NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Initiative 6 Harmonisation of Operational Rules and Procedures

Transcription

1 NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Initiative 6 Harmonisation of Operational Rules and Procedures Page 1 of 20

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STATE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT Baseline Assumptions 8 6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT Minimum Scenario Performance Scenario DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS Benefits of the Minimum Scenario Benefits of the Performance Scenario IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION Implementation Costs HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION Minimum Scenario, Performance Scenario, Dependencies to Other Initiatives IMPLEMENTATION RISKS Implementation Risks Risk Mitigations 20 Page 2 of 20

3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this initiative is to define areas of interest in which the operational rules and procedures of the four participating NEFAB ANSPs can be harmonised in order to meet SES II targets and to facilitate other initiatives in the NEFAB project. This initiative analyses in what way operational rules and procedures are currently organised and describes the strategies to be undertaken in order to achieve harmonisation and integration. Operational rules and procedures include: Separation standards used by ATS; Coordination procedures used by ATS within units, between ATS sectors and between ATS units; GAT traffic and flight plan management; OAT traffic and flight plan management; Danger and restricted area management; Procedures concerning military training areas and temporary segregated areas; Any other relevant ATS and coordination procedures. Using a framework of a minimum scenario and a performance scenario, the initiative defines a future conceptual target. The first milestone is initiation and declaration of NEFAB. The initiative describes a minimum scenario and a performance scenario. The rationale behind the minimum scenario is that it describes the measures to fulfil the requirements set by NEFAB project. The minimum scenario mainly entails implementation of common procedures and ways of working. This includes: Harmonisation of operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units; Publication of relevant procedures in AIPs, AICs and other public documents are harmonised; Rules and procedures are coordinated and produced by a common, virtually centralised unit. This unit is responsible for providing templates for inter-fab LoAs. Page 3 of 20

4 The rationale behind the Performance Scenario is that it contains the more ambitious and practically achievable scenario for NEFAB. The Performance Scenario is characterised by the following activities: Operational rules, procedures and operational handbooks are common for the whole area; Rules and procedures are developed by a common, physically centralised unit. This unit responsible for the management of inter-fab LoAs; The common operational rules, procedures and operational handbooks constitute the fundament for common training plans in the NEFAB area. This initiative is primarily an enabler for other initiatives such as Initiative 01 ATS Routes and Sectorisation, Initiative 03 Optimisation of ATS, Initiative 4 Optimisation of ASM and ATFCM and Initiative 07 Training. Most of the benefits from this initiative will thus be achieved through these respective initiatives. A high level time line which provides an illustration of available functions and concepts in the time is found in Chapter 9. Implementing a FAB that requires the cooperation of 4 different countries entails several risks to consider. This report identifies implementation risks that can be expected and assesses them for their potential impact. Proposed risk mitigations are also included. A quantitative summary of net benefits has been included in the separate cost benefit analysis. Page 4 of 20

5 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE Operational Rules and Procedures in European airspace are currently established individually by the NSA and ANSP of each individual state. This implies that the rules and procedures can differ from state to state. These legal differences create a fragmented regulatory framework and limit the possibility of efficient cross-border operations. The initiative details high level scenarios for the harmonisation of rules and procedures in the NEFAB region. This chapter outlines the scope for the initiative. The initiative will identify the necessary prerequisites for increased cooperation between the ANSPs in NEFAB. The initiative is thus an enabler for increased cooperation in several other areas such as airspace management, service provision and systems. The initiative will also lower the overall maintenance costs by simplifying existing processes and reduce overall workload. This initiative describes the potential benefits of initially coordinated, later harmonised and finally common manual of operations. The initiative sets the framework for local procedures to be used inside every ANSP, thus becoming an enabler for harmonised training. Rules of the Air and other relevant regulations are considered outside of the scope of this initiative, as those are authorised by local NSAs. Page 5 of 20

6 3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE Current state specific operational rules and procedures might create limitations to both airspace users and ATS providers on a European wide scale. This chapter describes the reasoning behind this initiative proposal and its purpose in ATM. This initiative is primarily an enabler for both ATS Routes and sectorisation (Initiative 01), Optimisation of ATS (Initiative 03), Optimisation of ASM and ATFCM (Initiative 4) and Training (Initiative 07) and as such the benefits are mostly described and presented in these respective initiatives. The purpose of the initiative is to harmonise the operational rules and procedures applied in the NEFAB ANSPs in the provision of air navigation services to create the necessary prerequisites for increased cooperation, simplify the processes and reduce the workload. The rationale behind this is to harmonise operational rules and procedures in NEFAB to enable efficient cross-border operations. The initiative will provide a fundament for a development of common operational rules and procedures. Common operational rules and procedures are an enabler for enhanced cross-border operations. By harmonising operational rules and procedures, ANSPs in NEFAB airspace will cope with higher capacity with an increased level of safety and more cost effective operations. As a consequence, airspace users will benefit from harmonised services in the entire NEFAB airspace. Coordinated rules and procedures at the interface of different units is also a prerequisite for licensing in the NEFAB area, and thereby an enabler for making common training more cost-efficient and reduce lead times to validation of ATCOs. Benefits can also be achieved through this initiative by more simplified processes and reduced workload, increased capacity, harmonised training and reduced need for human resources. Harmonised operational rules will also allow more environmental friendly procedures. Harmonisation of operational rules and procedures has the potential to improve safety levels in NEFAB. Harmonised specific arrangements and agreements between the ANSPs have the potential to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, when such agreements are applied for cross-border and hand-over procedures etc. Page 6 of 20

7 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STATE In order to plan the progress of the initiative, the current situation in terms of operational rules and procedures needs to be mapped. This chapter aims to clarify how rules and procedures are developed today in the context of the four participating NEFAB states. Current rules and procedures are not harmonised. This creates boundaries and limitations on a European wide scale that constitute constraints for commercial airspace users. All states have a centralised ATC handbook/operational manual written in their own national language. In addition local, ATS-unit specific manuals are produced in order to deal with unit and site specific issues. In most cases the central operational manuals contain technical procedures. Multiple ATC handbooks in different languages result in duplicated effort in terms of development and maintenance and lead to increased costs. Manuals that are written in local languages also make it difficult for external agencies to perform audits and provide quality assurance and safety reviews. The risk of creating misunderstandings at unit interfaces is also higher. In addition airspace users need to be aware of the different rules that apply when crossing national borders. Current European licensing requirements specify levels of English language proficiency that must be achieved by operators. This provides a suitable foundation on which to build the conceptual target with one common handbook written in English. Page 7 of 20

8 5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT This chapter summarises the ongoing development of NEFAB ANSPs and the states, which can contribute to the goals of NEFAB. An ongoing activity within the Single European Sky in developing Implementing Rules (IR) is the Standardized European Rules of the Air (SERA). The objective of this rule is to transpose ICAO Annex 2, Annex 11, DOC 4444 and additional relevant ICAO SARPs into harmonised European regulatory material. It is intended that these rules and specifications will: Support the implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs); Enable the implementation of FRA concept Increase safety; Minimise the risk of misunderstandings caused by varying national sets of rules. 5.1 Baseline Assumptions The following assumptions are made for this initiative: A legislative framework must be in place allowing cross-border operations and service provision to be established through cooperation between the different NSAs; A framework must be established to allow changes to the cross-border sectorisation made bilaterally at ANSP level; National airspace policies are merged into a regional airspace policy for the FAB; FAB governance structure should support the management of NEFAB operational rules and procedures. Cooperation between NSAs is established for approval of common rules; The implementation of a common unit for managing NEFAB rules and regulations will be dependent on a governance structure for NEFAB. This is assumed to be in place by January 2012; Some of the harmonisation work is assumed to start before the NEFAB declaration. Page 8 of 20

9 6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT The NEFAB initiative is built around a conceptual target of common rules and procedures in a future ATM environment. The future service concept explains both a minimum scenario and a performance scenario. The provision of ATS within NEFAB is based on a common set of rules and procedures to enable service provision in the envisaged Free Route and crossborder environment. Operational procedures at the interfaces within NEFAB will be uniform and transparent. The development of NEFAB rules and procedures evolves from the initial coordination of operational rules and procedures to the publication and production of a common set of NEFAB rules and procedures by a centralised unit. All manuals, handbooks and other related material will be developed in English. On Level 1 the rules and procedures consist of the ratified aviation acts, approved airspace policies and the high level airspace policy body arrangements. Compatibility between the airspace policies and the working arrangements of the high level policy bodies will be assured. Level 2 rules and procedures consist of NSA level cooperation. The procedures regarding the regulatory oversight of airspace and processing of modifications to the airspace will be harmonised. Common Airspace Management principles, compatible to the national ASM principles to support the flexible cross border activities, are developed. On Level 3 the rules and procedures can be roughly divided into three distinct categories; ATS, ASM and FMP related rules and procedures. In order to enable the flexible cross border operations, common Level 3 operational procedures will be developed and these procedures will be included in a common manual. In areas of cross border functionality the procedures related to ATS, ASM and FMP will be harmonised. All common documentation will be produced in English. 6.1 Minimum Scenario Harmonisation of operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of cross-border sectors. This includes harmonised operational ATM procedures for handling OAT and GAT, and harmonised OAT and GAT flight plans in continental NEFAB airspace. Publication of relevant ATM procedures in AIPs, AICs and other public documents are harmonised and supplemented by local adaptations where required. Rules and procedures are produced by a common, virtually centralised unit. This unit is responsible for providing templates for inter-fab LoAs. Page 9 of 20

10 6.2 Performance Scenario Operational rules, procedures and operational handbooks are common for the whole area and supplemented with local adaptations where required. Rules and procedures are developed by a common, physically centralised unit. This unit is responsible for the management of inter-fab LoAs. The common operational rules, procedures and operational handbooks constitute the fundament for common training plans in the NEFAB area, except those parts of unit training where local adaptations and documentation is required. Page 10 of 20

11 7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS The underlying driver for the creation of the NEFAB is the requirement to provide a more efficient ATM. In order to determine improvements attributable to NEFAB the following Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are used: Cost efficient operations for the ANSP; Cost reductions for the airspace user; Capacity; Level of safety; Environmental effects. This chapter describes the expected benefits that airspace users and participating service providers can expect as a result of the formation of NEFAB in terms of the KPAs. It is also important to note that this initiative is primarily an enabler for both the ATS Routes and Sectorisation (Initiative 01) and Optimisation of ATS (Initiative 03) initiatives and Optimisation of ASM and ATFCM (Initiative 04). The benefits that are likely to be achieved through the performance scenario are described. There are also risks associated with the concepts within this paper and they are addressed separately in chapter 10. The benefits from this initiative are mainly derived from the centralisation of the production of manuals etc. Additional benefits are more related to improved quality and improved safety levels, since ATCOs in the different ANSPs use the same regulatory framework. The initiative is also an enabler for cross-border sectorisation and increased capacity. Environmental benefits from this initiative are achieved through ATS routes and sectorisation (Initiative 01),Optimisation of ATS (Initiative 03) and Optimisation of ASM and ATFCM (Initiative 04). 7.1 Benefits of the Minimum Scenario Rules and procedures are produced by a common virtually centralised unit. This unit is responsible for providing templates for inter-fab LoAs (harmonisation of rules and procedures). This will provide financial benefits. Harmonised operational rules, operational procedures and operational handbooks are produced through one common process for the entire FAB, which is considered to have the potential to improve safety and quality levels. Page 11 of 20

12 Harmonised publication in AIP, AIC and other public documents ensures consistency and makes it easier for airspace users to identify common procedures. 7.2 Benefits of the Performance Scenario Rules and procedures are produced by a common physically centralised unit. This is considered to provide greater financial benefits. A common set of operational rules and operational procedures throughout the NEFAB airspace will ensure a service continuum and improve safety and quality levels especially in the interface areas. Common regulatory framework is an enabler for cross borders operations. Page 12 of 20

13 8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION Realisation of the NEFAB performance scenario is dependant on a comprehensive foundation of enablers. This initiative is primarily an enabler and as such burdened with costs for activities whose benefits are achieved through other initiatives, such as ATS Routes and Sectorisation (Initiative 01), Optimisation of ATS (Initiative 03) Optimisation of ASM and ATFCM (initiative 04) and Training (Initiative 07). This chapter describes the required activities that must be undertaken in order to facilitate the conceptual target. When establishing the timeline for activities within the NEFAB program it is necessary to make certain assumptions and to rely on activities within other initiatives. Such preconditions and assumptions include: Respective National Aviation authorities must be open to cooperation and negotiation. Open and united NSAs are a foundation for the entire FAB implementation. EC regulations support the formation of FABs and provide the mandate for harmonisation of national aviation law and rules. This legislative framework must exist to support the initiative; Based on this cooperation, the national airspace policies are as far as practicable consolidated into a regional airspace policy for the FAB; The availability of qualified resources in participating organisations must be ensured. Many initiatives will place initial demands on existing human resources, which will subsequently be reduced as initiatives become mature in each ANSP; A willingness of the partnering ANSPs to invest capital. Many initiatives require an initial capital investment with a related payback period. The CBA will assess the pure financial costs of the business case; Military Units in respective states must cooperate; The implementation of a common unit for managing NEFAB rules and procedures will be dependent on a governance structure for NEFAB. This is assumed to be in place by January 2012; It is assumed that some of the harmonisation work will start before the NEFAB declaration. Page 13 of 20

14 8.1.1 Implementation Costs The estimates and assumptions for costs can be seen in the CBA report. The cost drivers are the following: Relevant handbooks, manuals etc. are written in English, and based on existing ICAO and EU regulatory material; Coordination and other operational interface procedures are uniform and transparent, above flight level 195; A common function for managing NEFAB Operational rules and procedures is established; Harmonised operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units, taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of crossborder sectors; Implementation of a common, virtually centralised unit for rules and procedures and inter-fab LoAs; Operational rules, procedures and operational handbooks are common for the whole area, and supplemented with local adaptations where required; Rules and procedures are developed by a common, physically centralised unit. This unit is responsible for the management of inter-fab LoAs. Page 14 of 20

15 9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION This chapter sets out a high level time line to provide an overview of future progress: 9.1 Minimum Scenario, 2020 High level roadmap Start date End date Duration 1. All handbooks, manuals etc. written in English Tender specification and procurement of external company to do the translation Do the translation, validate (internal validation team) and revise after validation Publish the entire manual Communicate the new manuals etc to the operational staff Coordinated operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units, taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of cross-border sectors This includes coordinated operational procedures for handling OAT and GAT as well as coordinated OAT and GAT flight plans in continental NEFAB airspace Establish a working group including the military GAP analysis on the differences in the current situation Agreement of common OAT & GAT procedures and implementation of systems adaptations Coordination and other operational interface procedures are uniform and transparent above Flight Level 195, whether working sector to sector within a unit or in cooperation with an adjacent unit 4. Harmonised operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units, taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of cross-border Years Year Years Years Page 15 of 20

16 sectors. Harmonised operational procedures for handling OAT and GAT. OAT and GAT flight plans in continental NEFAB airspace are harmonised Publication of relevant operational rules and procedures in AIPs, AICs and other public documents are harmonised and supplemented by local adaptations where required Rules and procedures are produced by a common virtually centralised unit. This unit is responsible for providing templates for inter-fab LoAs (harmonisation of rules and procedures). This will provide financial benefits years years years 9.2 Performance Scenario, 2020 High level roadmap Start date End date Duration 1. All handbooks, manuals etc. written in English Years Tender specification and procurement of external company to do the translation Do the translation, validate (internal validation team) and revise after validation Publish the entire manual Communicate the new manuals etc to the operational staff Coordinated operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units, taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of cross-border sectors This includes coordinated operational procedures for handling OAT and GAT as well as coordinated OAT and GAT flight plans in continental NEFAB airspace Establish a working group including the military GAP analysis on the differences in the current situation Agreement of common OAT & GAT procedures and implementation of systems adaptations Coordination and other operational interface procedures are uniform and transparent above Flight Level 195, whether working sector to sector within a unit or in cooperation with an adjacent unit Year Years Page 16 of 20

17 High level roadmap Start date End date Duration 4. Harmonised operational rules and procedures at the interface of different units, taking into account any requirements set forth by the implementation of cross-border sectors Years Harmonised operational procedures for handling OAT and GAT. OAT and GAT flight plans in continental NEFAB airspace are harmonised Publication of the operational rules and procedures in AIPs, AICs and other public documents are harmonised and supplemented by local adaptations where required years years 7. Operational rules, procedures and handbooks are common for the whole area, and supplemented with local adaptations where required Years 8. Rules and procedures are produced by a common physically centralised unit. This unit is responsible for the management of inter-fab LoAs (harmonisation of rules and procedures) years 9.3 Dependencies to Other Initiatives This initiative is a prerequisite for the implementation of several other initiatives. Common rules and procedures are necessary to implement cross-border operations (initiatives 1-4). Coordinated rules and procedures at the interface of different units are also a prerequisite for licensing in the NEFAB area, and thereby an enabler for common training (initiative 7). Page 17 of 20

18 10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS The NEFAB implementation is a large undertaking, which requires extensive cooperation and coordination. This results in a number of project related risks. This chapter describes the risks that are considered to be associated with the implementation. The initiative team has identified the relevant risks and classified them. A risk mitigation strategy is also developed. The risks are mostly legal and/or political and as such need to be further detailed and processed by the relevant legal tracks during the subsequent NEFAB development. Risks regarding the implementation of NEFAB wide Harmonisation of Operational Rules and Procedures include at least the following high level implementation risks: European Commission regulations: While the EC regulations as such do not pose a risk to FAB development, they might require additional or different measures to those listed in this initiative. Furthermore, the timelines for implementation might differ from those outlined in this initiative and therefore the FAB implementation plans need to be revised according to new or revised SES regulations. EASA/Eurocontrol regulations and requirements: EASA and/or Eurocontrol requirements and implementation rules may have a different ambition level and functional requirements to those outlined in this document. National laws and regulations: Differences in the national laws, aviation acts, and other associated regulations may pose a risk to harmonisation of operational rules and procedures in the NEFAB, especially in relation to cross-border operations. National interests: National militaries and national sovereignty issues; Military interests within the NEFAB states differ somewhat due to issues like operational requirements, geopolitical matters, partnership agreements, alliances etc. Unless the different military requirements and sovereignty issues can be accommodated in an acceptable but still harmonised way, this poses a major risk to the FAB development, especially in relation to the harmonisation of operational rules and procedures. Ambitious Time line When forecasting the development of NEFAB and its related concepts in total, a 10 year time frame has been used. Two factors to consider are: Page 18 of 20

19 A long time reduces the accuracy when attempting to forecast time and resource requirements as well as costs and external factors; The high level time line may be too ambitious Implementation Risks The initiatives described in the Future Service Concept chapter are listed and assessed in this section. The following risk classification scheme has been applied in the high level risk assessment of the scenarios: Risk classification: Low < 40% Medium 40-70% High >70% Risk description Probability Impact Lack of sufficient English proficiency among staff in general L M NSAs are not operating within the same timeframe M H Shortage of available staff with required skills M H Different laws in different states, especially in case of cross-border sectors H M Social framework problems: different working conditions and payment for exactly the same operations may cause irritation among staff L M Military organisations may possibly disagree regarding unified rules L M Insufficient cooperation with military organisations L M Many changes in parallel and shortage of resources to deliver according to plan M M ATM systems not supporting unified procedures L M Page 19 of 20

20 Inability to reach agreement among the ANSPs on changes that affect operations L M High complexity of the change due to number of participating ANSPs M M Change fatigue in participating ANSP organisations M M Governance structure is not properly designed for the purpose L M 10.2 Risk Mitigations The following risk mitigations are identified in order to reduce the probability or the impact of the risks identified: Use of English language tests and English language tuition to improve general proficiency; Proactive dialogue with NSAs underlining the need to achieve the benefits related to common rules and procedures and proper working arrangements with NSAs to ensure progress in the project activities; Good coordination and cooperation between participating ANSPs to ensure the most efficient use of internal resources and avoid duplication of efforts; FAB governance model to ensure high level support and prioritisation of the change process; Active involvement of staff and their organisations in designing and implementing the change processes; Proactive dialogue with military stakeholders to ensure that military requirements are taken into account at an early stage in the change process; Involvement of all internal stakeholders in the change process within the ANSPs to ensure that requirements related to CNS/ATM and support functions are taken into account; FAB governance structures designed to support efficient decision making in order to ensure timely decisions and clear prioritisation; FAB governance model empowering the decision makers to make binding decisions on behalf of participating organisations. Page 20 of 20