Proposals for a revised airspace change process

All consultation with local stakeholders is necessary so that the information is freely available to all.

The current and proposed routes of the change, with an overlay of the 2 together. Preferable on a OS map.

Details of aircraft types using the routes, anticipated heights through the routes, expected noise levels at different heights along the routes of aircraft types, when variance to the routes is anticipated.

Current and predicted traffic patterns, aircraft types/frequency through time of day/expected peak times of which months and numbers.
Anticipated growth in traffic over the coming years?

Graphical representation and when requested tabulated data.

What the benefit of the change is to communities on the ground?
Benefit to the airlines, the commercial implications?
Benefit to the Sponsor of the change?

First of all if Process Flow diagrams are to be used the correct symbols need to be used. e.g. In 1B, the "Principle Accepted" box is a decision and the diamond shape box should be used.

There is no iterative process in 1B where the "Sponsor engages with community and stakeholders ...." It cannot be a one shot process and needs to ensure that all views are taken into account. Depending on the outcome of engagement, the CAA need to be able to make a decision based on all views, this just appears to be a review of the principles at the moment and what is sent back to the CAA is an excepted version by all parties, when in all probability there will be views against the proposal.

How is the list of interest parties (communities and stakeholders) established and communicated to on the start of a new proposed change?

See answer to Q7.

The appraisal in 2B is not an inclusive step. Where as in step 1A consultation of stakeholders is performed, the actual appraisal appears to be a Sponsor only activity, this should at least include a task to review the appraisal with stakeholders before submitting to the CAA with stakeholder comments. As the CAA is the Gatekeeper at each stage it should be fully aware of any stakeholder comments rather than find potential issues at a later stage.

The introduction of facilitator will be an expensive addition to what can only be considered as an overall expensive exercise of a change request for the Sponsor.

If the CAA monitors the process effectively and is seen to pass a fair judgement on the final outcome of the change request it should be sufficient.

Q9 is a fair method of publishing all responses.

Some people like to add their own comment independent of others.
Others are happy that some has made a point and would just like to refer to it rather than state it all again.

Responses to points should be made directly back to the individual as well as being placed on the portal. Individuals should then feel that their views are being addressed.

Publishing all the consultation material on a portal will provide the information to general review, but how do individuals and organisations know that the material is there. There needs to be a wider communications process that informs and alerts that the process is underway.

So that all change requests can be viewed and understood with confidence that all the information has been provided and is identifiable in a consistent and repeated layout.

The CAA's approach in the notes is to establish a trusted mechanism. Waiting until a decision has been made before publishing the final submission will not help that.

However, it follows that apart from publishing the information of the Public Evidence Session on the Portal, all those who formally responded at any time of the process should also be individually made aware of the public session, preferably by direct email.

Any subsequent versions of the proposal should also be made available on the portal and individual who have registered an interest in the change request should be made aware individually by email.

Agree with the CAA proposal!

1. All of the data that was used in the initial consultation to establish the change should form the basis of the review in Stage 7.

2. Data that was used to establish the anticipated change to a route and the traffic along it.

3. Data that shows the actual use of the new route .

4. The difference between 2 & 3.

None

Providing all data and information of all types is made available on the Portal.

However, the Portal should not be the only means of communicating information. Stakeholders in any specific change should be informed of information being added to the Portal by email instead of having to repeatedly access the Portal.

All data and information should be under a central control which should ultimately rest with the CAA.

Once a piece of information is publish on the Portal it should only be the CAA that has the ability to remove, not the Sponsor.

The Portal should be consistent and show the same information in the same format for each separate airspace change so anyone using it more than once knows where the information located.

Stages 3 & 5 are far too long.

For Stage 3, the work already carried out in Stage 1 & 2 should prepare most of the material.

Stage 5 should be 10 to 12 weeks.