Response 477335930

Back to Response listing

About you

A. What is your name?

Name (Required)
Jane Dawes

C. Where do you live?

Please select one item
(Required)
East of England
East Midlands
West Midlands
North East
North West
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Ticked South East
South West
Wales
Yorkshire and the Humber

D. Are you answering this consultation as:

Please select one item
(Required)
Resident affected by aviation
Airline passenger
Member of the General Aviation community
Ticked Member of the commercial aviation industry
Military
Government and / or other regulators
Representative or national organisation or institute
Elected political representative

E. Are you affiliated with any organisation?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Affiliation
Heathrow Airport Limited
Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

F. Is there anything else that you would like us to know about you regarding this consultation?

Please enter any further details
Head of Airspace Strategy

G. Do you consent for your response to be published?

Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Yes, with personal identifying information (name, location, respondent category, organisation, additional information - please note your email address will NOT be published if you choose this option)
Yes, anonymised
No

General observations

1. Considering the draft guidance overall, to what extent does it meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How would you improve?
Recommended areas for consideration and improvement: HAL request that more detailed guidance is provided to clarify several specific statements in the current CAP1520 draft, specifically: • Paragraph 28 – How will the CAA publish any clarifications and appropriately disseminate them? • Paragraph 28 – The CAA proposes to allocate a Project Manager to clarify specific issues related to each ACP; it is also described that, “Some issues will be local in nature, or specific to a particular change,” although there seems to be little precedent that many airspace change issues are only specific to certain localities. How will aircraft change sponsors seek advice from the Regulator about these locally specific circumstances and do they have the potential to change the way the CAP1520 process is applied? • Paragraph 37 – Tier or ‘Type’ 2 airspace changes do not only apply to ANsPs. The CAP1520 draft should be updated to reflect feedback from stakeholders on the approach to planned and permanent changes to vectoring practices. If the approach to Tier or Type 2 changes remains unclear in the short term (while the Government reflects on the responses to the UK Airspace Policy consultation) HAL recommends that this area of the process is removed and reintroduced when the requirements are clearer. • Page 13 – There does not seem to be a section for Tier 1 or Type 1 airspace changes that are proposed for safety reasons. Is it envisaged that changes implemented for safety reasons are covered under ‘exceptional circumstances’? HAL recommends that the CAA clarify what process should be followed when airspace changes need to be implemented for safety reasons. • Page 16 – HAL consider that the CAP1520 draft should set out the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements associated with airspace change proposals that CAA must comply with in greater detail. A statement is required that explains that stakeholders will not be able to access commercially sensitive material via the online portal or other means of correspondence between the sponsor and regulator. Are there any real world examples that demonstrate how FOIA requirements would be managed in practice and the treatment of safety critical information? • Page 17 – Mindful of the timelines proposed in the CAP1520 draft, will ICCAN’s engagement be subject to defined response times? What flexibility on will be available to sponsors where ICCAN responses must be considered at stage 3D and 4 and lead to the requirement for considerable rework . • Page 19 – It will be beholden upon the CAA to ensure that appropriate staff are available for these gateway meetings – how will they plan to resource these and where will they be conducted? Are sponsors expected to attend these meetings? • Page 19 – On transparency – the CAP1520 drafts states that “Those potentially affected by a change in airspace design should feel confident that their voice has a formal place in the process, if trust is not to be eroded.” We believe that all stakeholder material should also be subject to appropriate scrutiny by the CAA and held on the online portal. Uninformed or incorrect material that can be circulated by stakeholders can cloud or bias issues, creating uncertainty and further eroding trust for all. Such material may also distract or deter other stakeholders from making credible responses for sponsors to consider. • Page 22 – HAL requests further clarification on the Government’s Directions to the CAA for MoD sponsored changes that support a mix of Military and Civilian operations. For example, airspace change proposals that support operations at RAF Northolt. • Page 22 – Where controlled airspace or segregated airspace is released, is there a requirement for the sponsor (or others) to consider the impacts on communities, airports and other stakeholders that might be affected by an increase in General Aviation operations that were previously restricted? The release of controlled airspace may create environmental and safety impacts, given the inherent difference between operations in controlled and uncontrolled airspace and the typical nature of the interactions within Class G specifically. • Page 22 – HAL requests further clarification regarding the time periods for conducting airspace trials, in particular whether there will be pre-defined time limits or if the time periods will be subject to the scope and conditions of each specific trial. • Page 23 – The Level 2A example includes the establishment of controlled airspace below 20,000ft, however a change of this nature may not result in changes to aircraft tracks over the ground (for example if no SIDs are introduced). Is this inconsistent with the definition of a Tier 1 airspace change? • Page 24 – HAL request further clarification on the process that will be followed if the sponsors’ timelines change? Timeline changes may often occur for reasons outside the sponsors control, for example to incorporate key pieces of feedback from consultations or in response to political developments. • Page 25 on timelines – Although the timelines are provided for guidance and are based on a ’typical’ ACP Level 1 it is likely that, as suggested by the CAP, that these will be held to as reasonable and proportionate. We do not believe that the application of these timelines should be held for larger and more complex changes. Redesign and implementation phases may take considerably longer than for a typical ACP. HAL also requests further clarification on the application of the CAP1520 process to ACPs with multiple concurrent design and implementation phases (for example LAMP Phase 1a involved several linked ACPs). It is unclear how Post Implementation Reviews will be conducted on multi-phase and linked ACPs or how Tier 2 and Tier 3 type changes that are driven by the Tier 1 changes will be treated. It is essential that these issues are addressed fully by the CAA in order for the draft CAP1520 to be considered scaleable.
General observations
Heathrow responded to the DfT’s consultation on the UK’s Airspace Policy and these comments should be read in conjunction with our response to the proposed changes to the regulatory airspace change guidance. Overall the consultation comprehensively sets out “what” will happen and has addressed some of the concerns raised by industry stakeholders, especially with: • the introduction of gateways into the process; • engagement on design principles; • the options appraisal concept; a single online portal; and • the publication of consultation responses online. More detailed supporting information is essential to explain “how” the proposed process will operate in practice. As a result HAL do not consider that the proposals are sufficiently transparent regarding the scope of the activities that will need to take place and when. For some larger airspace change proposals HAL plan to undertake more than one phase of options development and consultation. The first phases will typically present lower granularity information about the overall macro-level design and related (geographical / environmental) envelopes within which the changes will be made. The second and potentially third phases of options development and consultation will provide progressively more detailed information, refined based on the feedback from earlier engagements, including specific flight path proposals. For example, for the airspace changes required to support the introduction of a third runway, the early phase airspace change consultations will interact with the Development Consent Order consultations (DCO CON1 and CON2), and set out the overall design principles, main components of the design and the various options under consideration. Later phases of options development and consultation will align to the formal ‘Consult’ Stage (3) of the proposed airspace change process. This multi-phase options development and consultation approach is not described in CAP1520 (even though it has been applied to recent airspace change proposals like LAMP Phase 1a and the Edinburgh airspace change). HAL is concerned that in the current CAP1520 draft, early phase options development and consultations would be considered as voluntary and not have a formal role or gateway sign off associated with it. HAL recommends that Stages 2 and 3 of the CAP1520 process should recognise that larger, more complex or possibly more contentious airspace changes may involve multiple phases of options development and consultation. And that engagement activities and their outputs may move backwards and forwards, iteratively between Stages 2 and 3. CAA oversight and validation of each iteration may be included as additional gateways in the process to demonstrate the regulatory sign-off at each stage. On a related matter, it may be appropriate at different stages for different scales of engagement / consultation to be undertaken, with more focussed engagement occurring at interim stages.

Tier 1a: Stages 1 to 7

2. Considering Stage 1 (Define) of the process , to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• HAL consider that more time should be allowed for the publication of meeting minutes. The proposed two week deadline will often be unachievable if all parties are required to agree that minutes are a true, fair and balanced reflection of the discussion and its outcomes. • Page 26 The definition misses out the word ‘opportunity’ (i.e. issue or opportunity) and HAL suggests this should be re-inserted. • Page 27 – Should this section include a consideration of the use of linear holding techniques and point merge concepts (following their initial establishment into the notified airspace)? • Page 27, paragraphs 87 and 92 - HAL request further clarification as to whether the Statement of Need is intended for the CAA to determine how the airspace change process should be applied (e.g. Tier 1, 2 or 3); Or whether it is a regulatory perspective as to whether an airspace change should be progressed at all? • Page 30, paragraph 100 – The reference to local General Aviation organisations or clubs; should this include national General Aviation organisations like the LAA, BGA and FASVIG? • Page 30, HAL considers that some examples of credible “independent third-party facilitators” may be useful as facilitators with sufficient competence and technical knowledge may be difficult to find, espcailly if there is demand from multiple sponsors. • Page 30, paragraph 103 – States that the CAA are not expecting sponsors to consult on the airspace design principals. HAL believes it will be challenging to demonstrate that the principles and their implications for trade-off decisions made in the subsequent designs will be well informed and credible without some form of consultation with affected stakeholders. • Page 30, paragraph 104 – HAL requests clarification on what is considered ‘significant’ in terms of the height of local terrain. • Page 31, paragraph 107 – if no agreement can be reached between the sponsor and stakeholders on the design principles, then will the CAA consider National Policy or Government Direction over any local principle agreement.

3. Considering Stage 2 (Develop and assess) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
Improvements in relation to Stage 2 (with additional comments below in relation to Appendix B) • Page 34, Separate Tier 1c flight trials – Can these be agreed at Step 1a rather than a complete ACP process being re-started? Timeline issues may result otherwise. • Page 35, paragraph 120 – How would a counterfactual comparison be achieved where a new runway or airport is involved? • Page 36, paragraph 122 – This paragraph implies that because airspace capacity is scarce, the strongest benefits case will outweigh the disparate effect on other users/stakeholders in the national interest. A conflict 70(3) transport Act then applies that should be considered in the final version. • Page 36, paragraph 126 on Local Development Plans – is it reasonable for an airport such as Heathrow to have access to and understanding of all the LDPs for all councils? • Page 37, paragraph 129 – An increase in controlled airspace in the London TMA may lead to concerns from the General Aviation community regarding increased safety risks. It is unlikely that the ANSP or change sponsors will have enough detail to ascertain this increase numerically with great certainty. E45 Publication of certain safety critical assessments may also be contrary to stated Just Culture principles in ANSPs and Airlines where reporting is considered to be the most effective mechanisms within these organisations – but such reports, although used extensively internally, are not generally published outside carefully controlled environments. General remarks on the relationship with the DfT’s draft Airspace Policy (AP) • CAP1520 Appendix B aligns the noise requirements of the draft AP with associated guidance on producing the required metrics. It should be noted that submissions have already been made regarding the draft AP and concerns should reflect upon CAP1520. • CAP1520 sets out how the noise metrics stipulated within the draft AP are to be used within the Airspace Change Process. • CAP1521 provides additional detail and specification for the environmental requirements set out within CAP1520 Appendix B with further guidance supplied to assist assessments. This document is more akin the guidance provided in CAP725 Appendix B Section 4 (Noise: Standard Techniques) and Section 5 (Noise: Supplementary Methods). A lot of the text within this section is taken directly or modified from the current CAP725. General remarks on the noise assessment process • The aim of the noise assessment process must be to inform decision making and to meet the aims of Government noise policy, including the aims set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) which are incorporated into the draft Airspace Policy and the draft Airports Noise Policy Statement. These aims should be incorporated and properly reflected in the final CAP1520 guidance. • The NPSE aims refer to health and quality of life within the context of sustainable development. However, the noise assessment guidance focusses on the assessment of noise exposure without necessarily linking how a noise exposure assessment should be used to assess the effects of any proposed airspace change on people. This introduces a risk that decisions may be taken on the basis of minimising noise exposure without necessarily minimising or improving effects on health and quality of life. That is one of the main reasons why the high level objectives for making Heathrow a great place to live, contained in Heathrow 2.0, is expressed in terms of improving quality of life for all. • HAL would advocate that an effects and evidence led approach towards noise assessment i.e. identify the effects of relevance, understand the best available evidence for those effects and then develop the noise assessment methodology to best reflect the particular circumstances of the proposal and the available evidence. For example, the LAeq,8 hour and the N60 indicators may not reflect the best available evidence on objective sleep disturbance. There is evidence available on the probability of awakenings from individual aircraft noise events and how the number and pattern of noise events can affect overall sleep quality. Consideration of this evidence suggests that airspace design could play a significant role in minimising and reducing sleep disturbance. It is recommended therefore that this evidence is reviewed and used in the guidance. • HAL recommends that the limitations of the recommended noise metrics should be acknowledged to avoid overly prescriptive use of noise parameters and noise exposure based assessments. The guidance should be developed to encourage all of the relevant factors to be considered and be given proper weight in the assessment methodology. For example, assessment of the benefits provided by measures that provide predicable relief from aircraft noise is a complex and subjective matter that will require particular consideration. Over reliance on assessments based upon the LAeq parameter or other metrics could lead to sub-optimal solutions. It is quite conceivable that an improvement in health and quality of life could be achieved with no change or an increase in LAeq,T levels. More guidance is therefore needed on how the benefits of predicable periods of relief can be considered and how the best available evidence, including that sponsored by Heathrow, can be taken into account. • All too often decisions are biased and disproportionately influenced by short-term reactions to a change from particular communities or groups. Better tools and guidance is required for managing such situations to ensure that decisions are properly informed and equitable. • It should also be recognised that this is a rapidly moving field and that the scientific evidence on the effects on health and quality of life, resulting from airspace modernisation, is likely to change in the future. Consequently, there is a need for flexibility to account for future changes in the evidence base. In addition, guidance should be given on the steps to be taken to monitor the impact of airspace change proposals. This will encourage the aviation sector to learn and build upon the lessons gained from earlier or stages airspace changes. The following sections set out some specific areas of suggested improvements and concerns. Must, Should and May • One feature of the existing guidance as set out in CAP725 which was welcomed and supported by sponsors was the clarity on the noise information to be provided through use of clear terminology in terms of ‘must’, ‘should’ or ‘may’. In the proposed CAP1520 and CAP1521, it is in places unclear to the applicant as to what is required. We urge that the requirements be aligned to factors such as the number of movements, or the Tier of the airspace change. Proposed Populations • Appendix B B52 states that the sponsor “must take account of planned property developments”. This is a concern as this implies that assessment must always be looking to look to future populations which are outside of the sponsor’s control. We would consider a more appropriate means of addressing this would be to ensure appropriate engagement with local planning authorities is expected within the process to allow for land-use planning considerations through local plans to be incorporated within airspace design. Scalability of Approach • The approach advocated by CAP1520 and the associated noise assessment work is considered to be proportionate for changes to a limited number of changes. However, for much larger and substantive changes where there may be a multitude of options resulting from a far-reaching and comprehensive airspace change proposal, some provision should be made within the guidance that allows sponsor to consider the impact of changes on a route by route basis prior to assessment of options through the options appraisal process. This may involve, for example, considering the population or key receptors within LAmax or SEL footprints at certain values. This could, for example, align with 60 dB and 65 dB LAmax with reference to the requirement for the N60 and N65 metrics, or the overflight metric. Through this approach it would be possible to test a series of route options without undertaking comprehensive modelling. Evidencing of such an approach could provide justification to the options being taken forward for the options appraisal where such circumstances exist. Noise Assessment alongside EIA or Planning • It is considered that the assessment requirements of CAP1520 are lesser than what would be required for planning or through assessment undertaken in accordance with the EIA regulations. This is not to say that the noise assessment requirements of CAP1520 are inappropriate, but there must be careful interaction between assessment work undertaken for the purposes of EIA and how this may be aligned to the governing process and requirements of CAP1520. It is considered appropriate that CAP1520 recognises that sponsors should be given flexibility to undertake assessment in line with those required under EIA which may include additional assessment criteria agreed with other decision-makers or stakeholders. This flexibility must also recognise, for example, the noise assessment requirements from a previous consenting process and why consistency may be important providing CAP1520 requirements are still adhered to. Requirement to consider noise insulation implications and wider policy • In our response to the AP we requested that Government should ideally set out proposals for a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) and Unacceptable Adverse Effect Level (UAEL) as defined by Government noise policy and associated guidance. Recent precedent indicates that for daytime noise, effect levels are 63 dB LAeq, 16hr and 69 dB LAeq, 16hr respectively. These values align with modifications and retained proposals within the draft AP with respect noise insulation and relocation assistance. CAP1520 does not explicitly require changes at these levels to be considered. Whilst the reporting of population above these values should be reported as per the guidance in CAP1521, households or dwellings is a voluntary input. We consider the reporting of households and dwellings at these values to be an important consideration in decision-making. This is not clear from the current guidance. Overflight Metric • HAL notes that the draft AP seeks to “encourage airspace promoters to consider compensation for significantly increased overflights that occur as a result of the airspace change, based upon appropriate metrics”. The overflight definition within CAP1520 and CAP1521 is established by the CAA in CAP1498. We welcome that CAP1520/CAP1521 recognises that there is not universal definition of overflight. • In this context HAL have concerns about the indication that overflight as established by this metric could lead to compensation. There is no recognised trigger or definition of ‘significantly increased overflight’. Our biggest concern is that this kind of requirement could drive choices on airspace design that are sub-optimal, for example increasing concentration and deterring the investment in respite routes. Consequently, since the noise related criteria link back to the principal policy aims and a SOAEL we consider that the noise related criteria for compensation as currently applied are sufficient. • As a minimum, the guidance should include example illustrations or tables that can be helpful in this respect including provision for sponsors to combine overflight with other metrics. This may be pertinent with respect to respite routes which result in more people becoming overflown but may have positive effects with respect to other acoustic measures. WebTAG • In principle we are supportive of the inclusion of WebTAG as part of the options appraisal. We note that guidance on the use of WebTAG and discussion of its limitations and to what degree it can be relied is not explicit within CAP1521 and in fact there is no reference to WebTAG within this document. We strongly urge that in developing the guidance outlined in CAP1520 and CAP1521, sponsors, stakeholders and the public are clear of the limitations of WebTAG and how outputs from it can provide only relative comparison of airspace design options. Given the limitations in relation to aviation assessment we propose that an expert review panel is established to determine a best practice methodology that can be promulgated through webTAG in a scalable manner to all airspace change proposals and more guidance on how it should be used be offered within CAP1521. Altitude Based Priorities • In our response to the draft AP we made a number of comments regarding altitude priorities. In principle we are supportive that Tier 2 airspace changes should be subject to a suitable and proportionate regulatory change process as described in both the Airspace Policy document and the draft Air Navigation Guidance. With respect to Tier 2 changes and noise, we would expect that CAP1520 and CAP1521 be clear with regard to: • The requirements, criteria and metrics required to support tier 2 airspace change to support regulatory decision making and as a means of determining whether or not the proposal falls within a defined noise trigger. • Where modifications to existing procedures seek to improve the performance of existing noise abatement techniques i.e. a speed restriction on a turn on a specific route for the purposes of improving compliance with the NPR, are classed as tier 2 airspace changes and that the requirements of CAP1520 and CAP1521 reflect this. Forecasts • CAP1520 and CAP1521 sets the requirement to undertake assessment for current traffic volumes plus a forecast. The forecasts are required for at least 10 years from the planned implementation (CAP1521 para 10). The document discusses potentially varying these forecasts to use data which is in line with information already in the public domain or within airport masterplans or due to binding restrictions such as planning agreements. There is no discussion as to how this could be agreed at an early stage with the CAA to avoid unnecessary and potentially abortive forecasting work and to what rigour the CAA would be looking to justify adopting a different forecasting year with respect to local circumstance. 100% Mode Contours and information for SoS Call-in • CAP1521 26 sets out the requirements for ‘100% mode noise contours’. The example is given for a single runway airport (Stansted). Clarity of how 100% mode noise contours should be produced for multiple runway airports is requested. This is considered important given that the draft AP 4.24 requires the production of 100% single mode contours in relation to the proposals for SofS call-in. We note B63 states that the CAA will advise on the need for 100% operating mode at the point of submission of proposal leaving it optional if the sponsor wants to produce this earlier • Greater clarity and guidance should be provided on how exactly information relating to 100% single mode contours should be provided with the call-in function in mind. Nx Contours • In the same manner the CAA set out requirements for the reporting of Leq contour values similar guidance should be provided with respect to Nx contours. The CAA should state reporting values which they consider to be meaningful for decision making purposes as the options appraisal work undertaken by the sponsor may be influenced by the use this metric. We believe there should be more precision relating to the use of the Nx metrics and that the CAP1520 and CAP1521 should provide this to reflect the way in which decision-maker will occur. Difference contours • We are of the view that difference contours should only be provided over areas where effects may be found to occur i.e. above LOAEL. This is in keeping with the principles of noise impact assessment in the context of the NPSE. We also feel the guidance could benefit from style guidance for the presentation of difference contours as these may well be helpful for consultation purposes. We therefore believe that the guidance should state that sponsors need to show changes in a manner that is meaningful and effective in communicating the change in noise burden. This would mean reporting difference contours within context and ideally in line with the potential effects of the noise change. General Guidance on Basemapping • The guidance requires the preparation of a number of maps. No guidance is provided with respect to detail that should be offered in these maps and or the scale these maps should present noise. Examples of illustration that are considered acceptable to the CAA in presenting impacts as well as for the purposes of consultation should be provided within the guidance. Consideration of Respite • The guidance offers little in explaining how respite be considered and/or evaluated. Where airspace design has resulted in the development of respite routes, it is unclear from the current guidance how this may be considered by the CAA or decision-maker. It is recommended that some form of metric or suite of metrics is set out within the guidance to help describe the benefits of respite. This could include specific consideration of ‘with’ and ‘without’ respite options or reporting of 100% operating mode, and individual route comparisons. Advice on the use of AEDT and Model Validation • Advice on the use of AEDT for the purposes of modelling noise impacts is welcomed. However further clarification and elaboration of the approaches to considering aircraft noise characteristics that are not native to AEDT and either reflect local circumstance or future forecasts. It is our view that CAP1521 highlights only one approach to considering this matter and instead it would be helpful if CAP1521 instead invites matters such as these to be considered by the sponsor and for appropriate reporting to be submitted to the CAA. • HAL consider that it will be inevitable that aircraft noise modelling may be undertaken in ANCON and AEDT either for the similar or different purposes. It would helpful if the guidance recognised that all forms of modelling are subject to uncertainties and the use of two models for the assessment of noise at the same airport is not problematic providing it can be demonstrated that a reasonable level of confidence can be demonstrated between the two. Tranquillity • HAL welcome the statement in Appendix B that the impact on tranquillity need only be considered with specific reference to AONBs and National Parks. We recommend that designated Quiet Areas should be included. Reference to other areas for consideration identified through community engagement will introduce unnecessary uncertainty into the process and we recommend that the scope of the assessment is not cast so wide and based upon recognised designations. • HAL welcome the statement at CAP1521 96 that the definition and measurement of tranquillity is still a matter of research and the CAA are reviewing research into this. We note that CAP1521 invites sponsors to bring forward techniques for assessment and that such assessments will be reviewed by the CAA on a case by case basis. Whilst this is helpful, we would request that feedback is available on the approach being taken by sponsors prior to assessment work takes place.

4. Considering Stage 3 (Consult) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• Stage 3 of the process is clear in what is expected of us as a sponsor and what the CAA’s role is also. Generally, it’s well set out, and it is apparent that the guidance provides for a transparent and inclusive process, which is good. • Our main observation is the requirement for one round of formal consultation only, as mentioned in the general remarks at the beginning of this response. HAL have (after detailed consideration) made the decision to undertake formal periods of consultation at three key stages of the ACP, while the CAP1520 guidance suggests only one stage of formal consultation, with informal engagement at other stages. There is nothing in the CAP1520 guidance which suggests that more consultation is an option or may lead to a better outcome. In addition, the draft could give further guidance on how multiple rounds of consultation might be managed and overseen in practice, and the role that the CAA would play in this case - e.g. Should HAL use the CAA portal for all three rounds of consultation? Do HAL produce three separate consultation strategies for approval etc? • Therefore, we would like to suggest that the CAA include an acknowledgement that this guidance is the minimum requirement, and that more can be done if necessary to suit the local context or the needs of individual airspace change proposals. • We have a number of comments as set out below on the portal and what will be expected. Page 46, paragraph 166 advises that the change sponsor must monitor the portal. Detailed guidance on the expectation and protocol associated with this would ensure that that the sponsor can adequately resource for this potentially significant workload requirement. The guidance should describe the expected frequency of the monitoring – e.g. once a week or once a day of 24 hrs and appropriate responses? Will the portal provide automatic notifications? Are there anticipated Service Level Agreements and support arrangements in relation to monitoring and responses to queries? We note that paragraph 139 suggests that the CAA will monitor how the change sponsor is responding to responses on the portal requiring an immediate answer. In relation to this and the overall level of monitoring whilst it is appropriate to ensure that any further reasonable information is provided and any misunderstandings clarified, it is not beneficial for the change sponsor to enter into protracted rounds of response and counter-response with individual responders. In the normal course, it will be more appropriate and useful for the change sponsor to ensure that particular emerging themes in responses and dealt with in updated Frequently Asked Questions. • Paragraph 176 – Advises that the CAA are to review the categorisation of responses – in order for the sponsor to engage a third party to collate and analyse the response, clarification is required on a) How the CAA would like to engage in the categorisation process and b) examples of how the complaints and feedback might be categorised, to ensure that an appropriate approach is taken at the outset and is included in any contractual arrangements. In addition, the methodology proposed, of formally categorising some responses as not requiring a change to the change scheme proposed and then publishing that categorisation may be seen as quite dismissive. Again, a theme-based approach whereby the change sponsor explains how particular themes have been addressed might be a better approach. • Page 41 - The CAA should consider the need to moderate formal responses uploaded to the portal from stakeholders to ensure that the responses are appropriate in language and does not contain erroneous material that might influence other consultees and create distrust within communities being consulted. For example, action groups and GA Reponses: (this is discussed in 173 but restricted to language or copyright) • Page 41 paragraph 139 states that the CAA must review and approve all consultation material. This will involve significant workload that must be adequately resourced. HAL have significant concerns that the CAA will not have sufficient capacity and capability to undertake this requirement effectively. • Page 42 on appropriate participation – HAL considers that additional clarification and examples are required in the guidance to illustrate good practice and acceptable outcomes in what is a subjective and challenging area. It is difficult to define appropriate participation, espcailly to quantify the ‘seldom heard’ (152) audience – those that understand and have no objection to a proposal. • Page 47, paragraph 171 – HAL request further clarification regarding the treatment of duplicated or near duplicate responses through off line sources (where an online response has already been sent) including material claimed not to be available for upload (or not understood by respondents). Referring to Appendix C • The document is a unclear about who is required to be consulted at what stage and what is a simply nice to have. It talks in numerous places about a two-way dialogue and engagement with stakeholders but it is open to interpretation about how much of this needs to take place and unclear to what extent the applicant will be judged upon this engagement. • Paragraph C.32 states that “In addition, if the change sponsor runs public events during the consultation, feedback may be gathered formally or informally. The change sponsor should capture and publish this feedback either by way of minutes, a meeting report, or placing feedback materials such as comment cards on to the portal.” This is not standard practice in consultations where typically it is requested that all feedback is submitted in writing for consideration. Placing an onus on individuals in consultation events to accurately capture informal feedback whilst engaging with stakeholders and answering their questions will be difficult and not something we would normally recommend and we would not typically ask people to fill in comment cards as it is more effective for analysis purposes and consistency in responses for stakeholders to be given a single response proforma. • Paragraph C.33 refers to the publication of FAQs during the consultation on common questions and requests. Whilst it is not uncommon for FAQs to be updated during the course of consultations depending on the level of response it may be that the analysis of responses is undertaken with a lag or that responses come in very late in the consultation process. As a result, it would be better if this paragraph was less categorical and was phrased along the lines of “the change sponsor should consider…”

5. Considering Stage 4 (Update and submit) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• F2 mentions the continuation of form DAP1916. Currently this form is completed and then enters the CAA and little update is provided regarding its review or progress. HAL we would like to see an open and transparent process using a form on the portal that stakeholders have full visibility of and are able to track against. It is this that reduces the transparency score to 3 • F8 makes a statement that says “actual implementation could take up to 3 months” – HAL feels this is too prescriptive – and consider that some flexibility should be maintained depending on the scale of the project. • Page 51 – In our opinion the likelihood is it that any small modification in the options would result in new people being affected which falls in the guidance described in 186 and becomes fundamental change- ‘Fundamental’ was defined as “a change of such a kind that it would be conspicuously unfair for the decision-maker to proceed without having given consultees a further opportunity to make representations about the proposal as so changed.” Kenneth Parker QC (then sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) R (Elphinstone) v Westminster City Council, [2008] EWHC 1287 (Admin).

6. Considering Stage 5 (Decide) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• Page 58 - Will the CAA give consideration to time limiting the PES and to pre-screening to prevent repetition of petition and statements? Perhaps stakeholders with the same views could be grouped and a lead stakeholder identified?. Otherwise, there is the potential for the PES to run into timescales for hearings that are excessive . • Will the CAA define or pre-agree what is a representative organisation? • Paragraph 214 – HAL fully supports the hands on approach the CAA is undertaking, specifically in relation to the assessments that it is committing to do in relation to the airspace change. We consider that this provides more assurance to the stakeholders that the final decision has been fully analysed. In order to collate adequate information and data from the beginning, in the CAA’s assessment of “adequate resource to deliver the change”, please could clarification be provided on the specific focus of the “resource assessment”. • Paragraph 215 – The CAA has advised that it will put “conditions” on the operational assessment approval. Please could a greater explanation be provided regarding the form these conditions may take in an airspace change where a Development Consent Order has been approved and also with EU598? Examples would be very helpful in this context. • Paragraph 219 – The CAA advise that they will also undertake a Consultation assessment. This relies in part on the correct identification of response categorisation – is this Consultation assessment just applicable to stage 5? What happens if airports undertake earlier or multiple consultations? What access do we need to build into the process to facilitate this?

7. Considering Stage 6 (Implement) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion

8. Considering Stage 7 (Post-implementation review) of the process, to what extent does the draft guidance on that stage meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• Paragraph 254 – Stage 7 – can another change go ahead with consultation at the same time as a PIR on a change that the subsequent change is predicated on? i.e. Transitional Altitude – LAMP, LAMP phase 2 and Runway 3 airspace changes. • Paragraph 264 – What happens in the event that a PIR is rejected by the CAA? • Paragraph 264 – what happens if the PIR is rejected by the CAA ? • Paragraph 213 In what format does the data need to be published on the portal? 28 days is often likely to be an unachievable timeframe. What is “supplementary data?”. It is envisaged that data needed to prove or disprove a trial needs to be agreed before the trial begins • Paragraph 213 – 28 days for stakeholders to respond to new data is also quite tight. Will data only be published on the portal or in other formats? • Paragraph 214 – If a new environmental impact assessment is required, 28 days will not be enough time to complete the rework. • Paragraph 214 – What would classify as an acceptable tolerance limit in this context? Is this limit set by the sponsor or the CAA? • Paragraph 216, Table H1 – The table should include a definition of a change. • Keeps referring to month on month change with no consideration of direction of operation • Refers to Flight Ops Sub-Committee (sub-group of our HACC ) I’m not sure our FLOPSC is a sub-group of our HACC? • Traffic density plots Lateral and vertical analysis – we’d need new tools to be developed to do this quickly. Our H7 meeting! • 217 Table H1 Infringements – CAA has a big part to play in identifying infringement risk prior to allowing the ACP to go ahead. Stats would need to come from ANSP and there still remains a disparity between what is recorded by ANSP vs CAA. An increase in infringements could be related to weather – better weather = bigger risk. A larger data set would be required to provide meaningful comparison; suggest 3 years to allow for annual changes in weather and events such as Olympic airspace restrictions which reduced infringements due to airspace constraints.

Tier 1a: Evidence of engagement

9. At certain stages in the process (starting with the development of design principles at Step 1b) the CAA will look for evidence of a two-way conversation to see that the sponsor has adequately engaged stakeholders. In paragraph C9 the CAA describes the evidence that we will look for as "detail of what sponsors have been told by their audiences; how they responded to this feedback; and how it has affected the proposals they are bringing forward".    Has the CAA adequately detailed what we would expect to see to know that a two-way conversation has taken place?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Don't know
What else to show two way conversation?
• We would suggest that the CAA should not be too prescriptive in listing specific documents, which may vary from one change to another, but would suggest a more qualitative approach would be appropriate – the change sponsor should have to evidence as it thinks appropriate that a two-way conversation has taken place. • In order to capture the correct information, it would be helpful to have examples of level of detail required? i.e. date, time, attendees? minutes of meetings or highlights? or is it an agreed version of 2-way engagement with the stakeholder? is this all meetings? and how broad and detailed do you go – is this every time the matter is discussed?

Tier 1a:Third-party facilitation

10. At various points in the process (starting with the development of design principles at Step 1b) the CAA suggests that voluntary use of a third-party facilitator could be useful. Should the CAA be more prescriptive as to how and when a facilitator could be used?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Don't know
Facilitator further detail
HAL considers that use of third party facilitation should be at the discretion of the sponsor and therefore reflective of local circumstances and requirements, however it might be useful for examples to be given of when this approach may be considered by the CAA to be helpful.

11. Are there any other places in the process at which you feel that a facilitator would be useful?

Facilitator - which places
An independent facilitator may be useful at the Public Evidence session

Tier 1a: Categorisation of responses

12. In paragraphs 177 and C34-C36, and Table C2, we discuss the categorisation of consultation responses. The sponsor is required to sort consultation responses into two categories: i) those responses that have the potential to impact on the proposal because they include new information or ideas that the sponsor believes could lead to an adaptation in a lead design option or a new design option, and ii) those that do not. Is the CAA's explanation of the categorisation exercise and description of the categories sufficient?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Don't know
Categorisation - additional detail
• Paragraph 176 – Advises that the CAA are to review the categorisation of responses – in order for the sponsor to engage a third party to collate and analyse the response, clarification is required on a) How the CAA would like to engage in the categorisation process and b) examples of how the complaints and feedback might be categorised, to ensure that an appropriate approach is taken at the outset and is included in any contractual arrangements. In addition, the methodology proposed, of formally categorising some responses as not requiring a change to the change scheme proposed and then publishing that categorisation may be seen as quite dismissive. Again, a theme-based approach whereby the change sponsor explains how particular themes have been addressed might be a better approach. • The specification now of responses into only 2 binary categories could be overly simplistic - it would be better for categories to be defined by the change sponsor themselves - the guidance could then simply state that the change sponsor must identify categories and explain how comments within different categories have been taken forward.

Tier 1a: Options appraisal

13. In paragraph E25 and E34 the CAA states that methodologies for the various aspects of the options appraisal should be agreed between the CAA and the sponsor at an early stage in the process, on a case-by-case basis. This provides flexibility for different local circumstances. Does this approach strike the right balance between proportionality and consistency?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Don't know
OA - explain re proportionality
• Overall, the most significant issue is clarification about the requirement for WebTAG/Green Book methodologies which will be new to many aviation stakeholders. • The use of options appraisal places responsibility on the sponsor to maintain a dialogue with the CAA throughout the process so that the sponsor does not overcook what is needed and that the sponsor gets the necessary guidance from the CAA on a 1-1 basis as opposed to providing this clarification in the CAP • This is not a substantial risk for a larger airport that is conversant in WebTAG and the Green Book but may be a concern for a smaller airport. There is also no consideration of Passenger benefits. Specific comments: • E1-E2 – HAL is supportive of the principle of using a broadly quantified options appraisal that allows comparison of a range of airspace designs and routes within the scope of a single change sponsor’s design activities using a broad range of criteria. The material within the draft CAP, together with our own interpretation of how the appraisal could work, would lead to an internally consistent approach allowing comparison between different routes that we propose. However, the wording of E1 through E2 suggest that the appraisal analysis could be used by the CAA to compare competing proposals for the same airspace. We have concerns that such an approach is not credible given the current guidance material. Unless much more explicit guidance regarding quantification techniques, base case scenarios and the scope of quantification expected is provided there will be very limited opportunities to use the technique to compare between competing airspace change proposals seeking use of the same airspace. The use of this technique to compare between competing options for the same airspace should either be ruled out, or else more prescriptive guidance should be provided. • E6 - Whilst it is true to say that WebTAG and the HMT Green Book are considered good practice in transport appraisal, it is also true to say that they are typically applied in a more comprehensive fashion to full transport schemes and have few (if any) known precedents in terms of their application to airspace alone. The combination of the CAP, WebTAG and Green Book methodologies still leave a change sponsor with many uncertainties over the scope, detail and cost involved with undertaking an options appraisal. There is a strong need for the CAA to provide much more tailored guidance regarding the application of such methodologies to airspace change so that the requirement is clear for all change sponsors. • E17 – This section suggests that a change sponsor should try to “look at other examples where a similar issue has been addressed”. This implies the requirement for some form of comparison or benchmarking. Is the CAA likely to make publicly available all information on prior airspace (successful and otherwise) change proposals in order to facilitate such comparisons? • E17 – This section suggests that change sponsors should “develop and consider radical solutions” which may not become part of the formal appraisal. Our concern over such a recommendation is that the appraisal of each option can be a time-consuming activity. If such options are not realistic, and unlikely to appear in the formal appraisal why is it justified to ask the change sponsor to incur the cost of examining them? • E19 – This section suggests the use of criteria to reduce the long-list to a short-list, but is light in terms of guidance. It leaves a lot of choices open to the change sponsor that could subsequently have to be revisited. Will the CAA provide guidance at the ‘Develop and Assess Gateway’ as to whether the criteria used are appropriate/too restrictive, etc.? • E21 – This section covers setting the base case for the appraisal as either the ‘do-nothing’ or ‘do-minimum’ options. Clearly in the case of the R3 development, do-nothing is not a practical option. It is also possible, however, that due to the complexity of the airspace and interactions with adjacent routes (& airports) that a do-minimum option may also not be possible to define such that there is a substantial difference from a preferred option (or that represents a deliverable option). Guidance as to how to treat such a scenario should be provided. • Table E2 - Noise impact, air quality – WebTAG typically requires consideration of the distributional impacts of noise and air quality, particularly with regard to children, the elderly and on the basis of income distribution. It is not clear from the guidance whether such issues are expected to be addressed in the options appraisal. Further clarification should be provided. • Table E2 - Commercial airlines – There are many costs borne by commercial airlines that could be estimated using standard values (e.g. Eurocontrol/University of Westminster figures for the cost of delay to airlines and passengers - http://eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/standard-input-for-eurocontrol-cost-benefit-analyses-2015.pdf). Can the CAA be more prescriptive regarding the use of such standard values, which are in the public domain, and would save change sponsors substantial time rather than requiring the change sponsor to obtain actual costs from the airlines (who may be reluctant to share such information for reasons of commercial sensitivity)? • E35 – We understand the appraisal period is proposed to be assessed over a 10-year period from the year in which the appraisal is taking place. Clearly where a large-scale change is taking place coupled to major infrastructure investment such as the construction of R3 we would expect the appraisal period to be larger, ideally to capture at least 10 years from implementation of the airspace change.

Tier 1a: Safety information

14. At each stage in the airspace change process that an options appraisal takes place, the sponsor will be required to submit a safety assessment. The sponsor will be required to provide a plain English summary of the safety assessment and the CAA will provide a plain English summary of its review (i.e. of the Letter of Acceptance, which forms the CAA’s review of the safety assessment) when it makes a decision. These documents will be available on the portal.   Do you have any views on specific information that should be included and/or excluded from the plain English summary of the sponsor’s safety assessment and the CAA’s review? 

Safety assessment
• It needs to strike the right balance between technical readers and non- technical • It would benefit from a metric that at a glance gives the reader an indication of which options are struck out – perhaps something with red, amber, green. • It should ensure that it is not misleading, because mis-interpretations result in loss of confidence in operators, ATC providers and sponsor

Tier 1b: Temporary airspace changes

15. Considering Tier 1b changes, to what extent does the draft guidance on temporary airspace changes meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• It is not clear who the guidance applies to or doesn’t e.g. fly pasts? • The reader is not able to determine if this is proportionate as it is unclear to who or what this applies to enable an assessment. • The CAA should carry out an impact assessment to determine to who/what this should apply such that it is proportionate. i.e. what is the implication for re-occuring temporary changes.

Tier 1c: Operational airspace trials

16. Considering Tier 1c changes, to what extent does the draft guidance on operational airspace trials meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
Ticked 1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
• Paragraph 287 – The CAA advised that they will usually only agree to a live trial where it involves innovative airspace design or new technology. Some real world examples are required to illustrate this requirement. • Paragraph 287 – HAL consider that this section requires greater consideration and clarity – from a Heathrow perspective it is likely that some airspace trials will be needed to support the introduction of a third runway that involves techniques other than innovation or technology – for example the some of the FAS Departure Enhance Programme trials examined the ground impact of established technologies. • Paragraph 288 – The CAA advise they will only agree to a trial if the sponsor demonstrates that it has consulted with aviation stakeholders - is this expected to be specifically a formal consultation or more general engagement? • Paragraph 291 – The CAA advises that it will use complaints to assess if trial outcomes are being achieved. How will the CAA ensure that this is a fair and reasonable metric? how will the complaints need to be captured and categorised? should this not have a set of metrics that reflects all stakeholder groups?

Tier 1: Spaceflights

17. On 21 February 2017 the Government published the Draft Spaceflight Bill. As the foreword to the draft Bill sets out, “This legislation will see the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive working together to regulate and oversee commercial spaceflight operations in the UK.” Do you have any views on whether this process could be used or adapted to suit future airspace change proposals to enable spaceflights, as anticipated in the Draft Spaceflight Bill?

Spaceflight
In the Space Flight Bill there is nothing specifically about airspace. It does however mention the need for to enable full consultation and understanding of impacts for these flights to operate from within a range so the establishment or change of any range facility should be subject to an ACP so impacts can be appreciated.

Tier 2: Permanent and planned redistribution

18. The Government proposals talk about a Tier 2 change as one which is likely to alter traffic patterns below 7,000 feet over a populated area and which therefore could have a potential noise impact for those on the ground. The key requirement is that the air navigation service provider must demonstrate that it has assessed the noise impact of the proposed change and engaged with affected communities as appropriate. Which stages of the Tier 1a airspace change process do you think are necessary for a proposal categorised as a Tier 2 change? Please select all those which apply:

Please select all that apply
Ticked Stage 1 Define
Ticked Stage 2 Develop and assess
Ticked Stage 3 Consult
Ticked Stage 4 Update and submit
Ticked Stage 5 Decide
Ticked Stage 6 Implement
Ticked Stage 7 Post-implementation review
None of these
Don’t know
Tier 2 reasons
Stages 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 • Changes of these types have the potential to have a significant impact and should be communicated in the same way as tier 1.

19. The CAA’s process for Tier 1a changes is scaled into ‘Levels’, based on the altitude-based priorities in the Government’s Air Navigation Guidance (i.e. where noise impacts are to be prioritised or considered alongside carbon emissions, a more demanding consultation is required). Could the future Tier 2 process also be scaled?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Don't know
Tier 2 - scaled reasons
• In the same manner as tier 1 a with a level 0 for use when there is a Tier 2 change but no environmental impact

20. Are there any other comments that you would like to make about the CAA’s potential Tier 2 process?

Tier 2 - other comments
It needs to directly reflect the outcome of the consultation on Airspace policy and should not be defined until this is published

Tier 3: Other changes to air operations affecting noise impacts

21. To what extent does the draft best practice guidance on Tier 3 changes (other changes that may have a noise impact) meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion Ticked 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How to improve
Our view is that tier 3 airspace changes reflect the need for increased engagement around already recognised variations in traffic patterns within the vicinity of the airport that occur through changes in traffic frequency, type or market and/or are initiatives that do not involve procedural changes in the AIP but improve the overall performance of the airport. Tier 3 changes may include for example: • Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Truncations • Alternation on easterlies • Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) procedures that mirror current charts with no changes that are planned and permanent • Airline SOP change for aircraft at specific airport • Enhanced Time-based Separation (eTBS) • Selling of slots and change in type and route • General shifts in traffic as a result of tier 1 and tier 2 airspace charges and changes in international airspace projects, fuel prices, weather patterns and markets. • Planned SID re-routing to manage disruption • The introduction of new aircraft types Our view is that the most appropriate time to engage communities about Tier 3 changes is after the change has taken effect. This is because some changes are not always apparent i.e. airline procedural changes and evolve over a period of weeks and months. Because of the scale of Heathrow’s airspace operation Heathrow currently does not have the tools to enable early detection automatically of such changes, however Heathrow is planning a modernisation of its systems to enable this, therefore: • 306 – Tier 3 changes are ones that are often outside the control of CAA, Airport, Government, air traffic control and airline and are more likely to include changing weather conditions, and changes of flight destinations and aircraft types. HAL considers that use of the word mitigations this sets unrealistic expectations that something can be done • An explanation also needs to be included that explains that aircraft trends are part of the natural evolution or fluctuation of airspace utilisation and that in some cases aircraft may move but may also move back • An indication of what the community should expect if the ac shift back if mitigations are applied

22. Where industry does not follow the CAA’s guidance in respect of Tier 3 changes, or where there is a clear breakdown of trust between an airport and its stakeholders, is it appropriate for the CAA to publicly draw attention to this?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Don't know
CAA action on Tier 3 further detail
Our view is that tier 3 is likely to be the most common type of airspace change at least in the near to mid-term. As these changes are generally retrospective, we believe it is essential that engagement with communities involves an independent body such as the ICCAN that provides a credible non-partisan view, understands best-practice, describes the drivers and implications of the change and helps facilitate ongoing discussions and monitoring. Whilst we support the provision of open and transparent information we are also mindful of the risk that some people become sensitised to noise as a result. Therefore, we believe that the role of the ICCAN should be to aid communication and to share guidance on good practice engagement. For example, it may be more appropriate for some Tier 3 changes to simply place a notice on an airport’s website, instead of contacting a large number of people who may not have otherwise noticed the change.

23. Considering the list of potential information proposed, would you suggest any additions which would help stakeholders, including communities, understand the impacts of Tier 3 changes and enhance transparency?

Additional information on Tier 3 impacts
There are a range of technical and operational factors that stakeholders, espcailly communities may find challenging to understand but are important drivers of Tier 3 change, including: • Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Truncations • The pattern and frequency of runway alternation. • Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) procedures that mirror current charts with no changes that are planned and permanent • Airline SOP change for aircraft at specific airport • Enhanced Time-based Separation (eTBS) • Selling of slots and change in type and route • General shifts in traffic as a result of tier 1 and tier 2 airspace charges and changes in international airspace projects, fuel prices, weather patterns and markets. • Planned SID re-routing to manage disruption • The introduction of new aircraft types • Forecasts in relation to winter and summer schedule changes before they start, • Forecast impact on airport performance if foreseen network issues are anticipated to impact the performance of the airport and result in changes in traffic performance i.e. late running flights

24. In relation to mitigating the impacts of Tier 3 changes, our draft guidance says that the focus should be on exploring the options for mitigating the change through two-way dialogue, because of the local and often incremental nature of Tier 3 changes. Does the guidance need to give more detail?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Don't know
Tier 3 mitigation - reasons for Q24 answer
Yes, The Tier 3 changes proposal should be reconsidered because: • it sets unrealistic expectations about what the mitigations might be • it suggests the potential for compensation • it also suggests that evolving trends can be reversed when in most situations they cannot