document date: 16-Oct-15 ©2015 ATCSL, CIL COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE of 53

INTENTIONALLY BLANK



Document Approval

Authored by: 15 October 2015 Mike Rothon Certisa International Ltd

Reviewed by: 16 October 2015 Jessica Lu Certisa International Ltd

Approved by: 16 October 2015 Leon Gilmour Air Traffic Control Services Ltd



Table of Contents

Document Approval ................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 9

Project Key Points .................................................................................................................... 10

1. Justification for Change and Change Options ..................................................................... 12

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Options Considered ............................................................................................................. 14

1.3 Original Plan for RNAV (GNSS) IAP ...................................................................................... 15

1.4 Justification for RNAV (GNSS) Baro VNAV ........................................................................... 16

2. Airspace Description ......................................................................................................... 17

2.1 Type of Structure ................................................................................................................. 17

2.2 Comparison with Existing ILS IAP ........................................................................................ 19

2.3 Hours of Operation .............................................................................................................. 20

2.4 Connectivity to En-route Structures .................................................................................... 20

2.5 Airspace Buffer Requirements ............................................................................................. 20

2.6 Forecast Usage..................................................................................................................... 22

2.7 Letters of Agreement / Memoranda of Understanding ...................................................... 25

2.8 Design Compliance with ICAO SARPs .................................................................................. 26

2.9 Airspace Classification and Delegations .............................................................................. 28

3. Supporting Infrastructure and Resources ........................................................................... 29

3.1 Navigation and Surveillance Infrastructure ......................................................................... 29

3.2 Communication Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 30

3.3 Aerodrome Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 31

3.4 Equipment Failures .............................................................................................................. 31

3.5 SSR Code Assignment .......................................................................................................... 33

3.6 Staffing Levels and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 33

4. Operational Impact ........................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 35

4.2 General Aviation .................................................................................................................. 35

4.3 Visual Flight Rules Operations ............................................................................................. 36

4.4 Effects on Other Procedures and Capacity .......................................................................... 36

4.4.1 Existing Routes ............................................................................................................. 36

4.4.2 Single European Sky / CAA Future Airspace Strategy .................................................. 36

4.4.3 Northern Terminal Control Area .................................................................................. 38

4.5 Other Aerodromes and Other Activities ............................................................................. 40

4.6 Flight Planning or Route Restrictions .................................................................................. 40

5. Economic Impact .............................................................................................................. 42

6. Safety Management .......................................................................................................... 43

7. Airspace Infrastructure Requirements ............................................................................... 45

7.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 45

7.2 Support of Separation ......................................................................................................... 45

7.3 Performance and Failures .................................................................................................... 46

7.4 General Considerations ....................................................................................................... 46

7.5 Relation to ATS Routes ......................................................................................................... 47



7.6 Additional Requirements for Terminal Airspace ................................................................. 48

7.7 Additional Requirements for Off-Route Airspace Structures .............................................. 49

8. Supporting Maps Charts and Diagrams .............................................................................. 50

8.1 Instrument Approach Procedure Design ............................................................................. 50

8.2 Design Package .................................................................................................................... 50

Figures

Figure 1: Original transition procedure airspace issue ...................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Original procedure environmental issue ............................................................................. 15

Figure 3: Runway 09 lateral design .................................................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Runway 27 lateral design .................................................................................................... 18

Figure 5: Liverpool CTA and delegated airspace overview ................................................................. 21

Figure 6: Airspace buffering requirements (illustrative only) ............................................................ 22

Figure 7: Aircraft Movement Forecast 2015 – 2019 .......................................................................... 23

Figure 8: Proposed NTCA arrival routes to runway 09 ....................................................................... 39

Figure 9: Proposed NTCA arrival routes to runway 27 ....................................................................... 39

Figure 10: Overlay of centrelines on CAA 1:500 000 VFR chart ......................................................... 51



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

[4] 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.

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

[6] Future Airspace Strategy Deployment Plan, Level 1, The FAS Industry Implementation Group, December 2012.

[7] Liverpool John Lennon Airport RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Safety Case, Certisa International Ltd, document reference CERT/ENG/140602/4301.

[8] 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.

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

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

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

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

[13] Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Approaches – Training Plan, ATCSL, October 2015.

[14] Policy Statement – Special Use Airspace – Safety Buffer for Airspace Design Purposes, August 2014.

[15] Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Air Traffic Control Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 2, ATCSL, 2015.

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

[17] Supplementary Instruction XX/2016, GNSS (RNAV) Approaches, ATCSL, document reference to be defined.

[18] ATS Safety Manual, ATCSL, document reference VATS/VATS/ATS/SMS/002, March 2014.



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 (LAL) 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. The practicality of the revised approach was confirmed during a second Framework Briefing on 16 July 2015.

This document provides an Airspace Change Proposal – Operational Report for the introduction of the new procedures. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the objective evidence that has been established to support the proposal, including:

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;

Evidence that a robust stakeholder consultation process is has taken place and has involved Local Authorities, special interest groups, ATC and airspace users;

The 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 flyability assessment has been performed by Ravenair and an Air Traffic Control (ATC) assessment has been completed by Liverpool ATC.



Project Key Points

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 maybe 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.

This document has been structured in accordance with the suggested Operational Report contents listed within CAP 725 Appendix A.



1. Justification for Change and Change Options

1.1 Background

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.

1.1.2 Liverpool Airport first opened officially in 1933 on the old northern airfield site at Speke which is now the successful Liverpool International Business Park. The current runway was completed in 1966 but the airport continued to use the old terminal for passengers until the 1980’s when it was converted into the Crown Plaza Hotel.

1.1.3 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.

1.1.4 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.

1.1.5 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 / 5 nautical miles

Table 1: Background information



1.1.6 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

1.1.7 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 airlines and air operators.



1.2 Options Considered

Prior to deciding on the proposed RNAV (GNSS) with Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro-VNAV) design, LJLA considered a number of different options. 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 the operational capability of 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 preliminary consultation with a key airspace user (easyJet) because a LNAV/VNAV design offers vertical guidance and a lower Decision Altitude (DA).

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

This option was initially the preferred option and was considered in detail. A summary of this initial option is provided in section 1.3.

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



1.4 Justification for RNAV (GNSS) Baro VNAV

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 with only minor changes.

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

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

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

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

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.



2.2 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)

Self-positioning or ATC radar vectors to IF or to intercept extended centreline

DME arc or 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 and hold climbing 2500’

Straight ahead to LPL and hold 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)

ATC radar vectors to intercept extended centreline

ATC radar vectors to intercept extended centreline

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



2.3 Hours of Operation

2.3.1 Liverpool ATS and all associated airspace is operational H24. The new RNAV (GNSS) IAP will also be available H24, but they are primarily intended for use when the ILS is unavailable. Pilots wishing to use the RNAV (GNSS) IAP must make a request to this effect on first contact with Liverpool ATC.

2.3.2 Although it is intended that the new IAP are provided for contingency use, there is no current plan for Liverpool ATC to refuse a request for a RNAV (GNSS) approach, even though the ILS is available. This is for two reasons:

1. The minima for the RNAV procedures is higher than that for the equivalent ILS procedure. In anything other than moderate to good weather conditions, it is expected that pilots will naturally prefer the ILS procedure when it is available;

2. The RNAV final approach path is essentially identical to that of the equivalent ILS final approach path. Therefore, it is expected that any differences, in environmental or any other terms, between the two IAP will be almost imperceptible.

2.4 Connectivity to En-route Structures

2.4.1 The IAP do not interact directly with en-route structures. Aircraft will be vectored under radar control from existing Standard Arrival Routes (STAR) to intercept the intermediate segment of the IAP.

2.4.2 The radar vectoring of aircraft to the RNAV (GNSS) IAP is almost identical to the existing procedure for the ILS, however potentially greater consideration will be given to providing aircraft with sufficient stabilisation distance.

2.4.3 Pilots may alternatively self-position for runway 09. In this case Liverpool ATC will issue a clearance for the procedure, with an instruction to report at the IF (IBAXU). Self-positioning for runway 27 will not be permitted.

2.5 Airspace Buffer Requirements

2.5.1 The following description of the Liverpool Control Zone (CTR) and Figure 5 on the following page have been extracted from the Liverpool Manual of Air Traffic Services (ref. [15]) (MATS) Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2. They are reproduced here to provide the reader with a general overview of the operational environment and constraints on the IAP design.

The Liverpool CTR lies below the western portion of the Manchester CTA and extends up to 2500 ft. AMSL. It is notified as Class D Airspace and subject to rules which specify weather criteria. A pilot wishing to fly within the CTR is required to obtain prior permission to do so, and comply with other procedures as laid down in Rule 27.

The Liverpool CTA extends from 2500ft to 3500ft AMSL to the west of a line north / south through the airport reference point. Further west the CTA extends from 1500ft to 3500ft. This creates an overland route for GA traffic around the Wirral via Wallasey up to 1500ft.



Continuing west there are 8nm long portions of Class D airspace coincident with L10 and L975 (Class A) extending up to 3500ft and designated as Liverpool CTA. The base levels of Airways L10 and L975 in this area are 3500ft.

Further Class D airspace delegated to Liverpool by Prestwick Centre (PC W2) is as follows:

■ Delegated Area A to 4000ft;

■ Delegated Area C to 3000ft;

■ The part of Delegated Area D which is above the LLC to 2500ft;

■ Delegated Area E to 2000ft above the LLC;

■ Delegated Area F to 2500ft above the LLC.

The airspace delegated to Liverpool by PC (W2) can be used by all traffic working Liverpool, including VFR traffic in the areas of class D airspace. However, when Manchester traffic is operating on runway 05, co-ordination must be agreed with Manchester approach before Liverpool ATC can clear an aircraft to enter the portions of area C and D which are south of the Liverpool centreline at an altitude above two thousand feet AMSL or any part of area E. The only exception to this would be aircraft carrying out the standard missed approach procedure for runway 09.

Figure 5: Liverpool CTA and delegated airspace overview

2.5.2 As discussed in section 1.3 above, the proximity of Manchester airspace to the east of the runway 27 IAP does not provide an adequate buffer for the primary protection areas for a standard T-bar style design. This is a particularly important consideration in relation to aircraft manoeuvring for runway 27 from the south west.



2.6.3 During the 1980’s and early 1990’s, passenger numbers were approximately 500,000 per year. 1997 saw the start the first real growth at Liverpool for decades, initially with the opening of routes by easyJet and later by Ryanair. The current terminal was built in 2001/2 and the airport was re-branded “Liverpool John Lennon Airport”.

2.6.4 The period between 2002 and 2008 witnessed rapid growth with passenger numbers increasing to a peak of approximately 5.8 million. The global financial crisis of 2008 dramatically reduced air travel and at the same time Manchester Airport introduced low-cost operations. This has resulted in a year-on-year decline in passenger numbers until 2014 which saw approximately 4 million passengers.

2.6.5 There are now signs of a general strengthening of the economy, furthermore Liverpool City and the broader catchment area is becoming an increasingly attractive destination. The airport now has a mature marketing strategy that offers key differentiators against its competitors, most noticeably Manchester Airport. It is therefore reasonable that the airport’s planners are expecting passenger numbers to recover, potentially to the 2008 levels in the next 5 years.

It should be emphasised that the growth in traffic forecast is entirely due to economic and market reasons. It is in no way a consequence of introducing the RNAV (GNSS) procedures (but see also section 5).

2.6.6 Although there is a strong correlation between passengers and aircraft movements, there are other aspects – for example passenger load factors and aircraft size – that can influence the exact relationship between the two. The airport’s best estimate is therefore that Commercial Air Transport (CAT) movements will return to pre-crisis levels by 2019 (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Aircraft Movement Forecast 2015 – 2019



2.6.7 This yields the following approximate figures for forecast aircraft movements by 2019:

■ 48,000 commercial aircraft movements per year;

■ 70,000 total movements per year.

Or in other words a 43% increase compared with 2014. This figure can be used to extrapolate the number of instrument approaches given in Table 2 (which have been taken directly from Liverpool ATC records) up until 2019:

■ 9,200 IAP forecast for runway 09 per year;

■ 15,200 IAP forecast for runway 27 per year.

2.6.8 It can also be seen from Table 2 that the worst case unavailability for ILS equipment at Liverpool is somewhat less than 0.2%, and the ILS for runway 27 is an order of magnitude more reliable. Even applying the runway 09 ‘worst case’1 figures for both runways, this would imply that the forecast numbers of aircraft needing to use the RNAV (GNSS) procedure would be as follows:

■ 18 RNAV (GNSS) IAP needed for runway 09 per year by 2019 (upper bound);

■ 30 RNAV (GNSS) IAP needed for runway 27 per year by 2019 (upper bound).

2.6.9 Informal discussions with Liverpool-based airlines, charter operators and flying schools indicate that the RNAV (GNSS) procedures will also be requested for training and currency purposes. Any quantitative estimate for the above is subjective by nature, however it was indicated that between 1/20 and 1/10 of IAP requested might be for a RNAV (GNSS). Taking the latter figure it could be concluded that the upper bound for RNAV (GNSS) requests is as follows:

■ 900 RNAV (GNSS) IAP requested for runway 09 per year (upper bound);

■ 1,500 RNAV (GNSS) IAP requested for runway 27 per year (upper bound).

It is worth noting that this represents approximately 3.7% of all movements.

2.6.10 Airline operators currently using Liverpool have some of the youngest and best equipped fleets of aircraft in the world. Similarly, considering that Liverpool is a reasonably large international airport, any GA aircraft arriving under IFR are likely to be equipped to a relatively high standard – including RNAV capability. Therefore, it is not foreseen that there will be a skewing of the current ratio between CAT and GA IAP due to the introduction of the new procedures.

2.6.11 There is a minor ATC workload increase in that controllers will need to maintain currency on supporting both ILS and RNAV (GNSS) IAP. The RNAV (GNSS) IAP for runway 27 is also slightly more complex from a controller perspective because:

1 The runway 09 ILS unavailability is mostly due to unscheduled maintenance on the localiser. There is a capital plan to procure a new localiser in 2016 so it is anticipated that there should be a marked improvement and unavailability of both ILS will be closer to the current runway 27 figure. Therefore, the usage figures are considered ‘upper bounds’.



■ Pilots will not necessarily be monitoring the I-LQ DME whilst downwind, which requires greater attention on the part of both pilots and controllers to ensure aircraft remain within the Liverpool delegated airspace2;

■ Some airlines require a 2 nautical mile stabilisation distance prior to the FAF. This may require slightly more accurate positioning by the controller to ensure the aircraft intercepts the intermediate segment appropriately.

2.6.12 It was demonstrated during the ATC validation activities (ref. [11]) that the workload increase is minor and well within the capacity of Liverpool controllers.

2.7 Letters of Agreement / Memoranda of Understanding

2.7.1 There are no new Letters of Agreement (LoA) or Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) arising as a result of the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP.

2.7.2 As part of the implementation process, ATCSL has reviewed the current LoA to ensure that there is no impact on any current agreements. This has been confirmed as follows:

2 This point was considered during the HAZOP and suitable mitigations proposed (see ref. [7]).



Table 6: Review of existing LoA.

2.8 Design Compliance with ICAO SARPs

2.8.1 The procedure design has been performed by Davidson Ltd (DAL) who are an Approved Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) Design Organisation. The DAL approval was granted by the CAA as described in CAP 785.



2.8.2 The RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed in accordance with the criteria laid down in International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Document 8168 Volume 2, Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures. An independent validation of the design has been carried out by .

2.8.3 The basis for the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) concept is that airspace should not be designated as either military or civil airspace but should be considered as a single continuum. Where possible any necessary airspace segregation should be temporary in nature and optimisation of network performance will always be of primary consideration. The application of the FUA concept aims to ensure that, through the daily allocation of flexible airspace structures, any necessary segregation of airspace is based on real usage within a specific time period and airspace volume. Details of the UK policy on FUA are contained with CAP 740.

2.8.4 ATCSL believe that the introduction of the new IAP fall under Airspace Management (ASM) Level 1 (Strategic). The introduction of the new procedures is broadly in accordance with the basis of the FUA because RNAV (GNSS) is a forward-looking technology that is at the root of both civil and military aviation. Furthermore, this technology supports integration into the more flexible structure that is being planned as part of the Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA), see section 4.4 for details.

2.8.5 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. [11]) which has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the CAA Policy Statement on the Validation of Instrument Flight Procedures (ref. [12]).

2.8.6 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).

2.8.7 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.”

2.8.8 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.



2.8.9 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 and 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.

2.8.10 A further validation assessment has been conducted by Ravenair in a PA-34 Seneca light twin-engine aircraft. The assessment was also conducted in accordance with the documented Validation Plan and Results (ref. [11]). The primary objective of the Ravenair assessment was to establish the controllability and flyability of radar vectoring to intercept the IAF – FAF segment. The flights also validated the flyability of the procedure in a GA aircraft and visually validate obstacle and terrain clearance. As with the easyJet, the Ravenair assessment confirmed the flyability of the design although some errors were noted on the specimen approach plates.

2.9 Airspace Classification and Delegations

2.9.1 There is no reclassification of airspace required for the new GNSS IAP. The new IAP fall entirely within the Liverpool CTR and airspace delegated within the Manchester CTR/CTA. The Liverpool CTR and the Manchester CTR/CTA are both Class D airspace, this provides suitable protection for aircraft operating under IFR.

2.9.2 Access to the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be available to all suitably equipped airspace users in the same manner as the current ILS IAP. Indeed, it is possible that in the future RNAV (GNSS) technology may become available to a broader spectrum of airspace user than current conventional technology.

2.9.3 The new procedures have been deliberately designed to mimic as closely as possible the existing ILS designs and therefore their impact on all other airspace users should be negligible.

2.9.4 No aspect of the Liverpool ATS is being delegated and no new delegations are being sought by Liverpool as a result of this change. Details of the extant delegations are summarised in sections 2.5 and 2.7.



3. Supporting Infrastructure and Resources

3.1 Navigation and Surveillance Infrastructure

3.1.1 The proposed change is designed to operate seamlessly with the current conventional navigation infrastructure at Liverpool. The new RNAV (GNSS) IAP are being primarily implemented as a contingency measure for use in the event of ILS or DME unavailability.

3.1.2 There are no plans to decommission the existing ILS equipment which will remain operational. In fact, there is a capital plan allocated with the 2016 budget to replace the runway 09 Localiser (LOC) with new equipment.

3.1.3 The LPL Non Directional Beacon (NDB) is normally required to be in operation for an aircraft to fly a RNAV (GNSS) procedure because it provides the primary guidance for the radio failure missed approach procedure.

3.1.4 Similarly, aircraft will only be able to use the RNAV (GNSS) IAP when Liverpool radar surveillance is operational. This is because of the need to vector aircraft to intercept the intermediate segment and also to monitor conformance to the final approach path.

3.1.5 Liverpool ATC are equipped with an on-aerodrome Raytheon ASR 10SS Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR).

3.1.6 Liverpool are also provided with Onward Routed Radar Data (ORRD) from NATS Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) sensors



3.1.8 The live flight trials performed by Liverpool ATC and Ravenair verified the interoperability and suitability for use of the current navigation / surveillance equipment in conjunction with the RNAV (GNSS) IAP.

3.1.9

3.1.10

3.2 Communication Infrastructure

3.2.1 The RNAV GNSS IAP are within the same volume of airspace as the existing ILS IAP. Therefore, the adequacy of R/T coverage is demonstrated through the satisfactory operational record of the existing equipment and compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements of CAP 670 for radiotelephony equipment.

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4



3.3 Aerodrome Infrastructure

3.3.1 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.

3.3.2 The aerodrome regularly reviews compliance with CAP 168 criteria and has 4 variations approved. The variations are documented on form 10G/28/95/1 and are:

1. 2 small penetrations of the protected surfaces;

2. A reduced Runway End Safety Area (RESA), although this will be addressed following the installation of a new runway 09 localiser;

3. The absence of centreline lighting on the Western Apron taxiway.

3.4 Equipment Failures

3.4.1 A Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study (ref. [7]) considered all foreseeable failures and their effects.

3.4.2

3.4.3

3.4.4

3.4.5

3.4.6



3.4.7



3.5 SSR Code Assignment

There is no change required to the SSR code assignment at Liverpool. Therefore, the code assignments remain as follows:

Code (range) Usage

Table 7: SSR code allocation

3.6 Staffing Levels and Qualifications

3.6.1 It was established during the ATC validation exercise that there is no significant increase in ATC workload resulting from the introduction of the new procedures.

3.6.2 The staffing levels at Liverpool will therefore remain unchanged as follows:

Licensed Personnel Staff Level

Table 8: ATC staffing levels

3.6.3 A detailed training plan and syllabus has been created (ref. [13]). Training is currently scheduled to take place from 1 February to 26 February 2016 and will be provided to both Approach rated and Aerodrome rated controllers.

3.6.4



3.6.5

3.6.6



4.2.4 A wide variety of General Aviation operators and representative bodies were consulted on the proposal through the NATMAC framework. No negative responses were received, with all comment being either neutral or broadly in favour.

4.3 Visual Flight Rules Operations

4.3.1 The new IAP reside entirely within the existing Liverpool CTR and closely follow the existing ILS procedures. Therefore, there is little or no anticipated impact on traffic flow in or through the area.

4.3.2 There are a number of Visual Reporting Points (VRP) established within the CTR. Although there are no notified VFR crossing routes, there are a number of regularly used routes described in the MATS Part 2 (ref. [15]). There are no changes to VRP or the nominal crossing routes as a result of the introduction of the RNAV (GNSS) procedures.

4.3.3 The Liverpool / Manchester Low Level Corridor is established to the east of Liverpool Airport and provides a corridor of uncontrolled airspace between Oulton Park in the south and Kirkby in the north. The new RNAV (GNSS) procedure designs have fully considered the presence of this corridor and provide adequate separation from VFR traffic operating within it.

4.4 Effects on Other Procedures and Capacity

4.4.1 Existing Routes

4.4.1.1 Liverpool has 10 published SID and 11 published STAR procedures. Although there is a published direct arrival from TIPOD to the runway 09 ILS procedure, the standard published routing for the existing IAP is from the end point of each STAR to the LPL NDB. From LPL all conventional IAP consist of an outbound leg with a reversal to intercept the final approach track.

4.4.1.2 In practice, nearly all instrument traffic is radar vectored directly from the STAR to the final approach track. This will also be the case for the RNAV (GNSS) IAP, however for the new approaches there is no procedural method, and therefore RNAV (GNSS) will only be available when the radar service is operational.

4.4.1.3 No discernible effect is anticipated on either the capacity or usage of the existing routes and holds. This is because the RNAV (GNSS) will normally only be used either as a contingency for when the ILS is unavailable, or possibly as an alternative to the ILS when crew currency training is required. The same volume of traffic will continue to use the existing routes and holding patterns because only the final approach is affected by the type of IAP (not the arrival or departure routes).

4.4.2 Single European Sky / CAA Future Airspace Strategy

4.4.2.1 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”.



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

4.4.2.3 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.

4.4.2.4 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.

4.4.2.5 The Department for Transport (DoT) Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions (ref. [16]) 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.

4.4.2.6 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.”



4.4.2.7 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.

4.4.3 Northern Terminal Control Area

4.4.3.1 The Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA) (ref. [6]) 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).

4.4.3.2 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.

4.4.3.3 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.

4.4.3.4 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 waypoints and therefore require a redesign of the current SID and STAR.

4.4.3.5 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.

4.4.3.6 Figure 8 and Figure 9 on the following page have been derived from an informal discussion document provided to LJLA by NERL. The figures have been extracted as bitmaps and georeferenced using prominent coastline points and airports and are therefore intended as a general illustration only.



4.4.3.7 As can be seen from Figure 8 and Figure 9 the RNAV (GNSS) IAP are broadly compatible with the preliminary design of the NTCA arrival procedures.

4.4.3.8 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 1.

4.5 Other Aerodromes and Other Activities

4.5.1 As discussed throughout this document, the new procedures have been designed to be contained entirely within existing airspace that is delegated to Liverpool and to replicate as closely as possible the ILS final approach track. It has also been explained that aircraft will join the procedure in a similar (radar vectored) manner to traffic arriving for the ILS.

4.5.2 Therefore, Liverpool ATC do not believe there will be any noticeable impact on other aerodromes or specific activities within or adjacent to the proposed IAP. Nevertheless, all neighbouring aerodromes have been consulted by means of a consultation pack, invitation to drop-in sessions or through face-to-face meetings.

4.5.3 The outcome of the consultation with other aerodromes and airspace has been either been no response or a neutral comment stating no objection.

4.5.4 As with GA, the only detrimental impact of this change to military

flights would be if the airport operator attaches less importance to the availability of the ground based navaids, which is not the case.

4.5.5 There is no significant increase in traffic forecast by LJLA as a result of the change. Indeed, it is difficult to identify any impact on airspace users other than those already discussed. For example, users such as gliders and paragliders are very unlikely to experience any noticeable effects from this change.

4.5.6 LJLA believe that all airspace users were represented by the stakeholders in the consultation process. LJLA were fully committed to carefully consider any objections raised by airspace users and if necessary make changes to this proposal or otherwise address their concerns. No adverse comments or change requests have been received and it is concluded that the new IAP are acceptable (or irrelevant) to other airspace users.

4.6 Flight Planning or Route Restrictions

4.6.1 There are no flight planning restrictions or route requirements associated with the introduction of the new IAP with the exception that pilots will be required to request a RNAV (GNSS) approach on first contact with Liverpool ATC. Optionally, but not currently a requirement, operators may request a RNAV (GNSS) IAP on their flight plan.



4.6.2 There are currently no plans to refuse a RNAV (GNSS) approach providing suitable aerodrome and ATC facilities (including radar) are available, and that meteorological conditions are suitable3.

3 ATC instructions, planned to be published as SI XX/2016 (ref. [17]), provides controllers with the obstacle clearance minima for each approach. The SI also reminds controllers that visibility minima is normally determined in accordance with EU-OPS, but that individual operators may have their own higher limits.



5. Economic Impact

5.1 Liverpool Airport has investigated the possibility of producing a short economic impact assessment. However, it was concluded that (due to the relatively low anticipated usage as a contingency measure) it is impracticable to determine any meaningful, quantitative financial value that may be saved or expended as a result of the change.

5.2 It is conceivable that LJLA may be a more attractive prospect to airlines if the RNAV (GNSS) IAP are implemented, but it is difficult to quantify this 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 making any revision to forecast traffic levels or mix of aircraft if the new procedures are implemented.

5.3 Notwithstanding the above, an informal discussion was held between Liverpool and their major customer ( ) that highlighted the following:

■ A single diversion from Liverpool to Manchester could incur substantial cost, including for example the following:

□ Additional fuel burn and aircraft hours;

□ Potentially repositioning the aircraft to Liverpool to support the ongoing schedule;

□ Positioning and repositioning displaced crews;

□ Ground transportation (i.e. buses) for passengers;

□ Possible compensation payments;

□ Administrative and general operating costs.

In all it was suggested that the costs associated with a diversion could amount many tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds;

■ The above does not take into consideration the indirect costs to airline passengers, who may miss meetings, multimodal transport connections etc.

■ If multiple diversions were to occur, in particular as a result of an aerodrome equipment outage, then the airport operator risks loss of confidence by both airlines and their passengers.

5.4 It should be emphasised that in the past year there has been relatively few diversions and none as the result of navaid failure. However, the financial impact of even a single diversion is likely to outweigh the entire cost of implementing the RNAV (GNSS) IAP and therefore, in economic terms, the introduction of the new procedures is a straightforward business-risk mitigation measure.



6. Safety Management

6.1 ATCSL, as ANSP for LJLA, has implemented a comprehensive Safety Management System (SMS) that is documented in the ATS Safety Manual (ref. [18]). The ATS Safety Manual has been reviewed and accepted as part of the ANSP Operator’s Licence.

6.2 ATCSL have informally notified the ATSD Regional Inspector of their intention to implement GNSS (RNAV) procedures, but understand that the formal notification will occur internally within SARG as part of the overall submission and ACP review process.

6.3 LJLA has developed a safety case (ref. [7]) for the implementation of the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP. The safety case is a separate document included within the submission package, therefore only a short summary is presented here.

6.4 Safety objectives have been derived from a HAZOP workshop that took place on 08 July 2015 at Liverpool Airport. The HAZOP was performed in accordance with CAA guidance (ref. [8]).

6.5 The identified risks were assessed using the Bow-Tie barrier risk model and validated against the CAA risk model templates (ref. [9]). 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.

6.6 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. [10]) and found to be compliant with the ICAO SARPs for radio navigation aid SiS performance.

6.7 The safety case also demonstrates compliance with CAP 670 paragraphs NAV07.4 to NAV07.8 and the sufficiency of the associated aerodrome infrastructure. 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].



Ref. Requirement Compliance

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.

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

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.

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

Table 9: CAP 670 NAV07 compliance



7. Airspace Infrastructure Requirements

7.1 Overview

7.1.1 Liverpool Airport understand that instrument flight procedures should be wholly located within appropriately designated airspace. However, whilst it was an operational requirement for the RNAV (GNSS) IAP to be contained entirely within the Liverpool CTR and the volumes of the Manchester CTR/CTA delegated to Liverpool, in practice this has not been possible.

7.1.2 The obstacle protection areas for the proposed procedures overlap adjoining airspace. In particular, the obstacle protection area for the missed approach from runway 09 infringes the Manchester CTA. The nominal track remains within Liverpool surveillance area and the majority of the primary obstacle protection area also lies within delegated airspace.

7.1.3 A detailed description and diagrams showing the interaction between the obstacle protection area and Manchester airspace can be found in section 4.3 of the IFP designer’s Final Report (ref. [5]).

7.1.4 Due to the constraints listed at paragraph 7.1.2 above and the need to radar vector aircraft from the STAR to the intermediate segment of the approach, it is necessary that the RNAV (GNSS) IAP will only be available when Liverpool radar is operational. This is conveyed in the SI to controllers (ref. [17]) and will also be annotated on the approach ‘plates’.

7.1.5

7.1.6 Liverpool Airport have reviewed the CAA Policy Statement on Special Use Airspace – Safety Buffer for Airspace Design Purposes (ref. [14]) and concluded that it is not applicable to this proposal because:

a) There is no change to the existing airspace structure as a result of the introduction of the new IAP;

b) The procedures are not intended for ordnance being fired from the surface, or being fired or released from aircraft.

7.2 Support of Separation

7.2.1 Assurance that there is adequate separation between aircraft performing the new IAP and other airspace structures is provided on the basis that the IAP have been designed within the criteria laid down by ICAO PANS-OPS. The adequacy of the existing ILS procedures to provide separation from other airspace structures has been demonstrated during many years of operation. This provides further assurance because the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP closely replicate the ILS procedures.



7.2.2

7.2.3 There is no change required to the airspace structure or its classification (Class D) to support the new procedures. Consequently, access to Liverpool airspace by all users is foreseen to remain as currently.

7.2.4

7.2.5 The existing approach centrelines (ILS, LOC and NDB) are clearly marked on CAA 1:250 000 and 1:500 000 charts to alert VFR pilots to the presence of an IAP. The RNAV (GNSS) centrelines have the same bearing as the conventional IAP, so current chart markings should be sufficient.

7.3 Performance and Failures

7.3.1 Liverpool ATC training, as documented in the Training Plan (ref. [13]), describes the infrastructure required for the new IAP. It also includes content on identifying failures with the GNSS signal and actions to be taken in the event of failures. Inclusion of these elements in the training were a result of the HAZOP and risk assessment process.

7.3.2

7.4 General Considerations

7.4.1 The implementation of the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be notified to airspace users through the normal AIP amendment / AIRAC cycle. In addition, Liverpool airport are considering separately notifying major users, locally based operators and other interested parties once confirmation has been received from SARG that the new IAP are acceptable. This may be achieved through an update on the airport’s website, emails and possibly posters or information leaflets.

7.4.2 The nominal tracks of the new IAP are entirely within airspace that is currently delegated to, and continuously utilised by Liverpool ATC. The existing communication equipment has proved to be completely sufficient in operation and therefore it has been assessed that there should be no issues relating to R/T coverage.



7.4.3 As has been discussed throughout this document, the new procedures lie close to Manchester airspace and the obstacle clearance areas overlap Manchester airspace slightly. Manchester ATC has been kept fully informed throughout the design process and actively participated in the consultation through a face-to-face meeting. Both Manchester and Liverpool ATC have concluded that the new design does not impact on existing arrangements and no new agreements are required.

7.4.4 Similarly, no impacts on other aviation activity (low flying, gliding, parachuting, microlight site, etc.) have been identified. Representatives of these user groups have been consulted through the NATMAC forum and no negative responses have been received. The existing LoA with neighbouring aerodromes and other aviation groups have been reviewed as part of this process and no changes have been identified (see also section 2.7 of this report).

7.5 Relation to ATS Routes

7.5.1 The CAP 725 requirements for this section of the Operational Report are not directly applicable to the new IAP. However, they have been interpreted in the context of the IAP-to-ATS route interface and appropriate statements provided accordingly.

7.5.2 The RNAV (GNSS) procedures are, obviously, dependent on the integrity of the GNSS navigational guidance signal. A detailed assessment of the suitability of this signal has been made and is documented in the accompanying Safety Case (ref. [7]).

7.5.3

7.5.4 The NDB navaid is used for the missed approach segment of the procedure (in common with the exiting ILS procedures and a standalone NDB IAP). The adequacy of the NDB is demonstrated through the routine flight inspection schedule.

7.5.5 It has been decided not to procedurally link the existing STAR to the IAP at this time due to the constraints of the existing airspace and to avoid any environmental disturbance as a result of changing traffic patterns.

7.5.6 Liverpool Airport have investigated the possibility to link the RNAV (GNSS) IAP with the new STAR being considered as part of the NTCA proposal. Initial investigations indicate that the IAP could be linked with little or no change, however the NTCA STAR designs are at an early phase and developments will be closely monitored.



7.5.7 The RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed in accordance with P-RNAV concepts which offers a degree of ‘future proofing’, however depending on the final realisation of NTCA, the actual lifetime of the new procedures proposed in this report may be relatively short.

7.6 Additional Requirements for Terminal Airspace

7.6.1 The adequacy (and shortcomings) of the airspace within which the new IAP are contained has already been discussed at section 7.1.

7.6.2 Additional requirements to link arrival routes to the IAP have been discussed in paragraphs 7.5.5 to 7.5.7 above. For the current time it has been decided that the IAP will not be directly linked to the existing STAR for the following reasons:

■ To do so would have an environmental (mostly noise) impact as there would be a degree of change in the density and distribution of traffic flows over certain populated areas;

■ The forthcoming NTCA will require the introduction of new STAR, perhaps as early as 2018. Therefore, it may not be possible to achieve a worthwhile operational benefit compared to the cost of implementing the links.

7.6.3 The existing STAR are otherwise entirely compatible with the new IAP, the linking routes being achieved through radar vectoring rather than procedurally. Furthermore, provision has been made for aircraft to self-position to the runway 09 IAF if required.

7.6.4 The design has been established and validated in accordance with PANS-OPS criteria. Obstacle and terrain clearance has also been verified during the flight validation series performed by Ravenair which was conducted under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC).

7.6.5 No changes are being made to the operating arrangements for the Liverpool CTR and delegated airspace as a result of this change. The airspace is, and will remain, Class D and a radar environment.

7.6.6 The new IAP closely replicate the existing ILS procedures. There is no necessity to establish additional VRP to integrate VFR arrivals, departures or transits with IFR traffic performing a RNAV (GNSS) approach.

7.6.7 The ATS provision for Liverpool Airport and its associated airspace is supported by both primary and secondary radar facilities.

7.6.8

7.6.9 Statistics for aircraft using the new RNAV (GNSS) IAP will be recorded by Liverpool ATCA in accordance with the process documented in the SI (ref. [17]). These statistics will be correlated with aerodrome noise monitoring equipment data to confirm that the assertions made in the Environmental Report are valid.



7.6.10 Similarly, all occasions of an aircraft being refused permission to utilise the RNAV (GNSS) procedures will be logged, along with a reason for the refusal.

7.6.11 Statistics and information will be made available to interested parties in accordance with the airport’s normal processes. A detailed review will also be made and presented to the CAA at the Post-Implementation Review Meeting with SARG (to be scheduled for a date approximately 12 months after implementation).

7.6.12 It has been established that CDA are feasible for the runway 09 RNAV procedure. The accompanying SI (ref. [17]) includes an instruction for controllers to provide regular distance to touchdown reports if requested. It is not practicable to implement CDA for the runway 27 RNAV procedure due to the airspace constraints already discussed and the related fact that all STAR terminate at a waypoint to the west of the aerodrome.

7.7 Additional Requirements for Off-Route Airspace Structures

The requirements of this section of CAP 725 are not applicable to the proposed RNAV (GNSS) IAP and the general concepts discussed have already been covered under other sections of this report.



8. Supporting Maps Charts and Diagrams

8.1 Instrument Approach Procedure Design

8.1.1 The RNAV (GNSS) IAP have been designed Davidson Ltd who are a CAA approved Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) design organisation. The following is a short summary of the detailed design description provided in the IFP designer’s Final Report (ref. [5]).

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

Davidson Ltd

8.1.3 The design was independently validated by Lars Finken Aviation Consult ApS.

8.2 Design Package

8.2.1 The design is provided within the submission in the following parts:

■ Autocad Drawings: These are provided only electronically and are the reference documentation for the entire design. The drawings include all aspects of the design including nominal tracks, obstacle protection areas and waypoints. All items are referenced to the Ordnance Survey National Grid with conversion tables provided to WGS84 where appropriate. For convenience, the designs have been overlaid on the OSGB coastline and existing airspace boundaries added;

■ IFP Designer’s Final Report: This provides a narrative of the design and rationale for decisions taken. It also highlights important aspects of the design to be considered during the approval process;

■ Annex to Final Report: The annex contains statements of compliance with ICAO PANS-OPS, detailed descriptions and data sheets;

■ Sample AIP Entries: Sample plates provided by the IFP Designer, however it is understood that the formal AIP entries will be drafted by NATS.

8.2.2 Each element of the design is clearly annotated in the package.

8.2.3



8.2.4 Sample (‘mock up’) AIP entries have been provided. The similarity between the RNAV (GNSS) IAP and the ILS IAP can be examined by comparison with the latter’s AIP pages. An objective textual comparison is also made at section 2.2 of this report.

8.2.5 The following shows the extent of the procedures overlaid on a scanned and georeferenced CAA 1:500 000 series VFR chart.

Figure 10: Overlay of centrelines on CAA 1:500 000 VFR chart

8.2.6 The sample plates are reproduced below and provided in high-resolution PDF format as part of the submission package. A CAA Form 933 (online AIP Change Request submittal) we also be submitted in parallel with the main documentation.

l j l a rnav (gnss) a o r ert/eng/140602/4405 i 1 · liverpool john lennon airport rnav (gnss)...

Documents