Report on the SES Legislation Implementation
Produced by EUROCONTROL upon request of the European Commission DG-MOVE
Reporting period January/10 - December/10
European Commission EUROCONTROL
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 i
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET
TITLE Report on the SES Legislation Implementation (Reporting period January/10 - December/10) Produced by EUROCONTROL upon request of the European Commission DG-MOVE Publications Reference: Edition Number: Edition Date: 11/06/07-24 1.2 25 August 2011 Abstract This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the factual situation of the actions undertaken to implement the SES legislation. It is based on the consolidation of information reported by the States in their respective State Annual reports and FUA reports submitted through the LSSIP Documents, and contains appropriate conclusions and recommendations. Keywords SES Report FUA Annual LSSIP Regulation Legislation Authors
Contact(s) Person Tel Unit Oscar ALFARO DSS/EIPR Stefania NIKOLOVA-TSANKOVA DSS/REG/CAA Danny DEBALS DSS/EIPR
STATUS, AUDIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY Status Intended for Accessible via Working Draft General Public Intranet Draft EATM Stakeholders Extranet Proposed Issue Restricted Audience Internet (www.eurocontrol.int) (European Commission) Released Issue
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 iii
DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD
The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.
EDITION EDITION REASON FOR CHANGE PAGES AFFECTED NUMBER DATE 1.0 1 June 2011 Original Document All Danube FAB project assigned to incorrect phase. 93, 95 ‘Feasibility’ replaced by ‘Definition’ Text of REC-2010-16 “…clarify the designation 4, 39, Annexes-2 process as applied in Germany.” replaced by “…ensure all CARs are correctly reported.” ‘Latvia’ replaced by ‘Lithuania’ in text of 9, 81 & Annexes- Recommendation REC-2010-56 4 Sweden added to applicability list of REC-2010-31 6, 55, Annexes-3 ISO code for Slovenia corrected from ‘SL’ to ‘SI’ in 3, 28, 86, REC-2010-4 and 2nd para. of Section 10.2.7 Annexes-1 ISO code for the Czech Republic corrected from ‘CR’ 4, 45, Annexes-2 to ‘CZ’ in REC-2010-19 ISO code for Poland corrected from ‘PO’ to ‘PL’ in 9, 82, Annexes-4 REC-2010-59 1.1 27 June 2011 ISO code for Austria corrected from ‘AU’ to ‘AT’ in 2nd 89 para. of Section 11.3 Recommendations REC-2010-4, 9 & 31 addressed to 3, 6, 28, 31, 55, individual Spanish NSAs Annexes-1, 3 Amount of States that did not verify compliance on 78 IFPL is “six”, not “seven” Improved explanation on application of the Regulation 89 for countries where all airports have fewer than 50,000 CATM per year “CY” removed from the list of 14 States which have 100 yet to establish procedures for handling critical events Amount of States that reported that the AMC is not a 106 joint civil/military cell is “four”, not “five” Editorial corrections Various 1.2 25 August Sweden removed from applicability list of REC-2010- 4, 36, Annexes-1 2011 14 and related text REC-2010-21 slightly re-worded 5, 46, Annexes-2 Cross-Border section and related recommendations in 4, 37 to 46, Executive Summary and Annex 1 corrected Annexes-2 Text “No information was provided for the two AFIS 63 providers” removed from 3rd bullet of text related to REC-2010-38 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 iv
List of NSAs not having received DoVs for three 72 consecutive years corrected Latvia added to applicability list of REC-2010-47 and 9, 75, 76, related text Annexes-4 Sweden removed from applicability list of REC-2010- 9, 75, 76, 48 and related text and added to applicability list of Annexes-4 REC-2010-46 and related text Belgium, Cyprus and Czech Republic removed from 9, 76, Annexes-4 applicability list of REC-2010-49 and related text Czech Republic and Norway removed from 9, 81, 82, applicability list of REC-2010-57 and related text. Annexes-4 Hungary and Malta added. Slovak Republic added to applicability list of REC- 13, 110, 2010-76 and related text Annexes-5 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 1/117
FOREWORD
This is the third SES Legislation Implementation Report produced by EUROCONTROL for the European Commission and made public for the use of the whole ATM community. The sound and transparent process for the collection and analysis of the SES and FUA annual reports has brought a significant improvement in the amount and the quality of the provided data. In this third year the accrued information already allows identifying evolution trends and common issues shared throughout the reporting States. As the regulatory framework has already been put in place, the Report does not aim to recommend additional regulation but it does call for more concerted actions from stakeholders in order to achieve of harmonisation of the interpretation as well as implementation of the existing obligations. While it may contain individual recommendations for corrective actions the Report aims to mark systemic problems recommending collective actions to be taken at EU or FAB or inter- FAB levels. This reporting period covers one of the most dynamic years in ATM since in 2004 the European Union gained competence in ATM/ANS area. With the amendment to the four basic SES Regulations and the EASA Basic Regulation a new legal and institutional framework has been put in place and will be gradually implemented in the next few years. The first decisive milestone of the SES performance scheme - the submission of the performance plans for the first reference period is due at the end of June 2011. EASA has started exercising its competence in ATM/ANS and aerodromes, the PRB has been designated and it is operational, the text of the network management functions implementing rule has been agreed and it is pending adoption together with the network manager designation. The State 2010 Annual reports are still largely reporting on the implementation of SES I package in which process a significant progress has been made for the last three years. Given, however, the importance of the year 2012 for SES implementation the analysis has tried, where possible, to foresee the potential for the reporting States to reach the statutory deadlines. The focus in this 2010 Report lies on FABs, interoperability and cross border service provision as those areas represented a prominent examples of building a genuine network at States and providers level out of the current still fractured situation. While providers are engaged in common systems developments, the process of inter-State cooperation and coordination should be deepened and accelerated as the SES and SESAR implementation combine decisions and actions on policies, implementing plans and investments none of which can be done in isolation by one of the stakeholders. The conclusions in the report reflect the reported facts, are based solely on the impartial judgement of the experts involved in the drafting of the Report and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL. They cannot be considered as either final or binding since the reported information is based on the self assessment of the reporting States and may occasionally not reflect the actual situation in those States due to any circumstances. EUROCONTROL cannot make any warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in the Annual reports, neither it can assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the data provided therein. The recommendations in the Report are in response to the request by the European Commission, are only of advisory nature thus not carrying or implying any obligation.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 2/117
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 1: Introduction
This is the third Report on the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) legislation. It has been produced by EUROCONTROL upon request of the European Commission’s DG-MOVE and covers the period January 2010 to December 2010. The purpose of the report is to inform the European Commission, and the ATM community, of the level of compliance with the SES legislation. Recommendations are developed to support continued improvement of the level of compliance reached. The report is produced following analysis of the annual reports submitted by States in accordance with Article 12 of the framework Regulation and Article 8 of the flexible use of airspace Regulation. In particular it is drawn from analysis of the SES and FUA sections (Chapters 14 and 15) of the LSSIP reports. As such, the SES Annual Report forms part of the wider LSSIP/ESSIP process. This report includes analysis of the implementation of the SES legislation in the EU27 States plus Switzerland and Norway (referred to as “The 29 States”). In addition, six ECAA States (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia) are considered – however given the various levels of transposition of the SES legislations within these States it is done separately. In total 81 recommendations have been raised: 12 are directed at the European Commission; in general they request that the Commission supports States to ensure a harmonised approach to implementation. The Directorate of Single Sky of EUROCONTROL will make proposals to support national administrations where needed. Eight are directed at all States – these recommendations highlight specific areas of concern requiring widespread action. The remaining 61 recommendations are directed at specific States, and relate to concrete actions that States can take to improve their level of compliance. The following summarises the key points and recommendations from each chapter.
Section 2: National Supervisory Authorities and their resources
Section 2 considers the establishment and available resources of National Supervisory Authorities. All 29 States and the ECAA States have nominated at least one NSA. However, the number of NSAs that still implicitly or explicitly express difficulties due to the lack of human resources remains the same as the two previous reports. The 2010 reports have shown encouraging signs with a number of NSA having already engaged in recruitment plans and others expecting to start the recruitment in 2011. While this is a positive trend, it has to be considered that recruitment is only a first step and that the training required to bring new personnel to the required level of competence can take a significant period of time. Eight NSAs have submitted their recruitment plans to their respective ministries but these are, either awaiting ministerial approval, or on hold due to economic difficulties and/or governmental limitations on recruitment of public servants. The Commission should address these States at the appropriate level to try to unblock the situation. A campaign might also be needed to make States aware of the different possibilities for financing regulatory costs. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 3/117
A number of the NSAs have reported that difficulties due to lack of resources are jeopardising their ability to fulfil their obligations. The Commission should take urgent action at the appropriate level to demand urgent actions by the States so as the capability of the NSAs to exercise its obligations is not compromised. States should also start developing strategies, especially with their FAB partners, looking to cooperate and share practices and resources in order to alleviate their situation. In the cases where a severe shortage of qualified auditors/inspectors was explicitly or implicitly reported the capability of these NSAs to conduct safety auditing, is considered questionable. As far as the obligation to conduct/update an assessment of their necessary resources for safety oversight tasks every two years, it is strongly suggested that NSAs expand this assessment beyond safety oversight to cover all NSAs tasks considering that the regulatory framework and its associated tasks evolves significantly over a two-year period. With regard to the qualifications, it is important to note that 16 of the 29 States referred to the Institute of Air Navigation Services qualification training of the audit course and OJT training and asked for a successful completion of the performed audit courses. Number Recommendation States France should clarify which DGAC departments are formally NSAs REC-2010-1 FR and which provide services to the actual NSA. REC-2010-2 Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT [REC-2009-4] REC-2010-3 Portugal should confirm arrangements for the supervision of MET PT [REC-2009-5] service provision. The NSAs of Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-MIL should conduct the assessment of HR and submit their DK, ES-MIL, REC-2010-4 recruitment plans (if necessary) to their governmental authorities EE, GR, SI as a matter of urgency. NSAs of Belgium and Luxembourg should update their REC-2010-5 assessment of HR taking into consideration the evolution in the BE, LU regulatory framework and associated tasks since 2008. States where NSA has submitted recruitment plans but they are AT, BG, CH, blocked or waiting for approval should take measures so they REC-2010-6 DE, HU, IT, comply with their obligation to ensure that NSAs have the LT, LU necessary resources and capabilities to carry out their tasks. Commission to apply pressure to those States where recruitment REC-2010-7 EC plans are on hold or awaiting approval. The European Commission should encourage States to continue looking for creative solutions (i.e. closer cooperation with other REC-2010-8 EC NSAs especially within FABs, secondment of staff from other [REC-2009-7] All States divisions of the regulatory authorities, etc.) to ensure that NSAs can perform their tasks despite the existing budgetary constraints. The Spanish military NSA should establish qualification criteria for REC-2010-9 auditors/inspectors and take measures to ensure that it avails ES-MIL itself of enough qualified personnel to conduct safety oversight. Bulgaria and Germany should continue their efforts to recruit/train REC-2010-10 sufficient number of qualified auditors for an effective conduction BG, DE of safety oversight. The European Commission should seek further clarifications from REC-2010-11 Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors EC (REC-2009-9) while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this SI task. REC-2010-12 The European Commission should investigate the use of Qualified EC [REC-2009-1] Entities. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 4/117
Section 3: Certification and designation of ANSPs
Section 3 considers the processes for certification and designation within the States; these are well established in all 29 States and most of the ECAA States. However, the process of designation for AFIS providers needs to be completed and Slovenia and Portugal need to ensure all applicable ANSPs are correctly certified. Further, Germany must be compelled by the EC to provide greater transparency in to the certification and designation processes followed. Number Recommendation States Portugal and Slovenia should clarify the status of certificates for REC-2010-13 PT, SI their ANSPs. France, Portugal and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS CH, FR, REC-2010-14 providers are correctly designated. PT Germany should clarify the designation process as applied in REC-2010-15 DE Germany.
Section 4: Cross-Border Provision of ATS
Section 4 considers the arrangements put in place by States, NSAs and ANSPs for cross border ANS provision. The analysis shows an increase in the number of cross-border ATS relations. Cross Border areas are considered under three legal frameworks: a) Case A where the legal basis is ICAO Annex 11 b) Case B where the legal basis is Article 8 of the service provision Regulation c) Case C where the legal basis is Article 10 of the service provision Regulation The majority of cross-border relations are governed by Case C followed by Case A. There has been a shift from Case A to C during 2010. Case B is only really correctly applied to the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre. Arrangements between NSAs for the supervision of ANSPs have only increased minimally since 2009. Many NSAs are still awaiting the establishment of FABs in order to set up such arrangements. It was also noted that in number of cases NSA arrangements (especially for FABEC States) that were planned for 2010 have been postponed to 2011 The Memorandum of Cooperation between FABEC NSAs was signed in January 2011. The level of reporting for cross border ATS did improve, but is still insufficient to provide a detail analysis – for example 27 of the 116 instances are reported incoherently in that the States report different legal basis. Germany accounts for nearly 50% of the errors. The following recommendations were raised. Number Recommendation States Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, , Serbia BE, CH, DE, REC-2010-16 and Switzerland should ensure all CARs/CABs are correctly FR, HU, IT, reported. NL,RS Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands should re-visit their REC-2010-17 assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC is DE, LU, NL operating. Austria is requested to check its reporting of the Case B legal REC-2010-18 AT framework. AT, BE, CH, States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to CZ, DE, DK, resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. This concerns Austria, ES, FR, HU, REC-2010-19 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, IT, LU, MT, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, NL, NO, SE, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. SI, UK Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 5/117
States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align the existing REC-2010-20 All States agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment. States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and REC-2010-21 establishing NSA arrangements for supervision of cross-border All States ATS provision even prior to FAB agreements being in place. NSAs should make use of the NSA Coordination Platform to REC-2010-22 All States address this issue.
Section 5: Ongoing Compliance
Section 5 assesses whether the NSAs have established a system of regular supervision and inspection in compliance with the common requirements Regulation. The analysis shows that whilst all NSAs have established an inspection programme, the use of a risk based approach for establishing the audit programme is not sufficiently widespread. Further, the consultations among NSAs remains at an unsatisfactorily low level - even within existing FAB initiatives - in spite of the numerous cross-border service provision arrangements. The following recommendation is raised. Number Recommendation States The EC and EASA (in the light of the upcoming standardisation inspections) should support the States to review the safety REC-2010-23 policies (relation with SSP (ICAO) and ESP (EASA)) and EC accelerate the adoption of risk based approach to ongoing compliance and safety oversight.
Section 6: Consultation of Stakeholders
Section 6 considers the level of stakeholder consultation. Whilst all States did perform some form of consultation, level is patchy, ranging from excellent consultation processes in the UK, Switzerland and the Czech Republic to poor consultation processes in Slovenia and Luxembourg. Consultation is at the core of the EC regulatory approach and is strengthened further in the SES II legislation – including requirements for social dialog. The Commission must work with the States to improve consultation mechanisms, taking advantage of FAB structures to reduce the burden on stakeholders where appropriate. The following recommendations are made. Number Recommendation States AT, EE, FI, Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal REC-2010-24 HU, IT, LU, and Slovenia should seek to improve their consultation processes. PT, SI EC to remind all States of the importance of stakeholder REC-2010-25 consultation and to use FAB level processes to reduce the burden EC on stakeholders.
Section 7: Safety oversight
Section 7 assesses the level of compliance with NSAs with the safety oversight Regulation and in particular seeks to verify that the necessary procedures are documented and that safety oversight is exercised. It also considers the resources used for safety oversight. For a second year running, ten NSAs have not produced a safety oversight annual report as specified in Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation. That would mean that for these Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 6/117
States the information related to safety oversight activities has not been consolidated and submitted to the regulatory and policy levels. This, together with the fact that many of the references provided to the published reports were not active, would justify that actions are taken at European level to emphasise that the availability and transparency of safety data are one of the most important premises to maintain and improve the high level of safety in the European ATM system. Nearly all (29 of 31) NSAs have established specific procedures relating to the safety oversight processes and provided detailed references to the relevant documents. However, only in the case of 19 NSAs do those procedures and processes relate to all three areas (ANS, ATFM and ASM) which once again shows a significant deficiency in the full implementation of the safety oversight Regulation. Deficiencies were also reported by nine NSAs in the processes related to the implementation of safety objectives, requirements and conditions identified in the EC DoVs, DoC/DSUs and risk assessment and mitigation processes. This shows a weak link between the safety and interoperability oversight. With regards to safety oversight of changes to functional systems, the majority of NSAs (25) have their internal procedures in place and have accepted the ones of the organisations under their supervision. However, six NSAs still lack internal procedures and in many of the other which have the internal procedures, their effective application can be considered questionable since eighteen NSAs reported not having conducted any review for severity class 1 or 2, and twelve NSAs any review at all (some for a second consecutive year). Safety regulatory audits are the main approach for safety oversight. 29 NSAs provided detailed information regarding the number of audits performed in 2010. The numbers vary significantly between the NSAs and indicate discrepancies in the application of oversight for ANS (around 680 audits performed in all 29 NSAs) in comparison to ASM (19 audits) and ATFM (114 audits). Additionally it should be noted that there has been a decrease in NSAs reporting to have performed safety audits for ATFM and ASM, which could indicate that safety oversight of ATFM and ASM functions still pose difficulties for the NSAs. Five NSAs issued safety directives during 2010, fully meeting the requirements of the EC Regulation 1315/2007. Compared to 2009 there has been an increase in the use of safety directives (none was issued), but still their application remains very limited. Overall compliance to the safety oversight Regulation is of concern and the following recommendations have been raised. Number Recommendation States Belgium should clarify if the oversight manual includes the safety REC-2010-26 BE oversight report for 2009. The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance with the REC-2010-27 UK requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation. EE, ES, GR, NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight REC-2010-28 MT, NL, NO, Report for 2009 should do so. PT, SI NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL, BE, CH, DK, REC-2010-29 should take swift action to establish and implement the missing EE, ES, GR, processes with regard to safety oversight. HU, NO, SK Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for the REC-2010-30 LU oversight of ASM. BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, NSAs should take measures to established and implement the REC-2010-31 ES-MIL, FI, necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM. FR, GR, NL, NO, SE, SK Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within the REC-2010-32 AT limits of the Ministry of Transport. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 7/117
The European Commission should take actions relating to the REC-2010-33 support to NSAs in the effective implementation of the safety EC oversight to ATFM and ASM functions. DK, EE, ES- NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by MET, ES- REC-2010-34 the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety related MIL, changes to their functional system should expedite this process. GR, PT NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal DK, EE, ES- REC-2010-35 procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional MIL, IT, NO, systems proposed by their ANSPs. PL The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional REC-2010-36 system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, EC (REC-2009-34) and inform the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument.
Section 8: Software Safety Assurance
Section 8 considers the level of compliance with the software safety assurance system (SSAS) Regulation which should be fully implemented. However, only 14 of the 29 States replied positively to all the applicable questions for software safety assurance. Although in most of the States, the ANSPs have implemented a software safety assurance system (SSAS) to deal with EATMN software related aspects, there remains much room for improvement as regards to the full compliance of SSAS with the requirements as laid out in Article 4 of the Regulation and its effective application to changes to software and specific software. Improvement is therefore required in particular as regards implementation by ANSPs and verification of compliance by NSAs. In particular, States should note stating that each organisation is ISO certified and has implemented QMS and SMS is an insufficient explanation for demonstrating compliance. The following recommendations were made. Number Recommendation States BE, CZ, EE, States should ensure that a compliant Software Safety Assurance REC-2010-37 GR, LU, NO, System is developed by the relevant organisations. PT, SK States should ensure that the software safety assurance system AT, DK, FI, REC-2010-38 of all relevant organisations is fully compliant with the Regulation. FR, SE AT, CY, DK, NSAs should verify that the certified ANSPs have a compliant EE, ES, GR, REC-2010-39 Software Safety Assurance System. LU, NL, PT, SE
Section 9: ATCO Licensing
Section 9 considers compliance to the ATCO Licensing Directive. According to the reports the legal conditions stemming from the Directive (transposition, licensing according to the Directive) to ensure the free movement of ATCOs in the EU are in place. A total of 24,733 licences are in effect. However, the number of applications for exchange of licences remains relatively low which may be due to national language requirements or applicable conditions for access to employment. The reports have not revealed any intention for consolidation of training at FAB level, apart from the Danish-Swedish FAB. Given that the ATCO licensing directive is in the final stages of being transposed into a Regulation under the EASA Basic Regulation, recommendations have not been raised for its further implementation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 8/117
Section 10: Interoperability
Section 10 considers the application of conformity assessment processes in the States along with the level of compliance to the interoperability implementing rules. Although most States have allocated tasks and responsibilities for supervision of compliance to appropriate NSAs, the level of implementation is a concern. In 11 States no DoVs were assessed in 2010. The DoV is in effect the means of demonstrating compliance. None of the ECAA States appear to have implemented conformity assessment. Further action is required by States and the EC to ensure widespread compliance. Only three of the seven IRs published so far, the original requirements of the IFPL IR, the AGVCS IR and the Mode S Code Allocation IR, should have been fully implemented. However, although the level of implementation seems adequate according to other EUROCONTROL official sources (e.g. LSSIP), the NSA actions to verify compliance with the IRs are clearly insufficient. In the case of the IFPL IR only 17 of the 29 NSAs have verified compliance and, while for AGVCS the figure is slightly higher, there are still doubts on how some of the NSAs are conducting the verification of compliance considering the high number of them that reported having received no DoVs. Two IRs (COTR and FMTP) should be partially implemented and verified; however the implementation of both is patchy. The late amendment to the FMTP Regulation to allow for transition arrangements appears to be causing some confusion. The AG-DLS IR is an IR that requires synchronised deployment of airborne and ground equipment. Airspace Users are already paying for forward fit avionics – it is essential for the success of the SES that ANSPs meet their obligations. The ADQ IR introduces new actors to the SES. Ensuring that they comply will be a new challenge for the NSAs. The use of enforceable implementing rules is a key benefit of the SES over traditional equipage mandates. However, NSAs do not seem to be sufficiently proactive in terms of ensuring that national obligations are met. NSA should use their powers to ensure that ANSP plans are sufficiently robust – if necessary by including enforcement measures in their National and FAB performance plans. The following recommendations have been raised. Number Recommendation States Estonia and Switzerland should ensure an adequate allocation of REC-2010-40 CH, EE tasks. Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland should CH, DK, EE, REC-2010-41 complete development of processes for supervision of conformity HU, IT assessment tasks. CY, CH, DK, The eight remaining NSAs should verify that their certified ANSPs ES-AESA, REC-2010-42 are capable of conducting conformity assessment tasks without ES-MIL, GR, recourse to a Notified Body. HU, LU AT, BE, CH, States should provide an explanation why no DoVs were CY, CZ, FR, REC-2010-43 necessary. GR, HU, LU, MT, NO, EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and REC-2010-44 NCP-IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand EC the requirements for conformity assessment. EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is REC-2010-45 EC applied in the ECAA States. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 9/117
France, Sweden and Switzerland should verify compliance of their REC-2010-46 CH, FR, SE ANSPs with the COTR Regulation. The seven States where the ANSP has only partially implemented DK, EE, ES, the provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has not yet REC-2010-47 GR, HU, LU, verified compliance should ensure that regulatory requirements LV are met and verified. The three States where the ANSP has not implemented the REC-2010-48 provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has claimed to LT, NL, PL have verified compliance should review their statements. The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in the three REC-2010-49 AT, MT reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out. The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take GR, MT, NO, REC-2010-50 measures to ensure that all mandatory processes will be PT implemented by December 2012. The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that REC-2010-51 the non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight LU, MT, SI data processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified. States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all REC-2010-52 All States requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012. NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL CY, DK, EE, Regulation. ES, FR, GR, REC-2010-53 IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, UK Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of the REC-2010-54 LU IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg. Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Latvia should clarify if they require DK, EE, FI, REC-2010-55 use of the transitional arrangements. LV Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland AT, DE, FR, and Romania should clarify why they have reported the intention REC-2010-56 GR, LT, NO, of using transitional arrangements whilst intending to comply with PL, RO the initial deadline. NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of REC-2010-57 compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS Regulation has been AT, HU, MT carried out. BE, CH, CY, NSAs should verify compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS REC-2010-58 DK, FR, GR, Regulation. RO Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland should BE, FI, LU, REC-2010-59 confirm that they have applied implemented all the applicable NL, PO provisions of the AGVCS Regulation. All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are REC-2010-60 sufficiently robust to achieve the States obligations to meet the All States provision of the Interoperability IRs. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 10/117
Section 11: Performance Scheme
Section 11 considers the application of the performance scheme Regulation which was adopted on 29 July 2010. The performance scheme established new roles and responsibilities for the NSAs – in particular they are to develop a national or FAB performance plan for each reference period, to monitor ANSP performance against this plan and take corrective action to ensure the required performance is met. The first reference period of the performance scheme runs from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014. States are currently developing the first performance plans which will be assessed by the Performance Review Body and European Commission in the latter part of 2011. Only the Danish-Swedish FAB is developing a FAB performance Plan, although FABEC will present a FAB plan for operational targets and separate national plans for cost-efficiency. Once the reference period starts, the PRB will provide an annual report on the status of the adopted performance plans. Due to the current status of the performance scheme and the need for States to concentrate on the development of performance plans, the SES Annual Report considers only whether States are developing national for FAB performance plans, the release conditions for the Annual Reports and Business Plans for ANSPs; and the application of the performance scheme to airports with less that 50,000 commercial air traffic movement per annum. No recommendations were raised.
Section 12: Air Navigation Charging
Section 12 provides an overview of the enforcement measures that are put in place by States to support collection of Route Charges. The information in the reports and the data available from the CRCO shows that some progress was made with respect to the effective application of enforcement measures for the recovery of charges since last year’s SES report. The number of States in which measures can be applied for the benefit of the System rose to 7 in 2010 and is expected to reach 11 in 2011. However, six States still have no effective measures in place in accordance with Article 14.3 of the common charging scheme Regulation and are in clear breach of the SES legislation in this respect and another five States still need to clarify or ensure applicability of the reported existing measures. Effective enforcement measures applied in the States are for the benefit of the whole community in the context of the collection through a single charge per flight, as in the case of the Multilateral Route Charges System. In this context, each State should bring its contribution to the system. Furthermore, these measures would have a greater effect if applied by a critical mass of States, thus making it impossible for bad debtors to operate in Europe. The following recommendations are made. Number Recommendation States The European Commission should urge the six States which have REC-2010-61 no effective enforcement measures in place to introduce such 6 States measures with no delay. The European Commission should request clarification from five REC-2010-62 5 States States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 11/117
Section 13: Functional Airspace Blocks
Section 13 provides a snapshot of the status of FABs at the end of 2010. During 2010 the Danish-Swedish FAB joined UK-Ireland FAB as an established FAB. The remaining seven FAB projects remain in the feasibility, definition or development phases. Based on the reported information, it would seem likely that all the FAB initiatives will be able to sign and potentially ratify the FAB State Level Agreements in order to meet the December 2012 deadline provided that the political engagement of the States remains strong. However, after considering other sources of information, it appears that the potential risk of not meeting this deadline is high in the case of NEFAB, medium in the case of Baltic; for Blue MED and SW Portugal-Spain, there is not enough information available to estimate the level of risk. At the time of writing, the NEFAB initiative is also facing difficulties at the decisive moment moving from the feasibility study phase to the development phase of the project. It is confirmed that Sweden and Denmark have stepped out of the initiative leaving the five remaining States to reconsider their options. Given the adoption of the FAB information Regulation, which requires additional effort to consolidate and present the information related to the FAB establishment by June 2012, States should plan and allocate appropriate resources to fulfil that obligation. It should be emphasised again that reported shortcomings in many NSAs as discussed in Sections 2.6 (NSA Resources), may also be an impediment to the timely establishment of FABs. It should also be highlighted that, when analysing the implementation of the implementing rules under the interoperability Regulation and other technological improvements, there are significant differences on the level achieved by the States within the same FAB initiatives. The coordinated implementation of the ATM Master Plan is also an area where States, and especially ANSPs, should seek tangible synergies through the FAB establishment and implementation. It is also noted that so far, the entering into force of the performance scheme has not influenced the development of FAB implementation. It is also interesting to note that no FAB or FAB initiative has yet introduced cooperation mechanisms with neighbouring FABs, hence FAB initiatives remain focused on intra-FAB arrangements with no concrete initiatives for FAB interfaces at State level. The following recommendations are made. Number Recommendation States The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should REC-2010-63 continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of inter- EC FAB cooperation and coordination. FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary REC-2010-64 All States consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB relations.
Section 14: Air Traffic Flow management
Section 14 considers the level of compliance with the ATFM Regulation. Even though the Regulation was not applicable for the referenced period of this report there is already wide spread adherence to the key requirements of the ATFM Regulation. States have been actively participating in the ATFM processes for a number of years, and that the enforcement of these processes has been established in the majority of States. However, under the ATFM Regulation, ATFM has become part of the EU-law which would make necessary to revisit and update the local documents and procedures to ensure that Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 12/117
they are consistent and compliant with the requirements as stipulated in the Regulation. The area, which is yet to be widely addressed, is the rules on penalties to the infringements of the provisions of the ATFM Regulation. Estonia and Latvia are further behind in the implementation than other States because the former has joined CFMU recently, and the latter was not part of CFMU for the reference period of the report. In order to fully asses the implementation of ATFM in the next reporting period, it will be necessary to revise the reporting template to ensure that reporting template to ensure that States provide detailed information on their level of implementation of all requirements, falling under the General obligations of the ANSPs in relation to the Article 6 of the Regulation. The following recommendation is made.
Number Recommendation States REC-2010-65 States should provide reference to the documents and procedures CY, FR, MT, required for the operations of the ATFM. NL
Section 15: Implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace
Section 15 reports on the implementation of the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) Regulation. The 2010 reports and analysis show that good progress has been made by States in the continuous implementation of FUA. The institutional framework at strategic level has been put in place with very few exceptions. Given its importance for the definition, development and implementation of FUA policies at EU, FAB and national level, the level of activity and effectiveness of the high-level policy bodies should be increased. States should focus on implementing assessment procedures of the FUA operations as a matter of priority and should strive to implement these procedures in coordination and cooperation with neighbouring States in order to facilitate the performance of the entire network. At pre-tactical level, it can be seen that some States are adopting a too ‘by the book’ approach to the implementation of the Regulation. The ultimate goal of implementing the statutory requirements is not achieving a formal compliance but to use these obligations in order to achieve operational improvements through real civil-military cooperation and coordination. At tactical level, despite the already accrued experience and availability of acceptable means of compliance and the ASM Handbook, the differences in the interpretation of the obligation persist. In order to avoid inefficient application of FUA these differences should be investigated in more detail aiming to achieve harmonised interpretation. Number Recommendation States Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on the expected delay for REC-2010-66 SI full implementation of Level 1 which retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process. States should establish measures to ensure consistency between REC-2010-67 ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information on the HU, LU, SI expected timelines. States to provide the Commission with the information stipulated REC-2010-68 HU, MT, SI in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 13/117
BG, CZ, DK, States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all the EE, ES, GR, REC-2010-69 tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation. HU, MT, NL, NO, SE, SI States should establish an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) in REC-2010-70 LT, LV, SI compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation. States should provide justification of the use of civil/military points REC-2010-71 of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of EE, LU the FUA Regulation. States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with CY, EE, LU, REC-2010-72 adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and LV, MT, SE, communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks. SI REC-2010-73 States should implement FUA at ASM Level 2. MT, SI States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the FUA CY, HU, LV, REC-2010-74 Regulation. MT, NO, SI States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in AT, BG, CY, establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross- CZ, DK, ES, REC-2010-75 border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations GR, LT, MT, of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment NO, PL, RO, of FABs. SI, SK States should establish with neighbouring States one common set AT, CZ, FR, REC-2010-76 of standards for separation between civil and military flights for IE, LU, MT, cross-border activities. SE, SK States should implement the required safety management REC-2010-77 SI, UK processes as a matter of priority. States should establish and implement the required processes for BG, CZ, DK, the evaluation of agreements, procedures and supporting systems REC-2010-78 ES, HU, LU, established at the three levels of FUA covering the areas of NL, SI safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility. CH, CZ, HU, REC-2010-79 States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring process. IT, LV, MT, NO, SI The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the means for establishing REC-2010-80 compliance monitoring processes. The European Commission EC should also consult with States in identifying good practices in this area. Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, REC-2010-81 whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a EC workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 14/117
Section 16: Conclusions
The original SES legislation was published in 2004. This report suggests that, during the intervening seven years, there has been significant progress in implementation of the legislation. In particular all States have established at least one National Supervisory Authority (NSA), the vast majority of ANSPs are certified and the majority are duly designated ANSP. The lack of resources for NSAs remains a key issue that must be resolved at the political level. The proper functioning of the Single European Sky can only be assured if the NSAs have sufficient resources for effective oversight in the areas of safety, interoperability and performance. The 2010 analysis did show good progress in the application of FUA. At all levels, States should focus on better cooperation and coordination with neighbouring States. Our analysis also suggests that the level of progress from 2009 to 2010 is minimal, given that 2012 is a pivotal year for implementation of the Single European Sky this is disappointing and suggests that various implementation dates are at risk. The Madrid Declaration and Budapest Charter were issued during 2010 in order to underline the Commission’s, State and industry commitment to the implementation of the SES. The report underlines the need for concerted action. Four issues stand out: The level of progress in 2010 has slowed compared to previous years The number of NSAs reporting significant staff shortages remains worryingly high The legal arrangements required for cross border ANS are not being put in place in the majority of States The level of compliance with the IOP IRs is insufficient Urgent action is required to resolve these issues. It must also be noted that 2010 was a busy year for ATM legislation, with the focus shifting from first to the second package of SES legislation. During 2010, implementing rules were adopted on: performance scheme, network management functions and information to be provided before establishment and modification of FABs. The airspace user community correctly expects significant benefits from the implementing of the SES, but it is also clear that many NSAs require support in understanding and implementing the legislation to ensure that State obligations are met. Two key initiatives which are underway to support the NSAs are the NSA Coordination Platform, which has created four working groups covering the key areas of Safety Oversight, Performance, Interoperability and NSA resources and NSA Peer Reviews These are positive steps, but more is required. As a result of the analysis performed in writing this report, the European Commission will write to each State with a list of recommendations for further action and a request that States communicate the measures they are taking to ensure their NSAs are adequately resourced. Whilst this report does provide a snapshot of the status of SES legislation, the lack of progress in the last 12 months and in particular the apparent lack of process in ensuring compliance to the IOP IRs suggests that a report focussed more on NSA compliance would be useful, particularly if it was able to compare NSAs with similar situations. EUROCONTROL have therefore proposed to the Commission, that the next SES Annual Report is based around a balanced scorecard and benchmarking NSAs. The balanced scorecard would provide policy makers and the industry with a concise view of the level of compliance, resources and achievements of each NSA, whilst the benchmarking process would provide the NSAs themselves with comparators by which to judge their own performance.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 15/117
Table of Contents FOREWORD...... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2 1. Introduction...... 18 1.1 Purpose...... 18 1.2 Geographic Scope of SES ...... 19 1.3 Applicable Legislation ...... 20 1.4 Recommendations ...... 23 1.5 Structure of the report ...... 23 2. National Supervisory Authorities and their resources...... 25 2.1 Introduction ...... 25 2.2 Establishment of NSAs ...... 25 2.3 Supervision of military ANS provision to GAT...... 27 2.4 NSA Resources ...... 27 2.5 Qualified Safety Auditors ...... 31 2.6 Qualified Entities...... 32 2.7 Conclusions ...... 33 3. Certification and designation of ANSPs...... 34 3.1 Introduction ...... 34 3.2 Certification of ANSPs ...... 34 3.3 Designation...... 35 3.4 Conclusion ...... 36 4. Cross-Border Provision of ATS ...... 37 4.1 Introduction ...... 37 4.2 Cross-border Airspace Relations ...... 37 4.3 Arrangements between the NSAs concerning the supervision of ANSPs ...... 40 4.4 Legal Arrangements for CABs ...... 40 4.5 Conclusions ...... 45 5. Ongoing Compliance ...... 37 5.1 Introduction ...... 47 5.2 Existence of inspection programmes ...... 47 5.3 Application of risk based procedures ...... 48 5.4 Consultation of ANSPs and neighbouring NSAs ...... 48 5.5 Conclusions ...... 48 6. Consultation of Stakeholders...... 49 6.1 Introduction ...... 49 6.2 Level of consultation ...... 49 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 16/117
6.3 Conclusions ...... 50 7. Safety oversight...... 51 7.1 Introduction ...... 51 7.2 Annual Safety Oversight Report ...... 52 7.3 Process for compliance of safety significant aspects...... 53 7.4 Conduct of the safety oversight to ANS, ASM an ATFM ...... 55 7.5 Safety regulatory audits ...... 56 7.6 Safety oversight of changes in functional systems ...... 58 7.7 Safety directives...... 59 7.8 Conclusions ...... 60 8. Software Safety Assurance ...... 62 8.1 Introduction ...... 62 8.2 Existence of Software Safety Assurance System ...... 62 8.3 Application to new software and software modifications...... 63 8.4 Assurances by ANSPs...... 64 8.5 Conclusions ...... 65 9. ATCO Licensing ...... 66 9.1 Introduction ...... 66 9.2 Has the State issued licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing directive?...66 9.3 How many current ATCO licences are under the oversight of the NSA? ...... 67 9.4 Exchange of licences ...... 67 9.5 Certification of training providers ...... 67 9.6 Conclusions ...... 68 10. Interoperability ...... 69 10.1 Regulation (EC) No. 552/2004 on Interoperability...... 69 10.2 Implementing rules of the interoperability Regulation ...... 74 11. Performance Scheme...... 88 11.1 Introduction...... 88 11.2 Form of performance Scheme...... 89 11.3 Release conditions for ANSP Annual Reports and Business Plans...... 89 11.4 Application of provisions for airports with fewer that 50,000 CATM ...... 89 11.5 Conclusions...... 89 12. Air Navigation Charging...... 90 12.1 Introduction...... 90 12.2 Enforcement measures (in addition to existing judicial measures) in place ...... 90 12.3 Effective application of the measures in place ...... 90 12.4 Type of enforcement measures in place ...... 91 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 17/117
12.5 Conclusions...... 91 13. Functional Airspace Blocks ...... 92 13.1 Introduction...... 92 13.2 Status of FABs ...... 92 13.3 Major Milestones ...... 94 13.4 Conclusions...... 96 14. Air Traffic Flow Management...... 98 14.1 Introduction...... 98 14.2 State obligations under ATFM Regulation...... 98 14.3 General obligations of the ANSPs...... 100 14.4 Conclusions...... 101 15. Implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace ...... 102 15.1 Introduction...... 102 15.2 Strategic Airspace Management - ASM Level 1...... 102 15.3 Pre-Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 2...... 106 15.4 Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 3 ...... 108 15.5 Cooperation between States at the 3 levels of FUA...... 109 15.6 Safety Assessment...... 112 15.7 Performance Assessment ...... 112 15.8 Compliance Monitoring...... 113 15.9 Issues in the implementation of Regulation (EC) Nº 2150/2005 ...... 115 15.10 Conclusions...... 115 16. Conclusions ...... 116 Annex 1 Summary of recommendations...... 1 Annex 2 List of NSAs...... 18 Annex 3 List of Certified ANS Providers ...... 23 Annex 4 List of Certified Training Providers ...... 43 Annex 5 List of Designated ATS Providers...... 50 Annex 6 List of Designated MET Providers ...... 58 Annex 7 CABs (Cross-Border Airspace Blocks) ...... 61 Annex 8 Acronyms...... 69 Acknowledgements ...... 71
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 18/117
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report is the third Report on the implementation of the European Union (EU) Single European Sky (SES) legislation. It has been produced by EUROCONTROL upon request of the European Commission’s DG-MOVE. The report covers the period January 2010 to December 2010. The report is produced following analysis of reports submitted by States in accordance with Article 12 of the framework Regulation and Article 8 of the FUA Regulation. In particular it is drawn from analysis of the SES and FUA sections (chapters 14 and 15) of the LSSIP reports and, where relevant, complemented by information from other official publicly available EUROCONTROL and EC documents/sources. As such, the SES Annual Report forms part of the wider LSSIP/ESSIP process. Its relationship to other reports is illustrated in Figure 1-1.
European ATM master Plan
Report on SES ESSIP ESSIP Legislation Plan Report Implementation
LSSIP Documents (per State)
Figure 1-1: Relationship of this report to other EU and EUROCONTROL documents
The intent of the report is to inform policy makers in the European Commission as well as the ATM community at large on the level of compliance with the SES legislation in the States where the SES legislation is applicable. This report is concerned with the actions to implement the SES Legislation undertaken by States and the National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs). The level of compliance of ANSPs in terms of service provision (including compliance with the interoperability Regulation) is reported in the companion ESSIP report. Where necessary however, this report does consider the level of ANSP compliance in establishing NSA compliance. With the adoption of the 2nd package of SES legislation (SES II) in October 20091, which amended the four basic SES Regulations a number of new initiatives are under development – not least the implementation of the Performance Scheme and the creation of a Network Manager. The focus of this report is however the level of implementation of the measures contained in the four basic SES Regulations and accompanying implementing rules (SES I package) in force and applicable in the period 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2010.
1 Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of th Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, No 550/2004, No 551/2004 and No 552/2004 in order to improve the peformance and sustainability of the European aviation system (OJ, L300, 14.11.2009, p. 34) Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 19/117
Success for SES II requires that the baseline implementation of the first package of SES legislation is achieved. In this sense 2010 and 2011 are pivotal years for States to ensure that NSAs are not only established but that they are adequately resourced with the correct procedures in place. 1.2 Geographic Scope of SES
This report includes analysis of the implementation of the SES legislation in the 27 EU Member States plus Switzerland and Norway – hereinafter referred to as “The 29 States”. In addition, six of the ECAA States (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Montenegro and Serbia – referred to hereinafter as the ECAA States) are considered - however given the different legal frameworks under which various levels of transposition of the SES aquis is being transposed and implemented within these States the analysis is done separately, each section of the Report containing a separate paragraph devoted to them.
NO
The 29 States FI SE ECAA States NO
EE GB LT DK LV IE GB NL DE PL BE DE CZ SK AT FR CH HU RO PT SI IT HR BA BG RS PT ME MK ES IT AL ES IT
GR CY
MT
Figure 1-2: Geographical scope of the SES report Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 20/117
This report makes use of the 2-letter ISO country codes to identify States. For reference these are replicated in Table 1-1. Code State Code State Code State AT Austria GR Greece RO Romania BE Belgium HU Hungary SE Sweden BG Bulgaria IE Ireland SI Slovenia CH Switzerland IT Italy SK Slovakia CY Cyprus LT Lithuania UK United Kingdom CZ Czech Republic LU Luxembourg ECAA States DE Germany LV Latvia AL Albania DK Denmark MT Malta BA Bosnia and Herzegovina EE Estonia NL Netherlands HR Croatia ES Spain NO Norway MK FYROM FI Finland PL Poland ME Montenegro FR France PT Portugal RS Serbia Table 1-1: ISO Country Codes
1.3 Applicable Legislation
This report is concerned with implementation of the SES legislation as listed Table 1-2 which lists all applicable SES legislation at the date of issue of this report. However, the report covers only those acts published by 31 July 2010. The short name in the first column is used to reference the Regulation throughout the report. The final column lists the sections in this report in which the provisions of the Regulation are discussed.
Short name Full Title and Reference Sections
Framework Regulation Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament 2, 4 and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation), OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p.1. Amended by: Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 34.
Performance scheme Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 11 Regulation 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services, OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 1.
Service provision Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament 2, 3, 4, 13 Regulation and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10) Amended by: Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 34. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 21/117
Short name Full Title and Reference Sections
Common requirements Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 2, 3, 5, 6 Regulation December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services, OJ L 335, 21.12.2005, p. 13. Amended by: Commission Regulation (EC) No 668/2008 of 15 July 2008 amending Annexes II to V of Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services, as regards working methods and operating procedures, OJ L 188, 16.7.2008, p. 5. Common charging Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 6, 12 scheme Regulation December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, OJ L 341, 7.12.2006, p. 3. Amended by: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, OJ L 333, 17.12.2010, p. 6. Safety oversight Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 2, 7, 10.1 Regulation November 2007 on safety oversight in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005, OJ L 291, 9.11.2007, p. 16. Software safety Commission Regulation (EC) No 482/2008 of 30 May 8 assurance system 2008 establishing a software safety assurance system to be Regulation implemented by air navigation service providers and amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005, OJ L 141, 31.5.2008, p. 5. ATCO licensing Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of 2, 9 Directive the Council of 5 April 2006 on a Community air traffic controller licence, OJ L 114, 27.04.2006, p. 22
Airspace Regulation Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament 14, 15 and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation), OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 20. Amended by: Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 34.
ATFM Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 14 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management, OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10. FUA Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005 of 23 15 December 2005 laying down common rules for the flexible use of airspace, OJ L 342, 24.12.2005, p. 20.
Interoperability Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament 10.1 Regulation and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation), OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26. Amended by: Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 34. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 22/117
Short name Full Title and Reference Sections
COTR Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 of 6 July 10.2.1 2006 laying down requirements for automatic systems for the exchange of flight data for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units, OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p. 27. Amended by: Commission Regulation (EC) No 30/2009 of 16 January 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 as far as the requirements for automatic systems for the exchange of flight data supporting data link services are concerned, OJ L 13, 17.1.2009, p. 20.
IFPL Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 of 4 July 10.2.2 2006 laying down the requirements on procedures for flight plans in the pre-flight phase for the single European sky, OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p. 46. Amended by: Commission Regulation (EU) No 929/2010 of 18 October 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 as regards the ICAO provisions referred to in Article 3(1), OJ L 273, 19.10.2010, p. 4. FMTP Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 of 7 June 10.2.3 2007 laying down requirements for the application of a flight message transfer protocol used for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units, OJ L 146, 8.6.2007, p. 7. Amended by: Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2011 of 22 March 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 as regards the transitional arrangements referred to in Article 7, OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 23.
AGVCS Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2007 of 26 10.2.4 October 2007 laying down requirements on air-ground voice channel spacing for the single European sky, OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 25. AG-DLS Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 10.2.5 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, OJ L 13, 17.1.2009, p. 3. Mode S Interrogator Commission Regulation (EC) No 262/2009 of 30 March 10.2.6 Codes Regulation 2009 laying down requirements for the coordinated allocation and use of Mode S interrogator codes for the single European sky, OJ L 84, 31.3.2009, p. 20. ADQ Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010 of 26 January 10.2.7 2010 laying down requirements on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information for the single European sky, OJ L 23, 27.1.2010, p. 6. Table 1-2: Applicable legislation Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 23/117
1.4 Recommendations
This report, as previous ones, contains a number of recommendations: a) Recommendations aimed at specific States are designed to improve their implementation of the legislation or reporting thereof. b) Recommendations aimed at the EC are designed to improve the common understanding of the legislative requirements across States. The recommendations for 2010 are provided throughout the report and recapitulated in Annex 1. Each recommendation is presented in the following manner:
REC-2010-### Text of Recommendation Applicable States Where a recommendation is carried forward from a previous report, the old reference number is included in brackets under the new reference number. The recommendations from previous years are also presented in Annex 1 including an indication if this year’s SES reports suggest that the recommendation has been acted upon. 1.5 Structure of the report
The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 2: National Supervisory Authorities and their resources covers the establishment of NSAs and level of resources including the number of qualified auditors. Section 3: Certification and designation of ANSPs considers the extent to which ANSPs are certified and designated for the services they provide. Section 4: Cross-border provision of ATS considers the legal frameworks for the provision of cross-border ATS and the arrangements established for its correct oversight. Section 5: Ongoing compliance covers details of the annual Inspection Programmes carried out by NSAs. Section 6: Consultation of stakeholders covers the level of consultation performed by States in ensuring their obligations under the SES legislation are met. Section 7: Safety oversight covers the NSA application of safety oversight including safety audits and the available resources. Section 8: Software safety assurance considers the level of implementation of software safety assurance systems in the States. Section 9: ATCO licensing considers the establishment of procedures for issuing ATCO licences and the number of licences issued and exchanged with other States. Section 10: Interoperability examines both the existence of conformity assessment processes and the implementation of the Interoperability Regulation IRs. Section 11: Performance scheme provides a summary of the application of the performance scheme. Section 12: Air Navigation Charging summarises the enforcement measures put in place by States to support the collection of Air Navigation Charges. Section 13: Functional Airspace Blocks provides a short summary of the status of the FABs and FAB initiatives and their major achievements in 2010. Section 14: Air traffic flow management summarises the current status of implementation of the ATFM Regulation. Section 15: Implementation of the Flexible Use of Airspace Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 24/117
The report is completed by the following Annexes: Annex 1: Summary of previous recommendations Annex 2: List of NSAs Annex 3: List of certified ANS providers Annex 4: List of certified training providers Annex 5: List of designated ATS providers Annex 6: List of designated MET providers Annex 7: List of Cross Border Airspace Blocks Annex 8: Acronyms Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 25/117
2. National Supervisory Authorities and their resources
2.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Article 4 of the framework Regulation Articles 2, 3, 8, 10 and 12 of the service provision Regulation Articles 6 and 7 of the interoperability Regulation Articles 3 and 13 of the ATCO licensing Directive Articles 3, 8 and 12 and Annex II part 3.3 the common requirements Regulation Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the safety oversight Regulation The SES legislation requires States to nominate a National Supervisory Authority (NSA) to perform certain tasks, notably safety oversight, under the SES legislation. Whilst States have established at least one NSA, a key issue highlighted in recent years is the level of resources required to effectively carry out the roles and responsibilities assigned to NSAs. This section considers: establishment of NSAs; supervision of military provision of ANS to GAT; level of resources for NSAs including the number of qualified auditors; and the extent to which States are making use of Qualified Entities (previously known as Recognised Organisations) to support NSA functions. 2.2 Establishment of NSAs
All 29 States have reported the establishment of at least one NSA as required by Article 4 of the framework Regulation. In total there are 33 nominated NSAs. The following States have nominated more than one NSA: Latvia has nominated two NSAs: Department of Air Transport, (MoT) has responsibility for economic oversight of the ANSPs and access to their accounts. Latvian Civil Aviation Agency (LCAA) has responsibility for all other NSA tasks. Romania has nominated two NSAs: The MoT-DGCA for security matters. The Romanian Civil Aviation Agency (RCAA) for all other NSA tasks. Spain has nominated three NSAs: The Air Safety State Agency (AESA) (hereinafter “ES-AESA”, “Spain-AESA” or “AESA”) covering civil matters except the supervision of MET services. The Deputy Chief Air Force Staff (hereinafter “ES-MIL” or “Spain-MIL”) covering military matters except the supervision of MET services. The Secretary of State for Climate Change (hereinafter “ES-MET” or “Spain-MET”) for the supervision of MET services (both civil and military). Spain-MET has not been given responsibility for interoperability tasks. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 26/117
In addition there is some confusion about the number of French NSAs; France mentions two NSAs in their submission both being directorates in DGAC: DSAC for safety and interoperability. DTA for performance oversight (DTA is listed as responsible for the production of the National Performance Plan). However, France also notes that DIRCAM is responsible for safety oversight of military ANSPS through a delegated responsibility with the final responsibility remaining with DSAC. It would be helpful if France could clarify the status of DTA as notified NSA.
France should clarify which DGAC departments are formally NSAs and REC-2010-1 FR which provide services to the actual NSA.
Austria reported that the supervision of Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) providers is not under the Ministry of Transport but under the Regional Governments. However, the SES legislation is clear that all civil ANS providers should be overseen by a nominated NSA and Austria should clarify how this is achieved.
REC-2010-2 Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT [REC-2009-4]
Portugal reported that the supervision of the provision of MET services is not performed by its NSA but by “Instituto de Meteorologia”, which is reportedly also the MET provider – SES legislation requires a clear separation of responsibility between service providers and regulators (NSAs). Portugal should confirm how this is achieved.
REC-2010-3 Portugal should confirm arrangements for the supervision of MET service PT [REC-2009-5] provision.
30 of the NSAs provide supervision of air navigation services. As illustrated in Figure 2-1: Three are organisationally separated from the CAA. Six are specific departments within their respective CAA. 20 are the CAA in their respective States. One NSA is the Ministry of
transport. Ministry of Transport CAA Department of CAA Organisationally separate from CAA
Figure 2-1: NSA relationship with State Civil Aviation Regulator
ECAA States: With the establishment in 2010 of BHDCA and the Montenegrin CAA as NSAs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro respectively, all ECAA States have now nominated or established NSAs (compared to four in 2009). Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 27/117
2.3 Supervision of military ANS provision to GAT
In 13 of the 29 States where the military provide ANS services to General Air Traffic (GAT). Of these, five States reported performing supervision of military service provision under the SES Regulations either through a specific military NSA (ES) or through agreements between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport by which the civil NSA supervises military service provision to GAT (BE, CH, FR, IT). For the other eight States: In Hungary the CAA and MAA (Military Aviation Authority) were combined in 2007 into the ‘Directorate for Air Transport – DAT’ which has competences for the oversight of military service provision. In three States, civil and military authorities have a combination of competences on the supervision of military aspects: In Germany “The responsibility for ATS to civil and military traffic falling under regional/enroute services rest with the DFS”, and are therefore under the supervision of the civil NSA (BAF). ATCOs providing GAT services at military aerodromes fall under the supervision of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces Office, AFSBw). In Denmark, military en-route ATCOs providing services to GAT hold a civil ATCO licence and are under the supervision of the civil NSA. The rest of military matters are under the supervision of the military aviation authority (TACDEN). In the UK the supervision of the provision of ANS services is carried out by the Ministry of Defence while the licensing of ATCOs and engineering and technical staff, access to the ANSP accounts and aspects related to interoperability are supervised by the Civil Aviation Authority. In the Czech Republic and the Netherlands the supervision of military aspects are under a MAA (Military Aviation Authority). The Netherlands reported the development of a shared civil/military action plan for oversight and the initiation of a project for a joint NSA in December 2010. Greece and Portugal did not provide any information on the matter. However, according to the LSSIP, in Portugal, the supervision of military provision of ANS to GAT “will be further developed by the military in cooperation with the INAC, I.P.” and, in Greece, controllers who provide GAT are trained and licensed by the HCAA. Apart from the clarification of the different competences of the civil and military authorities in some States, the situation is almost identical to the previous reporting period. Only the Netherlands reports plans of a joint civil/military supervision. 2.4 NSA Resources
It is a requirement of the legislation for States to ensure that NSAs are adequately resourced with sufficient capability to perform the tasks assigned to them in the SES legislation in a timely and efficient manner. Throughout this report there are examples of where this is clearly not the case. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 28/117
The safety oversight Regulation No 3 specifies that NSAs shall conduct No, but plans for 2011 an assessment of the human 2 resources required for safety oversight every two years. It would Yes (other NSA tasks) therefore appear natural for NSAs 3 to expand the obligation of Yes (only for conducting such an assessment safety oversight) 1 beyond safety oversight to all NSA tasks.
Figure 2-2 shows the number of Yes (for all tasks) 24 NSAs having conducted an assessment of their resources:
Figure 2-2: HR assessments Five NSAs (DK, EE, ES-MIL, GR, SI) have not conducted an assessment of their human resources in the last two years, as required by the safety oversight Regulation. However, Denmark reported that the assessment is ongoing and Estonia reported plans to conduct the assessment in 2011.
The NSAs of Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-MIL should conduct the assessment of HR and submit their recruitment DK, EE, ES- REC-2010-4 plans (if necessary) to their governmental authorities as a matter MIL, GR, SI of urgency.
On the other hand, Belgium and Luxembourg reported that the assessments of HR for safety oversight tasks took place in 2008. As stated above, such assessment must be performed or updated every two years so both NSAs should take measures to update their assessments.
NSAs of Belgium and Luxembourg should update their REC-2010-5 assessment of HR taking into consideration the evolution in the BE, LU regulatory framework and associated tasks since 2008.
As far as the obligation to conduct/update an assessment of their necessary resources for safety oversight tasks every two years, it is strongly suggested that NSAs expand this assessment beyond safety oversight to cover all NSAs tasks considering that the regulatory framework and its associated tasks evolves significantly over a two-year period. The number of staff reported by the NSAs can be seen in Figure 2-3. In total, NSAs reported that 539 full time equivalent (FTE) were available, which is only an increase of 10 FTE from 2009. The small number of additional FTE does not paint the full picture as individual States have shown significant variance in reporting to 2009 – 12 States reported a reduction in the resources available to the NSAs and 14 reported an increase. In the cases where the reported figures show a significant decrease in the number of resources with respect to 2009, this is mostly due to a better understanding of the concept of FTE. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 29/117
60 57 55
50
42 39 40
32 31 29 30 27 23 2322 23 19 20 16 14 12 1213 12 1213 11 10 9 9 9 9 10 8 8 9 7 7 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 FI SI IE IT LT PL SE SK EE LV FR CZ PT BE CY AT LU NL DE DK CH UK GR BG RO HU NO MT MIL ‐ MET AESA ‐ ‐ ES ES ES 2009 2010
* Figures do not include ‘Administrative staff’ or staff dedicated to tasks not stemming from the SES legislation Figure 2-3: Evolution of NSA Resources (FTEs)* The following caveats need to be taken into account: The number of administrative staff has not been included in the chart in order to make the reported figures comparable. Due to different organisational arrangements, some NSAs have their own administrative staff and others use administrative staff from the CAA/DGCA. For the same reason, the numbers of staff reported under the category ‘Others’ have not been included in the chart either. The NSAs, depending on the national framework and arrangements, have different obligations and tasks aside from those stemming from the SES legislation. For the reasons above, two of the 33 NSAs have not been considered in the analysis since they have no responsibilities under either of the considered categories: the Department of Air Transport (MoT) of Latvia – responsible for supervising the ANSPs accounts – and the DGCA (MoT) of Romania – responsible for security matters. Only eight NSAs (ES-MET, FI, FR, IE, NO, PL, RO, UK) reported no significant staff shortage. Sweden reported having sufficient number of staff however, in the section on Ongoing Compliance it was reported that the annual Inspection Programme did not cover all the ANSPs due to lack of resources (see Section 5.2). In total 16 NSAs reported a significant shortage of resources, of these: Six NSAs (BE, CY, ES-AESA, MT, PT, SK) reported encouragingly that recruitment plans were approved and ongoing; Five NSAs (AT, BG, CH, HU, IT) reported that recruitment plans were waiting ministerial/government approval (unfortunately, Italy reported that the selection of seven full-time inspectors was completed but due to a general public administration ban on new recruitment the new staff could not be hired, the Italian NSA has applied for derogation on this policy however, the same situation was reported last year); Three NSAs (DE, LT, LU) reported that recruitment plans on hold (Germany reported having requested 25 additional posts (~+100%) but due to budgetary constraints, no Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 30/117
recruitment is approved for 2011 and only limited recruitment might be allowed in 2012. Lithuania reported needing a minimum of additional 2 FTEs (+30%) but due to economic difficulties there is no possibility of hiring new staff. Luxembourg reported budgetary constraints and limitations by the governmental recruiting process); Two NSAs (GR, SI) have not carried out a formal assessment of resources but reported that preliminary assessments showed a severe understaffing of their NSAs. Slovenia noted that lack of NSA resources has prevented timely re-certification of their main ANSP (see Section 3.2). Three NSAs (CZ, LV, NL) carried out assessments but either a shortage (if any) was not specified, or status of the recruitment plans are not known. The Netherlands reported however that the NSA staff is expected to increase in the coming years primarily due to SESII requirements. Overall the situation has improved with respect to 2010 with a number of NSAs engaged in recruitment plans that are ongoing or foreseen to materialize in 2011. However, there are still eight NSAs either waiting for approval for their recruitment plans or these have been put on hold. Also, in at least four of the five NSAs which have not conducted an HR assessment, there are indications in their SES Annual Reports that show a severe shortage of staff. The situation with regard to resources in these twelve NSAs can be considered to be jeopardising their ability to fulfil their oversight obligations.
States where NSA has submitted recruitment plans but they are AT, BG, blocked or waiting for approval should take measures so they comply CH, DE, REC-2010-6 with their obligation to ensure that NSAs have the necessary HU, IT, LT, resources and capabilities to carry out their tasks. LU
Commission to apply pressure to those States where recruitment REC-2010-7 EC plans are on hold or awaiting approval.
Little information was provided indicating cooperation between NSAs within (or between) FABs to alleviate the staff shortage. Only the Belgian NSA reported that it is cooperating closely with the NSAs of the MUAC States, the FABEC States and other frameworks resulting in a more efficient use of critical experts. This has been fruitful for the certification of ATCO training centres and the certification of EGNOS etc. Luxembourg reported that, in order to circumvent the limitations by the governmental recruiting process, the NSA is using a state-owned private company to act as an intermediary in providing and managing resources however, this was not reflected in the reported number of resources under ‘seconded or subcontracted’ staff. It is clear from the above that the level of resources available to NSAs remains a considerable concern.
The European Commission should encourage States to continue REC-2010-8 looking for creative solutions (i.e. closer cooperation with other NSAs EC especially within FABs, secondment of staff from other divisions of the [REC-2009-7] regulatory authorities, etc.) to ensure that NSAs can perform their All States tasks despite the existing budgetary constraints.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 31/117
2.5 Qualified Safety Auditors
Figure 2-4 provides the number of qualified safety auditors for 2009 and 2010. The 31 NSAs reported a total of 270 safety auditors with the lowest numbers reported being no auditors (by Spain-MIL) and one auditor (by Bulgaria and Luxembourg) and the highest numbers of auditors being 56 (by France), followed by the UK, but with half of the number (26 auditors).
60 56 53
50
40
30 27 26
21 20 18 18 18 16 15 14 13 1111 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 10 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3333 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 FI SI IE IT LT PL SE SK EE LV FR PT CZ CY BE AT LU NL DE DK CH UK GR BG RO HU NO MT MIL MET ‐ AESA ‐ ‐ ES ES ES 2009 2010
Figure 2-4: Number of qualified auditors The comparison between the last reporting and the previous one shows that the number of qualified safety auditors in the 29 States remained practically the same. The shortage of qualified auditors has been alleviated in some States: Bulgaria and Luxembourg (0 in 2009, 1 in 2010), Malta (1 in 2009, 3 in 2010) and Belgium (3 in 2009, 6 in 2010).
The Spanish military NSA should establish qualification criteria for REC-2010-9 auditors/inspectors and take measures to ensure that it avails itself of ES-MIL enough qualified personnel to conduct safety oversight.
Except for Spain-MIL, there are now no other NSAs with zero auditors, however, the number of auditors is still considered insufficient in States such as Bulgaria (1) and Germany (3). Germany reported that, through a specifically adapted training program (AAT), 17 auditors could have been trained by the end of 2010 out of which seven auditors had been further educated to lead auditors. However, Germany also reported that this would still be insufficient considering the number of ANSPs/locations to be audited.
Bulgaria and Germany should continue their efforts to recruit/train BG, REC-2010-10 sufficient number of qualified auditors for an effective conduction of DE safety oversight.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 32/117
Two States reported a significantly lower number of auditors than in the previous cycle: Italy (14 in 2009, 8 in 2010) and Norway (13 in 2009, 10 in 2010) but no clarification was provided. Specific qualification criteria for safety auditors Of the 31 NSAs, only two (ES-MIL, SI) reported not having specific qualification criteria for safety auditors and inspectors. This is an improvement with respect to the previous reporting cycle with three NSAs (BG, ES-AESA, GR) having established the required criteria during 2010. However, Slovenia changed the positive reply provided in its previous report.
The European Commission should seek further clarifications from REC-2010-11 EC Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors while reporting SI [REC-2009-9] not having established qualification criteria for this task.
11 of the 29 State’s NSAs (AT, BE, CY, CZ, ES-MET, FI, HU, MT, NL, NO, PT) mentioned all or most of the following criteria: be licensed air traffic controllers or ATM system engineers, to have university graduate or possess expert education; have at least five years working in ANS or conformity assessment field; possess functional knowledge and experience on the domain due to be overseen. 16 of the 29 State’s NSAs (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, GR, IE, LU, MT, NO, PL, PT, SE, SK) referred to the IANS qualification training (stage 1 and 2) of the audit course and on-job training (OJT) and asked for a successful completion of the performed Audit courses. Five NSAs specifically asked for English language skills (AT, CY, HU, PT, SK). It is not clear if there is an automatic assumption of English language skills for the remaining States. Six NSAs provided details relating to the specific procedures/manuals covering the competence criteria established. Latvia did not specify the qualification criteria for the second year running. 2.6 Qualified Entities
Only three organisations have been given the status of qualified entities as per Article 3 of the service provision Regulation: Quality Austria and APAC in Austria TÜV-Nord CERT in Germany Only the Austrian NSA reported having delegated any tasks, e.g. Safety audit, to a Qualified Entity (Quality Austria) during this reporting period. However, Germany reported plans to delegate, in 2011, TÜV-Nord CERT the task of auditing CNS infrastructure. This very limited use of Qualified Entities is to some degree surprising, and may indicate a lack of awareness of the opportunity from suitably qualified companies. The 2009 Report included a recommendation (REC-2009-1) that the European Commission should investigate reasons for both the limited use of Qualified Entities and the lack of interest in the companies in the sector undergoing the recognition process. Given the continued issue with lack of NSA resources this recommendation is as pertinent as ever.
REC-2010-12 The European Commission should investigate the use of Qualified EC [REC-2009-1] Entities. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 33/117
2.7 Conclusions
All 29 States and the ECAA States have nominated NSAs; but sadly the good news largely stops there. The number of NSAs that still implicitly or explicitly express difficulties due to the lack of human resources remains the same as the two previous reports. The 2010 reports have shown encouraging signs with a number of NSAs having already engaged in recruitment plans and others expecting to start the recruitment in 2011. While this is a positive trend, it has to be considered that recruitment is only a first step and that the training required to bring new personnel to the required level of competence can take a significant period of time. Eight NSAs have submitted their recruitment plans to their respective ministries but these are, either awaiting ministerial approval, or on hold due to economic difficulties and/or governmental limitations on recruitment of public servants. The European Commission should address these States at the appropriate level to try to unblock the situation. A campaign might also be needed to make States aware of the different possibilities for financing regulatory costs. In a number of NSAs which have reported difficulties due to lack of resources there are indications that this is seriously jeopardising their ability to fulfil their obligations as NSAs. The Commission should take urgent action at the appropriate level to demand urgent actions by the States so as the capability of the NSAs to exercise its obligations is not compromised. Also, States should start developing strategies, especially with their FAB partners, looking to cooperate and share practices and resources in order to alleviate their situation. In the cases where a severe shortage of qualified auditors/inspectors or a lack of them was explicitly or implicitly reported the capability of these NSAs to conduct one of their main tasks, which is safety auditing, is considered questionable. As far as the obligation to conduct/update an assessment of their necessary resources for safety oversight tasks every two years, it is strongly suggested that NSAs expand this assessment beyond safety oversight to cover all NSAs tasks considering that the regulatory framework and its associated tasks evolves significantly over a two-year period. With regard to the qualifications, it is important to note that 16 of the 29 States referred to the Institute of Air Navigation Services (IANS) qualification training of the audit course and OJT training and asked for a successful completion of the performed audit courses.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 34/117
3. Certification and designation of ANSPs
3.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the service provision Regulation Articles 3 and 4 the common requirements Regulation This section considers the certification and designation of ANSPs under the SES legislation. Article 7 of the service provision Regulation requires that provision of ANS within the EU is subject to certification by States. The granting of certificate requires that the ANSP complies with the applicable parts of the common requirements Regulation. An ANSP may only operate without a certificate if it primarily provides a service to aircraft movements other than general air traffic. In many cases this implies that a military provider does not require a certificate. However, a State is required to take measures to ensure maximum compliance by these providers with the Common Requirements. Articles 8 and 9 of the service provision Regulation deal with the designation of air traffic service providers (ATSP) and meteorological service providers (MSP) respectively. ATSPs and MSPs are designated for a specified airspace block. 3.2 Certification of ANSPs
The 29 States have reported certification of 277 ANSPs compared to 275 in 2009; 82 of them ATS providers. The full list is provided in Annex 3. 126 certificates were either renewed or re- issued during the reporting period. The evolution of the number of certified ANSPs per State can be seen in Figure 3-1. The two Slovenia ANSPs are currently without a certificate (see below) as is one from Portugal.
80 71 70 62 60
50
40 32 30
20 15 10 10 10 10 88 10 333444 1111222222220 0 IT FI IE LT AT LU CZ NL LV PL FR SI* BE HU DK SE UK CY SK ES EE CH DE MT BG NO GR RO PT*
2008 2009 2010
Figure 3-1: Certified ANSP per State
Six military ANSPs are certified in FR. No other State reported intentions of certifying its military ANSPs despite some indications thereof in previous reporting periods. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 35/117
During the reporting period nine State ANSP Certified for new ANSPs received a certificate Spain INECO ATS, AFIS (see Table 3.1). France ESSP CNS It should be noted that ESSP is the DIRISI CNS pan-European service provider for Régie personnalisée AFIS the EGNOS satellite augmentation d’exploitation (BRIVE Souillac system – their certificate is the first Apt.) for a Navigation Service Provider. Société d’exploitation de AFIS l’aéroport de Toulouse Francazal Spain also reported that it intends (TOULOUSE Francazal Apt) to contest the provision of ATC and Greece HCAA/ANS ATS, AFIS, AFIS services at aerodromes and AIS, CNS that five companies are currently HNMS/MET MET undergoing the certification process in addition to INECO which was Italy Alatoscana SpA (Elba Marina di AFIS, CNS, Campo Airport) MET certified in 2010. SOGEAOR AFIS, CNS Five certificates have either been Table 3-1: ANSPs receiving a first certificate in 2010 withdrawn or not renewed: Syndicat Mixte de l'Aérodrome de Millau-Larzac (MILLAU Larzac Apt.), Communauté D'agglomeration de Brive (BRIVE Laroche Apt.) in France; Stiftelsen Karlskoga flygplats in Sweden; Fenland Aero Club (Licensing) Ltd, Truman Aviation Ltd (Nottingham) in the UK. From the submitted reports, it is clear that three ANSPs are providing services without a valid certificate: Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. in Portugal, which has never been certified; Slovenia Control Ltd. and Agency for Environment of Republic of Slovenia whose certificate expired the 21/12/2010 and has not yet been renewed. Slovenia reported lack of sufficient resource in the NSA for delay in the renewal of the certificates.
Portugal and Slovenia should clarify the status of certificates for their REC-2010-13 PT, SI ANSPs.
ECAA States: Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not yet issued certificates under the SES legislation; all other ECAA States have done so.
3.3 Designation
The 29 States reported the designation of 127 ATSPs and 27 MSPs (the full lists can be seen in Annex 5 and Annex 6). 87 ATSPs are providing services without having been designated. Of these: Sweden (7 AFIS providers) provided a clear rationale for this situation stating that the certified ANSPs who have not been designated are providing services according to Article 10 of the service provision Regulation under agreements with the only designated ATSP in Sweden, Luftfartsverket (LFV). France (62 AFIS providers) and Italy (7 AFIS providers) reported plans to issue designation acts during 2011. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 36/117
Switzerland (1 AFIS provider) reported that “With respect to Engadin Airport AFIS Provision, a formal designation is not foreseen at this time as only regional services are provided”. France (4 Military ATS providers), who in the 2009 SES Annual Report reported plans to modify the Civil Aviation Code to allow the designation of the military providers during 2010, did not provide an update on this. Portugal (6 AFIS providers) did not provide any justification or clarification. It is clear that all ATS providers, who provide services to GAT as their principle service, must be properly designated by State responsible for the airspace. In recent years, the designation of AFIS providers has accelerated, but this process needs to be completed, in particular in, France, Portugal and Switzerland.
France, Portugal, and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS REC-2010-14 CH, FR, PT providers are correctly designated.
The only States reporting having designated an, ATSP or MSP provider holding a certificate issued by another State were Belgium and Germany (for MUAC). Luxembourg failed to report the same situation. Germany again provided again very partial information on this topic. No reference was given on the specific legal act by which DFS and DWD are designated and no information was given as for the legal basis for the designation of the other ANSPs. Further, no information was provided either on the validity of the designations nor on the conditions attached to them.
Germany should clarify the designation process as applied REC-2010-15 DE in Germany.
ECAA States: Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not yet designated ANSP. All other ECAA States have done so.
3.4 Conclusion
The processes for both certification and designation appear to be well established in the 29 States - however, the process of designation for AFIS providers needs to be completed and Slovenia and Portugal need to ensure all applicable ANSPs are correctly certified. Further, Germany must be compelled by the EC to provide greater transparency in to the certification and designation processes followed. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 37/117
4. Cross-Border Provision of ATS
4.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Articles 8 and 10 of the service provision Regulation Article 2(41) of framework Regulation This section reports on the arrangements put in place by States, NSAs and ANSPs for cross- border ATS provision – that is situations where one State is responsible for airspace in which air navigation services are provided by an ANSP from another State. This section considers all 35 reporting States (that is the 29 States plus the 6 ECAA States). In particular, this section: Identifies the legal frameworks under which cross-border ATS may be provided. Establishes whether the necessary arrangements between the States, NSAs and ANSPs concerned have been established. Highlights incoherent reporting from States. In this report, the airspace where cross-border provision of ATS takes place is referred to as a Cross-border Airspace Relation or CAR. There is a unique CAR for each applicable pair of States. Each CAR consists of one or more Cross-border Airspace Blocks (CABs). There are 79 CARs consisting of 118 CABs in total. The arrangements for each CAB are presented in detail in Annex 7. Cross-border ATS provision requires arrangements to be set up, under specific legal frameworks, between the State having responsibility over the airspace and the State in which the ATS provider is based. The three legal frameworks are listed in Table 4-1, where State X is the State having responsibility over the airspace and State Y is the State in which the ATS provider is based.
Case Legal Basis Description Case A ICAO Annex 11 State X delegates the responsibility for the provision of ATS to State Y (State-to-State Agreement). State Y certifies and designates ANSP Y to provide ATS in the CAB. Case B Article 8 of the service State X designates ANSP Y (based and certified in Y) to provide provision Regulation ATS in the CAB. Case C Article 10 of the State X designates ANSP X (certified in X) to provide ATS in the service provision CAB. ANSP X avails itself of the services of ANSP Y certified in Regulation Y (agreement between the two ANSPs, notified to the two NSAs concerned and approved by the two States concerned). Table 4-1: Legal Basis for cross-border ANS provision Following detailed analysis and refinement of the data provided, this section focuses on developments in reporting of CARs and CABs and portrays the progression from 2008 to 2010 in order to identify trends and arising issues. 4.2 Cross-border Airspace Relations
Figure 4-1 presents all CARs that have been reported by the 35 States considered. 30 ANSPs are providing ATS cross-border services within the applicable airspace (including Isavia from Iceland, UKSATSE of the Ukraine and Nouadhibou APP of Mauritania). New to this report is Eglinton City of Derry ANSP which is certified in the UK and providing services in the Irish airspace. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 38/117
ANSPs providing cross-border ATS savia ANSP Austrocontrol Defence Belgian Belgocontrol Skyguide of Czech Republic ANS DFS Naviair AENA DSNA HungaroControl Authority Aviation Irish ENAV Luxembourg ANA LGS MATS LVNL MUAC Avinor PANSA Portugal NAV LFV Control Slovenia LPS SR Eglinton Cityof Derry NATS Ltd Control Croatia SMATSA İ APP Nouadhibou UkSATSE State AT BE BE CH CZ DE DK ES FR HU IE IT LU LV MT NL NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK UK HR RS IS MR UA 1Austria AT 111 y 11 2 Belgium BE 111 3 Bulgaria BG 4Switzerland CH 11 5Cyprus CY 6Czech R CZ 11 1 7 Germany DE 1111x 11111 8Denmark DK 1 9 Estonia EE 10 Spain ES 1 z 11 Finland FI 11 12 France FR 11 1 1y 11 1 13 Greece GR 14 Hungary HU 1 1 15 Ireland IE 11 16 Italy IT 11 1 1 1 17 Lithuania LT 1 18 Luxembourg LU 11 19 Latvia LV 20 Malta MT 21 Netherlands NL 11 11 1 22 Norway NO 1 23 Poland PL 11 1 24 Portugal PT 1 25 Romania RO 26 Sweden SE 11 27 Slovenia SI 11 28 Slovak R SK 1 z 29 UK UK 111 11 1 States having responsibility over the airspace where ATS is provided cross-border 30 Albania AL 31 BiH BA 11 32 Croatia HR y 1 y 33 Fyrom MK 34 Montenegro ME 1 35 Serbia RS
Iceland 1 Lichtenstein z
4% 5% Reported by both 2 States 1% Reported only by the State having certified the ANSP
Reported only by the State having responsibility over the airspace
Reported by one of the States involved (counterpart State is not one of the reporting States) 90% Figure 4-1: Reported CARs Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 39/117
Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, FYROM, Greece and Romania are not involved in cross- border service provision. When in the following paragraphs recommendations are addressed to ‘All States’, the aforementioned States excluded. Five new CARs were reported in 2010 resulting in a total number of 79 CARs, as presented in Figure 4-1. Of these: 71 CARs were reported by both the States involved; 3 were reported by one State where the counterpart is not one of the reporting States; 5 were only reported by one State. Hence, 94% of CARs were reported by both States, or only by one State where its counterpart was outside of the scope of this report, which is a very significant improvement on last year when only 57% were reported. The 79 CARs can be broken down in 118 CABs, 20 more than in 2009. Of these: 93 CABs were reported by both the States involved; 3 were reported by one State where the counterpart is not one of the reporting States; 22 were only reported by one State. Of the 22 CABs reported only by one State, there were 14 cases were the CAB was reported only by the States having certified the ANSP, and 8 cases reported only by the State having responsibility for the airspace. The table below identifies the non reporting States in each instance:
CABs reported only by the State having CABs reported only by the State having the certified the ANSP responsibility over the airspace State failing to report: No. of CABs State failing to report: No. of CABs Germany 11 (out of 25) Belgium (Belgocontrol) 1 (out of 11) France 1 (out of 14) Hungary (Hungarocontrol) 1 (out of 2) Italy 1 (out of 6) Italy (ENAV) 3 (out of 7) Netherlands 1 (out of 10) Serbia (SMATSA) 2 (out of 4) Switzerland (Skyguide) 1 (out of 7) Table 4-2: States failing to report cross border areas
These States, particularly Germany which accounts for 50% of the errors, should endeavour to ensure completeness of the reports.
Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, , BE, CH, DE, REC-2010-16 Serbia and Switzerland should ensure all CARs/CABs are FR, HU, IT, correctly reported. NL,RS
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 40/117
4.3 Arrangements between the NSAs concerning the supervision of ANSPs
All CABs should be covered by an arrangement between the NSAs for the supervision of ANSPs. 2010 32 66 20 In the 2010 State reports, the number of NSA arrangements for ATSP supervision was indicated to be in place for only 32 out of a total 2009 22 68 8 of 118 CABs. Of these: 28 were reported to be in place by both States. 0 20406080100120140 Yes No Incoherent reporting An additional four were reported to be in place by one Figure 4-2: Arrangement between NSAs State. However, in the majority of cases NSA arrangements are either not yet in place (66 CABs (56%)), or the reporting was incoherent between both States (20 CABs (17%)). For 66 CABs, whilst no arrangements were reported to be in place or the reporting was incoherent, States did indicate that there was activity to create such arrangements. Many States indicated that they are waiting for agreements scheduled to take place in the context of the FAB projects, prior to establishing the necessary NSA arrangements for ANSP supervision. For a second year, the reporting indicates the situation with the NSA arrangements has not improved regardless of some progress in the FAB initiatives. The 86 CABs that are not covered by an NSA arrangement or for which the reporting was incoherent affect all reporting States involved in cross-border service provision except Portugal.
4.4 Legal Arrangements for CABs
Figure 4-3 gives an overview of the legal framework reporting in 2010. It should be noted that only one legal framework should apply 2010 23 3 48 44 for each CAB. The 2010 State reports included: 23 Case A CABs; 2009 35 3 41 19 3 Case B CABs; 49 Case C CABs; and 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 43 CABs where the States Reported A cases Reported B cases Reported C cases Incoherent cases reported different, multiple or no legal basis. Figure 4-3: Legal arrangements used
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 41/117
The number of CABs reported incoherently increased and inconsistent reporting by States of the dates for letters of agreement between Air Traffic Service units was a common occurrence in the 2010 reports. Following an analysis of the 2010 reports, the subsequent sections present the results of the CABs reported under each of the three legal frameworks together with a deeper analysis of the incoherently reported CABs.
Case A – ICAO Annex 11 Case A is where the States agree that the delegation is arranged as per ICAO Annex 11 which requires that a State level agreement is signed between the two States. 23 CABs were reported by both (or by one of) States under this legal framework, compared to 35 in 2010 14 9 CABs 2009. As illustrated in Figure 4-4, of these 23 CABs: 2009 14 21 9 were reported by one State; and 14 were reported by both 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 States. Reported by both States (AA) Reported by both States (A) Figure 4-4: Case A reporting There has been a reduction in the number of CABs reported as Case A from 2009 to 2010 with twelve less cases reported. The majority of the CABs no longer reported as Case A are now reported under Case C. Case A requires the conclusion of an agreement between the States concerned. Figure 4-5 illustrates the status of such agreements. There has been an increase in the number of agreements. The State-pairs for CABs reported as Case A by only one of the States are listed in Table 4-3. The non-reporting States are also identified for each reported CAB.
25 Reporting Non-reporting CAB ID 20 State State 8 DEDK-01 Denmark Germany 15 DEDK-01 Denmark Germany 3 FRCH-03 Switzerland France 10 HRIT-01 Croatia Italy
12 5 HRIT-02 Croatia Italy HRRS-01 Croatia Serbia 0 HRRS-02 Croatia Serbia Reported "No" Reported "No" but mentioned existing plans LICH-01 Switzerland Liechtenstein
Reported "Yes" SKUA-01 Slovak Rep. Ukraine Figure 4-5: Case A State agreements Table 4-3: States not reporting Case A
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 42/117
Case B – Article 8 of the service provision Regulation In Case B, a State designates an ANSP that has been certified by a different State to provide air traffic services in the airspace under its responsibility. Three CABs were reported by either both States or by one of the States under this legal framework in 2010, the same number as in 2009. In 2009 the primary use of Case B was for service provision by the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) for the airspace under the responsibility of Belgium and Germany. In 2010, Germany and the Netherlands do not appear to have reported the MUAC airspace accurately since the CAB was reported as AB, i.e. as both Case A and Case B. Luxembourg reported the MUAC airspace as Case A MUAC, which is currently an ANSP certified by NL under the SES legislation, can be considered to have been designated to provide services in the other three States airspace under the “Agreement relating to the provision and operation of ATS and facilities by EUROCONTROL at MUAC”2 dated 25 November 1986. This would indicate that Case B can be considered as the appropriate legal arrangement.
Germany, Luxembourg and the Neterlands should re-visit REC-2010-17 their assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC DE, LU, NL is operating.
The other CABs reported as Case B in 2010 were from Austria, for services provided by another State’s ANSP in the airspace within the responsibility of Austria. After comparing this information with the three other counterparts, it would appear that Austria reported these CABs incorrectly.
Austria is requested to check its reporting of the Case B REC-2010-18 AT legal framework.
Case C - Article 10 of the service provision Regulation In Case C a designated ATSP avails itself of services provided by an ATSP certified in another State. For Case C an agreement between the ANSPs should exist; the NSAs should be notified of this agreement; and the States should approve this agreement. 49 CABs were reported under this legal framework in 2010, compared to 41 in 2009. 2010 35 14 As illustrated in Figure 4-6 of these 49 CABs:
35 were reported by both States 2009 10 31 (CC), and A further 14 were reported by one 0 102030405060 State (C). Reported by both States (CC) Reported by one State (C) Table 4-3 identifies the non-reporting States for Case C. 8 of the 14 Figure 4-6: Case C reporting instances are from Germany.
2 The MUAC Agreement can be considered as a designation under ICAO Annex 11 where ICAO member states entrusted their responsibility not to another state but to a third person i.e. EUROCONTROL. This type of designation should also be valid under Article 8 of the service provision Regulation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 43/117
Non Reporting State Total Reporting States (instances) Germany 8 Netherlands (x8) Italy 2 France (x2) Norway 1 Sweden Belgium 1 France Netherlands 1 Belgium Switzerland 1 France Table 4-4: States not reporting Case C
Figure 4-7 illustrates the total 50 4 number of Case C CABs with 45 8 respect to agreement between the 40 10 10 ANSPs concerned, notification to 35 the NSAs concerned and approval 30 11 by the States concerned. In all 25 49 20 cases, an agreement between the 35 ANSPs was reported as being in 15 place; however the obligations for 10 20 notification to the NSAs and State 5 approval are not equally being 0 Agreement between the ANSPs Notified to the NSAs concerned Approved by the States complied with. concerned concerned In 10 cases, neither State reported Reported "Yes" Reported "No" but mentionned existing plans that the NSAs had been notified. Reported "No" One State reported "Yes", the other "No" Figure 4-7: Case C CABs As seen from Figure 4-7, the number of Case C arrangements for cross-border ATS provision reported to be covered by State agreement is 20, with 11 instances where States reported that no State agreement was in place but was planned. In the majority of situations, States reported that they are waiting for FAB developments to establish such State agreements.
Incoherent reporting from States Of the 118 reported CABs, the legal framework for 43 of these was reported incoherently by the States concerned.
2010 2009 CAB No. CAB No. 2009 2010 State A State B 2009 2010 Conclusion
ATCZ-01 # 2 A B Austria Czech Rep. C C Inconclusive
ATDE-01 # 3 A B Austria Germany - A Inconclusive
ATIT-01 # 4 A B Austria Italy C C Inconclusive
ATSI-01 # 5 - B Austria Germany A A Inconclusive
BELU-01 # 7 C A Belgium Luxembourg A C Inconclusive
BENL-01 # 8 B B Belgium Netherlands B AB B
CHFR-01 # 62 A A Switzerland France C C Inconclusive
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 44/118
2010 2009 CAB No. CAB No. 2009 2010 State A State B 2009 2010 Conclusion
CHIT-02 # 63b A A Switzerland Italy A C Inconclusive
CZAT-01 # 13 - C Czech Rep. Austria A B C
CZDE-01 # 14a C A Czech Rep. Germany - C Inconclusive
CZDE-02 # 14b C A Czech Rep. Germany - C Inconclusive
DEAT-01 # 27 - AB Germany Austria C B B
DEBE-01 # 28a - C Germany Belgium A AC C
DECZ-01 # 30a - AC Germany Czech Rep. C C C
DECZ-02 # 30b - AC Germany Czech Rep. C C C
DEFR-01 # 31a - AC Germany France C C C
DEFR-02 # 31b - A Germany France C C Inconclusive
DELU-01 # 32 - ABC Germany Luxembourg A A A
DENL-04 # 34 - AB Germany Netherlands B AB B
DESE-01 # 35 - AC Germany Sweden C C C
ESMR-01 # 59 - - Spain Mauritania - - Inconclusive
FRDE-01 # 21a C C France Germany - A Inconclusive
FRDE-02 # 21b C C France Germany - A Inconclusive
FRLU-01 # 24 C C France Luxembourg A A Inconclusive
HUAT-01 # 37 C C Hungary Austria A B C
ITAT-01 # 40 C C Italy Austria A B C
ITCH-01 # 41 C C Italy Switzerland A A Inconclusive
ITMT-01 # 43 C C Italy Malta A AC C
ITSI-01 # 44 C C Italy Slovenia - A Inconclusive
LUNL-01 # 46 A A Luxembourg Netherlands - AB Inconclusive
NLBE-02 # 47b C C Netherlands Belgium - AC C
NLDE-01 # 49a A AC Netherlands Germany - A Inconclusive
NLDE-02 # 49b C C Netherlands Germany - A Inconclusive
NLDK-01 # 50 C C Netherlands Denmark - A Inconclusive
NLUK-01 # 51 AC AC Netherlands UK C C C
NOUK-01 # 52 A AC Norway UK A C C
PLDE-01 # 72 C C Poland Germany - A Inconclusive
SIAT-01 # 56 A A Slovenia Austria A B A
SIIT-01 # 57 - A Slovenia Italy C C Inconclusive
UKDK-01 # 64 A A UK Denmark A C Inconclusive
UKNL-01 # 67a A C UK Netherlands A AC C
UKNL-02 # 67b A C UK Netherlands A AC C
UKNO-01 # 68 A C UK Norway A AC C Table 4-5 summarises the incoherent reporting, indicating what Case each of the States Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 45/119 reported for 2009 and 2010.
2010 2009 CAB No. CAB No. 2009 2010 State A State B 2009 2010 Conclusion
ATCZ-01 # 2 A B Austria Czech Rep. C C Inconclusive
ATDE-01 # 3 A B Austria Germany - A Inconclusive
ATIT-01 # 4 A B Austria Italy C C Inconclusive
ATSI-01 # 5 - B Austria Germany A A Inconclusive
BELU-01 # 7 C A Belgium Luxembourg A C Inconclusive
BENL-01 # 8 B B Belgium Netherlands B AB B
CHFR-01 # 62 A A Switzerland France C C Inconclusive
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 46/119
2010 2009 CAB No. CAB No. 2009 2010 State A State B 2009 2010 Conclusion
CHIT-02 # 63b A A Switzerland Italy A C Inconclusive
CZAT-01 # 13 - C Czech Rep. Austria A B C
CZDE-01 # 14a C A Czech Rep. Germany - C Inconclusive
CZDE-02 # 14b C A Czech Rep. Germany - C Inconclusive
DEAT-01 # 27 - AB Germany Austria C B B
DEBE-01 # 28a - C Germany Belgium A AC C
DECZ-01 # 30a - AC Germany Czech Rep. C C C
DECZ-02 # 30b - AC Germany Czech Rep. C C C
DEFR-01 # 31a - AC Germany France C C C
DEFR-02 # 31b - A Germany France C C Inconclusive
DELU-01 # 32 - ABC Germany Luxembourg A A A
DENL-04 # 34 - AB Germany Netherlands B AB B
DESE-01 # 35 - AC Germany Sweden C C C
ESMR-01 # 59 - - Spain Mauritania - - Inconclusive
FRDE-01 # 21a C C France Germany - A Inconclusive
FRDE-02 # 21b C C France Germany - A Inconclusive
FRLU-01 # 24 C C France Luxembourg A A Inconclusive
HUAT-01 # 37 C C Hungary Austria A B C
ITAT-01 # 40 C C Italy Austria A B C
ITCH-01 # 41 C C Italy Switzerland A A Inconclusive
ITMT-01 # 43 C C Italy Malta A AC C
ITSI-01 # 44 C C Italy Slovenia - A Inconclusive
LUNL-01 # 46 A A Luxembourg Netherlands - AB Inconclusive
NLBE-02 # 47b C C Netherlands Belgium - AC C
NLDE-01 # 49a A AC Netherlands Germany - A Inconclusive
NLDE-02 # 49b C C Netherlands Germany - A Inconclusive
NLDK-01 # 50 C C Netherlands Denmark - A Inconclusive
NLUK-01 # 51 AC AC Netherlands UK C C C
NOUK-01 # 52 A AC Norway UK A C C
PLDE-01 # 72 C C Poland Germany - A Inconclusive
SIAT-01 # 56 A A Slovenia Austria A B A
SIIT-01 # 57 - A Slovenia Italy C C Inconclusive
UKDK-01 # 64 A A UK Denmark A C Inconclusive
UKNL-01 # 67a A C UK Netherlands A AC C
UKNL-02 # 67b A C UK Netherlands A AC C
UKNO-01 # 68 A C UK Norway A AC C
Table 4-5: Incoherently reported CABs Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 47/119
In 2010 16 CABs were reported as Case A by one State and Case C by the counterpart State. This indicates a slight decrease from 2009 where 18 cases of this type of incoherent reporting took place. Most of these reported cases resulted in an inconclusive legal framework to be determined for these CABs. For this type of incoherent reporting, the State that appears to have reported incoherently most often is Germany. There are three CABs in the 2010 reports where one State reported the CAB to be Case A and the other reported Case B and no instances of this type in 2009. In these cases, the CAB could probably be classified as Case A since in no case the ANSP providing ATS services was reportedly designated as per Article 8 of the service provision Regulation in the ‘Designation’ section of the States’ respective Annual Reports. Austria is the State involved in all cases of this type of incoherent reporting. In the case where one State reported the CAB to be Case B and the other Case C, the 2010 reports resulted in five CABs being reported in this manner. For the same reason as in the previous paragraph, these CABs could probably classified as Case C. Austria was again involved in all cases of this type of incoherent reporting. The 2010 reports include an increase in the number of CABs where more than one legal framework is reported to apply for a particular State. States should note that only one legal framework can apply for each CAB..
States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. AT, BE, CH, CZ, This concerns Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, DE, DK, ES, FR, REC-2010-19 France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, HU, IT, LU, MT, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland NL, NO, SE, SI, UK and UK.
4.5 Conclusions
Analysis of the 2010 reports showed an increase in the number of cross-border ATS relations and resulting CABs. The majority of cross-border relations are governed by Case C (Article 10 of the service provision Regulation), followed by Case A (ICAO Annex 11), which would indicate that the ANSPs are making use of the opportunity provided by the SES legislation to arrange cross- border service provision. The 2010 reports include an increase in the number of CABs where more than one legal framework is reported to apply for a particular State. States should note that only one legal framework can apply for each CAB. Arrangements between NSAs for the supervision of ANSPs have only increased minimally since 2009. Many NSAs are still awaiting the establishment of FABs in order to set up such arrangements. It was also noted that in number of cases NSA arrangements (especially for FABEC States) that were planned for 2010 have been postponed to 2011 (this coincides with the signing of a Memorandum of Cooperation between FABEC NSAs drafted in 2010 expected to be signed in (January) 2011.
States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align REC-2010-20 All States the existing agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 48/119
States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and REC-2010-21 establishing NSA arrangements for ATS provision even prior All States to FAB agreements being in place.
NSAs should make use of the NSA Coordination Platform to REC-2010-22 All States address this issue.
In the last two years this section of the report has reviewed only the arrangements for ATS cross-border provision. However, the requirement for close cooperation among NSAs in order to ensure adequate supervision of cross-border service provision includes also CNS, AIS and MET. The recommended thorough review and urgent action to put in place NSA arrangements should also consider these services. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 49/119
5. Ongoing Compliance
5.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Article 7.7 of the service provision Regulation Article 7 and Annexes I-V of the common requirements Regulation The purpose of this section is to assess whether the NSAs have established a system of regular supervision and inspection of compliance with the Common Requirements as required by Regulations (EC) 550/2004 and 2096/2005. The main features of such systems include: regularity and thoroughness of the supervision; monitoring of established indicators (if any to determine the level of the risk associated with different operations); interface of the NSAs with the ANSPs it has certified or which provide cross-border services (Article 2.4 of Regulation (EC) 550/2004); interface with other NSAs concerned (Article 2.4 of Regulation (EC) 550/2004). This provision of information covering on-going compliance is the SES annual reports is arguably one of the sources to support the mutual recognition of certificates and supervisory tasks (Article 2.5 and Article 7.8 of Regulation (EC) 550/2004). 5.2 Existence of inspection programmes
All 33 NSAs have established an annual inspection programme for 2009, which contained the programme for safety regulatory 2010 33 audits. In all but three States (HU, PT, SE) it covers the annual monitoring of 2009 33 all certified ANSPs. Hungary omitted to specify the three re-certified ANSPs. Portugal 2008 31 2 introduced a system of bi-annual inspection for AFIS and CNS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 providers unless a safety related Yes No change occurs. Sweden reported difficulties with available resources. Figure 5-1: Has the NSA established an annual inspection programme? The annual inspection programmes reportedly cover comprehensively the Common Requirements associated to different services. The process of annual establishment and update of inspection programmes appears to be in place for the NSAs. ECAA States: In spite of the cross-border service provision arrangements the level of transposition of the safety oversight Regulation in the ECAA States is disappointing. Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have yet not transposed the legislation. Albania is checking compliance against ESARRs and ICAO Annexes while no compliance is checked in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatia, FYROM, Montenegro and Republic of Serbia reported to have annual inspection programmes in place; FYROM referred to risk based inspection approach without specifying the monitored indicators. Montenegro and Republic of Serbia are conduction joint oversight of SMATSA (providing services in the airspace of both States). Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 50/119
5.3 Application of risk based procedures
The majority of NSAs reportedly based the inspection programme on the risks associated with the different operations, with the exception of Estonia, Latvia (MOT as an NSA for the financial 2010 29 4 matters), the Netherlands and Spain-MIL). The comments provided by some NSAs, particularly Austria, Cyprus, Czech, Germany, Greece, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Luxembourg, Malta and Poland Yes No suggest that a risk based approach Figure 5-2: Is the annual inspection programme based may not actually be followed. on an assessment of the associated risks? Two States (DK, FR) answered positively but clarified that a system for risk assessment is in the process of being established. So despite the level of positive reporting, the comments provided suggest that 13 NSAs are yet to fully establish a risk based approach for the inspection programme. This conclusion is backed up by analysis of the LSSIP data for SRC-SLRD3 which confirms that the majority of the States are late in the implementation of acceptable levels of safety against which to monitor safety performance.
The EC and EASA (in the light of the upcoming standardisation inspections) should support the States to review the safety policies REC-2010-23 EC (relation with SSP (ICAO) and ESP (EASA)) and accelerate the adoption of risk based approach to ongoing compliance and safety oversight.
5.4 Consultation of ANSPs and neighbouring NSAs
NSAs have established the interfaces for consultation of the certified ANSPs, however the practices of consultation vary significantly. There is a positive trend in the establishment of interfaces with the certified providers as only two NSAs did not consult the ANSPs. Despite the abundance of cross-border situations, the consultation among NSAs on inspection programmes remains scarce, apart from some well established relations for MUAC and France/Switzerland. Germany reported to have checked the on-going compliance of AustroControl GmbH for the services they provide in Germany, however without having a supervisory arrangement with the Austrian NSA as required by Article 2.4 of Regulation (EC) 550/2004. 5.5 Conclusions
Although the high level of audit plans is encouraging, it is also clear that many States do not follow a risk based approach to establishing the audit programme as required by the legislation. Steps should be taken to rectify this. Further, the consultations among NSAs remains at an unsatisfactorily low level - even within existing FAB initiatives.
3 ESSIP Objective – Safety Levels and Resolution of Deficiencies. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 51/119
6. Consultation of Stakeholders
6.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Article 10 of the framework Regulation Article 15 of the common charging scheme Regulation This section assesses whether States have established consultation mechanisms with stakeholders and whether these mechanisms have been effectively used. States were asked to report on whether stakeholders were consulted on various topics as summarised in Table 6-1. In total there are 31 potential examples of consultation.
Topic ANSPs Airports Airspace Users Manufacturers Military Performance Scheme X X X X X ANS Charging Scheme X X Capacity X X X Airspace Design X Safety X Certification X Interoperability X X X X Environment X X X SESAR X X X X X Other X Regulatory Issues X X X FUA X Security X Table 6-1: Suggested areas for consultation 6.2 Level of consultation
Table 6-2 (overleaf) shows which stakeholders have been consulted by which States, with a green cell showing that consultation has taken place and red that it has not. ANSPs were the most consulted group but there is an overall low degree of consultation with the manufacturing industry, with only 14 States conducting any form of consultation with them. There is a wide degree of variation in the level of consultation amongst States. The Czech Republic, Norway, Switzerland and the UK consulted on all topics; whilst Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Slovenia consulted on less that half the areas.
Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, LU, REC-2010-24 Portugal and Slovenia should seek to improve their PT, SI consultation processes.
The EC should remind all States of the importance of regular stakeholder consultation. The use of FABs as a way of reducing the consultation burden on stakeholders should be investigated.
EC to remind all States of the importance of stakeholder REC-2010-25 consultation and to use FAB level processes to reduce EC the burden on stakeholders. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 52/119
COUNTRY AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL NO PL PT RO SK SI ES SE CH UK
Performance scheme
ANS Charging Scheme
Capacity Airspace Design, Management & Safety ANSPs Certification
Interoperability
Environment
SESAR
Other
Regulatory issues
Performance
AIRPORTS Capacity
Environment
SESAR
ANS Charging Scheme
Performance scheme
Airspace Capacity Users Interoperability
Environment
SESAR
Regulatory issues
Manufacturing Performance scheme industry Interoperability
SESAR
Regulatory issues n/a Performance scheme n/a FUA n/a MILITARY Interoperability n/a Security n/a SESAR n/a Examples of Consultation 12 24 20 22 31 9 7 19 29 16 26 6 27 13 26 27 6 17 27 31 26 15 19 29 5 25 30 31 31 Table 6-2: Consultation of stakeholders 6.3 Conclusions
The level of consultation on SES topics is patchy, ranging from excellent consultation processes in States such as the UK, Switzerland and the Czech Republic to poor consultation processes in Slovenia and Luxembourg. Consultation is at the core of the EC regulatory approach and is strengthened further in the SES II legislation – including requirements for social dialog.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 53/119
7. Safety oversight
7.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: The safety oversight Regulation The purpose of this section is to assess the level of compliance of NSAs with the safety oversight Regulation and in particular to verify: that all the necessary procedures are documented; and that safety oversight is exercised. This section also analyses the effort spent in the implementation of the safety oversight Regulation. However, there are still many inconsistencies and misunderstandings in the figures reported for human resources and for number of audits and safety reviews that make it difficult to draw clear conclusions. The section considers the 31 NSAs of the 29 States that have responsibilities on safety oversight. This includes one NSA per State plus the three Spanish NSAs. The Spanish MET NSA has no responsibilities with regards to ASM and ATFM, so all items referring to these functions are assumed to be not applicable (‘N/A’). The limited scope of the responsibilities of the Spanish MET NSA on interoperability has also been taken into account. Where considered appropriate, information has been complemented with data provided by States through their LSSIP documents, in particular, for the following ESSIP objectives: SRC-AUDI: Implementation of Safety Regulatory Auditing by NSAs. This objective aims to aims to assist NSAs with the implementation of safety audits to ensure independent examination of the level of compliance with safety regulatory requirements achieved by ATM organisations. SRC-CHNG: Implementation of Safety Oversight of Changes to ATM by NSAs. This objective addresses NSAs’ implementation of processes to review safety arguments in relation to new functional systems and changes to existing systems prior to their implementation by ATM organisations. SRC-OVCA: Implementation of ATM Safety Oversight Capabilities by NSAs. The objective aims to ensure that the “…organisational and functional capabilities of the NSAs are of a standard that will enable them to effectively perform their ATM safety oversight responsibilities”. SRC-RLMK: Implementation of the EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESARRs). This objective aims to aid national safety regulatory authorities with the establishment of appropriate rules in the area of ATM safety regulation. SRC-SLRD: Safety levels and resolution of deficiencies. This objective aims to assist NSAs to establish a system which will ensure required levels of safety, including moving towards a just culture.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 54/119
7.2 Annual Safety Oversight Report
21 NSAs reported that they had produced an annual safety report (for 2009) compared to 20 in the previous report. Of these 13 provided specific references – six were internet links. It should be noted that: Belgium referred to a document different from the annual safety 7 oversight report, namely the safety oversight manual. The UK reported meeting this 13 requirement via the SES Annual report, which cannot be 3 considered acceptable since, according to Article 14 of the Regulation, the scope, goal and recipient of the safety oversight 8 report are different to those of the SES Annual Report. Yes (+ Reference/Link) Yes No but ongoing No Denmark did not provide the required reference to the document. Figure 7-1: Did the NSA produce an annual safety report?
Belgium should clarify if the oversight manual includes the REC-2010-26 BE safety oversight report for 2009.
The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance REC-2010-27 with the requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight UK Regulation.
Ten NSAs reported not having produced an Annual Safety Oversight Report for 2009 (EE, GR, MT, NL, NO, PT, SI and all three Spanish NSAs (ES-AESA, ES-MET, ES-MIL)). Estonia, Spain-AESA and Spain-MIL provided information that the work on the report is still on-going, whereas the remaining States did not provide any other information. Given the importance of availability and transparency of safety data, NSAs should have in place a sound process for the production of an annual safety oversight report. States and NSAs are also encouraged to make these reports public.
NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight EE, ES, GR, MT, REC-2010-28 Report for 2009 should do so NL, NO, PT, SI
ECAA States: Four NSAs reported having produced the annual safety oversight report (Albania, Croatia, Serbia and FYROM). In Albania and FYROM this report is not publicly available. Serbia has indicated a different document from annual safety oversight report, namely the certification report of SMATSA. None of the States gave specific references or web-links to the published reports. Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina do not produce a safety oversight report.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 55/119
7.3 Process for compliance of safety significant aspects
22 NSAs reported having established a comprehensive process for safety oversight addressing all the required verifications, namely: Compliance with safety regulatory requirements prior to the issue or renewal of ANSP certificates. Compliance with safety-related obligations in the designation act. Ongoing Compliance of ANSPs. Implementation of safety directives. Implementation of safety objectives, requirements and conditions identified in DoVs, DoC and DSUs issued under the interoperability Regulation. Risk assessment and mitigation procedures required by safety regulatory requirements applicable to ANS, ATFM and ASM. Nine NSAs reported only partial compliance as summarised in Table 7-1.
ASM ANSPs directives directives - EC DoVs - EC DoVs designation act act designation - EC DoC/DSUs - EC DoC/DSUs ANSP certificates conditions identified in: and - Risk assessment Compliance with safety Ongoing Compliance of Compliance Ongoing Compliance with safety- related obligations in the related obligations Implementation of safety Implementation of safety Implementation to the issue or renewal of renewal or to the issue mitigation procs. required by by required mitigation procs. objectives, requirements and and requirements objectives, regulatory requirements prior requirements regulatory applicable to ANS, ATFM and to applicable safety regulatory requirements requirements safety regulatory Belgium Denmark Estonia Greece Hungary N/A Norway Spain-MET Slovakia Switzerland Table 7-1: NSAs reporting partial compliance for safety significant aspects The most commonly reported deficiencies are the lack of a process for oversight of safety objectives, requirements and conditions identified in the EC DoVs, EC DoC/DSUs and risk assessment and mitigation processes. Actions should be taken, both at national and EU level, so these processes are established and implemented.
NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and BE, CH, DK, EE, EUROCONTROL, should take swift action to establish and REC-2010-29 ES, GR, HU, NO, implement the missing processes with regard to safety SK oversight.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 56/119
ECAA States: Four NSAs (Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and FYROM) reported having established a comprehensive safety oversight process. It is noted that FYROM reported that the requirements concerning the safety oversight of ATFM/ASM will be considered after the assessment of operational needs. Bosnia and Herzegovina reported not yet having developed the safety oversight processes as the NSA has been established in 2010 and the development of the processes is on-going. Albania reported having established a safety oversight process with the exception of the process of verification of EC declarations of verification of systems and the EC declarations of conformity or suitability for use of constituents of systems. They reported that the interoperability Regulation has been transposed into Albanian legislation in June 2010 and no plans were developed to cover those areas in 2010. For 19 NSAs the established processes refer to ANS, ATFM and ASM. Table 7-2 below shows the situation of the 12 NSAs with processes which either do not refer or only partially refer to ANS, ASM and ATFM.
ANS ASM ATFM Additional Information
Austria ASM oversight lies within the Ministry of Transport. Answered ‘Yes’ to the questions but explanations Belgium provided show that processes are not in place in line with the Regulation The established processes do not refer to ANS, ASM Denmark and ATFM and need improvement Estonia Processes will be developed in the near future France A specific process for ATFM will be shortly issued Greece Processes will be developed in the near future Not addressing the specific verification of ATFM and Luxembourg N/A N/A ASM in the established processes Netherlands Not provided Norway Not provided Spain-AESA Processes will be developed in the near future Spain-MIL Not provided Not addressing the specific verification of ATFM and Spain-MET N/A N/A ASM in the established processes Table 7-2: Coverage of established processes The situation is practically identical to the previous reporting period. After an internal review, Denmark which had previously reported having all the required processes in place for ANS, ASM and ATFM changed its position. NSAs were required to provide specific references to the chapters/parts of the relevant documents related to different procedures (certification, monitoring of safety performance, safety regulatory audits, etc.) 26 NSAs provided references to the documented procedures which is a significant improvement with respect to the previous reporting cycle. Of these, the Czech Republic, Italy, ES-AESA, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden and the UK reported that some of the procedures are not documented and/or under preparation. Five States (BE, DK, GR, HU, PT) did not provide any detailed reference. ECAA States: Five NSAs (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and FYROM) confirmed they had established documented procedures for four conditions. All provided the references to their safety oversight manuals. However only in the case of Croatia do the procedures relate to ANS, ATFM and ASM, whereas Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and FYROM have only established procedures for ANS. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only NSA that has not yet developed any procedures.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 57/119
7.4 Conduct of the safety oversight to ANS, ASM an ATFM
All NSAs should conduct safety oversight of ANS; safety oversight of ASM is not applicable to Spain-MET and safety oversight of ATFM is not applicable to Luxembourg and Spain- MET. All 31 NSAs reported having exercised safety oversight to ANS (no change since 2009). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 31 2010 18 of the 28 applicable NSAs ANS 31 2009 reported having exercised safety oversight to ATFM and 21 reported 18 11 2 2010 having exercised safety oversight ATFM to ASM. 19 11 1 2009 It should be noted that Luxembourg 21 8 2 indicated that safety oversight of ASM 2010 ASM is not considered applicable. 23 7 1 2009 Yes No N/A This claim is questionable as Luxembourg is responsible for the oversight of ASM in the TMA. Figure 7-2: Did the NSA exercise safety oversight?
Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for REC-2010-30 LU the oversight of ASM.
Eleven NSAs (BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, FI, FR, GR, NL, NO, SK) reported not having exercised safety oversight for ATFM. Nine NSAs (EE, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, GR, LU, NL, NO, SE, SK) reported not having exercised safety oversight to ASM.
BE, DK, EE, ES- NSAs should take measures to established and implement the AESA, ES-MIL, REC-2010-31 necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM. FI, FR, GR, NL, NO, SE, SK
The following explanations were provided for the States that do not apply the oversight to ATFM and ASM: Austria provided contradictory information not allowing a conclusion of whether the oversight of ASM is exercised. Belgium indicated limited human resources and allocation to other priorities. AESA indicated that safety oversight of ATFM and ASM was planned for 2010 and will be included in the inspection activities in 2011. Norway reported not having found a proper way to exercise the safety oversight either ASM or ATFM. However, the flow management position (FMP) is reportedly included in the audit of the area control centre (ACC) - further explanation is necessary in order to find out if the audits relating to FMP are safety related or not. Luxembourg reported that “the supervision programme in 2010 was characterized mainly by ad–hoc interventions resulting from mandatory incident reports. A programmed SMS audit, scheduled for early 2011” which indicates a limited scope of the safety oversight with relation to ANS.
Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within REC-2010-32 AT the limits of the Ministry of Transport. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 58/119
ECAA States: Four NSAs (Albania, Croatia, Serbia and FYROM) reported having exercised safety oversight activities with relation to ANS providers. Only Croatia reported having exercised such oversight with relation to ASM and ATFM functions (in 2009 it was Albania, this year they report not having performed such oversight). Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro do not exercise safety oversight of ANS, ATFM and ASM.
7.5 Safety regulatory audits
All 31 NSAs reported having conducted the safety regulatory audits in accordance with all of the requirements of Article 6 of the safety oversight Regulation. It should be noted that Belgium reported that “Due to continuous limited human resources, not all items are verified: no process yet for ATFM, and for ASM this is not based on safety regulatory audits, and no evidence provided to NSA to support further action”. Out of the 29 NSAs with responsibilities over ASM and ATFM, only 15 conducted safety regulatory audits for ASM (compared to 22 last year) and 14 for ATFM (compared to 17 last year). Given this significant decrease and the lack of procedures highlighted in the previous paragraphs, it has to be emphasized that for a second year running the analysis shows that NSAs are facing difficulties to exercise oversight of ASM and ATFM. The reasons for this are varied, e.g. lack of guidance material, lack of competent personnel in the NSAs, local arrangements for ASM which sometimes are beyond the competence of the NSA, etc. These issues should be addressed at the appropriate fora, e.g. NSA Coordination Platform, Single Sky Committee, etc.
The European Commission should take actions relating to the support to REC-2010-33 NSAs in the effective implementation of the safety oversight to ATFM and EC ASM functions.
ECAA States: Four NSAs (Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and FYROM) reported conducting safety regulatory audits that fulfil all of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the safety oversight Regulation. Albania reported conducting safety regulatory audits that fulfil of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the safety oversight Regulation with exception of applying the safety regulatory audit process to complete implementing arrangements or elements thereof, and to processes, products or services. Bosnia and Herzegovina has not yet developed the safety regulatory audit process. NSAs were requested to provide the number of safety audits conducted on ANS, ASM and ATFM during 2010 and the average number of man/hours dedicated to an audit (including the stages of preparation, on-site audit and report writing). Belgium and Norway did not provide these figures so they were not taken into consideration in the analysis. Figure 7-3 illustrates the number of ANS, ATFM and ASM safety audits performed per NSA. For ANS, figures range from 0.5 for Luxembourg to 142 for AESA (Spain). The number of ASM safety audits performed ranged from 0 (in 16 NSAs) to maximum of 4 (in Cyprus). The number of ATFM safety audits performed ranged from zero (in 16 NSAs) to maximum of 96 in the UK. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 59/119
4 4
3
2 2 2 2
11 1 11 11 1 1 1
00 0 000 0 0 00 0 00000 0 100 96
80
60
40
20
4 1 0 1 0 1 0000110 2 1 0 1 001 2 0 2 00000 0 160 142 140
120
100 96
80 66 58 60 41 40 31 32 30 25 19 20 19 13 14 20 10 11 9 11 5 8 1 443 3 0.5 2 2 4 0
ASM ATFM ANS
Figure 7-3: Number of ASM, ATFM and ANS audits reported in 2010.
Six NSAs (CY, CZ, DE, IE, LU, NO) did not provide any detailed figures concerning the hours dedicated to an audit so they were not taken into consideration in the analysis of the data. Of the 25 NSAs that did provide data, the average number of total man/hours dedicated to an audit ranged from 30 (in Belgium and Slovenia) to 1470 (in Latvia). The wide range of figures reported makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions but clearly shows very different approaches in the effort employed to conduct an audit which, in turn, indicates that NSAs have a widely different understanding of the methods and scope of an audit. This issue has to be surveyed and discussed among the NSAs in the appropriate fora, e.g. NSA Coordination Platform. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 60/119
ECAA States: Montenegro and Serbia performed one safety regulatory audit for each for ANS in 2010; Albania, FYROM performed two audits each. Croatia reported having performed 50 audits of ANS, 1 audit of ATFM and 2 audits of ASM. The number of man/hours devoted for an audit range from 35 (Croatia) to 680 (Serbia) with average of 298 man/hours per audit.
7.6 Safety oversight of changes in functional systems
Six NSAs reported not having yet accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations Internal procedures f or review of concerned for the introduction of changes to 25 6 safety related changes to their f unctional systems functional systems. Denmark, Estonia, Portugal and Spain-MIL Accepted the indicated that the process is under procedures put in 25 6 development and/or planned for place by ANSPs 2011. Greece indicated that the ANSPs have not yet submitted 0 10203040 procedures for NSA approval. Yes No Spain-MET indicated that the ANSP has not yet developed the Figure 7-4: The NSA has… required procedures. The situation is very similar to the previous reporting period with two additional NSAs having reported positively (FI, NO), whereas three NSAs (ES-MET, ES-MIL, PT) reviewed the positive answer provided in the previous report.
NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations concerned for the introduction of DK, EE, ES-MET, REC-2010-34 safety related changes to their functional system should ES-MIL, GR, PT expedite this process.
25 NSAs (two more than in 2009) reported having put in place internal procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional systems proposed by their ANSPs. The six NSAs that have not yet established internal procedures (DK, EE, ES-MIL, IT, NO, PL) indicated that the procedures are under development and/or should be finalised in 2011.
NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal DK, EE, ES-MIL, REC-2010-35 procedures relating to the review of changes to the IT, NO, PL functional systems proposed by their ANSPs.
NSAs were also requested to provide the number of safety reviews conducted in relation to changes to functional systems. In total, 31 NSAs have performed 85 reviews with regards to changes when severity assessment determined a severity class 1 or 2 for the potential effects of the hazards identified, three reviews of changes when the implementation of changes required the introduction of new aviation standards (this only concerned the French NSA) and 149 reviews of other changes. The following information should be taken into consideration: For the reviews of changes when severity assessment determined a severity class 1 or 2 the number of reviewed changes ranged from 0 (in 18 NSAs) to a maximum of 26 (in France). For the reviews of other changes (not severity class 1 or 2 and not requiring the introduction of new aviation standards) the number of changes reviewed ranged from 0 (in 18 NSAs) to a maximum of 35 (in Denmark); Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 61/119
12 NSAs (BE, CY, CZ, EE, ES-MET, ES-MIL, GR, NO, PL, PT, SI, UK) reported that they had not performed any review in the reporting period. Estonia, Poland, Slovenia and the UK all received DoVs during the reporting period.
40
35 35
30 26 25 22
19 19 20 18
15 15 13 12 10 10 8
5 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 111 1 N/A * 0 SI FI IE IT LT PL SE SK EE LV PT FR CZ CY BE LU NL AT DE DK UK CH GR BG RO HU NO MT MIL ‐ MET AESA ‐ ‐ ES ES ES Severity assessment determined a severity class 1 or 2 for the potential effects of the hazards identified The implementation of changes required the introduction of new aviation standards Any other situation
*UK: Severity classes are still being developed by the EASA SATF. The CAA is notified of all changes as per CAP670 requirements. Regional oversight files refer to quantities assessed. Figure 7-5: Safety oversight of change in functional systems Despite the fact that only six NSAs reported not having processes for the review of changes, the fact that 18 NSAs have not conducted any review for severity class 1 or 2, and 12 NSAs any review at all, shows that the effective implementation of the NSAs processes for review of changes in many NSAs is questionable. ECAA States: Four NSAs (Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, FYROM) have accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety-related changes to their functional systems. Albania reported that the ANSP is lacking at the moment a procedure for the introduction of safety related changes, which has to comply with the requirements of CAA. In Bosnia and Herzegovina the acceptance process is under development. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only State where the NSA has not established a review procedure of the proposed changes. The remaining five NSAs have established such procedures throughout regulatory instruments (Albania) or CAA/NSA procedures covered by the oversight manuals. Only Croatia has reported having performed one review of changes in other situations than severity assessment determined a severity class 1 or 2 for the potential effects of the hazards identified or when the implementation of changes required the introduction of new aviation standards.
7.7 Safety directives
Five NSAs (ES-AESA, FR, LU, PL, SI) have issued safety directives. It should be noted that: Only Slovenia did not provide any specific references regarding the issued safety directive. All five NSAs reported that the issued directives were in compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 62/119
Only France considered appropriate forwarding a copy of the safety directive(s) to other NSAs concerned, and to the European Commission and EASA. Luxembourg considered that it was not appropriate to do so; Spain published the directive in its AIP, whereas Poland forwarded the directive only to national stakeholders. France, Luxembourg and Poland reported having verified the compliance with the issued directive without giving any further details. Spain (AESA) did not have the opportunity yet as the directive was published in the AIP in December 2010. The other 26 NSAs did not issue safety directives in 2010. 18 NSAs of them indicated that there had been no need to issue a safety directive. Seven (BE, FI, IT, IE, NL, ES-MET, ES- MIL) did not provide any details. Bulgaria provided unclear information unrelated to safety directives. The use of safety directives by NSAs as a means to oversee safety has increased during 2010 (no safety directives were issued in 2009) however, but its use is still only limited to five NSAs. This shows that NSAs have started feeling more confident in the use of safety directive as an effective tool.
The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the REC-2010-36 safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, and inform EC (REC-2009-34) the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument.
ECAA States: None of the ECAA NSAs reported issuing any safety directives. Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia reported that there was no need for the safety directive to be issued and - Bosnia and Herzegovina did not provide any comments. Only FYROM reported that the procedures for issuing of safety directives are defined but no directive was issued so far.
7.8 Conclusions
For a second year running, ten NSAs have not produced a safety oversight annual report as specified in Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation. That would mean that for these States the information related to safety oversight activities has not been consolidated and submitted to the regulatory and policy levels. This, together with the fact that many of the references provided to the published reports were not active, would justify that actions are taken at European level to emphasise that the availability and transparency of safety data are one of the most important premises to maintain and improve the high level of safety in the European ATM system. Nearly all of the NSAs have established specific procedures relating to the safety oversight processes and provided detailed references to the relevant documents. However, only in the case of 19 NSAs do those procedures and processes relate to all three areas (ANS, ATFM and ASM) which once again shows a significant deficiency in the full implementation of the safety oversight Regulation. Also deficiencies were reported by nine NSAs in the processes related to the implementation of safety objectives, requirements and conditions identified in the EC DoVs, DoC/DSUs and risk assessment and mitigation processes. This issue will be further analysed in section 10 of this report but shows a weak link between the safety and interoperability oversight. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 63/119
With regards to safety oversight of changes to functional systems, the majority of NSAs (25) have their internal procedures in place and have accepted the ones of the organisations under their supervision. However, six NSAs still lack internal procedures and in many of the other which have the internal procedures, their effective application can be considered questionable since eighteen NSAs reported not having conducted any review for severity class 1 or 2, and twelve NSAs any review at all (some for a second consecutive year). Safety regulatory audits are the main approach for safety oversight. 29 NSAs provided detailed information regarding the number of audits performed in 2010. The numbers vary significantly between the NSAs and indicate discrepancies in the application of oversight for ANS (around 680 audits performed in all 29 NSAs) in comparison to ASM (19 audits) and ATFM (114 audits). Additionally it should be noted that there has been a decrease in NSAs reporting having performed safety audits with relation to ATFM and ASM, which could indicate that safety oversight of ATFM and ASM functions still pose difficulties to NSAs. Five NSAs issued safety directives during 2010, fully meeting the requirements of the EC Regulation 1315/2007. Compared to 2009 there has been an increase in the use of safety directives (none was issued), but still their application remains very limited.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 64/119
8. Software Safety Assurance
8.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: The software safety assurance system (SSAS) Regulation Regulation (EC) No. 482/2008 of 30 May 2008 laid down rules for ANSP to implement a software safety assurance system (SSAS). The Regulation applies to the new software and to any changes to software systems for ATS, ASM, ATFM and CNS systems. The applicability dates are: 1 January 2009 for new software 1 July 2010 for any changes to software in operation by that date. The purpose of this section is to assess the current level of implementation of software safety assurance Regulation. To support this objective, the States were asked three questions: Has each organisation4, as part of its SMS, defined and implemented a software safety assurance system to deal with EATMN software related aspects? Have the requirements been applied for new software and/or changes to existing software? Has the ANSP made available the required assurances to the NSA demonstrating that the requirements have been satisfied? 8.2 Existence of Software Safety Assurance System
Eight of the 29 States (BE, EE, GR, LU, NL, NO, PT, SK) stated that the organisations do not have, as part of their SMS, defined and 2010 21 8 implemented a SSAS to deal with EATMN software related aspects (nine States in 2009). 2009 20 9 Cyprus, Denmark and Sweden gave positive responses for the first time this year. The 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Netherlands and Slovakia replied Yes No “No” this year having replied positively last year. Figure 8-1: Has each organisation defined and implemented a software safety assurance system? The Netherlands reported that LVNL and MUAC have a SSAS in place. Slovakia did not provide any additional explanation. For the other six States that replied negatively: Belgium and Estonia have plans to introduce the system in 2011. Estonia reported plans for 2010 in the previous reporting period. Greece commented that in the initial oversight of the ANS SMS manual it was identified that the ANSP has documented arrangements to deal with the requirements of the Regulation.
4 As defined in Article 2.5 of Regulation 482/2008 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 65/119
Luxembourg reported that the SSAS will be assessed during the SMS audit at the beginning of 2011. Norway stated that the Implementation of the SSAS, including for new software and changes to existing software, started last year, but was not verified. Portugal replied that although the ANSP is executing most of the tasks there is no formal internal procedure for software safety assurance; this was discovered during an inspection. Again this year, the comment by the Czech Republic, i.e. that each organisation is ISO certified and has implemented QMS and SMS is an insufficient explanation for demonstrating compliance as the QMS and SMS may not have suitable software development and maintenance provisions.
BE, CZ, EE, States should ensure that a compliant Software Safety Assurance REC-2010-37 GR, LU, NO, System is developed by the relevant organisations. PT, SK
Five States (AT, DK, FI, FR, SE) reported being compliant with the Regulation, but their comments could indicate that they are only partially compliant: Austria reported that deficiencies of the system were found during the audit 2010 and remedial actions are to be taken as of March 2011. As last year, Denmark reported partial compliance by Naviair. The NSA is uncertain about the implementation within other organisations and will address the issue in new projects within the scope of the Regulation. Finland provided the same comment as last year - the SMS manual of the main ANSP is updated as far as possible, but still waiting guidance material. France provided the same comment as last year - for military ANSPs it is considered still an ongoing process and for AFIS it is considered not needed. In Sweden one of the ANSPs reported having included a SSAS in their SMS. The other organisations are expected to implement the Regulation before installation of new or changed software.
States should ensure that the software safety assurance system of AT, DK, FI, REC-2010-38 all relevant organisations is fully compliant with the Regulation. FR, SE
ECAA States: As last year, only one of the ECAA States reported that the Organisation has a software safety assurance system implemented
8.3 Application to new software and software modifications
States were asked if the procedures had been applied to either new software or modifications to existing software during the reporting period. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 66/119
18 States declared that the requirements have been applied to new software and 16 States 2010 16 13 declared that the requirements software have been applied to changes of 2009 18 11 existing software. Changes toexisting
Six States declared that there has 2010 18 11 been no new software installed
(CY, DK, PT, RO, SE) nor new New software 2009 19 9 major changes implemented (GR) during the reporting period. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Yes No Belgium commented that it is planned to apply the requirements for new software in 2011. Figure 8-2: Have the requirements been applied to new software and to changes to existing software? Overall with regard to the application of the requirement to changes of existing software, the replies from 2010 did not change substantially with respect to the previous reporting period. 8.4 Assurances by ANSPs
Regarding the required demonstration of assurance by the ANSP to the NSA that the requirements have been satisfied, 2010 19 10 one more State compared to last year replied positively (19 States in total). Four States seemed to have 2009 18 11 difficulties with the interpretation of this issue: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sweden stated that ‘there has Yes No not yet been any case where the Regulation should be Figure 8-3: Has the ANSP made available the required applied’ – although they assurances to the NSA demonstrating that the reported having applied the requirements have been satisfied? requirements for changes to existing software. Cyprus (also in 2009), Greece and Estonia (also in 2009) apparently also misunderstood the question about the demonstration of assurance by replying respectively, ‘there hasn't been a case when it was necessary to do so’; ‘no major changes have been implemented’; and ’in the new systems the principles are applied’. It should be noted that NSAs are required to establish the necessary procedures and to assess the ANSP to ensure that if a problem is detected it is dealt with in a correct and timely manner; NSAs should not wait for the software safety issue to be detected before putting in place these measures. Three States (DK, LU, NL) declared that assurances would be verified during planned audits. Two States reported some difficulties: Portugal had difficulty with the quality of the assurance presented by the ANSP referring to ‘the evidence shown (by the ANSP) is not considered clear enough’ Spain referred to difficulties related to the documentation elaborated by the software manufacturers. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 67/119
Austria declared that deficiencies in the system were found during an audit carried out in 2010 and the corrective actions will be assessed by March 2011. Belgium replied that the assurances to the NSA are planned to be made available in 2011.
NSAs should verify that the certified ANSPs have a AT, CY, DK, EE, ES, REC-2010-39 compliant Software Safety Assurance System. GR, LU, NL, PT, SE
8.5 Conclusions
Fourteen of the 29 States (BG, CH, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, SI, UK) replied positively to all the applicable questions for software safety assurance. Although in most of the States the ANSPs have implemented a software safety assurance system (SSAS) to deal with EATMN software related aspects, there remains much room for improvement as regards the full compliance of SSAS with the requirements as laid out in Article 4 of the Regulation and its effective application to changes to software and specific software. Improvement is therefore required in particular as regards implementation by ANSPs and verification of compliance by NSAs. States should note stating that each organisation is ISO certified and has implemented QMS and SMS is an insufficient explanation for demonstrating compliance. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 68/119
9. ATCO Licensing
9.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Articles 8, 12, 13, 16 and 20 and Annex IV of the ATCO licensing Directive This section examines the issuing of ATCO licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing Directive. A list of certified training providers is presented in Annex 4. It is noted that the ATCO licensing Directive is currently being re-transposed as a Commission implementing rule from the EASA system; the resultant Regulation will be directly applicable and binding on States and will require thorough reporting in the next year’s cycle, hence reporting was limited in this year’s questionnaire to the following issues: Has the State issued licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing Directive? How many ATCO licences have been issued? How many licences have been exchanged with other States? How many training providers have been certified? 9.2 Has the State issued licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing directive?
All States but Luxembourg and Norway have started issuing licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing Directive. Norway continues to report partial transposition of the legislation. 1 27 1 1 Given that the ATCO licensing Directive is in the final stages of being transposed into a Regulation under the EASA Basic Regulation, recommendations have not been 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Yes No No data raised for its further implementation. Figure 9-1: Has the State started issuing licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing Directive? Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 69/119
9.3 How many current ATCO licences are under the oversight of the NSA?
Figure 9-2 shows the number of ATCO licences per State. In total the 29 States reported having 24,733 licences under the oversight of their NSAs.
7000 5800 6000
5000 4007 4000
3000 2723 2684 1997 2000
584 625 645 776 679 1000 400 450 320 332 359 325 350 328 81 276 63 217 88 89 48 235 127 125 0
*Norway and Spain-MIL did not provide figures on the number of ATCOs for a second year running. Figure 9-2: Number of licences under the oversight of the NSA
9.4 Exchange of licences
Eight States (AT, BG, CH, 40 DE, ES, NL, SE, UK) 36 reported that ATCOs 35 licensed in another State 30 had applied for an 25 exchange of the licence. 20
15 However the total 11 applications (71) for 10 77 exchange is still very 44 5 limited considering that 1 1 ATCO mobility has been 0 y s ria ain n m cited as a key enabler for ga and p de ul rl S e Austria B erman G he Sw et reducing capacity N Switzerland shortfalls. United Kingdo
Figure 9-3: Number of applications for an exchange of licence
9.5 Certification of training providers
A list of certified training providers is contained in Annex 4. The certification of training providers has advanced in most States, Greece, Luxembourg (no training provider) and Romania are yet to certify a provider, in Spain – two of the four reported providers are not yet certified. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 70/119
40 36 35
30
25 23
20
15
10 5 5 4 5 3 3 2 222 22 3 3 2 1111 1 111 0 11 1 1 0
Certified Non-certified
Figure 9-4: Number of training providers
ECAA States: All ECAA States have transposed the ATCO licensing Directive and all but Montenegro reported having started issuing licences in accordance with the Directive. Croatia and Serbia reported having certified a training provider. The reported number of controllers under the supervision of the NSAs is: Albania (51), Bosnia and Herzegovina (not provided), Croatia (276), Montenegro (32), FYROM (139) and Serbia (280).
9.6 Conclusions
According to the reports the legal conditions stemming from the Directive (transposition, licensing according to the Directive) to ensure the free movement of ATCOs in the EU are in place. However, the number of applications for exchange of licences remains relatively low which may be due to national language requirements or applicable conditions for access to employment. The reports have not revealed any intention for consolidation of training at FAB level, apart from the Danish-Swedish FAB. Given that the ATCO licensing Directive is in the final stages of being transposed into a Regulation under the EASA Basic Regulation, recommendations have not been raised for its further implementation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 71/119
10. Interoperability
This section is concerned with the measures taken by States and NSAs to ensure implementation of the provisions of the interoperability Regulation and associated implementing rules by stakeholders. The purpose of the interoperability Regulation is two fold: Firstly it defines a process of conformity assessment designed to ensure that ANSPs and manufacturers develop systems and constituents in line with the Essential Requirements of the Regulation and of subsequent implementing rules and hence ensure the harmonisation of European ATM. Secondly, thorough the adoption of implementing rules (IRs) and Community Specifications (CSs), it supports the harmonised introduction of new concepts and technologies. To date seven IOP IRs have been adopted. The general requirements of the interoperability Regulation are considered in Section 10.1 and individual implementing rules in Section 10.2. 10.1 Regulation (EC) No. 552/2004 on Interoperability
10.1.1 Introduction Legal Basis: Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the interoperability Regulation Articles 5 and 9 of the safety oversight Regulation This section is concerned with whether or not NSAs have put in place the necessary arrangements for the supervision of ANSPs as required by the interoperability Regulation to support conformity assessment. NSAs are required to establish procedures to receive a Declaration of Verification (DoV) when a system is “put in to service” (this includes installation of new systems, upgrades to existing systems and changes to the regulatory baseline - for example when declaring compliance with a new implementing rule). A system comprises one or more constituents. A DoV is accompanied by a Technical File containing copies of the Declarations of Compliance (DoC) or Declarations of Suitability of Use (DSU) for each constituent. A DoC/DSU should be provided by the constituent manufacturer. A DoC is provided when Community Specifications (CSs) have been applied and a DSU where a CS does not exist. In this case the ANSP should specify the means of compliance in the tender documentation. ANSPs should have been providing DoVs for new systems and system upgrades since 20th October 2005. Compliance for legacy systems is to be established by April 20th 2011. The section starts by examining whether NSAs have: Defined and allocated tasks and responsibilities as per the interoperability Regulation:
- Article 6.2 requires the submission of a DoV to the NSA by the ANSP before a system is put into service.
- Article 7.1 requires the NSA to restrict or prohibit the use of a system or constituent if the DoV or DoC/DSU does not comply with the essential requirements and/or relevant implementing rules for interoperability.
Developed supporting process descriptions allowing the NSAs to supervise compliance with these two regulations, as per the safety oversight Regulation:
- Article 5(d)(i) requires constituents to be accompanied by an EC DoC or DSU. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 72/119
- Article 9 states that annexes to the Regulation may be adjusted in line with any technical or operational developments.
Verified that ANSPs have fulfilled conditions allowing them to conduct conformity assessment activities without using a Notified Body. 10.1.2 Has the NSA defined and allocated tasks and responsibilities? The NSA is required to define and allocate tasks in respect of interoperability in accordance with the interoperability Regulation and the safety oversight Regulation. Spain has allocated tasks and responsibilities for interoperability to two of their three NSAs hence 30 NSAs are considered in this section. The Spanish MET NSA has not been allocated such tasks and is not considered further in this section. Estonia and Switzerland have not yet allocated tasks and responsibilities in line with the legislation. 2010 28 2 The Swiss NSA reported that implementation is ongoing - this answer was also provided in the last report. 2009 27 3 Estonia reported plans to address this by the end of 2011 – the same answer has been provided for three years running. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No
Figure 10-1: Has the NSA defined tasks and responsibilities?
Estonia and Switzerland should ensure an adequate REC-2010-40 CH, EE allocation of tasks.
10.1.3 Has the NSA developed process for the supervision of compliance? Having allocated these tasks, the NSA is required to establish process descriptions for the supervision of compliance As Figure 10-2 illustrates there has been a slight improvement in the 2010 24 6 number of States that have developed the necessary procedures. Since 2009, three 1315/2007 2009 21 9
States (FR, MT, NO) have done so. in (EC)As defined
However, five States (IT, CH, DK, 2010 25 5 EE, HU) have not done so - all of which indicated that the processes 552/2004 would be in place by the end of 2009 22 8 2011. As in (EC) defined In addition, processes have not 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 been established by the Spanish Yes No military NSA. Figure 10-2: Development of process descriptions Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 73/119
Although Italy provided a number of positive responses, it reported a negatively regarding the safety oversight Regulation. No further details or explanations were provided. Italy also reported compliance with the provisions of 552/2004 but not with 1315/2007.
Denmark, Estonia, Hungary Italy and Switzerland should REC-2010-41 complete development of processes for supervision of CH, DK, EE, HU, IT conformity assessment tasks.
10.1.4 Verification of ANSP capability to conduct conformity assessment The NSA is also required to verify that the ANSP has sufficient capability to perform conformity assessment without the use of a Notified Body. 22 NSAs reported having verified that the ANSPs fulfil the conditions allowing them to conduct 2010 22 8 conformity assessment activities without making use of a Notified Body. 2009 20 10 Out of the 22 NSAs, only three (DE, FR, NO) provided further details 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 with regard to the process followed Yes No for verifications. Out of the eight NSAs which Figure 10-3: Verification by NSAs of ANSPs to responded negatively to this conduct conformity assessments without using a question (CH, CY, DK, ES-AESA, notified body ES-MIL, GR, HU, LU) only three (CY, GR, HU) confirmed explicit plans to conduct the verification.
The eight remaining NSAs should verify that their certified CY, CH, DK, ES- REC-2010-42 ANSPs are capable of conducting conformity assessment AESA, ES-MIL, tasks without recourse to a Notified Body. GR, HU, LU
10.1.5 Notified Bodies Only one new notified body (Air Traffic Control Business Systems GmbH, Germany) was appointed during the reporting period with responsibilities in the area of AMHS (ATS Message Handling Service). This Notified Body adds to the one already existing, INTA – Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Aeroespacial, appointed by Spain in 2007.
10.1.6 DoVs and DoCs Figure 10-4 shows the number of EC declarations of verifications of systems (DoVs) submitted per State since 2005. There is significant disparity in the number of DoVs submitted by ANSPs. The largest number is in the UK (69) and Germany (57).
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 74/119
120
100
80
69
60 57
40 35
26
20
6 7 55 5 4 2 2 3 333 00 000 0 000 0 1 0 0 1 0 IT FI IE SI LT LU LV NL PL PT AT CZ FR HU MT SE SK UK BE CH CY DE DK EE ES GR NO RO BG ES-MIL 2005-2008 2009 2010 Figure 10-4: DoVs submitted since 2005 No DoVs were received by the NSAs of 11 States (AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, GR, HU, LU, MT, NO), 7 of them (AT, CH, CY, FR, HU, LU, MT) for the third consecutive year. This implies (in the latter case) that no new systems have been put into service between 2005 and the end of 2010. However, this is not the case for all countries and, even if it were, changes in the regulatory baseline (e.g. new IRs with which ANSPs must demonstrate compliance) mean that DoVs should have been produced. An analysis of the LSSIP data suggests that these States have all performed system upgrades in achieving LSSIP objectives. These States should provide the EC with an explanation as to why these system updates did not require a DoV to be issued.
States should provide an explanation why no DoVs AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, REC-2010-43 were necessary. GR, HU, LU, MT, NO
Figure 10-5 shows the DoCs/DSU submitted per State between 2005 and 2010.
180 162 160
140
120
100
80 69 60
40 35
20 12 12 6 002 000 3 0 0001 0 2 0 1 0 001 2 1 00 0 I T E E S F R IE IT U V T SI K K A B BG CH CY CZ DE DK E E MIL F GR HU LT L L MT NL NO PL P RO SE S U S- E
2005-2008 2009 2010
Figure 10-5: Number of DoCs since 2005
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 75/119
15 States (AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, GR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NO, PL, SI, SK) reported zero DoCs. The largest number of DoC/DSUs declared was Germany with 162. Three States (IT, SI, SK) reported receiving DoVs but no DoC or DSU. In theory this is not acceptable; because the DoC/DSU should be part of the technical file. As opposed to previous reports, no State reported DoC/DSUs without receiving a DoV. No safeguard measures taken/reported to EC by States ascertaining cases of non- compliance of systems/constituents with the applicable Regulations.
ECAA States: None of the ECAA States have defined or allocated tasks to their NSAs derived from the interoperability Regulation or the related requirements of the safety oversight Regulation, nor have they defined supporting processes. With the exception of Albania which reported the transposition of the SES interoperability Regulation into the national legislation with plans to allocate roles and define processes in 2011, all other ECAA States reported plans to transpose the SES interoperability Regulation into the national legislation during 2011. Consequently none of the ECAA States have verified the fulfilment on the conditions by the ANSPs allowing them to conduct conformity assessment activities without the involvement of a Notified Body. No notified bodies were appointed by the ECAA States and there are no plans to do so. 10.1.7 Conclusions There has been no significant change in the number of States which reported no DoVs, with around one third of all States still not regularly receiving them. Although some States implemented no new systems, thus requiring no new DoVs, all these States have implemented system upgrades or declared compliance to Interoperability implementing rules without the requisite DoVs. The EUROCONTROL Conformity Assessment Task Force (CATF) and the NSA Coordination Platform Interoperability (NCP-IOP) Working Group both provide excellent platforms for sharing best practice. The CATF has already published guidance material for ANSPs and the NCP-IOP will publish similar material for NSAs. The Commission should ensure that these documents are widely applied.
EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and NCP- REC-2010-44 IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand the EC requirements for conformity assessment.
There appears to be very limited implementation within the ECAA States. The EC should seek to ensure that best practice with the 29 States is transferred to the ECAA States.
EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is REC-2010-45 EC applied in the ECAA States. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 76/119
10.2 Implementing rules of the interoperability Regulation
The seven Interoperability implementing rules (IOP IRs) in force during 2010 are summarised in Figure 10-6. Of these two should be fully implemented; three partially implemented and two in the planning phases. ANSP actions to implement the provisions of the implementing rules are monitored through the LSSIP process. This report is concerned with the completion of related NSA actions. In order to provide a better insight in to the status of NSA actions the responses have been correlated with the relevant LSSIP report.
Regulation ESSIP Date of applicability Objective Regulation (EC) No ITY-COTR 1 January 2009 to all EATMN systems referred to in 1032/2006 on Exchange of Article 1(2) in respect of the revision of coordination, the Flight Data Between ATC abrogation of coordination, the basic flight data and Units (Amended by change of basic flight data process Regulation (EC) No 31 December 2012 to all EATMN systems referred to in 30/2009) Article 1(2) Regulation (EC) No n/a 1 January 2009 for implementation of the ICAO provisions 1033/2006 on Procedures as specified in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No for Flight Plans in the Pre- 1033/2006 Flight Phase 15 November 2012 for implementation of ICAO provisions (Amended by Regulation as specified in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 929/2010 (EU) No 929/2010) Regulation (EC) No ITY FMTP 1 January 2009 to all systems referred to in the 633/2007 on Flight regulations put into service after that date Message Transfer Protocol 20 April 2011 to all systems in operation by that date. for Use by ATC Units (Amended by Regulation (EU) No 283/2011)5 Regulation (EC) No ITY- 15 March 2008 for aircraft operators to equip their aircraft 1265/2007 on Air-Ground AGVCS with 8.33kHz radio equipment Voice Channel Spacing in 3rd July 2008 for ANSPs to convert all VHF systems to SES 8.33kHz for sectors with a lower level or above FL195 and for State aircraft to be equipped with 8.33kHz channel spacing capability Regulation (EC) No ITY-AGDL Aircraft Forward fit: 1 January 2011 29/2009 on Data link Aircraft Retro fit: 5 February 2015 services for the Single Ground systems (Part A of Annex 1): 7 February 2013 European Sky Ground systems (Part B of Annex 1): 5 February 2015 Regulation (EC) No SUR02 Article 4 (Interoperability and performance requirements) 262/2009 on Allocation SUR04 apply from 1 January 2011, other Articles apply from 19 and Use of Mode S March 2009 Interrogator Codes Regulation (EC) No n/a 1 July 2013, some Articles applying from 1 July 2014 73/2010 on the Quality of Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information Figure 10-6: Interoperability implementing rules
5 New transitional arrangements entered in to force on 21st March 2011 – see Section 10.2.2 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 77/119
10.2.1 Coordination and Transfer (COTR) Legal Basis: The COTR Regulation Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 on Coordination and Transfer (COTR) as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 30/2009 lays down requirements for the exchange of flight data for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between ATC units and for the purposes of civil-military coordination. The IR was published in July 2006 and applies to (a) flight data processing systems serving air traffic control units providing services to general air traffic; and (b) flight data exchange systems supporting the coordination procedures between air traffic services units and controlling military units. There are three applicability dates: From entry into force, all new systems referred to in Article 1(2) in respect of basic flight data and change flight data. 1 January 2009 to all new systems referred to in Article 1(2) in respect of the revision of coordination, the abrogation of coordination, the basic flight data and change of basic flight data process. 31 December 2012 to all EATMN systems referred to in Article 1(2). Further, Regulation (EC) No 30/2009 amended the COTR Regulation to support the “Logon Forward” and “Next Authority Notified” messages in support of the introduction of Data Link Services. The applicability date for these messages is either February 2013 or February 2015 depending on the AG-DLS IR (see Section 10.2.6). Hence for this report, NSAs should be able to report on confirmation of compliance for new systems and a 2010 15 14 plan to confirm compliance for legacy systems by 31 December 2012.
15 States (AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, FI, 2009 13 16 DE, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK) reported having verified the compliance of the service providers 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 with the applicable provisions of the Yes No COTR Regulation and no non- compliance was reported. Figure 10-7: NSA Reporting of COTR IR Compliance Not all ANSPs have put systems into service and still have until December 2012 to ensure compliance of legacy systems. However, in some cases NSAs have not verified the existing level of compliance as suggested by the LSIP data (see Table 10-1) or have declared they have verified compliance when the ANSP has not implemented the provisions. In three States (FR, CH, SE) the ANSP has implemented the existing provisions but the NSA has not verified compliance. For these States the NSA should verify compliance.
France, Sweden and Switzerland should verify compliance REC-2010-46 CH, FR, SE of their ANSPs with the COTR Regulation.
In seven States (DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, LU, LV) the ANSP has partially implemented the provisions of the Regulation but the NSA has not yet verified compliance. In these States, NSAs should ensure that plans exists to meet the regulatory requirements and to verify that they are met. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 78/119
The seven States where the ANSP has only partially implemented the provisions of the COTR Regulation but the DK, EE, ES, GR, REC-2010-47 NSA has not yet verified compliance should ensure that HU, LU, LV regulatory requirements are met and verified.
In three States (LT, NL, PL), the NSA has declared having verified compliance, but the LSSIP data suggests that the ANSPs have not yet implemented the provisions. These States should review their statements. The three States where the ANSP has not implemented the REC-2010-48 provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has claimed LT, NL, PL to have verified compliance should review their statements.
In two States (AT, MT) the NSA has declared having verified compliance but they reported in the previous sections of the report not having received any DoV from their ANSPs. These NSAs should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out. The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in REC-2010-49 AT, MT the three reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out.
Basic Change NSA DoVs Initial Flight Flight Action received State Notification Coordination Revision Abrogation Data data AT Aug/01 Aug/01 Feb/06 Mar/13 Mar/13 Mar/13 Y N BE C C Dec/11 Dec/11 C C Y N BG C C C C C C Y Y CH C C C C C C N N CY Feb/11 Feb/11 Feb/11 Feb/11 Feb/11 Feb/11 N N CZ C C C C C C Y N DE Dec/06 Dec/06 Dec/12 Dec/12 C C Y Y DK C Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 C C N Y EE Dec/07 Dec/07 Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 N Y ES C C C PC Jun/12 Jun/12 N Y FI Oct/04 Apr/09 Apr/12 Apr/12 Apr/09 Apr/09 Y Y FR C C C C C C N N GR Dec/09 Dec/09 NP NP Dec/12 Dec/09 N N HU Dec/12 C Jun/11 Jun/11 C C N N IE Nov/12 Nov/12 Nov/12 Nov/12 Nov/12 Nov/12 N Y IT Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 P P N Y LT Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Y Y LU Dec/09 Dec/09 Dec/13 Dec/13 NA Dec/09 N N LV Dec/06 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 N Y MT C C NP NP NA NA Y Y NL Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/11 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Y Y NO Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 NP NP N N PL Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 Dec/11 Y Y PT C C C Dec/12 NP NP Y Y RO Dec/12 C C C Dec/12 Dec/12 Y Y SE Oct/10 Dec/10 Oct/09 Oct/09 Oct/09 Oct/09 N Y SI C C Dec/12 Dec/12 NA NA Y Y SK Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 Dec/12 N Y UK Jan/85 Jan/85 Nov/11 Nov/11 Dec/13 Dec/18 Y Y Key: Green: Already implemented; Gold: Date before deadline; Red: Date after deadline C: Completed; PC: Partially Completed; NP: No Plan; NA: Not Applicable Table 10-1Status of COTR Regulation Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 79/119
Greece and Malta reported in their LSSIPs having no plan to implement the revision and abrogation of coordination processes, and Norway and Portugal reported having no plan yet to implement the basic flight data and change of basic flight data processes, all of which are mandatory.
The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take measures GR, MT, REC-2010-50 to ensure that all mandatory processes will be implemented by NO, PT December 2012.
Also, as for the basic flight data and change of basic flight data processes, Luxembourg reported the implementation of the former as ‘Not Applicable’ and Malta and Slovenia reported both processes as ‘Not Applicable’. These processes are mandatory so the NSAs of these States should ensure that these statements are properly justified.
The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that the LU, MT, REC-2010-51 non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight data SI processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified.
In their Annual Reports, States confirmed having implemented or having plans to implement the regulatory requirements so as to achieve compliance of the systems in place at the entry into force of the Regulation with the applicable requirements before the end of the transitional arrangements (31 December 2012). However, it is noted that the data provided by ANSPs to the LSSIP process (see Table 10-1) does not fully back up these claims
States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all REC-2010-52 All States requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012.
ECAA States: Only FYROM confirmed having verified the compliance of the ANSPs with the applicable requirements. Three States (Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro) stated that they have not yet transposed the IR into the national legislation. Apart from Albania, which did not provide any information about the plans, all other ECAA States confirmed the preparatory work aiming to ensure full compliance with the applicable requirements, at the end of the transitional arrangements defined in the IR. 10.2.2 Initial Flight Plan (IFPL) Legal Basis: The IFPL Regulation Regulation (EC) No. 1033/2006 lays down the requirements on procedures for flight plans in the pre-flight phase in order to ensure the consistency of flight plans, repetitive flight plans and associated update messages between operators, pilots and air traffic services units through the Integrated Initial Flight Processing System. All States should have been compliant by 1 January 2009. However, on 18 October 2010, the Commission Regulation (EU) No 929/2010 amended the IFPS IR to take account of revisions to the ICAO flight plan from the 15 November 2012. It should be noted that the requirements of the original Regulation (EC) No. 1033/2006 are applicable until 15 November 2012 when the amendment referring to the new ICAO flight plan format will apply. Therefore, States still need to ensure and verify compliance with the original requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 1033/2006. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 80/119
States were asked if their NSA had verified compliance with the IFPL IR. Twelve States (CY, DK, EE, ES, FR, GR, 2010 17 12 IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, UK) indicated that they had not yet verified compliance. Of the States which did not verify compliance, six (CY, DK, EE, FR, GR, UK) explicitly reported plans to verify 2009 14 15 compliance or to finalise the verification in 2011. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Three of these (CY, EE, GR) already reported, in the previous annual report, Yes No plans to do the verification in 2010 while Figure 10-8: Has the NSA verified the now these plans are for 2011. compliance of the ANSP with Regulation (EC) 1033/2006? Given that the data of applicability for the implementation of the Regulation was 1 January 2009, there are still insufficient actions by NSAs to verify compliance.
CY, DK, EE, ES, NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL REC-2010-53 FR, GR, IE, IT, LU, Regulation. LV, NL, UK
Luxembourg’s answer indicated confusion with the scope of the Regulation.
Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of REC-2010-54 LU the IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg.
States were also asked about measures which had been taken to ensure the preparedness of Stakeholders to comply with the new ICAO flight plan format as required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 929/2010 and applicable from November 2012. No States reported difficulties in complying with this, although Greece noted that “the 2012 deadline will most probably not be met.” ECAA States: Only two of the ECAA States (Bosnia and Herzegovina and FYROM) verified compliance with the Regulation. The others did not provide any additional information (Albania) or reported the lack of legal basis (Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro) as the transposition of the Regulation was ongoing. With regard the new ICAO flight plan format, two States did not provide any information (Albania and Croatia) while the others reported work under development.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 81/119
10.2.3 Flight Message Transfer Protocol (FMTP) Legal Basis: The FMTP Regulation Regulation (EC) No 633/2006 mandates the use of a common Flight Message Transfer Protocol with the following applicability dates: 1 January 2009 to all systems referred to in the Regulation put into service after that date 20 April 2011 to all systems in operation by that date. During 2010, a number ANSPs indicated that they would not be able to meet the requirements; on the 21 March 2011 the EC published transitional arrangements in Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2011 which allows ANSPs to use an earlier version of the internet protocol (IP) until 31 December 2014 if a binding contract was pre-signed or a bi- lateral agreement with the peer ANSP is signed prior to 20 April 2011. States were asked if they had verified compliance and if ANSP under their supervision or if they intended to make use of the transitional arrangements. Only 10 States (AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, FI, DE, LT, MT, SI) reported having already verified the 2010 10 19 compliance of the ANSPs with the FMTP Regulation. Of these three (BG, CZ, FI) reported no intention to make use of the transitional arrangements - 2009 7 22 therefore it may be interpreted that these States have already implemented the regulatory 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 provisions. Yes No
Figure 10-9: Has the NSA verified compliance with the FMTP Regulation? Two States (AT, CH) having verified the compliance of the ANSPs reported no detection of non-compliances but in the same time reported the intention to make use of the new transitional arrangements put in place by the amendment to FMTP. Either they are compliant or they are not and in this case need transitional arrangements. Overall, ten States (AT, CH, DE, FR, GR, LT NO, PL, RO, SE) reported their intention to make use of the new transitional arrangements put in place by the 2010 10 18 1 FMTP Regulation. The information provided by States is largely contradictory with the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 plans reported by the ANSPs through their LSSIP 2011-2015 Yes No N/A documents as shown in Table 1-2. Figure 10-10: Does the State intended to use the transitional arrangements? Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 82/119
2011-2015 LSSIP Date for NSA has verified Use of Transitional State implementation by ANSP compliance arrangements AT Apr/11 Yes Yes BE Completed Yes No BG Completed Yes No CH Nov/11 Yes Yes CY Apr/11 No No CZ Completed Yes No DE Apr/11 Yes Yes DK Jul/12 No No EE Dec/11 No No ES Apr/11 No No FI Nov/12 No No FR Apr/11 No Yes GR Apr/11 No Yes HU Apr/11 No No IE Mar/11 No No IT Apr/11 No No LT Apr/11 Yes Yes LU Apr/11 No No LV Dec/12 No No MAS Apr/11 No No MT Apr/11 Yes No NL Apr/11 No No NO Apr/11 No Yes PL Apr/11 No Yes PT Apr/11 No No RO Apr/11 No Yes SE Jan/12 No Yes SI Apr/11 Yes No SK Apr/11 No No UK Apr/11 No No Key: Green: Already implemented; Gold: Date before deadline; Red: Date after initial deadline (Apr/11) Table 10-2: Status of FMTP Regulation The second column of the table indicates the date at which ANSPs claim the regulatory requirement will be met, the third column indicates if the NSA has verified compliance and the fourth column indicates if the State has requested use of the transitional arrangements6. Only three States (BE, BG, CZ) have implemented and verified the provisions of the Regulation and correctly identified that the transition arrangements are not necessary. Six States (CH, DK, EE, FI, LV, SE) report that they will not meet the requirements on time; of these only Sweden and Switzerland indicated that would require use of the transitional arrangements; the remaining States should clarify if the transitional arrangements are required.
Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Latvia should clarify if they require DK, EE, REC-2010-55 use of the transitional arrangements. FI, LV
6 By 23 May 2011, only Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Greece, Norway and Switzerland had actually communicated to the EC their intention of using the transitional arrangements. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 83/119
Six States (AT, CH, DE, LT, MT, SI) have indicated that they have verified compliance with the Regulation when the ANSP has not indicated completion of the implementation. Further NSA action will be required to verify compliance when the ANSP completes the implementation Finally eight States (AT, DE, FR, GR, LT, NO, PL, RO) have indicated plans to meet the April 2011 implementation deadline but have also suggested they require use of the transition arrangements.
Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Romania should clarify why they have reported the AT, DE, FR, GR, REC-2010-56 intention of using transitional arrangements whilst intending to LT, NO, PL, RO comply with the initial deadline.
The remaining States indicate that they will meet the deadline and do not require use of the transitional arrangements. ECAA States: None of the ECAA States verified the compliance of their ANSPs with the FMTP Regulation. While Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina provided a negative answer with regard the intention to make use of the new transitional arrangements introduced by the FMTP amendment, all the other States confirmed the intention to use these arrangements. 10.2.4 Air-ground voice channel spacing (AGVCS) Legal Basis: The AGVCS Regulation Regulation (EC) No. 1265/2007 on air-ground voice channel spacing requires States to implement 8.33 kHz channel spacing for the VHF air-ground voice systems in all sectors with a lower limit greater than FL195. Compliance with the Regulation was required by 3 July 2008. The LSSIP suggests that all States have implemented the Regulation except Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland who do not operate sectors with a lower limit greater that FL195. It should be noted that certain elements, such as controller phraseology, are required in all States. 22 States (AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK) 2010 22 7 reported having verified the compliance of the ANSPs with the applicable requirements of the AGVCS Regulation.
The NSAs of three of these States 2009 18 9 2 (AT, HU, MT) however reported not having received any DoV since 2005. Article 8 of the AGVCS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Regulation specifies that ANSPs Yes No N/A shall conduct a verification of systems referred to in Article 1(2) of Figure 10-11: Has the NSA verified the compliance of the Regulation. the ANSP with Regulation (EC) 1265/2007? Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 84/119
These NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of compliance of the ANSPs has been carried out.
NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of REC-2010-57 compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS Regulation has AT, HU, MT been carried out.
Also, given that compliance with the Regulation was required by July 2008, the fact that seven NSAs have not yet verified compliance of the ANSPs is clearly insufficient. Only France reported plans for 2011.
NSAs should verify compliance of the ANSPs with the BE, CH, CY, DK, REC-2010-58 AGVCS Regulation. FR, GR, RO
Five States (BE, FI, LU, NL, PL) claimed not being concerned by the Regulation, generally due to airspace organisation (e.g. no sectors with a lower limit at or above FL 195). However it should be noted that this interpretation is not correct as some of the requirements of the Regulation (e.g. the phraseology) applies to the entire airspace, irrespective of the flight level.
Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland REC-2010-59 should confirm that they have applied implemented all the BE, FI, LU, NL, PL applicable provisions of the AGVCS Regulation.
13 States reported having communicated 8.33 kHz assignments for publication in the ICAO COM 2 table. Out of these 2010 13 15 1 States Cyprus, France, Italy and the Netherlands did not provide any further information with regard the number of communicated 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 assignments as required by the questionnaire. Yes No N/A None of the States reported the Figure 10-12: Have the States communicated during detection of non-compliances with the reporting period any 8.33kHz assignments for the Regulation. publication in the ICAO COM2 table?
ECAA States: Three States (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and FYROM) reported verified the compliance of the ANSPs with the applicable requirements of the AGVCS Regulation, without providing any additional information. Serbia and Montenegro did report having plans for the implementation of the Regulation into the national legislation. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only ECAA State which reported having communicated 8.33 kHz assignments for publication in the ICAO COM 2 table, without providing any further information with regard the number of communicated assignments as required by the questionnaire. With regard to the detection of non-compliance, only one State (Bosnia and Herzegovina) reported non-compliances but without providing any additional information about neither these non- compliances nor the measures taken to address them. Overall there is a good level of verification of compliance of the ANSPs with the applicable requirements of the Regulation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 85/119
10.2.5 Mode S Interrogator Codes Legal Basis: The Mode S Interrogator code Regulation Regulation (EC) No. 262/2009 lays down requirements for the coordinated use and allocation of Mode S interrogator codes to ensure that radars with overlapping coverage do not use the same codes. The provisions of the Regulation come into force in April 2009 except for Article 3 which is applicable from 1 January 2011. The SES report template asks a number of questions of the States regarding the allocation and use of Mode S Interrogator Codes. Although the Rule is applicable in all States, the provisions and therefore the answers to the questions are only applicable to States where Mode S radars are operated. According to the LSSIP data the following States currently operate Mode S radars: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovakia. The following analysis only considers these States. States were asked if Mode S operators had ensured that the radar head of their Mode S radars were compliant with (a) ICAO and (b) the Regulation. Nine of the 10 States which have implemented Mode S have 2010 9 1 declared themselves compliant with II/SI codeII/SI both the Regulation and ICAO Annex III? 2009 10 operation in operation compliance with
provisions. France declared itself of use the Support compliant in 2009 but not in 2010, 2010 9 1 noting that it will check conformity in 2011 based on information 2009 10 provisions? provisions?
provided by the ANSP (DSNA). compliance with SI and SI codes II in the relevantICAO Support the use of use the Support Denmark, Hungary, Malta 012345678910
Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Yes No Switzerland and the UK also declared themselves compliant with Figure 10-13: Have Mode S operators ensured that ICAO provisions – but do not have they… operational Mode S. Compliance with the Regulation was also noted by Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. 2010 1 9 States were asked whether they had ascertained any non compliance of a Mode S operator with the applicable requirements. 2009 3 7 Germany noted non compliance of a Mode S operator in 2010, but did 012345678910 not provide any further information. Yes No Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Switzerland also noted non Figure 10-14: Has the State ascertained any non- compliance, despite not having compliance of a Mode S operator with the applicable Mode S operators requirements? Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 86/119
Regarding measures taken by the State to provide a code allocation system to the Mode S operators 2010 5 2 3 two (BE, FR) of the ten States with Mode S reported not having 2009 8 2 Mode S code S Mode provided a Mode S allocation of a Provision system. Belgium stated that it allocation system follows the EUROCONTROL code 2010 4 3 3 allocation process. France reported the intention to checks on 2009 7 3
check the conformity of the service of Performance interrogator code interrogator provider in 2011. However, this application validity needs to be clarified as the 012345678910 Yes No No response requirement is applicable to the State and not to the service Figure 10-15: Has the State taken the necessary provider. It is therefore the measures to provide a code allocation system to the responsibility of the State to Mode S Operators? achieve compliance. Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovakia did not answer the question. Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland also reported a range of measures, from the provision of an interrogator code allocation system to plans or consultations for such a system. As in the previous report, one State (SI) reported being out of the “Applicability area” which seems to indicate confusion with the applicability area of the (former) EUROCONTROL Mode S programme. In fact, the Regulation is applicable wherever a Mode S interrogator is operated by a Mode S operator. Although Slovenia reported putting a Mode S Radar into service at Ljubljana Airport in April 2009, it provided negative answers to all the questions related to the process for the allocation of interrogator codes. Regarding checks by the State on the validity of interrogator code applications received from Mode S operators before making them available through the interrogator code allocation system for coordination: Four States (CZ, DE, IE, NL) confirmed having performed the required checks on the validity of received interrogator code applications. Hungary, Romania and Switzerland also responded positively to this question, despite a lack of Mode S radars/interrogators. Two States (DE, NL) reported having taken measures to ensure the coordination of the use of interrogator codes with third countries. Bulgaria and Switzerland also indicated that they had taken such measures. During the reporting period, no disagreements were brought forth to the Commission relative to the changes to the code allocation plans. Four States (BE, DE, IE, LV) did confirm having implemented monitoring means to detect interrogator code conflicts. Out of these States: Three States (BE, DE, LV) reported putting in place technical means; One State (IE) reported procedural means. Austria also confirmed having implemented monitoring, but provided no further information. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 87/119
While in the previous report nine States reported the implementation by the Mode S operators of fall- 2010 4 42 back modes of operation, in the current report only four States confirmed the existence of such modes of operation. 2009 9 1 In general these fall-back modes are based on reverting to Mode A/C 012345678910 interrogations. Yes No No response
France, Italy, Latvia, and Slovakia stated that they had not Figure 10-16: Fall back modes of operation implemented fall back modes. France stated that it would check conformity in 2011, Italy stating that only Mode C radar are currently in use and Slovakia that Mode S is currently in a trial phase. Austria, Romania and Spain also reported the presence of plans for the implementation of fallback modes of operation. Regarding the civil-military coordination, three States (BE, CZ, DE) did confirm having put in place the necessary measures. Ireland and Luxembourg stated that the military does not use Mode S, whilst the Netherlands and Slovakia did not provide an answer. Spain reported plans for putting in place such measures. ECAA States: Only Croatia provided a positive answer regarding the support of II/SI codes by Mode S operators in compliance with ICAO and Annex III provisions. Only one State (Bosnia and Herzegovina) reported the detection of non-compliances of a Mode S operator, related to over-interrogations. However it was reported that the concerned radar is used in conventional MSSR mode. Concerning the questions related to the implementation of the coordination process, all States provided negative replies. It should be noted that in the previous report Croatia did provide an affirmative answer with regard to the existence of the processes while for the current report the response was negative. With regard the questions addressing the monitoring means, the fall-back modes and the civil-military coordination, all the States provided negative responses. These answers are justified by the fact that no Mode S interrogators are in operation in these States. 10.2.6 Data Link Services Legal Basis: The AG-DLS Regulation Regulation (EC) no 29/2009 on data link services requires States, ANSPs and aircraft operators to establish data link communications between pilots and controllers with the following applicability dates: Aircraft Forward Fit: 1 January 2011 Ground systems in the airspace listed in Part A of Annex I: 7 February 2013 Aircraft Retro Fit: 5 February 2015 Ground systems in the airspace listed in Part B of Annex I: 5 February 2015 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 88/119
Given that the earliest implementation dates are all after the end of the reporting period, States were asked about preparedness for implementation. Overall the responses confirmed that many States have initiated awareness actions to ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. However in most of the cases concrete implementations have not started yet and will therefore have to be confirmed in the future editions of the report. Seven States reported no actions taken during the reporting period; of these: Denmark, Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are identified in Part B of Annex I of the Regulation having therefore to ensure compliance by 5.02.2015. The remaining State (IT) reported “no actions taken so far” while in the previous report identified several actions and initiatives. France reported that the conformity of the ANSP will be verified in 2011. Three States (BE, LU, NL) reported that the Regulation is not applicable to their ANSPs. This is due to the fact that the Regulation applies in the airspace above FL 285 and compliance is ensured by the Maastricht Upper Area Centre (MUAC) which is providing services above FL 245. The Netherlands reported that MUAC has already implemented the requirements of the Regulation. Norway reported that as the Norwegian airspace is not included in the Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, a decision on whether to introduce data link services in Norwegian airspace will be taken in conjunction with agreements within the establishment of NEFAB. ECAA States: All ECAA States reported not having yet transposed the Regulation in the national legislation. FYROM stated that even though the Regulation is not included in the ECAA agreement, the service provider intends to deploy a CPDLC capable system by 2012/2013. 10.2.7 Aeronautical Data Quality Legal Basis: The ADQ Regulation Regulation (EC) 73/2010 on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information sets out detailed requirements for the origination and publication of aeronautical information. As such it includes provisions aimed at stakeholders such as surveyors who are not normally covered by SES legislation. So far, 21 States (AT, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK) have reported the identification of stakeholders impacted by the Regulation. Most States indicated the organisation of bilateral meetings or workshops, either as an on- going or a planned activity. Four of the States (CH, DK, EE, FI) did not provide any information while one State (CZ) reported not taking any measure at State level. The fact that Switzerland did not provided any information could be explained by the fact that the Regulation is not transposed yet into the Swiss legislation. 13 States (ES, GR, IE, IT, LT, LU, NO, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK) did report having verified the compliance on subjects covered by the ADQ Regulation, which were in the past subject to other Regulations (e.g. Common Requirements); of these States only two (GR, LT) reported the detection of non-compliances or concerns. Norway expects the transposition of the Regulation in the national legislation in 2011 while Switzerland did report that the Regulation is not yet transposed. The only State that reported no initiation of any preparatory work is Estonia. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 89/119
ECAA States: Transposition into national legislation: FYROM did not provide any information while the other reported that the Regulation is not transposed yet in the national legislation. Identification of affected stakeholders: In anticipation of the transposition Croatia reported the identification of the impacted stakeholders. Measures taken to ensure awareness: Following the transposition, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro reported plans to ensure awareness trough the organisation of workshops and forums. The same three States reported having verified the compliance on subjects covered by the ADQ Regulation, which were in the past subject to other Regulations (e.g. Common Requirements). While Serbia and Montenegro did not find any non-compliance, Croatia reported the detection of non-compliances, to be followed by the identification of corrective actions. 10.2.8 Conclusions As only three of the seven IRs that have been published - the IFPL Regulation, the AGVCS Regulation and the Mode S Interrogator code Regulation - should have been fully implemented it is still to early to determine whether NSA actions are sufficient to ensure compliance. However, the level of compliance reported is not entirely encouraging. Whilst the AGVCS and Mode S code allocation have adequate implementation only 17 of the 29 States have verified compliance with the IFPL IR. Two Regulations (COTR and FMTP) should be partially implemented and verified; however the implementation of both is patchy. The late amendment to the FMTP Regulation to allow for transition arrangements appears to be causing some confusion. The AG-DLS Regulation is the first implementing rule that genuinely requires synchronised deployment of airborne and ground equipment. Airspace Users are already paying for forward fit avionics – it is essential for the success of the SES that ANSPs meet their obligations. The ADQ Regulation introduces new actors to the SES. Ensuring that they comply will be a new challenge for the NSAs. Overall the level of compliance with the IOP implementing rules could be seen as disappointing. The use of enforceable implementing rules is a key benefit of the SES over traditional equipage mandates. However, NSAs do not seem to be sufficiently proactive in terms of ensuring that national obligations are met. NSA should use their powers to ensure that ANSP plans are sufficiently robust – if necessary by including enforcement measures in their National and FAB performance plans.
All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are REC-2010-60 sufficiently robust to achieve the States obligations to meet the All States provision of the interoperability implementing rules.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 90/119
11. Performance Scheme
11.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: The performance scheme Regulation The performance scheme Regulation was adopted on 29 July 2010. The performance scheme established new roles and responsibilities for the NSAs – in particular they are to develop a national or FAB performance plan for each reference period, to monitor ANSP performance against this plan and take corrective action to ensure the required performance is met. In support of the introduction of the performance scheme, the European Commission has: Adopted amendments to the common charging Regulation which requires States to set determined unit rates for the entire reference period and define the incentives and risk sharing schemes for the cost efficiency target. Designated EUROCONTROL - acting through its Performance Review Commission (PRC) and supported by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) - as the Performance Review Body (PRB) of the Single European Sky. The designation is valid until 30 June 2015. Formally adopted EU-wide targets for environment, cost-efficiency and capacity KPI in February 2011, following the positive opinion of the Single Sky Committee in December 2010. The EU-wide targets define the level of ambition required by the NSAs in establishing national and FAB performance plans7. Initiated actions with EASA, EUROCONTROL and the PRB to adopt Safety Performance Indicators for monitoring during the first reference period. The first reference period of the performance scheme runs from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014. States are currently developing the first National (and FAB) performance plans which will be assessed by the Performance Review Body and European Commission in the latter part of 2011. Once the reference period starts, the PRB will provide an annual report on the status of the adopted performance plans. Due to the current status of the performance scheme and the need for States to concentrate on the development of performance plans, the SES Annual Report considers the following topics only: Whether States are developing national or FAB performance plans; The release conditions for the Annual Reports and Business Plans for ANSPs; and The application of the performance scheme to airports with less that 50,000 commercial air traffic movement (CATM) per annum. For further details on the status of the performance scheme, readers are directed to the Performance Review Body’s website (http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/european-atm- performance-review-body)
7 Commission Decision 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014, OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 16. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 91/119
11.2 Form of performance Scheme
The Danish-Swedish FAB intends to develop a FAB Performance Plan, all other States reported that national performance plans would be developed, with the exception of FABEC member States. FABEC will develop a FAB Level plan for safety, capacity and environment KPAs and separate national plans for cost efficiency.
11.3 Release conditions for ANSP Annual Reports and Business Plans
In four States (CH, FR, SK, UK) the NSAs have set conditions for the Conditions for making 4 25 ANSP to make the content of their annual report available annual report available to the public. Conditions for making 6 23 In six States (AT, CH, DE, FR, NO, business plan available UK) the NSA has set conditions for the ANSP to make the content of 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 the performance part of the Yes No business plan and of the annual plan available to the Commission. Figure 11-1: Conditions set by the NSA for the ANSP to make the content of the business plan and annual Many States report not having yet report available. taken a decision in this respect.
11.4 Application of provisions for airports with fewer that 50,000 CATM
The performance scheme requires its provisions to be applied to all airports and ANSPs providing terminal services to airports with more than 50,000 CATM per year. States may also decide to apply the Regulation to airports with fewer than 50,000 CATM per year. In countries where all airports have fewer than 50,000 CATM per year, Airport Operatros at Airports below 50,000 CATM (Annex 8 21 the Regulation applies as a IV .3) minimum to the airport with the highest CATM.
ANSPS at Airports below In total, eight States (CY, DE, EE, 7 22 LT, MT, NO, PL, SK) intend to 50,000 CATM (Annex IV.2) apply the legislation, including the data provision required by Annex 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 IV.2 to specific ANSPs providing Yes No terminal services to airports with Figure 11-2: Application of performance scheme at fewer than 50,000 CATM per year. airports with less that 50,000 CATM per annum. The same States, except Norway, intend to apply the data provision requirements of Annex IV.3 to specific airport operators at airports with fewer than 50,000 CATM per year. 11.5 Conclusions
The actions necessary for the successful implementation of the performance scheme in time for the first reference period appear to be on track. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 92/119
12. Air Navigation Charging
12.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Articles 14 and 18 of the common charging scheme Regulation This section aims to provide an overview of the enforcement measures, in addition to the existing judicial measures, that are in place in the States. The information provided by the States in their SES Annual Reports has been complemented with information available at the CRCO. The requirement to have effective enforcement measures is found in Article 14.3 of the common charging scheme Regulation: “Member States shall ensure that effective enforcement measures are applied. These measures may include the denial of services, detention of aircraft or other enforcement measures in accordance with applicable law.” The notion of "effective enforcement measures" requires States to examine the efficacy of their current remedies and to consider measures in addition to existing judicial measures. 12.2 Enforcement measures (in addition to existing judicial measures) in place
21 States report having enforcement measures in place for the collection of air navigation charges in accordance with Article 14.3 of the common charging scheme Regulation. Two States reported that enforcement measures will be in place in 2011. Although both States reported last year plans to have the measures in place by 2010, the information provided this year shows that the arrangements are well advanced and the establishment of enforcement measures can be expected in the very short term. The remaining six States reported not having enforcement measures in place and did not indicate any specific plans in this respect. Out of those six States, one State mentions current judicial measures are adequate and two States indicated that discussions are underway. Overall, in terms of enforcement measures in place, the situation remains identical to last year. Some progress has been made in the two States that report plans to have the measures in place in 2011, but the same six States which reported having no plan in their 2009 SES Report have reported little progress this year.
The European Commission should urge the six States which REC-2010-61 have no effective enforcement measures in place to 6 States introduce such measures with no delay.
12.3 Effective application of the measures in place
13 States reported having effectively applied the measures and gave clear references to the national legal basis. The CRCO confirmed that the measures of seven States have been successfully applied in the context of the Multilateral Route Charges System. The measures applied by one additional State are currently being tested and discussions are underway with a number of States for application of the measures this year. Five additional States reported having applied the measures in place however, the information provided was contradictory either with other information in their own report or with information available in the CRCO. For these States, further clarification should be requested. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 93/119
The European Commission should request clarification from REC-2010-62 five States on the existing measures and their possible 5 States enforcement.
Three States reported that these measures have not been effectively 2010 13 2 8 6 applied by the time of submission of the 2010 SES Report. 2009 14 2 7 6 The evolution of the overall situation can be seen in the Figure
12-1 2008 5 0 13 11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Measures reported in place and effectively applied Measures planned to be introduced in 2011 Measures still to be clarified or effectively applied No effective measures in place
Figure 12-1: Enforcement measures for the collection of air navigation charges 12.4 Type of enforcement measures in place The most frequent enforcement
Denial of measure for the recovery of air 11 3 services navigation charges applicable in the States is the denial of service Detention (11 States and planned to become of aircraft 7 applicable in three States in 2011). Seven States have indicated that Other 4 detention of aircraft is available. 0 2 4 6 8 10121416 Four States reported on the application of “other” measures, Available In preparation namely the suspension/revocation of operating permits (in two States), Figure 12-2: Type of enforcement measures tax-related measures and forfeiture of bond. The effectiveness of these “other” measures is still to be demonstrated. 12.5 Conclusions The information in the reports and the data available from the CRCO shows that some progress was made with respect to the effective application of enforcement measures for the recovery of charges since last year’s SES report. The number of States in which measures can be applied for the benefit of the System rose to seven in 2010 and is expected to reach 11 in 2011. However, six States still have no effective measures in place in accordance with Article 14.3 of the common charging scheme Regulation and are in clear breach of the SES legislation in this respect. Another five States still need to clarify or ensure applicability of the reported existing measures. Effective enforcement measures applied in the States are for the benefit of the whole community in the context of the collection through a single charge per flight, as in the case of the Multilateral Route Charges System. In this context, each State should bring its contribution to the system. Furthermore, these measures would have a greater effect if applied by a critical mass of States, thus making it impossible for bad debtors to operate in Europe. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 94/119
13. Functional Airspace Blocks
13.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: Article 9a of the service provision Regulation FABs should be established with a view to ensuring that national airspace boundaries do not reduce the efficiency of air traffic flows and air traffic service provision in Europe. They should provide for optimisation of air navigation services and related functions and should foster enhanced cooperation between ANSP or, where appropriate, aim at the establishment of an integrated services provider. Since the adoption of the SES-II package, States have been committed to “take all necessary measures in order to ensure the implementation of FABs” by 4 December 2012. This commitment was re-iterated through the Budapest Charter8 where States agreed to, inter alia, accelerate the establishment of FABs, foster closer cooperation at all levels in the FAB, develop effective cooperation with their neighbouring FABs and third countries. New obligations for FAB initiatives were introduced in 2011 under Regulation (EU) No 176/2011 whereby, prior to FAB establishment, States will have to consolidate and present to interested parties information about the fulfilment of the FAB requirements9. This section presents information on the level of progress, developments, consultation processes and major milestones in the ongoing process of FAB establishment and implementation. Details on the establishment and progress of FABs may be found in the regular progress reports from Mr Jarzembowski's, the FAB Systems Coordinator10. 13.2 Status of FABs
At the time of the report, two FABs were established and seven FAB projects existed as illustrated in Figure 13-1. The five generic phases for the establishment and implementation of a FAB initiative are outlined below. It should be noted however that different FAB initiatives have been organised in different ways and the phases identified below are not intended to imply that FABs should be implemented in a particular way. Feasibility phase: This first phase typically consists in a detailed feasibility study in order to provide a set of initiatives for cooperation amongst all partners. In the current SES legislation (SES II enacted in December 2009), States are required to establish FABs that are required to satisfy certain criteria and with a view to improving capacity and efficiency, and should be supported by a safety case and justified by a cost-benefit analysis.
8 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/events/doc/2011_03_03_atm/2011_03_04_budapest_charter.pdf 9 Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2011 of 24 February 2011 on the information to be provided before the establishment and modification of a functional airspace block, OJ L 51, 25.2.2011, p. 2. 10 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_european_sky/functional_airspace_blocks_en.htm for December 2010 and March 2011 reports. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 95/119
Definition phase: The institutional aspects related to the establishment of a FAB are very complex and must be addressed very early in its establishment, specifically during the Definition Phase. The major areas usually addressed during this phase relate to operational, technical, military, legal/institutional/organisational, economic/financial and social aspects. The economic and charging mechanism related to the establishment of the FAB touches upon the States’ sovereignty (fiscal regime) and economic interest of participating ANSPs and the airspace users, while it should support the operational improvements created by the FAB(s). Therefore, the economic model has to be developed and agreed during the Definition Phase. There is no consensus on the definition of a FAB; different FABs may have different objectives. Development phase: In most cases this phase is combined with the ‘definition phase’ since both constitute tasks undertaken in preparation for the Implementation Phase of the FAB. Implementation phase: This phase is based on the deliverables approved during the Definition Phase and is closely linked to the main development in Europe in order to ensure consistency with the overall pan-European ATM system. Only two FABs (UK-Ireland and Danish-Swedish FAB) have been formally declared. Of the seven remaining FAB projects, three are in the feasibility stage (NEFAB, Baltic and Danube), two in the definition phase (SW Portugal-Spain and Blue MED) and two in the development phase (FABEC and FABCE).
NEFAB (Feasibility)
) h n s i o i d t e a t w n S / e
h m s i e l n p a
m D I UK/IRL ( (Implementation) Baltic (Feasibility)
FAB EC FAB CE (Development) (Development) Danube (Definition)
SW Portugal-Spain (Definition)
Blue Med (Definition)
Figure 13-1: Status of FAB Implementation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 96/119
The table below represents a snapshot of the March 2011 FAB Coordinator Report. Enhanced cooperation Enhanced cooperation of the NSAs of the ANSPs or (optionally) of an integrated ANSP
Signed (optional) based on CBAs FAB safety Case Agreement in force policy by the ANSPs Notification to the EC High Level DocumentHigh Level principles for charging FAB performance plan Agreements on common of the FAB establishment Statement of added value No joint UK- No integrated ANSP supervisory planned Ireland authority planned Danish- No joint NUAC Company will supervisory operate all ANS except Swedish authority planned MET, AIS & TWR (Planned) NEFAB - - MoC signed. No Agreement signed. A FABEC concrete effects more substantial one - visible awaited Baltic - - - NSAs Cooperation FABCE * agreement to be - - signed 30/05/2011 FAB NSA Coordination MoU signed. No exact - Danube Committee under arrangements reported development SW Cooperation Agreement - - Portugal- signed. Spain Conditions set. Cooperation agreement between 4 Blue MED - main ANSPs covering - the definition phase of the FAB * The State Agreement was signed in May 2011 Table 13-1: FAB Status according the FAB Coordinator Report
13.3 Major Milestones
The Danish-Swedish FAB was the only FAB established in 2010 with the State Agreement entering into force on the 1 July 2010. The establishment of the FAB was notified to the EC on 6 July 2010 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) (ref. 01.12.2010, C 324/20). Table 13-2 summarises the major milestones achieved during the reporting period in more detail than in the FAB Coordinator Report. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 97/119
FAB Phase Major Milestones in 2010 UK-Ireland Implementation A number of airspace and operational changes have been introduced by NATS / IAA in line with the FAB Plan Danish- Implementation FAB established. State Agreement in force on 1 July 2010 Swedish The High Level Board has laid down a plan for future work at NSA level including the drafting of a common performance plan NEFAB Feasibility Joint Statement from the NEFAB States was signed in September 2010 at Ministry Level FABEC Development On 11 March 2010, DFS, LVNL, Maastricht UAC and the Dutch and German military successfully implemented AMRUFRA, one of the FABEC Early Implementation Packages. From 19 to 30 April 2010, the first real–time simulation for the new FABEC routes network took place at EUROCONTROL Brétigny. On 3 June 2010, the ANSPs agreed on cooperating in air traffic controller (ATCO) basic training. In the course of the 36th meeting of the Single Sky Committee on 8 and 9 July 2010, FABEC informed the European Commission and the States of their plans to establish FABEC. The FABEC Treaty was signed on 2 December 2010. This Treaty shall enter into force by 2012 after ratification. Baltic Feasibility Formal PL–LT structures were established. The Baltic FAB Feasibility Study was been performed. The Implementation Plan is under preparation. FABCE Development FABCE Development (Preparatory) phase deliverables were approved by CEO Committee in May 2010: Text of FABCE Agreement (approved by PFCC in September 2010) 11 NSA Cooperation Agreement (approved by NSA CG and PFCC in November 2010) ANSP Cooperation Agreement (to be finalised by end 2010) Danube Definition 26 February 2010: MoU between respective MoTs 10 August 2010: MoU between respective ANSPs 19 October 2010: MoU between respective NSAs Establishment of the Danube FAB Steering Committee as a political decision making body. SW Definition CAA cooperation agreement signed on 25 February 2010 Portugal- TEN-T financial support achieved on 24 June 2010 Spain Blue MED Definition Blue MED FAB Project operational/ technical gap analysis. Delivery of several quick–wins: specific operational/ technical improvements with cost benefits. The latest Blue MED route network catalogue version has been finalised, containing new ATS routes (71 implemented, 121 active) that are within the scope and timeframe of ARN Ver 7. FAB model based on operational simulations completed. Table 13-2: Status and major milestones of FAB initiatives in 2010
11 The FAB State level agreement was signed on the 5 May 2011 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 98/119
The following observations indicate our understanding of each FAB’s ability to meet the December 2012 deadline: UK-Ireland FAB: UK-Ireland FAB has been operational since June 2008. They have already produced and made public two FAB annual reports on their achievements. The FAB was established under SES I which could require certain new arrangements to be put in place under SES II and reported to the European Commission and interested parties as foreseen in Regulation (EU) No 176/2011. Danish-Swedish FAB: The Danish-Swedish FAB has all the institutional arrangements in place. The additional information required as per Regulation (EU) No 176/2011 will also have to be provided. The NUAC Company, which will be operational in 2012, is so far the only example of integration of service provision. NEFAB: The initiative has experienced some difficulties with the commitment of all participating States in 2010 and did not report any significant progress. They reported the intention to submit the Feasibility Study Report in January 2011 but this has not occurred. The continuation of this FAB Project and its subsequent implementation by December 2012 can be considered a high risk. FABEC: The FABEC Treaty was signed in December 2010 followed by a MoC by the NSAs. However, the enhanced NSA cooperation is still limited to the supervision of MUAC. The FABEC Treaty is in the process of ratification which will most likely be completed by December 2012. FABEC opted for a FAB performance plan covering all performance areas except cost-efficiency for which national plans will be produced. Baltic: According to the FAB Coordinator Report, the State Agreement is planned to be signed in 2011. Also, a Letter of Intent was signed in 2010 committing political support to the Feasibility Study. Overall, according to the pace of the progress made so far, the implementation of this FAB by December 2012 is questionable. FABCE: The State Agreement was signed in May 2011 and is currently in the process of ratification. The signature of an NSAs Cooperation agreement is foreseen for the 30th May 2011. There are indications that the risk for this FAB of not reaching the deadline of December 2012 is relatively low. Danube: Currently only MoCs/MoUs in place at all levels (MoTs, NSAs and ANSPs). The text of the State Level Agreement is under discussion and, should the States reach an agreement and sign by mid 2011, the process of ratification may be concluded by 2012. SW Portugal-Spain FAB: An NSA Agreement signed in 2010 setting the conditions for NSAs cooperation. Both ANSPs are participants of the iTEC-FDP project. A draft State Agreement is being negotiated and signature is foreseen for 2011 but there is a lack of information enabling a conclusion is the deadline will be met. Blue MED: Cooperation Agreement signed between the four principal ANSPs. No information is available on the level of the negotiations of the State Agreement which does not allow assessing the potential risk of this FAB against the deadline of December 2012. 13.4 Conclusions
Based on the reported information and developments in 2010, it would seem likely that all the FAB initiatives will be able to sign and potentially ratify the FAB State Level Agreements in order to meet the December 2012 deadline provided that the political engagement of the States remains strong. However, after considering other sources of information, it appears that the potential risk of not meeting this deadline is high in the case of NEFAB, medium in the case of Baltic, and for Blue MED and SW Portugal-Spain, there is not enough information available to estimate the level of risk. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 99/119
At the time of writing, the NEFAB initiative is facing difficulties at the decisive moment moving from the feasibility study phase to the development phase of the project. It is confirmed that Sweden and Denmark have stepped out of the initiative leaving the five remaining States to reconsider their options. In 2010 the remaining seven FAB initiatives still show different approaches and understanding towards the management of FAB projects which may lead to difficulties in their assessment by the European Commission. Given the adoption of the FAB information Regulation, which requires additional effort to consolidate and present the information related to the FAB establishment by June 2012, States should plan and allocate appropriate resources to fulfil that obligation. It should be emphasised again that reported lack of resources in many NSAs, (see Section 2.6), may also be an impediment to the timely establishment of FABs. It should also be highlighted that, when analysing the implementation of the implementing rules under the interoperability Regulation and other technological improvements, there are significant differences on the level achieved by the States within the same FAB initiatives. The coordinated implementation of the ATM Master Plan is also an area where States, and especially ANSPs, should seek tangible synergies through the FAB establishment and implementation. It is also noted that so far, the entering into force of the performance scheme has not influenced the development of FAB implementation. It is also interesting to note that no FAB or FAB initiative has yet introduced cooperation mechanisms with neighbouring FABs, hence FAB initiatives remain focused on intra-FAB arrangements with no concrete initiatives for FAB interfaces at State level.
The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should REC-2010-63 continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of EC inter-FAB cooperation and coordination.
FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary REC-2010-64 consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB All States relations.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 100/119
14. Air Traffic Flow Management
14.1 Introduction
Legal Basis: The air traffic flow management Regulation This section is concerned with level of application of the Regulation No. 255/2010 on Air Traffic Flow Management (AFTM) (the ATFM Regulation). The ATFM Regulation has been in force since 25 March 2010 but it will apply as of 26 September 2011. Given the deferred applicability the questions in the reporting templates are related to the awareness and readiness of States and ANSPs to adhere to the legislative requirements. 14.2 State obligations under ATFM Regulation
The 29 States are required to ensure that personnel of the parties concerned are: Made duly aware of the provisions of the Regulation. Adequately trained and competent for their job function. Seven States (DK, EE, ES, FI, PL, RO, SE) reported non compliance with the need to ensure adequate training; again all seven States adequately trained and competent for 22 7 have stated that the mechanisms to their job functions ensure the conformity with this requirement would be put in place.
made duly aware of Only five States (DK, EE, ES, SE, the provisions of this 24 5 UK) reported not having ensured regulation that the relevant personnel have been made aware of the provisions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 of the Regulation. Yes No However all five States gave assurances that the requirement Figure 14-1: Has the State ensured that the personnel of the parties concerned by the application of this would be applied in due course. Regulation are… States are also required to ensure that consistent procedures for cooperation between the involved parties are established. Only five States (DK, EE, ES, FI, PL) reported that they have not established such procedures. Denmark and Spain replied negatively but intend to rely on the processes established by CFMU handbook - which are an effective means of compliance. Estonia, Finland and Poland are yet to comply with the requirement. States are also required to provide information on route availability and to ensure such information is consistent with the Route Availability Document (RAD) as published by the EUROCONTROL CFMU. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 101/119
All States except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, reported that they have published the route Has the State published the route 26 3 availability. availability? All States except Estonia and Latvia, reported that the published route availability is consistent with Is the published Route Availability Document (RAD). route availability consistent with the 27 2 Route Availability However, the comments provided Document (RAD)? by Estonia would suggest that they are consistent with these 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 requirements. Yes No
Figure 14-2: Route availability Seven States (BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, GR) have not yet developed measures to ensure that the local air traffic management units have developed the documents and procedures required for the operations of the ATFM. Four of the States (CY, FR, MT, NL,) who answered positively did not, however, provide the required reference to the relevant documents.
States should provide reference to the documents and REC-2010-65 CY, FR, NL, MT procedures required for the operations of the ATFM.
States are also obliged to establish: Monitoring and reporting mechanisms for adherence to ATFM departure slots An annual review process for adherence to ATFM measures. Over one third of the States (eleven) are yet to establish monitoring and reporting an annual review of the adherence to mechanisms for the adherence to 14 14 1 ATFM measures is the ATFM departure slots. conducted?
Twelve States are yet to provide an monitoring and reporting mechanism annual review of the adherence to for the adherence to 17 11 1 ATFM departure slots the ATFM measures. are established?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Yes No N/A
Figure 14-3: Has the State ensured that… Bulgaria answered ‘Not Applicable’ to both requirements on the grounds that more than 80% of the flights in Sofia FIR adhere to ATFM departure slots. However, the obligation to establish a monitoring mechanism and conduct an annual review of adherence to ATFM measures is independent of the level of adherence. States are also required to establish and publish procedures for handling critical events12.
12 As defined in Article 2(6) of the ATFM regulation Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 102/119
14 States (BE, CZ, DK, ES, FI, GR, HU, IT, LV, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE) have yet to establish these procedures.
Cyprus and France reported having 15 14 the procedures in place but did not provide the required reference to the relevant documentation. Luxembourg reported that critical events are ‘handled by the CFMU’. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
States are also required to Yes No establish penalties applicable to infringements. Figure 14-4: Procedures for handling critical events As for the penalties applicable to the infringements of the ATFM Regulation, as many as 22 States have yet to lay down the rules thereto. 1 722 Seven States (AT, CH, CY, FI, DE, NL, SI) provided a positive answer. Although, Switzerland reported that a review of the general rules on penalties of the Aviation Law is 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ongoing to verify their compliance Yes No with the ATFM Regulation. Only four States (AT, NL, NO, SI) Figure 14-5: Has the State laid down penalties have so far notified the European applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation? Commission that the provisions of the Regulation will be achieved. 14.3 General obligations of the ANSPs
The States are also obliged to verify that: When an ATFM measure is applied, the ATS Units coordinate its application with the central unit for ATFM through the local ATFM unit; ATS Units are providing the central unit for ATFM with the data required by Article 6 (5). Only three States have not yet Are the ATS units verified that the respective ATS providing the central ATFM unit with the units are coordinating ATFM 24 4 data required under measures with the central unit for Art. 6.5 of the ATFM Regulation? ATFM through their respective local
ATFM unit. Are the ATS units are coordinating with the central ATFM unit 26 3 Four States have reported that they through the local are not providing the central unit for ATFM unit? ATFM with the data set forth by the Article 6(5) of the ATFM 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Regulation. Yes No Figure 14-6: General obligations of the ANSPs In addition, with one State, Malta, there was a missing answer, which is taken as if it had been negative. This makes a total of five States with the negative answer. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 103/119
ECAA States: FYROM has not reported on the state of the implementation of ATFM claiming that the Regulation has not been included in the ECAA (Annex 1, para. B), thus not applicable in that State. Albania has reported that the ATFM Regulation has not yet been transposed into the national legislation and has given negative answers to all questions. Bosnia and Herzegovina has met two requirements so far: the route availability has been published and a process for monitoring adherence to the departure slots has been established. Croatia has responded positively to three questions out of thirteen. Namely, they have ensured the consistency between the route availability and RAD, the critical events are handled in accordance with the established ATFM procedure, and the rules on the penalties to the ATFM Regulation infringements have been established. Montenegro and Serbia have reported that they have already met all requirements except two: establishment of rules on the penalties to the ATFM infringements, and consequently notification to the Commission on these provisions are met. 14.4 Conclusions
Even though the Regulation was not applicable for the referenced period of this report there is already wide spread adherence to the key requirements of the ATFM Regulation. States have been actively participating in the ATFM processes for a number of years, and that the enforcement of these processes has been established in the majority of States. However, under the ATFM Regulation, ATFM has become part of the EU-law which would make necessary to revisit and update the local documents and procedures to ensure that they are consistent and compliant with the requirements as stipulated in the Regulation. The area, which is yet to be widely addressed, is the rules on penalties to the infringements of the provisions of the ATFM Regulation. Estonia and Latvia are further behind in the implementation than other States because the former has joined CFMU recently, and the latter was not part of CFMU for the reference period of the report. In order to fully asses the implementation of ATFM in the next reporting period, it will be necessary to revise the reporting template to ensure that reporting template to ensure that States provide detailed information on their level of implementation of all requirements, falling under the General obligations of the ANSPs in relation to the Article 6 of the Regulation. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 104/119
15. Implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace
15.1 Introduction Legal Basis: The flexible use of airspace Regulation This section considers the implementation of the FUA Regulation. National Organisation and Responsibilities at the three ASM Levels of FUA are considered, followed by the actions required for cooperation between States, safety assessment and performance monitoring. To facilitate the States’ assessment of compliance, for each relevant requirement, the template used for the States’ reports contained references to the EC Specification for the application of the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA), developed by EUROCONTROL, and the EUROCONTROL Airspace Management Handbook for the Application of the Concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace. 15.2 Strategic Airspace Management - ASM Level 1
States were requested to confirm the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 1 and to provide details of the national arrangements for its implementation. Only Slovenia reported not having implemented FUA at ASM Level 1. The other 28 States reported 2010 28 1 having implemented it, established the appropriate mechanisms, e.g. high level airspace policy body and 2009 27 2 provided details on how FUA at ASM Level 1 is organised at national level. 2008 24 5 The implementation of FUA at ASM Level 1 is therefore almost 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 complete. Yes No
Figure 15-1: FUA Implemented at ASM Level 1
Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on REC-2010-66 the expected delay for full implementation of Level 1 which SI retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 105/119
States are also required to establish measures to ensure 0102030 consistency between ASM-ATFM 26 3 2010 and ASM-ATS 22 7 2009 Only three States (HU, LU, SI) ANS‐ATFM reported not having established 22 7 2008 measures to ensure consistency between ASM and ATFM, and only two between ASM and ATS (LU, 27 2 2010 ASM‐ATS SI). 23 6 2009
As it can be seen in the figure, 23 6 2008 there has been a noticeable Yes No improvement during 2010. Figure 15-2: Have States established measures to ensure consistency between ANS/ATFM and ASM/ATS?
States should establish measures to ensure consistency REC-2010-67 between ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information HU, LU, SI on the expected timelines.
Finally, States had to report on whether they had notified the Commission of the persons or 2010 26 3 organisations responsible for all the tasks listed in Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation. 2009 19 10 Again, 2010 has seen a big improvement with only three States (HU, MT, SI) to provide the 2008 15 14 Commission with the required information compared to 10 last 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 year. Yes No
Figure 15-3: Have States provided the Commission all information as stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation?
States to provide the Commission with the information REC-2010-68 HU, MT, SI stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation
States have to ensure that the responsible body for FUA at ASM Level 1 performs a number of tasks laid out in Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation. The following table shows the situation in the States who reported only partial compliance: Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 106/119
tions p ary flights rests ary flights rests the users’ the users’ the airspace the airspace military units and procedures and procedures of FUA operations of FUA operations Periodically review airspace airspace review Periodically ace reservation and route o route and reservation ace analysis and planning activities activities planning and analysis p the responsibility for separation performance of FUA operations of FUA operations performance Approve activities which require require which activities Approve to offer multiple and procedures Establish mechanisms to assess assess to mechanisms Establish and route network with the aim of with the network and route airspace reservation or restriction or restriction reservation airspace Established criteria and procedures procedures criteria and Established Assess national airspace structures structures airspace national Assess Regularly reviewing and addressing and addressing reviewing Regularly providing for the creation and use of for the creation and providing use of airspace structures for further for further structures use of airspace Define temporary airspace structures structures airspace Define temporary between civil and milit civil between on the ATS units or on the controlling on the ATS units or on the requests, allocation and actual and actual allocation on the requests, adjustable lateral and vertical limits of vertical and lateral adjustable procedures based on the assessment on the assessment based procedures Establish mechanisms to archive data Establish mechanisms Define specific conditions under which which under conditions specific Define airs planning for flexible airspace structures structures airspace for flexible planning Bulgaria Cyprus N/A Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland N/A Greece Hungary Malta Netherlands Norway Slovenia N/A Spain Sweden N/A Total number of States having addressed each of these tasks 2010 26 27 25 22 26 21 25 23 22 2009 25 26 24 21 23 20 19 17 21 2008 23 23 21 19 21 21 18 17 21 Table 15-1: States reporting partial compliance with Article 4.1
BG, CZ, DK, EE, States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all REC-2010-69 ES, GR, HU, MT, the tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation. NL, NO, SE, SI
The situation has improved significantly during 2010 and overall, the results show a good level of implementation. However, although only Slovenia reported not having implemented of FUA at ASM Level 1, there are indications that in some States the high-level policy bodies are not as active as they should and not performing all the tasks as stipulated in Article 4.1 of the Regulation. In particular, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway Hungary, Sweden and especially Malta, reported several shortcomings in this respect and, some of them should re-consider their statements of having implemented FUA at ASM Level 1. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 107/119
States were also asked whether they have abandoned imposing permanent airspace restrictions: Only 14 States reported having done so. As it can be seen the situation has remained largely 2010 14 stable in the three reporting periods and is unlikely to change according to the comments provided. 2009 14 In many States permanent restrictions are still considered necessary for reasons of security, 2008 12 safety, environmental, etc.
02468101214
Figure 15-4: States having abandoned imposing airspace restrictions
ECAA States: Only Croatia reported full implementation of FUA at ASM Level 1. Croatia reported having established a High Level Airspace Policy Body, while Albania and FYROM and Serbia plan to do so. Albania, Croatia, FYROM, Montenegro and Serbia reported conducting regular reviews and addressing all users’ requirements. Bosnia and Herzegovina answered “No” explaining that there are no operational requirements. Albania, Serbia and Montenegro (neither of the States in 2008, Serbia only in 2009) reported having defined temporary airspace structures and established mechanisms to assess the performance of FUA operations. The results show a positive evolution in 2010 and a good level of implementation overall with issues identified previous years addressed in most instances. Only Slovenia reported not having implemented FUA at ASM Level 1 however, significant gaps in its effective implementation are observed in Estonia and Malta, and other States that reported only partial compliance with Article 4.1 of the Regulation should also take the appropriate measures to address these shortcomings. It is also significant that most States (26 compared to 19 in 2009) have now advised the European Commission about the identified persons/organisations as required under Article 4.3 of the Regulation The number of States who still impose permanent airspace restrictions has not changed. Permanent airspace restrictions are still necessary for most of the States, for safety, security, environmental measures or for specific activities (navy, missiles, shooting areas, etc.). And this is unlikely to change in the near term according to comments provided. There has been a noticeable improvement in the establishment of ASM/ATFM consistency measures, and the establishment of assessment mechanisms for FUA performance, the latter remains, however, as the most common area to be addressed. Some States have yet to address the task of assessing the national airspace structures and route network with the aim of planning for flexible airspace structures. This should be looked at in a wider context, i.e. with due consideration of TRA/TSA airspace structures planning, design and allocation with regard to or as a function of the ATS route network performance. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 108/119
15.3 Pre-Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 2
States were requested to confirm the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 2. 2010 28 1 Slovenia remains the only State not having implemented FUA at ASM 2009 27 2 Level 2. The implementation of FUA at ASM 2008 25 4 Level 2 is therefore almost complete. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No
Figure 15-5: FUA Implemented at ASM Level 2 States were also asked: . if an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) has been established and whether it was a joint civil/military cell; . whether the AMC is provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks; and . whether the airspace is allocated in accordance with the conditions and procedures of defined in Article 4.1 of the Regulation
Slovenia and Estonia reported not 2 having established an AMC: 3 . Estonia explained that they have “civil/military focal points performing the functions” 2 . Slovenia reported that the responsibility for daily airspace allocations rests with the ATSP . Lithuania and Luxembourg, while they reported having 22 established an AMC, provided Joint Civil-Military Only Civil additional contradictory No AMC Situation to be clarified information (see below). Figure 15-6: Establishment of an AMC Four additional States (IE, LT, LU, LV) reported that the AMC is not a joint civil/military cell which, according to the Regulation, should only be the case where the military are not involved in airspace management. In the additional information provided: . Ireland reported that “the AMC is composed of Civil Station Managers and Military Watch Supervisors”, which seems to contradict their previous answer. . Latvia reported that the AMC is within the structure of ANSP and that a “joint civil-military decision making process issues is ensured through the Cabinet of Ministers Instruction”. . Lithuania reported that no formal AMC exists and that the functions are carried out by the ANSP. . Luxembourg reported that “contact points at DAC/NSA, ANSP and Military level are established” but there is no need for a permanent AMC. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 109/119
In Latvia and Lithuania the reportedly established AMC would not seem to be compliant with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation. Estonia and Luxembourg should also provide justification of the use of civil/military points of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of the Regulation.
States should establish an Airspace Management Cell REC-2010-70 LT, LV, SI (AMC) in compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.
States should provide justification of the use of civil/military REC-2010-71 points of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by EE, LU Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.
22 States (the same as in 2009) reported that their AMCs have been provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks. Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden considered it not necessary at present.
States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to CY, EE, LU, LV, REC-2010-72 perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace MT, SE, SI management tasks.
As for whether the airspace is being allocated in accordance with the conditions and procedures as 2010 27 2 defined in Article 4.1 of the Regulation, Slovenia and Malta are 2009 25 4 the two States that reported not being compliant with this requirement. 2008 24 5 Malta can therefore not be considered as having implemented 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 FUA at ASM Level 2. Yes No
Figure 15-7: Allocation of airspace in accordance with Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation
REC-2010-73 States should implement FUA at ASM Level 2. MT, SI
ECAA States: Out of six States, Serbia and Montenegro reported having implemented FUA at ASM Level 2 and Serbia have a joint civil-military Airspace Management Cell. Croatia envisaged that AMC will be full operational by 28 December 2012. There is no FUA at ASM Level 2 implemented except in Montenegro and Serbia. However, all States except Bosnia and Herzegovina claim that they apply processes at FUA ASM Level 3. ASM Level 2 is reportedly in place in all but one State, which shows improvement over the last three reporting periods. However, some States provided unclear or unsatisfactory explanations on the establishment and operation of their AMCs which would question the effective implementation of ASM Level 2 and therefore need to be clarified and/or addressed. Several States have also not yet ensured that their AMCs are provided with adequate systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks. The explanations that, at present such systems are not necessary or that the communication is good anyway, should not be accepted as a statement of compliance. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 110/119
15.4 Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 3
States were requested to confirm the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 3. 2010 28 1 Slovenia remains the only State not having implemented FUA at ASM 2009 27 2 Level 3 although reportedly there is a coordinator dealing with the daily co–ordination. 2008 26 3 The implementation of FUA at ASM Level 3 is therefore almost 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 complete. Yes No
Figure 15-8: FUA Implemented at ASM Level 3 States were also requested to confirm that the relevant ATS and controlling military units operate in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the FUA Regulation. The following table shows the situation in the States who reported only partial compliance:
aircraft tactical level same airspace… same airspace… civil and military flights civil and military flights time activation, deactivation or deactivation time activation, reservations and the adequate and the adequate reservations notification to all affected users all affected users notification to situations where civil and military situations where civil information to resolvespecific traffic supporting systems to ensure safety Specifically, direct communication of communication Specifically, direct Establish coordination procedures to Establish coordination procedures to Establish coordination when managing interactions between interactions managing when controllers are providing service in the service providing are controllers Establish coordination procedures and procedures and Establish coordination procedures and Establish coordination The State has ensured that the that ensured The State has military ATS and controlling relevant units… of any modification of planned airspace airspace of planned of any modification permit direct communication of relevant of relevant communication permit direct reallocation of airspace allocated at pre- allocated airspace of reallocation Position of aircraft and Flight intention of Flight Position of aircraft and communication facilities to allow the real- communication ensure the timely and effective exchange effective exchange and ensure the timely Cyprus N/A Finland N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A Germany N/A N/A Hungary N/A Latvia N/A Luxembourg N/A N/A Malta N/A Norway Slovenia N/A Sweden N/A N/A Total number of States having established the necessary coordination procedures: 2010 26 26 26 19 20 2009 24 25 25 19 19 2008 23 23 - 17 - *In Finland, in all cases the separation responsibility between civil and military flights rests on the ATC unit concerned, Military do not provide ATS services in Finnish airspace. Table 15-2: States reporting partial compliance with Article 6 Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 111/119
States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the CY, HU, LV, MT, REC-2010-74 FUA Regulation. NO, SI
States were also asked to report whether all airspace reservations are released as soon as activities 2010 29 0 having caused their establishment cease. 2009 28 1 As it can be seen in the figure, all States report complying with requirement. 2008 27 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No
Figure 15-9: Reservations released as soon as activities having caused them cease
ECAA States: All ECAA States with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina reported having implemented FUA at ASM Level 3. Only Bosnia and Herzegovina reported that they do not release their airspace reservations as soon as the needs for a reservation cease. The overall conclusion for ASM Level 3 implementation is to be considered very positive as the majority of the States have fulfilled requirements in all aspects. This year, all States reported immediate release of airspace reservations as soon as activities cease, which is very encouraging provided that States put in place concrete measures to exploit this achievement. Some aspects of the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 3 that are still lagging behind are the establishment of coordination procedures allowing for direct communication of relevant information in order to resolve specific traffic situations where civil and military controllers are providing services in the same airspace (19, which is the same number of the States as in 2009) as well as establishment of the coordination procedures between civil and military controllers to permit direct communication of relevant information to resolve specific traffic situations in terms of position of aircraft and flight intention of aircraft (20 in 2010 compared to 19 in 2009). 15.5 Cooperation between States at the 3 levels of FUA Strategic Airspace Management - ASM Level 1 States were asked: . to confirm whether they coordinate their airspace management policies with the respective neighbouring States in order to jointly address the use of cross-border airspace structures; . to report on the type of cross-border use applied; and . to confirm whether they have established a common set of standards with neighbouring States for separations between civil and military flights for cross-border activities. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 112/119
14 States reported not coordinating with their neighbours (AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, ES, GR, LT, MT, NO, PL, 2010 15 14 RO, SI, SK).
There has been no improvement 2009 14 15 over the three reporting periods in terms of cooperation between States which, considering the 2008 14 15 ongoing FAB initiatives, can be considered very unsatisfactory. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Airspace policy should be seen as Yes No a cooperative effort between neighbours. Figure 15-10: Coordination of airspace management policies with the respective neighbouring States
States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in AT, BG, CY, CZ, establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the DK, ES, GR, LT, REC-2010-75 cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main MT, NO, PL, RO, foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for SI, SK the establishment of FABs.
As for the type of cross-border use applied Figure 15-11 shows the results of the reported information. The results are almost identical to those of the previous two reports. Regarding the TRA/TSAs:
Conditional . Belgium reported that 15 TRA/TSAs, other than CBAs, Routes are shared with France, the Netherlands and Germany. TRA/TSAs 14 However, France and the Netherlands did not report sharing TRA/TSAs with other Cross-Border 14 States. Areas . Germany and Switzerland reported having CBOs between 0 5 10 15 20 themselves and with France and the Netherlands. This was Figure 15-12: Type of cross-border airspace use not confirmed by France or the Netherlands. Of the 15 States (AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, EE, FR, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, SE, SK) involved in cross-border airspace use, only 7 States (6 in 2009, 6 as well as in 2008), (BE, CH, DE, EE, IT, LV, NL) reported the establishment of a common set of standards with their respective neighbours for separations between civil and military flights in cross-border activities. This is an obligation according to Article 4.1 (k) of the FUA Regulation and States should take swift measures to address this issue.
States should establish with neighbouring States one AT, CZ, FR, IE, LU, REC-2010-76 common set of standards for separation between civil and MT, SE, SK military flights for cross-border activities.
ECAA States: All ECAA States reported not coordinating their airspace management policies with the respective neighbouring States in order to jointly address the use of cross-border airspace structures, except Croatia. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 113/119
Pre-Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 2 States were asked to report, only in the cases where cross-border operations apply, whether the States have established a joint or multinational AMC with their neighbours. Four States (EE, IT, LU, UK) reported having established a joint or multinational AMC in 2010. However, there was some unclear additional information reported: . Ireland reported “No” but confirmed that “UK has lead AMC status with Irish AMC”. . Estonia reported exercising pre-tactical planning of the airspace utilisation with Latvia, but Latvia did not confirm this statement. Estonia reported that the work on creation of the TSAs has been more active in 2010 but did not result of a formally established AMC. . Italy and Luxembourg reporting having a joint or multinational AMC without specifying with whom ECAA States: Only Montenegro and Serbia reported to have a joint multinational cell at ASM Level 2. Bosnia and Herzegovina explained that there is no operational need while Croatia reported that the possibility is under investigation under the FABCE initiative (the same answer was provided last year). Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 3 Only 11 States (10 in 2009) (BE, CH, DE, DK, EE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, UK) reported having established a common set of procedures to manage specific traffic situations and/or to enhance the real-time airspace management between civil and military units involved in or concerned with cross-border activities. France responded “N/A”, explaining that this evolution will be addressed within FABEC however, LoAs are signed with adjacent AMC for CBA management. ECAA States: All ECAA States reported not having implemented the relevant requirements. There has been a slight improvement in 2010 but the overall level of implementation is not satisfactory. Almost half of the States reported not coordinating their airspace policy with their neighbours, which impacts negatively on the achievement of the objective to better accommodate the needs of the airspace users. In order to fulfil that objective, airspace policy should be a cooperative exercise by the concerned States in all cases of cross-border air traffic (civil or military), in particular in view of the forthcoming FAB developments. The reported relatively low number of cross-border CDRs can be explained by the fact that the need for such routes arises only where there is a TRA/TSA located close to a common State border. As for ASM Level 2, there has been a positive evolution noticed in 2010. The situation so far should be considered as normal under the circumstances, since a joint or multinational AMC applies only for those States that have established the CBAs. As for ASM Level 3, in the third year of reporting we are still far from reaching satisfactory level of implementation (11 States only out of 29). A number of States provided explanation that they plan to address it through the FAB initiatives.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 114/119
15.6 Safety Assessment Only two States (SI, UK) reported not having safety management process in order to conduct all 2010 27 2 safety assessment activities prior to the introduction of any changes to 2009 26 3 the FUA operations. However the UK reported that the major ANSP (NATS) currently 2008 23 6 employs an in-house system of safety assessment (LTC ATC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Procedures Safety Assessment - Yes No LAPSA) and any FUA change would be managed and overseen Figure 15-13: Safety Management process to conduct by a special body - ASSG-B (a sub- safety assessment of changes to operations group of the ASSG). The results show a very positive evolution over the last three reporting periods and a very good level of implementation.
States should implement the required safety management REC-2010-77 SI, UK processes as a matter of priority.
ECAA States: In Serbia, the respective safety management process is part of the SMATSA SMS. Croatia explained that, according to the Ordinance on the ASM (OG 138/2009) all proposed changes submitted to the National ASM board have to be safety assessed. FYROM reported there are no specific FUA coordination procedures due to the fact that the civil and military traffic is controlled by one ATS entity and conformity with Article 7 of Commission Regulation 2150/2005 will be ensured through the national Regulation for the airspace organisation and utilisation which is to be adopted by July 2011. A positive trend, since only two more States remain to establish safety management process. The reported information contains generally positive results of the implementation of the concerned requirements. Still, it should be reiterated that there should be no exception to apply the safety management process anytime when a change is planned within the application of the FUA concept and therefore recommendation below from last year should be additionally stressed. 15.7 Performance Assessment States were requested to confirm whether the functioning of agreements, procedures and supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA is evaluated in terms of safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 115/119
The States which reported not having the processes to carry out 0102030 the required performance 23 6 2010 Safety 20 9 2009 assessment are: 22 7 2008
. Safety: six States (BG, CZ, ES, 22 7 2010 LU, NL, SI). The Czech Capacity 19 10 2009 18 11 2008 Republic, the Netherlands and Spain reported that the work to 22 7 2010 Efficiency 19 10 2009 establish the processes is 18 11 2008 ongoing and/or planned to be 21 8 2010 implemented in 2011. Flexibility 18 11 2009 17 12 2008 . Airspace Capacity: seven Yes No States (BG, CZ, DK, ES, LU, NL, SI). Figure 15-14: Performance assessment conducted . Efficiency: seven States (CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU, NL, SI). . Flexibility: eight States (BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU, NL, SI) A modest positive trend can be observed but the level of implementation remains unsatisfactory, especially on the safety dimension of the assessment.
States should establish and implement the required processes for the evaluation of agreements, procedures and BG, CZ, DK, ES, REC-2010-78 supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA HU, LU, NL, SI covering the areas of safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility.
ECAA States: Montenegro and Serbia reported having a safety, airspace capacity as well as efficiency assessment in place but it is performed by the ANSP (SMATSA). In Croatia the finalisation of the FUA Concept application is pending. Other ECAA States reported not having yet any evaluation processes in place. Although there is some positive trend, the level of implementation of the establishment and implementation of processes for the evaluation of functioning of agreements, procedures and supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA is unsatisfactory. In particular, the safety dimension of the performance assessment is the key requirement. There should be no State that does not perform it. It is essential that the remaining States fulfil this requirement in the shortest possible term. 15.8 Compliance Monitoring States were asked to confirm whether they consider themselves to be fully compliant with the FUA Regulation. 23 States declared themselves fully compliant. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 116/119
However, some of the additional information provided questions this statement in a number of cases: 2010 23 6 . Cyprus stated that the national plan for the implementation of 2009 19 10 FUA is fully in line with Community legislation but it has not been fully implemented yet; 2008 16 13 . Hungary reported that the establishment of FUA 0 5 10 15 20 25 compliance monitoring process Yes No is in progress; Figure 15-15: State is fully compliant with the FUA Regulation . Malta reported numerous shortcomings in the previous sections of the report; . Switzerland reported that its FUA compliance monitoring process is under construction The six States which declared not being fully compliant are Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Norway and Slovenia. States were also asked to confirm the establishment of a FUA compliance monitoring process. 2010 21 8 9 States reported not having this process in place (CH, CZ, HU, IT, 2009 19 10 LV, MT, NO, SI). Most of them reported that the process is under preparation. 2008 13 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No
Figure 15-16: FUA compliance monitoring process
States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring CH, CZ, HU, IT, LV, REC-2010-79 process. MT, NO, SI
The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the means REC-2010-80 for establishing compliance monitoring processes. The EC European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practices in this area.
ECAA States: None of the ECAA States reported being fully compliant with the FUA Regulation and only Croatia reported that compliance monitoring process is in place. Serbia reported plans to achieve full compliance with the FUA Regulation in 2011. Croatia reported that a FUA Implementation plan is in its draft status and AMC is planned for 1 January 2013. There is a visible positive trend in the compliance with the Regulation (EC) Nº 2150/2005 as four more States this year reported full compliance as well as two more States that have established FUA compliance monitoring process. Progress on this issue needs to be carefully monitored and the States concerned should be asked to confirm the commitment to plans for compliance. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 117/119
15.9 Issues in the implementation of Regulation (EC) Nº 2150/2005 16 States (15 in 2009, 14 in 2008) did not report any difficulties or eventual need for changes in the FUA Regulation. As in 2009, the comments provided by States were very diverse. The majority of them are actually related to specific national issues and their direct relevance to the FUA Regulation. Different procedures were sometimes applied by neighbouring States. Interoperability issues related to data exchange with the neighbouring centres are reported, still being dependant on the networks and the FMTP status of these centres. Automation between different tools is also mentioned as a potential contributor to better application of the FUA in Switzerland and Germany. ECAA States: Only FYROM reported difficulties explaining a real need to replace the current civil military process at the strategic level by an institutional airspace management body and this is planned to be completed by July 2011. The problems listed should drive the provision of support to those States that repeatedly have not been able to solve them.
Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the REC-2010-81 States, whether to provide support through a dedicated EC event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed.
15.10 Conclusions
The 2010 reports and analysis show that good progress has been made by States in the continuous implementation of FUA. The institutional framework at strategic level has been put in place with very few exceptions. Given its importance for the definition, development and implementation of FUA policies at EU, FAB and national level, the level of activity and effectiveness of the high-level policy bodies should be increased. States should focus on implementing assessment procedures of the FUA operations as a matter of priority and should strive to implement these procedures in coordination and cooperation with neighbouring States in order to facilitate the performance of the entire network. At pre-tactical level, it can be seen that some States are adopting a too ‘by the book’ approach to the implementation of the Regulation. The ultimate goal of implementing the statutory requirements is not achieving a formal compliance but to use these obligations in order to achieve operational improvements through real civil-military cooperation and coordination. At tactical level, despite the already accrued experience and availability of acceptable means of compliance and the ASM Handbook, the differences in the interpretation of the obligation persist. In order to avoid inefficient application of FUA these differences should be investigated in more detail aiming to achieve harmonised interpretation.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 118/119
16. Conclusions
The original SES legislation was published in 2004. This report suggests that, during the intervening seven years, there has been significant progress in implementation of the legislation. In particular all States have established at least one National Supervisory Authority (NSA), the vast majority of ANSPs are certified and the majority are duly designated ANSP. The lack of resources for NSAs remains a key issue that must be resolved at the political level. The proper functioning of the Single European Sky can only be assured if the NSAs have sufficient resources for effective oversight in all areas including safety, interoperability and performance. The reporting of the arrangements for cross-border ANS provision has improved but still falls short of the required level. The data collected would suggest that there has only been a minimal increase in the State and NSA agreements necessary. This is disappointing – waiting for the establishment of FABs is an insufficient rationale. States must ensure that the legal basis for the provision of ANS in their sovereign territory is correctly established. Whilst all States have now established an annual inspection programme, analysis suggests that 13 States have not introduced an effective risk based approach to determining the inspection programme. The adoption of such an approach must be assured as part of the development of State Safety Plans. A further key concern is the application of conformity assessment (in 11 States no DoVs have been issued – this suggests that conformity assessment is not being correctly applied). Although it is still early to draw concrete conclusions, the level of NSA actions to ensure compliance for the IOP IRs may not be sufficient. The 2010 analysis shows good progress has been made by States in the continuous improvement of FUA. At the strategic level however further improvement is required especially in relation to performance monitoring. At all levels, States should focus on better cooperation and coordination with neighbouring States. Further more, the level of reporting and accuracy of data from some States was disappointing and has led to difficulty in performing the analysis. EUROCONTROL will continue to work with States to improve the data provided. The analysis also suggests that the level of progress from 2009 to 2010 is minimal in certain areas, given that 2012 is a pivotal year for implementation of the Single European Sky this is disappointing and suggests that various implementation dates may be at risk. The Madrid Declaration and Budapest Charter were issued during 2010 in order to underline the Commission’s, State and industry commitment to the implementation of the SES. The report underlines the need for concerted action. The ECAA States are also making progress in the implementation of the SES legislation – although the transposition mechanism through the ECAA agreement to national legislation can take time to achieve. The practical reality of ECAA States joining FAB initiatives will hopefully drive compliance even prior to formal adoption. In general four issues stand out: The level of progress in 2010 has slowed compared to previous years. The number of NSAs reporting significant staff shortages remains worryingly high. The legal arrangements required for cross border ANS are not being put in place in the majority of States. The level of compliance with the IOP implementing rules is beginning to cause concern. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 119/119
Urgent action is required to resolve these issues; but at the same time it must also be noted that 2010 was a busy year for new SES legislation, with the focus shifting from first to the second package of SES legislation. During 2010, implementing rules were adopted on: performance scheme, network management functions and information to be provided before establishment and modification of FABs. The airspace user community correctly expects significant benefits from the implementation of the SES, but it is also clear that many NSAs require support in understanding and implementing the legislation to ensure that State obligations are met. Two key initiatives which are underway to support the NSAs are: NSA Coordination Platform, which has created four working groups covering the key areas of Safety Oversight, Performance, Interoperability and NSA resources. NSA Peer Reviews. These are positive steps, but more is required. To support improvements in compliance, a total of 81 recommendations have been raised in this report. 12 are directed at the European Commission; in general they request that the Commission support States ensure a harmonised approach to the implementation. The Directorate of Single Sky of EUROCONTROL will make proposals to support national administrations where needed. Eight are directed at “All States” – these recommendations highlight specific areas of concern requiring widespread action. The remaining 61 recommendations are directed at specific States, and relate to concrete actions that States can take to improve their level of compliance. As a result of the analysis performed in writing this report, the European Commission will write to each State with the list of recommendations for further action including a request that States communicate the measures they are taking to ensure their NSAs are adequately resourced. Whilst this report does provide a snapshot of the status of SES legislation, the lack of progress in the last 12 months and in particular the apparent lack of process in ensuring compliance to the IOP IRs suggests that a report focussed more on NSA compliance would be useful, particularly if it was able to compare NSAs with similar situations. EUROCONTROL have therefore proposed to the Commission, that the next SES Annual Report is based around a balanced scorecard and benchmarking NSAs. The balanced scorecard would provide policy makers and the industry with a concise view of the level of compliance, resources and achievements of each NSA, whilst the benchmarking process would provide the NSAs themselves with comparators by which to judge their own performance. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 1
Annex 1 Summary of recommendations
The following table recapitulates the recommendations made in this report.
Number Text of Recommendation States Section 2: National Supervisory Authorities and their resources France should clarify which DGAC departments are formally NSAs REC-2010-1 FR and which provide services to the actual NSA. REC-2010-2 Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT [REC-2009-4] REC-2010-3 Portugal should confirm arrangements for the supervision of MET PT [REC-2009-5] service provision. The NSAs of Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-MIL should conduct the assessment of HR and submit their DK, ES-MIL, REC-2010-4 recruitment plans (if necessary) to their governmental authorities EE, GR, SI, as a matter of urgency. NSAs of Belgium and Luxembourg should update their REC-2010-5 assessment of HR taking into consideration the evolution in the BE, LU regulatory framework and associated tasks since 2008. States where NSA has submitted recruitment plans but they are AT, BG, CH, blocked or waiting for approval should take measures so they REC-2010-6 DE, HU, IT, comply with their obligation to ensure that NSAs have the LT, LU necessary resources and capabilities to carry out their tasks. Commission to apply pressure to those States where recruitment REC-2010-7 EC plans are on hold or awaiting approval. The European Commission should encourage States to continue looking for creative solutions (i.e. closer cooperation with other REC-2010-8 EC NSAs especially within FABs, secondment of staff from other [REC-2009-7] divisions of the regulatory authorities, etc.) to ensure that NSAs All States can perform their tasks despite the existing budgetary constraints. The Spanish military NSA should establish qualification criteria for REC-2010-9 auditors/inspectors and take measures to ensure that it avails ES-MIL itself of enough qualified personnel to conduct safety oversight. Bulgaria and Germany should continue their efforts to recruit/train REC-2010-10 sufficient number of qualified auditors for an effective conduction BG, DE of safety oversight. The European Commission should seek further clarifications from REC-2010-11 Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors EC [REC-2009-9] while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this SI task. REC-2010-12 The European Commission should investigate the use of Qualified EC [REC-2009-1] Entities. Section 3: Certification and designation of ANSPs Portugal and Slovenia should clarify the status of certificates for REC-2010-13 PT, SI their ANSPs. France, Portugal and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS REC-2010-14 CH, FR, PT providers are correctly designated. Germany should clarify the designation process as applied in REC-2010-15 DE Germany. Section 4: Cross-Border Provision of ATS Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 2
Number Text of Recommendation States Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, , Serbia BE, CH, DE, REC-2010-16 and Switzerland should ensure all CARs/CABs are correctly FR, HU, IT, reported. NL,RS Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands should re-visit their REC-2010-17 assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC is DE, LU, NL operating. Austria is requested to check its reporting of the Case B legal REC-2010-18 AT framework. AT, BE, CH, States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to CZ, DE, DK, resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. This concerns Austria, ES, FR, HU, REC-2010-19 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, IT, LU, MT, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, NL, NO, SE, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. SI, UK States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align the existing REC-2010-20 All States agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and REC-2010-21 establishing NSA arrangements for supervision of cross-border All States ATS provision even prior to FAB agreements being in place. NSAs should make use of the NSA Coordination Platform to REC-2010-22 All States address this issue. Section 5: Ongoing Compliance The EC and EASA (in the light of the upcoming standardisation inspections) should support the States to review the safety REC-2010-23 policies (relation with SSP (ICAO) and ESP (EASA)) and EC accelerate the adoption of risk based approach to ongoing compliance and safety oversight. Section 6: Consultation of Stakeholders AT, EE, FI, Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal REC-2010-24 HU, IT, LU, and Slovenia should seek to improve their consultation processes. PT, SI EC to remind all States of the importance of stakeholder REC-2010-25 consultation and to use FAB level processes to reduce the burden EC on stakeholders. Section 7: Safety oversight Belgium should clarify if the oversight manual includes the safety REC-2010-26 BE oversight report for 2009. The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance with the REC-2010-27 UK requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation EE, ES, GR, NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight REC-2010-28 MT, NL, NO, Report for 2009 should do so PT, SI NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL, BE, CH, DK, REC-2010-29 should take swift action to establish and implement the missing EE, ES, GR, processes with regard to safety oversight. HU, NO, SK Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for the REC-2010-30 LU oversight of ASM Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 3
Number Text of Recommendation States BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, NSAs should take measures to established and implement the REC-2010-31 ES-MIL, FI, necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM FR, GR, NL, NO, SE, SK Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within the REC-2010-32 AT limits of the Ministry of Transport The European Commission should take actions relating to the REC-2010-33 support to NSAs in the effective implementation of the safety EC oversight to ATFM and ASM functions. NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by DK, EE, ES- REC-2010-34 the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety related MET, ES- changes to their functional system should expedite this process MIL, GR, PT NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal DK, EE, ES- REC-2010-35 procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional MIL, IT, NO, systems proposed by their ANSPs PL The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional REC-2010-36 system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, EC (REC-2009-34) and inform the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument Section 8: Software Safety Assurance BE, CZ, EE, States should ensure that a compliant Software Safety Assurance REC-2010-37 GR, LU, NO, System is developed by the relevant organisations. PT, SK States should ensure that the software safety assurance system AT, DK, FI, REC-2010-38 of all relevant organisations is fully compliant with the Regulation. FR, SE AT, CY, DK, NSAs should verify that the certified ANSPs have a compliant EE, ES, GR, REC-2010-39 Software Safety Assurance System. LU, NL, PT, SE Section 10: Interoperability Estonia and Switzerland should ensure an adequate allocation of REC-2010-40 CH, EE tasks. Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland should CH, DK, EE, REC-2010-41 complete development of processes for supervision of conformity HU, IT assessment tasks. CY, CH, DK, The eight remaining NSAs should verify that their certified ANSPs ES-AESA, REC-2010-42 are capable of conducting conformity assessment tasks without ES-MIL, GR, recourse to a Notified Body. HU, LU AT, BE, CH, States should provide an explanation why no DoVs were CY, CZ, FR, REC-2010-43 necessary. GR, HU, LU, MT, NO EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and REC-2010-44 NCP-IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand EC the requirements for conformity assessment EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is REC-2010-45 EC applied in the ECAA States Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 4
Number Text of Recommendation States France, Sweden and Switzerland should verify compliance of their REC-2010-46 CH, FR, SE ANSPs with the COTR Regulation. The seven States where the ANSP has only partially implemented DK, EE, ES, the provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has not yet REC-2010-47 GR, HU, LU, verified compliance should ensure that regulatory requirements LV are met and verified. The three States where the ANSP has not implemented the REC-2010-48 provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has claimed to LT, NL, PL have verified compliance should review their statements. The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in the three REC-2010-49 AT, MT reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take GR, MT, NO, REC-2010-50 measures to ensure that all mandatory processes will be PT implemented by December 2012 The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that REC-2010-51 the non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight LU, MT, SI data processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all REC-2010-52 All States requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012 NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL CY, DK, EE, Regulation ES, FR, GR, REC-2010-53 IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, UK Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of the REC-2010-54 LU IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Latvia should clarify if they require DK, EE, FI, REC-2010-55 use of the transitional arrangements. LV Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland AT, DE, FR, and Romania should clarify why they have reported the intention REC-2010-56 GR, LT, NO, of using transitional arrangements whilst intending to comply with PL, RO the initial deadline. NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of REC-2010-57 compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS Regulation has been AT, HU, MT carried out. BE, CH, CY, NSAs should verify compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS REC-2010-58 DK, FR, GR, Regulation. RO Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland should BE, FI, LU, REC-2010-59 confirm that they have applied implemented all the applicable NL, PL provisions of the AGVCS Regulation All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are REC-2010-60 sufficiently robust to achieve the State obligations to meet the All States provision of the Interoperability IRs. Section 12: Air Navigation Charging The European Commission should urge the six States which have REC-2010-61 no effective enforcement measures in place to introduce such 6 States measures with no delay Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 5
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should request clarification from five REC-2010-62 5 States States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement Section 13: Functional Airspace Blocks The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should REC-2010-63 continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of inter- EC FAB cooperation and coordination FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary REC-2010-64 All States consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB relations Section 14: Air Traffic Flow management States should provide reference to the documents and procedures CY, FR, MT, REC-2010-65 required for the operations of the ATFM NL Section 15: Implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on the expected delay for REC-2010-66 SI full implementation of Level 1 which retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process States should establish measures to ensure consistency between REC-2010-67 ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information on the HU, LU, SI expected timelines States to provide the Commission with the information stipulated REC-2010-68 HU, MT, SI in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all the BG, CZ, DK, tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation EE, ES, GR, REC-2010-69 HU, MT, NL, NO, SE, SI States should establish an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) in REC-2010-70 LT, LV, SI compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation States should provide justification of the use of civil/military points REC-2010-71 of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of EE, LU the FUA Regulation States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with CY, EE, LU, REC-2010-72 adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and LV, MT, SE, communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks SI REC-2010-73 States should implement FUA at ASM Level 2 MT, SI States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the FUA CY, HU, LV, REC-2010-74 Regulation MT, NO, SI States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in AT, BG, CY, establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross- CZ, DK, ES, REC-2010-75 border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations GR, LT, MT, of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment NO, PL, RO, of FABs SI, SK States should establish with neighbouring States one common set AT, CZ, FR, REC-2010-76 of standards for separation between civil and military flights for IE, LU, MT, cross-border activities SE, SK States should implement the required safety management REC-2010-77 SI, UK processes as a matter of priority Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 6
Number Text of Recommendation States States should establish and implement the required processes for BG, CZ, DK, the evaluation of agreements, procedures and supporting systems REC-2010-78 ES, HU, LU, established at the three levels of FUA covering the areas of NL, SI safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring process CH, CZ, HU, REC-2010-79 IT, LV, MT, NO, SI The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the means for establishing REC-2010-80 compliance monitoring processes. The European Commission EC should also consult with States in identifying good practices in this area. Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, REC-2010-81 whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a EC workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed
The following table summarises the recommendations raised in the previous reports. Where the States 2-letter code is BOLD this indicates that the recommendation is still considered open. Note that recommendation numbers are presented using the format of this report, rather than the previous reports.
Number Text of Recommendation States
Recommendations from Reporting Period January to December 2009 The European Commission should investigate the reasons both for the limited use of Recognised Organisations by the NSAs and REC-2009-1 EC the lack of interest in companies in the sector to undergo the recognition process. Austria should be asked for clarification with respect to the REC-2009-2 allocation of the NSA’s responsibilities between the Minister of AT Transport and the CAA. The European Commission should seek clarification from Austria on how the process of appointment of its Recognised REC-2009-3 AT Organisations by decree is in compliance with the requirements of Article 10.1 of the safety oversight Regulation. The European Commission should seek advice from Austria on how it intends to ensure compliance in terms of supervision of REC-2009-4 AT, BE AFIS providers. Belgium should be asked to confirm whether it has any AFIS services. Portugal should be asked to review and advise its intentions in REC-2009-5 PT terms of independent supervision of MET provision. States should continue their efforts in providing their NSAs with REC-2009-6 sufficient and competent staff to ensure that the NSAs have the All States necessary capabilities to perform their tasks. The European Commission should encourage States to continue looking for creative solutions (i.e. closer cooperation with other REC-2009-7 NSAs especially within FABs, secondment of staff from other All States divisions of the regulatory authorities, etc.) to ensure that NSAs can perform their tasks despite the existing budgetary constraints. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 7
Number Text of Recommendation States The three NSAs that reported having no qualified safety REC-2009-8 auditors/inspectors (Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Spain-MIL) should BG, ES, LU take measures to address this issue as a matter of urgency. The European Commission should seek further clarifications from the NSAs (Germany, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-AESA) who DE, ES, GR, REC-2009-9 reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors while reporting SI not having established qualification criteria for this task. The European Commission should request Austria, Denmark, Italy and Lithuania to provide the details of the qualification criteria AT, DK, IT, REC-2009-10 established for safety auditors/inspectors and/or references to the LT relevant documents/Regulations. The European Commission should request Portugal and Italy REC-2009-11 clarification on the situation with respect to the certification of, IT, PT respectively, Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. and Altatoscana Spa. France should be requested to provide an update on the situation REC-2009-12 FR of the seven AFIS providers whose certificate expired in 2009. Given the great variety in the duration of validity of certificates, the NSAs should consider the possibility of harmonising the validity REC-2009-13 periods, especially in relation to FABs. This recommendation can All States [REC-2008-13] be extended to the harmonisation of ongoing compliance practices and cycles within FABs. Considering the small number of NSAs entrusted with competencies over military ANS provision to GAT, the European Commission should explore ways in which to ascertain that States that allow provision of such services without certification, as per REC-2009-14 Article 7(5) of the service provision Regulation, have nevertheless All States [REC-2008-14] implemented effective measures ensuring that theses services are provided in maximum compliance with the common requirements Regulation. Furthermore, the European Commission together with the States should explore how to facilitate harmonisation of the supervision of military ANS provided to GAT. The European Commission should request Germany and Hungary REC-2009-15 to provide all the required information on the designation of their DE, HU ATS and MET providers. The European Commission should request France to provide REC-2009-16 clarification on the situation regarding the designation of its 62 FR AFIS providers. The European Commission should urge Portugal and Switzerland REC-2009-17 to complete the designation process of all its ATSPs as soon as CH, PT possible. The European Commission should urge Cyprus to complete the REC-2009-18 CY designation process of its ATS and MET providers. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Norway AT, BE, BG, and Spain should provide the required information on the airspace REC-2009-19 CZ, ES, LT, blocks for which their ATS or MET providers have been NO designated. In order to avoid complications with different liability regimes, States/NSAs should ensure that a proper legal basis is in place for REC-2009-20 the provision of cross-border ATS and urgently establish the All States [REC-2008-21] appropriate arrangements for the supervision of ANSPs in this context. This process should commence as soon as possible irrespective of the progress on FABs. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 8
Number Text of Recommendation States The follow up should continue and be further refined, building on REC-2009-21 EC the extensive information collected within this 2009 cycle. The European Commission should request Germany to provide REC-2009-22 DE data in the requested level of detail. The European Commission should advise EASA on the situation REC-2009-23 regarding the need to ensure the certification of ANSPs from third EC countries that provide services in the SES airspace. The European Commission should request clarification from Germany, France, Norway, Portugal and Sweden as to the DE, FR, NO, REC-2009-24 reasons for not checking one or several of the certified providers PT, SE for ongoing compliance as the requirement is for all certified providers to be subject to annual monitoring. The European Commission should endeavour to assess whether the reported lack of resources in NSAs has an impact on the REC-2009-25 EC actual execution and effectiveness of the annual inspection programmes. The European Commission should highlight to the NSAs the goal REC-2009-26 and benefits of consultation of their indicative inspection EC programmes with ANSPs and other NSAs concerned. The European Commission should encourage the States to maintain and improve the consultation mechanisms, as these REC-2009-27 represent one of the main foundations of effective implementation. EC [REC-2008-47] States should be also encouraged to share applied good practices. Article 11.3(b) of Regulation (EC) 1070/2009 relating to the drafting of the national or FAB performance plans requires these shall be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders. In this REC-2009-28 context, States may have to assess the effectiveness of the All States current fora in the light of the legally binding nature of the performance targets for ANS and ensure the necessary involvement and commitment of all parties. The European Commission should require that clear and comprehensive identification of the annual safety oversight reports REC-2009-29 EC should be ensured by the States/NSAs by indicating the appropriate references and/or a correct web-link. States should ensure that NSAs provide the full legal references REC-2009-30 to their documented procedures or national regulations relating to All States safety oversight activities. The European Commission should clarify if it accepts that States use the SES implementation Annual report submitted as part of REC-2009-31 EC LSSIP as a means of compliance with Article 14.1 of the safety oversight Regulation. In order to ensure full and effective implementation of safety BE, BG, DK, oversight by the NSAs in compliance with the safety oversight EE, ES, FI, REC-2009-32 Regulation there is a need to expedite developing NSAs’ FR, LU, NL, arrangements and processes for the supervision of ASM and NO, PT, SE ATFM functions. NSAs should ensure that they produce and update an REC-2009-33 assessment of the human resources needed as required by All States Article 11 of the safety oversight Regulation Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 9
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional REC-2009-34 system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, EC and inform the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument. Greece should expedite initiating safety oversight of ANS by its REC-2009-35 GR NSA in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation. The European Commission should clarify with Austria the issue of REC-2009-36 shared responsibility for ASM related safety oversight between AT NSA and ANSP. States that have reported only partially compliant should review AT, BE, CY, their situation and make efforts to complete implementation for the CZ, DE, DK, REC-2009-37 full scope of applicability of this Regulation. EE, GR, LU, NO, PT, RO, SE The European Commission should request Luxembourg to REC-2009-38 communicate the full text of the provisions transposing the LU Directive into national law. Belgium, Cyprus and Italy should be asked to provide their plans REC-2009-39 for appointment of competent medical bodies or medical BE, CY, IT examiners. The European Commission should continue to support the efforts by the States to raise the level of commitment for the REC-2009-40 establishment of FABs from the level of ANSPs to the highest EC policy-making authorities in the States going beyond the areas ATM/ANS, as appropriate. The States, European Commission and interested parties should increase the frequency and scope of inter-FAB coordination and cooperation so as to achieve a significant positive effect on the REC-2009-41 All States network and manage successfully the wide variety of complex issues that would not be limited only to intra-FAB State boundaries. The States who are members of the Baltic, Danube, Spain - Portugal FAB should be asked to provide a target implementation LT, PL, BG, REC-2009-42 date and details of the nature and timing of the intermediary RO, ES, PT phases required leading to implementation. The European Commission should note the apparent lack of a common view on the meaning of the term “implementation” and REC-2009-43 EC clarify the difference between FAB establishment and FAB implementation. The European Commission should require those NSAs that have CH, CY, DK, not done so, to verify that the ANSPs running verifications EE, ES-MIL, REC-2009-44 activities themselves, without involving a Notified Body, fulfil the GR, HU, LU, conditions laid down in the legislation. NL, NO The European Commission should continue supporting the currently on-going work to achieve a harmonised interpretation REC-2009-45 and granularity of systems further to their present definition in EC [REC-2008-40] Annex I to the interoperability Regulation as well the identification of constituents. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 10
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should request the seven States who AT, CH, CY, advised no EC declarations of verification of systems to confirm CZ, DK, EE, REC-2009-46 that no systems have been put into service in the reporting period. GR, HU, IT, MT, NO The European Commission should maintain the proactive REC-2009-47 approach through provision of timely clarifications, identification of EC needs for dedicated support, promotion of best practices, etc. The European Commission should remind the nine States who reported implementation plans with dates beyond the end of the transitional arrangements (20 April 2011) of their report on the AT, CY, DK, REC-2009-48 SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2009 – EE, FI, IE, IT, December/2009 114/116 obligation to meet the required deadlines NO, PL and further, ask what they intend to do to redress priorities to ensure a breach does not occur. The European Commission should ask Denmark, Ireland and Slovenia why, having reported implementation was completed in REC-2009-49 DK, IE, SI the previous report, they are now reporting only plans for implementation. As the responses do not show any particular implementation problem and confirm the good level of awareness and REC-2009-50 EC understanding it is recommended to remove the questions related to this Regulation from the future reporting exercises. The European Commission, together with EUROCONTROL, REC-2009-51 should investigate the differences found between the reported and EC coordinated frequency conversions. As the responses do not show any particular implementation problem and confirm the good level of awareness and understanding it is recommended to remove the questions related REC-2009-52 EC to this Regulation from the future reporting exercises, pending the approval of the updated Regulation dealing with the deployment of 8.33 kHz communications in the airspace below FL 195. The European Commission should maintain the proactive approach through provision of timely clarifications, identification of REC-2009-53 EC needs for dedicated support, promotion of best practices, etc., in order to clarify the apparent misunderstandings The European Commission to maintain the proactive approach through provision of timely clarifications, identification of needs for dedicated support, promotion of best practices, etc., in order to REC-2009-54 EC raise the awareness of the stakeholders with regard the applicable regulatory requirements as well as the impact of these requirements on their systems. The European Commission should urge the six States which have REC-2009-55 no effective enforcement measures in place to introduce such measures with no delay. The European Commission should request clarification to the REC-2009-56 other six States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement. The European Commission should address the situation where 10 CY, CZ, ES, REC-2009-57 States have not established assessment mechanisms for the FUA IE, LV, MT, [REC-2008-50] performance and encourage these States to expedite NL, SE, SI, implementing such mechanisms. SK Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 11
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should consider whether any specific clarification or dedicated support is needed by the States which REC-2009-58 have not yet introduced FUA at ASM Level 1 but where the civil EC [REC-2008-51] and military users nevertheless share the national airspace (Ireland and Slovenia), so that these States implement the FUA requirements at ASM Level 1 which are respectively necessary. The ten States who have not notified the European Commission CY, DE, FR, of the identified persons/organisations in accordance Article 4.1 of GR, HU, LV, REC-2009-59 the FUA Regulation should do so as a matter of priority. MT, NL, RO, SI Considering the poor application of FUA assessment process and REC-2009-60 review of airspace procedures, the development of some form of EC guideline material that details this process should be considered. The European Commission should clarify to States that, whenever REC-2009-61 there is any form of interactive civil/military airspace utilisation, EC [REC-2008-52] they should implement some form of ASM Level 2 (planning for airspace reservation). There is a need to emphasise the critical importance of establishing coordination procedures permitting direct REC-2009-62 communication of relevant information in order to resolve specific EC [REC-2008-55] traffic situations or concerns wherever civil and military controllers are providing services in the same airspace. The European Commission should encourage States to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for REC-2009-63 the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main EC foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment of FABs The European Commission should urge those States that have REC-2009-64 yet to implement safety management processes to address this LV, SI issue as a matter of priority. The European Commission should clarify to States that no exception should be made and/or allowed in establishing effective REC-2009-65 EC processes for the evaluation of the functioning of agreements, procedures and supporting systems from a safety standpoint. The European Commission should seek clarification from those BG, CY, CZ, REC-2009-66 States who previously reported compliance in the previous DE, ES, NL reporting period and not confirming it in 2009. The European Commission should remind States that REC-2009-67 performance assessments in the areas of airspace capacity and EC [REC-2008-57] efficiency are required to achieve the objectives of the FUA implementation The European Commission should emphasise to the States the AT, BG, CH, importance and necessity of effective compliance self-monitoring CY, DK, EE, REC-2009-68 and request those States who do not meet the requirements to ES, HU, IE, [REC-2008-58] advise their plans for compliance. IT, LV, MT, NL, NO, SI, SK The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the definitions and differences REC-2009-69 between inspections, surveys and safety audits in the context of EC [REC-2008-59] compliance monitoring. The European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practice as to what should be the frequency of such activities. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 12
Number Text of Recommendation States Given the issues noted in the sub-sections on Compliance Monitoring, the European Commission should consider, in REC-2009-70 consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a EC [REC-2008-62] dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed. Recommendations from Reporting Period July 2007 to December 2008 The European Commission should consider what actions/mechanisms should be put in place in order to ascertain REC-2008-1 that the NSAs established or nominated by the States are indeed EC fully operational, legally empowered and adequately resourced to fulfil their tasks. The European Commission should clarify with France the situation REC-2008-2 of DIRCAM, whether this entity is a second NSA or a Recognised FR Organisation. The European Commission should consider clarifying the situation of several States (France, Germany) which reported not having REC-2008-3 implemented the economic oversight function in their respective DE, FR, NO NSAs, or where the reported information was ambiguous (Norway). The European Commission should clarify the situation reported by two States (Portugal and Malta) where NSA responsibilities are REC-2008-4 PT, MT discharged by the ANSPs in respect of ATCO licensing and interoperability. The European Commission reminds the States which have not yet made the necessary provisions for their NSAs, that it is a legal REC-2008-5 obligation not only to establish an NSA but also to ensure that it EC has the necessary authority and resources to carry out its tasks as laid out in the SES legislation. Considering the shortcomings reported by some States as regards their NSAs limited resources and the need to ensure harmonised implementation of the SES legislation, the European Commission and the States should put more effort in encouraging REC-2008-6 All States the NSAs to cooperate, share best practice, make use of available expertise, inter alia of Recognised organisations; and, last but not least, make arrangements for the development of advisory material, where deemed necessary. The issues of the adequate resourcing of NSAs and of their competence should be monitored more closely in the next annual REC-2008-7 EC reporting cycle, especially having in mind their future obligation under SES II to develop performance plans. While the list of areas reported as difficult to implement will not be detailed in this report, the European Commission should raise this REC-2008-8 issue with the Single Sky Committee as a priority, considering the EC serious increase of tasks facing NSAs under the forthcoming SES II performance scheme and SESAR implementation. Efforts should be put forth at Community and State levels to overcome the impediments to the implementation of a more REC-2008-9 EC cooperative approach. This recommendation, however, does not necessarily imply additional legislative measures. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 13
Number Text of Recommendation States It is recommended that, where the legislation lays down a requirement that States must designate national authorities to carry out specific tasks, the European Commission should clarify if that designation has to be notified to the European Commission REC-2008-10 EC even where the legislation does not explicitly require so. Since this may require legislative amendments, the European Commission may prefer to clarify the issue in a communication or by any other appropriate instrument. It is also recommended that, to avoid duplication of work, the REC-2008-11 European Commission accepts the information in the SES Annual EC Reports as official notification. Considering that the provision of ANS in the Community shall be subject to certification, the European Commission should urge the REC-2008-12 States which have not yet done so (Greece, Luxembourg and GR, LU, PT Portugal) to expedite their certification processes as soon as possible. Considering the great variety in the duration of validity of certificates, the European Commission and the NSAs should REC-2008-13 EC envisage the possibility of harmonising the validity periods, especially in relation to FABs. Considering the small number of NSAs entrusted with competencies over military ANS provision to GAT, the European Commission should explore ways in which to ascertain that States that allow provision of such services without certification, as per Article 7(5) of Regulation Nº 550/2004, have nevertheless REC-2008-14 EC implemented effective measures ensuring that theses services are provided in maximum compliance with the common requirements. Furthermore, the European Commission together with the States should explore how to facilitate harmonisation of the supervision of military ANS provided to GAT. The requirement for the NSAs to check the on-going compliance DK, ES, FR, REC-2008-15 of all certified providers should be applied without exception. LV, MT, RO Considering that Regulation (EC) N° 2096/2005 provides no clarity as to what is meant by “risks associated with the different operations” and “the evidence at the disposal of the NSAs”, it is REC-2008-16 recommended that the European Commission identifies and EC assesses the existing advisory material or practices on these topics, e.g. in the safety area, for consistency with this Regulation, and that new guidelines are developed if deemed necessary. The European Commission should remind the States that, according to the current legislation in force, the verification of REC-2008-17 EC compliance is a responsibility of the NSAs and that Recognised Organisations can also be used in this process. The European Commission should clarify with Germany, Hungary, CH, DE, HU, REC-2008-18 Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland the situation in respect of PT, SE certified but not designated ATSPs. The European Commission should clarify with Italy the situation in REC-2008-19 IT respect of designated but not certified ATSPs. The European Commission should monitor the completion of the REC-2008-20 GR, LU designation process in Greece and Luxembourg. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 14
Number Text of Recommendation States In order to avoid complications with different liability regimes, States/NSAs should ensure that a proper legal basis is in place for the provision of cross-border ATS and urgently establish the REC-2008-21 All States appropriate arrangements for the supervision of ANSPs in this context. This process should commence as soon as possible irrespective of the progress on FABs. The European Commission should clarify how to proceed in the REC-2008-22 case where cross-border services are provided by an ATSP from EC an ECAA or third country. In order to enable the clear identification of the airspace blocks concerned by cross-border ATS provision and monitor the REC-2008-23 EC application of the SES Regulations in these blocks, this issue should be followed up in more depth in the next reporting cycle. The European Commission should assess possible ways in which to support the States in expediting their efforts to transpose the Directive. Furthermore, the States that have not communicated REC-2008-24 EC the transposition details to the European Commission should be encouraged to do so, mentioning their corresponding national legislative acts. The European Commission should note that the current text of Annex II, Part A of the Directive refers to EUROCONTROL “Guidelines for air traffic controller Common Core Content Initial REC-2008-25 EC Training”, dated 10 December 2004, while a new EUROCONTROL specification for ATCO Training is already available. The European Commission should consider reminding the States to ensure the application of enforcement measures in addition to judicial procedures and thereby contribute to a ‘collective’ system. REC-2008-26 For this, it may be necessary for the European Commission to EC clarify that compliance with Article 14 of the Regulation would require effective measures such as denial of services or detention of aircraft, in addition to judicial measures. The European Commission may consider requesting Estonia, DK, EE, FI, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, HU, LU, LV, REC-2008-27 Denmark, Portugal, Slovenia, UK, and Norway to clarify the NL, NO, PT, situation in respect of their application of Article 9(4) of Regulation SE, SI, UK (EC) N° 1794/2006. The European Commission may consider requesting Estonia to REC-2008-28 EE clarify the modalities of the reported incentive schemes. The European Commission may consider publishing the list of exempted airports (Annex 7) as a first step in application of Article 1.5. As of now, States should provide updated lists as part of the REC-2008-29 EC documentation submitted on terminal costs and charges pursuant to Articles 8 and 15 and published on the European Commission website. The European Commission may consider requesting Luxembourg REC-2008-30 LU to clarify if the State applies or not Article 1.6. The European Commission should clarify to the States that their annual reports should accurately display the reality as regards the REC-2008-31 implementation of this Regulation. States should be reminded that EC they cannot claim achievement or compliance with a legal act before it has come into force. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 15
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should clarify with Germany the REC-2008-32 DE declared absence of plans as regards full implementation. The European Commission should clarify with Luxembourg and REC-2008-33 Belgium which State is responsible for Luxembourg airspace BE, LU classification above FL 135. The European Commission should urge States that it is not only for the ANSPs to put forth serious efforts towards the full establishment of the FABs. This also applies as regards creating REC-2008-34 an effective inter-FAB coordination so as to achieve a significant EC positive effect on the network and manage successfully the wide variety of complex issues that would not be limited only to intra- FAB State boundaries. The different initiatives currently demonstrate significant differences in speed and depth. This, however, may be partially REC-2008-35 streamlined through the introduction in SES II of a deadline for EC FAB implementation, implementing rules and the new focus on performance-driven and optimised service provision. The European Commission, as the regulator, and the States, in carrying out their legal obligations, should collaborate in order to review the current FAB project plans and estimations aiming to REC-2008-36 minimise the risks of delays in meeting the forthcoming deadline EC of SES II. The European Commission should assess possible means in supporting the States to manage those risks accordingly. The development of implementing rules and guidance material for REC-2008-37 FABs foreseen in the SES II should be considered as one of the EC highest priorities in the short-term. The Baltic FAB States used their report as a means to communicate relevant issues to the European Commission in addition to discharging their respective annual reporting obligation. This practice should be encouraged as it would allow REC-2008-38 All States the European Commission to better streamline its support to States in accordance with their needs and to identify common problems and their possible solutions through enhanced coordination and cooperation; The fact that FABCE and Blue MED involve non-SES States poses the question (also under Cross-Border Provision of ANS) REC-2008-39 on how to handle certification, designation and supervision of the EC providers which are not bound by the SES Regulations. The European Commission should clarify this issue. The European Commission should continue supporting the currently on-going work to achieve a harmonised interpretation REC-2008-40 EC and granularity of systems further to their present definition in Annex I to Regulation (EC) Nº 552/2004. The European Commission, in cooperation with the States, should REC-2008-41 analyse the possible causes and impact of the reportedly very low EC number of Notified Bodies. The European Commission should clarify to States that the Annual reports are intended to provide consistent information on their implementation progress, to the extent possible, and not just REC-2008-42 EC about meeting the set deadlines. This presumes that States should report consistently on their implementation actions even in advance of the target dates; Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 16
Number Text of Recommendation States Considering the complexity of achieving a harmonised implementation of this Regulation, the European Commission should take a proactive approach to increase its monitoring to REC-2008-43 EC States in this respect, e.g. by providing timely clarifications, identifying the need for dedicated support, promoting enhanced coordination, etc. The same recommendations apply as in the case of Regulation REC-2008-44 EC (EC) Nº 1032/2006 (COTR). The same recommendations apply as in the case of Regulation REC-2008-45 EC (EC) Nº 1032/2006. The European Commission should clarify what measures States REC-2008-46 should specifically take in order to ensure compliance with the EC IFPS Regulation. The European Commission should encourage the States to REC-2008-47 maintain and improve the consultation mechanisms, as these EC represent one of the main foundations of effective implementation. In relation to the upcoming SES II, given the need for timely sharing of information and combined efforts by all involved in the achievement of the performance targets, the European REC-2008-48 EC Commission may consider establishing a practice by which States and all relevant stakeholders would meet regularly in a wide consultation forum. Also in relation to the upcoming SES II, the European Commission should assess the possibility of supporting the creation of inter-State consultation forums involving all relevant REC-2008-49 stakeholders - the FAB projects being the obvious first choice. EC However, given the wide variety of consultation areas in respect of SES definition and implementation, some of the existing forums could be adapted and used to this purpose. The European Commission should address the situation where 11 States have not established assessment mechanisms for the FUA REC-2008-50 EC performance and encourage these States to expedite implementing such mechanisms. The European Commission should consider whether any specific clarification or dedicated support is needed by the States which have not yet introduced FUA at ASM Level 1 but where the civil REC-2008-51 and military users nevertheless share the national airspace (e.g. CY, IE, MT Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Slovenia), so that these States implement the FUA requirements at ASM Level 1 which are respectively necessary. The European Commission should clarify to States that, whenever REC-2008-52 there is any form of interactive civil/military airspace utilisation, EC they should implement some form of ASM. It should be also clarified that even if a State considers the implementation of a fully fledged AMC as not necessary in that REC-2008-53 particular case, some form of airspace management coordination EC is nevertheless necessary, e.g. through a focal point ensuring effective implementation of the required ASM Level 2 functions. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 17
Number Text of Recommendation States The European Commission should consider the noted potentially critical safety issue and envisage a dedicated assistance to those States that do not exchange information on the position of aircraft REC-2008-54 EC and information on flight intentions. These elements must be considered critical to successful application of FUA and will be followed-up for further clarification in the next reporting cycle. There is need to emphasise the critical importance of establishing coordination procedures permitting direct communication of REC-2008-55 relevant information in order to resolve specific traffic situations or EC concerns wherever civil and military controllers are providing services in the same airspace. The European Commission should encourage States to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for REC-2008-56 EC the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA. The European Commission should remind States that performance assessments in the areas of airspace capacity and REC-2008-57 EC efficiency are indispensable means to achieve the objectives of the FUA implementation. The European Commission should emphasise to the States the REC-2008-58 EC importance and necessity of effective compliance self-monitoring. The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the definitions and differences between inspections, surveys and safety audits in the context of REC-2008-59 EC compliance monitoring. The European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practice as to what should be the frequency of such activities. Considering the very low number of States that reported meeting the obligation to inform the European Commission of the outcome of their inspections, surveys and safety audits for the purpose of REC-2008-60 EC compliance monitoring, this specific issue will be elaborated in the Reporting Template and should be followed up more closely as of the next reporting cycle. The European Commission should consider whether it wishes to REC-2008-61 reply to any of the individual comments made by the States as EC regards their respective identified problems. Given the issues noted in the sub-sections on Compliance Monitoring, the European Commission should consider, in REC-2008-62 consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a EC dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice. Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 18
Annex 2 List of NSAs
State Name of the NSA Separation from MIL13 Legal Basis the ANSP
AT CAA (Oberste Zivilluftfahrtbehörde) Institutional Aviation Act
BE Belgian Supervising Authority for Air Institutional Law of 25 July 2006 (Article 48 – 51) and Royal Decree of 14 February 2006 – NSA. Navigation Services (BSA–ANS)
BG DGCAA Institutional EC Regulation 549/2004, the provisions of Civil Aviation Act and the DGCAA structural regulation
CH Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) Institutional SR Number 748.0 "Bundesgesetz über die Luftfahrt (LFG)". Article 3 and SR Number 748.132.1 “Verordnung vom 18. Dezember 1995 über den Flugsicherungsdienst” Article 2, Absatz 1
CY National Supervisory Authority for Air Functional Article 8B of the Civil Aviation Act 213 (I) 2008 and Council of Ministers decision no. Navigation Services, Department of 62.376 of 21.7.2005 Civil Aviation (DCA), Ministry of Communications and Works.
CZ Civil Aviation Authority (Úřad pro civilní Institutional Civil Aviation Act No. 49/1997 Coll. letectví)
DE Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung Functional, Federal law, dated 29 July 2009 (BAF) institutional and organisational
DK Danish Transport Authority Institutional. AIM is Air Navigation Act (Consolidated Act no. 1484 of 19 December 2005 with the separated amendments following § 97 of Act no. 538 of 8 June 2006, § 5 of Act no. 542 of 8 June functionally 2006, Act no. 242 of 21 March 2007, and § 31 of Act no. 512 of 6 June 2007)
EE Estonian Civil Aviation Administration Institutional Aviation act § 7 (ECAA)
ES Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea Organisational Law 28/2006, of 18 July, on State agencies for public services improvements.
13 NSA has competences on military issues
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 19
State Name of the NSA Separation from MIL13 Legal Basis the ANSP
(Air Safety State Agency). Royal Decree 184/2008, of 8 February, through which the remit and organisation of the Air Safety State Agency was approved.
ES Deputy Chief Air Force Staff Functional Directive 12/2007, from Chief Air Force Staff, on the SES Regulations implementation in the Spanish Air Force.
ES Secretary of State for Climate Change Institutional Real Decreto 1443/2010 por el que se desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del (Only Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. MET) (Royal Decree 1443/2010, laying down the basic structure of the Ministry of the Environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs)
FI Liikenteen turvallisuusvirasto; Finnish Institutional Aviation Act (1194/2009), Transport Safety Agency Act on the Finnish Transport Safety Agency (863/2009), Decree on the Finnish Transport Safety Agency (865/2009)
FR « Direction du transport aérien » (DTA) Functional Decree n° 2008-680 dated 9 July 2008, on the organisation of the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable development, and Country planning Decree n° 2009-1609 dated 18 December 2009, assigning to the DTA tasks as national supervisory authority in the field of performance oversight (with the exception of safety) and charging oversight related to national air navigation services
GR Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Functional Law 3446/2006 establishes the NSA Authority (HANSA) Presidential Decree 150/2007 covers the organization, the staffing and the responsibilities of the NSA Presidential Decree 103/2010 lays down the NSA’s operating regulation
HU Directorate for Air Transport of Institutional Act XCVII. of 1995, National Aviation Act and Government Decree No.263/2006.(XII.20.) National Transport Authority (NTA DAT)
IE IAA/SRD Functional (1) Aviation Regulation Act 2001 (2) Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 (3) Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993 (4) SES legislation
IT Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile - Institutional ENAC, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority, has been appointed as regulator and National ENAC Supervisory Authority in November 2004 with dedicated law 265/2004. This appointment has been included in the new version of basic code of Air Law (change to Italian
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 20
State Name of the NSA Separation from MIL13 Legal Basis the ANSP
Navigation Code) in Italy - issued in June 2005 - thus completely implementing the separation of regulation and safety oversight from the service provision. ENAC is also responsible for the regulation for environmental matters in ATM.
In the airspace/airports under military responsibility, ITAF is authorized to provide ANS to civil traffic in General Air Traffic (GAT) without certification (ref EC 550/\2004 Article 7 paragraf 5) and according special agreements signed by MOT and MOD (Ref Air Navigation Laws).
ITAF is designed to generate functional separation between High Level Body (SMA- USAM) accountable for ANS regulation/supervision and units responsible for the provision of ANS (Major Commands).
Performances and capability levels related to ANS provisions by ItAF to civil air traffic are strictly related to: - the fullfillement of the military priorities and functions defined by MOD; - the financial resources allocated for the specific function on the yearly Air Force budget; - the strength of human resources authorized for the specific function.
LT Lithuanian CAA Institutional By 13 May 2005 Order No 3-233 of Ministry of Transport & Communication on Implementation of SES Regulation in Republic of Lithuania CAA Lithuania is nominated as National Supervisory Authority.
LU Direction de l'Aviation Civile (DAC) Institutional “Loi modifiée du 19 mai 1999 ayant pour objet d’instituer (…) une Direction de l’Aviation Civile”. For the NSA it is defined through the SES Regulation. The NSA has been appointed by Ministerial decision.
LV Department of Air Transport, (MoT) Institutional Law on Aviation
LV Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia (LCAA) Institutional Law on Aviation; Regulation of Cabinet of Ministers No 808 “Regulation on State Agency “The Civil Aviation Agency” 25-10-2005.
MT Civil Aviation Directorate – Transport Institutional Civil Aviation (Provision of Air Navigation Services) Order, LN 281/2006 Malta (CAD-TM)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 21
State Name of the NSA Separation from MIL13 Legal Basis the ANSP
NL (Part of) the Transport and Water Organisational The Aviation Act (Article 11.1(2)), last amended in Sept 2007 (State Journal 2007, 405) Management Inspectorate, within separation of IVW and the Ministerial Decree (Article 2a(3)) concerning the establishment of IVW, last MoI&M from LVNL, MUAC; amended May 2008 (State Journal 26 May 2008): IVW is the nominated NSA (IVW, “Inspectie Verkeer en Functional Waterstaat”) separation from KNMI (certified MET services provider).
NO Civil Aviation Authority Norway Organisational Norwegian Civil Aviation Act (Luftfartsloven) Air Navigation Consolidation Act No. 543 of 13 June 2001 as amended, Minsterial Order Nr 795 of 3 September 2001.
PL The Civil Aviation Office Institutional Polish Aviation Law of July the 3rd, 2002
PT INAC, I.P. (Instituto Nacional de Organisational/Stru Decree–Law no. 145/2007, 27 April. Aviação Civil, I.P.), except for ctural and Meteorology, which is outside of the functional. scope of INAC, I.P.
RO Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority Separation from Aviation Act of Romania approved by Government Ordinance no. 29/1997 concerning the (RCAA) for all specific tasks of NSA, ANSP (ROMATSA) Civil Air Code of Romania with further amendments, except the security matters – Organisational, MoT Order no. 1185/ 2006, designating RCAA as NSA for all the specific tasks of NSA, institutional. except the security matters which are in the responsibility of MoT–DGCA (published in Separation from Monitorul Oficial No. 602 of 12 July 2006); AIS Dept. within MoT Order no. 11/2008, approving the national regulation entitled RACR–SSNA ed. RCAA functional 2/2008, 'Supervision and Designation of the ANSPs' (published in Monitorul Oficial No. 42 of 18 January 2008); procedural documents, to implement and apply the supervision processes of ANSPs in accordance with the SES Regulations, named PIAC–SSNA – Part I, ed. 01/2006, PIAC– SSNA – Part II, ed. 01/2007 and PIAC–SSNA, Part III, ed. 01/2007. These procedural documents have been approved by Decisions of the Director general of the RCAA and published on RCAA's web–site;
RO MoT–DGCA only for security matters. MoT–DGCA: MoT–DGCA is acting as the NSA in the field of civil aviation security based on the Institutional provisions set in the Aviation Act, Government Decision No. 443/2005 concerning the separation both approval of the National Civil Aviation Security Programme, further amended by from ANSP Government Decision No. 533/2008 and Government Decision No. 1869/2005 for the (ROMATSA) and approval of National Quality Control Programme on civil aviation security. RCAA.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 22
State Name of the NSA Separation from MIL13 Legal Basis the ANSP
SE Swedish Transport Agency Institutional Luftfartslag (1957:297) – Civil Aviation Act Luftfartsförordning (1986:171) – Civil Aviation Ordinance Förordning (2008:1300) med instruktion för Transportstyrelsen – Ordinance laying down the Statute for the Swedish Transport Agency
SI The Ministry of Transport Functional, Amendment of Aviation Law, No 113, dated 6 November 2006 Organisational and Institutional.
SK CAA SK Institutional Civil Aviation Act
UK Civil Aviation Authority Institutional The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), a public corporation, was established by Parliament in (ATCO 1972. The CAA is the UK's independent specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include Licensing, Engineerin economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection. g & The CAA has been appointed as the NSA under a Statutory Instrument, the Single technical staff, European Sky (National Supervisory Authority) Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument Interopera 2004 No. 1958). bility) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041958.htm See the following link for more information. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=1
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 23
Annex 3 List of Certified ANS Providers
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted AT Austro Control GmbH Y Y Y Y Y 19/11/2010 Unlimited N subject to ongoing compliance BE Belgocontrol Y Y Y Y 01/06/2007 31/05/2013 N BG Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Y Y Y Y 21/06/2007 21/06/2012 N Authority (BULATSA) CH Skyguide Y Y Y Y 20/12/2006 19/12/2012 N CH MeteoSchweiz Y 21/12/2006 20/12/2012 N CH Engadin Airport Y 01/06/2007 31/05/2013 Y Derogations from Annex I - Part 2: Organisational structure and management - Part 3.2: Quality management system - Part 3.3: Operations manuals - Part 4: Security - Part 6: Financial Strength - Part 7: Liability and insurance cover - Part 8.2: Contingency plans - Part 9: Reporting requirements
Derogations from Annex II - Part 3.1.2: Safety management responsibility as well as external services and supplies - Part 3.1.3: Safety surveys - Part 3.2: Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation with regard to changes CY Cyprus ANS (CYANS) of DCA Y Y Y Y 21/06/2009 21/06/2012 N CY MET Service Y 18/06/2009 Unlimited N CZ Air Navigation Services of the Y Y Y Y 01/12/2010 01/12/2016 N Czech Republic (ANS CR) CZ Czech Hydro-Meteorological Y 07/06/2007 07/06/2011 N Institute (CHMI) CZ Vodochody Airport Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2012 N CZ Aircraft Industries Y 12/10/2009 11/10/2011 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 24
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted DE DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Y Y Y Y 30/11/2006 Unlimited N GmbH DE The Tower Company GmbH Y Y 26/03/2007 Unlimited N DE Deutscher Wetterdienst DWD Y 14/03/2007 Unlimited N German Meteorological Service DE Airbus Deutschland GmbH Y Y 20/06/2007 30/11/2011 N DE Rhein–Neckar-Flugplatz GmbH Y Y 17/09/2008 31/08/2012 N DE Black Forest Airport Lahr GmbH Y Y 13/04/2007 30/04/2011 Y - Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and (Aerodrome Control services for management Lahr) - Annex I, Parts 3.2 and 3.3 - Annex I, Part 4 – Security - Annex I, Part 6 – Financial Strength - Annex I, Part 7 – Liability and insurance cover - Annex I, Part 8.2 Contingency Plans - Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements DE BAN 2000 GmbH Y 22/06/2009 22/06/2014 N DE Thales ATM Navigation GmbH Y 18/05/2007 30/04/2011 Y - Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management - Annex I, Parts 3.2 and 3.3 - Annex I, Part 4 – Security - Annex I, Part 6 – Financial Strength - Annex I, Part 7 – Liability and insurance cover - Annex I, Part 8.2 Contingency Plans - Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements DK Naviair Y Y Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK AFIS Sindal (EKSN) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 Y The AFIS providers – except AFIS Tyra have been granted derogations for the following paragraphs in EU 2096/2005: Annex 1: 2.1 Organisational structure 2.2 Organisational management 4. Security (a), (b) - establishing a security management system (a), (b), (c) – defining the establishing a security management system 7. Liability and insurance cover 9. Reporting requirements
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 25
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted Annex 2: 3.1.2. Requirements for safety achievement – bullet five only 3.1.3. Requirements for safety assurance – bullet one only 3.2 Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation with regard to changes DK AFIS Stauning (EKVJ) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 Y As above DK AFIS Sønderborg (EKSB) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 Y As above DK AFIS Esbjerg (EKEB) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 Y As above DK AFIS Odense (EKOD) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 Y As above DK AFIS Vamdrup Y 15/02/2007 15/02/2013 Y As above DK AFIS Tyra (EKGF) Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N (DMI) DK Luftfartsinformationstjenesten Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N (AIM) DK Aarhus Airport Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK Billund Airport Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK NAVAID Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK Henrik Hansen Elektronik Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N DK Kastrup Airport Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N EE EANS Y Y Y 22/12/2008 21/12/2012 N EE Estonian Meteorological and Y 21/12/2008 21/12/2011 N Hydrological Institute (EMHI) EE Tallinn Airport Y Y Y Y 10/06/2008 15/06/2011 N ES Aena Y Y Y 19/12/2006 19/12/2012 N ES AEMET Y 20/12/2006 20/12/2012 N ES INECO Y Y AFIS: AFIS: N 11/06/2010 11/06/2011 ATS: ATS: 10/11/2010 10/11/2011 FI Finavia Corporation Y Y Y Y Y 20/12/2006 20/12/2012 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 26
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted FI City of Mikkeli Y Y Y 31/05/2007 31/05/2013 Y Annex I, Part 3.2; Quality Management System Annex I, Part 8.2; Contingency Plans Annex II, Part 3.2; Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation regarding changes FI Rengonharju foundation Y Y Y 31/05/2007 31/05/2013 Y Annex I, Part 2.2; Organisational management Annex I, Part 3.2; Quality Management System Annex I, Part 8.2; Contingency Plans Annex II, Part 3.2; Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation regarding changes FI Finnish Meteorological Institute Y 20/12/2006 20/12/2012 N FR ESSP Y 12/07/2010 11/07/2014 N FR DSNA Y Y Y Y 15/12/2010 14/12/2016 N FR METEO FRANCE Y 01/12/2010 30/11/2016 N FR CFA Y 12/12/2008 12/12/2012 N FR DIRISI Y 30/06/2010 29/06/2014 N FR COMALAT Y 18/06/2007 18/06/2011 N FR ALAVIA Y 14/06/2007 14/06/2011 N FR CEV Y 06/12/2007 06/12/2011 N FR DIA Y 18/06/2007 18/06/2011 N FR Collectivité de Saint Barthélemy Y 20/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y Regulation (EC) 2096/2005 Annex 1 Articles (SAINT-BARTHELEMY Apt.) 2.2, 3.2, 4, 6, 8.2 and 9, Annex 2 Article 3.2 FR Régie autonome de l’aéroport de Y 20/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above Saint Martin Grand Case (SAINT- MARTIN GRAND-CASE Apt.) FR Commune de saint Bon Y 30/06/2008 30/06/2011 Y As above Courchevel (COURCHEVEL Altiport Apt.) FR Chambre de commerce et Y 23/12/2010 31/12/2014 Y As above d’Industrie du Cantal (AURILLAC Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above Aérodrome Départemental Le Puy en Velay / Loudes (Le Puy en Velay Loudes Apt.)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 27
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted FR Aéroports de Lyon (Lyon BRON Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 30/06/2008 30/06/2012 Y As above d’Industrie de Moulins-Vichy (MOULINS Montbeugny Apt.) FR Grand Roanne Agglomeration Y 23/12/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above (ROANNE Renaison Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion de Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above L’aerodrome de Saint Flour - Coltines (SAINT-FLOUR Coltines Apt.) FR Commune de Vichy (VICHY Y 30/06/2010 30/06/2014 Y As above Charmeil Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et de Y 22/06/2010 30/06/2012 Y As above l'Industrie d’Amiens (AMIENS Glisy Apt.) FR Syndicat mixte pour Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above l’aménagement et l’exploitation de l’aérodrome de Valenciennes- Denain (VALENCIENNES Denain Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 27/05/2010 20/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie de l'Yonne (AUXERRE Branches Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 21/06/2009 21/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie du Doubs (BESANCON la Veze Apt.) FR Société d’Exploitation de Vatry Y 15/12/2009 17/12/2013 Y As above Europort (S.E.V.E.) (CHALONS Vatry Apt.) FR Société de l’Aéroport de Colmar Y 20/06/2008 20/06/2012 Y As above SAS (COLMAR Houssen Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 12/06/2009 21/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie de Dijon (DIJON Longvic Apt.)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 28
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 21/06/2008 20/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie du Jura (DOLE Tavaux Apt.) FR Société d’exploitation de l’aéroport Y 28/05/2010 27/05/2012 Y As above d’EPINAL Mirecourt Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de l’aérodrome du Y 17/09/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above Pays de Montbéliard (MONTBELIARD Courcelles Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion de Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above l’Aéroport de Nancy (NANCY Essey Apt.) FR Chambre de commerce et Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above d’industries de la Nièvre (NEVERS Fourchambault Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above d’Industrie de Reims et d’Epernay (REIMS Prunay Apt.) FR Société de Gestion de l'Aéroport Y 01/06/2010 20/05/2012 Y As above de Troyes en Champagne (TROYES Barberey Apt.) FR Société d'exploitation Chalon Y 08/11/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above Champforgueil aéroport (CHALON Champforgueil Apt.) FR Société de Gestion de l’Aéroport Y 21/06/2008 21/06/2011 Y As above d’Angers Marcé (ANGERS Marcé Apt.) FR Communauté de Communes de Y 16/06/2010 21/06/2012 Y As above Belle-Île-en-Mer (BELLE ILE EN MER Apt.) FR Conseil général du LOIR et CHER Y 16/06/2010 30/06/2014 Y As above (Blois Le Breuil Apt) FR Chambre de Commerce et de Y 27/10/2010 30/10/2013 Y As above l'Industrie du Cher (BOURGES Apt.) FR Aéroport Chateauroux Centre Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 29
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted (CHATEAUROUX Déols Apt.) FR Ville de Cholet (CHOLET Le Y 29/09/2009 30/09/2012 Y As above Pontreau Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et de Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above l'Industrie de DIEPPE (DIEPPE Saint Aubin Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 21/12/2009 31/12/2012 Y As above d’Industrie Centre et Sud Manche (GRANVILLE Apt.) FR Syndicat Intercommunal de Y 21/06/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above l’Aéroport de La Baule-Escoublac - Pornichet - Le Pouliguen (LA BAULE Escoublac Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie de la Vendée (La Roche sur Yon les Ajoncs et l’île d’Yeu Le grand Phare Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de l’Aéroport de Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above Laval et de la Mayenne (S.M.A.L.M.) (LAVAL Entrammes Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above d’Industrie de Morlaix (MORLAIX Ploujean Apt.) FR SMAEDAOL (ORLEANS Saint Y 30/06/2009 30/11/2011 Y As above Denis de l'Hôtel Apt.) FR Commune de Ouessant Y 11/06/2010 21/06/2014 Y As above (OUESSANT Kerlaouen Apt.) FR Commune de Quiberon Y 21/12/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above (QUIBERON Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte Aéroport Saint- Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above Brieuc Armor (St BRIEUC Armor Apt.) FR Société d’exploitation Tours – Y 21/12/2010 31/03/2011 Y As above Aéroport SNC-Lavalin (TOURS Val
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 30
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted de Loire Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de Pierrefonds Y 31/12/2009 31/12/2013 Y As above (Saint Pierre Pierrefonds Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte de l’aérodrome civil Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above d’Albi-Le Séquestre (ALBI Le Séquestre Apt.) FR Société d’Economie Mixte du Gers Y 15/10/2010 31/10/2013 Y As above (AUCH Lamothe Apt.) FR Régie personnalisée d’exploitation Y 15/06/2010 30/06/2012 Y As above (BRIVE Souillac Apt.) FR Syndicat mixte Aérodrome Cahors Y 08/10/2009 31/10/2011 Y As above Lalbenque (CAHORS Lalbenque Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 30/09/2009 30/09/2011 Y As above d'Industrie de Castres-Mazamet (CASTRES Mazamet Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above d’Industrie de Montlucon-Gannat Portes d’Auvergne (MONTLUCON Gueret Apt.) FR Syndicat Mixte pour Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above l’Aménagement et l’Exploitation de l’Aérodrome d’Intérêt Départemental de Pamiers-Les Pujols (PAMIERS les Pujols Apt.) FR Chambre de commerce et Y 21/06/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above d’industrie d'Alès et des Cévennes (ALES Deaux Apt.) FR AUSAT (GAP Tallard Apt.) Y 25/10/2009 21/12/2011 Y As above FR Aéroport du Golfe de Saint-Tropez Y 07/12/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above (La MOLE Apt.) FR Société Aéroport International du Y 12/10/2009 30/09/2011 Y As above Castellet (Le CASTELLET Apt.) FR Mairie de Lézignan Corbières Y 19/02/2009 28/02/2011 Y As above (LEZIGNAN Corbières Apt.)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 31
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted FR Chambre de commerce et Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above d’industrie de La Lozère (Mende- Brenoux Apt.) FR Chambre de Commerce et Y 30/06/2009 29/06/2012 Y As above d’Industrie d’Angouleme (Angoulème Brie-Champniers et Rochefort Saint-Agnant Apt.) FR Communauté d'Agglomération du Y 30/06/2008 29/06/2011 Y As above bassin d'Arcachon Sud (ARCACHON La Teste de Buch Apt.) FR Commune de Périgueux Y 21/12/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above (Périgueux-Bassillac Apt.) FR Commune de ROYAN (ROYAN- Y 21/06/2009 20/06/2012 Y As above Médis Apt.) FR SEAAP - Société Exploitation Y 22/10/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above Aéroport Albert Picardie (ALBERT BRAY Apt.) FR Société d’exploitation de l’aéroport Y 03/01/2011 30/06/2011 Y As above de Toulouse Francazal (TOULOUSE Francazal Apt) GR Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority / Y Y Y Y 25/06/2010 25/06/2011 N Air Navigation Services (HCAA/ANS) GR Hellenic National Meteorological Y 20/05/2010 20/05/2013 N Service (HNMS/MET) HR Croatia Control Ltd. Y Y Y Y 31/03/2009 Unlimited N until revocation HU HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. Y Y Y Y Y 29/10/2010 31/10/2014 N HU Budapest airport (CNS) Y 29/11/2010 30/11/2012 N HU National Weather services Y 23/09/2008 30/09/2012 N HU FlyBalaton LHSM airport Y 15/04/2010 30/04/2011 Y - Safety management responsibility and external services and supplies (part 3.1.2) - Safety surveys (part 3.1.3)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 32
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted - Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation regarding changes (part 3.2) HU Debrecen LHDC airport Y Y 03/07/2009 31/08/2011 N HU LHPP Pécs-Pogány Y Y 17/06/2009 31/08/2011 Y - Safety management responsibility and external services and supplies (part 3.1.2) - Safety surveys (part 3.1.3) - Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation regarding changes (part 3.2) HU Békéscsaba Y Y 21/05/2009 27/05/2011 Y As above HU Győr-Pér Y Y 29/05/2009 31/08/2011 Y As above HU Nyíregyháza Y Y 05/06/2009 31/08/2011 Y As above HU Szeged Y Y 13/05/2009 19/05/2011 N IE IAA Operations Directorate Y Y Y Y 27/11/2010 25/11/2012 N IE IAA Technology Directorate Y 27/11/2010 22/11/2012 N IE Waterford Airport Y Y Y Y 27/11/2010 26/11/2012 Y - Annex I, Part 2.2 – Annual plan (a), (b) and (c) - Annex I, Part 4 – Second (a), (b) and (c) - Annex I, Part 6.1 – Financial Strength - Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements IE Kerry Airport PLC Y Y Y Y 06/12/2010 04/12/2012 Y As above IE Galway Airport Y Y Y Y 27/11/2010 26/11/2012 Y As above IE Ireland West Airport Knock Y Y Y 27/11/2010 25/11/2012 Y As above IE Sligo Airport Co LTD Y Y Y Y 27/11/2010 25/11/2012 Y As above IE Donegal Airport Y Y Y Y 27/11/2010 25/11/2012 Y As above IE Weston Airport Y Y Y Y 06/12/2010 04/12/2012 Y As above IE Met Eireann (Aviation Services Y 06/12/2010 04/12/2012 N Division) IT ENAV S.p.A Y Y Y Y Y 20/06/2009 20/06/2011 N IT AVDA SpA Y Y 20/06/2009 20/06/2011 N IT Aeroporto Reggio Emilia s.r.l Y 19/09/2009 18/09/2011 Y - Safety management responsibility and external services and supplies (part 3.1.2) - Safety surveys (part 3.1.3) - Safety requirements for risk assessment and
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 33
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted mitigation regarding changes (part 3.2) IT Società Aeroporto Cerrione SpA Y Y Y Y 09/03/2010 09/03/2012 Y As above (Biella) IT Aeroporto Lucca SpA Y Y Y 14/10/2010 14/10/2012 Y As above IT Alatoscana SpA (Elba Marina di Y Y Y 20/01/2011 19/01/2013 Y As above Campo Airport) IT Aeroporto di Siena SpA Y Y Y 02/02/2009 31/01/2013 Y As above IT GE.AR.TO SpA (aeroporto Tortolì) Y Y Y 04/06/2009 03/06/2011 Y As above IT Aeroporto G. Caproni Trento SpA Y Y Y 21/09/2009 20/09/2011 Y As above IT SOGEAOR Y Y 10/05/2010 09/05/2012 Y As above LT ORO NAVIGACIJA, the Air Y Y Y Y 21/12/2006 21/12/2012 N Navigation Service provider in Lithuania LT Lithuanian Hydro-Meteorological Y 19/06/2008 18/06/2014 N Service Provider?? LU Administration de la navigation Y Y Y Y 07/12/2009 07/12/2011 N aérienne (ANA) LV State Joint-Stock Company Y Y Y Y Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 N Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS) LV Latvian Environment, Geology and Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 N Meteorology Agency (LEGMA) MK M-NAV Y Y Y Y 10/03/2010 10/03/2012 N MT Malta Air Traffic Services Limited Y Y Y Y 11/06/2007 11/06/2013 N (MATS) MT Malta International Airport plc (MIA) Y 11/06/2007 11/06/2013 N NL Air Traffic Control Netherlands Y Y Y Y 14/03/2007 Unlimited N (LVNL, “Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland”) NL Maastricht UAC Y 08/11/2006 Unlimited N NL KNMI Y 21/02/2007 Unlimited N NL Meteo Consult Y 10/08/2007 Unlimited N NO Avinor Y Y Y Y Y 01/06/2009 01/06/2019 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 34
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted NO Oslo Airport Y 01/06/2009 01/06/2012 N NO Statoil Y Y Y 01/11/2009 01/11/2014 Y Annex 1; part 2.2, Part 4, Part 6.1, Part 9. Annex II; Part 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.3. NO ConocoPhillips Y Y Y 01/11/2009 01/11/2014 Y As above NO Sunnhordland Airport Y Y 01/06/2009 01/06/2019 Y As above NO Skien Airport Y Y 01/06/2009 01/06/2019 Y As above NO Notodden Airport Y Y 24/11/2009 01/06/2019 Y As above NO Kings Bay AS Y Y 01/11/2009 01/06/2011 Y As above NO Store Norske Spitsbergen Y Y ? ? Y As above Grubekompani AS NO Meteorologisk Institutt (met.no) Y 01/07/2007 01/05/2013 N PL Polish Air Navigation Services Y Y Y 18/06/2008 17/06/2011 N Agency PL Institute of Meteorology and Water Y 07/08/2008 22/04/2011 N Management (IMGW) PT Navegação Aérea de Portugal - Y Y Y 11/12/2008 11/12/2011 N NAV Portugal, E.P.E. PT Câmara Municipal de Bragança Y 20/02/2009 28/02/2011 Y For AFIS providers derogations have been granted on: Annex I - point 2.2 - point 6 - point 8.2 - point 9 (§1, 2, and 4) Annex II - External services and supplies (part 3.1.2); - Safety surveys (part 3.1.3); - Safety requirements for risk assessment and mitigation regarding changes (part 3.2). For CNS providers derogations have been granted on: Article 4, point 1 Annex I - point 2.2 - point 6 - point 8.2 - point 9 (§1, 2, and 4)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 35
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted PT Câmara Municipal de Chaves Y 30/10/2009 30/10/2011 Y As above PT Câmara Municipal de Portimão Y 28/06/2010 28/06/2012 Y As above PT Vila Real Social, Habitação e Y 20/02/2009 28/02/2011 Y As above Transportes, E.M. PT Academia Aeronáutica de Évora Y 28/06/2010 28/06/2012 Y As above PT Câmara Municipal de Évora Y 19/03/2009 19/03/2011 Y As above PT SATA Gestão de Aeródromos, S.A Y Y AFIS: AFIS: Y As above 10/03/2009 15/03/2011 CNS: 17/06/2011 PT Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. Y* *Not yet N/A certified RO Regia Autonoma Romanian Air Y Y(onl Y Y Amd. 2 15/12/2012 N Traffic Services Administration – y PIB) 30/12/2009 ROMATSA RO AIS Dept. within RCAA Y 20/06/2009 20/06/2011 N (exce pt PIB) RS SMATSA Y Y Y Y 16/04/2010 16/04/2014 N SE LFV Y Y Y Y Y 20/12/2006 19/12/2012 N SE SMHI Y 02/04/2007 02/04/2013 N SE Arvika kommun Y Y Y 05/06/2009 14/06/2015 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements SE European Air Cargo AB Y Y Y 01/09/2010 13/06/2012 Y As above SE Kinnarps AB Y Y Y 14/03/2007 13/03/2013 N SE Gällivare kommun Y 14/03/2007 13/03/2013 N SE Gävle kommun Y Y Y 20/06/2007 19/06/2012 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 4 – Security SE Hagfors kommun Y Y Y 01/09/2010 02/06/2011 Y As above SE Hemavan Tärnaby Airport AB Y Y Y 18/11/2010 28/05/2013 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 36
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted SE Kramfors/Sollefteå Flygplats AB Y Y Y 14/03/2007 13/03/2013 N SE Lidköping/Hovby Flygplats AB Y Y Y 29/05/2007 28/05/2013 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 4 – Security SE Lycksele kommun Y Y Y 01/09/2010 19/12/2012 N SE AB Dalaflyget Y Y Y 01/09/2010 13/03/2013 N SE Oskarshamns Utveckling AB Y Y Y 01/09/2010 28/05/2013 N SE Pajala kommun Y Y Y 18/05/2009 17/05/2011 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements SE Skövde Flygplats AB Y Y Y 28/03/2007 27/03/2013 N SE Storumans Flygplats AB Y Y Y 18/11/2010 28/05/2013 N SE Härjedalens kommun Y Y Y 01/09/2010 28/05/2013 N SE Torsby Flygplats AB Y Y Y 01/09/2010 19/12/2012 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements SE Vilhelmina kommun Y Y Y 01/09/2010 28/05/2013 N SE Arvidsjaur Flygplats AB Y 20/06/2007 19/06/2012 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management SE Cityflygplatsen i Göteborg AB Y 20/06/2007 19/06/2012 Y As above SE Fyrstads Flygplats AB Y 20/06/2007 19/06/2012 Y As above SE Halmstad Flygplats AB Y 21/06/2007 20/06/2012 Y As above SE Kristianstad Airport AB Y 14/06/2007 13/06/2012 Y As above SE Småindustrilokaler i Klippan AB Y 21/06/2007 20/06/2012 Y As above SE Linköping City Airport AB Y 29/05/2007 28/05/2013 N SE Stockholm Skavsta Flygplats AB Y 20/06/2007 19/06/2012 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management Annex I, Part 9 – Reporting Requirements SE Söderhamns kommun Y 14/03/2007 13/03/2013 N SE Västerås Flygplats AB Y 21/06/2007 20/06/2012 Y Annex I, Part 2 – Organisation’s structure and management SE Växjö Flygplats AB Y 14/06/2007 13/06/2012 Y As above SE Örebro Läns Flygplats AB Y 29/05/2007 28/05/2013 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 37
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted SI Slovenia Control Ltd. Y* Y* Y* Y* 21/12/2008 21/12/2010 N *In the end of 2010 the renewing of ANSPs certificates validation was in progress. Because of insufficient resources the process was aggravated. SI Agency for Environment of Y* 21/12/2008 *As above N Republic of Slovenia. SK Letové prevádzkové služby Y Y Y Y 12/12/2006 Unlimited N Slovenskej republiky (LPS SR) SK Slovak Hydrometeorological Y 12/12/2006 Unlimited N Institute (SHMU) UK Airways Aero Associations Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption. Elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Air Caernarfon Ltd Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Albemarle Shoreham Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Argyll & Bute Council Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK ATC Lasham Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK BAE Systems Marine Ltd (Walney Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Island)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 38
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted UK BAE Systems (Aviation Serivces) Y Y Y 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Ltd (Bristol Filton) UK BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above (Warton and Woodford) UK Belfast City Airport Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Bickerton’s Aerodromes Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex (Denham) 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Blackbushe Airport Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Blackpool Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK British International Ltd (Penzance) Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK City Airport Manchester Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above (Barton) UK CODA (Operations) Ltd Y Y Y 01/04/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Cornwall Airport Limited (Newquay) Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Council of The Isles of Scilly (St Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex Mary’s) 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 39
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Cormack (Aircraft Services) Ltd Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above (Cumbernauld Airport) UK Dundee Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Enniskillen Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Exeter & Devon Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Fairoaks Airport Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Gloucestershire Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Goodwood Road Racing Company Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Ltd UK Herefordshire Aero Club Ltd Y Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y As above (Shobdon) UK Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Imperial War Museum Duxford Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 40
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Infratil Airport Europe Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Kemble Air Services Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Leeds Bradford International Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N Airport UK Leicestershire Aero Club Ltd Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK London Ashford Airport Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK London Southend Airport Company Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Ltd UK Manchester Airport Group plc Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex Ltd 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 41
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted UK Met Office Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Mid Wales Airport Ltd (Welshpool) Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Montclare Shipping Co. Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above (Elstree) UK NATS NERL Y Y Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK NATS NSL Y Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Newcastle International Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Norwich Airport Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Oxford Aviation Services Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Peel Airports Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Pembrokeshire County Council Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Plymouth City Airport Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 42
State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Valid Until Derogation Type of Derogation Certificate Granted UK Radarmoor Limited (Wellesbourne) Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Redhill Aerodrome Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Rochester Airport plc Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Serco Ltd Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N UK Shenley Farms (Aviation) Ltd Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y Derogations have been granted against Annex (Headcorn) 1, Section 2.2 and 9 only. Within regard to these areas only, derogation has been applied as a compliance exemption; elsewhere, the UK NSA’s policy on all other derogable requirements is that each ANSP’s control measures (management systems) should be scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements. UK Sherburn Aero Club Ltd Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Shetland Islands Council (Tingwall) Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Shuttleworth Old Warden Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Aerodrome UK Stobart Air Ltd (Carlisle Airport) Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Sywell Aviation Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Tatenhill Aviation Ltd Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Westland Helicopters Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK West Wales Airport Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above UK Westward Airways (Land’s End) Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above Ltd UK Wolverhampton Airport Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 43
Annex 4 List of Certified Training Providers
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified AT AUSTRO CONTROL Y 04-2009 unlimited All training in accordance with EC Directive. BE Belgocontrol Y 10-02-2009 10-02-2015 Basic training ATCO basic, rating and refreshment trainings as well as the BG BULATSA Training centre Y 14-11-2009 14-11-2012 different type of endorsement trainings. CH Skyguide Training Center Y 26-09-2010 25-09-2013 ATCO, SRT Sky Watch Aerodrome FİSO FİSO CH Training Provider Y 25-06-2009 24-06-2011 Department of Civil Aviation Initial Basic, CY Training Unit Y 20-10-2009 ––––– ADİ(TWR),APP,ACS(RAD). CZ ANS CR Y 16-11-2009 15-11-2013 TWR, APP, ACC CZ Vodochody Airport Y 20-12-2010 20-12-2012 TWR, APP CZ Aircraft İndustries Y 30-09-2010 31-12-2011 TWR DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Initial ATCO–Training DE GmbH Y 02-12-2008 unlimited DE TTC The Tower Company Y 30-12-2009 unlimited Initial ATCO–Training DK Naviair Y 01-12-2005 Renewal every 2nd year Practical ATC Training. A total of 8 Approval Certificates (units). Mittarfeqaarfiit, Greenland Airport Practical ATC Training. 1 unit (DK/ATC/001). DK Authority Y 24-11-2005 30-11-2012 SİU, Mittarfeqaarfiit, Greenland Theoretical ATC training, Basic Training only (DK/ATM/103). DK Airport Authority Y 19-12-2007 30-11-2012 DK SAC Y 06-07-2007 30-04-2012 Theoretical ATC training, Basic Training only (DK/ATM/102) DK Naviair (Theoretical Training) Y 09-10-2009 31-10-2012 Theoretical ATC training, Basic all levels (DK/ATM/104). Air Traffic Control Basic Training EE Estonian Aviation Academy Y 06-03-2009 30-06-2011 Rating Training ACS, ADV/ADİ, APP, APS(RAD) ES N n/a n/a Training for military Air Traffic Controllers Servicios y Estudios para la – Navegación Aérea y la Seguridad Aeronáutica, Sociedad Anónima (SENASA, S.A.)(Services and Studies for ES the Air Navigation and the Y 07-12-2010 06-12-2015
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 44
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified Aeronautical Safety) İngeniería y Economía del – Transporte, Sociedad Anónima (İneco, S.A.)(Engineering and ES Economy of Transport) Y 02-12-2010 01-12-2015 The Ministerial Order FOM/1841/2010, secondary legislation developing the requirements for the certification of the civil air traffic control officers training providers, was published in the Official Journal on 9 July 2010. The Royal Decree 1516/2009 gives AESA a deadline of one year after the publication of the secondary legislation for the certification of the providers (Disposición Aena (Aeropuertos y Navegación transitoria cuarta).The application has been already received and is Aérea)(Airports and Air being processed with the view of certifying this provider by the first ES Navigation) N – – quarter of 2011. ATCO Initial training FI Avia College Y 12-05-2009 Until further notice Continuation training ATCO Unit training Continuation training Finavia Corporation, Air Training of on–the–job training instructors FI Navigation Services Y 17-05-2010 17-05-2013 Training of competence assessors FR ENAC Y 12-07-2010 02-07-2011 Initial training FR CRNA/Est Y 15-04-2008 14-04-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR CRNA Nord Y 21-04-2008 20-04-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR CRNA Ouest Y 15-04-2008 14-04-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR CRNA Sud Est Y 15-04-2008 14-04-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR CRNA Sud Ouest Y 21-04-2008 20-04-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Antilles Guyane Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Centre Est Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Nord Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Nord Est Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Ouest Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Océan İndien Y 11-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Région parisienne Roissy Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 45
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified SNA Région parisienne Orly et Unit training and continuation training FR Aviation générale Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 FR SNA Sud Y 05-05-2008 05-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Sud Est Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Sud Ouest Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR SNA Sud Sud Est Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011 Unit training and continuation training FR CİCDA Y 16-12-2010 24-08-2012 Initial training FR ALAVİA Y 28-10-2010 28-10-2013 Unit training and continuation training FR BACE Y 28-10-2010 28-10-2013 Unit training and continuation training FR CFCCAT Y 28-10-2010 28-10-2013 Unit training and continuation training FR DGA–CER Y 17-01-2011 28-10-2013 Unit training and continuation training "HCAA/Civil Aviation Training SPOA is certified in accordance with National Law. GR Center" (SPOA) N – – Certification by HANSA is pending. – initial training, providing basic and rating training, leading to the grant of a student licence; – unit training, including transitional training prior to on–the–job training and on–the–job training, leading to the grant of an air traffic controller licence; – continuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence valid; – training of on–the–job training instructors, leading to the grant of the instructor endorsement; HU HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. Y 26-06-2008 30-06-2013 –English language endorsement training. AFİS initial training, rating training, Pécs Pogányi RepülQteret –continuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence HU MqködtetQ Ltd. Y 27-01-2010 31-01-2015 valid, Tréner RepülQgép–vezetQ AFİS initial training, rating training, oktató, szolgáltató és –continuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence HU kereskedelmi Ltd. (Nyíregyháza) Y 22-04-2010 30-04-2015 valid, AFİS initial training, rating training, –continuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence HU Szegedi Közlekedési Ltd. Y 29-07-2010 31-07-2015 valid, HU Bekes Airport Ltd. (Bekescsaba) Y 22-12-2010 31-12-2015 AFİS rating training, continuation training, keeping the
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 46
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified endorsements of the licence valid, HUSK, Faculty of Transport and First cert. ATCO Basic Training HR Traffic Sciences Y 05-06-2009 ext. to 07-07-2013 Training courses for– Student ATCO İrish Aviation Authority – Additional ratings IE Technology & Training Y 23-11-2010 22-11-2012 Licence endorsements IT ENAV S.p.A. Y 06-2009 06-2011 all Initial Air Traffic Controller training, unit training and development LV ANS Training Centre Y 24-09-2008 Unlimited training. LV Riga Aeronautical İnstitute Y 06-09-2010 Unlimited Initial Air Traffic Controller training Air traffic controller training: – Unit training – Continuation training – Refreshing training Air traffic electronics specialist training: – Unit training SE Oro navigacija Training – Continuation training LT Centre Y 01-10-2010 01-10-2011 – Refreshing training Vilnius Gediminas Technical Initial training of air traffic controllers University Antanas Gustaitis' LT Aviation İnstitute Y 30-09-2010 30-09-2011 Not applicable, no training – LU provider. – – – Pre On The Job Training Course ADİ On The Job Training Course ADİ On The Job Training Course APS On The Job Training Course ACS MT Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd. Y 29-10-2010 28-10-2013 Refresher Training using İANS e–learning The certificate is valid All as per ATCO licensing Directive Article 2.12 (Initial training, Unit Air Traffic Control Netherlands whilst the organisation training, Continuation training, training of OJT instructors and (LVNL, Luchtverkeersleiding remains compliant with training of examiners/assessors NL Nederland) Y 28-05-2008 the attached conditions NO Avinor Y 29-07-2009 29-07-2014 ATCO Unit training and parts of institutional rating training
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 47
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified University of North Dakota Ab initio institutional training ADİ, APS, ACS NO Aerospace Foundation Y 05-01-2010 01-06-2013 PL PANSA Training Provider Y 15-11-2010 14-11-2011 ATCOs, FİSOs Polish Air Force Academy ATCOs, FİSOs PL Training Provider Y 05-10-2010 04-10-2012 Basic Training Training for ADV, ADİ, ADİ/RAD, APP, ACP, APS/RAD, ACS/RAD and TCL qualifications/endorsements Development Training (courses for OJTİ, Operational Supervisor, CİSM, Operational competency assessment, etc) Refresher Training, Emergency Training and Conversion Training PT NAV Portugal, E.P.E. Y 21-12-2010 20-12-2013 Courses *An application for the certification of training organization has been received from ROMATSA according to the letter no. RO ROMATSA N* – – 19788/10.11.2010 and for the time being it is under review. Entry Point North AB, Nordic Training Organisation for personnel in Air Traffic Service SE ATS Academy Y 18-08-2009 17-08-2015 SE Lappland Aviation Academy AB Y 27-10-2009 26-10-2015 Training Organisation for personnel in Air Traffic Service SE LFV ANS Utbildning Y 30-09-2009 24-02-2015 Training Organisation for personnel in Air Traffic Service SK Letecká akola ilinskej University Y 03-11-2006 01-02-2011 ATCO Initial Training (Basic training/theoretical part) SK LPS SR, a.p. Y 19-08-2008 01-11-2012 Full range of ATCO Training Technical University of Koaice, ATCO Initial Training (Basic training/theoretical part) SK Faculty of Aeronautic Y 05-10-2010 15-11-2011 SI Slovenia Control Ltd. Y 30-10-2009 30-10-2010 ATCO's, ATSEP's UK Airways Aero Associations Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Albemarle Shoreham Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK ASTAC Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Initial, Unit and Continuation UK ATC Lasham Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Bae Systems (Operations) Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation Bae Systems (Aviation Services) Unit and Continuation UK Ltd Y 01-09-2010 31-12-2011 UK Belfast City Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 48
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified UK Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Blackpool Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Cornwall Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Council of the İsles of Scilly Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK CODA (Operations) Ltd Y 01-04-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Dundee Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Exeter & Devon Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Gloucestershire Airport Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Highlands & İslands Airports Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK İnfratil Airport Europe Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Leeds Bradford İnternational Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK London Ashford Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation London Southend Airport Unit and Continuation UK Company Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 UK Manchester Airport Group Plc Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation Marshalls of Cambridge Unit and Continuation UK Aerospace Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 NATS En–Route Plc NATS En– Initial, Unit and Continuation UK Route College' Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 UK NATS (En–Route) Plc Unit' Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK NATS (Services) Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation Newcastle İnternational Airport Unit and Continuation UK Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 UK Norwich Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Oxford Aviation Services Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK PEEL Airports Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Plymouth City Airport Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Redhill Aerodrome Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Resource Training Ltd Y 01-11-2010 31-12-2011 Initial, Unit and Continuation UK SERCO Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 49
State Name of the Training Provider Certified Date of Certif. Valid until Types of Services Certified UK Stobart Air Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation UK Westland Helicopters Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation Westward Airways (Lands End) Unit and Continuation UK Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 50
Annex 5 List of Designated ATS Providers
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until AT Austro Control GmbH FIR WIEN 01/07/2008 Unlimited BE Belgocontrol Belgian FIR/UIR from ground till FL 245 ATS: 02/03/2005 ATS: 01/03/2010 MET: 01/01/2005 MET: 31/12/2010 BG Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority 23/12/2008 21/06/2012 (BULATSA) CH Skyguide FIR Switzerland plus Airspace of delegated Services from 01/07/2007 Withdrawal France, Italy and Germany. CY Cyprus ANS (CYANS) of DCA Nicosia FIR 21/06/2007 Not defined CZ Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic (FIR Praha, LKPR, LKTB, LKKV, LKMT) 01/12/2010 01/12/2016 (ANS CR) CZ Vodochody Airport (LKVO) 20/12/2010 20/12/2012 CZ Aircraft Industries (LKKU) 19/06/2007 11/10/2011 DE DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH - - - DE The Tower Company GmbH Aerodrome control services and other services for regional 01/12/2009 - airports DE Airbus Deutschland GmbH Aerodrome Control services for Hamburg-Finkenwerder 01/12/2009 - DE Rhein–Neckar-Flugplatz GmbH Aerodrome Control services for Mannheim 01/12/2009 - DE Black Forest Airport Lahr GmbH (Aerodrome Aerodrome Control services for Lahr 01/12/2009 - Control services for Lahr) DK Naviair All airspace within Copenhagen FIR except TIZ, TIA and 25/10/2010 N/A military CTR, TMA and LTA. DK AFIS Sindal (EKSN) (EKSN)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Stauning (EKVJ) (EKVJ)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Sønderborg (EKSB) (EKSB)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Esbjerg (EKEB) (EKEB)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Odense (EKOD) (EKOD)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Vamdrup (EKVD)/TIZ 20/12/2006 N/A DK AFIS Tyra (EKGF) (EKGF)TIZ/TIA 20/12/2006 N/A EE EANS Tallinn FIR/UIR included TALLINN CTR and TMA, Tartu 23/04/2010 termless CTR ja TMA permanently, and Kärdla CTR, Kärdla FIZ,
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 51
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until Kärdla TMA, Kuressaare CTR, Kuressaare FIZ, Kuressaare TMA, Pärnu FIZ outside working hours of those units EE Tallinn Airport Kärdla CTR, Kärdla FIZ, Kärdla TMA, Kuressaare CTR, 23/04/2010 termless Kuressaare FIZ, Kuressaare TMA, Pärnu FIZ ES Aena Responsible for providing area and approach control 15/06/1991 Unlimited based on Law services within all air space under Spanish responsibility. 4/90 Responsible for providing aerodrome control services in those aerodromes granted to AENA. ES INECO Flight Information Zones of the aerodromes of La Gomera La Gomera: - and El Hierro and CTR of El Hierro. (9/07/2010) El Hierro (AFIS: 14/09/2010. ATC Aerodrome: 19/11/2010) FI Finavia Corporation Finland FIR except EFMI FIZ and EFSI FIZ 21/12/2006 20/12/2018 FI City of Mikkeli Mikkeli flight information zone (EFMI FIZ) 21/06/2007 20/06/2019 FI Rengonharju foundation Seinäjoki flight information zone (EFSI FIZ) 21/06/2007 20/06/2019 FR DSNA The whole airspace under French responsibility, either due 09/04/2007 No formal limitation to ICAO rules, or due to international agreements or bilateral Letters of Agreement. GR Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority / Air Navigation ATHINAI FIR/ HELLAS UIR 27/12/2010 - Services (HCAA/ANS) HR Croatia Control Ltd. Zagreb FIR/UIR 05/02/1998 Unlimited HU HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. Budapest FIR/ CTA, CTR, TMA and FIS 01/01/2007 UNL HU Debrecen LHDC airport The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 03/07/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.) HU LHPP Pécs-Pogány The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 17/06/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.) HU Békéscsaba The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 21/05/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 52
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until HU Győr-Pér The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 29/05/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.) HU Nyíregyháza The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 05/06/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.) HU Szeged The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) 13/05/2009 - GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.) IE IAA Operations Directorate See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Waterford Airport See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Kerry Airport PLC See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Galway Airport See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Ireland West Airport Knock See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Sligo Airport Co LTD See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Donegal Airport See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IE Weston Airport See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 20/12/2006 - IT ENAV S.p.A See AIP ITALY 01/01/1981 unlimited IT Aeroporto G. Caproni Trento SpA Trento ATZ 21/09/2009 21/09/2014 IT SOGEAOR Oristano/Fenosu ATZ 10/05/2010 09/05/2015 LT ORO NAVIGACIJA, the Air Navigation Service - 21/12/2006 unlimited provider in Lithuania LU Administration de la navigation aérienne (ANA) Ref. to LSSIP 2010-2014 Chap.2 21/12/2007 unlimited LV State Joint-Stock Company Latvijas Gaisa RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 Satiksme (LGS) MK M-NAV Skopje FIR 03/02/2006 Unlimited MT Malta Air Traffic Services Limited (MATS) Malta Flight Information Region 06/11/2007 11/06/2013 NL Air Traffic Control Netherlands (LVNL, LVNL provides ATS up to FL 245. 18/09/2007 unlimited “Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland”) NL Maastricht UAC MUAC provides ATS above FL245 18/09/2007 unlimited
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 53
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until NO Avinor All airspace under Norwegian responsibility except where 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 stated otherwise NO Statoil Tampen HPZ 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 NO ConocoPhillips Ekofisk HPZ 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 NO Sunnhordland Airport Stord TIZ 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 NO Skien Airport Geiteryggen TIZ 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 NO Notodden Airport Notodden TIZ 09/03/2007 03/09/2012 PL Polish Air Navigation Services Agency FIR Warsaw 03/08/2007 Unlimited validity PT Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, Lisbon and Santa Maria FIRs 19/12/2006 The designation is valid E.P.E. along the certification period and is automatically extended upon certification renewal. It may be cancelled upon State decision. RO Regia Autonoma Romanian Air Traffic Services - 21/12/2006 - Administration – ROMATSA RS SMATSA Beograd FIR/UIR 29/12/2003 Unlimited period SE LFV SWEDEN FIR 01/09/2010 31/12/2012 ARVIDSJAUR CTR/TMA/TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 BORLÄNGE T CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 GÄLLIVARE TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG/LANDVETTER CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG/SÄVE CTR/TIZ 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 HAGSHULT CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 HALMSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 JOKKMOKK CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 JÖNKÖPING CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2012 KALMAR CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KARLSBORG CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KARLSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KIRUNA CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KRISTIANSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KRONOBERG CTR 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 KRONOBERG TMA 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 LJUNGBYHED CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 LULEÅ TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 54
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until KALLAX CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 MALMÖ TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STURUP CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 PAJALA CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 PAJALA YLLÄS TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 RONNEBY CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SKELLEFTEÅ CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 STOCKHOLM TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM/ARLANDA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM /BROMMA CTR/TIZ 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM/SKAVSTA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 STOCKHOLM/VÄSTERÅS CTR 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 SUNDSVALL CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SÅTENÄS CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 TROLLHÄTTAN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 UMEÅ CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 UPPSALA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 VIDSEL CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 VISBY CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÄNGELHOLM TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 ÖREBRO CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÖSTERSUND CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÖSTGÖRA TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KUNGSÄNGEN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 MALMEN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SAAB CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 SE European Air Cargo AB ESKILSTUNA TIZ 01/09/2010 31/12/2014 SE Hagfors kommun HAGFORS TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 02/06/2011 SE Hemavan Tärnaby Airport AB HEMAVAN TIZ/TIA 18/11/2010 28/05/2013 SE Lycksele kommun LYCKSELE TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 19/12/2012 SE AB Dalaflyget MORA TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2012 SE Oskarshamns Utveckling AB OSKARSHAMN TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 28/05/2013 SE Storumans Flygplats AB STORUMAN TIZ/TIA 18/11/2010 28/05/2013 SE Härjedalens kommun SVEG TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 28/05/2013 SE Torsby Flygplats AB TORSBY TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 19/12/2012 SE Vilhelmina kommun VILHELMINA TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 28/05/2013
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 55
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until SI Slovenia Control Ltd. Air traffic services are provided for the entire territory of the 23/03/2006 Undetermined State.(AIP-19 November 2009) SK Letové prevádzkové služby Slovenskej republiky FIR Slovak Republic 12/12/2006 Unlimited (LPS SR) UK Airways Aero Associations Ltd Wycombe Air Park / Booker 01/01/2010 Note: All designations have been granted in accordance with the relevant notifications in the United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication. ATS ANSP designations are not time limited but were re- issued at the time of re- certification UK Albemarle Shoreham Airport Ltd Shoreham 01/01/2010 See above UK Argyll & Bute Council Oban Airport 01/01/2010 See above UK ATC Lasham Lasham 01/01/2010 See above UK BAE Systems Marine Ltd (Walney Island) Barrow / Walney Island 01/01/2010 See above UK BAE Systems (Aviation Serivces) Ltd (Bristol Bristol Filton 01/09/2010 See above Filton) UK BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd (Warton and Warton 01/01/2010 See above Woodford) Woodford UK Belfast City Airport Belfast City 01/01/2010 See above UK Bickerton’s Aerodromes Ltd (Denham) Denham 01/01/2010 See above UK Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Biggin Hill 01/01/2010 See above UK Blackbushe Airport Ltd Blackbushe 01/01/2010 See above UK Blackpool Airport Ltd Blackpool 01/01/2010 See above UK City Airport Manchester Ltd (Barton) Manchester / Barton 01/01/2010 See above UK CODA (Operations) Ltd Londonderry / Eglinton 01/04/2010 See above UK Cornwall Airport Limited (Newquay) Newquay 01/01/2010 See above UK Council of The Isles of Scilly (St Mary’s) Scilly Isles / St Marys 01/01/2010 See above UK Dundee Airport Ltd Dundee 01/01/2010 See above UK Exeter & Devon Airport Ltd Exeter 01/01/2010 See above
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 56
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until UK Fairoaks Airport Ltd Fairoaks 01/01/2010 See above UK Gloucestershire Airport Ltd Gloucestershire 01/01/2010 See above UK Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd Chichester / Goodwood 01/01/2010 See above UK Herefordshire Aero Club Ltd (Shobdon) Shobdon 01/01/2010 See above UK Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd Barra 01/01/2010 See above Benbecula Campbeltown Inverness Islay Kirkwall Stornoway Sumburgh Tiree Wick UK Imperial War Museum Duxford Duxford 01/01/2010 See above UK Infratil Airport Europe Ltd Manston 01/01/2010 See above Prestwick UK Kemble Air Services Ltd Kemble 01/01/2010 See above UK Leeds Bradford International Airport Leeds Bradford 01/01/2010 See above UK London Ashford Airport Lydd 01/01/2010 See above UK London Southend Airport Company Ltd Southend 01/01/2010 See above UK Manchester Airport Group plc Bournemouth 01/01/2010 See above Humberside Nottingham East Midlands UK Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd Cambridge 01/01/2010 See above Great Yarmouth / North Denes UK Montclare Shipping Co. Ltd (Elstree) Elstree 01/01/2010 See above UK NATS NERL London Area Control Centre 01/01/2010 See above London Terminal Control Centre 01/01/2010 Western Radar (Sudden Loss of ATSOCAS Management 04/05/2010 ‘SLAM’ Facility) Scottish Area Control Centre 01/01/2010 UK NATS NSL Aberdeen / Dyce 01/01/2010 See above Belfast/Aldergrove Birmingham
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 57
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until Bristol Cardiff Edinburgh Farnborough London City London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton London Stansted Manchester Southampton UK Newcastle International Airport Ltd Newcastle 01/01/2010 See above UK Norwich Airport Ltd Norwich 01/01/2010 See above UK Oxford Aviation Services Ltd Oxford / Kidlington 01/01/2010 See above UK Peel Airports Ltd Doncaster Sheffield 01/01/2010 See above Durham Tees Valley Liverpool UK Plymouth City Airport Plymouth 01/01/2010 See above UK Radarmoor Limited (Wellesbourne) Wellesbourne Mountford 01/01/2010 See above UK Redhill Aerodrome Ltd Redhill 01/01/2010 See above UK Rochester Airport plc Rochester 01/01/2010 See above UK Serco Ltd Cranfield 01/01/2010 See above Hawarden 01/01/2010 London Heliport 01/01/2010 Scatsta 01/01/2010 Coventry 29/07/2010 UK Shetland Islands Council (Tingwall) Lerwick / Tingwall 01/01/2010 See above UK Shuttleworth Old Warden Aerodrome Shuttleworth / Old Warden 01/01/2010 See above UK Stobart Air Ltd (Carlisle Airport) Carlisle 01/01/2010 See above UK Sywell Aviation Ltd Northampton / Sywell 01/01/2010 See above UK Westland Helicopters Ltd Yeovil / Westland 01/01/2010 See above UK West Wales Airport Ltd West Wales / Aberporth 01/01/2010 See above UK Westward Airways (Land’s End) Ltd Lands End / St Just 01/01/2010 See above UK Wolverhampton Airport Ltd Wolverhampton 01/01/2010 See above
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 58
Annex 6 List of Designated MET Providers
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until AT Austro Control GmbH FIR WIEN 01/07/2008 unlimited BE Belgocontrol Belgian FIR/UIR from ground till FL 245 ATS: 02/03/2005 ATS: 01/03/2010 MET: 01/01/2005 MET: 31/12/2010 BG Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority 23/12/2008 21/06/2012 (BULATSA) CH MeteoSchweiz FIR Switzerland 01/07/2007 withdrawal CY MET Service Nicosia FIR 21/06/2007 Not defined CZ Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute (CHMI) 07/06/2007 07/06/2011 DE Deutscher Wetterdienst DWD - - - German Meteorological Service DK Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (DMI) Copenhagen FIR 16/01/2007 N/A ES AEMET 20/12/2006 - FI Finnish Meteorological Institute Finland FIR/UIR 29/06/2010 29/06/2016 FR METEO FRANCE Same airspace as DSNA. 14/12/2007 No formal limitation HR Croatia Control Ltd. Zagreb FIR/UIR 05/02/1998 Unlimited IE Met Eireann (Aviation Services Division) See AIP Ireland ENR 2.1 25/04/2008 - IT ENAV S.p.A See AIP ITALY 01/01/1981 unlimited LT Lithuanian Hydro-Meteorological Service - 19/07/2007 unlimited Provider LU Administration de la navigation aérienne (ANA) Ref. to LSSIP 2010-2014 Chap.2 21/12/2007 unlimited LV State Joint-Stock Company Latvijas Gaisa RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 Satiksme (LGS) LV Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 Agency (LEGMA) MK M-NAV Skopje FIR 03/02/2006 Unlimited MT Malta International Airport plc (MIA) Luqa International Airport and Malta Flight Information 06/11/2007 11/06/2013 Region NL KNMI 18/09/2007 unlimited NO Meteorologisk Institutt (met.no) All airspace under Norwegian responsibility except where 01/01/2010 31/12/2012 otherwise stated.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 59
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until PL Institute of Meteorology and Water Management FIR Warsaw 09/01/2008 22/04/2011 (IMGW) PT Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. - - - RO Regia Autonoma Romanian Air Traffic Services - 21/12/2006 - Administration – ROMATSA RS SMATSA Beograd FIR/UIR 29/12/2003 Unlimited period SE LFV SWEDEN FIR 01/09/2010 31/12/2012 ARVIDSJAUR CTR/TMA/TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 BORLÄNGE T CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 GÄLLIVARE TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG/LANDVETTER CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 GÖTEBORG/SÄVE CTR/TIZ 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 HAGSHULT CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 HALMSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 JOKKMOKK CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 JÖNKÖPING CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2012 KALMAR CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KARLSBORG CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KARLSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KIRUNA CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KRISTIANSTAD CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 KRONOBERG CTR 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 KRONOBERG TMA 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 LJUNGBYHED CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 LULEÅ TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KALLAX CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 MALMÖ TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STURUP CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 PAJALA CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 PAJALA YLLÄS TIZ/TIA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 RONNEBY CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SKELLEFTEÅ CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 STOCKHOLM TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM/ARLANDA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM /BROMMA CTR/TIZ 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 STOCKHOLM/SKAVSTA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 STOCKHOLM/VÄSTERÅS CTR 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 SUNDSVALL CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SÅTENÄS CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 60
State Name of the ANSP Airspace under its responsibility Date of Desig. Valid until TROLLHÄTTAN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 UMEÅ CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 UPPSALA CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 VIDSEL CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 VISBY CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÄNGELHOLM TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 ÖREBRO CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 28/02/2011 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÖSTERSUND CTR/TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 ÖSTGÖRA TMA 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 KUNGSÄNGEN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 MALMEN CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 SAAB CTR 01/09/2010 31/12/2010 SI Agency for Environment of Republic of Slovenia. MET Services are provided for the entire territory of the 23/03/2006 Undetermined State. SK Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMU) FIR Slovak Republic 12/12/2006 Unlimited UK Met Office (ICAO Annex 3 en-route METS in UK airspace and 01/01/2010 31/03/2012 aerodrome forecast for the UK)
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 61
Annex 7 CABs (Cross-Border Airspace Blocks)
CAR # (CAB #) Description of the CAB(s) Additional information/references State (airspace) NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C ATSP
State has reported the CAR/CAB State has NOT reported the CAR/CAB
Arrangements between NSAs on the supervsion of the ANSP are reported in place No arrangements are in place between NSAs on the supervsion of the ANSP
Case A has been reported by one State Case A Case A has been reported by both State
There is an agreement between the States concerned in this Case A Case A There is NO agreement between the States concerned in this Case A
Case B has been reported by one State Case B Case B has been reported by both State
Case C has been reported by one State Case C Case C has been reported by both State
There is an agreement between the ANSPs concerned in this Case C Case C There is NO agreement between the ANSPs concerned in this Case C
This agreement has been notified to the NSAs concerned in this Case C Case C This agreement has NOT been notified to the NSAs concerned in this Case C
This agreement has been approved by the States concerned in this Case C Case C This agreement has NOT been approved by the States concerned in this Case C
ATCH-01 Complete sector delegation for VOR and İNN sectors Arrangements between the NSAs are planned in late 2011. AT Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Skyguide Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐
ATCZ-01 GERAS Area and Lanux Line LoA between Austo Control and ANServices CRepublic Praha ACC, effective: AT Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ 21.10.2010 (as reported by CZ report). Agreement between NSAs is planned for NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C March 2011 (pending signature of FAB CE agreement). ANS CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
ATDE-01 Parts of FIR (north ROCKY-Line) Currently based on previous arrangements with the MoT. Arrangements between AT Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ the NSAs planned in late 2011. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DFS YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐
ATHU-01 Part of South-eastern FIR (East of SOPRO-Line) The relevant NSAs will be notified following signature of the FAB CE agreement AT Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ (planned for March 2011). NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Hungarocontrol N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
ATIT-01 Parts of FIR (south of ROCKY-line) - straightening of boundaries LoA between Padova ACC and Wien ACC 11.11.2010 (last rev. 21.10.1020), AT Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ notified to ENAC. Arrangements between the NSAs of Austria and Italy are NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C planned in late 2011. ENAV Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN
AT: south of SBOTH-Line, south of Klagenfurt-Line LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Vienna (there is no agreement at State ATSI-01 SI: Klagenfurt ATS level). AT Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C SloveniaControl Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐
Western part of Sarajevo FİR FL 290–FL 660; Sarajevo FİR FL 100–FL Temporary agreement on Delegation of Responsibility for the Provision of Air BAHR-01 285 Traffic Services in the Upper Airspace of BiH and Temporary agreement on BA Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐Delegation of Responsibility for the Provision of Air Traffic Services in the Lower NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Airspace of BiH. CroatiaControl Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐
BARS-01 Eastern part of Sarajevo UİR Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, agreement on the delegation of responsibility BA Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐for the provision of air traffic services over a portion of the territory of Bosnia and NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Herzegovina, 05.01.2000. SMATSA Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐
Lille TMA 2 (1500ft/4500ft AMSL) class D / Lille TMA 9 (2000ft/4500ft LoA SNA Nord (Lille APP) / Brussels ACC 16.02.2006. France reports that BEFR-01 AMSL) class E arrangement between the NSAs is foreseen under the FABEC MoC applicable as BE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYNN of 27.01.2011. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 62
BELU-01 ELLX: TMA7 (2500ft AMSL / FL75) ; CTA South (FL55 / FL135) LoA Brussels ACC / Luxembourg APP 13.04.2006, checked by BSA-ANS and BE Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY approved by the States. Luxembourg also reports on an Agreement between the NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C ANSP and the delegating airspace authority. ANA Luxembourg Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐
BENL-01 Brussels UİR above FL245 MUAC is a NL–based, certified and designated ATSP in the NL Aviation Act, and operates on the basis of the 4 States' Agreement relating to the provision and operation of ATS and facilities by BE YY‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C EUROCONTROL at MUAC, date 25.11.1986. Agreement by the 4 States' NSAs on a Manual for the MUAC YYY YY ‐‐‐‐ oversight activities of MUAC. Supervision of MUAC is carried out by İVW (CAA–NL) in coordination with the other 3 States' NSAs within the frame of the 4–States NSA Committee.
CHFR-01 Swiss portion of Basel TMA LoA between Basel APP and Zurich ACC. Agreement of 19.05.2009 between the CH YYY N ‐‐‐‐‐two NSAs (France/ Switzerland). Approval/agreement by States pending FABEC NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C agreement. DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ Y YYN
CHIT-01 Lugano approach LoA between Milan ACC and Lugano APP (Lugano CTR). State-to-State CH Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐Agreement in place. Switzerland reports that an NSA agreement is under NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C development; to be completed in 2011. ENAV YYYY‐‐‐‐‐
CHIT-02 Portion of Milano TMA over Ticino NSA agreement is under development; to be completed in 2011. Agreement CH Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐between States is under development; to be completed in 2011. LoA between NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Milan ACC and Marseille ACC, 05.06.2010 (last rev. 04.06.2009); LoA between ENAV Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN Rome ACC and Marseille ACC 06.05.2010 (last rev. 18.11.2010).
CZAT-01 BUDEX Area and south of LANUX-Line At present, the operations are covered with letters of Agreement between ANSPs. CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN NSA arrangements and States approval pending FABCE agreement. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
CZDE-01 East of Praha Rhein Line States refer to different LoAs. Negotiations for an arrangement between NSAs CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN concerned for the supervision of DFS are planned for 2011-2012. Approval by the NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C States has not taken place due to reorganisation of the responsible authorities in DFS Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ CZ.
CZDE-02 East of Praha Munich Line LoA between DFS Munich ACC and ANS CZ Praha ACC, effective: 19.11.2009. CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN Negotiations for an arrangement between NSAs concerned for the supervision of NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DFS are planned for 2011-2012. Approval by the States has not taken place due to DFS Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ reorganisation of the responsible authorities in CZ.
CZPL-01 Area S of DESEN LoA between ANS of CR and PANSA effective 21.10.2010. Negotiations for an CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYNN arrangement between NSAs concerned for the supervision of PANSA are planned NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C for 2011-2012. Approval by the States has not taken place due to reorganisation of PANSA Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN the the responsible authorities in CZ.
DEAT-01 10 regional airports in Germany Inconsistently reported by States. Notification exchange between Germany NSA DE YYY N Y ‐‐‐‐ and Austrian NSA on 26.06.2007 (as reported by Germany); Austria reports that NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C this is pending signature and is planned for 2011. AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
DEAT-02 Southeast of ROCKY-Line and within Königsee-Area NSAs concerned not notified to date. Signing of agreement planned for 2011. DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
DEBE-01 Maskirchen and Vaals areas LoA between Belgocontrol and DFS, sectors MGB, DKAW), 04 June 2009. NSA DE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY arrangements planned for 2011 within the FABEC project. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Belgocontrol Y N Y Y ‐ YYYY
DEBE-02 R7 / UN853 LoA Langen ACC (sectors RUD, KİR, EİF and PFA) / Brussels ACC, date of DE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY effectiveness of the LoA differs between States. NSA arrangements planned for NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 2011 within the FABEC project. Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY
DECH-01 Region of Bodensee Discussions ongoing for State agreement. Proposal for NSA supervision has been DE Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐exchanged. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Skyguide Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐
DECZ-01 West of Praha - Rhein Line LoA between Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH Branch Upper Karlsruhe UAC and DE Y N Y N ‐ YYNN Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Praha ACC, date of effectiveness of NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C the LoA differs between States. State approval to be be finalised by 2012 between ANS CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYNN the parties concerned and will be aligned to FABEC and FAB CE project.
DECZ-02 West of Praha - Munich Line Letter of Agreement between Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH Branch South DE Y N N Y ‐ YYNN Center Munich, Munich ACC and Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Praha ACC, effective: 19.11.2009. State approval to be be finalised by 2012 ANS CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYNN between the parties concerned and will be aligned to FABEC and FAB CE project.
DEDK-01 Michaelsdorf Area No plans to address arrangements between the NSAs concerned. LoA between DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ Danish Transport Authority and Eurocontrol. The LoA has not been updated in NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and Naviair Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ Service Providers.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 63
DEDK-02 Alsie Area No plans to address arrangements between the NSAs concerned. LoA between DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ Danish Transport Authority and Eurocontrol. The LoA has not been updated in NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and Naviair Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ Service Providers.
DEFR-01 Rhine valley LoA between Strasbourg APP and Lahr TWR effective 8 June 2006. DE Y N Y Y ‐ YYN Y LoA between Strasbourg APP and Langen ACC effective 18 November 2010. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Approval by States is foreseen under FABEC agreement. DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ YYNN
DEFR-02 German portion of Basel TMA LoA between Basel APP and Stuttgart APP. Approval by the States and DE YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐arrangements between NSAs foreseen under FABEC Agreement. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DSNA Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
TMA3: from 1000ft AGL to FL95 included; TMA4 and TMA 2: from 1000ft Letter of Agreement established between the ANSP and the delegating airspace DELU-01 AGL to FL135 included authority (Germany reports agreement by the MoT). FABEC agreement signed in 2010 creates the required legal framework for NSA cooperation; a specific MoC DE YYYYYYYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C between the FABEC NSAs will define working arrangements. LoA between DFS ANA Luxembourg Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐and LUX APP (reported by Germany).
Maaskirchen A Area and VAALS A Area, between 1000 ft GND and FL LoA between LVNL Beek ATS and DFS Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008; LoA between DENL-01 095 LVNL Beek ATS and DFS Langen ACC, annex B, dated 5 June 2008. Arrangements for supervision are under development. Approval by NL as per Art. 5.23 Aviation Act (Wet DE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C luchtvaart) and Article 2 Ministerial Decree for ATS by LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling LVNL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening) last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007, 225).
DENL-02 Maastricht CTR (the German part) LoAs between LVNL Beek ATS and DFS Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008. NSA arrangement between NL-DE being developed within FABEC. Approval by NL as per Act DE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 5.23 Aviation Act (Wet luchtvaart) and Art. 3, respectively, of Ministerial Decree for ATS by LVNL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening), last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007, 225).
DENL-03 3 ABs: SONEB Area, RKN B Area and NAPSİ Area. LoAs between LVNL Beek ATS and DFS Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008. NSA arrangement between NL-DE being developed within FABEC. Approval by NL as per Act DE Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 5.23 Aviation Act (Wet luchtvaart) and Art. 4c, 4d an 4e, respectively, of Ministerial Decree LVNL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY for ATS by LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening), last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007,
DENL-04 Hannover UİR above FL244 MUAC is a NL–based, certified and designated ATSP in the NL Aviation Act, and DE YYYYY‐‐‐‐ operates on the basis of the 4 States' Agreement relating to the provision and NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C operation of ATS and facilities by EUROCONTROL at MUAC, date 25.11.1986. MUAC YYYYY‐‐‐‐ Agreement by the 4 States
DENL-05 KOSIT Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-06 BITBU Area 245/660 with the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-07 POBIX Area 255/265 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-08 WARBURG Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-09 KEMAD Area 295/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-10 KEMAD Area 245/295 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-11 NOMKA Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DENL-12 RISOK Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This DE N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986. MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y Y NN
DESE-01 Area Rönne South West LFV and DFS, LoA between ATCC Malmö and Bremen ACC, 16.12.2006, D–LFV 2008–002095. DE YYY Y ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C LFV and DFS, LoA between ATCC Malmö and Karlsruhe UAC, 21.12.2006, D–LFV D–LFV LFV Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN 2008–002910. States agreement is foreseen to be approved beginning 2011.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 64
DKSE-01 Areas C, H1, L1 NSA agreement has been established. LoA between Danish Transport Authority and LFV Sweden covering the delegation of responsibility to provide ATS (Promemoria DK YYYY‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C (memorandum) 1981-01-23 (SÖ 1981-25). The LoA has not been updated in order to LFV YYYY‐‐‐‐‐reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and the Service Providers (reported by Denmark) .
ESPT-01 Portions of UN975, UL14, UN870, UN873, UN979 LoA between Area Control Centre of Madrid (MADRID ACC) and Area Control Centre of Lisboa (LISBOA ACC) dated 22.10.2009. An agreement between States is being prepared ES YY‐‐ ‐ YYNN NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C and is undergoing final revision for signature. Arrangement between the NSAs is in place NAV EP YY‐‐ ‐ YYNN and will be applied in the adjustment to the planning of oversight visits to ANSP due to take place in the beginning of 2011 (as reported by PT).
ESMR-01 60 NM radius centred on VOR/DME PE joining the Canarias FİR limits Letter of Agreement between Canarias Area Control Centre (Canarias ACC) and ES Y N ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Nouadhibou Approach Control Office (Nouadhibou APP), formulated in Las NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Palmas on the 23rd September 1998. No reporting on applicable case. Nouadhibou APP ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
FINO-01 Manto Letter of Agreement jointly agreed between the responsible ATC-units. The preparation of States agreement concerning the supervision of the ATS Provision is planned to begin in FI Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C connection with the preparation of the State level agreement (ATS delegation), which will Avinor YYYN ‐‐‐‐‐be started soon after the similar agreement between Finland and Sweden has been adopted during the year 2011.
FINO-02 Halti Letter of Agreement jointly agreed between the responsible ATC-units. The preparation of States agreement concerning the supervision of the ATS Provision is planned to begin in FI Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C connection with the preparation of the State level agreement (ATS delegation), which will Avinor YYYN ‐‐‐‐‐be started soon after the similar agreement between Finland and Sweden has been adopted during the year 2011.
FISE-01 Area Kvarken Letter of Agreement jointly agreed between the responsible ATC-units. The FI Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐intergovernmental agreement concerning the delegation of ATS between the NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C States is under approval process of Finland. Finalization during the Q1 2011. LFV YYYN ‐‐‐‐‐
FRBE-01 L607, KONAN-KOK LoA between Lille APP and Brussels ACC effective 16 February 2006. LoA FR YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN between PARIS ACC and Brussels ACC effective 13 April 2006. From France: NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC Agreement. From Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY Belgium: Belgium reported approval by States concerned through LoA.
FRBE-02 Oostende TMA LoA between Lille APP/Oostende APP effective 16.02.2006, reported by France FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN that approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC Agreement. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Belgocontrol N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
FRCH-01 Region of Geneva: ARR/DEP to/from Geneva airport Agreement between France and Switzerland signed 22/06/2001. Entry into force: FR YYYY‐‐‐‐‐01/08/2001. LoAs between Paris ACC/UAC and Geneva ACC, LoA between NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Reims ACC/UAC and Geneva ACC, LoA between MarseilleACC/UAC and Geneva Skyguide YYYY‐‐‐‐‐ ACC/APP all effective from 17 December 2009.
FRCH-02 Region of Geneva - TMA 8 of Lyon APP LoA between Lyon APP/Geneva ATC effective 22.10.2009, reported by France FR YY‐‐ ‐ Y YYN that approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC agreement. An NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C agreement of 19.05.2009 addresses the supervision of Skyguide. Switzerland Skyguide N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ remains responsible for its own ATSP supervision.
FRCH-03 Arrival to Zurich TMA France removed this CAR from its 2009 Report. FR N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Skyguide YYY N ‐‐‐‐‐
FRDE-01 French portion of Karlsruhe Baden Baden CTR LoA between Strasbourg APP and Karlsruhe-Baden Baden TWR effective since FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN 12.03.2009. Approval by the States and arrangements between NSAs foreseen NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C under FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC DFS YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐ applicable as of 27.01.2011.
FRDE-02 French portion of Sarre TMA + Saarbrücken CTR + Zweibrücken CTR LoA between Strasbourg APP and Langen ACC, revision effective since FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN 18.11.2010. Approval by the States and arrangements between NSAs foreseen NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C under FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC DFS YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐ applicable as of 27.01.2011.
FRIE-01 Triangle area Brest UİR near TULTA, FL>245 LoA between Brest ACC and Shannon ACC, approved formally by Ireland (letter FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN from DoT endorsing arrangements). France reported that arrangement between NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C NSAs is planned but not a priority for 2011. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
FRIT-01 Areas over South Alps LoA between Marseille ACC and Roma ACC effective 06.05.2010. LoA between FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN Marseille ACC and Milano ACC effective 17.12.2009. NSAs arrangements planned NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C in 2011. ENAV N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
FRLU-01 TMA5 and TMA6: from 2500ft MSL to FL75 included LoA between Reims ACC and LUX APP, effective 27.11.2003; LoA between Paris FR YY‐‐ ‐ Y YYN ACC and LUX APP, effective 08.06.2006. Approval by the States foreseen under NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC ANA Luxembourg Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ applicable as of 27.01.2011.
FRNL-01 Cross Border Working Volumes CBWV1a and CBWV1b LoA between Reims ACC and MUAC + Paris ACC and MUAC, 07.05.2009. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC applicable as of 27.01.2011. On request of FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C FR NSA, DSNA requested to have a reference to Reg. 550/2004 Art 10 in the LoAs MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN between MUAC Reims and MUAC-Paris. The LoA between DIRCAM, DSNA and Maastricht UAC also refers to these areas.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 65
FRNL-02 PİNOT and SORAL areas LoA between Reims UAC and MUAC + Paris ACC and MUAC, 20.11.2008. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC applicable as of 27 January 2011.On request FR Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C of FR NSA, DSNA requested to have a reference to Reg. 550/2004, Art 10 in the LoAs MUAC Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN between MUAC Reims and MUAC-Paris. The LoA between DIRCAM, DSNA and Maastricht UAC also refers to these areas.
FRUK-01 Areas above Channel: La Manche West Low; La Manche East Low LoA between Paris ACC and London ACC, effective 12.03.2009 as reported by FR FR YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN - UK reports 06.05.2010. Cooperation agreement between UK and French NSAs NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C signed 22.07.2010. Approved by UK. FR to be approved. NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
FRUK-02 Areas above Channel: La Manche East High LoA between Reims ACC and London ACC, effective 10.04.2008 as reported by FR YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN FR - UK reports 17.12.2010. Cooperation agreement between UK and French NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C NSAs signed 22.07.2010. Approved by UK. FR to be approved. NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
HRIT-01 UM859 segment UMBEK-MONFA; UN606 segment BABAG-PEVAL No State level agreement (only ANSP operational agreement exists). According to HR Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure is responsible to NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported to Ministry of Sea Transport and ENAV N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement.
M859 segment CRAYE-BEVIS; A482 segment CRAYE-LOKDI-BALEM; B9 No State level agreement (only ANSP operational agreement exists). According to HRIT-02 segment GISAM-CRAYE; W36 segment CRAYE-TEPKO-PINUK; A48 the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure is responsible to segment CRAYE-BEVIS resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported to Ministry of Sea Transport and HR Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C ENAV N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
UM19 segment RENDA - TUVAR (FİR Boundary); UL863 segment RAKIV- There is no State level agreement in place, only ANSP operational agreement HRRS-01 XAPAN exists. HR Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C SMATSA N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
HRRS-02 UL607 segment KONUV-TIMUS There is no State level Agreement, only ANSP operational agreement exists. HR Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C SMATSA N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐
HRSI-01 Portoroz CTR LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Zagreb. There is no State level HR Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐agreement in place. HR: According to the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C and Infrastructure is responsible to resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported SloveniaControl Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐ to Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement.
HUAT-01 LESMO Area and west of SOPRO-Line Letter of Agreement between HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. and Austro Control HU Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY G.m.b.H. Approved by HU through 26/2007.(İİİ.1.) GKM–HM–KvVM joint order, NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C ANEX 2. Plans to start negotiations for NSA arrangements within the FAB CE AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐ agreement on supervison of ATS providers in 2011.
HUSK-01 Kosice TMA2 Letter of Agreement between HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. and Letové prevádzkové sluzby Slovenskej republiky (LPS), s.p. 01.03.2007. Notified to the NSAs and approved by the HU Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C States concerned. Plans to start negotiations for NSA arrangements within the FAB CE LPS, SK Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY agreement on supervison of ATS providers in 2011.
IEUK-01 Donegal Area Overarching FAB MoU between the İAA and the CAA established 06.06.2008 (as IE YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY reported by UK). LoA between NATS (SAC) and IAA (Shannon ACC), 23.01.2010. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
IEUK-02 Eglinton CTA 1, 2 and 3 LoA between City of Derry Airport/SATCC Revision 1 effective 13.01.2011. NSAs IE YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY notified by written agreement dated 29.07.2010. Approval by the States - exchange NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C of assurance IAA to CAA dated 23.07.2010; CAA to IAA dated 23.07.2010. Eglinton City of Derry YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
ISUK-01 North Sea Area İV LoA between Isavia and NATS, effective 14.01.2010. An exchange of assurance similar to that agreed for the RATSU triangle, requested by Iceland 27.05.2010, UK response dated IS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 01.06.2010. Both NSAs completed this agreement. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement (to NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY comply with Reg EC 550/2004 Article 2 (4)) agreed with Iceland CAA, dated 01.11.2010.
AT: North of SOLNI-Line LoA between Padova ACC and Wien ACC, 11.11.2007 (last rev. 21.10.2010), ITAT-01 IT: Trentino Alto Adige notification to ENAC, in progress. Unclear plans with respect to the NSAs arrangements for supervision. IT Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
ITCH-01 Region of Val D'Aosta LoA between Milan ACC and Geneve ACC 17.12.2009 (last rev. 01.07.2010)+LoA between Rome ACC and Geneve ACC 17.12.2009 (last rev. 01.07.2010). Discussions IT Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C have been taken up and are ongoing to have one agreement for the two situation (ENAV Skyguide Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐providing ANS within the Swiss airspace and Skyguide providing ANS within the Italian airspace).
ITFR-01 Area over South Alps (Straightening of boundaries) LoA between Marseille ACC and Roma ACC effective 06.05.2010. LoA between IT Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN Marseille ACC and Milano ACC effective 17.12.2009 (as reported by France, Italy NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C reports date of 05.06.2008). NSA arrangements for supervision planned for 2011 DSNA Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN (as reported by France).
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 66
ITFR-02 Area over South Alps (ARR/DPT to/from Nice airport) LoA between Marseille ACC and Nice APP effective 05.06.2008. IT N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DSNA Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN
ITMT-01 Area South–West of Sicily over international waters LoA between Rome ACC and Malta ACC 14.01.2010 (last rev. 18.11.2010), IT Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN notification to ENAC in progress. There are intentions to formalise NSA NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C arrangements for supervision. MATS Y N Y N ‐ YYYY
IT: Friuli Venezia Giulia LoA between Padova ACC and Ljubljana ACC 20.11.2008 (last rev. 27.08.2009), ITSI-01 SI: Border Straightening notification to ENAC in progress. Unclear plans with respect to the NSAs IT Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY arrangements for supervision. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C SloveniaControl Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐
LICH-01 Airspace of the Fürstentum Liechtenstein State Act and political agreements, full delegation to Switzerland. LI ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Skyguide YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐
State Agreement signed in April 1998 according to which Lithuania delegated to Latvia only LTLV-01 Route segment NİNTA ADAXA responsibility for ATC on the route NİNTA–ADAXA. However, LGS also provides other ANS on the delegated segment for which they are not certified. No agreements exist for the LT Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C supervision or for the States’ liabilities. A meeting took place in Vilnius on 24.11.2009, LGS Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐where Lithuania presented a draft of a new Agreement. Latvia agreed to examine it and has not replied yet.
LUBE-01 Luxembourg National airspace > FL135 and < FL245 Covered by a LoA. FABEC agreement to be signed in 2010 will create the required LU Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐legal framework for NSA cooperation; a specific memorandum of cooperation NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C between the FABEC NSAs will define working arrangements. BelgoControl Y N YY ‐‐‐‐‐
LUNL-01 Luxembourg National airspace > FL245 State Agreement (NL,BE, DE and LU) signed in Brussels on 25.11.1986. Joint LU YYYY‐‐‐‐‐NSA committee of the 4 MUAC States (NL,BE, DE and LU) NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C MUAC YYYYY ‐‐‐‐
MERS-01 Entire airspace under the responsibility of Montenegro Designation act: Contract of Establishment of limited liability corporation under the ME Y ‐‐‐Y ‐‐‐‐ name Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency, Limited. MoU between NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Serbia and Montenegro signed 26.04.2010 (as reported by Serbia). SMATSA YY‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
NLBE-01 Amsterdam UTA southern part LoA between LVNL - Amsterdam ACC and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY 28.08.2008. Arrangements for supervision are under development subject to a NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C FABEC NSA task force. Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY
Maastricht TMA-1 and TMA-2 excluding ROMIN area, Worms North and LoA between LVNL – ATS Beek and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated NLBE-02 Worms South between FL 095 and FL 195 12.05.2005. Belgium reports date of 15.05.2005. Arrangements for supervision are NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY under development subject to a FABEC NSA task force. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Belgocontrol Y N Y N ‐ YYYY
NLBE-03 SASKI A (FL55 – FL245) LoA between LVNL (Amsterdam ACC) and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY 28.08.2008. NSA arrangement between NL-BE is being developed within the NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C FABEC frame. Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYN Y
NLBE-04 L179 Area between FL 095 and FL 195 LoA between Mil ATCC Nieuw Milligen to Brussels ACC and Approach, dated NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY 08.05.2008 (as reported by NL report). Belgium reports date of 28.08.2008. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Arrangements for supervision are under development subject to a FABEC NSA Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY task force.
NLBE-05 Zeeland area (3500ft AMSL - FL555) LoA MilATCC Nieuw Milligen/Brussels ACC effective 08.05.2008. NL N ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Belgocontrol Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY
Amsterdam UTA southern part; Nieuw–Milligen TMA–D in Amsterdam LVNL/Amsterdam ACC has no LoAs with military units apart from AOCS NM NLBE-06 UTA; Kleine Brogel Coordination Area; Kleine Brogel CTR (MILATCC NM). AOCS NM is a co-ordination partner with Belgian Defence. All 4 cases of cross-border ATS are based on LoAs between AOCS NM and NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Belgian Defense, Air Traffic Control Centre/RP Semmerzake, dated 10 April 2008. Belgian Defence Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY
Treaty Niederrhein', dated 29.04.2003, Trb. Nr. 85, 2003, State Journal 421, 2006. NLDE-01 Niederrhein CTR, ROMİN Area, WORMS North Area, WORMS South Area Delegation from Beek ATS to Langen ACC. NSA arrangement between NL-DE is NL Y N YY ‐ Y YYY being developed within the FABEC frame. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DFS YYYY‐‐‐‐‐
NLDE-02 L179 airway area between DİBİR and ROMİN LoA between LVNL – Beek ATS and DFS – Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008. NSA NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY arrangement between NL-DE is being developed within the FABEC frame. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C DFS YYY Y ‐‐‐‐‐
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 67
NLDK-01 GREFİ Area Delegation of responsibilities for ATS provision between Maastricht UAC (ATSP NL Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYY designated in the NL) and Naviair, ACC Copenhagen, as described in the Letter of NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Agreement between both centres dated 29.12.2007. NSA arrangement to be Naviair Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐ signed in 2011.
NLUK-01 REFSO Areas A and B; SASKİ Areas B and C Inter-NSA cooperation agreement between UK and NL NSAs has signed in 2010. NL YYY Y ‐ YYYY LoA between NATS (LAC) and LVNL, latest issue 17.12.2009 as reported by UK - NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C NL reported date of 28.08.2008. NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
NOUK-01 North Sea Area I Exchange of assurances informally agreed on, pending Norwegian Ministry NO YYY Y ‐ YYYY approval. LoA between NATS and AVINOR updated (requested by UK CAA) - NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C latest issue 08.07.2004; pending final confirmation. Inter-NSA co-operation NATS YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY agreement prepared – informally accepted 10.11.2010, pending final confirmation.
PLCZ-01 Area W of OKX and area S of Klodsko LoA between ANS of Czech Republic (ACC Praha, APP Ostrava and Polish Air PL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN Navigation Services Agency (ACC Warszawa, APP Krakow) effective 22.11.2007 NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C (as reported by PL, CZ reports date of 21.10.2010). Negotiations for NSAs ANS CZ Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYNN agreement planned for 2011-2012.
PLDE-01 Heringsdorf TMA/CTR, Cottbus-Drewitz CTA/FIS LoA Between DFS Control Center Bremen (ACC Bremen) and Polish Air PL Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN Navigation Services Agency (ACC Warszawa) effective 04.06.2009 (as reported NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C by DE, PL reports date of 16.12.2006). DFS Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐
PLSE-01 Areas Midsea, Rönne South LoA between LFV Group ANS (Malmoe ATCC) and Polish Air Navigation Services PL Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN Agency (ACC Warszawa/APP Gdansk) effective 31.07.2008 (as reported by NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Sweden, Poland reports date of 13.04.06). Draft agreement at State and NSA level LFV Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYN is planned to be exchanged during 2010 and in place 2011.
W106/UW106 from RALUS to MOSEN Lateral limits: 10 NM widthVertical LoA signed between Area Control Center of Madrid (MADRİD ACC) and Area Control PTES-01 limits: FL460/FL105 Center of Lisboa (LİSBOA ACC) of 22.10.2009. An agreement between States has been drafted and is undergoing final revision for signature. Arrangements between the NSAs are PT YY‐‐ ‐ YYNN NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C drafted and signed on 25.02.2010. The arrangement will be applied in the adjustment to AENA YY‐‐ ‐ YYNN the planning of oversight visits to ANSP due to take place in the beginning of 2011.
Promemoria (memorandum) 1981.01.23 (SÖ 1981–25)New agreement referring to the SEDK-01 Areas H2, L2, L3, Kastrup and Sundet Danish Swedish FAB signed in 2009. Danish Swedish FAB includes written agreement on cross border provision of ATS. Supervision of ATS provider are described in NSA SE YYYY‐‐‐‐‐ NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C agreement. Denmark reported that the LoA between DTA and LFV has not been updated Naviair YYYY‐‐‐‐‐in order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and the Service Providers.
SENO-01 Areas Sumak North, NOR1, NOR2 LFV and Avinor, Letter of Agreement to define the coordination procedures to be SE Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN applied between ATCC Stockholm and ATCC Oslo, 07/12/22 D–LFV NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 2007–049597. Draft agreement at state– and NSA level has been exchanged Avinor YY‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ expect to be signed in 2011.
SIAT-01 Mura sector FL125+, Kanin Area and north of DIPSA-Line LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Vienna (there is no agreement on the SI Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐State level). The plan is to cover the supervision issue within the FAB CE NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C Agreement. Proposal for NSA Cooperation Agreement has been prepared. AustroControl Y N ‐‐ Y ‐‐‐‐
SIIT-01 Slovenia - Italy (Border straightening) LoA between Padova ACC and Ljubljana ACC 20.11.2008 (last rev. 27.08.2009), SI Y N Y N ‐‐‐‐‐notified to ENAC. NSA arrangement is foreseen by 2011 (as reported by Italy). No NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C agreement at State level. ENAV Y N ‐‐ ‐ Y YYN
SKHU-01 RUTOL–box LoA between HungaroControl and LPS, 01.03.2007, notified to the NSAs and SK Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY approved by the States concerned. NSA coordination agreement has been NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C developed under FAB CE. The planned date of the Draft Arrangement is April HungaroControl Y N ‐‐ ‐ YYYY 2011.
SKUA-01 LZR 49, LZR 50 - Approach to Uzghorod Airport At present time SK and UA have an agreement which does not cover supervision SK Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐of ANSP. In 2010 SK and UA negotiated and concluded draft text of bilateral NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C interstate agreement for the provision of ATS. The signature of this agreement is UkSATSE ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ expected in 2011. In the same time the NSAs Agreement shall be concluded.
UKDK-01 North Sea High Area, North Sea Area III LoA between NATS & NAVIAIR, 23.01.2010 as reported by UK (10.04.2008 as reported by DK). New Inter-NSA co-operation agreement presented to Denmark CAA 23.09.2010 - UK YY‐‐ ‐ Y YYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C subject to final agreement from Denmark CAA (DTA) or ministry. Non–compliance with the Naviair Y N Y Y ‐‐‐‐‐CRs by Naviair will result in a withdrawal/limitation to certificates or personal licences.
UKFR-01 Southwest Corner of the UK UIR (PEMAK triangle) LoA between Brest ACC and London ACC latest issue 17.12.2009. Inter-NSA co- UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY operation agreement issued 22.07.2010. LoA between NATS (LAC) and DSNA NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C (Brest) to be signed by UK CAA on next re-issue. DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN
UKFR-02 Brest Oceanic Transition Area (BOTA) LoA between Shanwick OAC and Brest ACC last issue 23.01.2010. Inter-NSA co- UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY operation agreement issued 22.07.2010. LoA (Shanwick with Brest) to be signed NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C by UK CAA on next re-issue. DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN
UKFR-03 A Section of Lille TMA (TMA 7) LoA between Lille APP and LAC latest issue 30.09.2010 (as reported by UK - UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY France reports date of 15.03.2007), countersigned by UK CAA. Inter-NSA co- NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C operation agreement on 22.07.2010. LoA between NATS (LAC) with DSNA signed DSNA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYN by UK CAA.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 68
UKIE-01 Irish Sea (Airway L18 BADSI-LIPGO; BANBA CTA) LoA NATS (LCA) & IAA (Dublin ACC), 31.03.2008 + NATS (LAC) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 17.12.2009. Approval by the States - From UK: Delegation of ATS at UK/Ireland Boundary UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C letter, dated Aug 05. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY From Ireland: Delegation of ATS at UK/Ireland Boundary letter, dated 3 Mar 06. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 6 Jun 08.
UKIE-02 Irish Sea (Airway L975 LIFFY-GINIS; Airway L70 BAGSO-RAMOX) LoA NATS (SAC) & IAA (Dublin ACC), 23.01.2010, countersigned by UK CAA and UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY IAA. An updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - response NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
UKIE-03 Southwest Corner of the UNİTED KİNGDOM UİR (TAKAS Box) LoA NATS (LAC) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 17.12.2009, countersigned by UK CAA UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY and IAA, 17.12.2009. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
UKIE-04 Northern Oceanic Transition Area (NOTA) LoA NATS (Shanwick OAC, Prestwick) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 18.11.2010, UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY countersigned by UK CAA and IAA. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
UKIE-05 Shannon Oceanic Transition Area (SOTA) LoA NATS (Shanwick OAC, Prestwick) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 18.11.2010, UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY countersigned by UK CAA and IAA. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. IAA YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY
UKIS-01 RATSU Triangle; The Common Boundary Line (61N) LoA between NATS and Isavia dated 01.10.2010. Approved by states - From UK: UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY Delegation of ATS Provision letter, dated 10 Sep 09. From Iceland: Delegation of NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C ATS from NATS to Isavia letter, dated 16 Sep 09. Inter-NSA co-operation Isavia YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY agreement 1 Nov 10.
UKNL-01 North Sea Area V Exchange of assurance agreement between NSAs re-issued 23.09.2010. Inter-NSA Co- operation agreement with Netherlands NSA agreed on 23.09.2010 (as reported by UK, NL UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C reports signature date of Oct 2010). LoA between LVNL and NATS (LAC), 17.12.2009; LoA LVNL YYY Y ‐ YYYY between LVNL and NATS (SAC), 23.01.2010 (as reported by UK; 20.11.2008 as reported by NL).
UKNL-02 Southern North Sea: CTA 2 (GODOS), CTA 3 (MOLIX) Exchange of assurance agreement between NSAs re-issued 23.09.2010. Inter-NSA Co- operation agreement with Netherlands NSA agreed on 23.09.2010 (as reported by UK, NL UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C reports signature date of Oct 2010). LoA between LVNL and NATS (LAC), 17.12.2009; LoA LVNL YYY Y ‐ YYYY between LVNL and NATS (SAC), 23.01.2010 (as reported by UK; 20.11.2008 as reported by NL).
UKNO-01 North Sea Area II Long standing agreement being updated. North Sea Area I lateral limits changes agreed with Norway. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement prepared - informally accepted UK YY‐‐ ‐ YYYY NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C 10.11.2010, pending final confirmation. LoA between NATS & AVINOR,11.03.2010 + Avinor YYY Y ‐ YYYN NATS (Aberdeen ATSU) & AVINOR, 08.07.2004. Safety assessment of procedures are carried out by the respective units and regulatory approval provided by the States' NSA.
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 69
Annex 8 Acronyms
Note: The NSAs and ANSPs which are specifically referred to in the main body of the Report by their acronyms can be identified in Annex 2 – List of NSAs, and Annex 3 – List of Certified ANS Providers.
A/G Air/Ground ABI OLDI Advanced Boundary Information Message ACC Area Control Centre ACT Activation Message (Part of Basic OLDI) ADEXP ATS Data Exchange Presentation AFI African and Indian Ocean Region (ICAO) AFIS Aerodrome Flight Information Service AG-DLS Air-Ground Data Link Services AGVCS Air-Ground voice channel spacing AIC Aeronautical Information Circular AIS Aeronautical Information Service AMC Airspace Management Cell ANS Air Navigation Services ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider APP Approach Control Unit ARTAS ATM Surveillance Tracker and Server System ASM Airspace Management ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Controller ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Services ATSP Air Traffic Service Provider ATZ Aerodrome Traffic Zone CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAMOS Centralised ARTAS Maintenance & Operational Support CAB Cross-border Airspace Block CAR Cross-border Airspace Relation CATM Commercial Air Transport Movements CBA Cross-Border Area (FUA) CDR Conditional Route CFMU Central Flow Management Unit CIV/MIL Civil-Military CNS Communication Navigation Surveillance COTR Coordination and Transfer CPDLC Controller Pilot Datalink Connection CRCO Central Route Charges Office DCMAC Directorate of Civil-Military ATM Coordination DG Director General DGCA Director General of Civil Aviation EAD European AIS Database EASA European Aviation Safety Agency EATMN European Air Traffic Management Network EC European Commission ECAA European Common Aviation Area
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 70
EEA European Economic Area EGNOS European Geostationary Overlay Service ESARR EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement ESSIP European Single Sky ImPlementation EU European Union EUR Region European Region * (ICAO) FAB Functional Airspace Block FFPG FABs Focal Point Group FIS Flight Information Services FMP Flow Management Position FL Flight Level FMTP Flight message transfer protocol FUA Flexible Use of Airspace GAT General Air Traffic HLPB High Level Airspace Policy Body IANS EUROCONTROL Institute of Air Navigation Services ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IFPL Initial Flight Plan IFPS (Integrated) Initial Flight Plan Processing System ILS Instrument Landing System ISO International Standards Organization LSSIP Local Single Sky ImPlementation MET Meteorological Services for Air Navigation MoD Ministry of Defence MoT Ministry of Transport MoU Memorandum of Understanding N/A, NA Not applicable NSA National Supervisory Authority OJ Official Journal of the European Union OLDI Online Data Interchange PRC Performance Review Commission QMS Quality Management System RWY Runway SES Single European Sky SES I First Single European Sky legislation package SES II Second Single European Sky legislation package SESAR the Single European Sky ATM Research Programme SMS Safety Management System SSC Single Sky Committee TEN-T Trans European Network (-Transport) TMA Terminal Control Area TRA Temporary Reserved Area TSA Temporary Segregated Area TWR Tower Control Unit UAC Upper Area Control (Centre) (ICAO) USOAP ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme VFR Visual Flight Rules
Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 Annexes - 71
Acknowledgements
The production of this Report was coordinated by: Stefania NIKOLOVA-TSANKOVA – DSS/REG/CAA Oscar ALFARO – DSS/EIPR
With contributions from: Gérald AMAR – DSS/OVS/NOS Cécile CAPART – DSS/PRU/ECO Octavian CIOARA – DSS/REG/SES Danny DEBALS – DSS/EIPR Agnieszka DYBOWSKA – DSS/OVS/SAF Alain FOURNIE – DNM/OMR Vladimir JEVTIC – DNM/COO/NOM/OPL/PLA Zlatko MEIC – DNM/COO/NOM/OPL/PRO Lut NACKAERTS – DSS/OVS/SAF Ann-Frederique POTHIER – CRCO/CAT/CO1 Paul RAVENHILL – Contractor Darijo STOJKIC – DNM/COO/NOM/OPL/PRO
On the part of the European Commission, the production of the Report was coordinated with: Béatrice THOMAS - DG MOVE, Unit E2 Tor SIMONNÆS - DG MOVE, Unit E2 Umberto ROSSI - DG MOVE, Unit E2
The authors would like to thank all those who contributed and supported the work that culminated in the publication of this report.