ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Robin Hood and Doncaster Sheffield Feasibility and Options Report
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Liverpool John Lennon Airport. © 2015 Liverpool John Lennon Airport
Doncaster PIR Page 1 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Executive Summary
Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) is a regional airport that developed from a former Royal Air Force (RAF) base known as RAF Finningley. The first commercial flight at the Airport was in 2005. In 2006, RHADS submitted an application for controlled airspace (CAS) in order to provide protection to the commercial air transport (CAT) flights operating in and out of the airport, and to connect the airport to the adjacent airways structure. The Airport lies in a unique position virtually surrounded on all four sides by small Light and General Aviation (LA and GA) airfields. This made routing CAT under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), nominally under a Deconfliction Service (DS), extremely challenging.
In 2008, the CAA approved Class D CAS for RHADS, which provided a Control Zone (CTR) and associated Terminal Control Areas (CTAs). The Airspace Change Proposal attracted objections from a variety of stakeholders, each staking a legitimate claim to continue to operate without the restrictions and control measures that CAS brings. The majority of those who objected removed their objection following further consultation with RHADS and the development of formal agreements. Requested CTAs to the east of the Airport were not part of the approval, as the CAA felt that CAS in this area did not benefit the majority of the aviation stakeholders that regularly use this airspace.
A Post Implementation Review (PIR) follows any airspace change in the UK. This usually takes place at least 12 months after the implementation date and is designed to assess the efficacy of the airspace change. Although the RHADS CAS was activated in August 2008, there has never been a formal PIR. A PIR has now commenced, following a period of six years operation of the CAS, to fully assess the efficacy of the CAS and the associated working relationships between the relevant aviation stakeholders.
In the intervening years, due to the global recession and general economic downturn, together with high oil prices and the increases in Air Passenger Duty rates, passenger numbers at RHADS have not increased as predicted in the original airspace change submission. This has attracted criticism from some aviation stakeholders who consider that forecasted passenger numbers carried considerable weight in the decision to implement CAS at RHADS.
Since 2008, the options for airspace within the UK has changed. It is possible to apply similar protection to IFR aircraft as Class D, without all of its associated restrictions for aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Air Traffic Services Ltd (ATSL) at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) contracted Osprey Consulting Services Limited (Osprey) to conduct a Feasibility and Options Study to independently examine the current CAS at RHADS and provide alternative options for RHADS and the CAA to consider during the PIR.
Doncaster PIR Page 2 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
This report examines the current requirements of RHADS against an updated prediction for growth, which falls broadly within the Department for Transport UK Aviation Forecast published in January 2013. In addition, it examines the current protection provided by the existing airspace together with the local arrangements for access that have been established for other aviation stakeholders. The relationships with two adjacent airports, Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA) and Humberside Airport (HA) are also relevant since aircraft from these airports utilise sections of the RHADS CAS to access the UK Airways Structure.
The addition of CAS has facilitated more predictable routing for aircraft, and enable Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) which has meant that noise sensitive areas can be more easily avoided and more fuel-efficient approaches results in a reduction in carbon emissions. These benefits were articulated in the original airspace change proposal.
This report examines the alternative to Class D CAS. In particular, Class E CAS, with the addition of an associate Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ) ensures that the Air Traffic Controllers have the situational awareness to ensure IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR aircraft. The RMZ ensures that the intentions of VFR aircraft are passed as Traffic Information (TI) without the requirement for VFR aircraft to obtain an ATC Clearance to enter the airspace. However, it is the responsibility of the VFR traffic to ensure separation from IFR traffic. Having discussed the application of Class E CAS with SARG, this is seen as a reduction in flight safety. The addition of a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) within Class E CAS also allows full utilisation by CAT of Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS). Current CAA policy is that CTRs must be Class A or Class D airspace; Class E is not to be used for CTRs. For this reason the CTR should remain as Class D airspace, although the vertical extent of the CTR has been reviewed.
Doncaster PIR Page 3 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
1 Introduction
This section describes the context for the Feasibility and Options Report and sets out the methodology of the analysis.
1.1 Background The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) granted approval for Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS) Class D Controlled Airspace (CAS) in July 2008 following their submission under CAP 725 Airspace Change Process Guidance Document [Reference 1]. In approving the airspace change proposal, the CAA discharged their principle statutory duty of ensuring safety by affording protection to public transport flights. In addition, in considering the wider use of the airspace by others, the CAA denied the request for CAS to the east, as it felt that additional CAS to the east would not be beneficial to all airspace users. All changes to airspace are subject to a Post Implementation Review (PIR), normally conducted 12 months after the activation of an airspace change. This is to ensure that the efficacy of the airspace is as predicted in the initial proposal. The CAA did not initiate this review procedure until November 2013, some five years after the implementation of the RHADS CAS. The delay is likely to be because of the economic downturn; growth at the airport did not continue as predicted.
1.2 Scope of this Report This report will examine the RHADS CAS to determine whether it is being utilised as expected when first implemented. It will also examine whether alternative airspace structure would better cater for all elements of the aviation community, and in doing so, will describe the potential consequences of the change in terms of safety, environment and economic effect. In addition, it will independently examine conditions placed upon RHADS at the time of the airspace activation, and whether the airspace has adversely affected other aviation stakeholders by any unintended consequences. The overall aim of the report is to provide options for consideration by RHADS and the CAA during the formal process of the PIR.
Doncaster PIR Page 4 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
1.3 Document Structure This report will contain the following sections: Section 1, this section, contains the introduction and the background to the report; Section 2 presents RHADS and the 2008 Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725 Airspace Change Process (ACP) submission; Section 3 examines any conditions placed upon RHADS following the CAS implementation; Section 4 identifies the options available to the CAA following the PIR, together with the potential consequences of any change; Section 5 develops the argument for the justification of retaining CAS; Section 6 summarises the conclusions of the reports and makes recommendations to the CAA.
Annexes 1 and 2 give details of the Letters of Agreement (LoAs) that exist with the local aviation community. This is summarised in a Table at Annex 1 and as a map at Annex 2. Annex 3 contains details provided by the RHADS Noise Monitoring and Environmental Sub Committee. Annex 4 has the RHADS Control Zone and Control Area Chart as published in the UK AIP. It may be useful reference when analysing the CTAs in Section4.
Doncaster PIR Page 5 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
2 RHADS and the 2008 ACP Submission
This section includes background information around the original request for CAS and the context for the requirement.
2.1 Original Submission The Peel Group developed the former military aerodrome at Finningley, south Yorkshire into the RHADS international airport in 2005. Geographically, it is close to two other airports, Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA) and Humberside Airport (HA). In addition, the area is very popular with General Aviation (GA) with busy airfields surrounding RHADS and their aircraft operating very close to the Airport. The area is popular with gliders, particularly for cross-country transits; prior to the implementation of CAS, routeing via RHADS avoided the restricted airspace EGD 313 (Scampton) and the CAS at LBIA. Despite a drawdown of the UK military bases, RHADS remains in an area used frequently by UK military aircraft operating from Cranwell, Waddington and Coningsby, and is situated close to a busy low-level route utilised by military fast jets. It is possible for all of these activities to operate concurrently, but in the interests of protecting the fare-paying passenger, and enhancing safety, a degree of control or coordination is required. RHADS successfully argued that whilst CAS would protect their Commercial Air Transport (CAT) movements, they would continue to provide access by coordinating and controlling other airspace users in the interests of safety.
RHADS submitted a proposal under CAP 725 ACP, in 2008. The original request included details of proposed Standard Instrument Departure (SIDs) and Standard Arrival (STARs) routes. The regulations at the time mandated published SIDs and STARs to be contained within CAS. SIDs and STARs not only protect aircraft in the critical stages of flight by providing them with routes that have been assessed as safe by providing terrain and obstacle clearance minima, but they will usually be the best route to take into account noise in the local area (otherwise referred to as Noise Preferential Routes or NPRs).
The regulations concerning the requirement for published procedures to remain within CAS has now changed as described within the CAA Policy Statement for Controlled Airspace Containment Policy dated 17th January 2014 [Reference 2]. Notwithstanding this change, it is still recommended that procedures are contained within CAS unless justification for procedures without CAS can be made, supported by a safety case. The only way to provide full protection to aircraft carrying out
Doncaster PIR Page 6 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures, particularly during the critical stages of flight, is to retain them within the known traffic environment that CAS provides.
2.1.1 Traffic Predictions At the time of the original ACP submission, RHADS was undergoing considerable development, having enjoyed significant investment from both the local government and the Airport owners. Passenger numbers were growing and, following the application for CAS, charter flight operators and low cost airlines became interested in using RHADS. Indeed, Thomson and Ryanair both committed to providing a service from RHADS; EasyJet followed later for a short period. Against this actual growth, together with predictions of overall demand for air travel within the UK, RHADS anticipated a significant rise in passenger numbers, which was articulated in the RHADS ACP in order to strengthen the case for CAS.
However, the implementation of the Class D CAS also coincided with the recession in 2008. This, coupled with the increase in Air Passenger Duty and the price of oil, had a detrimental effect on the ability of the airport to realise the growth predicted in the ACP. The predicted passenger numbers did not materialise and this invited criticism from the aviation stakeholders who had objected to the original proposal.
2.2 Benefits of the Class D Airspace RHADS has enjoyed numerous benefits following the implementation of CAS. The airspace has had a positive effect on safety, noise pollution, and has facilitated more fuel-efficient approach and departure profiles. The establishment of Class D airspace has improved safety, not just for CAT, but also for all aircraft operating within it. The number of Airprox reports between GA and CAT has reduced; further details are in Section 4. It has been the catalyst for improved professional working relationships with adjacent units, including Sandtoft, Gamston and Netherthorpe, and tactical coordination between HA and LBIA has contributed to better inter-unit relationships. IFR, and to some degree, VFR aircraft operating in and out of RHADS know that their routing is unlikely to be subject to avoiding action necessitated by the presence of unknown traffic. This facilitates fuel planning, and reduces carbon emissions and noise. Aircraft arriving from the west are able to plan for a CDA, and aircraft departing to the west can utilise the Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) thus minimising the disruption to the local community.
Doncaster PIR Page 7 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
2.2.1 Accessibility RHADS has always endeavoured to be a ‘good neighbour’ to the various aviation stakeholders operating within the vicinity of the Airport. Aircraft requesting a transit of the CAS can expect to receive a clearance either on their requested routing, or with a slight amendment to altitude or route to ensure safe passage and coordination with CAT. Clearances to VFR transit or entry are issued tactically, or access is approved under a formal agreement or Letter of Agreement (LoA) (full details of LoAs are found at Annex 1 and 2). CAA approval of the CAS was subject to RHADS providing access to other airspace users when the Airport did not require its use for CAT. Permanent CAS controlled 24 hours a day by RHADS controllers fulfils this requirement and leaves no doubt to any airspace users about the status of the airspace.
The alternative could have been to allocate CAS for a limited number of hours, tailored to RHADS Flying Schedule. Permanent activation is the best compromise, since temporary airspace that becomes operational (within two hours) in this location is not practicable due to the other airspace users within the area. If, for example, the RHADS CAS was ‘reverted’ to Class G during quiet periods, it would be improbable to ensure that when ‘reactivated’ as Class D, it did not have ‘unknown’ aircraft operating within the airspace, unaware of the change in status. This defeats the object of having Class D, as one of the main benefits is creating a ‘known’ traffic environment. Some airspace users are difficult to see on radar, may not carry radio and/or transponder thus rendering the task of rebuilding a ‘known’ airspace environment difficult and time consuming. This potentially compromises the safety of CAT aircraft in return for operational freedom for the GA airspace users. Additionally, fixed hours of CAS could stifle any plans for extensions to the RHADS Flying Schedules, since most operators would require the assurance provided by the CAS.
2.2.2 Use by Leeds-Bradford International Airport (LBIA) and Humberside Airport (HA) Informal arrangements exist between RHADS, LBIA and HA respectively, to allow aircraft to climb or descend through the airspace designated as RHADS Class D (Control Areas (CTAs) 8 and 10 for LBIA and CTA 5 and the Control Zone (CTR) for HA). This provides improved routing for connectivity with the airways system for HA, and allows aircraft arriving at LBIA for Runway 32 or departing from Runway 14 better continuous descent or climb profiles between the LBIA CTR/As and the airways structure. It is possible that the coordination processes between these airports and Prestwick Centre (PC) is changed, and formalised, to reflect better the current usage. If the control of CTAs 8 and 10, and part of the CTR above RHADS was delegated to PC, then PC could clear aircraft, inbound or outbound from the adjacent airports, without the requirement to coordinate with RHADS on each occasion. This would be preferable to partial delegation to LBIA and partial control by RHADS as it would simplify arrangements for aircraft that wish to cross the airspace; it would be clear
Doncaster PIR Page 8 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
which agency to call. Any change to the current arrangements would be subject to consultation with the parties concerned, including PC, and should be subject to a full safety assessment in accordance with the Airport and NATS SMS.
Doncaster PIR Page 9 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
3 Conditions on Granting the Airspace
When the CAA approved RHADS Class D CAS in 2008, it had a duty to ensure that the CAS met the requirements of all airspace users. This resulted in formal arrangements for access to CAS based on the balanced requirements of all the airspace users.
3.1 Consultation Process CAA document CAP 725 [Reference 1] requires the sponsor of an airspace change to consult widely with the aviation community to fully assess any objections or support for the change. In the case of RHADS, the CAA took into account the “50% of aviation objections to the original proposal” which was reduced to 15% following supplementary consultation on behalf of the Airport. (Full details are contained in the DAP Decision Letter [Reference 3]).
3.2 Obligations of RHADS In approving the airspace, the CAA required RHADS to provide access to the airspace for other aviation users when it is safe and appropriate to do so. In addition, RHADS are required to log any refusals issued. To date, there have been no refusals.
3.2.1 Letters of Agreement RHADS provides access to both IFR and VFR aircraft either by the issue of individual clearances, or by a more permanent means of compliance with a LoA. RHADS has twelve LoAs with other units including GA sites and local gliding sites. Procedures are in place to release portions of the RHADS CTAs when not required by RHADS IFR commercial traffic, or LBIA and HA CAT, which indicates its commitment to being a ‘good neighbour’ to local sites.
Doncaster PIR Page 10 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
RHADS has established the following LoAs with neighbouring aviation users. The activation and deactivation of these agreements is cumbersome and time consuming, but they do provide easier access, to predominantly VFR aircraft, to CAS for airspace users who would otherwise require a specific clearance.
Askern Corridor Part of CTR Askern Buffer Part of CTR Burn Box Part of CTA 5 Camphill Box Part of CTA 9 & 11 Darlton Box Part of CTA 3 & 6 Gamston Local Flying Area (LFA) Part of CTA 2, 3 & 6 Goole Box Part of CTA 1 & 5 Netherthorpe LFA (Red Box) Part of CTA 3 & 6 Netherthorpe LFA (Blue Box) Part of CTA 3 & 6 Sherburn Buffer - Part of CTA 8 Worksop Corridor Part of CTA 2 and 6 Upton Corridor Part of CTA 8 & 9
A table detailing the various areas of airspace released, together with the method of activation, and the number of occasions each area is activated is shown at Annex 1; this is depicted at Annex 2.
3.2.2 Other Airports Two other airports have benefitted from the existence of Class D airspace surrounding RHADS: LBIA and HA, mentioned in paragraph 2.2.2. Both of these airports operate CAT passenger carrying flights that, subject to local coordination agreements, are able to enter the airways structure by gaining a clearance from RHADS to enter the appropriate CTA.
HA has previously considered an application for CAS, but withdrew its application when it became apparent that it could not justify the requirement adequately. However, aircraft routing inbound to HA from the west, and aircraft departing HA westbound currently benefit from an extended period (subject to a clearance from RHADS) within CAS.
Similar arrangements are managed tactically between LBIA and RHADS, although discussions are currently ongoing to establish a more formal arrangement that will also support an airspace change in development by LBIA to improve safety and efficiency of its operations. Whilst no formal agreement currently exists, RHADS controllers coordinate regularly between PC, LBIA and HA, to facilitate the flexible use of RHADS CTAs by CAT. As ‘owners’ of the airspace, control is retained by RHADS, but RHADS controllers regularly release the airspace to either LBIA, HA or PC. In this
Doncaster PIR Page 11 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
respect, RHADS can demonstrate that it has discharged its responsibility by permitting flexible use of the airspace to other Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs).
3.2.3 Availability of Controllers ATSL controllers at LJLA perform the radar control for aircraft flying to/from RHADS. In order to be able to provide access upon request to other airspace users, this service is provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This arrangement required significant investment by the Airport, and this obligation has been fulfilled by RHADS.
It should also be noted that, despite Doncaster Radar not being a notified Lower Airspace Radar Service Unit, it provides ATSOCAS within 40nm of the airfield including a significant amount of traffic that does not need to enter the Doncaster CAS.
Doncaster PIR Page 12 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
4 Options
Following a review of the Class D airspace at RHADS, several options are available to the CAA. This section lists various scenarios together with the potential impacts of each option.
4.1 Option 1 – Do Nothing This is the only option that proffers full protection to passenger carrying CAT operating in and out of RHADS. Therefore, any reduction or change to the airspace would constitute a reduction in the safety currently provided to commercial airliners.
This is demonstrated in Section 4.2.1 by the number of Airprox reports made in the airspace surrounding RHADS, before and after the implementation of CAS. Maintaining the current RHADS CTR/A is the only way to guarantee a traffic environment where the intentions of airspace users are known to RHADS controllers and are subject to an element of control. The benefits are not only safety (although this is prime), but aircraft can be assured of their route either in or out of the airport. This facilitates CAT CDAs, which reduces both noise, and fuel burn, as pilots can continue their descent at a steady rate without the requirement to level off, trim out and recommence descent.
The establishment of the RHADS CAS involved a considerable amount of investment for the Airport, including recruitment and training of controllers. Controllers are confident in the high levels of service that they are able to provide to all airspace users, including VFR GA (sports and recreation) aircraft and gliders that wish to use the airspace. Formal arrangements in the form of LoAs (paragraph 3.2.1) have been established facilitating access to the airspace by local users. Despite the objections from some aviation stakeholders prior to the implementation of CAS, requests for ’release’ of the areas available to local GA (sports and recreation) organisations, by these organisations, has been very low in the last 5 years (see Annex 1).
Change in itself increases risk. Local GA is now familiar with the airspace and has become accustomed to the level of service that the controllers are able to provide. This has increased safety benefits to all airspace users both within the RHADS CAS and within its vicinity.
Doncaster PIR Page 13 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
CAT departing HA and LBIA are able to benefit from the RHADS CAS as they have shorter distances to negotiate within Class G airspace after leaving, or before gaining, the protection of the Airways system. This is the case for some departures from LBIA on Runway 14 or arrivals for Runway 32, and for HA aircraft arriving from or departing to the west. Informal agreements exist between RHADS and LBIA concerning use of the airspace. In terms of aircraft movement numbers, it appears that LBIA have more of a requirement to have primacy within parts of the airspace, specifically CTAs 8 and 10; a review of the coordination arrangements between RHADS, LBIA and PC could result in a change of the delegated control arrangements without reducing the existing airspace arrangements.
Option 1 is the preferred option for the Airport primarily as there is no associated change to the protection currently afford to RHADS operations. Flight safety and the commercial viability of the airport is maintained.
4.2 Option 2 – Reduce the Size of the Current CAS The CAA issued a Policy Statement in January 2014 [Reference 2] concerning the containment of IFPs within CAS. Whilst there is provision to permit IFPs outside the confines of CAS, a robust safety assessment must be in place to support the case. It is feasible for RHADS to make a full assessment of the most frequently used IFP routes in order to consider a reduction in the dimensions of CAS. However, as explained in 4.1 above, any reduction in CAS would represent a reduction in the levels of protection afforded to commercial passenger carrying aircraft. The production of a safety case to facilitate IFPs outside of CAS is outside the scope of this report. An analysis scoping a possible reduction in the number of CTAs is explored in more detail in para 4.4 below.
4.3 Option 3 – Change the Type of CAS When the original RHADS ACP was submitted, the case was made for a Class D CTR and associated CTAs. However, since then, the UK has made more use of different types of CAS, and the feasibility of different classifications of airspace and how they would suit the RHADS airspace users’ needs have been considered. CAA policy for CTRs to be Class A or Class D remains extant. Class A airspace would not be a better option for RHADS as it is more restrictive in that it does not allow VFR flight. Therefore, the options considered are variations on the following:
Maintain Class D CTR but change all of the CTAs to one of the following: Class E Class E and RMZ Class E and RMZ and TMZ These options are considered in more detail below:
Doncaster PIR Page 14 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
4.3.1 Class E CTA Class E airspace is CAS, which has different operating rules to those that pertain to Class D airspace. Controllers must provide separation between IFR aircraft; IFR aircraft require an ATC clearance in order to enter Class E CAS. Similarly, as is the case in Class D airspace, controllers are not required to provide separation between IFR aircraft and those operating VFR. However, as directed by SARG, the rules do not reflect reality. Controllers are required to provide “Duty of Care” separation between IFR and VFR traffic. The key difference is that VFR aircraft do not require an ATC clearance to enter Class E CAS. Therefore, as the controller may not be talking to the VFR aircraft, its intentions will be unknown and therefore traffic information (TI) to IFR aircraft will not be complete.
Whilst under the rules for VFR, the pilot is responsible for maintaining separation against other traffic under the ‘see and avoid’ principle, in this case, there will be no TI passed to VFR traffic if the pilot has not been required to speak to ATC. Even if the pilot does speak to ATC and inform RHADS of their intentions, the aircraft is not bound to comply with any restrictions or instructions that ATC may suggest, even if these suggestions are in the interests of safety. In Class E airspace there is no requirement for the controller to pass traffic avoidance on VFR traffic (which is the case, on request of the pilot in Class D airspace). However, controllers may feel that under a duty of care, and in preservation of their licenses, it may be prudent to delay IFR aircraft if an ‘unknown’ VFR aircraft is operating autonomously within the predicted departure or arrival path. This will affect the smooth flow of air traffic to and from the airport. Gliders will also be able to legitimately operate much closer to the commercial traffic than at present without the requirement to advise ATC of their presence. Gliders are often difficult to detect by Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR), and since most do not carry transponders, no TCAS information will be generated, so CAT may be completely unaware of glider location, as TI may not necessarily be passed.
A change to Class E would represent a reduction in the current safety layers afforded to CAT and VFR traffic currently operating within the vicinity of RHADS.
Doncaster PIR Page 15 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
4.3.2 Class E and RMZ CTA There is the possibility to enhance the benefits of Class E airspace by the addition of a Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ), coincident with the Class E areas. If the areas of the CTA were changed from Class D to Class E plus RMZ, then most of the information above (paragraph 4.3.1) will still apply apply. The only difference will be that in order to enter the Class E/RMZ, a VFR pilot must establish 2-way communication with RHADS ATC before entering. This is a relatively new concept for the UK. However, the use of RMZs is increasing; it is a mechanism to enhance the situational awareness for the controller and for other airspace users without being too prescriptive for VFR GA users. Controllers are required to separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft, which still require an ATC clearance to enter the airspace; the onus is still on VFR aircraft to avoid IFR aircraft. However, the controller is able to pass relevant TI to the IFR aircraft, as VFR aircraft are obligated to call prior to entering the airspace. TI would also be available to the VFR traffic upon request.
This option would provide controllers with a greater situational awareness however IFR traffic is still relying on VFR traffic to avoid it. Controllers workload could increase significantly and as well as the environmental impacts of increased track miles, increased fuel burn, lack of CDA’s and an increased noise footprint, the reduced consistency and plannability would severely restrict airline operators.
4.3.3 Class E and RMZ and TMZ CTA The addition of a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) creates a more ‘informed’ environment than Class E in isolation or a Class E RMZ, since only VFR aircraft fitted with a transponder and those having established 2-way contact with ATC may enter the airspace. This option provides similar situational awareness to the Air Traffic Controller as Class D. Controllers are only obliged to separate IFR from IFR and traffic information can be passed on VFR traffic, as their intentions will be known. However, once again, as directed by SARG, the rules do not reflect reality. Controllers are required to provide “Duty of Care” separation between IFR and VFR traffic and because the VFR traffic is not required to comply to any ATC requests the IFR traffic will be manoeuvred to maintain separation from the VFR traffic. Again, this would increase the controllers workload and as well as the environmental impacts of increased track miles, increased fuel burn, lack of CDA’s and an increased noise footprint, the reduced consistency and plannability would severely restrict airline operators.
Doncaster PIR Page 16 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
VFR users would have the benefit of more operational freedom, in return for notifying RHADS of their routeing and altitude. The airspace does not preclude the ability to coordinate with VFR aircraft in order to provide assurance to both controllers and the IFR traffic of separation between known traffic, although this is already what Class D CAS is providing. CAT IFR operators would not gain the potential of use of Airborne Collision Systems (ACAS) against VFR traffic without the complimentary TMZ within the Class E CAS.
If Class E RMZ/TMZ CAS were to be implemented, maintaining the current layout of airspace would make transition to the new airspace easier, as local users will be aware of the current boundaries. There would be no change to the existing CTR, so IFR aircraft could be assured of the same levels of protection during the most critical stages of flight. Class E is internationally recognised CAS. Therefore, all non-UK based users of the airport would understand exactly what types of service are offered and their responsibilities within the airspace.
It should be noted that, whilst this option allows for greater freedom for VFR traffic, this is likely to increase the workload of the controller. Although the rules state that there is no requirement to separate IFR and VFR traffic (as is the case in Class D airspace) the controller is under a duty of care to protect the IFR aircraft and will no doubt be considering the protection of their ATC licence and therefore separation will be applied. Where aircraft are not bound to comply with ATC instructions (VFR in Class E) this could involve re-routeing or extended negotiation via the RT, all of which will increase workload for pilots and controllers alike. For these reasons Class E RMZ/TMZ CAS would reduce flight safety and the economic viability of the airport and is not considered appropriate to RHADS operations.
4.4 Option 4 – Maintain CTR – Disestablish some CTAs Removing parts, or all of some of the CTAs, reverting to background Class G, has been considered. As explained in paragraph 4.2 above, if a reduction meant that published IFPs were no longer contained within CAS, this is permissible [Reference 2] but a safety case must be conducted to support the argument for the IFP within Class G airspace. Whilst this option would continue to provide protection to aircraft on the critical stages of flight (on final approach for landing or immediately after take-off in the Class D CTR), it would expose CAT to a large area of uncontrolled airspace before reaching the safety of the airways system. Some of the conflicting aircraft are likely to be military fast jet aircraft, a fast and dynamic entity, which makes a conflict very difficult to predict and very difficult to out- manoeuvre. Since regular users of RHADS have been accustomed to the protection of the CAS provided by the CTAs, this may actively discourage operators from continuing to use RHADS in the face of a perceived reduction in
Doncaster PIR Page 17 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
safety and/or efficiency. Annex 4 contains the current UK AIP Control Zone and Control Area Chart which may be useful as reference when analysing this section.
In order to consider this option, it is necessary to analyse each individual CTA to ascertain the impact of a potential decision to revert to Class G airspace:
CTR 1/2. Reducing the upper levels of the CTRs have been considered, however this would present a ‘gap’ in the CAS from the top of the CTR to the base level of the airway (Class A) which in the case of CTA 1 is FL 85. This will not afford full protection to aircraft joining or leaving the airways system, and may place IFR aircraft in the position of having to take avoiding action to ensure separation against unknown traffic. This option would also impact on airspace sharing arrangements between LBA and HA.
CTA 1. This airspace still provides vital protection to aircraft on final approach for Runway 20 or immediately after departure on Runway 02. At many airports, this would be part of the CTR, extending to surface level. However, as the base level is 1,500 ft above mean sea level (AMSL), this allows aircraft to depart from Sandtoft airfield and remain beneath the CAS, without the requirement for a clearance. The holding levels are currently 3,500 ft AMSL up to FL80, which allows 5 aircraft to hold. RHADS is used daily by the local flying schools and military for NDB holding and procedural approach training and there are frequently 3 aircraft in the FNY hold. Any change to the dimensions of this CTA would not protect aircraft on final approach to Runway 20 or aircraft departing from Runway 02.
CTA 2 This airspace provides similar protection as CTA 1 but for aircraft arriving on Runway 02 and departing from Runway 20. The base level is also 1,500 ft AMSL, which allows aircraft from nearby Gamston and Netherthorpe to fly beneath the CAS without requiring a clearance. Any change to the lateral dimensions of this CTA would not protect aircraft on final approach to Runway 02 or aircraft departing from Runway 20.
CTA 3 The purpose of this airspace is to provide protection for IFR aircraft positioning on final approach to runway 02. The upper level is set at FL60, which protects aircraft conducting a procedural hold, prior to establishing onto final approach. In addition, it facilitates the use of CDAs to Runway 02 and offers protection to the Runway 20 ROGAG departures which route around the northeast of Netherthorpe to just north of Gamston.
Doncaster PIR Page 18 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
CTA 4 This is a small fillet of airspace that increases the overall width of the CTA. The upper level is FL65 to reflect the lower level of the airway L975 directly above. The removal of this airspace would not represent much of an increase in available airspace for the GA community, but would reduce the protection of IFR aircraft in the critical stages of flight by reducing the lateral separation from the west when aircraft are on final approach to Runway 20.
CTA 5 This airspace provides protection for aircraft positioning on final approach to Runway 20. The upper level currently abuts CAS (Class A). The base level of 2,000 ft (AMSL) allows aircraft the freedom to operate below CAS without the requirement for a clearance from ATC.
CTA 6 This area provides protection for aircraft arriving on Runway 02. The base level of 2,000 ft AMSL allows for aircraft at Gamston and Netherthorpe to operate below the CAS without requiring a clearance. In addition, current local arrangements are in place to allocate more of the airspace to Gamston and Netherthorpe when not required by RHADS. This arrangement is well practiced and understood by local users and is frequently used (see Annex 1 for full details). This part of the CTA protects aircraft on final approach to Runway 02 and ensures separation from the light aircraft operating at Gamston and Netherthorpe. Without its protection, IFR could be subject to avoiding action whilst positioning to final approach. The same applies to aircraft departing from Runway 20.
CTA 7 This is another small fillet of airspace that replicates the purpose of CTA 4, but the upper level abuts the base level of Y70 (FL 105). This is also in line with CTAs 2, 6 and 12. If the vertical extent of one of these CTAs were to be adjusted, then in the interests of simplifying the airspace picture, the upper levels of CTAs 2, 6 and 12 should also be considered. Since IFR traffic is not permitted to join downwind left for Runway 02 due to noise, the base level of this CTA and CTA 4 could be raised to align with those of CTAs 8 and 9.
Doncaster PIR Page 19 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
CTA 8 This airspace provides connectivity between the CTR and the en-route structure to aircraft arriving at or departing from RHADS. The current base level is 4,000 ft AMSL, although, as described in Section 3, a portion, from 4,000 ft to 4,500 ft AMSL is released, on request, to the BGA. RHADS are able to operate with a base altitude of 4,500 ft AMSL and still provide protection to CAT using the airport. This airspace allows CAT to carry out a CDA, since they can manoeuvre, and descend, without the risk of unknown traffic creating a potential confliction. This area can also be the subject of coordination agreements allowing LBIA access for aircraft arriving or departing from LBIA. The BGA do not request use of CTA 8 frequently, in part because the activation procedure is complex and therefore there is scope to review the associated LoA. That said, since RHADS can operate with minimal disruption without this 500 ft layer at the base of the CTA, consideration could be given to reverting this level back to Class G.
CTA 9 This airspace provides a similar function to CTA 8 for aircraft arriving at Runway 02 or departing from Runway 20. This area provides connectivity with the Class A airway structure above it. In conjunction with CTA 8 the base level of CTA9 could be raised to 4500ft.
CTA 10 This airspace provides connectivity to the Class A en-route system and allows aircraft to descend out of the airways structure and position for an approach to either runway. This area is also frequently the subject of tactical coordination agreements with LBIA. Work is ongoing to formalise the coordination arrangements between LBIA and RHADS as this section is used when positioning aircraft for arrival to Runway 34 at LBIA and departures from Runway 16 at LBIA.
CTAs 11 & 12 These are small fillets of airspace that allow for a stepped descent into the CTR or a climb from RHADS into the airways structure. The base level is FL60 to facilitate aircraft conducting a CDA when arriving from MAMUL. One of the constraints placed upon RHADS when the airspace was approved in 2008 was that IFR traffic is not permitted to position downwind left for Runway 02. This section of airspace facilitates the descent within CAS avoiding the noise sensitive areas accordingly.
Doncaster PIR Page 20 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
4.5 Option 5 – Disestablish CAS (revert to Class G).
4.5.1 Option 5a – Revert to Class G A decision to revert the RHADS CAS to Class G airspace would have the most dramatic effect on the Airport. This option would see the Airport returning the pre- 2008 airspace where the only protection afforded to CAT would be the 2.5 NM ATZ. This is not sufficient to fully protect IFR CAT trying to arrive at, or depart from, the Airport, particularly given the nature of the surrounding aviation users. There is significant potential for RHADS to see an increase in the number of Airprox reports or Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs), and aircraft would be highly unlikely to be able to carry out a CDA, conflicting traffic would need to be avoided by 5 NM under a Deconfliction Service (DS). Reversion to Class G in toto would make NPRs very difficult to maintain, and therefore, there could be an increase in disruption to the local population and a commensurate increase in noise complaints.
Whilst the passenger numbers predicted in the original ACP have not materialised, there are still approximately 700,000 passengers utilising the Airport annually. The figures so far for 2014 already indicate almost a 4% increase on 2013, which is ahead of DfT Aviation Forecast published in January 2013 [Reference 4] which indicates that passenger figures will grow in the region of between 1 and 3% from 2010 to 2050. Since demand for aviation generally follows GDP figures, a continuing economic recovery indicates that RHADS passenger numbers might continue to increase.
This option would severely restrict the commercial viability of the airport.
Doncaster PIR Page 21 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
4.5.2 Option 5b – Revert to Class G RMZ/TMZ Whilst a reversion to Class G airspace would present the most dramatic change to RHADS, with potentially the greatest reduction in safety measures currently afforded to CAT, it may be possible to reduce the effects of this change by enhancing the Class G with another element of ‘control’. One option could be to replace the Class D with an area, broadly similar in size to the existing CTR plus CTAs 1, 2, 5 and 6 and adding either a RMZ or a RMZ in conjunction with a TMZ. Although these options would reduce the ability to ‘control’ aircraft when compared to Class D airspace, this would represent a far better situational awareness than pre-2008. The RHADS controllers would be able to operate within a ‘better informed’ traffic environment. This differs significantly from a Class E plus RMZ/TMZ, as IFR aircraft do not require a clearance to operate within the area. IFR aircraft arriving at or departing from RHADS would receive service provision offered under the ATSOCAS suite of services. The key difference is that VFR aircraft in a Class G RMZ must make radio contact before entering the ‘Zone’ and therefore will be requested to state their route and intentions. The carriage of a transponder is also mandatory within a TMZ, although subject to ATC approval, access to non-transponding aircraft is permitted. This option provides the most benefit to GA VFR aircraft although VFR aircraft are subject to certain conditions in order to utilise the airspace. The requirement for VFR traffic to avoid IFR traffic under the ‘see and avoid’ principle will remain the same, although as stated above this is now what is allowed to happen in reality. Whilst ATC may attempt to coordinate with VFR traffic, there is no obligation to comply and there will be an additional tariff of increased controller workload, which in itself represents a degradation of safety.
From a VFR perspective there is little difference between operating within a Class E RMZ/TMZ, or a Class G RMZ/TMZ. There is still the requirement to call prior to entry, and the requirement to maintain separation under the ‘see and avoid’ principle’. However, from the IFR and the ATC perspective, there is a significant difference. Class G means provision of the ATSOCAS suite of services: Deconfliction Service (DS), Traffic Service (TS) or Basic Service (BS). CAT IFR aircraft are highly likely to request a DS, which means that the controller is still obliged to maintain standard separation minima from VFR traffic.
One of the biggest challenges to overcome is a re-education of the RHADS airspace users. The CAS was established over six years ago, during which time excellent relationships have been forged with RHADS’ neighbours. This work is not nugatory work, but it is vital to ensure that any potential future change identifies the advantages and disadvantages to each area of the aviation community. Greater operational freedom means greater responsibility for avoidance of IFR traffic with less information provided by ATC.
Doncaster PIR Page 22 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
In summary, the total disestablishment of CAS would represent a reduction of the safety boundaries currently in place. The reversion to Class G with the addition of an associated RMZ/TMZ would add a higher degree of situational awareness, but it does not provide the mechanism to apply active control measures to enhance safety. Class G would result in significant increases in controller workload. Within Class G airspace, the suite of services available are provided under ATSOCAS; the UK is unique in its provision of Deconfliction, Traffic and Basic Services, therefore there is always the potential that non-UK based aviators do not fully understand the suite of air traffic services provided in UK Class G airspace and their responsibilities for terrain avoidance and separation.
Doncaster PIR Page 23 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
5 Justification for Retaining CAS
The Post Implementation Review (PIR) should assess whether the airspace is operating as originally expected. An assessment of the original requirement is integral to this F&O Report.
5.1 Original Justification The RHADS Airspace Change Proposal was submitted against a background of significant investment and growth seen at the Airport. This was predicted to continue to increase with annual passenger numbers in excess of 4 million anticipated by 2014. In granting the airspace, the CAA recognised the requirement to protect the fare- paying passengers utilising the airport. Whilst the growth has not been as anticipated, there are still approximately 700,000 passengers a year using RHADS. The passenger figures have increased in the 2014 season so far – increasing by 4.62% on the 2013 figures. This is in ahead of the predicted passenger number increase published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2013 [Reference 4], which indicated growth in passenger numbers of between 1 and 3% from 2010 to 2050.
5.2 Safety
5.2.1 Airprox Reports & MORs The following Airprox reports were filed prior to activation of the Class D airspace: 2005 – Five Airprox reports involving CAT. 2006 – Two Airprox reports involving CAT. 2007 – Three Airprox reports involving CAT. 2008 – January to June – nil.
The following Airprox reports were filed after the activation of the Class D CAS mid- 2008: 2009 – One involving a light aircraft that had entered RHADS CAS without a clearance that came into confliction with a DHC8. 2010 - Nil 2011 – Two – One involving a DHC8 and a Vulcan within Class D airspace; the second a B737 that was issued avoiding action against a PA28 operating at Sandtoft that entered the RHADS CTR without a clearance. 2012 – One – This occurred outside CAS and did not involve CAT. 2013 – One. This occurred outside CAS involving an A320 in descent arriving from the East and a Typhoon on climb out from RAF Coningsby. 2014 – Nil
Doncaster PIR Page 24 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
These figures clearly show that the number of Airprox reports involving CAT have reduced since the implementation of the RHADS CAS in 2008 indicating that safety has improved, particularly for the fare paying passengers operating from RHADS.
5.3 Environment
5.3.1 Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) CDAs offer a flexible continuous descent and approach flight path that delivers major environmental and economic benefits including reductions to fuel burn, gaseous emissions and noise impact without any adverse effect on safety. A CDA allows the pilot to apply a steady rate of descent without the requirement to level off and trim the aircraft, before commencing further descent. An arriving aircraft descends continuously to the greatest possible extent, by employing minimum engine thrust, ideally in a low drag configuration, prior to the final approach fix. The protection of CAS means that aircraft are operating within a known environment; this in turn means that avoiding action is much less likely to occur. Without the connectivity to CAS, pilots are unlikely to be able to carry out CDAs.
5.3.2 Noise Footprint Since the implementation of CAS, RHADS have published Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routes. These allow aircraft to follow a standard routeing when departing that allows for continuous climb within the protection of CAS. In most cases, SIDs are designed, not only to cater for the avoidance of obstacles and terrain, but also to incorporate Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs).
RHADS has an active Noise Management Plan. This includes declaring a preferred runway for departures and arrivals during the quiet hours, which minimises the disruption to the local community. This involves avoiding overflight of the local area to the south of the Airport, in particular the Bawtry area. However, it is not always possible to direct arrivals and facilitate departures within the same direction. Statistics are kept detailing when an aircraft has not been able to use the preferred runway, together with the reason. This may be at the pilot’s request, or due to the surface wind precluding a safe departure or approach. Full details of noise data, including the number and nature of complaints received between 1st June 2014 and 31st August 2014 is at Annex 2. This data shows that whilst some areas attract a high number of complaints, they may be from only one individual. Other areas, whilst attracting fewer complaints, are from a higher number of individuals. If a portion of the RHADS CAS were to be changed or disestablished, aircraft would be more susceptible to alternative or disrupted routing after departure or on final approach, which may ultimately introduce noise to a wider area. NPRs would be more difficult
Doncaster PIR Page 25 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
to maintain if conflicting aircraft were operating within the vicinity of the route. Avoiding action would route IFR aircraft away from unknown VFR aircraft and potentially off the NPR or SID.
5.4 Other Airspace Users
5.4.1 Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA) The current situation is that LBIA call RHADS and identify their aircraft to the RHADS controller. Normally the request is for aircraft to descend to 5,000 ft AMSL, and normally approved, subject to RHADS traffic. Negotiations are underway to allow part of CTAs 8 and 10 to be released to LBIA for longer periods. Departures from LBIA operate ‘freeflow’ towards Upton, whilst RHADS Upton departures are subject to a release from PC. PC effectively controls the flow of traffic that may use CTAs 8 and 10, en-route to the adjoining Class A airspace.
5.4.2 Humberside Airport (HA) A LoA is in place detailing the coordination arrangements between the two units. However, the majority of agreements are negotiated tactically as required. Following the PIR, it is recommended that this LoA be reviewed, in line with coordination procedures with LBIA and PC; it may be possible to manage coordination procedures more efficiently by apportioning responsibility to PC for coordinating the LBIA, RHADS and HA traffic. This would need to be the subject of bilateral consultation and requires the agreement of all parties concerned.
5.4.3 Sandtoft Sandtoft is an airfield operating air/ground radio, positioned northeast of RHADS at approximately 7 NM on left base to Runway 20. The LoA with Sandtoft has enhanced communication between to two airfields. Direct communication lines have been installed, and RHADS notify Sandtoft if an aircraft is being vectored for an approach to Runway 20, or is outbound from the procedural hold for Runway 20. Specific mention is made of aircraft with a ‘Heavy’ wake turbulence category. Aircraft departing from Sandtoft have a specific routing that they can fly en route to an area designated as ‘Sandtoft Training Area’ that is beneath parts of CTA 1 and 5. Without the airspace, any formal agreement would be unenforceable. Aircraft arriving at Sandtoft from the north may not be aware of the requirement to contact RHADS and CAT would have to avoid any unknown traffic by 5 NM which, at times, would be very difficult to achieve.
Doncaster PIR Page 26 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
5.4.4 Gamston Gamston is a small GA airfield positioned approximately 10 NM South of RHADS on right base to Runway 02. Gamston ATZ is active up to 2,000 ft above aerodrome level (aal) and an LOA is in place, which details that RHADS will not descend aircraft below 2,600 ft AMSL, affording 500 ft vertical protection to the Gamston circuit. Coordination procedures exist for Gamston aircraft to access parts of CTAs 2, 3 and 6 up to 2,500 ft AMSL. Further access requires direct coordination with RHADS and an ATC clearance.
5.4.5 Netherthorpe Netherthorpe Aerodrome is positioned approximately 14 NM SW of RHADS on left base to Runway 02. Many light aircraft operate from here and it is home to two flying clubs, Sheffield Aero Club and Phoenix Flying School. Since the airspace implementation, direct line communications have been installed to facilitate coordination arrangements. Part of CTA 6 is available up to 2,500 ft AMSL to aircraft flying from Netherthorpe. Any further access to the CTA requires coordination and an ATC clearance from RHADS. RHADS will not descend aircraft arriving for Runway 02 below 2,600 ft AMSL.
5.4.6 BGA An extensive LoA exists with the BGA, which allows access to CTAs 8 and 9 in the Upton corridor, CTAs 3 and 6 in the Darlton Soaring Box and CTAs 4 and 5 in the Goole Soaring Box. The vertical limit of each box is 4,500 ft AMSL. Each area has a different activation mechanism that can be requested by a significant list of different gliding clubs. Once activated, all relevant gliding clubs are notified. The de- activation process is less straightforward, since RHADS must be sure that all of the notified gliding clubs have vacated the area. The activation and deactivation process associated with this LoA is very complicated which may account for the limited amount of use by the BGA (see Annex 1). Since RHADS have demonstrated that they can continue to operate with minimum disruption allowing the BGA access to the 500 ft at the base of these CTAs, consideration should be given to permanently reverting these portions back to Class G. That said, evidence suggests (see Annex 1) that use of these portions is not frequently requested, so any review should consider whether the BGA still require the use of these CTAs.
Doncaster PIR Page 27 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
5.5 Economic Factors
5.5.1 Infrastructure Whilst economic factors are not the overriding issue to be considered by the CAA, it must not be overlooked. There has been significant investment in the Airport on the strength of the successful application of CAS in 2008. Unfortunately, this coincided with the recession, an increase in Airport Duty Tax (this doubled in 2007) and an increase in oil prices. However, the support from the local government has continued and major infrastructure projects have been undertaken to improve access to the Airport. This includes the Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme, (FARRRS) which is a £55M project to create a new road linking Junction 3 of the M18 to Parrotts Corner, close to RHADS. Work has already commenced on this road and it is expected to be completed by early 2016. RHADS expect that FARRRS will “bring an additional 0.5 million people within 30 minutes of the Airport and an additional 1 million within the 60 minute drive time, taking the total catchment to 6.2 million.” Whilst the reasons for Airport choice are varied, one of the factors is undoubtedly accessibility, so it is reasonable to suggest that these improvements will have a positive effect on passenger numbers.
RHADS runway is one of the longest in the north of England giving today’s CAT aircraft global reach in both passenger and freight markets. Currently serving 30 destinations and handling around 700,000 passengers annually, but with a capacity to cater for over 10 million by 2030, the new link road will help the Airport realise its full potential. The new link road will help grow passenger numbers and create a prime commercial destination with the development of a logistics hub of scale with the ability to connect directly to cargo routes across the world. However, this potential could be jeopardised by the loss of associated Airport CAS.
Doncaster PIR Page 28 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
5.5.2 Passenger Figures The original ACP predicted a dramatic increase in passenger figures, thus emphasising the requirement to provide protection to the CAT using the airport. The increase did not materialise, predominantly due to the effect of the global economic downturn. However, in line with the improved economy currently seen within the UK, the passenger figures have been steadily improving. Table 1 below shows the monthly breakdown of figures over the past three years.
Month 2012 2013 2014 January 38,580 33,691 34,554 February 34,738 29,211 31,916 March 40,201 38,590 37,319 April 48,943 45,588 45,175 May 67,598 67,198 68,427 June 79,977 80,992 80,886 July 84,856 84,156 88,512 August 86,850 92,849 94,542 September 76,723 81,072 83,807 October 66,970 65,475 76,626 November 34,995 36,246 43,553 December 33,330 35,283 Total 693,661 690,351 Total Jan – Nov 660,331 655,068 685,317 Percentage -1% +4.62% Change Table 1 Table of Passenger Movements at RHADS 2012 – 2014 (Data supplied from CAA Website).
The DfT UK Aviation Forecast [Reference 4] published in January 2013 indicated that nationally, passenger figures would grow between 1% and 3 % between 2010 and 2030. The figures above indicate that growth in passenger numbers at RHADS for 2014 is slightly ahead of these predictions. RHADS have increased their services by adding new routes for 2015 and the Airport is expecting passenger numbers to increase further for 2015 and onwards.
Doncaster PIR Page 29 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
The predicted growth in passenger numbers is details in the table below:
Year Forecast Percentage Year Passenger on Year Numbers 2014 698,476 +1.18% 2015 884,368 +26.61% 2016 1,329,832 +50.37% 2017 1,521,904 +14.44% 2018 1,631,435 +7.19% Table 2 Forecast Passenger Numbers for RHADS (kindly provided by RHADS Commercial Team).
These predicted figures are based on growth so far, and are accompanied by figures showing historical aircraft movement numbers and forecast numbers over the next four years. The historical figures are shown below:
Year Air Transport Other Total Movements Movements Movements 2005 5,380 1,534 6,914 2006 7,591 3,051 10,642 2007 9,292 3,375 12,667 2008 7,881 5,182 13,066 2009 6,550 4,034 10,584 2010 7,273 3,757 11,030 2011 6,163 5,713 11,876 2012 4,718 7,006 11,724 2013 4,634 6,563 11,197 2014 5,089 6,680 11,769 Table 3 Historical Air Movement Numbers from 2005 to 2014 for RHADS (kindly provided by RHADS Commercial Team).
Doncaster PIR Page 30 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Year Air Transport Other Total Movements Movements Movements 2015 5,786 6,814 12,600 2016 9,019 6,950 15,969 2017 12,874 7,158 20,032 2018 14,404 7,373 21,777 2019 15,029 7,668 22,697 Table 4 Forecast Air Movement Numbers for 2015 to 2019 for RHADS (kindly provided by RHADS Commercial Team1).
The original ACP generated interest from potential aircraft operators both for commercial passenger carrying services and for freight. Any change to the current airspace could make the Airport less attractive to these existing commercial operators and to potential new operators. Any reduction in traffic operating from RHADS could have potentially serious economic repercussions for the airport and the surrounding area.
5.5.3 Local Economy Airports help to support employment and output for the nation’s economy; they enhance the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the country and around the world, allowing the economy to operate more effectively and efficiently. RHADS has a Business Park located on site, and the increase in passenger services and freight services contributes greatly to the local economy. A reversion to Class G airspace could make the Airport less attractive to operators due to the reduction in protection currently afforded within CAS, and the higher guarantee of direct routings, that CAS offers. This reversion could have serious detrimental economic effects for the airport and the surrounding area within South Yorkshire.
1 The five year passenger and movements forecast is consistent with that in the Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) business plan. It has been produced by an external consultancy specialising in demand forecasting and route development for airports both in the UK and around the world.
Doncaster PIR Page 31 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
5.5.4 RHADS Obligations When the CAA approved the CAS in 2008, RHADS stated that they had the resources available to provide access to the airspace, upon request, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. VATS controllers at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) perform the radar control for RHADS; they are dual trained on RHADS and LJLA radar alike. This resource required significant investment from the Airport, but it was deemed necessary in order to improve the facilities available at RHADS. Any reduction to the airspace at RHADS, could have an impact on the number of controllers required to support the RHADS task.
5.6 Summary The successful outcome of the RHADS application for CAS in 2008 resulted in the implementation of Class D CAS comprising a CTR and various CTAs. The transition was managed effectively, with excellent relationships being forged with local airspace users resulting in both formal and informal arrangements for access. The number of Airprox reports between CAT operating from RHADS and VFR aircraft within the vicinity has dramatically reduced. Any potential change to the current arrangements will result in a reduction of the safety measures currently enjoyed. This will be at the expense of increased operational freedom to VFR aircraft. Whilst the passenger figures have not increased in line with predictions, the airport is responsible for handling over 700,000 passengers per year, the figures for 2014 are showing encouraging signs of improvement. It is not unreasonable to expect that this number of fare-paying passengers be afforded the protection that CAS can provide. A reduction in the level of service that RHADS are able to provide to IFR CAT, if the CAS were to significantly change, may result in some airline operators choosing alternative airports that can offer the protection of CAS. This in turn could potentially affect the economic position of the Airport and the local community by influencing the plans for growth.
Doncaster PIR Page 32 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions A PIR is required by the CAA in assessing the efficacy of the Class D CAS allocated to RHADS in 2008. The original ACP anticipated a steep rise in passenger figures that failed to materialise in the global economic downturn. Whilst safety is paramount, it is important to ascertain that the airspace is operating effectively to the benefit of all airspace users.
6.1.1 GA Community The perception of the GA community is generally that CAS represents an infringement on their ability to operate with full tactical freedom. Therefore, it is not surprising that these stakeholders would wish to argue for the complete disestablishment of the CAS, or at the very least, a reduction in the overall size, in order to facilitate freedom of movement. However, if Option 5, or indeed Option 2, or part of Option 4 (see Section 4 above) were to be implemented it can be argued that the same issues present in the RHADS surrounding airspace prior to the implementation of the RHADS CTR/A in 2008 would recur. RHADS have always encouraged full access to its airspace to the GA and gliding communities when they are not using the airspace for CAT; the purpose of the airspace is to protect CAT, not to hinder VFR traffic.
6.1.2 CAA Duty It is important that the CAA continues to ensure that the requirements of all airspace users are met when considering options for airspace. In the case of RHADS, the GA community could successfully argue that the requirement for the airspace based upon the number of RHADS passengers is no longer valid. However, there is still a significant number of passengers using services from RHADS, so it is important that the safety measures currently in place are not significantly reduced as a result of any change.
6.1.3 RHADS Requirements RHADS are content with the current arrangements. The connectivity to the airways structure to the west facilitates protection and therefore CDAs are achievable. Aircraft are not subject to avoiding action against unknown traffic, and therefore noise patterns are predictable. Aircraft departing to the east have the option of remaining within the confines of CAS, or if the traffic situation outside of CAS is manageable, aircraft are given a more direct routing.
Doncaster PIR Page 33 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
6.1.4 Local Economy The Airport is predicting significant growth over the next five years with increases in Air Transport Movement numbers and passenger figures. This growth will have a positive effect on the local economy enhancing job security and potentially increasing employment prospects within the area. The local economy undoubtedly benefits from the increased business at the airport. Significant investment has been made in improving roads and infrastructure, required to support an increase in the number of people using RHADS. Any perceived reduction in protection afforded to CAT has the potential to reduce the attractiveness of the Airport when vying for new business. Any reduction in profitability or security will have a commensurate effect on the local economy.
6.2 Recommendations Following an analysis of RHADS CAS, ATSL makes the following recommendations:
1. RHADS recommends to CAA that CAS remain in place at RHADS to continue to provide safety assurance to fare paying passenger aircraft operating in and out of the airport whilst at the same time enhancing the safety of VFR aircraft.
2. RHADS recommends to CAA that any downgrading of the classification of airspace surrounding the airport would reduce safety and have significant impact on the commercial viability of the airport with the commensurate effects on the local economy.
3. RHADS and LJLA consult with PC, LBIA and HA concerning possible delegation of CTAs 4, 5, 8 and 10, in order for PC to manage the flow in and out of all three airports.
4. RHADS identifies to CAA that it would consider a permanent raise to the base level of CTA 8 and 9 to 4,500 ft AMSL (currently 4,000 ft AMSL) to allow access to gliders and thus remove the current LoA. This dispenses with the lengthy activation and deactivation process. It is further recommended that LBIA is consulted about this potential change to ensure that it does not affect their access requirements.
Doncaster PIR Page 34 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
7 References Reference Name Origin 1 CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP725.PDF Third edition dated 30th Document March 2007 CAP 725 2 CAA Policy http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20140117ContainmentPolicyFinal.pdf Statement on Controlled Airspace Containment Policy 3 Letter from CAA dated 2nd July 2008 DAP to NATMAC approving Class D Airspace for Doncaster Sheffield 4 DfT Paper https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-aviation- on Aviation forecasts-2013 Forecasts January 2013 Table 5 Table of References
Doncaster PIR Page 35 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
A1 Annex 1 – Details of LoAs with Local Aviation Stakeholders
This table provides the details of the Letters of Agreement that have been established in order to facilitate the best use of the airspace. It also indicates how often each section of airspace has been activated between 2012 and 2013. Little use could be an indication of minimal requirement for the airspace, or could indicate that it does not meet the needs of the aviation stakeholder. However, if this was the case, there have been no supplementary requests since the airspace implementation to review the arrangements. The table also gives an indication of the complexity that the arrangements present to the controller. This is further indicated when the individual segments of airspace are displayed pictorially on the aviation map. This is shown at Annex 2. Area Aviation Activation Details Conditions Further Operating Procedures Stakeholders 2012 2013 Gamston LFA Retford N/A N/A Activation: Operate up to EGCN to inform of RWY in use and any subsequent Gamston Airport Permanent Agreement 2,500 ft, EGCN QNH. change, and will endeavour to provide an appropriate when EGCN RWY20 in When active EGCN radar service. ATC will not descend inbound traffic for use. Radar ensures EGCN RWY02 below 2,600ft EGCN QNH, until clear of the Deactivation: IFR traffic not below Gamston ATZ. EGCN to pass on pertinent info, Change to RWY02; or 3,000ft. including a/c passing overhead the ATZ and the No Radar Service. operation of a RWY02 procedural approach. Gamston must inform EGCN when open, with all traffic to contact EGCN Radar when leaving the ATZ on a north/westerly heading. All airways departures (GOLES/UPTON) to be prenoted to EGCN. Traffic remaining within the Gamston ATZ should squawk 7010.
Doncaster PIR Page 36 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Area Aviation Activation Details Conditions Further Operating Procedures Stakeholders 2012 2013 Netherthorpe Netherthorpe N/A N/A Activation: Red Box; up to EGCN to inform of runway in use and any subsequent LFA Permanent Agreement 2,500ft EGCN QNH. change, and will advise of any pertinent info. EGCN will Summer (0800z-1900z)/ Blue Box; up to ensure IFR traffic remains outside the Box, and will not Winter (0900z-1700z). 2,100ft EGCN QNH. descend inbound a/c to RWY02 below 2,600ft on the Deactivation: EGCN QNH, until passing a 10NM final. N/A EGNF to advise EGCN when open for licensed flying and ensure all Airfield and visiting a/c are aware of the operating procedures. Sandtoft Sandtoft Airfield N/A N/A Activation: Area located to the EGCN aircraft to remain outside the EGCF ATZ within Training Area Permanent Agreement northeast of EGCF, the notified hours. EGCN will inform EGCF when an a/c Deactivation: between Goole/Trent is beacon outbound for a procedure to RWY20 or N/A Falls area. being vectored for an approach. EGCF to advise EGCN when the Airfield is open for licensed operations and aircraft remaining within the ATZ should squawk conspicuity code 7010. Pilots must be in receipt of an EGCN ATC clearance before entering CAS. Sherburn Sherburn Airfield N/A N/A Activation: Lower Limit; 4000ft, Sherburn Aero Club must only activate Sherburn Buffer Buffer 1000L-1900L/official Upper Limit; 4500ft, for aerobatics or student pilot training, when the WX is night. At pilot request, EGCN QNH. such that safe flight cannot be maintained below over RT. 4000ft. Deactivation: EGCN are to allocate an aerobatic or discrete squawk No Radar Service code to the a/c. EGCN shall ensure IFR traffic are 500ft available. min. above buffer zone and pass appropriate traffic info to transiting traffic.
Doncaster PIR Page 37 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Area Aviation Activation Details Conditions Further Operating Procedures Stakeholders 2012 2013 Upton BGA, Gliding 19 17 Activation: Lower Limit; 4000ft, Area ceded to the BGA for competition/club cross- Corridor Clubs, 0900L-1900L/official Upper Limit; 4500ft. country flying days, with activation by a Director of a Derbyshire night. On request EGCN QNH in VFR regional/national gliding competition, Duty Instructor Soaring Club, (RT/telephone), with only. Groups of or EGCN ATC. EGCN to be notified by telephone 2 North Yorks email to confirm. gliders transiting hours prior to the first glider’s ETA. Sailwing Club. Deactivation: corridor only. EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear No Radar Service and appropriate traffic info passed. available. Darlton BGA, Gliding 2 1 Activation: Lower Limit; 2000ft, Area activated by Duty Instructor of named Clubs or Soaring Box Clubs (Darlton, 1000L-sunset. When Upper Limit; 4500ft. EGCN ATC. Appropriately briefed glider pilots Burn, Camphill, RWY20 in use at EGCN, EGCN QNH in VFR operating under the BGA or from other Clubs can Trent Valley) by telephone only. only. access the Darlton Box. Only radio-equipped gliders, Deactivation: under VFR. Change to RWY02; or EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear No Radar Service. and appropriate traffic info passed. ATC to deactivate the Box for RWY02 arrivals, through an RT broadcast (min. of 10 minutes notice). Goole Box BGA, Gliding 1 0 Activation: Lower Limit; 2000ft, Area activated by Duty Instructor of named Clubs or Clubs (Wolds, 1000L-sunset. When Upper Limit; 4500ft. EGCN ATC. Only radio-equipped gliders, under VFR. Burn, Trent RWY02 in use at EGCN, EGCN QNH in VFR EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear Valley) by telephone only. only. Groups of and appropriate traffic info passed. ATC to deactivate Deactivation: gliders transiting the Box for RWY20 arrivals, through an RT broadcast Change to RWY20; or corridor only. (min. of 10 minutes notice). No Radar Service.
Doncaster PIR Page 38 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Area Aviation Activation Details Conditions Further Operating Procedures Stakeholders 2012 2013 Worksop British Hang 3 12 Activation: Lower Limit; 1500ft/ Corridor activated to enable operation of non-radio Corridor Gliding and 1000L-2100L/sunset. 2000ft (dependent of gliders. Area activated by Duty Instructors of Paragliding When RWY20 in use at CAS base). Derbyshire or Notts Aerotow Clubs, or EGCN ATC. Two Association. EGCN, by telephone Upper Limit; 4500ft. hours noticed is required to activate the Corridor, Derbyshire only with 2 hours’ EGCN QNH in VFR initially via telephone and following email to confirm. Soaring Club, notice. only. Non-radio EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear Notts Aerotow Deactivation: parasail. and appropriate traffic info passed. ATC to deactivate Club. Change to RWY20; or the Corridor for RWY02 arrivals, through a global No Radar Service. email/phone procedure. Burn Soaring Burn Gliding 17 19 Activation: Lower Limit; 2000ft, The Box to be ceded to BGC for radio-equipped Box Club 1000L-1900L/official Upper Limit; 2500ft/ gliders, which will be activated to the upper extent night, by telephone 4500ft, EGCN QNH. except when EGCN has RWY20 inbound traffic, only. (Box lowered to requiring temporary reduction to the upper limit. Deactivation: 2500ft by ATC, Activation by Burn Gliding Clun Duty Instructor or No Radar Service. 10 minutes’ notice EGCN ATC. over RT/telephone EGCN ATC to ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear for IFR arrivals). and appropriate traffic info passed. Camphill Camphill Gliding 1 0 Activation: Lower Limit; 4000ft Camphill Gliding Club to notify of activation, through Wave Boxes Club 1000L-sunset. By (CTA9) / FL60 Manchester ACC. Following activation, EGCN ATC will telephone only with (CTA11), EGCN QNH. ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear and appropriate MACC Watch Manager. Upper Limit; FL85. traffic info passed. Deactivation: VFR only. N/A
Doncaster PIR Page 39 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Area Aviation Activation Details Conditions Further Operating Procedures Stakeholders 2012 2013 Askern Yorkshire 0 0 Activation: Surface to Upper Askern Corridor activated either by EGCN ATC or YMC Corridor Microlight Club, 1000L-1900L/official Limit 1500ft, EGCN members, via telephone 2 hours prior to the first Cloudhoppers night. By telephone QNH. VFR only. microlights ETA. Paramotor Club. only. EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights are vectored clear Deactivation: and appropriate traffic info passed. No Radar Service. Askern Buffer Cloudhoppers 0 0 Activation: Upper Limit; not Askern Buffer required for the Cloudhoppers Paramotor Club By telephone only, 15 above 600ft until Paramotor Club for Launch and climb-out by non- minutes’ notice inside Askern radio paramotors. EGCN ATC will ensure all IFR flights required. Corridor. VFR only. are vectored clear and appropriate traffic info passed. Deactivation: No Radar Service.
Doncaster PIR Page 40 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
A2 Annex 2 – RHADS LoAs Airspace Chart
This figure displays the various segments of airspace that are subject to activation under a Letter of Agreement (LoA). This significantly adds to the complexity of the airspace, but is considered necessary by RHADS in order to facilitate a higher degree of access to all airspace users to the controlled airspace.
Doncaster PIR Page 41 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
A3 Annex3 – Noise Data
RHADS Noise Monitoring and Environmental Sub Committee have compiled the table shown at Error! Reference source not found. below. At first glance, it appears the number of noise complaints have reduced in accordance with the reduction in the number of aircraft movements. The CAS was implemented in 2008, and since then there has been a significant reduction in the number of complaints when compared to the period before CAS. This may be because aircraft are able to fly Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) without the requirement to take avoiding action against unknown aircraft within the vicinity of the airport. Aircraft departing RHADS can climb within the CAS using either the published SID (which has been defined to take account of NPR) routeing or the NPR. NPRs terminate at 3,000 ft AMSL. The Airport also operates and manages a Night Noise Quota system in order to minimise the disturbance to the local population. These combined effects may have contributed to the overall reduction in the number of complaints.
It is important to view these figures in context. Figure 1 below shows the areas that have attracted noise complaints over the period of 1st June 2014 and 31st August 2014. The pie chart appears to show that the area of Moorends is most affected by aircraft noise, but further analysis can show how many people have actually complained.
Doncaster PIR Page 42 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Figure 1 Pie Chart depicting the percentage of noise complaints by area between 1st June 2014 and 31st August 2014.
Figure 2 below demonstrates that in the case of Moorends, one individual is responsible for making over 40 complaints. Whilst this individual has a right to complain, it does indicate that noise is not a widespread problem in this area. The figures indicate that more people in Bawtry are affected by noise from the Airport, as there are 16 individuals who have complained. Bawtry lies southwest of the airport, under the climb out lane for Runway 20 or the approach for Runway 02. These statistics do not indicate the time of day that people made their complaints.
Doncaster PIR Page 43 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Figure 2 Chart showing the number of individuals and the total number of complaints per area between 1st June 2014 and 31st August 2014.
If the airspace were to change significantly following this review, it is highly likely that there will be an impact on the distribution of noise. This is particularly likely to be the case if the CAS is reverted to Class G, as aircraft operating at RHADS are more likely to be unable to comply with NPRs or conduct CDAs if they are required to avoid unknown traffic operating near the airport. In an attempt to reduce noise impact for the most affected areas, RHADS uses Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) and tries to use Runway 20 for arrivals and Runway 02 for departures. This minimises the disruption to the south of Doncaster, in particular the town of Bawtry. However, aircraft may not be able to conform to these routes for a variety of reasons. If this is the case, ATC log the details, together with the reason, so that any unusual increase in noise complaints can be assessed in conjunction with the data. Figure 3 below shows the number of aircraft unable to conform to a NPR in June, July and August 2014 together with the reasons. It is important to remember that safety is paramount, and aircraft may not be able to accept a significant tail wind on departure or arrival simply to conform to NPR requirements.
Doncaster PIR Page 44 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
Figure 3 Chart showing the number of aircraft unable to conform to NPR and the reasons, between 1st June 2014 and 31st August 2014.
Doncaster PIR Page 45 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015
ATC Services Ltd. DONCASTER PIR
A4 Annex4 – RHADS Control Zone and Control Area Chart
For ease of reference, the figure below is from the UKIAIP and may be useful when analysing Section 4 of this report.
Doncaster PIR Page 46 of 46 Owner: TSM 3rd February 2015