Proposals for a revised airspace change process

These stages begin with outline conversations between the sponsor and the CAA around design options and who should be consulted. The sponsor then consults with interested parties, including, where appropriate, local communities. In the light of responses the sponsor may modify the proposals before making a formal submission of the proposal to the CAA for a decision. Assuming that the proposal is approved, the CAA carries out a review of the change after it has been implemented, typically after one year of operation.

Reasons for changing the current process

The CAA is proposing changes to the current airspace change process because:

• The airspace structure is a key part of the UK’s national infrastructure but is in need of modernisation. If modernisation is held up, there will be significant impacts not just on air passengers and shippers but also the wider economy. The CAA believes that modernisation of airspace can offer a range of benefits, and in some cases modernisation is required by international obligation. However, it is for the aviation industry to develop specific proposals for change. The CAA needs a rigorous process for ensuring that we can make robust and lawful decisions about those proposals. We will not make a change simply because it enables modernisation; we will only do so once we have also given consideration to the range of factors and stakeholders we have a duty to consider.  Airspace modernisation requires the CAA to consider airspace change proposals on a scale unprecedented in recent years. These proposals may change flight paths[2] and therefore noise impacts, and may also impact airspace users and service providers.
• Those affected should have the ability and opportunity to respond to consultation before a change is made. The CAA’s decisions on airspace change must balance and take proper account of the needs and interests of all affected stakeholders.
• Airspace is a finite resource and there are competing demands for it from airspace users with differing needs (commercial air transport, General Aviation, military, unmanned aircraft and so on).  Again, these must be balanced against each other.
• Communities close to airports increasingly demonstrate their interest in the management of aviation noise and the impact it has on those communities. Some recent airspace change proposals have highlighted a lack of trust between some local communities, the aviation industry and the CAA as regulator. This can sometimes create an impasse on airspace changes – changes which, in totality, might achieve an improved outcome in respect of all the factors we have to consider (although, as a consequence, an individual stakeholder may be in a worse position than if no change were made).
• It is therefore essential that the CAA’s airspace change process meets modern standards for regulatory decision-making, and above all else is seen as fair, transparent, consistent and proportionate.
• We need to ‘future-proof’ the process in the light of changing international requirements that are binding on the UK as a European Union Member State.
• The independent Helios report reviewing the current process found that it could be improved and recommended a number of changes, on which, with some modifications, the CAA has decided to consult.

Objectives

Our objective is to optimise our airspace change process to ensure that all stakeholders are adequately consulted as part of a transparent, proportionate process. The revised process should be impartial and evidence-based, and should take proper account of the needs and interests of all affected stakeholders. These stakeholders, in no particular order, include:

• the users of air transport services, i.e. passengers and shippers;
• those on the ground affected by aviation noise or other environmental impacts;
• the users of airspace, including commercial operators, General Aviation and the military;
• other service providers such as air traffic control and airports;
• others with a legitimate interest, such as environmental bodies and councils.

In doing so we must consider what those needs are today and what they might be in the future. While not everyone will agree with every potential decision on how we develop the infrastructure of our airspace, the methods used to reach those decisions need to be well understood and accepted. One of our aims is to restore confidence in the process where it is currently lacking.

It is also very important that in improving and optimising the airspace change process the CAA does not raise expectations that the new process will give everybody everything that they want. The airspace change process is not designed to be a referendum on views, but it is designed to reach an outcome fairly having regard for the views of all the various stakeholder groups and having considered those views in accordance with section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. To achieve this compromise outcome, there will have to be trade-offs where there are conflicting requirements, which could mean winners and losers. Every airspace change proposal is different and is considered on a case-by-case basis, but often these trade-offs are a matter for the over-arching government policy.

The Helios review of the airspace change process

In 2015, the CAA commissioned management and technology consultants Helios to undertake an independent study of our existing airspace change process. As part of this work, we asked Helios to consult with a range of stakeholders that either use the process or are affected by the decisions resulting from it, and then provide recommendations on how the process could be improved. As part of its review, Helios tested various hypotheses in stakeholder workshops and through an online stakeholder survey. Helios consulted and spoke to representatives of airspace change sponsors, airspace users (including private flyers), and communities. We published Helios’s report on our website[3] on 8 December 2015.

Helios proposed a revised airspace change process based on the current process but with greater transparency and more stages, with approval at certain key points and the CAA being more hands-on than at present, particularly for the consultation phase. Helios recommended that an independent airspace change Oversight Committee be involved for the most significant changes, and that an appeal mechanism be introduced. Helios also proposed that an online portal be established holding all relevant information on airspace change proposals and collecting consultation responses. Helios recommended that the CAA seek greater clarity and guidance from the Government on policy and strategic priorities associated with airspace change.

The CAA‘s preliminary view is that most of Helios’s recommendations appear to address the issues identified with the current process. Our proposals for a revised process on which we are consulting are therefore largely based on what is recommended by the Helios report, with some important modifications which are explained in Chapter 4.