Framework Briefing Notes 7 th January 2015 CAA House Kingsway In attendance; (EGNR ATC) (CAA) made a presentation regarding the propose RMZ. advised us of the ‘red tape challenge’, clarifying that an RMZ may be a suitable solution to Hawarden’s issues as it is less restrictive to airspace users. However, it was noted that RMZs had only previously been used for Radar limitations during the Wimax upgrade programmes or as a stop gap, prior to implantation of class D airspace. clarified that the adoption of an RMZ would not lead to any changes in the routings of VFR and IFR aircraft from those available and used at present. advised that whilst the concept of a RMZ did not necessarily fall wholly within the remit of the CAP 744 Airspace Change Process, the document should be used as guidance material. The scope of consultation and the associated reports should be proportionate to the impact. confirmed the stages and associated timeframes of the Airspace Change Process that would need to be followed. He also clarified the CAA decision process and promulgation of changes should they be approved. clarified the pre-consultation stakeholder engagement that had taken place and outlined the existence and content of the web site. discussed the airspace operators that would be directly affected and also clarified the typical scope of consultees in respect of airspace users. It was agreed that due to there being no changes in disposition of aircraft routes, consultation with parish councils and planning authorities would not be mandated. confirmed that Airbus communications would guide the scope of the consultation in respect of parish councils and planning authorities. re-capped on the CAP744 process and next steps. The meeting was concluded.
HAWARDEN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL Proposed Radio Mandatory Zone (RMZ) Framework Briefing 7 th January 2015 In Partnership 1 with Serco Internal
Contents Introductions What would the effects • • be to pilots? Why are we applying for • an airspace change? FAQs • Possible solutions. Next Step • • Questions Why an RMZ? • • What have we done so • far? What are we proposing? • In Partnership 2 with Serco Internal
Introductions Serco Provider of Air Traffic Control Services at Hawarden Airport for Airbus UK. at Hawarden Airport since 2006. RMZ Project Team Operational ATCOs & ATSAs; In Partnership 3 with Serco Internal
Why are we applying for an Airspace Change? SAFETY & EFFICIENCY Hawarden Airport is situated within Class G Airspace where two • way communication with Air Traffic Control is not mandatory providing aircraft remain outside of the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ). The whole track of an IFR approach to Runway 04 and a • significant part of an IFR approach to Runway 22, aircraft operate within Class G Airspace. For both runways, aircraft departures are flown in Class G • Airspace before entering Class A (Controlled Airspace). In Partnership 4 with Serco Internal
Why are we applying for an Airspace Change? Large and fast aircraft mixed with GA traffic. • Forecast national air traffic increases & known A3ST increased • activity. Poor radar returns from small aircraft. • Variety of ATS agencies in area (Hawarden, Liverpool, • Shawbury, London FIS). If we know a/c intentions in advance, we will be able to vector our traffic to ensure the safety of all, whilst minimising the disruption to all flights. In Partnership 5 with Serco Internal
Why are we applying for an Airspace Change? Airspace Infringements Complex controlled airspace in the vicinity of Hawarden has a history of airspace infringements. Hawarden can provide navigational assistance to help avoid these infringements. Airspace infringements account for 20% of reportable incidents at Hawarden. Of the 22 reported Airspace infringements, 4 were Hawarden ATZ infringements, 8 were N864 infringements, 9 accounted for infringements of the Manchester TMA/CTA (one of these also infringed N864) and 2 were Liverpool CTA infringements. Of the 22 reported Airspace infringements, only 4 were being provided with a service from Hawarden ATC. (Review of Hawarden incidents 2013) 6 Serco Internal
Possible solutions CTR Class D Airspace Too restrictive to operators. More than is needed. TMZ This would provide most of the information we need but not all & would be an unreasonable demand on local airspace users. RMZ This would provide all of the information Hawarden needs & would aid aircrew awareness, providing reasonable alternative means of compliance can be incorporated. 7 Serco Internal
Why an RMZ? An RMZ is a piece of airspace of defined • dimensions wherein the carriage and operation of radio equipment is mandatory. All flights operating in the airspace designated as • an RMZ, shall establish two way communication before entering the RMZ and maintain continuous voice communications with ATC unless in compliance with an alternative procedure. In Partnership 8 with Serco Internal
What must a pilot do? Before entering the RMZ, an initial call containing: call sign & type of aircraft. • position, level, the intentions of the flight. • Maintain a listening watch. • In Partnership 9 with Serco Internal
What are we proposing? RMZ Designs – design not finalised. • Revised Letter of Agreement with Liverpool Air Traffic Control (subject to • impact). Revised Letter of Agreement with Llantisilio Gliding Site. • Letters with others within the RMZ. • Alternative means of compliance (excerpt from SN2014/007 – Southend RMZ • …. In essence, before entry to the RMZ, all aircraft are to establish two-way communication with Southend ATC, although aircraft not fitted with radios can still operate in the RMZ provided the pilot is able to co-ordinate arrangements with Southend ATC (+44 1702 538420) prior to departure ) Possible use of SSR ‘listening squawk’. • In Partnership 10 with Serco Internal
RMZ Design 1 - Withdrawn In Partnership 11 with Serco Internal
RMZ Design 2 - Current In Partnership 12 with Serco Internal
Effects on operators Comply with communication obligations • Increased awareness provided to aircraft by common frequency. • Aircraft may be asked if they can accept modified routing or level, • if not agreeable, Hawarden will work around. Non-radio aircraft can be given an exemption provided the flight • details above are passed by phone. RTF failures (inbound) may continue to land at Hawarden. • RTF failures (transit) having passed details may continue. • In Partnership 13 with Serco Internal
What have we done so far? Assessed options for Airspace classifications. • Discussions with Local ATSUs & some local airspace • users at open evening. Letter to local flyers, and organizations. • Website www.hawardenrmz.co.uk. • Feedback from website. • RMZ design being prepared for consultation. • In Partnership 14 with Serco Internal
FAQs Frequently Asked Questions from the website feedback. In Partnership 15 with Serco Internal
FAQs 1) Will Hawarden Radar be able to cope with the increased radio traffic? 2) Why does Hawarden need such a large RMZ? 3) Can we see figures to justify the need for a RMZ? In Partnership 16 with Serco Internal
Hawarden Movement Data Total movements 30000 25000 20000 15000 Total movements 10000 5000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 17 Serco Internal
Beluga Movements Beluga movements 700 600 500 400 Beluga movements 300 200 100 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 18 Serco Internal
ATC Service Breakdown (10nm of Hawarden) Aircraft None percentages None (SSR) (Primary) 13% 9% London FIS Hawarden 1% 27% Shawbury 3% Liverpool 47% 19 Serco Internal
The Next Step Launch Airspace Change Proposal consultation. • Complete consultation process, evaluate and issue • post consultation reports. Compile Airspace Change Proposal. • If accepted, we are proposing a go-live date in late • 2015 tbc (subject to SARG approval). In Partnership 20 with Serco Internal
Questions ? In Partnership 21 with Serco Internal
Recommend
More recommend
