Proposal to Change the Airspace Classification ... - Guernsey Airport

PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION 

AND CONFIGURATION OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS CONTROL 

ZONE AND CONTROL AREAS 

SPONSOR CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

JAARP - Airspace Classification Consultation Document 

Document information 

Document title Proposal to change the Airspace Classification and 

Configuration of the Channel Islands Airspace 

Sponsor Consultation Document 

Author 

Produced by 

Produced for 

Cyrrus Limited contact 

Nic Smith, Cyrrus Limited 

Cyrrus Ltd 

Cyrrus House 

Concept Court 

Allendale Road 

Thirsk 

North Yorkshire 

YO7 3NY 

Tel: +44 (0)1845 522585 

Fax: +44 (0)870 762 2325 

e-mail: 

URL: 

Jersey Airport 

admin@cyrrus.co.uk 

www.cyrrus.co.uk 

Nic Smith 

Tel: +44 (0) 1845 522585 

Fax: +44 (0) 870 762 2325 

Email: nicsmith@cyrrus.co.uk 

Produced under contract States of Jersey Agreement 10 Nov 2010 

Version 1.0 

Copy Number 

Date of release 18 February 2013 

Document reference 

CL-4852-DOC-157 

CHANGE HISTORY RECORD 

New Issue Date Details 

1.0 18 Feb 2013 Issue 

CL4554-DOC-157 V1.0 CYRRUS LIMITED 2 of 70


Prepared by……………………………….. 

Nic Smith 

ATM Consultant 

Cyrrus Limited 

Approved By……………………………….. 

Barry Hawkins 

Director 

Cyrrus Limited 

Authorised By……………………………….. 

Les Smallwood 

SATCO 


COPYRIGHT © 2013 CYRRUS LIMITED 

This document and the information contained therein is the property of Cyrrus Limited. It must not be reproduced in whole or part or 

otherwise disclosed to parties outside of Cyrrus Limited without prior written consent. 

Cyrrus Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales: Company Number 06455336. Registered Office: Cyrrus House, Concept 

Business Court, Thirsk, YO7 3NY. 



Executive Summary 

The Channel Islands (CI) Airports authorities have determined that it is necessary to 

undertake a thorough review of all aspects of the CI Airspace to bring it up to date, not only 

to reflect the capabilities of modern aircraft fleets and modern Air Traffic Management (ATM) 

Systems, but also to bring it into line with current ICAO and European airspace management 

regimes and to enable more efficient flight profiles and use of airspace to be achieved. 

The airspace review, known as the Jersey Airport Airspace Review Project (JAARP), is 

being conducted in accordance with the methodology and requirements of the UK formal 

process for airspace change and will also comply with French regulatory requirements for 

airspace change. 

This Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) forms a subset of the overall JAARP project and 

addresses only aspects relating to the classification and configuration of the airspace. This 

ACP arises from the decision to adopt a phased approach to the implementation of the more 

wide-ranging changes that will arise with the completion of the full JAARP programme. This 

ACP is a “stand-alone” element of the overall JAARP airspace development and is not 

dependent on any other aspects of the project. Addressing this aspect separately will 

enable safety and operational benefits to be achieved within the existing navigation 

infrastructure and route structure. It will also eliminate some anomalies that have long 

existed with the current arrangements. 

There are no environmental or economic impacts associated with this proposal, and minimal 

impact on airspace procedures and ATM arrangements. 

The Airspace and Air Traffic Services Regulator for the CI airspace is the Director of Civil 

Aviation, Channel Islands (DCA CI). The individual airport operators must satisfy the DCA 

CI as to their competence to provide ATS and that the services are safe. In this case the UK 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is providing Regulatory oversight on behalf of the DCA CI and 

the airspace change proposal is being developed in accordance with the UK CAA 

requirements specified in CAP724 1 and CAP725 2 . 

Part A of this document explains the process of this Sponsor Consultation, which we are 

required to undertake to satisfy the regulatory authorities. It also provides some basic 

background information on the CI Airports, the unique institutional arrangements surrounding 

the operation of the airspace and an outline of the ATM arrangements. 

Part B of the document describes in detail the various elements of the proposed airspace 

change, including options that have been considered for each element. Through a process 

of ‘option consideration’ the Sponsor has reached a balanced judgement on the changes 

proposed and presented in this Consultation. 

A number of Appendices provide amplifying detail where appropriate, including a 

comprehensive Glossary of the aviation terminology used 

1 CAP724: The Airspace Charter 

2 CAP725: CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process 



Contents 

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………..4 

1. About this Consultation ........................................................................................... 8 

2. Channel Islands Airports ........................................................................................ 13 

3. Institutional Arrangements..................................................................................... 15 

4. Air Traffic Management at the CI Airports ............................................................. 17 

5. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 23 

6. Airspace Description - Current Airspace ............................................................ 25 

7. UK Airspace Policy for the Use of the ICAO Airspace Classifications................ 28 

8. Proposed Airspace Classification ......................................................................... 31 

8.1 Proposal Development………………………..………………………………….……….31 

8.2 Options considered…………..…………………………………………………….……...32 

8.3 Conclusions and Proposed Airspace Classification ................................................ 40 

9. Proposed External Airspace Boundaries .............................................................. 40 

9.1 Proposal development…………………………………………………………………….40 

9.2 Options Considered ................................................................................................ 41 

9.2.1 Option 1: Do Nothing ............................................................................................. 41 

9.2.2 Option 2: South-East Corner retraction .................................................................. 41 

9.2.3 Option 3: Eastern Boundary extension ................................................................... 42 

9.2.4 Option 4: Raise base levels generally .................................................................... 42 

9.3 Conclusions and proposed airspace boundaries ..................................................... 43 

10 Internal airspace configuration .............................................................................. 44 

10.1 Proposal Development ........................................................................................... 44 

10.2 Options Considered ................................................................................................ 44 

10.2.1 Option 1: Do Nothing ............................................................................................. 46 

10.2.2 Option 2: Reconfigure the Airport CTRs ................................................................. 44 

10.2.3 Option 3: Remove the Airport CTRs ...................................................................... 45 

11 Summary of proposed airspace classification and configuration ....................... 46 

12 Impact of Proposed Changes ................................................................................. 47 

12.1 Impact on airline and corporate aircraft operations ................................................. 47 

12.2 Impact on light General Aviation operations ............................................................ 47 

12.3 Impact on Cross-Channel Operations ..................................................................... 48 

12.4 Impact on embedded En Route ATS Routes .......................................................... 50 

12.5 Impact on Military operations .................................................................................. 50 

13 Safety Management ................................................................................................ 49 

14 Environmental Considerations .............................................................................. 50 



15 Economic Impact .................................................................................................... 51 

16 Summary ................................................................................................................. 52 

17 What Happens Next? .............................................................................................. 53 

Appendices 

A Glossary ................................................................................................................... 54 

B Airport Statistics ..................................................................................................... 61 

C Chart showing the existing Airspace Configuration ............................................ 62 

D Diagram of Proposed Channel Islands Airspace Configuration .......................... 63 

E Comparison of VMC Minima for Class D Airspace ............................................... 64 

F Timetable to Implementation ……………………………………………………………65 

G List of Consultees ................................................................................................... 67 



PART A 

BACKGROUND 



1. About this Consultation 

1.1 What is this Consultation About? 

1.1.1 This Sponsor Consultation is about a proposal to change the airspace 

classification and configuration of the airspace in the vicinity of the Channel 

Islands (CI) Airports and the airspace which is delegated by France and the 

United Kingdom 3 to the jurisdiction of Jersey Air Traffic Control (ATC). 

1.1.2 The Jersey and Guernsey Airport authorities believe that it is necessary to 

undertake a thorough review of all aspects of the CI airspace to: 

 

 

 

 

bring it up to date; 

reflect the capabilities of modern aircraft fleets and Air Traffic 

Management (ATM) Systems; 

bring it into line with current ICAO and European airspace management 

programmes; 

enable more efficient flight profiles and use of airspace to be achieved. 

This proposal is one element of the airspace review and is not dependent on any 

other aspects of the overall review programme. 

1.1.3 This Sponsor Consultation is the one of a number that will be conducted as the 

JAARP airspace review progresses. However, some aspects of the JAARP 

airspace changes may not require a full sponsor consultation and can be 

implemented more expeditiously and are not covered by this Consultation. 

Amongst the latter are the introduction of RNAV 4 Instrument Approach 

Procedures at Jersey and Guernsey Airports, which will be completed in early 

2013. A change to the Transition Altitude within the CI airspace has been the 

subject of a separate Industry consultation and has been submitted separately to 

the regulatory authorities for their consideration and planned implementation in 

mid-2013. 

1.2 Why is this Consultation being carried out? 

1.2.1 The CI airspace and ATS arrangements adopt, as far as is practicable, UK 

policies, procedures and practices. Therefore the JAARP is being conducted in 

accordance with the process for airspace changes established by the UK Civil 

Aviation Authority (CAA). This is detailed in Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725 5 

published by the CAA. The UK CAA is providing regulatory oversight of the CI 

airspace change on behalf of the Director of Civil Aviation, Channel Islands (DCA 

CI). 

1.2.2 The UK CAA requires that where a change to the airspace status, or a significant 

change to procedures or the distribution of traffic in the vicinity of an airport is 

3 Whilst this document has been compiled, the UK CAA and DCA CI have ratified the status of the CI CTR and 

CTA 1 airspace structures which are situated in the London FIR. These volumes of airspace are confirmed as 

‘Areas of Delegated ATS’ as opposed to ‘delegation of airspace’ as stated here and through the remainder of the 

document. However, or the purposes of this consultation, the original designation has been retained as it should 

not make any difference to the understanding of the proposed changes contained in this airspace change. 

4 RNAV: Area Navigation. See Glossary 

5 CAP725: CAA Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process. 



proposed then a consultation must be carried out, by the airport operator 

concerned, with the airspace users who may be directly or indirectly affected by 

the change and with organisations representing those who may be affected on 

the ground by the environmental impact of the change. This proposal is about a 

change to the status and configuration of the airspace. There is no significant 

change to procedures or to the distribution of traffic in the vicinity of the CI 

Airports arising from this proposal. (Changes to some flight procedures arising 

from the JAARP will be the subject of separate consultations at a later stage.) 

1.2.3 This proposed airspace development and Sponsor Consultation is being 

conducted in accordance with the CAA requirements, together with any additional 

requirements which may be necessary to meet the French airspace regulatory 

requirements. 

1.2.4 The Consultation carried out by the airport operator enables the UK CAA to meet 

its obligations under the UK Transport Act 2000 and, in this case, for the DCA CI 

to meet his obligations under the Civil Aviation (Jersey) Act 2008 and the Aviation 

(Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008. 

1.2.5 Fundamentally, the Sponsor Consultation will enable Jersey and Guernsey 

Airports to obtain or confirm views and opinions about the impact of the proposed 

airspace change. 

1.3 Who is being consulted? 

1.3.1 In the first case, the affected aviation parties comprise airlines and other aircraft 

operators based at or using the CI Airports, the operators of adjacent 

aerodromes, other local aircraft operators who may be affected by the change 

and the National bodies representing UK and French aviation interests who may 

be affected by the proposed changes. 

1.3.2 In the second case, non-aviation affected parties comprising the appropriate 

Islands Heads of Government and the Parishes over whose areas the airspace 

lies are being consulted together with certain specified environmental 

organisations. An explanation of why these non-aviation stakeholders are 

included is contained in a companion guide to the JAARP which is issued 

concurrently with this document. 

1.3.3 A full list of consultees is given at Appendix G. 

1.3.4 Consultees should note that in the development of the proposed airspace 

arrangements the JAARP has involved local aviation and non-aviation 

stakeholders through the use of Focus Groups, as specified in CAP725. This is 

detailed in Section 8. 

1.3.5 Consultees have a crucial role in providing relevant and timely feedback to the 

JAARP, giving their views and opinions on the impact of the proposed airspace 

change. 

1.4 Conduct of the consultation 

1.4.1 The DCA CI requires that this Consultation is conducted in accordance with the 

principles set out in the UK Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation. 

1.4.2 Jersey Airport, which holds operational responsibility for the CI airspace, has 

appointed Cyrrus Ltd to assist in the development of this proposal and to 



co-ordinate the consultation process. Cyrrus Ltd is an airspace management 

consultancy company with extensive experience of managing Airspace Change 

Proposals in the UK and overseas and conducting consultation to meet the CAA 

requirements. In this project Cyrrus Ltd is acting in consortium with Egis Avia, 

one of the premier European companies fully dedicated to air transport and 

offering to its clients a comprehensive set of services, assistance and products in 

ATM, Airport and Air Operations. Egis Avia has similar extensive experience of 

airspace and procedure design for French ATS and Regulatory Authorities. 

1.4.3 This Consultation document encompasses both the aviation and the 

environmental aspects of the proposed changes to the airspace. The document 

is structured to give a clear and concise explanation of the proposed changes in 

plain language. Whilst aviation consultees will be familiar with the aeronautical 

terminology used, non-aviation consultees may not be so familiar with aviation 

terminology and practice; consequently, these aspects are explained in some 

detail where appropriate. 

1.4.4 A Glossary of Terms is given at Appendix A. Technical terminology is explained 

as simply as possible for the benefit of non-aviation consultees. 

1.4.5 Should individual consultees require additional clarification of the terminology 

used or other aspects of the consultation, or of the proposed airspace design, a 

discrete e-mail address airspace@jerseyairport.com is provided. This is the 

preferred method of contacting the Sponsor. Please indicate clearly that you are 

making a QUERY. 

1.4.6 Although this document is made available on the Jersey Airport Website at 

www.jerseyairport.com and on the Guernsey Airport website at www.guernseyairport.gov.gg 

hard copies are available on request to the focal point detailed in 

paragraph 1.7.1. 

1.4.7 In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the 

CAA’s requirements, a period of 12 weeks is allowed for consultation. In order to 

make allowance for the Easter Bank Holiday period we have extended the 

consultation period to 13 weeks. Thus the Consultation Period begins on 18 

February 2013 and is planned to close on 20 May 2013. 

1.4.8 Within this period we ask you, or the organisation you represent, to 

consider the proposal and submit your response to us. Responses can be 

made to the discrete e-mail address airspace@jerseyairport.com or in writing (to 

the address given in paragraph 1.7.1). Please indicate clearly that it is a 

RESPONSE to the consultation. Even if you have no comment to make on 

the proposed changes we would still appreciate a response to that effect. 

1.4.9 If you have any queries about what is presented in the Consultation document 

please contact the focal point as soon as possible. 

1.5 Results of the Sponsor Consultation 

1.5.1 We will be monitoring the responses as they are received. If we need clarification 

of any of the comments you have made we will contact you. 

1.5.2 At the end of the consultation period we will analyse the responses received and 

prepare a formal submission to the DCA CI and the CAA Directorate of Airspace 

Policy (DAP). If the consultation responses indicate areas where minor changes 



could be made to the design of the airspace to improve any aspects of the 

operation without detriment to the environmental (which is unlikely as the impact 

of this change is neutral) or operational impact, these will be incorporated within 

the submission to DCA CI and DAP. 

1.5.3 A brief Report of the Consultation will be added to the websites 

www.jerseyairport.com and www.guernsey-airport.gov.gg for the benefit of 

consultees. Interested parties should monitor the website address for updates. 

1.5.4 Subsequently, the CAA will follow its regulatory process and in due course, if they 

are content with the Sponsor Consultation and formal submission, will advise 

DCA CI and arrange for implementation of the proposed airspace arrangements. 

1.5.5 Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the Consultation, it is planned that the 

proposed changes to the CI airspace would be implemented on 9 January 2014 

in accordance with the international requirements for the promulgation of 

aeronautical information. 

1.6 What this Consultation is not about 

1.6.1 Finally, it is appropriate to tell you what is not included in the scope of this 

Sponsor Consultation. 

1.6.2 This Consultation is not about any future development of the CI Airports nor any 

aspect of UK or CI Governments’ Airports Policy. 

1.6.3 This Consultation is not about Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) or the 

Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs) or Standard Arrival Routes 

(STARs) for the CI Airports. The IAPs have been reviewed recently and do not 

need to be changed as a consequence of this airspace proposal. Whilst the SIDs 

and STARs are under review within the JAARP, it has been concluded that, on 

balance, a phased approach to the introduction of the changes arising from the 

JAARP would better meet the needs of both the ATS providers and the airspace 

users. Therefore, any changes to the navigation requirements and route 

structures within the subject airspace will be the subject of a separate 

consultation. 

1.6.4 This Consultation is not about the Noise Abatement Procedures for departing 

aircraft or Noise Preferential Routes. The proposed airspace configuration is 

compatible with the existing Noise Abatement Procedures. In the event that any 

separate changes to SID and STAR procedures, as outlined above in subparagraph 

1.6.3, would impact on the Noise Abatement Procedures or the 

distribution of traffic overland then this aspect would be included in a separate 

consultation. 

1.6.5 Any comments on the issues set out in this paragraph 1.6 which may be included 

in your responses will be noted but will be discounted from the analysis. 

1.7 Focal Point for this Consultation 

1.7.1 The focal point for this Consultation is: 

Jersey ATC (JAARP Co-ordinator) 


St Peter 

Jersey 



JE1 1BY 

Tel: +44 (0) 1534 446085 

Fax: +44 (0) 1534 446075 

e-mail: airspace@jerseyairport.com 

1.7.2 The discrete e-mail address airspace@jerseyairport.com is the preferred method 

for you to raise any queries on the content or conduct of this Consultation and to 

submit your formal response. Please clearly indicate whether you are making a 

QUERY or RESPONSE. Written responses should be sent to the Sponsor at the 

address detailed in sub-paragraph 1.7.1 above. 

1.8 UK CAA Oversight 

1.8.1 On behalf of DCA CI, the UK CAA DAP maintains oversight of the conduct of the 

Consultation being carried out to ensure that Jersey Airport adheres to the 

process laid down in CAP725. If you have any complaints about Jersey Airport’s 

adherence to the consultation process these should be referred to: 

Head of Co-ordination & Consultation 

Directorate of Airspace Policy 

CAA House 

45 - 59 Kingsway 

London WC2B 6TE 

e-mail: airspacepolicy@caa.co.uk 

1.8.2 It is emphasised that DAP will not comment to consultees on the proposal itself. 

1.9 Confidentiality 

1.9.1 The CAA requires that all consultation material, including copies of responses 

from consultees and others, is included in any formal submission to the CAA of 

an Airspace Change Proposal 

1.9.2 Jersey Airport undertakes that, apart from the necessary submission of material 

to the CAA and essential use by our consultants for analysis purposes, Jersey 

Airport will not disclose personal details or content of responses and submissions 

to any third parties. Our consultants are signatories to confidentiality agreements 

in this respect. 



2. Channel Islands Airports 

2.1 Airports are established on the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney and are 

licensed by DCA CI for public use. In addition privately operated helicopter 

landing sites are established at Jethou (Guernsey) and on Brecqhou Island to the 

east of Guernsey. 

2.2 Aerodrome licences are issued in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Jersey) Law 

2008 and the Aviation (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008 and the regulatory 

requirements are those laid down in the (UK) CAP168 (Licensing of Aerodromes) 

published by the UK CAA. 

2.3 Jersey Airport is situated on the western side of the Island and was first opened 

in March 1937. A hard runway, aligned approximately east-west, was laid in the 

early 1950s and extended in 1965. In 1997, a modern extension to the original 

Terminal Building was opened providing more space and better facilities for 

passengers. 

2.4 Jersey Airport has long been a major contributor to the Island’s economy, 

providing scheduled and charter passenger flights to UK and European 

destinations, together with significant and essential inter-island air services. The 

Airport is a key strategic asset to the Channel Islands collectively and continues 

to play a significant role in the growth of the major industries – tourism and 

finance. 

2.5 Notwithstanding the downturn experienced by the aviation industry in recent 

years, Jersey Airport has been successful in attracting new routes and airlines, 

including low-cost operators. The Airport also attracts substantial business 

(corporate) aircraft activity and has a thriving light General Aviation (GA) 

community comprising both locally-based and visiting GA activity. 

2.6 Since 2007, a major programme of capital works has been undertaken, including 

the resurfacing and re-profiling of the runway, a new ATC facility and new radar 

installation. 

2.7 Guernsey Airport is centrally located on the south side of the Island of Guernsey 

and was first opened in May 1939 as a military aerodrome. Regular air services, 

as a civil airport, were established in 1946. The aerodrome originally had four 

grass runways, but these were replaced by a single paved runway, aligned eastwest, 

in 1960. 

2.8 In 2009, a major programme of essential maintenance and works was approved 

which will bring the runway and its environs up to modern safety standards. 

These works are underway and are expected to be completed in 2013 and are 

not part of this consultation. 

2.9 Like its neighbour on Jersey, the Airport is a strategic asset and a major 

contributor to the Island economy. Scheduled and charter services are provided 

to mainland UK and Europe, as well as the essential inter-island services. 

Guernsey also has a thriving corporate and light GA community with both locallybased 

and visiting GA aircraft. 



2.10 Alderney Airport is located at the south-western tip of Alderney and is the 

smallest of the three Island airports in terms of commercial aircraft movements. It 

was first opened in 1938. It is the closest to both the French and the UK 

mainland, being less than 10nm from the French coast. The airport has one 

paved runway, aligned approximately east-west, and two grass runways. 

Alderney Airport is administered by Guernsey Airport authorities on behalf of the 

States of Alderney. 

2.11 Alderney Airport is served by the indigenous CI-based airline, Aurigny, providing 

scheduled passenger services to the UK mainland as well as the essential interisland 

services. Alderney Airport also serves a thriving light GA market with both 

locally based and visiting private aircraft, whilst UK-based Flying Training 

organisations conduct frequent Instrument Approach training using the Airport’s 

NDB and RNAV approach procedures. 

2.12 Notwithstanding the recent global downturn in the commercial aviation industry, 

all three airports provide a vital strategic asset to the economies of all of the CI. 

Whilst commercial aircraft movements have declined in recent years, in line with 

the global economic situation, growth is expected to return in 2013 and the three 

airports stand ready to meet any new demand. Airport movement statistics for all 

three CI airports are given at Appendix B. 



3. Institutional Arrangements 

3.1 The “Institutional arrangements” surrounding the operation of Jersey, Guernsey 

and Alderney Airports and their surrounding airspace are complex and unique. 

3.2 The Island States are Crown Dependencies, possessions of the British Crown, 

and have their own legislatures. As such, they are not part of the UK, nor of the 

European Union (EU). However, the Islands lie within airspace which is 

designated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to the 

administration of France as the Brest Flight Information Region (FIR). 

3.3 In order to resolve the tri-partite institutional situation, the legal and administrative 

framework for operation of the airspace arrangements is detailed in a tri-partite 

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) through which the French airspace 

authorities delegate a specified portion of the Brest FIR to the administration of 

Jersey ATC. The MoU includes funding arrangements for the delegated 

provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS). The tri-partite arrangement was first 

established in 1947. The most recent review of the MoU took place in 2010. 

3.4 In addition to the delegated airspace in the Brest FIR, the UK Authorities 6 

delegate a portion of the London FIR to the jurisdiction of Jersey ATC. This is 

also detailed in the tri-partite MoU. The UK delegated airspace is approximately 

10% by volume of the airspace delegated to Jersey ATC. 

3.5 Within the delegated airspace the CI authorities adopt the UK legislative 

framework for the operation of the Airports and the delegated airspace. The 

relevant CI legislation comprises the Air Navigation (Jersey) Order 2008 and the 

Aviation (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008, which enact the appropriate elements 

of the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO). The dimensions of the French and UK 

airspace delegated to the jurisdiction of Jersey ATC are specified in the MoU and 

the Civil Aviation (Jersey) Law 2008. 

3.6 Whilst the Islands themselves are not part of the EU, the airspace, being part of 

the French administered airspace, must reflect those EU Directives and 

Regulations adopted by France. Similarly, as part of the EU, the UK ANO reflects 

those EU Directives and Regulations adopted by the UK. Thus EU Directives 

and Regulations are inherently applicable to the CI airspace. 

3.7 The delegated airspace is currently known as the Channel Islands Control Zone 

CI (CTR) 7 and Control Areas (CTA). Notification of the Airports, airspace and 

associated airspace procedures is through the UK Aeronautical Information 

Publication (AIP). The France AIP notifies only those ATS Route (Airway) 

segments which are embedded within the CI CTR/CTA and which form part of the 

French en-route ATS Route System. 

3.8 Outside the hours of operation of Jersey ATC 8 the CI CTR and CTA cease to 

exist. The French delegated airspace reverts to Brest FIR (including ATS 

6 See footnote 3 on Page 8 

7 The CI Control Zone is often abbreviated to CICZ. However, throughout this document the standard ICAO 

abbreviation for Control Zone - CTR - is used. 

8 Current hours of operation: 0515 - 2100 Summer; 0415 - 2030 Winter, and by arrangement outside these 

hours. 



Routes) (Class D and E airspace) administered by Brest Area Control Centre 

(ACC) to the south of the FIR boundary. In the London FIR the airspace reverts 

to Class G airspace, administered by London ACC (LACC) to the north of the FIR 

boundary. An explanation of these classifications can be found in Section 7 

paragraph 7.5. 



4. Air Traffic Management at the CI Airports 

4.1 ATS is provided by the Airport Operators of Jersey and Guernsey Airports. The 

ATS at Alderney Airport is provided by the Guernsey Airport authorities. Jersey 

ATC is designated as an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) under Single 

European Skies (SES) Regulations in respect of the en-route service provided on 

behalf of the French aviation authorities. The ATS is regulated by DCA CI, with 

regulatory oversight and advice provided by the UK CAA under contract to DCA 

CI. 

4.2 The ATS provided by the CI Airports is in accordance with the UK model as 

detailed in the UK ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations (RotAR) and the Manual of 

Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS Pt. 1). The relevant parts of UK legislation are 

enacted through the Air Navigation (Jersey) Order 2008 and the Aviation 

(Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008. Safety Management Systems (SMS) are 

established which are compliant with ICAO Standards and UK, EUROCONTROL 

and EU regulations (as specified in UK CAA CAP670 ATS Safety Requirements). 

The UK CAA provides regulatory oversight and advice to DCA CI. 

4.3 CTRs designated as Class D airspace, extending from the surface to 2000ft 

above mean sea level (amsl), are established around Jersey, Guernsey and 

Alderney Airports. The Jersey CTR comprises a circle of radius 8NM centred on 

the Jersey Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP). The Guernsey CTR comprises a 

circle of radius 8NM centred on the Guernsey ARP together with a stub to the 

north-east of 5nm width linking tangentially to the Alderney CTR. The Alderney 

CTR comprises a circle of radius 5NM centred on the Alderney ARP and a 

tangential stub of width 5nm joining the Guernsey CTR. The airspace is 

described more fully in Section 6. 

4.4 Flight under the Visual Flight Rules 9 (VFR) is permitted in Class D airspace. 

Embedded within each CTR, in the immediate vicinity of each aerodrome, is an 

Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) extending to a radius of 2NM from the ARP. The 

ATZs are also Class D airspace where they are coincident with the airport CTRs 

and extend from the surface to 2000ft above aerodrome level (aal). 

4.5 The three airport CTRs are embedded within the CI CTR, designated as Class A 

controlled airspace, which extends from surface to FL195 and represents the 

volume of airspace delegated to the jurisdiction of Jersey ATC by the French and 

UK authorities 10 . Additionally, two triangular fillets of Class A controlled airspace 

extend on the north-west and north-east corners of the CI CTR with base levels 

FL55 and FL35 11 , known as Control Area (CTA)-1 and CTA-2 respectively, and 

are also delegated. These CTAs provide linkage to, and continuity with, the UK 

en-route ATS System. Flight under the Instrument Flight Rules 12 (IFR) is 

mandatory in Class A airspace. 

9 Visual Flight Rules: Rules 25 to 31 of the UK RotAR 2007. See Glossary 

10 See footnote 3 on Page 8 

11 The base of level CTA-2 will be adjusted to 3500ft amsl coincidentally with the proposed change to the 

Transition Altitude at AIRAC 5/2013 

12 Instrument Flight Rules: Rules 32 to 37 of the UK RotAR 2007 See Glossary 



4.6 The Jersey and Guernsey Class D CTRs do not abut each other, nor do they 

extend to the external boundary of the Class A CI CTR. Therefore it is not 

possible to conduct flights wholly under the VFR either for inter-Island flights or 

to/from mainland France. In this instance, for flights which cannot comply wholly 

with the IFR, Special VFR 13 clearance may be issued by ATC. 

4.7 Passing through the CI CTR are three en route ATS Routes (or “Airways”) (A25, 

G27, N160) within which Jersey ATC provides an en-route ATS. Two additional 

en route ATS Routes (Q41, R1) originate within the CI CTR and link to the UK 

ATS Route system at ORTAC, although they currently serve no operational or 

flight planning function. 

4.8 The current airspace configuration is shown at Appendix C. 

4.9 Jersey ATC 

4.9.1 Jersey ATC provides ATS comprising surveillance (radar)-based Approach 

Control Service (APS) and Aerodrome Control Service (ADI). Additionally an 

Area Control Service is provided to en-route aircraft operating on the embedded 

en-route ATS Routes and to aircraft inbound to and outbound from the CI Airports 

from the adjoining French and UK en-route systems. Jersey ATC is the notified 

Controlling Authority of the whole of the CI CTR and adjoining CTAs except for 

the Guernsey and Alderney CTRs 14 . 

4.9.2 Surveillance is provided by an off-airport sited Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) 

supplemented by Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR). The current radar 

systems will be replaced by a recently installed on-airport Selex ATCR33SE PSR 

with co-mounted Selex Mode S in early 2013. Jersey ATC also has access to a 

direct feed of the Guernsey PSR. 

4.9.3 Radar separation minima approved for Jersey APS is 3NM within 40NM of the 

radar antenna and below FL245; 5NM between 40 and 80NM from the radar 

antenna and 10NM beyond 80NM from the radar antenna 15 . In the event of 

failure of the PSR, approval has been granted for the provision of separation 

using SSR alone to minima of 5NM within 80NM of the radar antenna. 

4.9.4 The navigation infrastructure for Jersey Airport comprises an off-airport VHF 

Omni-Directional Radio Range (VOR) (JSY VOR/DME) with co-located Distance 

Measuring Equipment (DME) located 5.5NM east of the Airport at L’Eglise; a 

Locator Non-Directional Beacon (NDB(L)) (JY NDB) located just outside the 

aerodrome boundary to the west; and Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) with 

13 A Special VFR Clearance is an authorisation by ATC for a pilot to fly in a CTR in circumstances which require 

flight under the IFR although the pilot is unable to comply with the IFR. The pilot must comply with conditions 

specified by ATC instead of the IFR and must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and 

must remain in flight conditions which enable him to determine his flight path and keep clear of obstacles. 

Special VFR clearance is only to be granted when traffic conditions allow the flight to take place without 

hindrance to normal IFR flights. Special VFR clearance is intended to be available only to light aircraft of less 

than 5700kg where the pilot is not qualified, or the aircraft is not equipped, to operate under the IFR. However, 

exceptionally, a Special VFR clearance may be granted for an aircraft with all-up-weight greater than 5700kg and 

capable of operating under the IFR. 

14 In addition to the Guernsey and Alderney CTRs a portion of the CI CTR is permanently delegated to the 

jurisdiction of Guernsey ATC under locally agreed arrangements. 

15 Co-use of the Guernsey PSR enables the use of 3NM radar separation as far as, but not beyond, ORTAC 



DME serving both runways 09 and 27. The JSY VOR/DME provides an en-route 

navigation function for ATS Routes N160 and G27 in the lower airspace and ATS 

Routes UN160, UN472, UN502, UT220 and UY111 in the upper airspace. It is 

the terminal arrival facility for Jersey Airport providing the navigation function for 

STARs, Holding and IAPs. It also defines SID routes from Jersey and, to a lesser 

extent, Guernsey Airports. The JY NDB provides a holding and IAP facility for 

runway 09. The ILS installations provide precision approach to Category I 

minima 16 to each direction of the runway. 

4.9.5 In addition, RNAV (GNSS) non-precision IAPs will be introduced in April 2013 which 

will provide modern IAPs more suited to the capabilities of modern aircraft 

navigation systems when the ILS is out of service. 

4.9.6 The predominant Air Transport Movement (ATM) traffic flow to/from Jersey 

Airport is via the UK ATS Route system at ORTAC. Approximately 80% of 

“Airways” traffic to/from Jersey Airport routes via the ORTAC complex (ATS 

Routes Q41 (bi-directional), L980 and M185 (eastbound) and N612 (southbound 

FL200 via LELNA)). Outbound routing via ORTAC is restricted to not above 

FL190 by the UK Strategic Traffic Orientation Scheme and ATS Route 

requirements. However, the majority of Jersey scheduled services are short-haul 

services to London Terminal Control Area (TMA) or Solent CTA destinations. 

Flights seeking to operate into or across the London TMA at levels above FL190, 

or to destinations on the eastern side of the London TMA, are required by the UK 

Standard Route Document (SRD) to utilise ATS Routes to the east, across the 

Cherbourg Peninsular, before joining the UK ATS Route system. Other ATM 

flights to mainland Europe use the ATS Route structure to the east and south of 

the CI CTR, whilst traffic to/from the northern UK and Ireland utilises the 

SKERY/SKESO complex to the north-west (ATS Routes N862 and Y91 

(Conditional Route)). Aircraft types in use on scheduled and charter airline 

operations to/from Jersey encompass the spectrum of the smaller commercial 

airliners including the most modern Airbus, Boeing and Embraer jets through to 

the older generation of small piston engine Trislander aircraft. Corporate aircraft 

types operating to/from Jersey include high-end executive jets through to smaller 

piston engine types. 

4.9.7 The other main ATM traffic flow is of inter-Island flights to/from Guernsey and 

Alderney, which operate under both IFR and VFR/Special VFR. Approximately 

30% of Jersey ATM traffic comprises inter-Island flights. This includes both 

scheduled inter-island services and positioning flights. 

4.9.8 Approximately 25% of Jersey traffic comprises light GA aircraft operating as IFR, 

VFR and Special VFR flights and operating to/from the French and UK mainland 

as well as local training and inter-island flights. A Recommended Route structure 

is in place for GA cross-channel flights (UK AIP ENR 1.1.3). Visual Reference 

Points (VRPs) are established on the French coastline and around the periphery 

of Jersey to assist in the integration of light GA VFR/Special VFR flights with 

other flights to/from the airport. 

4.9.9 In addition to the provision of a normal Approach Control function for aircraft 

inbound to/outbound from Jersey Airport, Jersey ATC acts, effectively, as a 

16 Cat I: Decision Height (DH) not less than 200ft; visibility not less than 800m or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 

not less than 550m. 



Terminal Air Traffic Control Centre (ACC), providing the interface and ATC 

management and integration of air traffic between the three Island Airports and 

the adjoining UK and French ACCs and ATS Route structures. 

4.10 Guernsey ATC 

4.10.1 Guernsey ATC provides ATS comprising APS and ADI services. Additionally, 

APS is provided for Alderney Airport. 

4.10.2 Surveillance is provided by an on-airport PSR which will be replaced by a modern 

Thales PSR and co-mounted SSR in late 2013. SSR data is currently provided 

by a feed from the Jersey SSR. 

4.10.3 Radar separation minima approved for Guernsey APS is 3NM within 40NM of the 

radar antenna 17 and below FL245. 

4.10.4 The navigation infrastructure at Guernsey Airport comprises an on-airport 

VOR/DME facility (GUR VOR/DME). ILS with co-located DME is provided to 

runways 27 and 09, providing precision approach to Cat I minima in each case. 

The GUR VOR/DME is the terminal arrival facility for Guernsey Airport, and 

provides the navigation function for STARs, holding and non-precision IAPs. It 

also provides the navigational function for SID procedures. However, it is not 

designated as an en-route navigational facility. 

4.10.5 Additionally, RNAV (GNSS) non-precision IAPs have recently been introduced, 

which provide a more modern IAP capability when the ILS is out of service. 

4.10.6 The predominant ATM traffic flows to/from Guernsey Airport are via the UK ATS 

Route System at ORTAC and Inter-Island flights, the latter operating as both IFR 

and VFR/Special VFR flights. Approximately 80% of Guernsey “Airways” traffic 

operates via ORTAC. Approximately 40% of Guernsey/Alderney ATMs 

comprises inter-Island flights. 

4.11 Alderney ATC 

4.11.1 ATS provided by Alderney Airport comprise APS and ADI services. The APS 

element is provided remotely from Guernsey Airport using the Guernsey Radar. 

4.11.2 The predominant ATM traffic flows to/from Alderney are Inter-Island flights, 

operating under both the IFR and VFR/Special VFR. Scheduled ATMs to/from 

Solent CTA airports operate via the ORTAC complex at the lower Airway levels. 

4.11.3 A major proportion of Alderney Airport operation is VFR/Special VFR light GA 

traffic to/from the French and UK mainland. This accounts for approximately 50% 

of total traffic movements. 

4.11.4 The navigation infrastructure at Alderney comprises a Locator NDB (ALD NDB) 

which provided non-precision IAPs to Runways 08 and 26. In addition, 

RNAV (GNSS) non-precision IAPs were introduced to Runways 08 and 26 in 2011. 

17 NB: ORTAC and SKERY ATS Significant Points on ATS Routes Q41 and A25 respectively are both 40nm 

from the radar antenna. 



4.11.5 Alderney is used by a number of training organisations for Instrument Flight 

Training; this can account for some 20% of airspace movements on some days. 



Part B 

Airspace Change Proposal 



5. Introduction 

5.1 This Section of the Sponsor Consultation Document details the proposed 

airspace changes associated with: 

 

 

 

the airspace classification; 

the external controlled airspace boundary; and 

the internal airspace configuration in the immediate vicinity of the three 

airports. 

Each aspect is dealt with separately. 

5.2 In each case the options that have been considered are detailed and the 

conclusions reached in determining the preferred option. Following this, there is 

an assessment of the impact that the changes, as a whole, are likely to have on 

the operation of various elements of the airspace user community. 

5.3 The design of controlled airspace is a careful balance between the competing 

needs of the various airspace users, the operational requirements of ATS 

providers and it must also take into account the environmental impact of aircraft 

operations. In this ACP, an additional consideration is the complex institutional 

arrangements which underpin the airspace arrangements. However, at all times 

flight safety takes precedence. 

5.4 Airspace designers and sponsors of controlled airspace changes do not have a 

“free hand” in determining the size and shape of any particular controlled 

airspace. There are many requirements and protocols that must be observed in 

developing the optimum airspace configuration. The UK CAA Regulatory 

requirements for the design of controlled airspace and associated infrastructure 

are detailed in CAP725 and are derived from ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices (SARPS) and associated documents (e.g. Procedures 

for Air Navigation Services (PANS)), Single European Skies (SES) Regulations 

and EUROCONTROL requirements), together with discrete UK Policy 

requirements. 

5.5 Those elements of the requirements that are pertinent to this airspace change 

proposal are detailed below in order to assist consultees who may not be familiar 

with, or have ready access to, CAP725. 

5.6 Principally, the objectives of controlled airspace are to provide protection to 

passenger transport aircraft in the critical stages of flight prior to landing and after 

departure and in the en route phase of flight. Controlled airspace should provide 

for access, to the maximum extent practicable, by all classes of aircraft and 

should be of the minimum practicable dimensions commensurate with the safe 

and efficient use of airspace. Environmental considerations must also be taken 

into account. 

5.7 With respect to the dimensions of controlled airspace, the airspace should be of 

the minimum practicable dimensions but must encompass the obstacle clearance 

Primary Areas of Instrument Departure, Arrival, Holding, Approach and Missed 

Approach procedures, together with any additional airspace required to 

accommodate routine radar vectoring requirements. Instrument flight procedures 



should be contained at least 500ft above the base level of the controlled airspace 

but, conversely, the base level of the controlled airspace, where it is not at the 

surface, should allow sufficient “free airspace” beneath to enable nonparticipating 

aircraft to transit beneath the airspace whilst still complying with the 

relevant low flying Rules. 

5.8 Additionally, taking all of the above into account, the configuration of the airspace 

should be as simple as practicable. 



6. Airspace Description - Current Airspace 

6.1 The current controlled airspace under the jurisdiction of Jersey, Guernsey and 

Alderney ATC is detailed in the UK AIP at AD2.EGJJ-1 AD2.17; AD2.EGJB-1 

AD2.17 and AD.2-EGJA-1 AD2.17 respectively and is depicted on a chart at 

ENR-6-2-1-9. It comprises the following: 

6.2 Aerodrome Traffic Zones: 

6.2.1 Jersey Airport: The airspace within a circle of radius 2NM centred on the midpoint 

of Runway 27/09 (491229N 0021144W), surface to 2000ft aal, as notified in 

the Air Navigation (Jersey) Order 2008. 

6.2.2 Guernsey Airport: The airspace within a circle of radius 2NM centred on the midpoint 

of runway 09/27 (492605N 0023607W), surface to 2000ft aal, as notified in 

the Aviation (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008. 

6.2.3 Alderney Airport: The airspace within a circle of 2NM radius centred on the midpoint 

of runway 08/26 (494224N 0021252W), surface to 2000ft aal, as notified in 

the Aviation (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008. 

6.2.4 ATZs carry no airspace classification in their own right but adopt the classification 

of the airspace within which they are situated. Thus, the three ATZs are Class D 

controlled airspace, with a small volume protruding above 2000ft amsl as Class A 

controlled airspace. 

6.3 Control Zones 

6.3.1 Jersey Airport: The area enclosed by a circle 8 nm radius centred on Jersey 

Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) 491229N 0021144W, surface to 2000ft amsl. 

The Jersey CTR is notified as Class D controlled airspace. 

6.3.2 Guernsey Airport: The area enclosed by lines joining 493308N 0021538W - 

492717N 0022400W - thence clockwise by the arc of a circle radius 8 nm centred 

on 492606N 0023607W to 493404N 0023515W - 493957N 0022653W - 

493308N 0021538W, surface to 2000ft amsl. The Guernsey CTR is notified as 

Class D controlled airspace. 

6.3.3 Alderney Airport: The area enclosed by lines joining 493308N 0021538W - 

493957N 0022653W - 494548N 0021830W thence clockwise by the arc of a 

circle radius 5 nm centred on 494224N 0021252W to 493859N 0020714W - 

493308N 0021538W, surface to 2000ft amsl, surface to 2000ft amsl. The 

Alderney CTR is notified as Class D controlled airspace. 

6.4 Channel Islands CTR/CTA: 

6.4.1 CTR: 500000N 0020000W - 493000N 0020000W - 490200N 0014000W - 

490200N 0030000W - 500000N 0030000W - 500000N 0020000W; surface to 

FL195. 

6.4.2 CTA-1: 500000N 0030000W - 493500N 0030000W - 500000N 0032000W - 

500000N 0030000W. 

6.4.3 CTA-2: 500000N 0020000W - 500000N 0014700W - 494400N 0020000W - 

500000N 0020000W. 



6.4.4 The CI CTR and CTAs are notified as Class A controlled airspace, except for 

those portions which form the embedded Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney CTRs. 

6.4.5 That part of the CI CTR/CTA which lies south of a line 500000N 0014700W - 

500000N 0020000W - 494801N 0031024W (the FIR boundary) lies within the 

Brest FIR and is delegated to the jurisdiction of Jersey ATC by MoU (see 

paragraph 3). That part of the CI CTR/CTA which lies north of that line lies within 

the London FIR, and the provision of ATS is delegated to the jurisdiction of 

Jersey ATC through the MoU. 

6.5 En Route ATS Routes: 

6.5.1 Embedded within the CI CTR/CTA are a number of en route ATS Routes which 

are notified in the France AIP as follows 18 : 

a. A25: SKESO – LERAK – (DIN); FL55 – FL195 (UA25 

above); 

b. G27: (BENIX) – KETIC – JSY – LERAK – (ARE); 

FL55 – FL195 (UG27 above); 

c. N160: (CEN) – LUSIT – JSY VOR – TUNIT – (LIZAD); 

FL55 – FL195 (UN160 above); 

d. Q41: ORTAC – DOMOK; FL115 – FL195. 

e. R1: ORTAC – LAGUL (GUR VOR); FL35 – FL195; 

6.5.2 For those portions of these ATS route which lie within the CI CTR/CTA, Jersey 

ATC is the notified controlling authority in the France AIP. 

6.5.3 Within the France AIP the En Route ATS routes are, in general, notified 19 as 

Class E airspace at and below FL115 and Class D airspace above to FL195. 

However, where an ATS Route segment is included in an active TMA or CTA 

segment it adopts the TMA or CTA classification 20 . Thus, within the CI CTR/CTA, 

the En Route ATS Routes are designated as Class A controlled airspace for the 

periods when the CI CTR/CTA is active. 

6.6 Airspace Restrictions 

6.6.1 An airspace restriction EGR095 is in place around the island of Sark to the east 

of Guernsey. The Restricted Area (RA) comprises a circle of radius 3NM centred 

on Clos de Dixcart and extends vertically from the surface to 2000ft above ground 

level (i.e. to 2374ft amsl). The airspace restriction was established in 1971. 

6.6.2 Aircraft may not fly through the RA except with the permission of the States of 

Guernsey Public Services Department. Operationally, on a day-to-day basis that 

authority is devolved to Guernsey ATC for aircraft making routine Instrument 

Approaches to Runway 27 because the Final Approach Track and IAPs penetrate 

the RA. However, Guernsey ATC does not permit VFR or Special VFR flights to 

penetrate the RA except in emergency. 

18 The base levels of the en route ATS routes embedded within the CI/CTR/CTA will be raised to FL65 in May 

2013, coincident with the raising of the Transition Altitude to 5000ft. 

19 Fr AIP ENR 3.0-1 paragraph 1 

20 Fr AIP ENR 3.0-I paragraph 1.3 



6.6.3 The Sark RA and associated conditions are not affected by this proposal. 

6.7 Charts 

6.7.1 A Chart showing the existing airspace configuration is given at Appendix C. 



7. UK Airspace Policy for the Use of the ICAO Airspace Classifications 

7.1 The ICAO System of airspace classification, specified in ICAO Annex 1121, was 

introduced in 1991 and replaced an earlier ICAO system which specified only 

three types of airspace 22 . Prior to the introduction of the ICAO 1991 System the 

UK also used “Special Rules” to establish a known and managed airspace 

environment, either on a stand-alone basis or to enhance the rules of “controlled 

airspace – visual exempt”; this created the equivalent of today’s Class D 

airspace. 

7.2 The UK adopts and applies the ICAO system as detailed in a CAA Policy 

Statement most recently issued in 2010 23 . 

7.3 A number of basic principles are applied in the determination of the most 

appropriate classification for a given airspace. The classification is principally 

dependant on the number of ATMs operating within it (although no threshold 

numbers are set), the complexity of the IFR operations within it and the hazards 

posed to public transport flights operating under IFR. 

7.4 Additional principles to be applied are: 

a. the volume of controlled airspace (Classes A to E) shall be the minimum 

necessary for the effective protection of the whole ATC operation as 

defined by the ATS provider within a particular airspace, subject to the 

need to avoid over complication of airspace Structures and any 

environmental considerations; 

b. the classification shall be selected to permit safe access to as many 

classes of airspace user as possible; 

c. the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) concept should be considered at every 

opportunity to allow maximum integrated usage of airspace by all users. 

7.5 The ICAO airspace classifications adopted for use in UK airspace 24 are: 

a. Class A: airspace allowing operations under the IFR only in a controlled 

environment. ATC applies separation minima between all flights. 

b. Class C: airspace allowing for operations under both the IFR and the 

VFR in a controlled environment. ATC applies separation minima 

between IFR flights and all other flights; 

c. Class D: airspace allowing for operations under both the IFR and the 

VFR in a controlled environment. ATC applies separation minima 

between IFR flights and provides deconfliction measures against and 

between other flights; 

21 Annex 11: Air Traffic Services 

22 Pre-1991 airspace types were: “controlled airspace – instrument restricted”; “controlled airspace – visual 

exempt” and “uncontrolled airspace”. 

23 DAP Policy Statement 31 Aug 2010: The Application of the ICAO Airspace Classification System in the UK 

FIRs. http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4477 

24 Class B airspace, which permits both IFR and VFR flights with separation provided by ATC 

between all flights, is no longer applied in UK airspace. 



d. Class E: airspace allowing for operations under both the IFR and the VFR 

but where VFR operations are uncontrolled and may be unknown to ATC; 

e. Class G: all other airspace 25 . 

7.6 In general terms, the UK applies the various classifications as follows: 

a. Class A: Normally applied to airspace where the complexity of the ATM 

task justifies a permanent IFR-only environment. This is normally 

specified for Airways, major Terminal Control Areas (TMAs) and CTAs. In 

the case of TMAs and CTAs, the application of Class A is based on the 

complexity of the route structure and the interface procedures (particularly 

the interface with en-route operations) together with the associated ATC 

operations. Class A may be specified for certain CTRs based on the 

historic and future mix of traffic, complexity of operations and the density 

of operations. Currently only the London CTR and the CI CTR are 

designated as Class A airspace; all other CTRs are designated as Class 

D airspace. 

b. Class C: Applied throughout all UK FIRs between FL195 and FL660 in 

accordance with the European Commission (EC) Airspace Classification 

Regulation 26. Stringent access rules apply to civil VFR flights at these 

levels which, effectively, exclude them from routine access to the 

airspace. Class C is also currently applied to a small number of Airway 

segments below FL195. 

c. Class D: Applied in locations where a known and managed air traffic 

environment is necessary in both Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) 

and Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Class D is normally 

specified for CTRs and CTAs in the vicinity of aerodromes, unless there is 

an overriding need for a more restrictive classification, and to TMAs. 

Below FL195 Class D may also be specified for certain Airways, or 

portions of Airways. However, it is the long-term objective that these 

should be reclassified, where appropriate, as Class C airspace where this 

reflects operational conditions. 

d. Class E: Exceptionally specified where a known traffic environment is 

necessary only in IMC. The few remaining portions of Class E airspace 

are historic (i.e. pre-date the introduction of the current ICAO airspace 

classification system in 1991) and it is the intention of the UK CAA to 

phase out the use of this classification. ICAO Annex 11 states that Class 

E airspace shall not be used for CTRs 27 . 

e. Class G: Applies to the remainder of the airspace that lies within UK 

FIRs. 

25 The UK also applies, to a limited extent, Class F airspace (Advisory airspace) but only in the context of 

Advisory Routes and the intention is to progressively withdraw the use of this classification. 

26 European Commission Airspace Classification Regulation 730/2006 dated 11 May 2006. 

27 ICAO Annex 11 paragraph 2.6.1 



7.7 Where an Airway passes through a TMA or CTA having a different classification 

then that portion of the Airway adopts the classification of the TMA or CTA. 

7.8 French Application of the ICAO Airspace Classification System 

7.8.1 In general, the French authorities apply the ICAO airspace classification in a less 

restrictive manner than the UK authorities. 

7.8.2 In general, Airways are classified as Class E airspace at and below FL115 and as 

Class D airspace between FL115 and FL195. Class C is applied throughout the 

airspace above FL195 in accordance with EC Regulation 730/2006. 

7.8.3 TMAs are designated variously as Class C, D or E (except for portions of the 

Paris TMA which are Class A). CTAs and CTRs are Class D airspace (except for 

the Paris CTR which is Class A). 

7.8.4 As in the UK, where an Airway passes through a TMA or CTA having a different 

classification then it adopts the classification of the TMA or CTA for that portion of 

the Airway. 



8. Proposed Airspace Classification 

8.1 Proposal Development 

8.1.1 Throughout the development of the JAARP proposals the principles outlined in 

CAP725 have been applied. At the earliest stages Focus Groups were utilised, 

comprising an Airspace Users Focus Group (AUFG), an ATS Focus Group 

(ATSFG), an Environment Focus Group (EFG) and, due to the complexities of the 

unique institutional arrangements surrounding the CI airspace, an Institutional 

Focus Group (IFG). 

8.1.2 The purpose of the FGs was to invite a cross-section of those who may be 

affected by proposed changes to elicit their views and enable them to identify 

particular areas of concern to their particular interest. The role of the FGs is not 

to endorse or hinder the Change Sponsor’s initial proposals but to contribute to 

the overall airspace development process. The Change Sponsor, throughout the 

airspace development process, must take a balanced view on the issues raised in 

reaching the final proposed airspace configuration and arrangements for 

submission to the CAA DAP and, in this case, the DCA CI. 

8.1.3 One important outcome of the FG conclusions was that the JAARP project, as a 

whole, should be split into separate individually managed phases rather than 

combining all of the proposed elements into a single “big bang” change. This 

conclusion was accepted by Jersey Airport management and, as a consequence, 

this ACP is developed as a stand-alone element of the overall JAARP 

programme. 

8.1.4 The classification and configuration of the CI airspace was of particular concern 

to the AUFG and the ATSFG. Not surprisingly, airspace user views were as 

diverse as the types of airspace user operations. Airline operators were 

generally, but not unanimously, opposed to any increase in VFR operation, citing 

perceived increased impact on their operations, whilst at the other end of the 

spectrum “light” GA airspace users favoured Class D throughout the lower levels 

of the airspace. Some airspace users also suggested that consideration should 

be given to the application of Class C airspace. 

8.1.5 Similarly, diverse views existed amongst the ATS community who would be 

charged to manage the day-to-day airspace operation within the airspace 

classification framework developed by the JAARP. However, there was a general 

consensus within ATC that a wider application of Class D airspace throughout the 

lower levels would be of benefit both to ATC and most airspace users. 

8.1.6 Following the FG stage of the airspace development, further detailed 

consideration was given, both by the JAARP team and in ATC airspace 

development meetings, to all of the points raised by the FGs and to the wider 

aspects of airspace classification in the UK, France and European contexts. 

8.1.7 In particular, in the context of SES initiatives, whilst harmonisation of airspace 

classification by the Europe-wide application of Class C or D airspace below 

FL195 rather than the more restrictive Classes A and B, is an objective of the 

SES initiatives, all documentation reviewed 28 reinforces the continuing availability 

28 Specimen Examples: 



of all 7 ICAO airspace classes below FL195. There is currently no EC Mandate 

proposed in respect of airspace classification below FL195. 

8.1.8 The Options considered and conclusions reached are detailed below. 

8.2 Options considered 

8.2.1 Option 1: Do nothing 

8.2.1.1 Except for the embedded CTRs in the vicinity of the CI Airports, the CI CTR/CTA 

is Class A airspace throughout, from surface (or base level of CTAs) to FL195. 

This classification is historic and pre-dates the introduction of the 1991 ICAO 

Airspace Classification System. Prior to 1991 the airspace was “controlled 

airspace – instrument restricted” and had been so since its inception. At the time 

it was considered that the only alternative, “controlled airspace – visual exempt”, 

was not adequate to ensure the safety of public transport passenger flights in an 

area of intense military and light GA operations. The discrete UK concept of 

“Special Rules Airspace” had not then been developed. Thus, the more 

restrictive type of controlled airspace in the then available ICAO menu was 

applied to the CI airspace through the tri-partite MoU. When the 1991 system of 

airspace classification was introduced, the airspace was simply classified as 

Class A airspace on a like-for-like basis in accordance with the implementation 

policy adopted by the UK CAA at the time. 

8.2.1.2 Class A - mandatory IFR - airspace classification does not permit flight under the 

VFR. All flights must be conducted under the IFR. Separation minima are 

applied by ATC between all flights. 

8.2.1.3 In order to permit access to aerodromes within Class A airspace by aircraft and/or 

pilots that are unable to fully comply with the Rules for IFR flight, the concession 

of a Special VFR ATC clearance was established by ICAO for use in CTRs (only) 

in the vicinity of aerodromes. Under the Special VFR concession, primarily 

intended for use by light aircraft operating at low altitudes and pilots who are not 

qualified for IFR flight, the clearance is conditional upon the pilot remaining clear 

of cloud and in sight of the surface and in flight conditions which enable the pilot 

to determine his flight path and avoid obstacles. ATC remains mandated to 

provide standard separation minima between all flights, including between flights 

operating on Special VFR clearances. It should be noted that the UK definition 29 

and application 30 of Special VFR is registered as a Difference to the ICAO 

application of Special VFR Clearance detailed in ICAO Annex 2 as both are more 

tightly constrained within the UK airspace and ATC policies. However it should 

be noted that when the UK introduces the Standard European Rules of the Air 

(SERA) 31 , the Special VFR concession will no longer be available within Class A 

CTRs. The UK intends to implement the SERA in 2014. 

EUROCONTROL Draft Final Report on European Commission Mandate: Harmonisation of Airspace 

Classification in the Lower Airspace; April 2005 

2015 ECAC Airspace Concept and Strategy for the ECAC Area; Feb 2008; 

EUROCONTROL Route Network improvement Plan 2012 – 2014: European Airspace Design Methodology 

Guidelines; June 2012 (specifically paragraph 2.3.3) 

29 Rules of the Air Regulations Rule 1. 

30 UK AIP ENR 1-2-1 paragraph 2. 

31 The SERA were effective across the EU States from December 2012, but allow for a 2 year implementation 

period. 



8.2.1.4 Post-1991, when the wider menu of internationally recognised airspace 

classifications had become available, Class D CTRs were introduced in the 

immediate vicinity of the Airports in order to permit local operations under VFR, 

principally by locally based flying clubs, in the immediate vicinity of the Airports. 

However, the Class D airspace was not extended to permit either wholly VFR 

inter-island flights or VFR flights to/from mainland France. Within the Class D 

CTRs the Special VFR concession remains available to allow access to the 

Airports in poor weather conditions. 

8.2.1.5 Class A airspace designation precludes flight under the VFR, but additionally 

precludes flight on a Special VFR clearance by the holders of UK NPPL(A) and 

holders of PPL(A) (both UK and JAA-FCL) and holders of Basic CPL(A) whose 

licences do not include an Instrument Rating, when the flight visibility is less than 

10km. The DCA CI has found it necessary to issue General Exemptions to the 

Pilot Licencing Regulations in order to allow the holders of the above licences to 

operate within the CI airspace. However, the flight visibility minima for all holders 

of these licences when operating on Special VFR clearances remain 10km. The 

DCA CI, on the other hand, does recognise the IMC Rating and the holders of 

this rating are permitted to operate on Special VFR clearances in flight visibilities 

down to 3000m. 

8.2.1.6 Conversely, the holders of the same licences (without Instrument Rating) could 

legitimately operate in Class D airspace under the VFR down to the VMC minima 

flight visibility of 5km. The impact of this is that, whilst the holders of such 

licences without Instrument Ratings may fly (under VFR) in the immediate vicinity 

of the Airports when the visibility is less than 10km, they may not fly between 

Jersey and Guernsey or between the CI Airports and the mainland (nor can they 

fly between Guernsey and Alderney under VFR when the flight visibility is less 

than 10km or the cloud ceiling below 1500ft due to a local restriction on the use 

of the Class D corridor between the two Islands). 

8.2.1.7 The designation of a volume of airspace from surface to FL195 as a CTR is 

unusual and not in keeping with modern airspace classification and designation 

protocols. Again, it dates back to the inception of the airspace and the 

establishment of a tri-partite MoU. A particular anomaly with this designation is 

that, being a CTR throughout, it permits the application of Special VFR clearance 

throughout the airspace, to FL195, which was never the intent of the Special VFR 

concession. The impact of this is that aircraft of a greater all up weight and 

higher level of equipage and pilot qualification than was the intention of the 

Special VFR concession seek to take advantage of the Special VFR clearance to 

the higher levels of the CTR, thereby avoiding the EUROCONTROL en route 

charging mechanisms for IFR flights. 

8.2.1.8 Apart from the London CTR 32 (in the immediate vicinity of London (Heathrow) 

Airport) (surface to 2500ft ALT) and Paris CTRs (surface to 1500ft ALT), the CI 

CTR is the only Class A CTR within the UK or French airspace. Neither of the 

other Class A CTRs extends vertically as high as FL195, although they are 

embedded within larger Terminal Control Areas (TMAs) which are designated as 

Class A airspace. 

32 The UK is considering reclassification of the London CTR to Class C or D airspace as a consequence of the 

withdrawal of the Special VFR concession under the application of the SERA 



8.2.1.9 Given the current policies of the UK authorities, and taking into account the 

application of the ICAO airspace classification system by the French airspace 

authorities, it is considered that Class A airspace throughout the volume of the 

Channel Islands airspace is unnecessarily restrictive. It does not meet the 

objective of permitting access to as many classes of airspace user as practicable. 

8.2.1.10 It is therefore concluded that designation of the CI airspace as Class A CTR 

throughout to FL195 does not align with either the UK or the French application of 

the ICAO airspace classification system and is no longer appropriate. 

8.2.2 Option 2: Reclassify the CI CTR/CTA throughout as Class C or D airspace. 

8.2.2.1. Reclassification of the CI CTR/CTA, as a whole, as Class C or D airspace would 

overcome the limitation on VFR access to/from the mainland or for inter-island 

flights when the flight visibility is 5km or more. 

8.2.2.2 However, it would not overcome the anomaly of designating a CTR from surface 

to FL195. 

8.2.2.3 Furthermore, it is considered that granting access to VFR flights throughout the 

airspace, whether or not separated by ATC from IFR flights under the Class C or 

Class D rules, particularly in the complex airspace adjoining the UK en route 

sectors at ORTAC and SKERY, would not be appropriate. The SES “Exclusion” 

rules for VFR flights in Class C airspace are applicable only above FL195 and so 

could not be applied to the CI airspace. Under the Class C rules, it would be 

impracticable for ATC to provide separation between VFR and IFR flights at the 

upper levels (where there is no airspace speed limit imposed) and in areas where 

the radar separation minima available to ATC was 5NM. 

8.2.2.4 Similarly, it is considered that granting access to VFR flights throughout the 

airspace under the Class D rules, where the ultimate responsibility for separation 

from all other aircraft rests with the pilot of the VFR flight, would not be 

practicable. This is particularly the case at the upper levels where no airspace 

speed limit applies 33 and would not ensure an acceptable level of safety. 

8.2.2.5 It is therefore concluded that the application of Class C or D airspace throughout 

the CI CTR/CTA is not appropriate. 

8.2.3 Option 3: Introduce a vertical division of the airspace 

8.2.3.1 The introduction of a vertical division into the airspace and application of a 

different airspace classification above and below the division level would 

overcome the anomaly of the vertical extent of the CTR to FL195. The airspace 

below the division level would remain as CTR, whilst the airspace above the 

division level would become CTA or, more appropriately, Terminal Control Area 

(TMA). 

8.2.3.2 Furthermore, the anomalous availability of Special VFR clearance to levels up to 

FL195, beyond the intent of the concession for light aircraft, would be eliminated 

as Special VFR clearance is available only in CTRs. 

33 The airspace speed limit is an essential feature of the ICAO airspace classification system where “see and 

avoid” remains an element of collision avoidance (i.e. where ATC is not mandated to provide separation minima 

between certain flight operations). 



8.2.3.3 The arrangement would allow the application of an airspace classification 

appropriate to the nature of the Air Transport and other aircraft operations at the 

higher levels and to the complex ATS interfaces in the airspace around ORTAC 

and SKERY whilst allowing the application of an airspace classification more 

appropriate to a mix of Air Transport and light GA to be applied at the lower 

levels. 

8.2.3.4 This is the preferred option for improvement to the operation of the CI 

airspace. 

8.2.4 Airspace Classification above and below the vertical division 

8.2.4.1 Consideration has therefore been given to various combinations of airspace 

classification above and below the airspace vertical division of the airspace 

including Class A, Class C and Class D. 

8.2.4.2 Each classification has arguments for and against its use, which are tabulated 

below. However, at the FG stage and in subsequent discussions there was a 

general consensus in favour of Class D airspace throughout the lower levels to 

facilitate managed VFR access to/from the French mainland by light GA flights as 

well as inter-Island VFR flights between Jersey and Guernsey. It was noted that 

some corporate GA also prefer the flexibility afforded by VFR operation. 

8.2.4.3 Some controllers thought that the radio (RTF) workload for VFR flights, arising 

from deconfliction through the passing of traffic information rather than by positive 

application of separation minima, would be excessive. Nonetheless, experience 

throughout the UK in busy Class D CTRs/CTAs shows that RTF workload can be 

managed by strategic traffic deconfliction techniques which reduces the 

requirement to pass traffic information. 

8.2.4.4 The possible application of Class C airspace, in which ATC applies standard 

(IFR) separation minima between IFR and VFR flights but not between VFR and 

VFR flights was the subject of detailed consideration. At the FG stage a number 

of airspace users expressed a preference for this classification. Whilst it was 

noted that there is a more widespread application of Class C airspace in French 

terminal airspaces, in the UK it is not currently utilised in terminal airspace 

applications. 

8.2.4.5 Concerns exist amongst ATC staff over the onus placed on ATC to ensure the 

application of separation minima between IFR and VFR flights when the VFR 

flight may not at all times be able to comply with ATC instructions necessary to 

ensure the planned separation minima are achieved. The VFR pilot has an 

overriding requirement to remain in VMC and thus may need to deviate at short 

notice from levels or headings specified by ATC. In tightly constrained airspace 

with complex climbing and descending IFR traffic flows any requirement for a 

VFR pilot to deviate from the controllers “traffic plan” would be disruptive to the 

overall flow of traffic and generate a distracting additional workload. It is more 

likely that the controller would constrain or deviate the IFR flight around the VFR 

flight through vectoring or level allocation, knowing that the IFR pilot could always 

comply with instructions rather than attempt to vector the VFR flight to establish 

separation. 

8.2.4.6 Conversely, for Class D airspace, no separation minima are specified for 

application by ATC between VFR and IFR flights. Traffic integration through 

deconfliction, rather than separation, enables the most efficient utilisation of the 



airspace whilst retaining adequate flight safety. Deconfliction may be strategic 

(predetermined route structures) or tactical. Experience shows that Class D 

airspace works well in the UK terminal airspace environment. 

8.2.4.7 Summary of arguments for and against each classification: 

Class Pros Cons 

A 

C 

D 

IFR flight mandatory. 

Aircraft equipage and pilot qualification 

ensures that all flights can comply with 

ATC instructions at all times. Enables 

ATC to apply separation standards 

effectively. 

VFR operations permitted. 

Airlines prefer Class C where there is a 

mix of VFR and IFR flights because 

formal separation minima applied by 

ATC, not by pilots. 

Preferred over Class A for SES 

harmonisation of Airspace Classification 

in Lower Airspace. 

VFR operations permitted. 

Improved airspace efficiency and 

controller flexibility. Formal separation 

minima not required for VFR/IFR mix. 

Airspace available to all classes of 

aircraft. 

RTF workload can be reduced by 

strategic deconfliction measures. 

Preferred over Class A for SES 

harmonisation of Airspace Classification 

in Lower Airspace. 

VFR not permitted. 

Restrictive to light GA and to pilots who do 

not have instrument qualifications. 

Special VFR concession (in CTRs) intended 

for light GA only. 

Does not meet UK principles of making 

airspace available to as many classes of 

airspace user as possible. 

“Special arrangements” needed to 

accommodate recreational activities (hang 

gliding etc) 

Formal separation minima may be excessive 

for effective integration of IFR and VFR 

flights. In a VFR vs IFR traffic mix the VFR 

flight occupies the same airspace volume, in 

separation terms, as an IFR flight. 

VFR pilots may not be able to adhere to 

executive ATC instructions whilst remaining 

in VMC. Controllers separation planning 

may fail. 

Controllers more likely to vector or extend 

routing of IFR flights than VFR flights in 

order to protect themselves against VFR 

deviations. (Inefficient for IFR flights.) 

Perceived increase in RTF workload in traffic 

information for VFR/VFR resolution. 

No speed limit for VFR flights above FL100 

to facilitate “see and avoid” principles. 

Not liked by airlines because formal 

separation minima not applied by ATC 

between IFR and VFR. 

Perceived increase in RTF workload in traffic 

information for VFR/VFR and VFR/IFR 

resolution. 

No speed limit for VFR flights above FL100 

to facilitate “see and avoid”. 



8.2.4.8 Given the complexities of the ATC interfaces at the Jersey/LACC boundaries, and 

taking into account the lateral and vertical airspace constraints in the ORTAC 

area in particular, the consensus view of Jersey ATC was that it would be unwise 

to enable VFR operations at the higher levels of the CI airspace where IFR air 

transport flights predominate. 

8.2.4.9 Thus it was concluded that the lower levels of the CI airspace should be Class D 

airspace, whilst the upper levels should remain as Class A airspace. 

8.2.5 Determination of the vertical division level 

8.2.5.1 Consideration is given as to which level would be the most appropriate for 

specifying a vertical division of the airspace. 

8.2.5.2 Certainly a level at or below FL100 would be desirable as this is the level to which 

the airspace speed limit of 250kt is applied, which facilitates “see and avoid” 

collision avoidance for VFR/VFR operations, within the ICAO airspace 

classification system 34 . 

8.2.5.3 Consideration has been given to a division level at 3000ft, 5000ft FL80 or FL100. 

Additionally a triple split at 3000ft and FL100, with Class D, Class C and Class A 

airspace was considered and rejected as being too complex and unnecessary. 

Jersey ATC has taken into account the interface arrangements with LACC, Brest 

ACC and Rennes ACC and the levels predominantly utilised by IFR air transport 

flights at these interfaces. Jersey ATC has also taken into account that a 

proportion of corporate GA prefers to operate off-route and, whenever 

practicable, under VFR 35 , to higher levels than the light GA operators. Each 

option has distinct advantages and disadvantages, both for the various airspace 

user groups and for ATC. 

8.2.5.4 Summary of division levels considered: 

Division 

Level 

3000ft 

D below A 

5000ft 

D below A 

Pros 

Improvement for GA operations. 

VFR access to/from French 

mainland and inter-island flights. 

Air Transport operators benefit from 

mandatory IFR above 3000ft and 

ATC applied separation from all 

other flights 

Increased availability for VFR 

flights. VFR access to/from French 

mainland and inter-Island flights 

Co-incident with Transition Altitude. 

Cons 

A low upper limit for VFR 

operations. Many, particularly 

corporate aircraft, would prefer to be 

higher, especially considering 

extended tracks over the sea of up 

to 80nm. 

Greater interference with Guernsey 

delegated airspace. 

Increased traffic information for VFR 

flights. 

34 The airspace speed limit is an essential feature of the airspace classification where “see and avoid” remains an 

element of collision avoidance (i.e. where ATC is not mandated to provide standard separation between certain 

flight operations). 

35 Such traffic currently takes advantage of the Special VFR concession to operate to the higher levels of the CI 

airspace. 



5000ft 

D below A 

Air Transport operators benefit from 

mandatory IFR above 5000ft and 

ATC applied separation from all 

other flights 

Some corporate aircraft would 

prefer to operate higher as VFR 

flights, especially considering 

extended tracks over the sea of up 

to 80nm. 

Greater interference with Guernsey 

delegated airspace, although VFR 

transit above the delegated airspace 

becomes practicable. 

FL80 

D below A 

3000ft 

D below C 

(similar for 

higher D 

below C 

divisions) 

Increased availability for VFR flights 

to operate at higher levels, in 

consideration of extended overwater 

tracks in some directions. 

Good for GA. VFR to all levels. 

Air Transport flights get formal 

separation standards applied by 

ATC above 3000ft. 

Increased traffic information for VFR 

flights. 

Some corporate aircraft would 

prefer to operate higher as VFR 

flights. 

VFR at high levels; mix with IFR 

difficult for ATC to integrate around 

ATS route interfaces. 

No assured compliance with ATC 

instructions for VFR flights in Class 

C airspace in marginal weather 

conditions. 

Increased traffic information 

VFR/VFR. 

Class C not currently used in UK 

terminal airspace. No UK 

operational experience. 

3000ft and 

FL100 

May suit the majority of operations Too complex. 3 airspace classes 

and 2 division levels. 

D below C 

below A 

8.2.6 Experience with Operational Trial 

8.2.6.1 From 24 June 2012 an operational trial was introduced in which a portion of the 

CI CTR was temporarily reclassified as Class D airspace from Class A airspace 

from surface to 2000ft amsl 36 . The trial airspace comprises the south-eastern 

portion of the CTR encompassing the area in which Jersey VFR/Special VFR 

flights operate to/from mainland France. The trial will continue nominally until 31 

December 2013 or whenever the airspace changes proposed in this ACP are 

introduced. 

8.2.6.2 Initial results of the trial to December 2012 have been positive. There has been 

no adverse impact either to ATC or to Air Transport operators from the increased 

36 UK AIP Supplement 042/2012 



volume of airspace available to VFR operations. Light GA operators have 

benefitted from the ability to operate under VFR to and from the French mainland 

to the east and south of the CI CTR. 

8.3 Conclusions and Proposed Airspace Classification 

8.3.1 The JAARP team in conjunction with the wider consideration of the ATC staff has 

carried out a detailed review of the various options for the classification and the 

vertical division of what is currently the Class A airspace of the CI CTR and 

adjoining CTAs. FGs have been used to inform the JAARP of airspace user and 

ATS views. 

8.3.2 With respect to airspace classification, the JAARP in conjunction with the wider 

agreement of Jersey ATC staff, has concluded that, on balance, Class A 

airspace should be retained at the higher levels whilst the lower portions of the 

airspace should be reclassified as Class D. 

8.3.3 With respect to the vertical division of the airspace, notwithstanding that a 

division level at 5000ft would be coincident with the revised Transition Altitude in 

the CI airspace, Jersey ATC has concluded that it could accept a higher division 

level, to the benefit of VFR operations by corporate aircraft without 

disadvantaging other air transport operations. Therefore, on balance, Jersey 

ATC has concluded that FL80, which will always exist as a Flight Level, would be 

the most appropriate division level. 

8.3.4 Thus, in terms of airspace designation, the airspace at and below FL80 would be 

designated as the Channel Islands CTR and, together with CTA-1 FL55 to FL80 

and CTA-2 3500ft to FL80, would be Class D airspace. The airspace above 

FL80 to the upper limit of FL195, including those portions of the current CTA-1 

and CTA-2, would become the Channel Islands TMA, Class A airspace. 



9. Proposed External Airspace Boundaries 

9.1 Proposal development 

9.1.1 Throughout the development of the proposed airspace arrangements the JAARP 

team has remained conscious of the UK airspace design principles and 

regulatory requirements as outlined in CAP725. In the context of the external 

dimensions of the CI airspace, three aspects have been of particular concern to 

the JAARP team. 

9.1.2 The first aspect is that the airspace should be of the minimum vertical and lateral 

dimensions necessary to meet the operational requirement. The second concern 

is that the airspace should be of sufficient dimensions to fully contain the Primary 

Areas 37 of all Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs), including Holding and IAPs, 

SIDs and STARs. Thirdly, the airspace configuration should be as simple as 

practicable, within the requirements detailed above. 

9.1.3 However, of equal importance in this case are the institutional arrangements 

surrounding the delegation of a portion of the Brest FIR to CI jurisdiction and the 

use of UK ATS principles within the delegated airspace and also that Jersey ATC 

are precluded from providing ATS beyond the lateral or vertical delegated 

airspace boundaries in the Brest FIR. 

9.1.4 In meeting the first objective of minimising the overall volume of controlled 

airspace, a terminal airspace would normally be designed with small CTRs and 

“stepped” CTAs which contain IAPs and other IFPs by the requisite minimum 

500ft and leaving “free” airspace – Class G airspace – underneath for use by 

uncontrolled VFR or IFR flights which do not wish to enter controlled airspace. 

9.1.5 Conversely, in meeting the requirement to fully contain primary areas, 

particularly of holding patterns and the procedure turn elements of IAPs, it is 

often necessary to establish controlled airspace beyond the areas routinely used 

on a day-to-day basis when radar direction of aircraft is used. The primary areas 

of holding and IAPs are not, in some cases, fully contained within the delegated 

airspace although nominal tracks are contained. 38 

9.1.6 In respect of the third objective, in the case of the existing CI CTR, it is a simply 

defined “box” of airspace, defined in the tri-partite MoU, down to the surface 

throughout. There are no complex “steps” involved to allow the passage of nonparticipating 

aircraft beneath nor does the airspace encroach onto the overland 

part of the Brest FIR. 

9.1.7 Thus, at all times in the development of options and proposals the JAARP has 

taken a balanced view on the institutional arrangements and the airspace design 

37 The Primary Area is an area determined by the principles detailed in ICAO PANS-OPS, symmetrically placed 

around the procedure nominal flight path, in which the full obstacle clearance is applied. 

38 However, it should be noted that the airspace was established by the MoU long before the current UK 

airspace design principles were established and long before the ICAO holding and IAP design criteria were 

developed to take into account all types of multi-jet aircraft. It should also be noted that until 2010 the UK 

CAA was the design authority for UK IAPs, including those for the CI Airports. Those procedures 

which do not fully meet the current airspace regulatory requirements were designed by, and were 

acceptable to, the UK CAA. 



principles as well as the needs of the wide spectrum of airspace users and the 

empirical evidence of many years of satisfactory containment of IFR flights. 

9.2 Options Considered 

9.2.1 Option 1: Do Nothing 

9.2.1.1 Retaining the external configuration of the CI CTR and adjoining CTAs would 

retain a simply configured airspace arrangement and would need no significant 

modification to, or renegotiation of, the tripartite MoU at inter-governmental level. 

The only changes required would be the vertical description of the airspace 

resulting from the reclassification detailed in Section 8. 

9.2.1.2 The partial non-containment of the Primary Areas of the JSY VOR holding pattern 

(between 3000ft and FL45) and IAPs to Runway 27 at Jersey (3000ft and below) 

can be mitigated by empirical evidence that aircraft carrying out the holding and 

IAPs do not routinely leave the confines of the CTR. The nominal track of all 

procedures is contained within the CI CTR. At and above FL45 any overlap of 

the JSY holding pattern Primary Area is fully contained within the adjoining 

controlled airspace (Class E) to the east containing the G27 Airway Complex. 

9.2.1.3 The IAP primary areas for Alderney runway 26 are not fully contained within the 

eastern boundary of the CTR. However, the amount of overlap is small and the 

nominal tracks are contained within the CTR. Empirical evidence over the years 

indicates that the existing CTR boundary to the east of Alderney provides 

adequate containment of IFR flights inbound to or outbound from Alderney 

Airport. Furthermore, the existing eastern boundary of the CTR allows sufficient 

uncontrolled airspace offshore from the French mainland to allow flights to remain 

clear of French airspace restrictions around the nuclear installations at 

Flamanville and La Hague. 

9.2.1.4 To the west of Guernsey the primary areas of IAPs to Runway 09 are not fully 

contained within the CTR at 2000ft ALT although the nominal track of the IAPs is 

contained. However, in mitigation, the portion of the Brest FIR immediately to the 

west of the CTR comprises French Danger Area FR D018A. This reduces the 

probability of any aircraft operating in proximity to the CTR and the risk of any 

itinerant aircraft presenting a threat to an aircraft carrying out an IAP to runway 09 

at Guernsey is negligible. 

9.2.2 Option 2: South-East Corner retraction 

9.2.2.1 Jersey ATC is aware that a number of French light GA organisations would prefer 

the south-eastern corner of the CTR to be “rolled back” or raised in order to 

permit more direct VFR (uncontrolled) routing between Dinard and St Brieuc and 

aerodromes on the Cherbourg peninsular. Currently, direct VFR routing is 

impeded by the Class A CTR which extends to within 2.75nm of the French 

coastline at the extremity. 

9.2.2.2 Consideration has been given to rolling back the south-eastern extremity of the 

CTR below 4500ft amsl. However, the volume of airspace which could be 

released would be minimal due to the requirement to contain the Primary area of 

holding and IAP procedures to runway 27 at Jersey Airport. Any CTA stub 

would, of necessity, have a base level of 1500ft amsl due to the holding area and 

IAP primary area above at 2000ft amsl. 



9.2.2.3 Conversely, with the proposal detailed in Section 8 to reclassify the lower part of 

the CTR as Class D airspace, access to the airspace would no longer be denied 

to VFR transiting GA flights. Indeed, such flights would be provided with an ATS 

and Alerting Service which would not be available to them from Jersey ATC if 

operating at low level over water in the Brest FIR beneath a CTA stub. 

Furthermore, higher transit altitudes would be available for VFR transiting flights 

within a Class D CTR than would be available beneath a CTA stub, to the safety 

benefit of over water operations by light aircraft. 

9.2.2.4 Experience gained from the on-going temporary reclassification of the airspace 

as Class D airspace has not shown any adverse operating constraints either for 

ATC or for transiting VFR flights. 

9.2.2.5 Therefore it is concluded that the proposed reclassification of the lower levels of 

the CI CTR as Class D CTR renders the reconfiguration of the south-eastern 

corner unnecessary and retaining the current external boundary provides an 

overall flight safety benefit to transiting VFR flights. 

9.2.3 Option 3: Eastern Boundary extension 

9.2.3.1 Early considerations of the JAARP included the possible extension of the eastern 

boundary of the CI delegated airspace in order to facilitate a segregated traffic 

flow to and from the UK ATS Route system to relieve the airspace congestion at 

ORTAC at the higher levels. 

9.2.3.2 However, it was recognised at an early stage that this, in itself, would be a major 

airspace development project which would be likely to delay the implementation 

of other airspace improvements. Therefore, as a consequence of restructuring 

the JAARP to a phased implementation programme it has been decided that any 

proposed eastwards expansion of the CI delegated airspace should be 

developed as a separate project at a later stage in the JAARP programme. 

9.2.3.3 Thus, for the purposes of this ACP it is proposed that the eastern boundary of the 

CI CTR/CTA remains unchanged 

9.2.4 Option 4: Raise base levels generally 

9.2.4.1 As noted above, in order to reflect the conventional means of designing 

controlled airspace, a small CTR would be developed around which would be 

CTAs of sufficient dimensions and base levels to contain IFPs and the day-to-day 

radar directed flight paths utilised by aircraft by a minimum of 500ft vertically. 

This would allow those flights which do not wish to obtain an ATC Clearance to 

transit through the controlled airspace to, instead, route beneath the CTAs. 

9.2.4.2 If this approach was adopted for the CI airspace it would result in CTRs extending 

to approximately 6nm on each final approach track (approximately 10nm for 

Jersey runway 09) and at least 5nm either side of the aerodromes, with CTAs of 

base level 1500ft amsl extending to approximately 20nm at Jersey (JSY and 

SHARK holding areas) and approximately 15nm at Guernsey. 

9.2.4.3 Further out, additional stepped CTA bases would be required to contain SID 

profiles out to the adjoining ATS routes system. 



9.2.3.4 In order to adequately contain IFR inter-Island flights at the levels at which they 

are routinely operated, the whole of the airspace between the Islands would still 

need to be CTR. 

9.2.3.5 Thus, in order to meet the airspace design convention, when applied to the three 

airports collectively, the result would be a highly complex airspace configuration 

with low base levels below which only minimal use could be made by civil flights 

electing to operate outside controlled airspace and not in receipt of an air traffic 

service over water. Whilst such an airspace configuration would meet the 

airspace design objective of being the minimum volume of airspace necessary to 

meet the operational requirement it would not meet the other airspace design 

objective of keeping the design as simple as possible. 

9.2.3.6 Conversely, the existing configuration of the CTR/CTA is simple and, once the 

airspace classification is changed to Class D at the lower levels, will provide 

access to all classes of aircraft which will, in turn, benefit from the provision of an 

air traffic control and alerting service whilst operating over water. 

9.2.3.7 Thus the JAARP has concluded that raising the base levels of controlled airspace 

in the vicinity of the CI simply in order to conform with aspects of airspace design 

conventions would serve no meaningful purpose in the context of the CI Airports 

and would offer no operating benefits to GA airspace users. 

9.3 Conclusions and proposed airspace boundaries 

9.3.1 The JAARP team, together with Jersey and Guernsey ATC, have reviewed 

various options for reconfiguration of the external boundaries of the CI airspace 

and have taken due regard of input from airspace users at the Focus Group 

stage and of the potential impact on the tri-partite airspace delegation 

arrangements. 

9.3.2 The JAARP team is conscious that the current dimensions of the CI CTR/CTA 

represent a slightly greater overall airspace volume than could be achieved, 

although, equally, in some areas they do not extend far enough to meet the 

regulatory requirements in full. However, achieving the minimum airspace 

volume would result in a complex airspace configuration and would serve no 

useful purpose to the airspace user community. 

9.2.3 Therefore, on balance, it is concluded that the “Do Nothing” option is the most 

appropriate option for the external dimensions of the CI airspace which, when 

taken in conjunction with the proposed airspace classification at the lower levels, 

will provide the most effective airspace configuration for the spectrum of airspace 

users. 



10 Internal Airspace Configuration 

10.1 Proposal Development 

10.1.1 Embedded within the CI CTR, the three CTRs in the vicinity of the CI Airports 

provide a small volume of Class D airspace within which VFR operations are 

permitted and for which ATC effectively manages the IFR/VFR traffic mix by 

means of traffic information together with executive instructions which enable the 

VFR flights to use visual methods of establishing an appropriate spacing between 

flights. ATC retains executive responsibility for ensuring that collisions do not 

occur. 

10.1.2 The Class D arrangements work well throughout the UK in the provision of ATS in 

the vicinity of airports and are widely acceptable to the airspace user community 

and to ATC. 

10.1.3 Having reached a conclusion that the Class D airspace classification should be 

extended to the whole of the lower levels of the CI CTR the JAARP team, in 

conjunction with Jersey and Guernsey ATC staff, had to consider whether 

separate CTRs in the vicinity of each airport and of the same Class D 

classification, would serve any discrete function. 

10.2 Options Considered 

10.2.1 Option 1: Do Nothing 

10.2.1.1 Under the current arrangements the Airport CTRs serve no purpose other than to 

define a volume of airspace, at low level, within which flights under the VFR can 

take place. They do not reflect in full the areas of delegated responsibility of the 

various ATC functions (e.g. Guernsey APC, Alderney APC, Jersey APC, Jersey 

Zone) nor do they reflect the volume of airspace within which the Airport IAPs are 

contained. Their dimensions simply reflected, at their inception, the volume of 

airspace within which it was felt reasonable to allow VFR operations to take place 

in the vicinity of the Airports. 

10.2.1.2 Therefore it is concluded that, within the expanded Class D airspace 

classification, the Airport CTRs in their present configuration serve no purpose. 

10.2.2 Option 2: Reconfigure the Airport CTRs 

10.2.2.1 Following on from the above argument, consideration was given to reconfigure 

the Airport CTRs to reflect areas of Unit responsibility. For example the 

Guernsey/Alderney CTR could be reconfigured to reflect the delegation of 

airspace to Guernsey APC to the north of the Island up to 4000ft amsl. 

Additionally the CTRs could be extended to abut each other between Jersey and 

Guernsey to reflect the approximate transfer of control arrangements for Inter- 

Island flights. 

10.2.2.2 However, on balance the ATC Units considered that such a reconfiguration would 

introduce an unnecessary degree of complexity which would not be fully 

understood by pilots and would not reflect the inter-Unit flexibility that is used to 

fulfil the ATM function. 



10.2.3 Option 3: Remove the Airport CTRs 

10.2.3.1 Having considered the options detailed above, the JAARP team, together with 

Jersey and Guernsey ATC staff, have concluded that once the overall CI CTR is 

classified throughout the lower levels as Class D airspace there is no longer any 

residual operational or institutional need to retain discrete Airport CTRs 

embedded within the CI CTR. 

10.2.3.2 Therefore, the preferred option is to disestablish the Airport CTRs as part of this 

ACP. 



11 Summary of Proposed Airspace Classification and Configuration 

11.1 This Section summarises the proposed changes to the CI airspace classification 

and configuration which are detailed in the preceding Sections. 

11.2 The CI CTR (currently Class A airspace surface to FL195) will be reclassified as 

Class D airspace at and below FL80. 

11.3 The CTAs to the north-west (CTA-1) and north-east (CTA-2) of the CI CTR will be 

reclassified as Class D airspace at and below FL80. 

11.4 The CI CTR and CTA-1 and CTA-2 above FL80 to FL195 will be classified as 

Class A airspace and designated as the Channel Islands TMA. 

11.5 The external boundaries of the CI airspace (comprising CI CTR, CTA-1, CTA-2 

and CI TMA) will remain unchanged. 

11.6 The Jersey CTR, Guernsey CTR and Alderney CTR will be disestablished. 

11.7 A diagram of the revised airspace configuration is shown at Appendix D 



12 Impact of Proposed Changes 

12.1 Impact on airline and corporate aircraft operations 

12.1.1 The impact of the proposed changes on airline and corporate aircraft operating 

to/from the UK and French ATS route systems will be minimal. There are no 

changes to the CI airspace route structure (SIDs and STARs) arising from this 

ACP. 

12.1.2 When operating within the CI airspace at and below FL80 flights will be operating 

in Class D airspace instead of Class A airspace. Whilst some operators may 

consider this to be an inferior airspace classification, in reality it is a managed 

airspace in which ATC continues to be responsible for collision avoidance but 

where the scope by which ATC can achieve that requirement is widened. In a 

correctly managed Class D environment VFR flights do not present a threat to 

IFR flights, as is borne out by widespread application of Class D airspace in the 

UK terminal airspace environment. 

12.1.3 For IFR flights operating outside the formal ATS route system procedures will be 

unchanged. Individual IFR clearances will still be available to leave or enter the 

TMA and CTR other than via the SID/STAR route structure. Additionally, for 

flights operating at and below FL80 the option of operating as a (managed) VFR 

flight becomes available and, in poor weather conditions, Special VFR Clearance 

remains available (under both the current Rules for Special VFR flight and the 

future UK application of the SERA Rules.) 

12.1.4 For corporate aviation flights operating above FL80, the Special VFR option will 

no longer be available as the airspace will not be designated as CTR. However, 

this facility would have been withdrawn in any case under the proposed UK 

application of the SERA. Furthermore, the Special VFR concession was never 

intended for use by IFR capable aircraft over 5700kg all up weight which and 

equipped for IFR flight. It is estimated that corporate aircraft currently seeking 

Special VFR clearance above FL80 constitutes approximately 0.03% of total 

airspace movements. 

12.2 Impact on light General Aviation operations 

12.2.1 The principle impact of the proposed airspace changes on light GA operations will 

be the new availability of VFR operation to the extremities of the CI airspace at 

and below FL80 and for inter-Island flights. Furthermore, the facility for Special 

VFR Clearance will remain available in the Class D CTR in poor weather 

conditions. 

12.2.2 Within Class D airspace ATS is not responsible for the avoidance of collisions 

between VFR aircraft but may apply deconfliction measures (e.g. routing 

instructions or level instructions) within the ATC clearance. This avoids the need 

for extensive traffic information RTF workload when aircraft may not be in visual 

contact with each other. 

12.2.3 The availability for VFR operations up to and including FL80 will enable higher 

altitudes to be utilised by light GA aircraft for over-water operations 

12.2.4 The ability to operate as VFR flights will increase ATC flexibility for the effective 

integration of VFR flights with IFR flights in the wider extremities of the CTR and, 



whilst routing and level instructions will still be necessary in the managed 

VFR/IFR environment, it is anticipated that such instructions would be less 

restrictive than in a Class A airspace environment. 

12.3 Impact on Cross-Channel Operations 

12.3.1 No changes are proposed to the Recommended Routes for Cross-Channel 

operations as detailed in the UK AIP as it is considered that they offer the most 

effective routing for light GA aircraft with the shortest over-water legs. 

12.3.2 However, when entering or leaving the CI CTR to/from the Cherbourg Peninsular 

area flights will benefit from the ability to operate at higher levels as VFR flights 

than under the current arrangements for Special VFR clearances. 

12.4 Impact on embedded En Route ATS Routes 

12.4.1 The impact on en route flights transiting through the CTR/TMA via the notified 

Airways will be minimal. Within the CTR/TMA the Airways adopt the classification 

of the CTR/TMA irrespective of the notified classification outside the CTR/TMA. 

Thus the Airways will be Class D at FL80 and below and Class A above FL80 

(instead of Class A from FL65 to FL195 as currently). 

12.4.2 The only change will be that at and below FL80 such flights would be operating in 

a mixed VFR/IFR environment. 

12.4.3 The utilisation of the Airways for transiting IFR flights within the CTR/TMA is 

minimal. Indeed it is estimated that a greater number of flights transit on direct 

routings outside the Airways system than within it. 

12.5 Impact on Military operations 

12.5.1 Very few military operations take place within the CI Airspace. 

12.5.2 Reclassification of the lower levels as Class D airspace would enable military 

flights to seek access as VFR flights and may encourage greater use of the 

airspace by French military aircraft. This would not cause any airspace 

management or capacity problems. 



13 Safety Management 

13.1 Safety management is an intrinsic element of any change to the airspace 

arrangements and Jersey and Guernsey Airports have an obligation to provide an 

ATS which is safe. 

13.2 Jersey and Guernsey Airports operate ATC Safety Management Systems (SMS) 

which meet the requirements specified by the UK CAA in CAP670 – “ATS Safety 

Requirements” – and are approved by DCA CI. 

13.3 In developing these proposals ACP, sound safety management principles have 

been applied throughout, including consideration of options. The proposal will be 

subject to a Hazard Identification (HAZID) analysis by a group of representative 

stakeholders from ATC, aircraft operators and safety specialists after the 

consultation is complete and any changes to the proposals arising from the 

consultation have been incorporated. A Safety Report, which will detail the 

results of the analysis, will be submitted to the CAA as part of the formal ACP. 

13.4 The ACP, HAZID and Safety Report will also be subject to scrutiny and 

acceptance by the French regulatory authorities (DSAC). 

13.5 The proposed changes to the airspace classification and configuration are safe 

and in conformance with current ATM practice in UK terminal airspace. Safety 

benefits will accrue to airspace users from the ability to operate as VFR flights at 

higher altitudes over water than is currently the case for Special VFR operations. 

13.6 Flight safety will not be degraded for airline and corporate aircraft operations as 

all flights take place in a managed airspace environment and the responsibility for 

collision avoidance and deconfliction of flights rests with ATC. 



14 Environmental Considerations 

14.1 No overland routes or operations in the immediate vicinity of the Islands are 

affected by these proposals. The airport noise abatement procedures are not 

changed. 

14.2 There may be an unquantifiable benefit arising from the ability of light GA flights 

to operate as VFR flights to higher altitudes than is currently the case. However, 

in the immediate vicinity of the Airports the landing and take-off patterns flown by 

aircraft will not change. 



15 Economic Impact 

15.1 There is no economic impact arising from the proposed changes to the airspace 

arrangements. Flight paths for arriving and departing IFR flights remain 

unchanged. 

15.2 For the small number of corporate flights that currently operate to the higher 

extremities of the current CI CTR on Special VFR clearances, all such aircraft are 

equipped and the flight crews qualified to operate as IFR flights either within the 

ATS Route structure or on direct routings. Such operations would, in any case, 

lose the facility for Special VFR operations within Class A airspace when the UK 

applies the SERA in 2014. The proposed airspace arrangements offer such 

flights the ability to operate as VFR flights at the lower levels of the airspace or as 

IFR flights throughout the airspace. 

15.3 An unquantifiable economic benefit may accrue through the attraction of the 

Islands airports to GA operators who were previously “put off” by the Class A 

airspace classification. The availability of VFR access to and from the Airports 

may attract a small amount of new airspace users. 



16 Summary 

16.1 This ACP arises from the early considerations of the JAARP team of the 

spectrum of changes that are likely to be adopted for the future CI airspace 

arrangements. 

16.2 Early consideration of the initial airspace developments by targeted Focus 

Groups, together with other external influences, has led the Sponsors to conclude 

that a phased approach to the adoption of JAARP changes would offer overall 

benefit to the project development and reduce project risk. 

16.3 In reviewing the configuration of the CI airspace, the JAARP has taken due 

regard of the regulatory requirements specified by the CAA together with the 

complex institutional arrangements under which the airspace arrangements are 

established. 

16.4 The JAARP has taken a balanced approach to the views of the various airspace 

user groups both on and off airport based and has considered the environmental 

and economic impact of the proposed changes. 

16.5 The proposed change to the airspace classification at the lower levels of the CI 

airspace will bring the airspace arrangements into line with those applied in the 

majority of UK terminal airspace and will bring overall operating benefits to 

airspace users. 

16.6 Jersey Airport and Guernsey Airport believe that the airspace arrangements 

outlined in this proposal will enable a safe and effective ATS to be sustained 

throughout the airspace. 



17 What Happens Next? 

17.1 Following the development of an acceptable airspace configuration, the CAA 

requires the Sponsor, Jersey Airport, to carry out a full consultation with aviation 

and non-aviation interested parties. This is known as the Sponsor Consultation, 

which is the consultation being carried out through this document. The process 

for this consultation is detailed in Part A of this document. 

17.2 This Sponsor Consultation commences on 18 February 2013 and continues until 

20 May 2013. 

17.3 Shortly after the completion of the consultation Jersey Airport will complete a 

short statistical report of the Consultation, which will include details of any issues 

arising. This will be posted on the Jersey Airport website for the benefit of 

consultees. 

17.4 Should any significant issues be identified in the responses to the Consultation 

the JAARP team will consider them carefully and take a balanced approach 

towards resolution of the issues. If necessary, the JAARP team will enter into a 

dialogue with objectors in order to resolve any issues arising. If necessary the 

JAARP team may incorporate changes to the proposal where this would be 

beneficial to the overall management of the airspace. 

17.5 Once the Sponsor Consultation is complete and any issues have been 

adequately resolved Jersey Airport is required to submit a formal proposal to the 

DCA CI and the CAA which will detail the case for the proposed airspace 

changes and the consultation carried out. It will include full details of the Sponsor 

Consultation (including copies of correspondence) together with all 

documentation necessary for the promulgation of the proposed changes. 

17.6 Once submitted, the CAA will conduct a regulatory assessment of the change 

proposal and provide a recommendation to the DCA CI regarding the 

consultation and the proposal. The DCA CI will then make a regulatory decision 

on whether the proposal should be implemented. The CAA normally requires an 

18-week period for the regulatory activities. If the case is accepted then the 

promulgation process takes a further 8 weeks. 

17.7 A provisional timetable towards implementation of the proposed airspace change 

is given at Appendix F. 



A 

Glossary 

A.1 Organisational 

Abbreviation Meaning Comment 

ANSP 

Air Navigation Service 

Provider 

The organisation approved to provide air traffic 

management services. In some cases an Airport 

Operator provides the air traffic services itself (as at 

Jersey and Guernsey Airports) and in some cases the 

Airport Operator contracts a specialist ANSP 

Jersey Airport is an ANSP approved by the French 

CNSA to provide air navigation services in the 

CAA 

DAP 

DCA CI 

ICAO 

NATS 

LACC 

SRG 

Civil Aviation 

Authority 

Directorate of 

Airspace Policy 

Director of Civil 

Aviation Channel 

Islands 

International Civil 

Aviation Organisation 

National Air Traffic 

Services 

London Area Control 

Centre 

Safety Regulation 

Group 

delegated portion of the Brest FIR. 

The specialist UK aviation Regulator established by 

government to oversee all aspects of aviation activity in 

the UK. 

The part of the CAA responsible for the airspace 

arrangements in the UK. The DAP is providing 

regulatory oversight of the airspace change process for 

the Channel Islands airspace on behalf of DCA CI. 

The independent aviation safety regulator for the 

Channel Islands established under the Civil Aviation 

(Jersey) Law 2008 and the Aviation (Bailiwick of 

Guernsey) Law 2008. 

An organisation established under the auspices of the 

United Nations through the Chicago Convention, 

charged with establishing Standards, Recommended 

Practices, Procedures for worldwide application. 

Previously part of the CAA, NATS is an ANSP and was 

part privatised by the UK Government in 2001. NATS 

provides civil en route air navigation services in the UK 

under license from the Government and provides air 

navigation services at a number of airports under 

contract to the airport operators. 

NATS En Route Area Control Centre located at 

Swanwick, Hants, providing civil en route ATS over the 

southern part of the UK airspace and Terminal ATC 

services for the London TMA Airports. 

The part of the CAA which oversees all aspects of air 

safety including the operation of aircraft and air traffic 

services. 

SES Single European Sky A European Commission initiative with the objectives to 

restructure European airspace as a function of traffic 

flows rather than according to national boundaries, to 

create additional capacity and to increase the overall 

efficiency of the ATM System. 

EUROCONTROL 

European 

Organisation for the 

Safety of Air 

Navigation 

The EUROCONTROL Mission is to harmonise and 

integrate air navigation services in Europe, aiming at 

the creation of a uniform ATM System for civil and 

military users in order to achieve a safe, secure, orderly 

expeditious and economic flow of traffic throughout 

Europe, whilst minimising adverse environmental 

impact. 



A.2 Documents 


AIC 

Aeronautical 

Notices relating to safety, navigation, technical, 

Information Circular administrative or legal matters 

AIRAC 

ANO 

Aeronautical 

Information Regulation 

and Control 

Air Navigation Order 

2009 

Air Navigation (Jersey) 

Order 2008 

Civil Aviation (Jersey) 

Law 2008 

Aviation (Bailiwick of 

Guernsey) Law 2008 

Rules of the Air 

(Jersey) Order 2000 

A system which ensures worldwide advanced notification, 

based on common effective dates, of circumstances that 

require significant changes to operating practices. (The 

AIRAC System is linked to the amendment of AIPs on a 

worldwide basis.) 

Secondary Legislation of the UK which sets out the 

regulations for aviation in the UK. 

UK legislation which extends the application of the UK 

ANO, subject to some modifications, to Jersey 

Jersey legislation which sets out the regulatory framework 

for the regulation of aviation in Jersey 

Guernsey legislation which sets out the regulations for 

aviation in the Bailiwick of Guernsey 

An Order made under the Air Navigation (Jersey) Order 

which specifies the Rules of the Air Regulations for Jersey. 

Ann. Annexe ICAO documents (Annexes to the Chicago Convention) 

which detail the Standards and Recommended Practices 

(SARPS) to be applied by States worldwide. e.g. 

Annex 2 Rules of the Air 

Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft 

Annex 11 Air Traffic Services 

Annex 15 Aeronautical Information 

CAP CAA Publication The UK CAA publishes Regulatory, Guidance and 

Information material in the form of CAPs. 

CAP 724 The Airspace Charter A document published by the CAA authorities, 

responsibilities and principles by which the CAA DAP, as 

the airspace approval and regulatory authority conducts 

the planning of airspace and related arrangements in the 

UK. 

CAP 725 

CAA Guidance on the 

Application of the 

Airspace Change 

Process 

A document published by the DAP which details the 

procedure by which a proposal to modify airspace 

dimensions, classification or usage in the UK can be put 

forward to DAP for approval. The process to be followed 

by sponsors of airspace change enables the CAA to meet 

its statutory duties established under the Transport Act 

2000. 

MATS Part 1 Manual of Air Traffic The UK document published by the CAA (CAP 493) which 

contains instructions and procedures applicable to UK air 



MATS Part 2 

PANS 

PANS-OPS 

UK AIP 

Services Part 1 

Manual of Air Traffic 

Services Part 2 

Procedures for Air 

Navigation 

Procedures for Air 

Navigation Services - 

Aircraft Operations 

(ICAO Doc 8168) 

UK Aeronautical 

Information Package 

traffic services at civil air traffic control units, and 

represents the UK interpretation and application of ICAO 

SARPs and PANS relevant to air traffic services. 

The document which contains the local instructions for 

each air traffic control unit and provides information which 

amplifies and interprets, at a local level, the instructions in 

MATS Part 1 and also details local separation standards to 

be applied where these differ from the national criteria 

because of specific local circumstances. The MATS Part 2 

is subject to approval by the CAA as part of the Regulatory 

process. 

ICAO documents which are the next level down from 

SARPS detailing procedures recommended for worldwide 

application. They specify in greater detail than the SARPS 

the actual procedures to be applied. e.g.: 

PANS-OPS Aircraft Operations 

PANS-ATM: Air Traffic Management 

Volume 2. Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight 

Procedures. 

A document published by the International Civil Aviation 

Organisation (ICAO) which specifies the criteria which are 

to be used on a world-wide basis for the design of Visual 

and Instrument Flight Procedures 

The State publication published by the CAA (CAP 32) to 

ICAO requirements detailing all of the aeronautical 

information and procedures applicable to civil aircraft 

operations in the UK. The UK AIP is a notifying document, 

which means that procedures notified within it have legal 

authority. Amendment of the UK AIP is in accordance with 

the AIRAC system. 



A.3 Measurement 


Units of Measurement Aviation uses a mixture of imperial and metric 

measurements. Whilst runway lengths are measured in 

metres, distances for navigation are measured in nautical 

miles (NM). 1NM is a distance of 6017.12ft, equivalent to 

1.8520km. 

aal 

Above Aerodrome 

Level 

The standard unit for vertical measurement is feet (Ft). 

The vertical displacement of an aircraft above aerodrome 

level is known as Height. The aircraft altimeter is set to 

the barometric pressure at the aerodrome (known as 

QFE). 

AMSL Above mean sea level The standard level reference for aircraft operations and 

airspace design below the Transition Altitude. The height 

of an aircraft measured above mean sea level is known as 

Altitude (ALT). The aircraft altimeter is set to the 

barometric pressure at the aerodrome, adjusted to take 

account of the aerodrome elevation (known as QNH). 

FL Flight Level The height of an aircraft above a standard barometric 

pressure reference of 1013.25 Hectopascals and is the 

standard level reference for aircraft operations above the 

Transition Altitude. 

A.4 Airspace 

Abbreviation Meaning Description 

ATS Air Traffic Services A generic term meaning variously, flight information 

service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air 

traffic control service (area control service, approach 

control service or aerodrome control service). (ICAO) 

ATC Air Traffic Control A service provided for the purpose of preventing collisions 

between aircraft, and, on the manoeuvring area, between 

aircraft and obstructions, and expediting and maintaining 

an orderly flow of air traffic; 

Classification of 

Airspace 

Class A Airspace 

Class C Airspace 

The ICAO system of classifying airspace by letter 

indicating the level of Air Traffic Service provided in the 

airspace and the meteorological criteria for VFR flight. 

Classes A to E are Controlled Airspace; Classes F & G are 

uncontrolled airspace. Class A airspace requires the 

mandatory operation of all flights according to the 

Instrument Flight Rules, Classes B, C ,D and E controlled 

airspace permit VFR operations with differing levels of 

ATM compliance and application of separation by ATC. 

Controlled airspace in which the operation of flights 

according to the IFR is mandatory and in which ATC 

provides separation between all flights (including Special 

VFR flights). 

Controlled airspace in which both IFR and VFR flights are 

permitted and in which ATC provides separation between 



IFR flights (including Special VFR flights) and between IFR 

flights and VFR flights and provides adequate 

management of VFR flights to permit the effective 

integration of traffic and collision avoidance. 

Throughout the EU airspace, all airspace from FL195 to 

FL660 is designated as Class C airspace but stringent 

access rules preclude the routine operation of VFR flights. 

In the UK, some portions of Airways are also designated 

as Class C Airspace. 

ATM 

ATZ 

Class D Airspace 

Class E airspace 

Radar Vectoring 

Air Transport 

Movement 

Aerodrome Traffic 

Zone 

Controlled airspace in which both VFR and IFR flights are 

permitted and in which ATC provides separation between 

IFR flights (including Special VFR flights) and provides 

adequate management of VFR flights to permit effective 

integration of traffic and collision avoidance. In the UK, 

Class D airspace is the normal classification used for 

controlled airspace in the vicinity of aerodromes. Some 

Airway segments are also designated as Class D airspace. 

Controlled airspace in which both VFR and IFR flights are 

permitted and air traffic service is only mandatory for IFR 

flights. VFR flights may operate without reference to ATC. 

The use of Class E airspace for Control Zones is not 

permitted. 

Provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of 

specified headings based on the use of radar. 

Landings or take offs by aircraft engaged on the transport 

of passengers, cargo or mail on commercial terms. All 

scheduled movements, including those operated empty, 

loaded charter and air taxi movements are included. 

Airspace of defined dimensions established around an 

aerodrome for the protection of aerodrome traffic. 

CTA Control Area A controlled airspace extending upwards from a specified 

limit above the surface to a specified upper limit. 

CTR Control Zone A controlled airspace extending upwards from the surface 

to a specified upper limit. 

IAP 

IFR 

Instrument Approach 

Procedure 

Instrument Flight 

Rules 

A series of predetermined manoeuvres by reference to 

flight instruments with specified protection from obstacles 

from the initial approach fix, or where applicable, from the 

beginning of a defined arrival route to a point from which a 

landing can be completed and thereafter, if a landing is not 

completed, to a position at which holding or en route 

obstacle clearance criteria apply. 

Rules 32 to 37 of the Rules of the Air Regulations which 

specify certain rules to be complied with (including 

Minimum Height Rules, level convention rules, Flight 

planning and ATC Clearance Rules, Position Reporting 

requirements). A pilot must be suitably qualified and the 

aircraft appropriately equipped in order to operate under 



the IFR. 

IMC 

Special VFR 

Instrument 

Meteorological 

Conditions 

Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, 

distance from cloud and ceiling, less than the minima 

specified for Visual Meteorological Conditions. 

A flight made in a Control Zone under conditions which 

would normally require compliance with the Instrument 

flight Rules but which is made in accordance with special 

instructions issued by the ATC Unit instead of in 

accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules and in which 

the aircraft must remain clear of cloud and in sight of the 

surface. 

TMA Terminal Control Area A Control Area normally established at the confluence of a 

number of ATS Routes in the vicinity of one or more major 

aerodromes. 

VFR Visual Flight Rules Rules 25 to 30 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2008 

VMC 

Visual Meteorological 

Conditions 

Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, 

distance from cloud and ceiling, equal to or better than 

specified minima. In the UK the VMC minima for VFR 

operations in various classifications of airspace are laid 

down in Rule 27 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2008 

(A summary of the various UK, France and Channel 

Islands application of VMC in various airspace 

classifications is give at Appendix E) 

VRP Visual Reference Point A point established in the vicinity of an aerodrome located 

within controlled airspace to facilitate access to and from 

aerodromes located within, and transit of the controlled 

airspace by VFR traffic. VRPs are located at prominent 

natural or man-made ground features which are readily 

identifiable from the air. 



A.5 Infrastructure 

Abbreviation Meaning Description 

DME 

Distance Measuring 

Equipment 

A navigational facility which provides information to an 

aircraft indicating its distance from the facility. DME may 

be installed in conjunction with an en route, terminal or 

approach navigational facility. 

GNSS 

GPS 

ILS 

NDB 

PSR 

Global Navigation 

Satellite System 

Global Positioning 

System 

Instrument Landing 

System 

Non Directional 

Beacon 

Primary Surveillance 

Radar 

A navigation infrastructure using satellite based navigation 

data. 

A GNSS provided by the US Department of Defence and 

available for public use. 

A precision instrument approach navigation aid which 

provides lateral and vertical track guidance to aircraft 

along the final approach track and distance information. 

An MF en route and/or terminal and approach navigational 

facility from which the pilot can determine the bearing of 

the facility with reference to his own position. 

A surveillance radar system which uses reflected radio 

signals. 

RNAV Area Navigation A method of navigation which permits aircraft operation on 

any desired flight path within the coverage of station 

referenced navigation aids or within the limits of the 

capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. 

SSR 

SSR Mode C 

Secondary 

Surveillance Radar 

A system of radar using ground interrogators and airborne 

transponders to determine the position of an aircraft in 

range and azimuth and, when agreed modes and codes 

are used, height and identity as well 

That element of the SSR System which provides 

information which indicates the height of the aircraft. 

SSR Mode S Mode Select Modern transponder systems include Elementary 

Surveillance or Enhanced Surveillance capabilities and 

provide greater functionality than earlier generations of 

transponder systems including, inter alia, interactive ACAS 

Resolution Advisory. Mode S Elementary is the basic level 

of transponder carriage notified, as appropriate, in UK 

airspace. Enhanced Surveillance includes additional 

functionality and is mandated in certain specified 

controlled airspace. 



B 

Airport Statistics 

80000 

Channel Islands Airports 

Total and Air Transport Movements 

70000 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

JJ Total 

JJ ATM 

JB Total 

JB ATM 

JA Total 

JA ATM 

0 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 



C 

Chart showing the existing Airspace Configuration 

Copyright Statement: Chart reproduced with the permission of NATS (Services) Limited. Ordnance Survey © 

Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2012. Licence number 100050170 

Note: From 5 May 2013 the base level of CTA-2 will be 3500ft amsl 



D 

Diagram of Proposed Channel Islands Airspace Configuration 



E 

Comparison of VMC Minima for Class D Airspace 

The following Table details the minima for Visual Meteorological conditions as they are currently specified in ICAO (Annex 2); the UK (RotAR); 

France (AIP) and the Channel Islands airspace and as they are specified under the Standard European Rules of the Air. 

ICAO 

Annex 2 

Levels 

Min Flight 

Visibility 

Min 

Vertical 

distance 

from 

cloud 

Min 

horizontal 

distance 

from cloud 

Max Speed 

Below FL100 5km 1000ft 1500m 250kt 

At and below 

3000ft 

(or 1000ft agl if 

higher) 

1500m 1000ft 1500m Adequate to observe 

& avoid obstacles 

and other aircraft 

Other 

Only when prescribed by the ATS Authority 

(Helicopters same as Fixed wing) 

UK 

Rule 27 


At & below 

3000ft 

5km Clear of Clear of 140kt In sight of Surface 

Helicopter 

At & Below 

3000ft 

1500m Clear of Clear of In sight of surface 

(Night) 




France 

AIP ENR 

1.2-7 

Below FL100 5km 1000ft 1500m 250kt (No reductions are prescribed by the ATS 

Authority) 

Channel 

Islands 

airspace 

(Rules of the 

Air (Jersey) 

Order 2000) 


At and below 

3000ft 

5km 1000ft 1500m Adequate to observe 



3000m for 

SVFR 

Clear of Clear of Cloud ceiling 600ft 


Helicopter 

At & Below 

3000ft 

Clear of Clear of Adequate to observe 



In sight of surface 

SERA 


(Same as 

ICAO Annex 

2) 

At and below 

3000ft 

(or 1000ft agl if 

higher) 

1500m 1000ft 1500m Adequate to observe 




(Helicopters same as Fixed wing) 

Note: The SERA permit both the UK and the 

French current applications of VMC minima 

to be sustained 



F 

Timetable to Implementation 

Activity Duration Dates 

Sponsor Consultation 13 weeks 18 Feb 2013 – 20 

May 2013 

Report of Consultation 2 weeks 31 May 2013 

Resolve issues May 2013 

Safety Assessments, HAZID, 

Safety documentation 

May 2013 

Prepare Formal ACP Document 3 weeks 16 May 2013 – 

21 June 2013 

ACP to DAP & DCA CI 21 June 2013 

DAP Document Check 2 weeks 5 Jul 2013 

DAP Case Study 16 weeks 5 Jul 2013 – 

4 Oct 2013 

DAP Recommendation to DCA 

4 Oct 2013 

CI 

DCA CI Decision 7-9 Oct 2013 

Preparation of AIP Material 2 weeks 4 – 18 Oct 2013 

F933 to AIS for AIRAC 01/2014 Earliest Date 18 Oct 2013 

AIRAC 01/2014 publication 28 Nov 2013 

AIRAC 01/2014 effective date 9 Jan 2014 

Note 

Later AIRAC (03/2014 or 04/2014) may be used to 

coincide with the publication of revised 1:250000 and 

1:500000 maps 



G 

List of Consultees 

1. Local Airspace Users 

Operator 

Auringy Air Services 



Blue Islands Airways 

Flybe 

Flybe 

Flybe 

Jet 2 

Aviation Beauport 

Aviation Beauport 

Air Southwest 

Bmibaby 

British Airways 

Easyjet 

Netjets Europe 

Specsavers Aviation Group 

AOPA (CI) 

Jersey Aero Club 

Jersey Aviators Ltd 

Skydive Jersey Ltd 

Guernsey Aero Club 

Fletcher Aviation, Guernsey 

Aircraft Servicing, Guernsey 

Aiglle Flight Support 

Alderney Flying Training Ltd 

Position 

Flt Ops Director 

Flight Safety Officer 

Captain, BN3 fleet 

Flt Safety Officer 

Base Manager Jersey 

Captain, Q400 Fleet 

Mgr Flight Planning 

GM Ground Ops 

Flt Ops Director 

Chief Pilot 

Ops Director 

Ops Director 

ATC Liaison 

Mgr LPL/MAN/JER 

Airport Analyst & 

Performance Engineer 

Chief Pilot 

Chairman 

Chief Instructor 

Pilot 

DZ Operator 

Chairman 

Director/Pilot 

General Manager 

Pilot 

Director/Pilot 



2. National Aviation Organisations (CAA NATMAC List) 

Organisation 

1 Airport Operators Association 

2 Airport Operators Association 

3 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA UK) 

4 Aviation Environment Federation 

5 British Airways 

6 BAA plc 

7 BAE Systems 

8 British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) 

9 British Air Transport Association (BATA) 

10 British Balloon & Airship Club (BBAC) 

11 British Business & General Aviation Association (BBGA) 

12 British Business & General Aviation Association (BBGA) 

13 British Gliding Association (BGA) 



16 British Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (BHPA) 

17 British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA) 

18 British Model Flying Association (BMFA) 

19 British Parachute Association (BPA) 

20 British Helicopter Association (BHA) 

21 Guild of Air Pilots & Navigators (GAPAN) 

22 Guild of Air Pilots & Navigators (GAPAN) 

23 General Aviation Safety Council (GASCo) 

24 Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) 




28 Helicopter Club of Great Britain (HCGB) 

29 Heavy Airlines 

30 Light Aircraft Association (LAA) 



33 Light Airlines 

34 Low Fares Airlines 

35 NATS 

36 NATS 

37 NATS (NERL) 

38 PPL/IR Europe 



39 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Association 

40 UK Airprox Board (UKAB) 

41 UK Flight Safety Committee (UK FSC) 

3. UK Military (NATMAC List) 

42 3 AF-UK/A3 

43 Aviation Division NCHQ 

44 DAATM 

45 HQ Directorate of Army Aviation (HQ DAAvn) 

46 Military Aviation Authority (MAA) 

47 Ministry of Defence (MoD) 

48 MOD Flight Test Regulator 

4. France - Aviation Consultees 

49 Chef de Pôle SMN 

DSAC/ANA 

50 CRNA-Ouest - Assistant de subdivision contrôle 

Brest ACC - OPS Division 

51 Head of ATC, Rennes ACC 

52 AOPA France 

Secretariat 

53 DSNA/DO 

54 SNA/O 

55 Brest ACC 

56 Ops Division SNA 

5. Brest Area Flying clubs as advised by Jersey ATC 

56 Aero Club Cherbourg 

57 Aero Club Caen 

58 Aero Club Granville 

59 Aero Club Dinard 

60 Aero Club Rennes Ille-et-Vilaine 

61 Aero Club Lessat 



6. Non-Aviation Consultees 

Jersey 

Chief Minister of Jersey 

Bailiff of Jersey 

Parishes 

Grouville 

St Bredale 

St Clement 

St John 

St Helier 

St Lawrence 

St Martin 

St Mary 

St Ouen 

St Peter 

St Saviour 

Trinity 

Guernsey 

Lieutenant Govenor 

Bailiff of Guernsey 

Parishes 

Castel 

Forest 

St Andrew 

St Martin 

St Peter Port 

St Pierre du Bois 

St Sampson 

St Saviour 

Torteval 

Vale 

Alderney 

President 

Bailiff of Alderney 

Chief Executive 

Sark 

Seigneur 

General Purposes Committee 



7. Environmental Consultees 

Environmental Health, Jersey 

Ms F Glover 

Mr A Pritchard 

Mr A Irving 

Planning & Environment 

Community Health 

Health & Social Services 

Environmental Health, Guernsey 

Ms V Cameron 

8. SEA Consultees 

Single collective response from the following entities; 

Environmental Protection 

Countryside and Natural Environment 

Health and Safety 

Historic Environment Officer (minister for Planning and environment) 

National Trust for Jersey 

Societe Jeriaise 

Director of Planning Policy

Proposal to Change the Airspace Classification ... - Guernsey Airport

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?