Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) Process

JUNE 2008 V4.0

Airspace Reclassification through the Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) Process

V4.0 JUNE 2008

Airspace Change Proposal

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Overview 3 1.2 ACP Process 5

2.0 AIRSPACE ARRANGEMENTS 6 2.1 Current ATC Operations and Airspace Arrangements 6 2.2 General Aviation Activity 7 2.3 Military Operations 8 2.4 Safety Incidents 10

3.0 OPTIONS FOR CHANGE 11 3.1 General 11 3.2 Option 1- Do Nothing 11 3.3 Establish Controlled Airspace 12

4.0 DESIGN PROPOSAL 14 4.1 Background 14 4.2 Design Considerations 14 4.3 Evolution of Design 15 4.4 Proposed design of CAS 15 4.5 CTR 15 4.6 VFR Operations 16 4.7 Military Operations 16

5.0 ROUTE DESIGN – ARRIVALS 18 5.1 General 18 5.2 Arrival Routes 18 5.3 Hold Design 20

6.0 ROUTE DESIGN – DEPARTURES 21 6.1 General 21 6.2 Departure Routes 21

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 23

8.0 SUMMARY 28

APPENDICIES A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 29 B GLOSSARY OF TERMS 30

Figures/Tables Map A Current Airspace Arrangements 7 Figure 1: Traffic operating in vicinity of aerodrome 10 Figure 2 – Airport Airspace Proposal 16 Figure 3 – Military VFR Shelf 17 Figure 4 – Arrival Routes 21 19 Figure 5 – Arrival Routes Runway 03 19 Figure 6 – Departure Routes Runway 21 21 Figure 7 – Departure Routes Runway 03 22

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 2 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 This consultative document details the case for the establishment of Controlled Airspace (CAS) at Humberside Airport. This overview will present a short history of the airport leading into an explanation of the events (past, present and future) that have persuaded the airport that CAS is necessary. Current airspace arrangements will be detailed, along with existing Air Traffic Control (ATC) arrangements and any relevant incidents that could have been avoided by the presence of CAS. The actual Airspace Change Process (ACP) is described, as applicable to Humberside Airport. Where a term (such as CAS, above) is in bold, further explanation of its meaning can be found in the Glossary.

1.1.2 History. Humberside Airport was developed from the former World War II bomber base of RAF . The airfield was taken into local authority ownership in 1969 and the Airport opened in 1974, with commercial services starting in 1975. A major development programme commenced in the late 1980s to give the Airport greater operational capability. This included the extension of the main runway (Runway 21/03) in 1991, a series of extensions and alterations to the passenger terminal, a separate helicopter terminal and a new fire station. As a result of the runway extension, the major tour operators introduced regular jet operations to the Airport. In 1999, acquired an 82.7% majority stake in the airport, with only one of the former local authority owners (North Council) retaining its shareholding. In late 2001, Humberside Airport was joined by and Bournemouth Airports and became part of the Regional Airports Division of the Manchester Airports Group.

1.1.3 Current operations. Humberside Airport currently offers flights to around 30 destinations throughout Europe and the UK, and through regular daily shuttle flights to Amsterdam, access to over 300 destinations worldwide via KLM airways. The Airport is the operating base for , which has also recently installed a Jetstream simulator, one of only 2 such installations in the world. Additionally, the Airport is served by a number of carriers including First Choice, Thomson, Airtours and Thomas Cook. Passenger numbers have grown steadily from 260,000 in 1994 to just over 472,000 in 2007. With the substantial growth expected in the region, Humberside Airport expects to attract new airlines and flights. The Airport’s recently published Master Plan forecasts that, by 2015, passenger numbers will increase to between 932,000 and 1,402,000. The Airport anticipates a continued measured growth in forthcoming years.

1.1.4 Humberside Airport is also an important base for helicopters operating shuttle flights to service the Lincolnshire Offshore Gas Gathering System (LOGGS), which has rigs and platforms from 40 to 90 miles offshore. The Airport is also home to the Humberside Police Helicopter Support Unit, which uses an MD80 helicopter to provide aerial support to local police forces.

1.1.5 Away from public transport the Airport has a number of resident flying schools operating a variety of aircraft types. The Airport actively encourages General Aviation (GA) operators and has developed strong relationships with local operators at airfields such as Sherburn, Wickenby, Gamston, Kirton Lindsey, Hibaldstow and Garton.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 3 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

1.1.6 Humberside Airport also operates as a diversion, or alternate, airfield for RAF units, which means that RAF aircraft can land at the Airport if, for whatever reason, they cannot land at their home base. In parallel to this Humberside Airport is regularly used by military pilots to practice instrument approach procedures.

1.1.7 Finally, the Humberside Airport is part of the UK’s LARS scheme - Lower Airspace Radar Service. As part of this service, the Airport provides a range of radar-based services to aircraft, using on-site primary radar and secondary radar information piped in from the NATS owned Claxby radar head. These services are provided out to a range of 30nm from the aerodrome, up to Flight Level 95 (FL95), or 9,500 feet, but higher if required, up to FL195.

1.1.8 The flying activities outlined above all take place in uncontrolled airspace, meaning that airline traffic receiving an ATC Service from the Airport is not segregated in any way from other traffic (military, light aircraft, helicopters, microlights, motorized hangliders etc). Traditionally, the controllers at the Airport have been able to use their experience and significant local knowledge to ensure a safe service and to date there have been no serious safety-related incidents. Humberside Airport ATC has been providing a service in this area for many years and has an in-depth understanding of the environment in which they operate and the safety margins that exist. In recent years they have become increasingly concerned by the increase in traffic that routinely operates in close proximity to the Airport. This increase in traffic is due to a multitude of factors, including an increase in Military traffic in the region, the development of a new airport at Doncaster, wind farm developments (that influence aircraft routing), and a steady increase in the number of leisure pilots in the region. In highlighting these factors Humberside Airport does not wish to lay claim to the local airspace, recognising it as a facility free to use by all. However, the Airport has a duty of care to its Commercial users and the passengers they carry, and as such it wishes to create a known environment in the immediate vicinity of the aerodrome, in order to guarantee the provision of the safest service possible.

1.1.9 Humberside Airport is important to the economic vitality and competitiveness of the sub-region. The area has a number of unique attributes; deep-water ports; land availability; access to the national transport network; these combined with an in close proximity provide the essential infrastructure necessary for a diverse economy. Major global companies are investing heavily in the Hull and Humber Ports City Region, these include Novartis Intermediates, Nippon Gohsei, Kimberley Clark and Guardian Industries. These strong and growing business sectors benefit greatly from the significant transport assets of the region, including Humberside Airport.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 4 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

1.2 ACP Process

1.2.1 Having identified the requirement to change airspace arrangements, Humberside Airport (hereafter referred to as HUY) has elected to propose a new airspace structure in accordance with the ACP, as detailed in the Airspace Charter, published by the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) as Civil Air Publication (CAP) 724, with further guidance available in CAP 725. Guidance in this area has been updated in recent years and HUY acknowledges the greater emphasis that is now placed on assessing and minimising environmental impacts. Both CAP 724 and 725 are available at www.caa.co.uk/dap. The Directorate, which is part of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), is the Airspace and Regulatory Authority for the UK.

1.2.2 The guidance provided by the CAA, in the aforementioned documents recommends a seven step process for the implementation of an ACP, as follows:

• Stage 1: The Framework Briefing • Stage 2: Proposal Development • Stage 3: Preparing for Consultation • Stage 4: Consultation and Formal Proposal Submission • Stage 5: Regulatory Decision • Stage 6: Implementation • Stage 7: Operational Review

1.2.3 HUY have conducted Stages 1-3 and this document will form the main submission required for Stage 4, the Consultation and Formal Proposal Submission. During Stage 3 HUY identified a comprehensive list of stakeholders and began briefings and consultations with them. All Parish, Borough, District and County Councils within the area of the airspace change have been informed, together with the Airport Consultative Committee (ACC). Consultation with all affected airspace stakeholders has also already begun. To date 225 consultees have been identified. The aim of this, ongoing, consultation is to ensure that HUY can consider and address comments and concerns from all affected parties at an early stage.

1.2.4 Once the Stakeholder Consultation is concluded and the views taken into account where possible, HUY will amend the ACP if necessary before submitting the Formal ACP Document to DAP, which leads to Stage 5, the Regulatory Decision process at DAP, which can take some months. If successful, Stage 6 will see the implementation of the CAS, after pre-notification to all aviation agencies that will likely be affected by the ACP. This stage will take around 2 months. Stage 7 occurs around 6 months after the implementation of CAS, and is an Operational Review of HUY’s procedures, ensuring that operations are progressing as planned, and no adverse effects have developed as a result of the implementation of the CAS.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 5 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

2.0 AIRSPACE ARRANGEMENTS

2.1 Current ATC Operations and Airspace Arrangements

2.1.1 HUY provides an ATC service1, which includes an Approach Radar Service, from a Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) situated on the aerodrome. Low-level coverage around Humberside is assessed as good. However, despite this capability, and the provision of a LARS service, there is no requirement for pilots operating in the vicinity of the Aerodrome to communicate with Humberside ATC unless they wish to enter the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ). Pilots electing to operate without any ATC service are effectively relying on their ability to see other traffic and manoeuvre to avoid it. To Humberside ATC these are ‘unknown contacts’ (i.e. aircraft that are visible to radar but whose flight path, altitude and intentions are not known). Commercial traffic operating within this environment receives a radar service from Humberside ATC, with avoidance of other aircraft provided to the best of the controllers (and the radar systems) ability. However, it must be accepted that unknown contacts are by their nature unpredictable and could pose a significant risk to commercial traffic.

2.1.2 Once a Humberside Controller achieves radar contact with one of these unknown aircraft, then he must attempt to avoid it by the regulated distance. The avoidance distance varies according to the type of Air Traffic Control service being provided (See Annex B). When providing a Radar Advisory Service (RAS), the controller is required to avoid unknown traffic by 3000ft vertically (assuming there is an indication of it’s altitude) or 5nm laterally. Should the pilot elect to receive a Radar Information Service (RIS) then the controller will only pass details of conflicting aircraft, leaving the pilot to visually locate the other aircraft and avoid it.

2.1.3 In extreme conditions, where there are too many unknown contacts to provide guaranteed safe separation, controllers have to ‘limit’ the service provided to commercial aircraft and aim to attain as much separation as possible, primarily by re- routing aircraft (thereby accepting the additional environmental impact of increasing the track miles flown) or, exceptionally, aircraft may be offered a RIS, leaving traffic avoidance to the pilot. This situation, whilst previously very rare, is becoming more frequent and is a major factor in the decision to apply for CAS.

2.1.4 Another factor in the decision to apply for CAS is that, historically, CAS used to be much closer to the Airport, and joining CAS a much easier process. Until 2003, airway B1 ran east from GOLES to OTR, then in a southeasterly direction towards mainland Europe. This meant that it ran only a few miles north of Humberside, and as the base level for this airway was only FL75, flight time to join CAS was quite short. The realignment of the airway to the south, and raising of the base level to FL175, has greatly increased flight time in Class G airspace and thus increased exposure to unknown aircraft.

1 Described in greater detail at Annex A

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 6 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

2.2 General Aviation Activity

2.2.1 Humberside Airport is situated in Class G airspace and is surrounded by a significant number of other airfields, private strips, microlight and glider sites, helicopter pads and model aircraft flying sites within a radius of 30nm. See Map A below:

Map A Current Airspace Arrangements

2.2.2 Notably, the Airport lies close to a number of significant visual features which are extremely popular with the leisure flying community (, River Humber, Spurn Point, Coast, Seal Colonies). The increasing attraction of these points, for both navigation and sight seeing, has led to an increase in traffic operating in the vicinity of the Airport.

2.2.3 Data has been collated in respect of all the known sites whose aircraft operate regularly in the vicinity of the Airport. This was an important aspect of the design phase of the controlled airspace proposals and, in addition, informed the identification of stakeholders in preparation for the informal consultation process.

2.2.4 Numerous airfields and flying sites were identified, including:

• Sherburn • Sandtoft • Sturgate • Beverley Linley Hill • North Cotes • Wickenby

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 7 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

2.2.5 Helicopters. There are 2 helicopter pads identified on aeronautical charts within a 15nm radius of Humberside Airport. Operating in Class G airspace, there is no requirement for helicopters to contact the Airport prior to lift off. This means that Humberside Controllers could be controlling an airliner in the vicinity of a heli-pad without any knowledge that a helicopter is about to take off and have to be avoided. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that small helicopters are very difficult to pick up on radar.

2.2.6 In addition to the 2 local heli-pads, the area around the Airport is an extremely busy helicopter area, due to the unusually high number of industrial pipelines that need regular inspection. Helicopters routinely conduct this task at heights as low as 100 feet, thus making it very difficult for them to be tracked on radar. Again, there is no requirement for them to receive an ATC Service when operating in the vicinity of the Airport, though most operators do contact ATC when in the area.

2.2.7 Business Aviation. As a busy industrial and commercial centre, HUY handles a large, and increasing, number of Business Aircraft each year. Hull City FC’s recent promotion to the Premiership should, it is hoped, boost this sector of operations.

2.2.8 Parachuting. There is a busy parachuting centre at Hibaldstow some 6nms south west of the Airport. Relations between the 2 aerodromes have always been strong, with HUY being the controlling authority for the Hibaldstow parachuting zone. Following extensive consultation it has been agreed to include Hibaldstow within the proposed airspace structure, providing additional layers of protection to their operations.

2.3 Military Operations

2.3.1 There are numerous military bases within close proximity to Humberside Airport, and the airspace in the region is recognised as being some of the busiest in the UK, which results in a need to take account of high speed low-level operations by military traffic in the Humberside area.

2.3.2 The nearest significant military bases are as follows:

• RAF Coningsby (29nm to the south). This is the RAF’s premier fast jet air defence base, currently home to 4 Squadrons of Typhoon. Additionally, it is the base for the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Dakota and Chipmunk of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, as well as the various aircraft of 41(R) Sqn. Finally, RAF Coningsby holds the Southern Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) commitment, meaning that 2 aircraft are fully armed and manned in order to be able to react to a security threat, to the UK, at extremely short notice.

• RAF Waddington (26nm to the south west). Home to 4 Squadrons of aircraft (2 E3D AWACS, 1 Sentinel and 1 Nimrod) as well as being the most popular base for NATO deployments, by foreign Air Forces, in the UK.

• RAF Scampton (17 nm to the south west). Home of the RAF Aerobatics Team, The Red Arrows, who practice in R313 just south of the Airport.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 8 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

• RAF College Cranwell (32nm to the south west). Currently based at Cranwell is No 3 Flying Training School who operate newly arrived King Air twin-engined aircraft (45 (Reserve) Squadron), 8 Dominie T1s (55 (Reserve) Squadron) and 16 Tutor T1s and carry out Basic Flying Training. Also based on the main airfield is the RAF College Air Squadron with Tutor T1s, and on the Cranwell North grass airfield is the Cranwell Gliding Club, part of the RAF Gliding and Soaring Association (RAFGSA).

• RAF Linton-on-Ouse (42nm to the north-west). One of the busiest training airfields in the RAF. No 1 Flying Training School operates no fewer than 78 Tucano T1s at Linton-on-Ouse, providing basic flying instruction. Also flying at Linton is No 642 Volunteer Gliding School, equipped with Vigilant T1s.

• RAF Church Fenton (34nm to the north-west). Church Fenton is currently the home of 3 Squadron of No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School and Yorkshire Universities Air Squadron, flying Tutor T1s.

• RAF Barkston Heath (38nm to the south west). Home to one unit, the Joint Elementary Flying Training School which operates 18 Mk II Firefly two seat trainers.

2.3.3 Humberside Airport is situated inside Low Flying Area (LFA) 11 which is one of the busiest in the country (in excess of 3700 booked hours flown in 2005/2006). Given that the majority of aircraft using the UK Low Flying System (UK LFS) do not take any form of ATC service there is a clear possibility for ‘unknown’ fast moving radar contacts to cause concern for Humberside ATC who are trying to maintain safe separation for their traffic. The area surrounding the Airport has been judged sufficiently busy, and congested, for ‘flow arrows’ to be introduced. These allow for deconfliction of low-level aircraft transiting either side of (the southerly flow arrow runs parallel with the Airport 5nm to the west, although aircraft do fly up to 3nm to the west of the airfield). It should be noted that HUY has no authority or influence on the amount or conduct of Military LL flying; the sole responsibility lies with the MoD.

2.3.4 If military fast jet traffic is operating in the LFA on a tactical exercise, they may well be up to 2000ft in the general area. Cognisance has also to be taken of the fact that, at any time, military pilots encountering adverse weather conditions at low-level will climb immediately to a safe altitude for safety reasons, although this is a rare occurrence. This can create a potential aircraft conflict situation in Class G airspace in a matter of seconds.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 9 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

2.4 Safety Incidents

2.4.1 ATC at Humberside Airport has carried out surveys in order to capture what they believe has been an increase in ‘unknown’ traffic operating in the vicinity of the aerodrome. The results are as follows:

Unknown traffic Avoiding action Period crossing FAT2 03/21 taken

Jun-Aug 07 27 7 Nov 06-Jan 07 9 5 Jun-Oct 06 15 6 Jan-May 05 5 3

Figure 1: Traffic operating in vicinity of aerodrome

2.4.2 Avoiding action is action taken, normally a turn, (though restrictions in either a climb or descent also constitute avoiding action), to maintain standard separation against unknown traffic. The above table does not illustrate, however, the occasions when an aircraft may have been given an early turn or height allocation necessitated by unknown traffic, but which did not in itself constitute avoiding action.

2.4.3 The relevance of unknown traffic crossing the Final Approach Track (FAT) is that this is the most likely source of near misses between Commercial flights and traffic which elects not to speak to the Airport. It is also the time when the crew of the aircraft on an approach already have a high workload. The detailed logs (from which the survey information was gathered) will be made available as part of the formal application but as separate documents.

2.4.4 The results clearly show an increase in unknown traffic operating in the vicinity of the FAT. The increase is steady, for the number of times commercial traffic has had to be turned to avoid a potential near miss situation, and marked for instances where unknown traffic has elected not to call the Airport to notify them of its intentions (and to receive an ATC service).

2 Final Approach Track

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 10 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

3.0 OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

3.1 General

3.1.1 In accordance with the published guidance the alternative options to the introduction of controlled airspace with Humberside as the controlling authority have been fully explored. Stakeholders are invited to comment on the option chosen by the Airport. The options considered are detailed below.

3.2 Option 1- Do Nothing

3.2.1 One option is not to introduce controlled airspace at Humberside Airport but to continue operations with an Aerodrome Traffic Zone and have the majority of both IFR and VFR traffic operate in Class G airspace.

3.2.2 If this course of action were to be adopted, there are a number of important factors that need to be considered, they are:

• The safety implications of an increasing number of IFR public transport traffic operating in uncontrolled airspace during critical phases of flight without a known traffic environment having been created.

• The failure to meet the operational requirements of the major airline operators flying out of Humberside Airport. Airlines also recognise the enhanced protection provided by CAS and are becoming increasingly reluctant to operate from airports without it. Indeed, the CAA have recently put in place additional regulations to ensure airlines have conducted a thorough risk assessment before beginning operations from airports without CAS.

• The increasing complexity associated with the air traffic management of two expanding regional airports (Humberside and Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield) each with a steadily increasing level of air transport movements and passenger levels.

• The additional hazard generated in Class G airspace by the number of General Aviation aircraft operating in the vicinity of Humberside Airport. A number may not be radio equipped and aircraft such as microlights, and motorized hangliders have an extremely low radar signature (i.e. they are very difficult to detect).

3.2.3 For other airspace users operating in Class G airspace in the vicinity of Humberside Airport, there is the increasing risk arising as a consequence of an expansion of IFR air transport movements operating in a busy and complex environment with a large number of VFR flights, most of which are unknown traffic to Humberside controllers.

3.2.4 The general public are also aware of the increasing number of safety-related incidents when travelling from busy airports which do not have the protection of controlled airspace because of media coverage arising from recent Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) statements. In the press release of September 2004, titled “Serious Concerns over Airline Flights in Uncontrolled Airspace” which can be viewed in full on the GATCO website, the comment is made that “GATCO has previously raised concerns about what it perceives to be an unacceptably heightened collision risk to public transport airline flights operating outside controlled airspace and does not agree with the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy's (DAP) assertion that the provision of air traffic control Radar Advisory Service (RAS) or Radar Information Service (RIS)

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 11 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

delivers the necessary Target Levels of Safety (TLS). …..GATCO points out that most airliners cannot be manoeuvred sufficiently quickly to avoid unexpected conflicting flights such as can arise in uncontrolled airspace.”

3.2.5 As a consequence, the public will not tolerate any incident or major accident arising as a result of a known threat to their safety.

3.2.6 In summary, the combination of all the above factors would have a major impact on system functionality and an increasing risk to IFR air transport movements at Humberside Airport. The Airport have concluded that this would not be acceptable and have, therefore, rejected Option 1.

3.3 Establish Controlled Airspace

3.3.1 All flights into, and out of, HUY are currently conducted in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. As part of the development of this proposal a number of options have been considered, from reducing the associated risks through to eliminating them.

3.3.2 Option 2 - Standalone Control Zone (CTR).

This Option would involve the establishment of a Control Zone around the aerodrome. This would have the advantage of protecting traffic in the final stages of approach and the early stages of departure. While this option provides increased protection over the existing situation it would still leave a considerable track to be flown by aircraft through Class G airspace.

3.3.3 Option 3 - Combined CTR and Control Area (CTA).

This Option would provide an additional layer of protection in that the CTA would extend the established CAS both laterally and vertically. Whilst there would still be a requirement to transit through Class G airspace it would begin and end at a higher altitude thereby removing any potential conflict with other low flying aircraft, additionally, the size of the zone is sufficient to allow HUY ATC the ability to be less reactive.

3.3.4 Option 4 – Combined CTR and CTAs with Full Connectivity to Airway Y70.

This Option provides the greatest enhancement of safety and is essentially the ‘no risk’ approach in that all flight by commercial aircraft would take place in Controlled Airspace, i.e. it does not involve any flight in Class G airspace. The main disadvantage with this approach is that it would require a large volume of airspace, which would impact upon other airspace users, many of whom have a developed a working relationship with the Airport, based on mutual trust and understanding. The airspace required would constitute CAS stepped-up, in increments, to the relevant reporting points (GOLES to the west (with a base level of Flight Level (FL) 65-FL100 at GOLES) and OTBED to the east, base of FL175).

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 12 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

3.3.5 Having identified the feasible Options, the Airport had to consider which elements are essential and which merely desirable. A key element of the decision making process is the Airport’s wish to achieve extra protection whilst observing the requirements and freedom to operate of other airspace users. The Airport has concluded that it would be disproportional to seek to solve the problem through the establishment of a structure with full airways connectivity and therefore abandoned Option 4.

3.3.6 Traffic increases in the vicinity of HUY has led to a steady increase in controller workload. As pressure increases on controllers, the ability to apply proactive control (as opposed to reactive control) also decreases. The Airport has chosen an Option that should reduce current workload levels thereby providing protection to Commercial aircraft whilst respecting the requirements of other airspace users. With this in mind it has been decided to proceed with Option 3. This option provides protection up to FL65 in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, thereby increasing flight safety, by removing potential conflict with low- level traffic and also ensuring safety in the unlikely event that the radar systems should fail3. Option 3 reduces flight within Class G airspace to what the Airport believes is an acceptable, and safely manageable, level, whilst observing the requirements of the other airspace users in the area.

3.3.7 The Airport is mindful of the requirement to assess and where possible reduce the environmental impact of aircraft operations and the possibility of enhancing environmental mitigation by introducing standardised routings was considered at the options assessment stage. However only option 4 would allow the introduction of standardised routings and as described in paragraph 3.3.5 the Airport has concluded that the volume of airspace that this would require would be disproportionate to the Airport’s Operational Requirement.

3 More details on impact and ATC procedures at Annex A

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 13 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

4.0 DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.1 Background

4.1.1 In order to comply with the criteria laid down in CAP724, the initial design proposals have been drawn up reviewing each aspect in detail. It is essential, to the Airport, that the design phase of the proposed controlled airspace does not generate any significant changes to its existing layout or its operations

4.1.2 It should be noted that the proposal does not seek to change the manner in which operations are conducted. It seeks only to re-classify the airspace within which the operations occur in order to provide a greater level of safety. This principle also applies to the aerodrome’s operating hours which will not be changed, should CAS be adopted and is fundamental to the assessment of environmental impact.

4.2 Design Considerations

4.2.1 In formulating the proposal, the implications that a move from the status quo would have on Humberside Airport’s operations, those of other airspace users and the general public living within the proposed CAS have been considered. The effect on other ‘stakeholder’ organisations has also been considered. In this context, stakeholders are the airspace users and air traffic service providers operating within a 30-40nm radius, together with any other organisation, group or individual who may be affected by the change. Thus far, there has been informal consultation with the RAF stations in the area, and the military users airspace co-ordination team, known as MUACT, which convenes at Air Command (formerly Strike Command) has been briefed on the proposal. The General Aviation community in the area have also been informed, with many members attending presentations held at the Airport. The relevant county, district, borough and parish councils have also been invited to attend a number of briefings on the Airport’s proposals. The Airport’s consultative committee has also been briefed. As a result of these meetings and presentations, potential mitigations and accommodations have been identified (to be detailed later in this document).

4.2.2 The design is based on the premise that it is highly desirable to create a known traffic environment in the crucial stages of flight, i.e. arriving, departing and holding to ensure the safe integration of civil airline traffic and other airspace users in this area.

4.2.3 An important part of the initial consultation process was to hold discussions with stakeholders in the immediate vicinity of the aerodrome. In particular the impact on Target Skysports at Hibaldstow, and Trent Valley Gliding Club, based at Kirton in Lindsey has been a major consideration. As a result of these meetings, it is intended to incorporate Hibaldstow zone into the CTR as at the moment it is on the southwest corner of CTA 2, and therefore it is unlikely that anyone would plan to fly through the Hibaldstow zone and underneath CAS (CTA2). So far, once the ACP and the underlying rationale for it have been explained, there have been no major objections. However, the concern that has been expressed frequently and consistently is that the ACP will result in the loss of class G airspace. This point has been given very serious consideration and the design option that has been selected has minimised the Airport’s requirements accordingly. It should be acknowledged that the establishment of Class D airspace could mean that GA aircraft may be seen and heard in new areas or with increased frequency in those areas that they already overfly, in order to remain in Class G airspace. In developing this proposal a number of discussions were held with identified stakeholders including MOD, Sherburn in Elmet, Hibaldstow, Kirton in

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 14 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

Lindsey and other local GA airfields. The aim of these discussions was to inform stakeholders of the Airport’s aspirations and to allow feedback and comment on ways in which the design could minimise impact on other airspace users.

4.3 Evolution of Design

4.3.1 The design of the CAS has to satisfy certain conventions which are derived from International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) design criteria and national requirements. For example, CAS must encompass all of the departure, arrival and holding patterns for all the expected aircraft types. The Option offered for consideration meets these requirements but takes no additional airspace, thereby confirming that the Airport is applying for the minimum amount of airspace to allow CAS to be granted.

4.3.2 It should again be noted that this proposal does not seek to introduce any new arrangements with respect to operations from the Airport. It seeks to reclassify existing airspace in order to provide increased protection to aircraft operating out of, and into, the Airport at critical stages of flight. The Airport will continue to work closely with all it’s aviation stakeholders to ensure that nobody is inconvenienced by this change.

4.4 Proposed design of CAS

4.4.1 The airspace proposal comprises a CTR aligned with Runway 21/03 and a CTA at either end (north and south) of the CTR.

4.5 CTR

4.5.1 The design of the CTR has been predicated by the need to contain the Instrument Approach Procedure’s (IAP’s). The Airport does not have designated Standard Instrument Departures, however, there are preferred departure routes routinely used and these were taken into consideration during CTR design.

4.5.2 The lateral boundaries of the CTR are based on the orientation of the runway. The eastern and western boundaries are offset from the mid-point of the runway by 5nm to the west and 6nm to the east. (The bias to the east is necessary to include the area of the hold – explained later). The boundary extends north by 7nm and south by 6nm. This difference reflects the slight variance in glidepath angles (3.5 degrees from the south and 3 degrees from the north) and highlights that CTR dimensions have been driven by need rather than aspiration. The vertical boundary is surface to FL65.

4.5.3 CTA-1. CTA 1 extends 3nm to the north beyond the CTR, and has a base level of 1500ft extending to FL65. This area provides protection to aircraft on base leg normally flown at 2000ft.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 15 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

4.5.4 CTA-2. CTA-2 extends 2nm to the south of the CTR, and, again, has a base level of 1500ft extending to FL65. Again, to provide protection to aircraft on base leg.

Figure 2 – Humberside Airport Airspace Proposal

4.6 VFR Operations

4.6.1 HUY has over the years developed a very good relationship with local, and transitting, VFR traffic and does not wish to change that situation. The establishment of CAS will not lead to the prevention of traffic operating in the vicinity of the aerodrome. The Airport has, for many years, operated with a number of Visual Reference Points (VRPs) which have helped with the control of VFR traffic operating on popular and established routes. This situation will not change, nor does the Airport see any need to increase the number of VRPs. It will be necessary, however, to replace some existing VRPs with more appropriate ones, if the CAS is established. The intention is to continue to offer a service to all VFR (and Special VFR) traffic and it is not anticipated that any major change will be apparent.

4.7 Military Operations

4.7.1 Analysis of the safety related incidents (Para 2.4.1) revealed that there is an increasing need for Military Fast Jet aircraft to transit in close proximity to the aerodrome. It is important that should the ACP be approved, this does not impact on the ability of the Military to exercise full use of the UK LFS. To that end agreement has been reached with the MoD for a low-level transit shelf to be included, within the CTR, to the west of the aerodrome (Figure 3). Although shown as a straight line, the shelf in fact simply reflects the existing route followed by transiting traffic, parallel to the Saxby ridge, and does not represent any change to existing traffic flows. However, in agreeing to this

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 16 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

shelf the Airport has acknowledged the importance of preserving its good relations with the RAF and is confident that its implementation will be seamless.

4.7.2 The shelf will extend from surface to 500 feet Minimum Separation Distance (MSD) and will be subject to a Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the Airport and MoD. At this stage, discussions are ongoing regarding the precise details of how this shelf will be used, but there has been an unofficial trial flight and at this stage the MoD is comfortable with the concept. More trial flights to test how the new procedures will operate have been arranged, starting in April.

4.7.3 It is anticipated that all aircraft wishing to use the shelf will be expected to inform ATC of their intentions, as the majority do now. Although plans have yet to be formalised, it is currently envisaged that a dedicated UHF radio frequency will be provided to make it easier for Military aircraft to talk to ATC.

Figure 3 – Military VFR Shelf

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 17 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

5.0 ROUTE DESIGN – ARRIVALS

5.1 General

5.1.1 The arrival profiles are based on 2 factors: homing to the airport primary navigational aid (KIM) and/or radar vectoring to final approach, (the radar controller will instruct the aircraft to fly headings appropriate to the relevant approach profile). Most IFR aircraft inbound to the Airport are released by en-route controllers either at GOLES (from the west) or OTBED (from the east). Additionally, there are a number of flights that arrive from the North having been handed over to the Airport following a transit outside CAS.

5.1.2 The routes shown in Figures 4 & 5 have been established after many years of operation and are considered the most efficient for the Airport. They are generally straight line, point to point, thereby reducing time the aircraft is in the air, reducing fuel burn and also noise footprint. The CAS has subsequently been built around them. There are occasions when routing is extended, or indeed shortened, due to other influencing factors (weather, conflicting traffic etc.) However, it is anticipated that there is sufficient capacity within the designed CAS to deal with these situations. It is not anticipated to make any amendment to the routes shown in Figures 4 & 5 as a result of the ACP.

5.2 Arrival Routes

5.2.1 Aircraft arriving into HUY are handed over - an ATC term describing the transfer of responsibility for an aircraft from one unit to another- to the Airport by en-route ATC to HUY ATC who aim to sequence traffic in order to maximise efficient use of the runway. In principle, once handed over, aircraft will be delivered, via preferred arrival routes, then radar vectored onto the appropriate approach. Alternatively (for example if radar were not available) aircraft could be instructed to fly one of the Airport’s published approach procedures. The Arrival routes are detailed at Figures 4 & 5.

5.2.2 Should the new airspace arrangements be adopted, the arrival routes will remain unchanged. The main anticipated difference is that the protection of CAS (below FL65) would remove the need to vector traffic away from unknown radar contacts. This would have the effect of reducing time spent on approach (and therefore land track and subsequent noise impact). As vectoring away from unknown aircraft is an accepted part of operations in Class G airspace, no record has been kept of these occurrences, so it is not possible to assess this, or the benefit that CAS will produce in this regard. Inbound aircraft are generally routed through either GOLES (from the west) or OTBED (from the east). When operating on either runway it is not unusual for aircraft to be vectored onto a straight in approach (direct to what is known as base leg, the last segment of the approach before turning inbound toward the airfield e.g. in the figure below, base leg is the short leg from the OTR beacon) removing the need to fly to the airport terminal holding pattern.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 18 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

Figure 4 – Arrival Routes Runway 21

Figure 5 – Arrival Routes Runway 03

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 19 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

5.3 Hold Design

5.3.1 The current hold at HUY is flown to the east, based on the NDB. It is not routinely used for commercial operations, being utilised primarily for training flights and on the rare occasion when the runway is not available for approach (due to traffic, weather etc.), or in the unlikely event that both radar systems fail. The hold will continue to be used under the proposed arrangements and would remain unchanged.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 20 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

6.0 ROUTE DESIGN – DEPARTURES

6.1 General

6.1.1 Although the Airport does not employ published Standard Instrument Departures, there are a number of preferred routes regularly used by departing traffic. These have been in place for many years and no change to them is proposed as a result of the ACP. The airspace, as defined in Section 4, encompasses all departure profiles currently in use.

6.1.2 The departure routes currently used are based on the aircraft reaching the en-route airways structure in the most expeditious manner possible. This generally involves traffic joining CAS at GOLES and OTBED, although there is also a preferred route for traffic departing to the north.

6.2 Departure Routes

6.2.1 The current departure routes for aircraft joining the en route structure from runways 21 and 03 are depicted in Figures 6 & 7. Other aircraft not joining CAS will normally be given their requested routing.

Figure 6 – Departure Routes Runway 21

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 21 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

Figure 7 – Departure Routes Runway 03

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 22 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 As noted at Section 4.1.2, HUY seeks the reclassification of airspace to enhance aircraft safety. The area in question is shown overlain on an Ordnance Survey map as Figure 8, which is appended.

7.2 The proposed introduction of CAS would not have any impact on the number of aircraft movements to or from HUY or the aircraft types in operation and no changes to aircraft routings are proposed as a result of the ACP. Furthermore, the ACP does not affect the forecast traffic levels for the Airport. As such the proposed reclassification of controlled airspace will have no significant environmental impact. However in order that the proposed change may be considered in context the following provides an overview of the principal environmental impacts resulting from operations at the Airport.

7.3 Noise

7.3.1 Air noise contours have been plotted for operations at HUY. The noise contours have been prepared using the Federal Aviation Authority’s Integrated Noise Model (version 7), which is the accepted industry standard used throughout the world. The contours have been prepared using the typical flight routings and are based upon the actual aircraft operations that took place in the calendar year 2006. The contours are appended as Figure 9, and have been prepared by independent acoustic consultants.

7.3.2 Air noise contours are commonly used to assess the impact of aircraft noise. It has been precedent for many years that during the daytime a continuous equivalent noise level of 57 decibels is considered to be the noise level that marks the onset of significant community annoyance. Indeed when considering the impact of noise during the day on new developments, planning guidance note PPG24 considers that areas subject to a continuous equivalent noise level below 57 decibels should be considered to be the lowest noise exposure category (NEC), Category A. In these areas planning guidance considers that ‘Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, although the noise at the high end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level’.

7.3.3 The 57 decibel daytime noise contour is shown on Figure 9. The contour encompasses an area of 4.84 sq. km and it is largely contained within the Airport boundary and the immediate environs of the Airport. It is estimated that 15 dwellings, mostly to the west of Kirmington, are within the 57-decibel daytime noise contour.

7.3.4 Humberside Airport’s published hours of operation are 06:30 to 21:15 (local time) and so the Airport does not routinely operate night flights, (i.e. 23:00 to 07:00 local time), with any flights that encroach into the night time period usually taking place between 06:30 and 07:00. Inspection of the flight data for 2006 indicates that fewer than 5% of flights take place at night. In 2006 there were a total of 1,212 flights during the nighttime period, an average of just 3 per night, with the most common aircraft types being the Fokker F70 and Sikorsky S76A. This level of operation is insufficient to reliably calculate continuous equivalent noise energy contours and the noise impact resulting from this level of operation is considered to be relatively modest. Therefore a detailed assessment has not been undertaken.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 23 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

7.3.5 Whilst Humberside Airport is committed to minimising the impact of all aspects of aircraft noise it is notable, by way of conclusion, that the impact of noise from aircraft operations is relatively modest. Higher noise levels are only experienced within or in close proximity to the Airport boundary. On occasions the Airport does receive complaints of disturbance due to aircraft noise and all are subject to investigation. It is notable that the Airport received only 12 such complaints in 2007.

7.3.6 The reclassification of airspace that is sought will make no adverse difference to the impact of noise from operations at Humberside Airport. Accordingly, there are no post implementation and five-year after implementation contour models normally required by the ACP process as there are no changes resulting from this proposal.

7.4 Air Quality

7.4.1 In order to safeguard health the Government has introduced an air quality strategy The Strategy is informed by a panel of independent experts and it stipulates air quality standards for 7 key pollutants. Given the relatively rural setting of the Airport and the level of aircraft activity it is very unlikely that any of these air quality standards would be exceeded.

7.4.2 The principal pollutants of concern at Humberside Airport are oxides of nitrogen. Oxides of nitrogen are produced by high temperature combustion and therefore the key sources in and around the Airport are the operation of road vehicles, the operation of aircraft and emissions from heating boilers. The Airport monitors the concentration of nitrogen dioxide on the Airport site. Monitoring is undertaken in the centre of the aerodrome and therefore may be taken to assess a worst case.

7.4.3 It is notable that even in this worst-case location long-term nitrogen dioxide levels in 2007 were recorded to be 22μg/m3, well below the long-term exposure standard of 40μg/m3.

7.4.4 Whilst Humberside Airport is committed to minimising the emission of local air quality pollutants wherever it is practical to do so, it is notable, by way of conclusion, that local air quality is well within the limits stipulated by the Air Quality Strategy and that the reclassification of airspace that is sought will make no significant difference.

7.5 Carbon Emissions and Climate Change

7.5.1 Humberside Airport, and more widely the Manchester Airports Group, accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is a major global issue. In order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide Humberside Airport has, since 2004, purchased energy from renewable sources. In 2007/08 20% of the electricity consumed by Humberside Airport will be purchased from renewable sources and it is intended that this proportion will be progressively increased. With regard to emissions from airport buildings and operational vehicles all airports within the Manchester Airports Group will achieve carbon neutrality by 2015. An estimate of the carbon footprint resulting from activity at Humberside Airport suggests that in 2006 this equates to an emission saving of approximately 1,500 tonnes annually. This commitment is radical and far-reaching and reflects the Airport’s commitment to reducing its contribution to climate change.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 24 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

7.5.2 In assessing the potential impact upon carbon emissions that is likely to arise from the proposed reclassification of controlled airspace it is important to reiterate that the proposed introduction of CAS would not have any impact on the number of aircraft movements to or from Humberside Airport or the aircraft types in operation and no changes to aircraft routings are proposed as a result of the ACP. As such the proposed reclassification of controlled airspace would have no adverse impact.

7.6 Tranquillity and Visual Intrusion

7.6.1 The published guidance in CAP725 (at Section 8) notes that ‘the measurement of tranquility is not well developed’. Whilst there is no accepted methodology or metric against which an objective assessment can be undertaken it is notable that within the proposed zone of CAS there are 7 sites of special scientific interest, 4 ancient woodlands, 43 scheduled ancient monuments and an area of outstanding natural beauty.

7.6.2 A number of these receptors are potentially sensitive to aircraft noise, most notably the Lincolnshire Wolds, which is an area of outstanding beauty, the Medieval Nunnery at and Thornton Abbey Augustinian Monastery. Whilst these receptors are all within the proposed zone of controlled airspace it is important to note that, because no changes in aircraft numbers or routings are proposed, the proposed reclassification of controlled airspace will not result in any significant change.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 25 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 26 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 27 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

8.0 SUMMARY

8.1 HUY currently offers flights to around 30 destinations throughout Europe and the UK and is a considerable contributor to the economy of the Humber sub-region. Passenger numbers have grown steadily from 260,000 in 1994 to 475,000 in 2007, the airport expects to be handling around 1 million passengers by 2015, including an increasing number of Business Jet flights. The airport is also home to a number of flying schools as well as 2 helicopter units and accepts both GA and Military training sorties. In addition to handling it’s own traffic the airport provides a radar service (LARS) to any locally transiting traffic that requests it. These flying activities currently take place in uncontrolled airspace, where statistics have shown there has been an increase in Controllers having to turn airliners to avoid ‘uncontrolled’ aircraft. Against this background, the airport has elected to apply for the implementation of CAS in order to improve flight safety to aircraft in the vicinity of the airport.

8.2 The ACP is the process whereby Humberside airport, as the change sponsor, will seek a reclassification of airspace of defined dimensions from class G, uncontrolled airspace to Class D, controlled airspace by submitting a proposal to DAP of the CAA. As part of the process the Airport has identified a number of Options, ranging from maintaining the current airspace structure through to a comprehensive airspace structure that would provide complete protection from the take off until joining the airways structure.

8.3 In considering the available Options, the Airport has attempted to address its concerns whilst acknowledging the needs of other airspace users. To that end, the preferred Option comprises a combined control zone with associated areas, aligned with runway 21/03, 18nm long and 11nm wide, from ground level to FL65. This will provide protection to aircraft during the critical phases of departure and arrival. The zone has been designed to meet the minimum ICAO requirements regarding protection of aircraft on IFR recovery profiles.

8.4 As well as minimising the amount of CAS applied for, the Airport intends to enter into an agreement with MOD to allow their aircraft to continue to transit abeam the airfield, unimpeded. A UHF frequency will also be provided to improve communications. Furthermore, it has been agreed that Hibaldstow Aerodrome will be inside CAS as HUY are the controlling authority for that airfields parachuting activities.

8.5 We are not changing any of our procedures, altering our opening hours, introducing new routes, changing current flightpaths or changing the way we operate. Thus, the environmental impact of the Airport will not be changed by the introduction of CAS. We will still welcome GA traffic, accept training flights and approve transits subject to other traffic, which is the case now. We have considered the design of the ACP very carefully with both the aviation and non-aviation community in mind and kept our requirements to a minimum. The whole aim of this ACP is to increase the flight safety of aircraft with particular emphasis on the early stages of departure and latter stages of arrival. However, we believe the proposal will also improve the overall efficiency of movement of aircraft in the vicinity of Humberside, which is to the benefit of everyone.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Page 28 of 34

Airspace Change Proposal

A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACC Airport Consultative Committee ACP Airspace Change Process AMSL Above Mean Sea Level ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer ATZ Air Traffic Zone CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAP Civil Aviation Publication CAS Controlled Airspace CTA Control Area CTR/CTR Controlled Zone DAP Directorate of Airspace Policy (CAA) DR Dead Reckoning FAT Final Approach Track GA General Aviation HUY Humberside Airport IAP Instrument Approach Procedure ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFR Instrument Flight Rules LARS Lower Airspace Radar Service LoA Letter of Agreement LOGGS Lincolnshire Offshore Gas Gathering System MOC Minimum Obstacle Clearance MoD Ministry of Defence MSD Minimum Safe Distance MUACT Military Users Airspace Co-ordination Team NATS National Air Traffic Services NDB Non-Directional Beacon nm Nautical Mile PSR Primary Surveillance Radar RAS Radar Advisory Service RIS Radar Information Service SID Standard Instrument Departure SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar UK LFS Low Flying System VFR Visual Flight Rules VRP Visual Reference Point VOR Very High Frequency Omni Range

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4

Airspace Change Proposal

B GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ATS Air Traffic Service. A generic term meaning variously, flight information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic control service (area control service, approach control service or aerodrome control service). ATZ Aerodrome Traffic Zone. The airspace in the vicinity of an aerodrome, the size of which is dependent on the length of the runway. For runways less than 1850 metres the airspace extends from the surface to a height of 2000ft above the level of the aerodrome within the area bounded by a circle centred on the notified mid-point of the longest runway and having a radius of 2 nautical miles. Where the runway is more than 1850 metres e.g. as at HUY, the radius is 2 1/2 miles. CAA Civil Aviation Authority. It is the duty of the CAA to develop, promulgate, monitor and enforce a policy for the sustainable use of UK airspace and for the provision of necessary supporting infrastructure for air navigation. CAS Controlled Airspace. Refers to airspace in which traffic levels are such that it has been determined that air traffic control (ATC) must provide some form of separation between aircraft. The aairspace is of defined, and published, dimensions. Class A. Airspace Airways, except where they pass through a TMA or CTR of a lower status. Aircraft flying under visual flight rules are not allowed in this airspace. Separation is provided to all aircraft flying in this airspace. Class B Airspace This class is not currently allocated in the UK Class C Airspace Except for 2 isolated segments this airspace is only used above FL 195 in the UK. Class D Airspace Mostly CTRs and CTAs that permit IFR and VFR flight in accordance with specified conditions. The most common class of CAS established around airports within the UK. Class E Airspace Allocated to segments of the Scottish TMA, Belfast TMA and Durham Tees Valley Control Zone. It is similar to Class D but with a reduced traffic information from ATC and no ATC clearance is required. Class F Airspace This is for advisory routes along which a civil air traffic advisory service is available to participating aircraft. Class G Airspace Aircraft are able to fly without any flight plan or air traffic clearance in accordance with specified flight rules. This is the most common class of airspace outside CAS and advisory airspace in the UK.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4

Airspace Change Proposal

CTA. Control Area. A controlled airspace extending upwards from a specified limit above the earth to a specified upper limit. CTAs can be further classified as: (i) Airway A control area, or part thereof, in the form of a corridor, equipped with radio navigation aids. (ii) Terminal Control Area (TMA) A control area, normally established at the confluence of airways, in the vicinity of one or more major aerodromes. CTR/CTR Control Zone. An area of controlled airspace extending upwards from the surface of the earth to a specified upper limit. dBA dBA is used to denote the levels of noise measured on an A- weighted decibel scale (i.e. a frequency weighting that is applied to the electrical signal within a noise measuring instrument as a way of simulating the way the human ear responds to a range of acoustic frequencies). DAP Directorate of Airspace Policy. The airspace approval and regulatory authority which conducts the planning of airspace and related arrangements in the UK. It ensures that the UK airspace is utilized in a safe and efficient manner. This is achieved through the developments, approvals and enforcement of policies for the effective allocation and use of UK airspace and its supporting infrastructure taking into account the needs of all stakeholders. DME Distance Measuring Equipment. A combination of ground and airborne equipment which gives a continuous slant range distance-from-station readout by measuring time-lapse of a signal transmitted by the aircraft to the station and responded back. DME can also provide groundspeed and time-to-station readouts by differentiation. FAT Final Approach Track. Between 4 and 12 nms of straight flight descending at a set rate (usually an angle of between 2.5 and 6 degrees) following the magnetic track of the designated runway prior to landing. FL Flight Level. A surface of constant atmospheric pressure, which is related to a specific pressure datum (1013.2mb, also known as the standard pressure setting, or SPS) and is separated from other such surfaces by specific pressure intervals. FLs roughly equate to thousands of feet, thus FL170 is around 17,000ft. All aircraft above a certain altitude fly on the SPS, which then guarantees vertical separation between aircraft. GA General Aviation. All flights other than military and scheduled flights, both private and commercial. HEIGHT Height. The vertical distance of a level, a point or object considered as a point measured from a specified datum.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4

Airspace Change Proposal

IFR Instrument Flight Rules. To be obeyed by pilots when it is not possible for an aircraft to be flown in Visual Meteorological Conditions or at night, or when operating in airspace in which IFR must be adhered to in all meteorological conditions. LARS Lower Airspace Radar Service. Its primary objective is to aid the flow of air traffic arriving at, and departing from, those airfields by encouraging aircraft transiting the area to receive an air traffic service (ATS). This reduces the amount of avoiding action for all aircraft and also enhances the efficient use of that airspace by providing a known traffic environment. However, it’s use by transiting aircraft is not mandatory. MSD Minimum Separation Distance. The distance that must be maintained between any part of an aircraft in flight and the ground, water or any object. NATS National Air Traffic Services provides air traffic control services at 15 of the UK's biggest airports, and "en-route" air traffic services for aircraft flying through UK airspace and the eastern part of the North Atlantic. NDB Non-Directional Beacon. A medium frequency navigational aid which transmits non-directional signals, superimposed with a Morse Code identifier and received by an aircraft’s automatic direction finder. PSR Primary Surveillance Radar. The PSR transmits a beam of RF (Radio Frequency) energy in a given direction through 360° as the radar antenna rotates. This beam is narrow in azimuth and wide in elevation. The RF energy is reflected by objects within the beam and these objects are referred to as targets. Some of the reflected energy is collected by the antenna and routed to the radar receiver which will then process the received signals and produce a target report containing the range and azimuth position of the target. If digital processing is used, then the heading and velocity of the target can also be calculated. Data is sent to a radar display system which produces a Plan Position Indicator (PPI) map which is then displayed on a monitor for the use of the ATC controller. RAS Radar Advisory Service. A radar service whereby pilots will be passed the position of conflicting traffic, followed by advice to maintain separation. Exceptionally, at controllers’ discretion, separation advice will be given first, followed by the position of the conflicting traffic. Reporting Points Reporting Points. Navigational points within a piece of CAS (normally part of an airway). RIS Radar Information Service. This service provides only traffic information i.e. bearing, distance and if available the level of conflicting traffic. No avoiding action will be offered and pilots are wholly responsible for maintaining separation from other traffic whether or not controllers have passed traffic information.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4

Airspace Change Proposal

RNAV Area Navigation. A method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path, using waypoints defined by latitude and longitude without the need to fly directly over ground-based navigation facilities. SEL Sound Exposure Level. Generated by a single aircraft at the measurement point, measured in dBA. This accounts for the duration of the sound as well as its intensity. SID Standard Instrument Departure. A designated IFR departure route linking the aerodrome or specified runway of an aerodrome with a specified significant point, normally on a designated ATS route, at which the en route phase of a flight commences. STAR Standard Arrival Route. A designated IFR arrival route linking a significant point, normally on an ATS route, with a point from which a published instrument approach procedure can be commenced. SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar. SSR differs from PSR in that it transmits a coded interrogation as a series of pulses to a responder fitted to the aircraft. When the transponder receives the message it responds with a coded reply, the content of which is dependant on the type of interrogation. The coded reply can be one of several parameters. The azimuth of the radar scanner at the time of the reply and the time delay between interrogation and reply derive the azimuth and range of the aircraft relative to the radar. In addition, the interrogation can be used to ascertain the barometric height of an aircraft. SSR is an active system and only displays returns on a PPI from suitably equipped aircraft and thus is immune to the clutter arising from passive reflective objects that affect PSR. SVFR Special Visual Flight Rules. A flight made at any time in a control zone which is Class A airspace, or in any other control zone in IMC or at night, in respect of which the appropriate air traffic control unit has given permission for the flight to be made in accordance with special instructions given by that unit instead of in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules and in the course of which flight the aircraft complies with any instructions given by that unit and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. VOR Very High Frequency Omni-Directional (Radio) Range. A radio navigation aid operating in the 108-118 MHz band. A VOR ground station transmits a 2-phase directional signal through 360 degrees. The aircraft’s VOR receiver enables a pilot to identify his radial or bearing from/to the ground station. VFR Visual Flight Rules. Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, horizontal and vertical distance equal to or better than a specified minima.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4

Airspace Change Proposal

VRP Visual Reference Point. A prominent natural or man-made feature which will be readily identifiable from the air established in the vicinity of an aerodrome located within CAS in order to facilitate access to and from aerodromes located within, and transit of, CAS by VFR traffic. They may also be used to assist pilots to plan routes around CAS when traffic conditions require.

HUY/JEP/GW/ACP120608/V4 Humberside Airport Kirmington, North Lincolnshire DN39 6YH

Telephone: 01652 688456 Fax: 01652 680524 www.humbersideairport.com