Consultation Document

Hawarden Airport

Proposal to Establish a Radio Mandatory Zone

in the Vicinity of Hawarden Airport

Sponsor Consultation

ISSUE 2.0

Date 20th February 2015

Serco UK & Europe

Enterprise House 11 Bartley Wood Business Park Bartley Way, Hook Hampshire RG27 9XB United Kingdom

Document Copyright© 2015 Serco Group This document is the property of Airbus Operations Ltd

ACP Sponsor Consultation 1 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 2

Consultation Document

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

This document has been prepared, authorised and approved by the individuals listed in the following table:

Authority Name and Signature Responsibility Date

Manager Air Author 20th February 2015 Traffic Services Mark Downes

Head of Aviation M Wilshaw-Rhead Safety & Reviewer 20h February 2015 Compliance Matt Wilshaw-Rhead

S E Underhill Senior Air Traffic Control Authorisation 20th February 2015 Simon Underhill Officer

ACP Sponsor Consultation 2 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 3

Consultation Document

DOCUMENT STATUS

ISSUE RECORD

Issue Date Comments 1.0 12.02.15 Initial Issue 2.0 20.02.15 Revised consultation dates

AMENDMENT RECORD

Page Change Issue Description of Change Date Number Number Number

ACP Sponsor Consultation 3 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 4

Consultation Document

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Copy No Recipient / Location

01 Hawarden Airport Air Traffic Services Unit

02 CAA SARG Kingsway

Electronic As per list at Appendix B versions

ACP Sponsor Consultation 4 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 5

Consultation Document

Process Overview

Hawarden Airport is operated as a licensed aerodrome by Airbus Operations Ltd. Airbus Operations Ltd contracts the provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS) to Serco, who are an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 7 of the European Commission Regulation 550/2004. In its capacity as an ANSP, Serco must satisfy the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as to their competence to provide safe and effective Air Navigation Services.

The Air Traffic Services Unit (ATSU) at Hawarden Airport currently provides services to aircraft in controlled airspace but predominantly in uncontrolled airspace. ATS are provided to all aircraft, both those operating at Hawarden Airport and those transiting the area, in accordance with UK FIS. The diversity and nature of aircraft operations in uncontrolled airspace has led to conflicts between aircraft, which is likely to become more frequent with known and forecast traffic increases at Hawarden Airport. In particular, it is a concern that the ‘see & avoid principle’ often applied to operations in uncontrolled airspace is unrealistic given the diverse speeds and size of aircraft utilising Hawarden Airport and the surrounding airspace. Resolution of these conflicts increases the workload of Air Traffic Control (ATC) and regularly results in the extended routing of flights, at the expense of efficient and effective use of airspace.

In order to comply with its responsibilities for safety management of the ATS and ensure flight safety in the airspace in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, Serco (on behalf of Airbus Operations Ltd) propose to submit a case to the CAA to establish a Radio Mandatory Zone in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport.

CAA Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725 sets out the processes that are to be followed in applying for making a change to any airspace. This Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) is being developed in accordance with the requirements specified in CAP 725.

CAP 725 requires the sponsor (Serco) of the ACP to carry out a consultation with the airspace users who may be directly or indirectly affected by the change and with organisations representing those who may be affected on the ground by the environmental impact of the change. As the change proposed has been identified only to have an impact on aviation stakeholders the public is not being canvassed as part of this process, however they are free to participate in this process if they so desire. This document is the Sponsor Consultation Document developed in accordance with the provisions of CAP 725.

‘Background Information’ of this document explains the process of the consultation. It also provides some basic background information about the Airport, the current airspace arrangements and an outline of the current Air Traffic Management (ATM) procedures.

The ‘ACP’ section of this document describes in detail the various elements of the proposed airspace change, including the options that have been considered for each element. Through a process of option consideration and development, and taking into account external influences on the airspace configuration, Hawarden Airport has reached a balanced judgement on the changes presented in this consultation.

A number of Appendices provide amplifying detail where necessary, including a comprehensive Glossary of the aviation terminology used. Additionally, as the required changes are affected by requirements arising from a number of UK, European and International Policies and Strategies, a list of source documents is included for reference by consultees.

This consultation runs from Monday 23rd February 2015 to Monday 18th May 2015.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 5 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 6

Consultation Document

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...... 9 1. About this consultation ...... 6 1.1 What is this consultation about? ...... 6 1.2 Why is this consultation being undertaken? ...... 6 1.3 Who is being consulted? ...... 11 1.4 Conduct of the consultation ...... 11 1.5 Consultation period and response method ...... 12 1.6 Results of the consultation ...... 12 1.7 What this consultation is not about ...... 12 1.8 Sponsor representative for the consultation ...... 13 1.9 CAA oversight ...... 13 1.10 Confidentiality ...... 13 2. Hawarden Airport ...... 14 2.1 History ...... 14 2.2 Future ...... 15 2.3 Statistics ...... 15 4. Introduction ...... 22 4.1 Overview ...... 22 4.2 Airspace design parameters...... 22 4.3 Airspace design objectives ...... 23 5. Existing Operational Constraints and Concerns/Considerations ...... 24 5.1 Unknown traffic ...... 24 5.2 Holding of IFR traffic ...... 25 5.3 Arrival routing ...... 26 5.4 Standard outbound clearances ...... 29 5.5 Military low level transit routes ...... 31 6. Future Operational Considerations ...... 33 6.1 Northern Terminal Control Area re-design ...... 33 6.2 Beluga XL ...... 33 7. Airspace Development Process ...... 34 7.1 Initial airspace development ...... 34 7.2 Operational requirements to be met ...... 34 7.3 Early stakeholder engagement ...... 35 7.4 Focus groups ...... 35 7.5 Post-focus group airspace reviews...... 35 8 Design Proposal for Hawarden Radio Mandatory Zone ...... 36

ACP Sponsor Consultation 6 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 7

Consultation Document

8.1 Overview ...... 36 8.2 Airspace classification ...... 36 8.3 Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ) ...... 37 8.4 Alternative means of compliance ...... 38 9 Operation of the Proposed RMZ...... 40 9.1 Introduction ...... 40 9.2 Overview ...... 40 9.3 Integration of VFR and other airspace activity ...... 40 10 Impact on Airspace Users ...... 41 10.1 A300-600 Super Transporter operations ...... 41 10.2 Airline operators ...... 41 10.3 Other Hawarden Airport operators ...... 41 10.4 Gresford Flash Strip & Poulton Disused Airfield ...... 41 10.5 North Wales Hang Gliding etc (NWHPA) sites ...... 41 10.6 Gliders ...... 42 10.7 Miscellaneous airspace activity ...... 42 10.8 Visual Reference Points (VRPs)...... 43 10.9 Choke points ...... 43 11 Environmental Considerations ...... 44 11.1 Introduction ...... 44 11.2 In the vicinity of Hawarden Airport ...... 44 11.3 Further away from Hawarden Airport ...... 44 11.4 Arriving traffic ...... 44 11.5 Distribution of GA activity ...... 44 11.6 Climate change ...... 45 11.7 Visual impact and tranquility...... 45 11.8 Air quality ...... 45 12 Summary ...... 46 13 Next Steps ...... 47 Appendix A Reference Documents ...... 48 Appendix B List of Consultees ...... 49 B.1. Development of the consultee list ...... 49 B.2 Airport user consultees ...... 49 B.3 Off-airport aerodrome and airspace user consultees ...... 49 B.4 NATMAC Consultees ...... 50 B.5 NATMAC military consultees...... 50 Appendix C Airspace Development – Options Considered ...... 51

ACP Sponsor Consultation 7 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 8

Consultation Document

C.1 Introduction ...... 51 C.2 “Do nothing” ...... 51 C.3 Controlled airspace (CTR) ...... 51 C.4 Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) ...... 52 C.5 Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ) ...... 52

ACP Sponsor Consultation 8 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC 9

Consultation Document

List of Abbreviations aal above aerodrome level ACP Airspace Change Proposal ADI Aerodrome Control Service (Instrument) Agl above ground level ALT Altitude amsl above mean sea level ANO Air Navigation Order (2008) ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider APS Approach Control Service (Surveillance) ARP Aerodrome Reference Point ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Service ATZ Aerodrome Traffic Zone CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAP Civil Aviation Publication CCP Continuous Climb Profile CDA Continuous Descent Approach CTA Control Area CTR Control Zone DME Distance Measuring Equipment FUA Flexible Use of Airspace GA General Aviation GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System IAP Instrument Approach Procedure ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILS Instrument Landing System LJAO London Joint Airspace Organisation NATMAC National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee NATS National Air Traffic Services NDB Non-Directional Beacon NDB (L) Non-Directional Beacon (Locator) nm Nautical Mile PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation - Operations PSR Primary Surveillance Radar RNAV Area Navigation RotAR Rules of the Air Regulations (2007) RTF Radio Telephony SARG Safety and Airspace Regulation Group SID Standard Instrument Departure SOC Standard Outbound Clearance SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar STAR Standard Arrival Route TMA Terminal Control Area UK AIP United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication VFR Visual Flight Rules VRP Visual Reference Point

ACP Sponsor Consultation 9 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document Background Information

1. About this consultation

1.1 What is this consultation about?

1.1.1 This consultation is about a proposal to establish a Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ) in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport.

1.1.2 Traffic levels for Hawarden Airport are forecast to increase significantly over the coming years, particular the A300-600 Super Transporters supporting increased Airbus aircraft production. Hawarden Airport believes that the provision of a RMZ is necessary to enhance the safe operating environment for these increasing aircraft movement levels, in the critical stages of flight immediately after departure and prior to landing. This is explained in detail, together with the options that have been considered, in the body of this Consultation Document.

1.2 Why is this consultation being undertaken?

1.2.1 We are required to consult any organisation and users who may be affected directly or indirectly, by the changes to airspace we are proposing. This obligation is placed on us by the CAA, who regulate the airport and the ANSP and will oversee the process we follow.

1.2.2 The purpose of the consultation is to advise all parties who may be affected by the proposed change of the scope and nature of the change. It is also important to establish any impact on those affected and for the sponsor to work with those affected to minimise this impact as far as is reasonably practical. This may be by means of altering the dimensions, procedures or conditions of the proposed airspace change in order to reasonably accommodate the impact on those affected. This will allow us to confirm views and opinions of the proposed change in advance of the formal submission of a proposal to the CAA.

1.2.3 The CAA regulates all UK airspace. Any proposed changes must be submitted by the change sponsor to the CAA for approval. The CAA will consider the proposed change in line with legislation, standards and Government guidance.

1.2.4 The primary responsibility of the CAA is to ensure that ANSPs exercise their responsibilities to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of ATS. This duty, which is imposed on the CAA by the Transport Act 2000, takes priority over all of the CAA’s other duties.

1.2.5 The consultation and subsequent formal ACP will follow the guidance of CAP 725 ‘CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process’.

1.2.6 The formal ACP will capture and outline the responses from this consultation process, together with the technical and procedural changes proposed. The CAA will decide if the

ACP Sponsor Consultation 10 of 55 Issue 1 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

proposed Airspace change should be approved based on the relative merits of the proposal presented.

1.3 Who is being consulted?

1.3.1 Those assessed for consultation are divided into two groups, Aviation consultees and non- aviation consultees. However, as the proposal has been established as only having an impact on aviation stakeholders, non-aviation stakeholders are not being consulted as part of this process.

1.3.2 Aviation consultees include:

• Current Hawarden Airport operators

• Adjacent ATSUs

• Local airspace users

1.3.3 Although this consultation is entirely aviation related, the views of members of the public are valued and they are permitted to contribute to the consultation process if they choose to do so. The preferred manner for this is directly via e-mail.

1.3.4 A full list of consultees is given at Appendix B and has been developed in discussion with the CAA.

1.3.5 As part of the development process, specific aviation related aviation stakeholders have been involved in Focus Groups as recommended in CAP 725. This is further detailed in ‘Airspace Change Proposal’ of this document.

1.3.6 It is crucial that consultees have a voice in respect of this proposed change, as such full and timely engagement is encouraged.

1.4 Conduct of the consultation

1.4.1 This consultation is being conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation as required by the CAA.

1.4.2 Serco, as the ANSP, are acting on behalf of Airbus Operations Ltd (the Airport Operator) as the sponsor for this change.

1.4.3 This document encompasses both the aviation and environmental aspects of the proposed airspace change. As far as possible, this document has been structured to provide a clear explanation of the proposed change in plain language. Non-aviation consultees may be unfamiliar with the aeronautical terminology used, so these aspects are explained in detail where necessary and a full glossary of terms also provided.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 11 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

1.4.4 If any consultee requires clarification of any aspect of this document they should make contact with the Sponsor Representative via email [email protected].

1.4.5 This document will be made available on the Hawarden RMZ website www.hawardenrmz.co.uk. Paper copies can be made available by contacting the Project Representative as detailed in 1.8.

1.5 Consultation period and response method

1.5.1 The consultation begins on 23rd February 2015 and will be open for a period of 12 weeks (in line with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation). The consultation will close on 18th May 2015.

1.5.2 During this period we ask all consultees to consider the proposal detailed in this document and submit a response to us.

1.5.3 We welcome all comments, both positive and negative. If you have no comment to make we would appreciate a response to that effect.

1.5.4 Responses should be made by email or in writing to the contact details at 1.8.

1.6 Results of the consultation

1.6.1 All responses will be reviewed upon receipt.

1.6.2 Should we require any clarification regarding your response we will contact you.

1.6.3 Should any points or issues you raise require further development of our proposal, you may be invited to take part in a focus group. This may be in the form of a meeting or by other suitable means.

1.6.4 All responses will be acknowledged.

1.6.5 At the end of the consultation, Hawarden Airport will prepare a formal ACP together with a Consultation Analysis Feedback Report and submit this to the CAA.

1.6.6 The CAA will follow its regulatory process and consider the proposed airspace change. If they are content with the proposal, the airspace change will be implemented in accordance with international requirements for the promulgation of aeronautical information.

1.7 What this consultation is not about

1.7.1 This consultation is not about any proposed future development of Hawarden Airport or any aspect of Government Policy.

1.7.2 This consultation is not about any proposed future development of a passenger terminal at Hawarden Airport.

1.7.3 This consultation is not about any Noise Abatement Procedures for departing aircraft or Noise Preferential Routes. The proposed airspace changes are compatible with the existing procedures.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 12 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

1.7.4 This consultation is not about changes to any inbound or outbound aircraft routings. The proposed airspace change is compatible with the existing procedures.

1.7.5 This consultation is not a pre-cursor to the establishment of controlled airspace.

1.7.6 This consultation is not about changes to the Northern Terminal Control Area.

1.8 Sponsor representative for the consultation

1.8.1 The Sponsor Representative for the consultation is:

Miss Lindsay Smith, Air Traffic Services Unit, Airbus Operations Ltd, Chester Road, Broughton, CH4 0DR

1.9 CAA oversight

1.9.1 Safety and Airspace Regulation Group of the CAA is responsible for oversight of the conduct of this consultation, ensuring that Hawarden Airport adheres to the processes detailed in CAP 725. Should you have any complaints or concerns about the manner in which the consultation is being run, you should contact:

Airspace Regulator (Consultation) Safety and Airspace Regulation Group CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE

[email protected]

1.9.2 Please be aware that the CAA will not comment on the content of the proposal itself.

1.10 Confidentiality

1.10.1 The CAA requires that all consultation material relating to the ACP, including copies of responses from consultees and others, is included in any formal submission to the CAA.

1.10.2 Hawarden Airport undertakes that, apart from the necessary submission of material to the CAA and essential use for analysis purposes, Hawarden Airport undertakes not to disclose any personal details or content of responses or submissions to any third parties.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 13 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 2. Hawarden Airport

2.1 History

2.1.1 Hawarden Airport was first opened on 4th September 1939 by Vickers Armstrong, for the production of Wellington Bombers and subsequently Avro Lancasters. Operating as RAF Hawarden, the Airfield was also home to No 48 Maintenance Unit, No 3 Ferry Flight Pool of the Air Transport Auxiliary and No 56 Operational Training Unit (responsible for operational training of Spitfire Pilots).

2.1.2 From 1948 the factory was taken over by the de Havilland Company and was used for the development and production of numerous iconic aircraft including Mosquito, Hornet,

2.1.3 Venom, Vampire, Comet and many more.

2.1.4 In the 1960s the factory was taken over by Hawker Siddeley Aviation and production of the HS 125 series of aircraft continued for almost 40 years. The airfield was utilized for testing of completed and developmental aircraft, for company communications and for supporting maintenance of in service aircraft.

2.1.5 British Aerospace took over the operation of the airfield and factory and in the 1970s began an association with Airbus, who eventually took over operation of the factory and airfield.

2.1.6 The site has been the centre of wing production for all Airbus aircraft since 1972. With the exception of A380, all aircraft wings are dispatched from Hawarden Airport by Beluga A300-600 Super Transporter aircraft. Additional factory staff flights to Bristol and Toulouse are currently provided under contract by BMI.

2.1.7 In addition to the production activity the airport also supports numerous other aviation activities, these include:

• Aircraft maintenance and overhaul by Marshall Aviation Services. • Aircraft maintenance and overhaul by Raytheon Systems Limited. • General aviation from based operators. • Fixed based corporate jet and turbo-prop aircraft. • Aerial survey work by APEM Ltd. • Police Air Support. • Flying training by Flintshire Flying School & JD Aviation. • Corporate aircraft handling by Chester Handling Services. • Flying training for RAF Shawbury, RAF Valley and other RAF Units. • Executive Aircraft Charter by Williams Aviation.

2.1.8 In the past, scheduled services have operated to Liverpool, Heathrow and The Isle of Man, although no schedules are currently operated.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 14 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

2.2 Future

2.2.1 Airbus has a full aircraft order book for the foreseeable future. These orders will require a higher rate of wing production and consequently increased delivery flights by the fleet of 5 Beluga aircraft. This will increase to a rate of 10,000 flying hours of the fleet per year, equating to approximately 1200 Beluga movements per year at Hawarden Airport.

2.2.2 There are no plans for scheduled services from Hawarden Airport; however national forecasts and economic trends indicate an increase in non-Airbus flights in the order of 50%.

2.3 Statistics

2.3.1 Diagrams are reproduced below to show both historic and forecast movement figures for Hawarden Airport.

Diagram 1

Total movements 30000

25000

20000

15000 Total movements

10000

5000

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ACP Sponsor Consultation 15 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 2

Beluga movements 1400

1200

1000

800

600 Beluga movements

400

200

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ACP Sponsor Consultation 16 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document Air Traffic Management at Hawarden Airport

3 Overview

3.1.1 Hawarden Airport is situated in uncontrolled airspace, although it is in close proximity to controlled Airspace.

3.1.2 An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) is established around the airport, radius 2.5 nautical miles (nm) from the Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) from the surface to 2000ft above the aerodrome level (aal). Within the ATZ aircraft must be in communication with Hawarden ATC and comply with ATC instructions. Outside the ATZ aircraft are not required to be in communication with Hawarden ATC nor comply with ATC instructions. Aircraft operating at the airport will be in communication with Hawarden ATC and some aircraft operating in this airspace may elect to do so, but there is no dedicated ‘go to’ frequency for aircraft operations in this airspace. As such, the uncontrolled airspace presents an environment that has a variety of known and unknown aircraft which may conflict with aircraft landing at or taking off from Hawarden Airport.

3.1.3 The Liverpool Control Zone (CTR) is located to the North of Hawarden Airport from surface level to 2500ft amsl, where it joins the Manchester CTA. Aircraft operating within the CTR fall under the control of Liverpool ATC. The exception to this is traffic which is controlled by Hawarden ATC, coordinated with Liverpool ATC, operating in accordance with procedures detailed in a Letter of Agreement.

3.1.4 Above Hawarden Airport is a complex network of airways, predominantly from 3000ft amsl upwards, however the levels vary and are depicted below:

Hawarden

Chart reproduced with the permission of NATS (Services) Limited. Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2013. Licence number 100056260.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 17 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

3.1.5 There are several minor aerodromes and airstrips in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport. The interaction of these is detailed at 3.4.6.

3.1.6 Although RAF Shawbury is located 25nm to the Southwest of Hawarden Airport, intense helicopter training takes place in areas as close to 10nm from Hawarden Airport. Hawarden ATC routinely coordinate aircraft operations with Shawbury ATC. Should the RMZ be approved, this arrangement will be supplemented by a Letter of Agreement.

3.2 Hawarden ATC

3.2.1 Serco (as the ANSP) provides Air Traffic Control Services at Hawarden Airport. Aerodrome Control (ADI) is provided to aircraft and vehicles on the ground and to aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Approach Radar Control (APS) is provided to aircraft operating up to 40nm from the airport.

3.2.2 Operational hours of the airport are detailed in the United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication (UKAIP). At present the weekday operational hours are 0630 to 2100 local time with the option for additional Beluga operations until midnight. At weekends and public holidays the operational hours are predominantly 0830 to 1600 local time1. It is likely that the weekend published hours will increase to 1900 local time in 2015, dependent upon operational requirements.

3.2.3 As Hawarden Airport lies outside controlled airspace there are no Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) published. Instead, Standard Outbound Clearances2 (SOCs) are utilised and published in the UKAIP to effect a safe and efficient entry into the airways structure. However, due to our location in uncontrolled airspace the SOCs cannot be de-conflicted from the myriad of non-communicating flights permitted to operate in uncontrolled airspace. In order to maintain safety of all aircraft, Hawarden ATC will avoid conflictions to planned Hawarden departures by delaying an aircraft take off until unknown traffic is no longer an operational issue. This can result in several minutes holding on the runway with its engine(s) running.

3.2.4 Control of inbound airways traffic to Hawarden Airport is transferred to Hawarden ATC within the protection of controlled airspace. However, all of the runway 04 final approach path and several critical areas of the runway 22 final approach are located in uncontrolled airspace, where Hawarden traffic may come into conflict with unknown, non-communicating aircraft. In cases of such conflict, Hawarden ATC will provide an extended routing to their traffic, which results in an increased fuel burn.

1 Airbus operations may take place between 0630 and 2100 local times and other operators may operate up to 1700 (local time) with prior approval from ATC. 2 Standard Outbound Clearances are equivalent to Planned Departure Routes.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 18 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

3.3 Navigation infrastructure

3.3.1 As well as the radar capability, Hawarden Airport currently provides the following navigation and instrument approach facilities:

• A Medium Frequency (MF) Non-Directional Locator Beacon (NDB);

• Category 1 Instrument Landing System (ILS) to runways 22 and 04;

• Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) frequency paired to the ILS and zero ranged to respective thresholds;

• Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA).

3.3.2 The NDB/ILS/DME facilities support both ILS/DME and Localiser LLZ/DME Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the final approach track on each runway.

3.3.3 There are plans to introduce Area Navigation (RNAV), Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) IAPs in the near future.

3.4 Airspace activity in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport

3.4.1 As stated previously, pilots are not required to communicate with, or make their presence known to any ATC unit, when operating in uncontrolled airspace. Providing the pilot operates the flight in accordance with the Rules of the Air as laid down in the Air Navigation Order, the aircraft may be manoeuvred at will. Aircraft operating in this manner avoid collisions via the principle of ‘see and avoid’.

3.4.2 UK Flight Information Services are available, on request, from Hawarden ATC to all aircraft operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, whether using the airport or not. The level of services provided in accordance with UK FIS varies from basic safety information to full navigational and traffic avoidance by means of positive air traffic control instructions.

3.4.3 Whilst some aircraft will elect to ask for a radar service when operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport in uncontrolled airspace, not all will elect to do so. This results in a block of airspace within which the responsible ATSU is not fully aware of the intentions, or in some cases presence of all the aircraft within it. This is manifested as follows:

• Some aircraft will be communicating with Hawarden ATC and receiving a Flight Information Service from the unit;

• Some aircraft may be receiving a Flight Information Service, from another ATSU;

• Some aircraft may be showing on the Hawarden Airport Radar display but not in two-way communication;

• Some aircraft (such as microlights, or gliders) may not be showing on the radar display, whether or not they are in two-way communication.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 19 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

3.4.4 All inbound/outbound Airways traffic operate under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and rely on instrument navigation, as opposed to external visual cues, to determine their route and avoidance of other aircraft. General Aviation (GA) flights in uncontrolled airspace may operate under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or IFR whether or not in communication with any ATSU.

3.4.5 In accordance with CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1, aircraft in receipt of a Deconfliction Service (the majority of airways and flight test aircraft, including the Beluga), a minimum separation of 5nm laterally or 3000ft vertically must be applied against any unknown traffic. If the other aircraft is in communication with Hawarden ATC and the intentions known, separation may be reduced to 3nm laterally and 1000ft vertically (when approved by the CAA).

3.4.6 There are a variety of minor airfields, airstrips, launch and landing sites within the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, which utilise the associated uncontrolled airspace. Notable sites include Poulton, Gresford Flash Strip, Clotton Strip, Bryngwyn Bach, Rheddyn Coch, Llantisilio, Llandegla, Dale Barracks, Chester Racecourse, Arclid, Lleweni Parc, Gypsy Lane, Nantclwyd, Chirk, Welshpool and Sleap.

3.4.7 Due to the prevalence of controlled Airspace in the area, a significant number of GA and military flights transit through the area in which Hawarden Airport operations take place. The funnelling effect of the controlled Airspace is exacerbated further by the terrain, which focuses transit aircraft across the runway 04 approach and runway 22 climb-out.

3.4.8 These factors culminate in Hawarden IFR traffic operating in an area of relatively high air traffic density, a substantial proportion of which is not known to Hawarden ATC.

3.4.9 Hawarden ATC has attempted several publicity campaigns in order to encourage aircraft operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport to communicate with the unit, however, this has had very limited success.

3.5 Airspace Safety

3.5.1 Hawarden ATC has identified several safety concerns associated with the current status quo that could be improved by the adoption of a known traffic environment.

• High velocity aircraft operate at Hawarden Airport which is incompatible with the principle of ‘see and avoid’.

• Heavy aircraft operate at Hawarden Airport which generate wake turbulence3 that are incompatible with the principle of ‘see and avoid’.

• The ‘see and avoid’ principle can be enhanced when all aircraft are operating on a single frequency. This enhances pilots situational awareness.

• The complex arrangement of controlled airspace in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport can result in GA pilots inadvertently entering controlled airspace. These incidents can lead to a reduction in safety levels, both for the GA aircraft and IFR aircraft inside controlled airspace. The lack of a single ATC unit being responsible for provision of UK FIS in this

3 Significant turbulence is generated by aircraft over a weight of 17,000kg, in the form of strong vortices. These can exist for up to 8 miles following the heavier types of aircraft. The vortices can cause handling difficulties or even damage to aircraft and are not visible to the naked eye.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 20 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

area, leads to a dilution of local knowledge and, radar monitoring, by the more distant units providing these services.

3.5.2 In addition to the direct safety concerns, the issue of aircraft having to extend their routing therefore resulting in increased fuel burn should not be overlooked. The avoidance of unknown aircraft can lead to an increased routing in the order of 20nm. Similarly, a ground based delay due to unknown conflicting traffic can be in the order of 10 minutes.

3.5.3 The immediate reaction of a pilot to urgent radar vectoring instructions can detract from the otherwise optimal operation of the aircraft. Routine checklists and procedures can be interrupted and items missed, resulting in a reduction to safety margins.

3.6 Summary

3.6.1 The increase in Beluga flights, both experienced and planned, has and will lead to a greater need to integrate their entry to and exit from controlled airspace, with other flights operating in this airspace.

3.6.2 Whilst the existing airspace arrangements may have been appropriate for the type and level of operations taking place at Hawarden Airport, historically, the nature and level have changed to such a point that the status quo must be reviewed.

3.6.3 Hawarden Airport has no desire to preclude or unnecessarily restrict other airspace users from operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport. The impact to airspace users’ needs to be balanced on both sides, however unless a known traffic environment is adopted in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, IFR traffic operating at Hawarden Airport will be disproportionately disadvantaged by non-communicating traffic. In the worst possible scenario, there is an element of risk of collision between Hawarden traffic and non- communicating small aircraft (i.e. not observed on radar). Whilst this risk is currently acceptably low, the likelihood will necessarily increase as Hawarden Airport movements increase, year on year. This risk cannot be ignored.

3.6.4 With these factors in mind, Hawarden Airport is proposing to submit a case for the adoption of a Radio Mandatory Zone in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport. Full information regarding this proposal is detailed in this document.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 21 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Airspace Change Proposal

4. Introduction

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This section details the airspace change proposed by Hawarden Airport. It covers:

• The overarching principles and other factors which affect the design of the airspace;

• The configuration of the proposed Radio Mandatory Zone;

• The ATS and flight procedures that are to be utilised within the airspace;

• The options that have been considered in reaching the proposed airspace configuration;

• The impact of the proposal on other airspace users and the means of mitigating any adverse impact;

• The environmental impact of the proposed changes.

4.1.2 The design of the RMZ aims to balance the diverse needs of the airspace users, the operational requirements of ATS providers and the environmental impact of aircraft operations. Notwithstanding this, flight safety shall take priority at all times.

4.2 Airspace design parameters

4.2.1 Whilst there are no established design criteria for Radio Mandatory Zones, we have followed relevant guidelines for ACPs:

4.2.2 The volume of the RMZ shall be the minimum necessary for the effective generation of a known traffic environment in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport and its current typical arrival and departure routes:

• The design should be as simple as possible to aid navigation;

• The classification of the Airspace shall be selected to permit safe access to as many airspace users as possible;

• There shall be effective integration of departure and arrival routes associated with the airspace structure and linking to designated runways and published IAPs;

• Sufficient Visual Reference Points (VRPs) should be established to facilitate the effective integration of VFR flights with other flights;

• The Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) concept should be considered at every opportunity to allow maximum integrated usage of airspace by all airspace users.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 22 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

4.2.3 The CAA specifies requirements in respect of controlled airspace, which, whilst not specifically relevant, can be used as guidance:

• The ATM system must be adequate to ensure that prescribed separation can be maintained between aircraft within the airspace structure and safe management of interfaces with other airspace structures;

• If the new airspace structure lies close to another airspace structure or overlaps an associated airspace structure, the need for operating agreements shall be considered;

• Should there be any other aviation activity in the vicinity of the new airspace structure and no suitable operating agreements or ATC procedures can be devised, the Change Sponsor shall act to resolve any conflicting interests.

4.2.4 Additionally, environmental considerations must be taken into account if and where they are identified.

4.3 Airspace design objectives

4.3.1 The Radio Mandatory Zone is designed to meet, as far as is reasonably practical, the following design objectives:

• CAP 725 requirements should be followed and complied with;

• A known traffic environment should be generated within the airspace;

• ATC procedures and facilities must be designed and provided with regard to ATC capacity and workload;

• The airspace should not unduly restrict the operation or routing of current airspace users within the airspace or its vicinity;

The airspace should not require any change to existing flight procedures or traffic routings.

4.3.2 The ANSP maintains an excellent relationship with GA and other airspace users and aims to maintain and build on this relationship.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 23 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 5. Existing Operational Constraints and Concerns/Considerations

5.1 Unknown traffic

5.1.1 “Unknown traffic” is defined as traffic of which the flight details and intentions are unknown to the ATCO.

5.1.2 Sections 3.4 & 3.5 of this document describe the airspace activities which may take place in uncontrolled airspace in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, together with some of the hazards generated by the operation of unknown aircraft in this airspace.

5.1.3 The suite of radar services provided by Hawarden ATC to aircraft operating outside controlled airspace is detailed in CAP 774 UK FIS. The ATSU at Hawarden Airport provides all services (Basic Service, Traffic Service and Deconfliction Service) to aircraft operating to and from Hawarden Airport and to any other aircraft using the airspace, when requested.

5.1.4 The provision of Basic Service to aircraft is not affected by ‘unknown traffic’ as the pilot of the aircraft is responsible for the navigation of his aircraft, terrain avoidance and separation from all other aircraft. However, when an ATCO becomes aware of an aircraft, in receipt of a Basic Service, which appears to be in immediate conflict with another aircraft, the ATCO must pass a warning. This generates a light increase in workload to the ATSU.

5.1.5 The provision of Traffic Service to aircraft is affected by ‘unknown traffic’ as, although the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the navigation of his aircraft, terrain avoidance and separation of all other aircraft, the ATCO must advise any aircraft receiving a Traffic Service of the relative position of any potentially conflicting known and unknown traffic. Due to the unpredictable movements of ‘unknown traffic’, this generates a moderate increase in workload to the ATSU.

5.1.6 The provision of Deconfliction Service to aircraft is affected by ‘unknown traffic’ as, although the pilot remains ultimately responsible for the navigation of his aircraft, terrain avoidance and separation of all other aircraft, the ATCO must aim to provide defined separation from known and unknown traffic. This separation is provided by issuing the aircraft under the Deconfliction Service with heading and levels to fly. This is normally provided in conjunction with navigational guidance from ATC for approach to Hawarden Airport or on departure from it. In the case of known traffic the separation minima is 1000ft vertically or 3NM laterally. For unknown traffic, this safety margin is increased to 3000ft vertically or 5NM laterally. Due to the unpredictable movements of ‘unknown traffic’, this generates a significant increase in workload to the ATSU.

5.1.7 The provision of Traffic Information provided as part of the Traffic Service and separation requirements provided as part of the Deconfliction Service is aimed to avoid collisions and ensure aircraft safety. However, this relies upon all aircraft painting on the radar screen. Due to the small size, low speed and construction materials of some aircraft this is not always the case. As such a risk of collision exists between known aircraft and unknown aircraft not being displayed.

5.1.8 In order to ensure aircraft safety the ATCO will endeavour to provide at least the minimum separation from unknown traffic. When the movement of the unknown traffic is erratic or unpredictable this minima may be increased as dictated by the circumstances. This often results in known traffic being given an extended routing which is not efficient.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 24 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

5.1.9 ‘Unknown traffic’ can generate a high ATCO workload which can lead to a ‘knock-on’ safety impact as the ATCO can be distracted from routine tasks.

5.1.10 The mandatory operation of SSR in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport in the form of a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) was considered as a possible option to addressing some of the safety and efficiency concerns. Whilst the mandatory operation of SSR would provide additional information it does not wholly address these concerns. SSR mode C provides level information but does not specifically convey the intentions of the aircraft. However, this level information must be verified as being accurate by the ATCO before being used, which requires radio communication between the aircraft and the ATCO. Therefore the more onerous separation criteria must be applied against unknown traffic in respect of Deconfliction Service. The carriage of mode C SSR is by no means universal and therefore the establishment of a TMZ would either preclude access to non-equipped aircraft or require substantial investment of non-equipped aircraft owners, to permit entry.

5.1.11 In the current situation traffic may or may not communicate with Hawarden ATC when operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport. In this scenario such aircraft avoid collisions using the ‘see and avoid’ principle. This concept generates two significant issues for Hawarden ATC:

• There are a variety of foreseeable scenarios which can arise where Hawarden IFR traffic may end up in close proximity to ‘unknown traffic’, due to substantial speed differences or meteorological conditions. The disparity of handling characteristics may make the avoidance of collision (via see and avoid) difficult or even impossible. In the larger aircraft types (particularly the Beluga) the risk exists not only for the aircraft but for the wake vortices generated behind the aircraft for up to 8nm. In normal circumstances, Hawarden ATC would aim to avoid the generation of these situations by extending the routing of the Hawarden IFR traffic, but this relies upon the unknown aircraft being displayed on radar.

• Whilst GA aircraft operating under the ‘see and avoid’ principle have no separation requirements to comply with, aircraft operating under a Deconfliction Service have significant separation requirements. As such, whilst a GA aircraft may see & avoid Hawarden Airport traffic by what it considers a reasonable distance; this may not be adequate for the requirements of Deconfliction Service, resulting in the Hawarden Traffic being given an extended routing.

5.1.12 Two-way radio communication with all aircraft within the vicinity of Hawarden Airport would help to generate a known traffic environment. This would allow Hawarden ATC to be aware of the intentions of all aircraft in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, optimise the routing of Hawarden traffic in relation to other airspace users and make more efficient use of the airspace.

5.2 Holding of IFR traffic

5.2.1 Holding of IFR traffic at the Hawarden Airport holding facility (NDB), predominantly takes place at 2500ft amsl, this is coincident with the altitude that unknown traffic often overflies the airport (operating in-between the ATZ and the base of controlled airspace). Holding at the NDB is normally associated with instrument training in accordance with Hawarden Airport’s published instrument approaches and aircraft holding due to emergencies or awaiting weather improvements.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 25 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

5.3 Arrival routing

5.3.1 The majority of Hawarden IFR arrivals can be split into either airways arrivals or the Welsh Military Training Area (WMTA)4 arrivals.

5.3.2 Airways arrivals nominally follow the Liverpool KEGUN Standard Arrival Route (STAR) before being radar vectored for the desired approach for the runway in use. As the STAR to KEGUN (see diagram 3) and initial portion of the radar vectoring occurs within the protection of controlled airspace, only the proportion of the aircraft manoeuvres taking place in uncontrolled airspace would be affected by any of the change to airspace being proposed. These are:

• The uncontrolled airspace exposure of an aircraft on final approach to runway 22, between 3.6NM & 2.4NM from touchdown (i.e.; from leaving the Liverpool CTR until entering the Hawarden ATZ.

• The uncontrolled airspace exposure of an aircraft downwind, base leg and for the entire final approach to runway 04.

5.3.3 These areas of exposure are depicted in diagrams 4 & 5.

Diagram 3

Chart reproduced with the permission of NATS (Services) Limited. Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2013. Licence number 100056260.

4 The Welsh MTA is a portion of uncontrolled airspace located to the West of Hawarden Airport . ATC Services are available to aircraft from LJAO (Swanwick), subject to prior approval.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 26 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 4

ACP Sponsor Consultation 27 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 5

5.3.4 Aircraft arriving from the Welsh MTA, conduct virtually all approach manouevres in uncontrolled airspace. Once within 10nm of Hawarden Airport, they predominantly follow the inbound routings of IFR airways arrivals, hence would be impacted in a similar manner.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 28 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

5.4 Standard outbound clearances

5.4.1 IFR departures from Hawarden Airport joining controlled airspace do so predominantly following SOCs. These clearances have been designed to integrate the departing traffic into the complex adjacent controlled airspace structure as quickly as possible. The clearances are integrated with adjacent ATSUs procedures as far as possible. Hawarden SOCs have been designed to incorporate the standard Hawarden Noise abatement procedure. These are detailed within the UKAIP and equally applicable to all Hawarden traffic whether using a SOC or not.

5.4.2 As stated the SOCs are designed to minimize a departing aircraft exposure within uncontrolled airspace, whilst in the process of entering controlled airspace. The level of exposure varies dependent on aircraft performance, and is depicted in diagram 6 & 7.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 29 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 6

ACP Sponsor Consultation 30 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 7

5.5 Military low level transit routes

5.5.1 Military low level transit routes exist to the south and west of Hawarden Airport. Whilst not depicted on civil aeronautical charts, they are annotated on military charts and used accordingly. A military low level route, does not have defined dimensions but merely identifies ‘flow arrows’ which if broadly followed will deconflict military traffic using the low level route.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 31 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

5.5.2 The military low level transit routes direct traffic to remain outside the Hawarden ATZ and below the runway 04 approach track and runway 22 climb out. Due to the level of traffic using these routes there is no real risk of collision with Hawarden Traffic on approach or climb out. However, unless the traffic is in communication with Hawarden ATC, the primary or SSR radar returns of these aircraft are considered unknown and therefore the increased Deconfliction Service minima would need to be applied (i.e. 3000ft vertical of 5NM lateral).

5.5.3 The majority of traffic using these routes routinely contacts Hawarden ATC and passes pertinent flight details. The issue of possible poor radio coverage in this area has been raised by consultees, but this is not known to be an issue.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 32 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 6. Future Operational Considerations

6.1 Northern Terminal Control Area re-design

6.1.1 A working group is currently examining the options for re-designing the airways, Terminal Control Area (TMA) and CTRs around the Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds area. The focus of the working group is aimed at re-organising the existing airspace structure to incorporate RNAV, CDA and continuous climb profiles (CCP). Some re-design of SIDs and STARs is likely to coincide with this in order to reflect the harmonisation of the transition altitude in 2017.

6.1.2 There are no changes identified within this process which would materially affect the inbound and outbound routes for Hawarden Airport. As such the inbound and outbound routes that are influencing the design of the RMZ will remain unchanged.

6.2 Beluga XL

6.2.1 As part of its long term business planning, Airbus is designing the future aircraft component freighter, dubbed ‘Beluga XL’. The aircraft is currently being designed and is planned to enter service in 2019. Whilst the ‘Beluga XL’ (based on an A330-200) will be larger than the current A300-600ST, there are no foreseen specific handling characteristics which would require the Beluga XL to be handled by ATC in any markedly different manner to the current Beluga. As such the design criteria for the current RMZ proposal should not require any adaptation for operation of the Beluga XL.

6.2.2 It is equally important to note that the need for the RMZ has been identified in respect of both current and future aircraft types operating at Hawarden Airport. This process is not specifically being carried out in order to cater for new aircraft types.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 33 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 7. Airspace Development Process

7.1 Initial airspace development

7.1.1 This section outlines the process taken by Hawarden Airport to date, in developing the airspace configuration.

7.1.2 Prior to developing any airspace configuration, it was established that the current VFR and IFR inbound & outbound typical routings would not be amended. As such any proposed design would be required to provide an appropriate area of known traffic surrounding these routes, particularly the IFR routes.

7.1.3 In order to assess the impact on airspace operators fully, it was necessary to identify current airspace users, both Hawarden based and non-based. This was achieved by analysing historic ATC data and Aviation charts. This provided a list of common sites and aerodromes from which aircraft operated. A list of aviation operators was also obtained from ATC historical data. The lists were then used to establish operators and aerodromes that should be included in early stakeholder engagement and consultation.

7.2 Operational requirements to be met

7.2.1 Hawarden ATC identified several key operational requirements that must be met by the airspace change:

• Generation of a known traffic environment in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport (pertinent to typical IFR inbound and outbound aircraft tracks and within the vicinity of the aerodrome);

• ATC procedures and facilities must be designed and provided with regard to ATC capacity and workload;

• The airspace should not unduly restrict the operation or routing of current airspace users within the airspace or its vicinity;

• The airspace should not require any change to existing Hawarden flight procedures or traffic routings.

7.2.2 Using these operational requirements, configurations of airspace design, together with associated procedures could be developed.

7.2.3 The developed airspace proposal was discussed with the CAA at an ACP framework briefing on 7th January 2015.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 34 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

7.3 Early stakeholder engagement

7.3.1 As sponsors, Hawarden ATC elected to engage early with aviation stakeholders. This allowed the sponsor to identify issues early in the airspace design process.

7.3.2 Engagement was threefold; a website www.hawardenrmz.co.uk was set up with information and a feedback facility. Letters and e-mails were sent to over 75 identified potential stakeholders. Several aviation presentation events were held.5

7.3.3 The early engagement allowed more of a collaborative approach to the airspace design. The early engagement also allowed for two-way discussions to take place, both on-line and face to face (at presentations). This permitted Hawarden ATC to elaborate on the issues and plans and for stakeholders to voice their concerns.

7.3.4 The presentations and feedback identified key stakeholders that would require further development of the proposal in order to, as far as possible address their concerns. This has led to the creation of focus groups.

7.4 Focus groups

7.4.1 Following the early stakeholder engagement, some stakeholders identified issues which required further development of the proposed change. Focus groups have been set up with:

• North Wales Hang-Gliding and Para-Gliding Association;

• Cheshire Flyers; North Wales Gliding Club.

7.4.2 Should further stakeholders identify issues which require further development of the ACP they will be invited to join the current focus groups or additional focus groups will be set up as required.

7.5 Post-focus group airspace reviews

7.5.1 The outcome of the focus groups may require design changes to the ACP or the addition of procedures to the airspace. These will be accommodated as far as is reasonably practical without negating the net gain of the adoption of the RMZ.

7.5.2 As part of the review process, comments from Glider pilots has led to the change of design at the SW edge of the RMZ. Whilst this does remove a level of known traffic environment from that originally proposed, it has been assessed that this can be operationally accommodated to provide a flexible use of airspace. In the absence of unknown traffic Hawarden ATC may elect to vector outside the RMZ at risk but always have the option to vector right hand for runway 04 if there is known or unknown traffic conflicting in the area.

5 A list of the main stakeholders is included at Appendix B.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 35 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 8 Design Proposal for Hawarden Radio Mandatory Zone

8.1 Overview

8.1.1 This section details the airspace configuration being proposed.

8.1.2 Configuration changes to the airspace or procedures proposed as a result of focus group results or stakeholder feedback is detailed.

8.1.3 A diagram of the configuration of the proposed airspace is shown in diagram 8 below.

Diagram 8

Chart reproduced with the permission of NATS (Services) Limited. Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2013. Licence number 100056260.

8.2 Airspace classification

8.2.1 There is no proposed change to the classification of airspace encompassed by the RMZ. The airspace will remain uncontrolled airspace, the requirements and procedures associated with the RMZ will be applied in addition to the regulations regarding uncontrolled airspace.

8.2.2 In the most basic application of an RMZ, no aircraft is permitted unless it has two-way radio communication with the ATSU responsible for the airspace. At the outset of the development process it was identified that a strict application of this requirement would either preclude use of the airspace by a proportion of current users or require them to

ACP Sponsor Consultation 36 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

procure costly fitting of radio equipment (which is impossible for some airspace users). As such discussions with stakeholders have taken place as to suitable alternative means of compliance that are still commensurate with generating a known traffic environment. These procedures are outlined at 8.3.

8.2.3 Within the RMZ the ATSU will provide the normal suite of UK Flight Information Services in accordance with CAP 774.

8.2.4 The RMZ does not require the mandatory carriage of transponders in aircraft.

8.3 Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ)

8.3.1 The proposed Radio Mandatory Zone will be established laterally, within the area bounded by lines between the points:

• 5313.092N 00250.763W • 5308.649N 00250.629W • 5258.773N 00304.753W • 5303.724N 00312.409W • 5308.741N 00312.420W • 5315.418N 00302.865W • 5314.441N 00301.721W

The vertical dimensions will be from surface level to the base of N864 airway or the Manchester CTA (whichever is the lowest) such that the upper limit of the RMZ will be contiguous with controlled airspace. The RMZ will be established during the published operational hours of Hawarden Airport, in accordance with the UKAIP.

8.3.2 This design has been developed in order to provide a known environment within the critical area of the typical inbound and outbound aircraft tracks to/from Hawarden Airport specifically around the published instrument approach procedures.

8.3.3 The initial design of the RMZ is depicted in diagram 9 below and was distributed via the consultation website.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 37 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Diagram 9

Chart reproduced with the permission of NATS (Services) Limited. Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2013. Licence number 100056260.

8.3.4 Following feedback from stakeholders in respect of:

• Airstrips affected.

• VFR traffic entering and departing the Liverpool CTR.

• The overall Area affected.

The dimensions of the RMZ were reduced in order to negate some of these issues.

8.4 Alternative means of compliance

8.4.1 Some concerns have been expressed as to the operation of ‘Poulton Disused Airfield’ and ‘Gresford Flash Airstrip’. Whilst it is accepted that low level two-way radio communication between Hawarden ATC and traffic using these sites it not always possible, it is proposed that Letters of Agreement will be developed that would permit operation.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 38 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

8.4.2 Significant responses have been received from airspace users not normally equipped with a radio. These are comprised of:

• Microlights and light sport aircraft;

• Gliders;

• Hang gliders and para gliders.

8.4.3 In general it is proposed that non-radio aircraft would be permitted to operate within the RMZ provided that their planned operational details were passed with appropriate estimates for entry/exit points and/or VRPs, by telephone beforehand. Further investigation of this proposal will be examined with the goal of extending the means of notification and acknowledgement to include a SMS text facility.

8.4.4 The operation of hang gliders and para-gliders (and to a certain extent gliders), is subject to the ambient weather conditions and therefore difficult to be precise at the planning stage. However, engagement with these stakeholders has identified typical launch sites and areas of operation, which when compared to their very low frequency, present a relatively low impact to Hawarden operations. As such it will be the intention to compose Letters of Agreement with associated procedures.

8.4.5 A common thread that has been suggested by radio equipped aircraft regularly using the airspace was the suggestion of a Frequency Monitoring Code6. This would be a dedicated Transponder code that would be published with associated procedures. In effect, an aircraft transiting the RMZ, maintaining a listening watch on the published frequency and displaying this code would be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the RMZ. Should Hawarden ATC require the details and intentions of the aircraft a specific request could be made. This would mean that should a transit aircraft, in compliance with this procedure, not affect Hawarden Traffic, it could operate in the airspace without the need for unnecessary two-way radio communication.

6 Also known as a Listening Squawk.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 39 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 9 Operation of the Proposed RMZ

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 Whilst the need for the RMZ has been identified as providing immediate benefits to aircraft, it is recognised, that following consultation an appropriate period of promulgation of the airspace and associated procedures needs to be undertaken both nationally and locally.

9.1.2 Implementation and adoption of the RMZ are subject to the UKAIP AIRAC update cycle. Additionally all locally generated letters of agreements for airspace users and airstrip operators will need to be agreed and produced.

9.1.3 Finally, it is critical that any support facilities in terms of additional staffing and/or radio equipment/frequencies, to facilitate the RMZ, are available for use.

9.1.4 With due regard to these factors, the proposed date of adoption of the RMZ is 17th September 2015.

9.2 Overview

9.2.1 Other than the completion of the activities referred to in 9.1 above, there are no adaptations required by aircraft operators in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the RMZ.

9.3 Integration of VFR and other airspace activity

9.3.1 VFR access to the RMZ will not be restricted. It is understood that, regardless of the ‘alternative means of compliance’ available to VFR operators, some will not elect to utilise these procedures and choose to navigate around the RMZ. this is envisaged to be applicable only to a small number of users of aircraft. Aircraft that would fall into this category will inevitably be of the small ‘light sport aircraft’, ‘microlight’ or glider types. As such, in addition to the incidence of circumnavigating the RMZ being low, the noise impact and the CO2 emissions of these types is also low or non-existent.

9.3.2 During the focus group activity, a concern was raised in regard to frequency saturation. This occurs when a large number of aircraft are on the Hawarden ATC frequency such that there is inadequate time for radio exchanges to be made on the frequency. The studies and forecasts on traffic suggest that due to the level of traffic generating such an event, this will rarely be an issue. Notwithstanding this, Hawarden ATC will be equipping the ATSU with an additional frequency that can be used to split the loading of radio communications.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 40 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 10 Impact on Airspace Users

10.1 A300-600 Super Transporter operations

10.1.1 There is no perceived adverse impact on A300-600 ST operations. The known traffic environment should reduce the chance of aircraft being given extended routings or delayed departures generated by avoiding unknown aircraft.

10.2 Airline operators

10.2.1 British Midland Regional is the only airline currently operating at Hawarden Airport.

10.2.2 There is no perceived adverse impact on airline operations. The known traffic environment should reduce the chance of aircraft being given extended routings or delayed departures generated by avoiding unknown aircraft.

10.3 Other Hawarden Airport operators

10.3.1 As Hawarden Airport does not permit non-radio aircraft, all aircraft will be in communication with Hawarden ATC. There is therefore no perceived adverse impact to their operations.

10.3.2 A significant proportion of other Hawarden operators require the provision of a Traffic, or a Deconfliction Service. For these operators there is no perceived adverse impact.

10.4 Gresford Flash & Poulton Disused Airfield

10.4.1 Operators using the airstrips at Poulton and Gresford Flash will need to comply with the requirements of the RMZ (or an alternative means of compliance). Generally, radio equipped aircraft will be able to comply with the requirements of the RMZ. For landing traffic, this is not an issue. For departing traffic, a letter of agreement will be developed.

10.4.2 Non-radio aircraft using these sites will need to fulfil the criteria of an alternative means of compliance (telephone or SMS text).

10.5 North Wales Hang-Gliding and Para-Gliding Asosciation (NWHPA) sites

10.5.1 The North Wales Hang-Gliding and Para-Gliding Association has identified two sites adjacent to the proposed RMZ. In many circumstances, operations from these sites is confined to the local area and would not enter the RMZ. At times of westerly winds longer distance flights may take place from these sites and aircraft may enter the RMZ. The frequency of these flights has been shown to be very low (less than 15 per year). Additionally, the wind conditions usually result in runway 22 operations at Hawarden Airport, which means that the hang-gliding and para-gliding activities are predominantly de- conflicted from Hawarden Traffic.

10.5.2 It is proposed that local flying areas associated with the launch sites are defined and activated by the NWHPA as required. This will be documented in a letter of agreement.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 41 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

10.6 Gliders

10.6.1 The only significant glider site is Llantisilio which is located adjacent to the RMZ. A current Letter of Agreement is in force with Llantisilio which will remain in place on establishment of the RMZ.

10.6.2 The majority of gliding activity takes place along and to the west of the Clwydian Range. In order to avoid impacting on this, the original design of the RMZ was changed specifically to address this; As a result, gliding activity would take place outside the RMZ. A general desire for gliders to operate along the eastern slopes of the Clwydian Range has been expressed. Unfortunately non-radio operations of this nature cannot be accommodated without negating the operational requirements of the RMZ.

10.6.3 Some negative comments have been received from the British Gliding Association (BGA) in respect of limiting their freedom of operation. At this stage of the consultation process, these comments are non-specific and it is not clear what areas of typical operation may be affected by the RMZ, nor is the quantity or frequency of this traffic clear.

10.7 Miscellaneous airspace activity

10.7.1 The area to the South of Hawarden Airport, over the Cheshire Plain, is widely used by GA aircraft from Liverpool, Sleap and others for general handling exercises. These aircraft would be required to comply with the requirements of the RMZ. At present a proportion of this traffic currently communicates with Hawarden ATC whilst operational in this area with the remaining proportion either communicating with another unit or operating autonomously. As these airspace users are almost exclusively utilising radio equipped aircraft, there would be no adverse impact on them. The additional awareness and availability of pertinent FIS to these operators would be a significant safety enhancement over the current situation.

10.7.2 A minor impact was identified in respect of establishing communication with the various ATSUs. This is of particular relevance to GA traffic operating from Liverpool Airport. At present, a proportion of this traffic continues to receive an ATC service from Liverpool ATC when operating in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport. This reduces cockpit workload by removing the need to change frequency when leaving the Liverpool CTR and before re- entering it. This workload is seen as being light, commensurate with normal aviation practice, and would be outweighed by the safety gains of pertinent ATS available from a single ATCU responsible for the airspace in question. The concerns regarding a late transfer of communication to Liverpool ATC prior to CTR re-entry are again not seen to be significant. In virtually all cases, an early transfer of communication will be made. This is backed up with a long standing Letter of Agreement with Liverpool ATC, which is routinely reviewed.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 42 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

10.8 Visual Reference Points (VRPs)

10.8.1 Prior to this ACP being considered, procedures for the integration of VFR and IFR traffic were enhanced by the successful establishment of VRPs at Poulton Disused Aerodrome, Flint Bridge, Beeston Castle, Mold Town, Padeswood Cement Factory and Wrexham Industrial Estate. The location of these VRPs was selected in relation to typical routes followed by VFR aircraft, both transiting the Hawarden area and operating at the airport. The location of the VRPs are within suitable proximity of significant portions of the proposed RMZ to aid with the navigation and radio messages associated with the RMZ.

10.8.2 No new VRPs are being proposed in support of this ACP; however, VRPs are reviewed on an annual basis taking into account routings by transiting aircraft and discussions with local operators.

10.9 Choke points

10.9.1 No choke points have been identified; however, should a significant proportion of aircraft elect to circumnavigate the RMZ, a minor increase of traffic may be generated at the South Western boundary of the RMZ.

10.9.2 The procedures, including the alternative means of compliance, provide reasonable access to the RMZ airspace. As such, there should be no operational reasons that would require pilots to elect to circumnavigate the RMZ (merely being a matter of choice).

10.9.3 The likely types of aircraft electing to circumnavigate the RMZ are of the light sports aircraft, microlight and glider types. These aircraft will be operating VFR, be within a similar speed and handling envelope to each other and therefore have the ability to safely apply the ‘see and avoid’ principle.

10.9.4 In terms of environmental impact, the small types of aircraft electing to circumnavigate the RMZ already routinely operate in these areas and have a low or zero noise signature and similarly low CO2 emissions.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 43 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 11 Environmental Considerations

11.1 Introduction

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

11.1.2 The proposal for the RMZ has been designed to operate with no change to the existing aircraft routings or noise abatement procedures.

11.1.3 The known traffic environment generated by the RMZ will facilitate better ATC planning for larger (high fuel burn) aircraft, such that arrival and departure routings can be optimised for efficiency. This optimization will lead to both a reduced noise exposure and reduced aircraft engine emissions. This can be quantified to some degree for a Beluga aircraft, based on fuel burn; for every additional mile flown an additional 18kg of fuel is used (equating to approximately 31 litres).

11.1.4 As such there will be no negative environmental impact but a positive change is envisaged by reductions in unnecessary fuel burn.

11.2 In the vicinity of Hawarden Airport

11.2.1 There is no change to the noise abatement procedures or circuit procedures resulting from this ACP.

11.3 Further away from Hawarden Airport

11.3.1 Other than the possible choke point identified at 10.9, there will be no impact on operators or the environment further away from Hawarden Airport.

11.4 Arriving traffic

11.4.1 There is no change to the standard arrival routings of IFR aircraft; however, the known traffic environment generated by the RMZ will allow greater use of these standard arrival routings. This will in turn reduce noise exposure and aircraft engine emissions.

11.4.2 Arriving VFR traffic will continue to operate in the same manner and use the same routings as at present.

11.5 Distribution of GA activity

11.5.1 The procedures proposed to be implemented with the RMZ will allow for continued use of the airspace in the same manner as at present. As such there should be no change to the distribution of GA activity. Any changes to the GA distribution would be solely as a result of pilots electing to change their routings, which is beyond the control of Hawarden Airport.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 44 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

11.6 Climate change

11.6.1 As the proposed airspace cannot absolutely guarantee consistency of optimised routings for IFR traffic, it will increase the adherence to these. Accordingly no specific quantifiable statements can be made in relation to addressing climate change, it can be seen that the known traffic environment will, overall lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions.

11.7 Visual impact and tranquility

11.7.1 No negative visual impact or impact on tranquillity has been identified. The retention of existing procedures and preferred inbound and outbound routes will insure that there is no additional visual impact or impact on tranquillity. It is envisaged that reduction of deviations to optimal aircraft inbound and outbound routings will go some way towards reducing visual impact and increasing tranquillity, although this is impossible to quantify.

11.8 Air quality

11.8.1 Technical guidance from the CAA does not require Hawarden Airport to make an assessment of air quality as neither the airport nor the surrounding airspace lie within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

ACP Sponsor Consultation 45 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 12 Summary

12.1 Hawarden Airport is located in uncontrolled airspace where aircraft operations in uncontrolled airspace lead to conflicts between aircraft, which is likely to become more frequent with known and forecast traffic increases at Hawarden Airport. In particular, it is a concern that the ‘see & avoid principle’ often applied to operations in uncontrolled airspace is unrealistic given the diverse speeds and size of aircraft utilising Hawarden Airport and the surrounding airspace. Resolution of these conflicts increases the workload of Air Traffic Control (ATC) and regularly results in the extended routing of flights, at the expense of efficient and effective use of airspace.

12.2 The Air Traffic Services Unit (ATSU) at Hawarden Airport currently provides services to aircraft in controlled airspace but predominantly in uncontrolled airspace. ATS are provided to all aircraft, both those operating at Hawarden Airport and those transiting the area, in accordance with UK FIS. In order to comply with its responsibilities of Safety Management of the ATS and ensure flight safety within the airspace in the vicinity of Hawarden Airport, Serco (on behalf of Airbus Operations Ltd) propose to submit a case to the CAA to establish a Radio Mandatory Zone.

12.3 The development of the proposed Airspace change has and will continue to be carried out in a fair and balanced manner with respect to all affected individuals and organisations.

12.4 Hawarden Airport believes that there are no quantifiable adverse environmental impacts generated as a result of the proposed change. Conversely, the changes will increase the adherence to aircraft optimal routing, resulting in lower fuel usage.

12.5 Hawarden Airport believes that the proposed changes will enhance the safety of all aircraft operating within the proposed RMZ, particularly within the critical stages of flight, prior to landing and immediately after take-off.

12.6 This consultation will run from Monday 23rd February 2015 to Monday 18th May 2015

ACP Sponsor Consultation 46 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document 13 Next Steps

13.1 This consultation is being conducted in accordance with CAP 725 and will enable Hawarden Airport to obtain or confirm the views of stakeholders regarding the proposed changes, before the formal submission of a proposal to the CAA. This process also allows the CAA to fulfil its obligation under the Transport Act 2000 and Ministerial Directions.

13.2 The consultation will end on 18th May 2015.

13.3 All responses to this consultation will be acknowledged. We may contact respondents for further clarification on any points as may be required.

13.4 Where necessary, more in depth discussion may be held with particular consultees in order to address specific concerns regarding the change and reach an agreement. As far as is reasonably practical, Hawarden Airport will endeavor to amend the proposed airspace change in line with stakeholder requirements on the provision it does not negate the objectives of the change.

13.5 All responses will be collated and analysed. Common themes will be identified and responses developed. Where responses have resulted in a change to the initial proposal or the addition of a condition or procedure this will be identified. All of the data will be posted on the Hawarden RMZ website.

13.6 Discussions, comments and reviews received or taking place after the consultation will be documented and included in the formal submission to the CAA.

13.7 On completion of the consultation and post-consultation process a formal ACP will be prepared and submitted to the CAA (in accordance with CAP 725). This activity is expected to take place in May 2015.

13.8 In accordance with its regulatory process the CAA will review the proposal before making a regulatory decision, which will be published by the Director of Safety and Airspace Regulation. This review may take up to 16 weeks.

13.9 Subject to Regulatory Approval of the ACP, the CAA in conjunction with Hawarden Airport will promulgate the relevant changes in the UK AIP. This will be subject to the standard AIRAC cycle and will take around 17 weeks.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 47 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document Appendix A Reference Documents

Abbreviation Full document title CAP 393 The Air Navigation Order 2009 CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 CAP 670 Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements CAP 724 The Airspace Charter CAP 725 CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process EC Regulation Common Requirements for the Provision of Air Navigation 2096/2005 Services. CAP 774 UK Flight Information Services CAP 785 Approval Requirements for Instrument Flight Procedures for Use in UK Airspace ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services ICAO Doc 4444 Procedures for Air Navigation – Air Traffic Management ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS- Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations OPS) Vol I: Flight Procedures Vol II: Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures ICAO Doc 9163 Performance-Based Navigation Manual UK AIP (CAP 393) United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication

ACP Sponsor Consultation 48 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document Appendix B List of Consultees

B.1 Development of the consultee list

B.1.1 This section is included so that consultees understand why they have been included on the consultaion list. As it has been established that this consultation has no impact in non- aviation interests, non-aviation interests have not been identified in the following lists.

B.2 Airport user consultees

British Midland Regional Flintshire Flying School Marshall Aerospace National Police Air Service Airbus Helicopters Hawarden Air Services Chester Handling Services Aviation Park Group Raytheon Systems Ltd Airbus Transport International Airbus PR Office APEM Limited JD Aviation Grosvenor North Wales Military Aviation Services (NWMAS) Exec Jet Charter (Williams) Signum

B.3 Off-airport aerodrome and airspace user consultees

NWHPGA Liverpool Airport ATC PC Wal Sector RAF Valley RAF Shawbury North Wales Gliding Club Ashcroft Farm Airstrip Poulton Disused Airfield Bryngwynbach Airstrip Rhedyn Coch Airstrip North West Air Ambulance Helicopter and Aviation Services Skydive Tilstock Manchester Airport ATC Cheshire Microlights Denbigh Gliding Club Mid Wales Airport Shropshire Aero Club Manchester City Airport Lancashire Aero Club Mersey Flight Liverpool Flying School

ACP Sponsor Consultation 49 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

Lomac Aviators Raven Air

B.4 NATMAC Consultees

AOA Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) BAE Systems British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) British Balloon & Airstrip Club (BBAC) British Gliding Association (BGA) British Helicopter Association (BHA) British Model Flying Association (BMFA) European UAV Systems Centre Ltd Guild of Air Pilots & Air Navigators (GAPAN) Helicopter Club of Great Britain (HCGB) National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Aviation Environment Federation British Air Transport Association (BATA) British Airways British Business & General Aviation Association (BBGA) British Hand-Gliding & Para-Gliding Association (BHPA) British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA) British Parachuting Association (BPA) General Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) Light Aircraft Association (LAA) PPL/IR Europe

B.5 NATMAC military consultees

DAATM HQ Navy Cmd MAA

ACP Sponsor Consultation 50 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document Appendix C Airspace Development – Options Considered

C.1 Introduction

C.1.1 CAP 725 requires that in developing proposals to change airspace, the change sponsors should consider a range of options, including the ‘Do Nothing’ option.

C.1.2 This appendix outlines the options considered by Hawarden Airport in order to arrive at the configuration and procedures being proposed.

C.1.3 It is important to note that the information contained within this appendix is provided purely to illustrate the options considered. Other than the final design of the RMZ, the options outlined in this appendix are not being considered for implementation and can be considered as having being rejected as unsuitable.

C.2 “Do nothing”

C.2.1 If the extant situation were allowed to continue, the forecast increased traffic operating at Hawarden Airport would continue to experience conflictions with unknown aircraft.

C.2.2 Over the past two years Hawarden Airport has attempted to increase awareness of the airport’s activity and encourage aircraft using the surrounding airspace to make two-way communication with Hawarden ATC. Unfortunately, there has been no marked increase in aircraft contacting Hawarden ATC and unknown aircraft still continue to operate in close proximity to Hawarden Airport.

C.2.3 The diversity of aircraft operating at Hawarden Airport and within its vicinity (in respect of differential speeds and handling characteristics) is not appropriate to application of the ‘see and avoid’ principle.

C.2.4 With the forecast increase in Hawarden Airport traffic about to take place a more pro-active stance needs to be taken in respect of operational efficiency and to further reduce any safety hazards that may be present. As such, ‘Do Nothing’ is not an option.

C.3 Controlled airspace (CTR)

C.3.1 The establishment of controlled airspace would certainly provide the known traffic and environment desired, ensure aircraft safety and increase operational efficiency of aircraft using Hawarden Airport. However, it is recognised that conventionally CTRs are large in area and would expand an already substantial block of controlled airspace surrounding Hawarden Airport towards an area of rising terrain. This would have a significant impact on a large proportion of current airspace users.

C.3.2 The requirement to comply with an ATC clearance within controlled airspace would preclude use by some airspace users due to their reactive mode of flight. Meteorological minima applicable within such airspace would also impose access restrictions to airspace users in certain conditions.

C 3.3 In simple terms the adoption of controlled airspace would be more than is required to address the operational issues identified and is therefore unacceptable as a solution.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 51 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC

Consultation Document

C.4 Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ)

C.4.1 The option to establish a TMZ was considered. Within this area, all airspace users would be required to be equipped with and operate a (mode C) transponder.

C.4.2 This would provide Hawarden ATC with a positive radar contact7 and level information. Unfortunately without the benefit of communicating with an aircraft, establishing its intentions and verifying the SSR data, the radar return would still be considered ‘unknown’ and therefore the relevant increased deconfliction minima would be applicable.

C.4.3 As a result of this, The TMZ option offers little benefit over the current situation and is therefore unacceptable as a solution.

C.5 Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ)

C.5.1 The option to establish a RMZ was considered and explored further and was seen to bring significant greater benefits. The RMZ would require all aircraft to make and maintain two- way radio contact with Hawarden ATC and advise ATC with pertinent flight details. This would generate a known traffic environment.

C.5.2 An RMZ would not permit Hawarden ATC to deviate the route of all traffic to aid deconfliction, it would however, generate the known traffic environment within which the lower deconfliction minima can be applied (in accordance with UK FIS) and Hawarden traffic could be routed with the confidence that routine unexpected manoeuvres of aircraft do not need to be taken into account.

C.5.3 It was recognised that the establishment may generate some operational restrictions to non-radio equipped aircraft which currently utilise the airspace. To this end, it will be necessary to permit some ‘alternative means of compliance’ to be developed which would allow operators to access the airspace, yet still provide Hawarden ATC with a known traffic environment.

C.5.4 It was considered that the option of an RMZ provided the most balanced solution with due regard to Hawarden Airport operators and other airspace users.

7 SSR returns on radar are not affected by aircraft size or construction material so the symbol on the radar display is the same for a glider or a Beluga.

ACP Sponsor Consultation 52 of 52 Issue 2 SERCO PUBLIC