FAB CONSULTATION FAB CENTRAL EUROPE COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT (CRD) 26/06/2012

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2012) /08/2012 FAB CONSULTATION COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT (CRD) 26/06/2012 OBSERVATIONS FROM European, EASA, AEA, EBAA, ERA, ELFAA, IACA, IATA, Network Manager, Performance Review Body

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT OBSERVATIONS OVERALL (INFORMATION) FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and all Annexes European FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 5, 17 and AEA-EBAA-ERA INSTITUTIONAL FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and State Level Agreement (Annex 1) European AEA-EBAA-ERA FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and NSA Level Agreement (Annex 2) European EASA AEA-EBAA-ERA FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and ANSPs Level Agreement (Annex 3) European AEA-EBAA-ERA FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and all agreements (civil-military arrangements), and Annexes 1, 4 and European SAFETY FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 1, 2, 7, 18, 18, 24 25, 32, EASA OPERATIONAL FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 30 and European EASA AEA-EBAA-ERA Network Manager ECONOMIC FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annex European FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 19 and AEA-EBAA-ERA ENVIRONMENT FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011, Edition 1.0 Page 2 of 71

3 Annex 19, Annex 20, Annex European SOCIAL FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annex European AEA-EBAA-ERA TECHNICAL FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 5, 26 and European Network Manager REGIONAL AGREEMENTS FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011) European PERFORMANCE FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011and Annexes 19 and European... Error! Bookmark not defined PRB EASA AEA-EBAA-ERA Edition 1.0 Page 3 of 71

4 1. Purpose of this Document This document contains the observations on the FAB CE documentation made by the European, EASA, AEA, EBAA, ERA, ELFAA, IACA, IATA, the Network Manager, and the Performance Review Body. This document follows the Comment Response Document (CRD) for the collection and consolidation of the observations from interested parties to FAB CE consultation process under (EU) 176/2011 (e.g. other MS, neighbouring third countries, relevant airspace users of groups of airspace users, staff representative bodies, ANSPs in adjacent FABs, EASA). The sub-sections of Section 2 Observations refer to the legal requirements in Regulation (EU) 176/2011 and the relevant parts of the FAB CE Submission documentation. Edition 1.0 Page 4 of 71

5 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Edition 1.0 Page 5 of 71

6 2. Observations 2.1 Overall (Information) FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and all Annexes European No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document 1 European 2 European (EU) 176/2011 (EU) 176/2011, Annex Part I, Paragraph item d All documents Annex 24 Observation/Comment FAB CE has submitted numerous Annexes whereby some of the documents date back to Some documents are presented in different versions without clear statement which one is valid i.e it is not clear if the documents from the preparatory phase are overtaken by the documents of the implementation phase. The organisation of the Annexes is sometimes unclear and often hard to assign to a regulatory requirement (Annex 28 vs Annex 19). If the preparatory phase has ended in 2010 how it is relevant to the current submission? The requirement is referred to as non-applicable. In Hungary and in Czech Republic there is MIL service provision to GAT. Given that the whole airspace of both states is in the FAB how is the requirement not applicable? Edition 1.0 Page 6 of 71

7 2.1.2 FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 5, 17 and AEA-EBAA-ERA- No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The composition of FABCE includes third country which is foreseen in REG 550/2004. The consequence of noncompliance with EC REG 550/2011 and/or EC REG 176/2011 for such a FAB composition is not evident and should be fully understood before EC determination of the establishment of FABCE. 2 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The FABCE governance is considered unlikely to support decision making leading to the optimum use of airspace, human or technical resources due to the subservient role to the individual ANSP and NSA governance. This is evidenced by the lack of ambition to design airspace along traffic flows rather than state borders, consolidate activities such as ATC service provision, AIS/AIM, Instrument Flight Procedure Design, engineering/maintenance, CNS, back-end services, MET and NSA functions. 3 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The rationale for the decision to not develop a single ANSP or NSA model is not provided. The potential benefits and costs are not discussed; however such consolidations are expected to provide benefits such as improved cost-efficiency, safety and standardisation of service provision. In this regard it is considered that the optimal use of human and technical resources has not been achieved nor is it planned to be achieved. Additionally, the justification of overall added value is not apparent. Edition 1.0 Page 7 of 71

8 4 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The rationale for the decision to not develop a joint/fab meteorological service is not provided. The potential benefits and costs are not discussed; however such consolidations are expected to provide benefits such as improved cost-efficiency and standardisation of services provision. In this regard it is considered that the optimal use of human and technical resources has not been achieved nor is it planned to be achieved. Additionally, the justification of overall added value is not apparent. 5 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 The notion of the diversity principle is counter to the intent of FAB regulation 550/2004. In this regard FABCE is demonstrably non-compliant with EC REG 550/2004. If there are differences in the law, then work should be done in order to align them as soon as possible. 6 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 In the FAB CE implementation Plan: Static AoR Scenario by 2015 and including the scope and timing of related activities. Will Static AoR Scenario be implemented by 2015? 7 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to FAB CE operations are expected to commence Dec When are the first benefits for users expected? (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 The flexibility principle appears to facilitate an approach which would likely result in FABCE being non-compliant with EC REG 550/2004 in terms of optimal use of resources, airspace compatibility and performance target consistency. Edition 1.0 Page 8 of 71

9 9 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 10 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 11 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 12 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 13 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 REG 550/2004 REG 550/2004 and REG 176/2011 REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 5 Concerning the flexible entry into force, will the FAB CE agreement be in force in all member states at the deadline in December 2012? It is mentioned that However, each FAB CE ANSP may limit its individual participation in the cooperation to activities related to the airspace (e.g. to en-route airspace only) and those ANS for which its State applies the FAB CE agreement (p. 20). We consider that this demonstrates non-compliance with Reg 550/2004. Concerning the FAB-CE development over time (figure on page 37), we consider that this demonstrates non-compliance with Reg 550/204 and Reg 176/2011 in relation to implementation of a FAB. The document is outdated (2008) and there no or only limited relation between the document and actual developments within the FAB. We consider that the provision of materially out of date information as evidence that the substantive requirements of Reg 176/2011 have not been met. REG 550/2004 Annex 5 It is mentioned that the implementation of the initial scenario should start as soon as possible (p. 7). This is very vague statement; please advise more details on whether the implementation has already been completed, whether the implementation is according to the time plan and why there are no benefits for users from the initial scenario? Edition 1.0 Page 9 of 71

10 14 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 15 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 16 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 17 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 18 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 5 Implementation of the Static AoR Scenario starting in 2012 and completed by no later than 2015 for all participating ANSPs is feasible whereas a faster pace of implementation for some ANSPs may be possible. (p. 7). Has implementation already started and when will it be completed? REG 550/2004 Annex 5 Harmonization of equipment is targeted from the static scenario, but not mentioned in relation to harmonization in National PPs. Please explain? REG 550/2004 Annex 5 Please give details on the outcome of further investigations in relation to the single unit rate as mentioned on page 12. REG 550/2004 Annex 5 We consider that the lack of progress and planned progress is demonstration that FABCE does not meet the substantive requirements of Reg 550/2004 in relation being justified by its overall added value and resource optimization. REG 550/2004 Annex 5 Failure to undertake or plan to undertake the necessary activities for seamless operations between the seven national ATC facilities is evidence of non-compliance with the substantive requirements of Reg 550/2004 in relation optimal resource allocation. 19 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 20 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 5 Has FAB-CE already started with the implementation of the static scenario? REG 550/2004 Annex 17 On page 6 it is mentioned Owing to legal and practical constraints, there will be no single unit rate covering the whole FABCE area in the time-frame. What steps are being taken in relation to this? What happens after 2012? Edition 1.0 Page 10 of 71

11 21 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 22 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 23 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 24 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 25 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 26 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 17 On page 10 it is mentioned The CEATS Coordination Group approved the FAB CE Feasibility Study Master Plan and its conclusions in March Have/Will the scenarios (initial to be ready 2010, static cross-border area of responsibility to be ready 2015 and dynamic area to be ready 2021) be implemented in time? REG 550/2004 Annex 17 As the initial scenario is a pre-condition for any further FABCE developments, has it been fully implemented? Please give details on the cooperation of training facilities today and n how far the elements are in line with the feasibility study. This has not been mentioned in the PPs. REG 550/2004 Annex 17 Have all improvements arising from cooperation of NSA Certified Training Facilities (quarter 4 of 2010) been implemented? REG 550/2004 Annex 17 On page 33 it is mentioned that The FAB Agreement itself is not, strictly speaking, a precondition for the implementation of the Initial Scenario. It is rather a product of the work to be done before and during the Initial Scenario phase. Between FAB negotiations and the FAB Agreement provisional implementation lie 2 years. Has this long period been necessary for the negotiations? REG 550/2004 Annex 18 Why are the improvements of section project 2 (fluent and flexible transfer of responsibilities) and project 8 (contingency plan) not mentioned in the PPs? REG 550/2004 Annex 18 It is a concern that the national/fab performance plan targets are not met. Edition 1.0 Page 11 of 71

12 27 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 28 AEA-EBAA-ERA- 29 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 18 For project 10 (technical services harmonisation and optimisation) the opjective is to enable ANSPs of efficient use of technical resources with interconnected and harmonised TMCS systems, especially to support cross border operations (p. 71). For the example AT / VIE and SVK / BTS: there is no coordination, not even at new buildings and systems. This is a concern. REG 550/2004 Annex 18 Are all programmes mentioned in Annex II on track? REG 550/2004 Annex 18 Project 1 Milestone: FAB CE Network Operations Plan for ATM services 2012 is agreed and in line with performance scheme and satisfies operational needs: Project 1 Milestone: FAB CE Network Operations Plan for ATM services 2013 is agreed and in line with performance scheme set by NSAs and satisfies operational needs: Project 1 Milestone: FAB CE Airspace design available: It is difficult to consider this approach is in line with Reg 550/2004 to optimize airspace, human and technical resources given that there is would be a possibility to reduce delays in Austrian Airspace during implementation of new ATC systems by better coordination/capacity transfer, especially since there is (was) enough time for planning. Edition 1.0 Page 12 of 71

13 2.2 Institutional FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and State Level Agreement (Annex 1) European No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 European (EU) 176/2011, Annex Part I, Paragraph 2, item a FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Chapter 2.2. Structures, SLA in general The composition of the FAB CE is quite complex and heterogeneous two States are not EU Members, three others are relatively new EU members and one has been a member since decades. Although, the SLA and the Information Paper take this into account it is not clear how the difference in development, level of SES legislation implementation and political status of the States will be evaluated and offset against the FAB benefits. For example would the expected benefits accrue if only two or three of the States implement an initiative or that so many different arrangements may actually diminish the benefits. While flexibility remains an important principle its management appears too complex. The administrative overhead for the management of these arrangements may potentially be quite significant. What are the mitigating factors. 2 European (EU) 176/2011, Annex Part I, Paragraph 2, item a FAB CE Information Paper Chapter 2.2. Structures, SLA in general Article 20 allows reservations which makes the scope of the Agreements and of the FAB unclear. Edition 1.0 Page 13 of 71

14 AEA-EBAA-ERA- No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 and REG 176/2011 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE, p.8 Is it correct that only Austria and Hungary have signed the agreement? Will the other states be signing before 4 December 2012? 2 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 1 It is mentioned that the agreement of the establishment of FAB-CE covers all airspace to the extent of the FAB-CE services. Why is the airspace limited to only en-route? Edition 1.0 Page 14 of 71

15 2.2.2 FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and NSA Level Agreement (Annex 2) European No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 European (EU) 176/2011, Annex Part I, Paragraph 2, item b FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 The agreement was signed in May Still at the time of submission Annex I and III remain in a TBD status. NSA Agreement, Annex I and III EASA No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part I Article 2 b FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 2 NSA Agreement The continuous reference to Regulations (EC) No 2096/2005 and 1315/2007 is outdated. The FAB CE should draw special attention to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011 when concluding an agreement on the supervision of organisations active in FAB or in cross-border activities in which the Agency is the competent authority for at least one of the organisations (i.e. for third country ANSPs) in accordance with Article 3(b) of the same regulation, as within the FAB CE this is the case. Edition 1.0 Page 15 of 71

16 AEA-EBAA-ERA- No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document 1 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 2 Observation/Comment It is mentioned that The NSAs shall closely cooperate and coordinate their activities pertaining to their rights and obligations with respect to the performance scheme as laid down under the Regulation (EC) No. 549/2004 and Regulation (EU) No. 691/2010, in particular the elaboration of performance plans, their harmonization and the targets set out therein and/or FAB CE performance plan, if adopted (p. 6). The agreement was signed 30 th May 2011, yet there has not been coordination of PPs in RP1, not even at traffic forecasts. We consider that this is demonstrated evidence of noncompliance with Reg 550/ AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 2 Has the pool of experts (mentioned in art. 15, p.11) been already established. As it is therefore not necessary anymore, that all topics are covered by experts in every NSA, what are the cost benefits? Edition 1.0 Page 16 of 71

17 2.2.3 FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and ANSPs Level Agreement (Annex 3) European No comment AEA-EBAA-ERA- No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 3 It is one of the targets to Support the Parties to meet their individual targets set out, or derived from the Performance Scheme(p.7). As per the PRB Assessment to Austrian PP, all problems in the Austrian Airspace could be solved by better cooperation with neighbouring states, but really important points, where cooperation would be necessary are missing. Again, there was/is no coordination of PPs in RP1, not even at Traffic Forecasts. We consider that this demonstrates noncompliance with Reg 550/ AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 Annex 3 Concerning the resolutions requiring simple majority ( Measures ) (p 11), we consider that these governance arrangements are likely to lead to non-compliance with Reg 550/2004. Edition 1.0 Page 17 of 71

18 2.2.4 FAB CE Information Paper pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and all agreements (civil-military arrangements), and Annexes 1, 4 and European 1 No Observer Legal Framework European REG 176/2011 Annex, Part I, 1 (d) and Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, Article 7(5) Chapter of the Document FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 176/ General Information FAB CE check list (Annex 24) General information Observation/Comment Assessment of provided documentation is made to military related issues of REG 176/2011 requirements as follows: Annex, Part I, 1 (d) To be clarified FAB CE Information Paper section General Information does not provide comprehensively the required information. The Not applicable statement can not be accepted as a reference for comparison with the requirement. The requirement itself does not need applicability. Information provided through the documentation does not give a clear view on existence of the non certified providers. Annex 24: Compliance requirements demonstration table General Information states Not applicable, which is a non compliance to Reg. 176/2011. If the meaning of Not applicable is that there are NO providers of air traffic services providing services without certification in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 that will be a compliance with the requirement. NSA Cooperation Agreement, Section I Introduction, Article 1 Definitions defines the term ANSP as the ANSPs certified by the certifying NSAs of the Contracting States to the FAB CE Agreement and entitled to provide FAB CE service in that part of the cross-border sector falling under the responsibility of the territorial NSA. This definition leads to the understanding that there are no ANSPs without certification as per Article 7(5) of Reg. (EC) No 550/2004. More detailed information is needed to clarify the situation related to existing and/or certified ANSPs likely to provide services in the FAB. Edition 1.0 Page 18 of 71

19 2.3 SAFETY FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 1, 2, 7, 18, 18, 24 25, 32, EASA No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document 1 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.a FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 25, Annex 32 Observation/Comment Based on the evidence provided it was noted that plans for the establishment of a common safety policy are made at ANSP level, but not at NSA level. The initial FAB CE Safety Policy Statement presented in Annex 32 is not enough to demonstrate a common safety policy although it is complemented by the different actions included in the SMS Roadmap. 2 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.a Annex 25, Annex 32 The SMS Roadmap is dated 4 th May 2010 and most of the actions are presented as on-going with expected deadlines before end of FAB CE should be asked to update this document including the actual status of these actions at the time of submitting the FAB dossier as stipulated by the (EU) 176/2011. Edition 1.0 Page 19 of 71

20 3 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.b Annex 2 Annex 18, Annex 24, Annex 25 Based on the evidence provided, especially the Programme Management Plan - Strategic Action Plan (Annex 18), the issues of safety data collection, analysis and exchange dealt with at ANSP level should be further clarified. At NSA level article 12 of the NSA Cooperation Agreement (Annex 2) foresees the exchange of ATM occurrence reports received via the national reporting system. Paragraph 4 of the agreement foresees that the scope, details and deadlines for the exchange of information are included in Annex II of the agreement. However, the last pages of the agreement titled Annexes do not contain such information. Clarification is needed with regard to the implementation of the abovementioned article. Moreover, it is not possible to identify information with regard to arrangements for reporting and investigation of serious incidents and accidents at State level. 4 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.c - FAB CE Feasibility Study Safety Case (Annex 7) The FAB CE Feasibility Study Case identifies fourteen hazard areas as well as proposed mitigation measures. These proposed mitigation measures (or their equivalents/alternatives) have to be applied during the next stages of the FAB CE project. No information is provided regarding the view of the NSAs on those measures. FAB CE should consider the NSA view as a matter of urgency. Edition 1.0 Page 20 of 71

21 5 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.c 6 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.d - FAB CE Agreement (Annex 1) - FAB CE NSA Agreement (Annex 2) - Cooperation agreement of FAB CE ANSPs (Annex 3)- - SMS Roadmap Document (Annex 25) - Information Paper EC ( ) - FAB CE Agreement (Art.7,9,14), Annex 1 - FAB CE NSA Agreement (Section II Art.5, Section III Art.8,9,10), Annex 2 - Safety Management Roadmap Document Annex 25 Exchange of information regarding significant occurrences and conducting of common surveys on an agreed basis at ANSP level is foreseen, but no evidence is provided in the ANSP agreement. The NSA agreement, however, does include such provision, based on which occurrences and other safety related information consequently would be exchanged. Regarding the setting of safety targets: The FAB CE NSA agreement establishes the framework for the coordination of performance plans. Furthermore, the Safety Management Roadmap Document describes a need for establishment of Quantitative Safety Levels. However, the links at State level and ANSP level are missing. Edition 1.0 Page 21 of 71

22 7 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.d 8 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 1.e - FAB CE Agreement (Art.7,9,14), Annex 1 - FAB CE NSA Agreement (Section II Art.5, Section III Art.8,9,10), Annex 2 - Safety Management Roadmap Document, Annex 25 Annex 6, Annex 18, Annex 32 Regarding safety oversight and the accompanying enforcement measures: Article 14 of the FAB CE agreement and Section III, Article 9 of the NSA agreement set up the framework on inspections, audits and corrective actions. Moreover, Article 8 of the NSA agreement covers the setting up of an inspection programme also at FAB CE level. It is also noted that FAB CE Member States agree to mutually recognize any findings, conclusions of decisions made by the certifying NSA with respect to the ANSPs under its supervision. Noted failure to duly supervise may result in suspension and thus resumption of the supervisory tasks by the NSA based on the principle of territoriality. It is unclear how the organisation s principal place of operation and the concept of cooperative oversight developed in article 10 of regulation 216/2008 have been taken into consideration when defining the certifying and territorial NSAs. There is no evidence that the described approach on safety assessment including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation has been agreed among the 7 ANSPs and the FAB CE Management. Concerning the change management process, three options are presented on the safety assessment of the changes. The identification of the operational changes is performed in the Programme Management Plan (Annex 18). However, no evidence could be found on the decision and the supporting criteria for the different selected options for each project. Edition 1.0 Page 22 of 71

23 2.4 OPERATIONAL FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annexes 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 30 and European No Observer Legal Framework 1 Regulation (EC) European No 550/2004 Article 9a 2 European Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 Article 9a Chapter of the Document FABCE Information FABCE Information Observation/Comment A number of airspace and other operational benefits appear to materialise only from 2015 onwards, in some cases later. How can this be reconciled with the requirement for optimum use of airspace by December 2012? There appears to be a certain imbalance in the FAB, with over-capacity in some areas and under-capacity in others. How can this be reconciled with the requirement for optimum use of airspace and for optimum use of technical and human resources? Edition 1.0 Page 23 of 71

24 EASA No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 3 Airspace Plan, Annex 34 The Airspace Plan 2012 as submitted is still a proposed issue and not signed. 2 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 6.b 3 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 3 Annex 34 Air Space Plan Annexes 13, 14, 15 and 34 There is no information about the necessary airspace changes in order to meet the FAB CE airspace plan for It is stated that FAB CE route design and its implementation shall be consistent and completed within the established process for overall coordination, development and implementation of the European Route Network. However details of how this will be achieved are missing. 4 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 3 Annexes 13, 14, 15 and 34 Although the internal FAB CE processes for route network proposals are more detailed, the way how their consistency with ERN will be ensured is not included. Moreover several provisions of the document refer to route network but it is not clear whether this means FAB CE or European route network. Edition 1.0 Page 24 of 71

25 5 EASA Reg. 176/2011 Annex Part II Article 6.a Annex 11, 13, 14 and 15 The material provided (Annex 11, 13, 14 and 15) does not contain information on how to achieve harmonised organisation and classification of the airspace structure. There are defined airspace design principles to ensure vertical and horizontal connectivity, including terminal airspace and airspace structure at the interface but there is no information about the FAB CE s plans or about harmonising the airspace classification. It is therefore difficult to evaluate how in practice the design principles will be applied. There are established groups and clear responsibilities for dealing with airspace matters but the main document (Annex 14 airspace chapter) has not been signed. The same goes for Annex 13 and Annex 15. Annex 11, however, has been signed. There is no information about the plans for implementing SERA nor are there common principles for airspace classification AEA-EBAA-ERA- No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The practical activities or projects to ensure alignment of traffic flows between FABCE and other FABs are not demonstrated. Without clear supporting evidence to demonstrate intent to ensure effective compatibility, it is concluded that the FABCE does not meet the requirement of EC 550/2004 in relation to ensuring smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility, but particularly as it relates to cross-fab operations. Edition 1.0 Page 25 of 71

26 2 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE The exclusion of lower enroute and terminal airspace from FABCE is demonstration that this FAB is not compliant with the substantive requirements of REG 550/2004 in regard to optimal use of airspace but also use of technical and human resources. 3 AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 It is mentioned that "The Static AoR Scenario provides a common and ambitious objective [ ] taking into account air traffic flows, and a flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC between ATSUs without the constraint of national borders (p. 24). The plans appear contradictory to this statement and in this regard we consider that this demonstrates noncompliance with Reg 550/ AEA-EBAA-ERA- REG 550/2004 FAB Central Europe Information pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 FAB CENTRAL EUROPE 3.2 A live trial is mentioned in Quarter 2 of 2012, please advise whether this trial is currently on-going and provide more detailed information, also including first results to allow an assessment against the requirement for optimum use of airspace. Edition 1.0 Page 26 of 71

27 Network Manager No Observer Legal Framework 1 NM ALL General Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment In general terms, the compliance documentation submitted by the FABCE responds to the Network Management Functions requirements with respect to FABs. The FABCE developed a comprehensive package of operational documentation in full coordination with the Network Manager. A number of quick wins have been already implemented. The geographical area of the FABCE could correspond to a functional airspace, but it is still based on national boundaries, as FAB boundaries, but also inside the FAB. It is important to state that the existing ATS delegation agreements with adjacent FABs or internal FABCE ones must continue. Additional ATS delegation agreements inside the FABCE but also with adjacent FABs must be investigated. The existing ATS delegation agreements respond to the network operational performance needs. In general, there are extensive bi-lateral interactions between the FABCE and the NM. There are also extensive interactions between the NM and the FABCE ANSPs through the NM working arrangements where there is a smooth integration of the local and network needs. Edition 1.0 Page 27 of 71

28 2 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part I, Art.1 REG 677/2011 Article The Network Manager participates extensively in all Operational and Technical working arrangements of the FABCE. It is a good example of good cooperation NM/FAB. Inputs are also coordinated through the working arrangements of the Network Manager. The direct participation of the Network Manager in those FABCE groups is beneficial for both sides. 3 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art The geographical area of the FABCE could correspond to a functional airspace, but it is still based on national boundaries, as FAB boundaries, but also inside the FAB. It is important to state that the existing ATS delegation agreements with adjacent FABs or internal FABCE ones must continue. Additional ATS delegation agreements inside the FABCE but also with adjacent FABs must be investigated. The existing ATS delegation agreements respond to the network operational performance needs. 4 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art The Network Manager can confirm that the scope of this requirement is accurately described and that the approach taken on optimum use of airspace is the right one. Appropriate cooperation is ensured by the FABCE on those aspects with the Network Manager and close coordination was ensured on airspace concepts, airspace design, the preparation of the NOP, ASM/ATFCM, etc. As a result, the network perspective is correctly reflected. Simulations and trials have been also conducted and will continue to be conducted in close coordination with the Network Manager. Edition 1.0 Page 28 of 71

29 The evolutions described in this paragraph can be confirmed by the Network Manager. On almost all those evolutions a close coordination is ensured with the Network Manager. 5 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art All the deliverables and the associated projects have been extensively coordinated by the Network Manager at network level and consistency with the overall network projects was ensured. Since 2008, all these projects were included in the ATS Route Network Versions 6 and 7 and they will be included in the European Route Network Improvement Plan Part 2 ATS Route Network Version 8. The Network Manager ensured that a network approach was followed, especially with the ATS routes, the Free Route Airspace initiative, the interconnectivity with other FAB projects, the coordination of the impacts on the European network, etc. A number of quick win projects have already been implemented as a result of the FABCE activities. FABCE has serious and constant presence and input in all the operational working arrangements of the Network Manager. Edition 1.0 Page 29 of 71

30 6 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6, Art The operational benefits stated can be confirmed by the Network Manager. The operational performance areas capacity and environment are appropriately addressed and the original purposes with respect to those performance areas are well achieved as delays continue to decrease and flight efficiency improvements have been consistently and continuously brought in coordination with the Network Manager. The achievements are well ahead the targets. It is the view if the Network Manager that the operational performance achievements could be higher than mentioned as a result of the stagnation in traffic growth. 7 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6, Art and The evolutions described in this paragraph can be confirmed by the Network Manager. On almost all those evolutions a close coordination is ensured with the Network Manager. See comments above. 8 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6, Art Essential agreements are not mentioned in this section, like for instance the ATS delegation agreement between Austria and Germany over the Innsbruck sector. It is essential that such agreements are mentioned and fully maintained. 9 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6, Art The operational performance areas capacity and environment are appropriately addressed and the original purposes with respect to those performance areas are well achieved as delays continue to decrease and flight efficiency improvements have been consistently and continuously brought in coordination with the Network Manager. The achievements are well ahead the targets. It is the view if the Network Manager that the operational performance achievements could be higher than mentioned as a result of the stagnation in traffic growth. Edition 1.0 Page 30 of 71

31 10 NM ALL Annex 5 While the Feasibility Study Master Plan is a solid document, it should be considered just as a feasibility study plan. More recent and updated documentation taking into account the latest network developments has been developed by the FABCE in the operational domain (e.g. FABCE Airspace Plan 2012 at Annex 34, the FABCE Free Route Airspace Roadmap, etc.) and in full cooperation with the Network Manager. Such recent documentation will be considered by the Network Manager for further development and implementation. 11 NM ALL Annex 9 The FABCE CONOPS for Static AoR is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and concepts. As an example, aspects related to the implementation for Free Route Airspace need to be included in such a document on the basis of the FABCE Free Route Airspace CONOPS that was developed in the context of the FABCE Airspace Plan see Annex NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6 Annex 10 The ASM-ATFCM Integration Process is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and concepts. As an example, aspects related to the implementation of the European ASM Directions for Change (as developed by the Network Manager and included in the NOP and the ERNIP) will need to be considered. 13 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6 Annex 10 and 11 The FABCE Airspace Plan included in Annexes 11 and 12 is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and concepts. From the Network Manager point of view, this document has been superseded by the FABCE Airspace Plan 2012 included as Annex 34. Edition 1.0 Page 31 of 71

32 14 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.4, Art.5, Art.6 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 13 The FABCE NOP is a very good example of cooperative work with the Network Manager. It consolidates all the FAB plans into a single document that is fully aligned with the NOP of the Network Manager. FABCE is the only FAB that undertook such consolidation and alignment. Its finalization was aligned with the finalization of the NM NOP. 15 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 14 The FABCE Airspace Charter is another good example of a clear description of the working arrangements inside FABCE and their interaction with the Network Manager and Network Management Functions. 16 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 15 The FABCE Principles for Airspace Design ensure a full coherency between local and network principles. It is fully aligned with the Network Manager related documentation. 17 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 16 The FABCE National ASM/ATFCM document contains a good description of evolutions on ASM/ATFCM. It ensures a full coherency between local and network principles. It is fully aligned with the Network Manager related documentation. 18 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 19 The ANSP Performance Assessment is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and evolutions. It is dated 2009 and many changes took place since then. 19 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.4 Annex 20 The CBA is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and evolutions. It is dated 2009 and many changes took place since then. Edition 1.0 Page 32 of 71

33 20 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Annex 21 The Operational Requirements for Static AoRs is a solid document, but it must be considered as a living document to take into account latest network developments and evolutions, especially those from the Airspace Plan 2012 (see Annex 34). 21 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Annex 24 The FABCE Compliance Update Matrix is fully confirmed by the Network Manager. Nevertheless, more references to the integration of the FABCE into the Network could have been mentioned, as this is the reality. 22 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Annex 27 The FABCE Contingency Plan is a good attempt to initiate harmonisation of contingency plans at FABCE level. It is amongst the very few FABs that have started such development. Nevertheless, it requires further operational development. 23 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Annex 29 The FABCE ANSP Cooperation documentation is a good attempt to initiate harmonisation of cooperation between ANSPs at FABCE level and to identify such areas of cooperation. 24 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.9 Annex 31 The FABCE Performance Framework needs to be more aligned with the Performance Scheme IR. 25 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 Annex 33 This document is a good example on the recent good progress made by the FABCE in the ASM/ATFCM domain and the close cooperation in this field with the Network Manager. Edition 1.0 Page 33 of 71

34 This document is a good example on the recent good progress made by the FABCE in the airspace design and airspace concepts domain. It contains the latest updates on airspace developments. It was fully integrated in the European Route Network Improvement Plan and full coordinated with the Network Manager. It is a perfect example on how FABs should start to evolve. 26 NM REG 176/2011 Annex Part II, Art.2, Art.3, Art.5, Art.6, Art.9 Annex 34 All the projects mentioned have been extensively coordinated by the Network Manager at network level and consistency with the overall network projects was ensured. Since 2008, all these projects were included in the ATS Route Network Versions 6 and 7 and they will be included in the European Route Network Improvement Plan Part 2 ATS Route Network Version 8. The Network Manager ensured that a network approach was followed. REG 677/2011 Article 10.1 and 10.2 The Free Route developments are fully consistent with the Network Development. In addition, a detailed Free Route roadmap is developed at FABCE level in full coordination with the Network Manager. This will be finalized in a very short time. It is strongly recommended that such updates take place for all the other documentation and that other FABs follow this principle of continuous cooperation with the Network Manager. The Airspace Plan 2012 is fully aligned with all the NM requirements. Edition 1.0 Page 34 of 71

35 2.5 ECONOMIC FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 and Annex European No Observer Legal Framework Chapter of the Document Observation/Comment 1 European REG 176/2011 Annex Part II Paragraph 4(e) FAB CE Information paper, pursuant to (EU) 176/2011 Annex 20, CBA, Front page The report is dated March 2008 but presented in Much of the data is five years out of date and is now unrealistic and inappropriate. Assumptions which may have been considered reasonable in 2008 can now be seen to be totally inappropriate. The data and assumptions require complete revision. Some specific issues are noted below. 2 European 3 European 4 European 5 European As above Annex 20, chapter 3.3 The study should be updated from 2007 price levels to 2012 price levels. As above Annex 20, chapter 3.4 There is no consideration of a premium for risk in the discount rate for a FAB organisation, but government guarantees are implicitly assumed. Current uncertainty in the bond markets would make an updating of the discount rate discussion difficult, but the 4% rate chosen is now the same as the EC discount rate for infrastructure. As above Annex 20, chapter 3.5 The projections should begin in Consideration could be given to extending them beyond As above Annex 20, chapter 3.6 The term commercial airspace users is assumed to refer to all non-military users whether the use is commercial or not. It may not be appropriate to put an economic value on military benefits, but why cannot military costs be estimated? Edition 1.0 Page 35 of 71

36 6 European 7 European 8 European 9 European 10 European 11 European 12 European As above Annex 20, chapter 3.7 The value placed on flight efficiency is given as 5 per km saved. However, around 60% of this value could be represented by fuel savings. Therefore it is important to know the fuel price assumed in this value, particularly given the volatility in fuel prices in recent years. As above Annex 20, chapter 3.7 The tactical delay cost appears to have been used. It may be argued that the implementation of a FAB will produce a permanent one-off change in operations which can be included in plans and, therefore, the lower, strategic delay cost should be used. The value should be updated to a 2012 value. It should be noted that the fuel element forms a major part of airborne delay costs and it is important to indicate the value used. As above Annex 20, chapter 3.8 How are support costs split between en-route and TMA? As above Annex 20, chapter 4.3 The assumption is made that the growth in kilometres flown is the same as that in movements and flight hours. This would not be the case if flight efficiency improves - which is one of the stated benefits of the FAB. As above Annex 20, chapter 4.3 The STATFOR traffic projections used are now well out of date. They assume steady growth of between 4% and 5% from 2007, whereas there was a 5% fall in 2009 and much slower growth in other years. The estimates for the next seven years are now for an average growth rate of 2.9%. Thus traffic levels in the report are much higher than those now predicted. As above Annex 20, chapter 4.4 Has account been taken of the effect on capacity of technical developments such as datalink? As above Annex 20, chapter 4.5 Is it assumed all ANSPs lose 6% of their controllers each year? Edition 1.0 Page 36 of 71

37 13 European 14 European 15 European 16 European 17 European 18 European 19 European 20 European 21 European As above Annex 20, chapter 4.6 The method of estimating future delays and the assumed relationship between capacity and delay is not clearly explained. Given the high value of delay saving towards the end of the evaluation period, this relationship is highly significant and should be presented. As above Annex 20, chapter 4.9 Major assumptions are presented, at length, on the evolution of operating costs between 2007 and These should be replaced by the actual values. As above Annex 20, chapter 5.2 The benefits of static co-operation were estimates based on some very high level assumptions. However, simulations were planned. Are simulation results now available and can better benefit estimates be made? As above Annex 20, chapter 5.2 The increase in productivity produced by dynamic cooperation is stated as a first guess. Have simulations now been carried out to refine this estimate? As above Annex 20, chapter 5.3 The costs of many of the technical enablers were largely unknown in Are estimates now available? As above Annex 20, chapter 5.4 Has planning carried out since 2008 changed any of the HR estimates? Has any training material now been developed? As above Annex 20, chapter No justification or rationale presented for the examples of technical rationalisation. The 30% saving on DAP implementation appears high, as does the value for Technical Service Optimisation. But is DME rationalisation only possible in one ANSP? As above Annex 20, chapter The document notes that savings in training will be restricted to two ANSPs that share facilities, but savings appear to have been estimated across all ANSPs. As above Annex 20, chapter Is there any evidence to indicate that aircraft are taking longer routes to avoid states with higher route charges? If so, is this behaviour likely to continue with higher fuel costs? Edition 1.0 Page 37 of 71