prb assessment report of performance plans for … · this document is published by the performance...

Performance Review Body

EUROCONTROL

PRB assessment report of Performance

Plans for RP1

FAB Europe Central

Prepared by the Performance Review Body (PRB)

of the Single European Sky

20 September 2011

PRB assessment report of Performance Plans for RP1 FAB Europe Central

EUROCONTROL

COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This document is published by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) in its role as Performance Review Body (PRB) to assist the European Commission in the implementation of the Performance Scheme. It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL or of the European Commission, which make no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither do they assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected].


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 FAB EUROPE CENTRAL ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 CURRENT SITUATION AND LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ................................................................... 2 1.3 COMPLIANCE CHECKS ................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 SAFETY.......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 CAPACITY ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.7 COST-EFFICIENCY ....................................................................................................................... 11 1.8 INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN PERFORMANCE TARGETS............................................................... 11 1.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 1.10 ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 15

ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT DASHBOARD .................................................................... 17

ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE PLAN CHECKLIST................................................................................ 18

ANNEX 3: INVESTMENTS RELATED TO IP1 OF THE ATM MASTERPLAN............................... 22

ANNEX 4: LIST OF UNCONTROLLABLE COSTS............................................................................. 22


1

1 FAB Europe Central

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 The FAB Europe Central (FABEC) Performance Plan was received on 29 June 2011 in

English. The Plan is provisional until all FABEC Member States have ratified the FABEC States Agreement of 2nd December 2010 (not expected before 1 January 2012). The Performance Plan was signed by:

the Director General of Civil Aviation and Aerospace (Germany),

the State Secretary for Mobility (Belgium),

the Director General of Civil Aviation (France),

the Director CAA/NSA (Luxembourg),

the Director General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (the Netherlands), and

the Director General of FOCA (Switzerland).

1.1.2 An updated signed version of the German part of the FABEC performance plan was received on 19 July 2011 which corrected some costs figures in 2011.

1.1.3 FABEC’s Performance Plan provides performance targets set at FAB level for a number of accountable entities:

Seven ANSPs (Belgocontrol, Belgium; Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA), France; Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS), Germany; l’Administration de la Navigation Aerienne (ANA), Luxembourg; Air Traffic Control The Netherlands (LVNL), The Netherlands; Skyguide, Switzerland; Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC), BENELUX and Germany);

Four MET providers: Metéo France, France; Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), The Netherlands; Office Féderal de la Météorologie et de Climatologie MétéoSuisse, Switzerland;

States’ military forces, however specific accountable entities not identified;

The provisional FABEC Committees (Financial & Performance Committee and NSA Committee) and the individual Member States NSAs.

1.1.4 EUROCONTROL is included as a contributor to the determined costs of each Member State. Airport operators in the FABEC area are currently not taking part in the performance scheme.

1.1.5 The Europe Central Functional Airspace Block (FABEC) Member States are France, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium/Luxembourg and Switzerland. The PRB notes that for RP1 the FABEC States have decided to prepare a Performance Plan at national level for the cost-efficiency KPI and at FAB level for the capacity, safety and environment KPIs.

1.1.6 FABEC’s Performance Plan includes data for the cost efficiency performance target for aggregation of national targets and monitoring purposes only. The representatives of Member States provide the aggregated FABEC performance targets at the FAB level.

1.1.7 The Performance Plan covers the en-route airspace, and Flight Information Regions (FIRs) covered by the six FABEC States.

1.1.8 According to Article 13 of the performance scheme Regulation1, the PRB has assessed

1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions.


2

this plan on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III of the same Regulation.

1.2 Current situation and level of performance

1.2.1 Figure 1 shows the weighted average GDP growth for the six Member states of FABEC. The contribution of the Swiss GDP to the total has been calculated in Euros using the 2009 exchange rate to avoid the effects of exchange rate fluctuations in the annual movement. The global economic crisis led to a decline of -3.5% in GDP in 2009, but 2010 saw a recovery to 2.6% growth. The growth for 201123 is forecast to be 2.2%.

1.2.2 Across the FABEC States 2009 experienced low inflation, which increased in 2010. For 2011 further increases are forecast.

1.2.3 The Swiss Franc exchange rate to the Euro remained stable in 2009 and 2010 but is expected to appreciate in 2011 from 1.51 to 1.31 to the euro.4

1.2.4 The remaining group members are members of the Euro.

1.2.5 The Government bond rates across the 5 euro states of FABEC are similar. Switzerland’s Government bond rate5 decreased from 2.2% in 2009 to 1.6% in 2010. In the first five months of 2011 it returned to the 2009 level.

2009 2010 2011P

GDP (Aggregated %)

-3.5% 2.6% 2.2%

Price inflation (%)

France 0.1% 1.7% 2.1%

Germany 0.2% 1.2% 2.2%

Netherlands 1.0% 0.9% 2.3%

Belgium 0.0% 2.3% 2.9%

Luxembourg 0.0% 2.3% 2.9%

Switzerland -0.7% 0.7% 0.9%

Exchange rate to €

Switzerland 1.51 1.51 1.31

Other members

1 1 1

Government Bond Rate %

France 3.7% 3.1% 3.6%

Germany 3.2% 2.7% 3.2%

Netherlands 3.7% 3.0% 3.4%

Belgium 3.9% 3.2% 3.4%

Luxembourg 4.2% 3.2% 3.4%

Switzerland 2.2% 1.6% 2.2%

Figure 1: Key macro-economic indicators

1.2.6 The FABEC Performance Plan includes a qualitative discussion on the macro-economic scenario for the FABEC Member States. It notes that whilst considerable global economic growth is generally expected for the period 2012-2015, the economic prospects

2 Source: European Economic Forecast (Spring 2011). 3 Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011. 4 Source June 2011 CRCO tables, IMF forecasts 5 Source: OECD Economic Outlook no. 89, Annual Projections for OECD countries, June 2011.


3

for Europe are considerably less positive/optimistic. The macroeconomic assumptions used by each Member State are covered in the assessment report for each of the States.

1.2.7 The designated ANS providers included in the FABEC Performance Plan are: Belgocontrol, Belgium; Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA), France; Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS), Germany; l’Administration de la Navigation Aerienne (ANA), Luxembourg; Air Traffic Control The Netherlands (LVNL), The Netherlands; Skyguide, Switzerland; Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC), BENELUX and Germany.

1.2.8 The ANSPs within FABEC include two of the largest ANSPs in Europe in 2009 (France and Germany), and FABEC ANSP costs comprised 38.8% of the EU29 gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs as shown in Figure 2. The en-route ATFM delay generated by FABEC ANSPs is significant at 38.9% of total EU en-route ATFM delay 2009. FABEC ANSPs control areas with the highest traffic complexity in Europe.

38.8%

61.2%

Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs

FABEC EU 29

37.9%

62.1%

Flight-hours controlled by the ANSP

FABEC EU 29

38.9%

61.1%

En-route ATFM delay

FABEC EU 29

Figure 2: FABEC’s Key Figures (ACE 2009)

1.2.9 Figure 3 shows IFR traffic in FABEC airspace. According to the latest STATFOR forecast (Feb./May 2011), the traffic in the FABEC area in 2014 will be 4.5% higher than in 2008, which corresponds to an annual average growth rate of 0.7% between 2008 and 2014. The difference between the 2008 forecast and the 2011 forecast show approximately a shift of 5 year in the demand.

Feb. 2008 vs. STATFOR MTF Feb./May 2011

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

IFR

mo

vem

en

ts (

'00

0)

ACTUAL

Feb. 2008 ( B )

May 2011 ( B )

FAB EC

Figure 3: February 2008 base case (PRB approximation) and STATFOR Feb./May 2011 base case forecasts

1.2.10 FABEC is an excellent initiative for providing a NSA/CAA common approach for monitoring the ANSP safety performance and for setting safety targets and/or ALoS. It should be noted that none of the FABEC State has set a national ALoS.

1.2.11 There are three major cross-border service provisions which would benefit from a NSA/CAA common approach in measuring safety performance and in setting targets/ALoS:

The ATM provision of Maastricht UAC above FL245, over Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and North-West Germany,


4

The ANS provision of Belgocontrol between FL135 and FL 245, over Luxembourg,

The ATM provision of Skyguide over part of the French territory.

1.2.12 The current situation of the NSA/CAA safety performance monitoring for each FABEC State is outlined in the individual assessment report of each FABEC States. However, the current situation of MUAC is described below:

According to LSSIP 2010-2014, Monitoring of safety performance, issuing safety directives and the publication of an Annual Safety Oversight Report are now in the responsibility of the SES-certifying NSA for MUAC - IVW (CAA-NL).

According to LSSIP 2010-2014, The establishment of an ALoS is a responsibility of each of the 4 participating States. In NL (IVW/CAA-NL is the certifying authority of MUAC), the establishment of acceptable safety levels is by law (the Aviation Act) a combined responsibility of IVW (CAA-NL) and LVNL, but LVNL's safety minima do not apply in the case of MUAC.

As regards the other 3 participating States, none of them have so far established acceptable levels of safety. As a temporary solution for MUAC, an Executive Rule covering the implementation of ESARRs 3 and 4 was enacted (ER/MAS/04/001, in force with DG decision XIII/01 (2004)). The arrangements implemented by Maastricht UAC to comply with ESARR 4 have been subject to safety oversight by EUROCONTROL-ASRO and, in the context of MUAC SES certification, by the NL NSA. This responsibility has undertaken transition to IVW (CAA-NL) in cooperation with the other 3 States' NSAs, under the aegis of the 4-S NSA Committee.

A harmonised TLS for the Maastricht airspace will be developed at a later stage, probably as part of the FAB EC project. A Safety Monitoring Group has been established in Q4 2008 under the aegis of IVW (CAANL).

1.2.13 As seen in Figure 4, ATFM delays for FABEC reduced in 2009 in the context of reduced traffic levels. 2010 saw a significant increase in ATFM delay due to ATC staffing issues (strike action) in French ACCs, ongoing issues in Switzerland (ATCO shortage at Zurich ACC) and infrastructure issues in Germany due to the implementation of the VAFORIT system.

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ind

ex

20

06

AT

FM

en

-ro

ute

de

lay/

flig

ht (

min

.)

FAB EC

ATC Capacity/ Staffing [C,S] ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)

Weather [W] Other (special event, military, etc.)

Traffic index (2006)

Figure 4: Historical ATFM delays per cause


5

1.2.14 France, Germany and Switzerland have been the most significant contributors to overall FABEC ATFM delay over the period shown in Figure 5. In 2010, DSNA contributed 60% of FABEC’s total ATFM delay, an increase from 15% in 2009. DFS contributed 33% in 2010, a decrease from 60% in 2009. Whilst Skyguide’s actual ATFM delay did not change between 2009 and 2010, its contribution to FABEC total ATFM delay reduced due to overall increases in total FABEC delay.

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ind

ex

20

06

AT

FM

en

-ro

ute

de

lay/

flig

ht (

min

.)

FAB EC

Belgocontrol DFS DSNA

LVNL MUAC Skyguide

Traffic index (2006)

Figure 5: Historical ATFM delays per Member State by FAB

1.2.15 A detailed review of the economic cost effectiveness of each ANSP derived from ACE 2009 report is provided in each State’s assessment report.

1.3 Compliance checks 1.3.1 The FABEC Performance Plan contains the majority of the information required by the

legislation. However, the following required information is not provided. Since the PRB understands that the FABEC Performance Plan is provisional until all FABEC Member States have ratified the FABEC States Agreement of 2nd December 2010, the missing information could be added in the final version:

Clarification of which NSA was responsible for drawing up the plan;

Contribution of each accountable entity on the capacity target;

Stakeholder consultation material for the FABEC consultation meetings as well as NSAs’ responses to issues raised in the stakeholder consultation.

1.3.2 In several other areas the Plan contains incomplete information – full details are provided in Annex 2.

FABEC’s Performance Plan should be updated to include a number of current omissions and some incomplete information as listed in Section 1.3.

1.4 Safety 1.4.1 FABEC’s Performance Plan mentions the following safety performance indicators:

FABEC will monitor an indicator based on the EUROCONTROL ATM maturity survey waiting for the EU measure to be finalised. FABEC will develop a baseline of the indicator in 2012 and an objective to be achieved in 2013-2014.

Use of RAT tool/methodology will be measured where it is applied (i.e. in Belgocontrol, DFS, DSNA, MUAC). However there will be no target. The RAT tool/methodology is not used by LVNL and Skyguide. All FABEC’s ANSPs are committed to implement RAT methodology before the end of RP1.

Just Culture will be monitored in RP1, once the measure of it has been developed by the EC. If possible, a baseline for the indicator will be defined prior to RP1.


6

1.4.2 The PRB notes that there are plans to harmonise the occurrence reporting and assessment. However, given the lack of an agreed FABEC indicator to measure safety occurrences, and the heterogeneity of safety indicators and practices for monitoring safety performance, the ATS delegations could generate inconsistencies in monitoring safety performance at national level. For instance, the issue could affect the following delegations:

French ATS delegation to Switzerland. Safety indicators have been defined for all French FIRs airspace, but the Swiss ANSP (Skyguide) is not listed as an accountable entity for safety in the French national performance plan.

The Swiss ANSP Skyguide which provides services on Austrian airspace. However Skyguide is not listed as an accountable entity for safety although Austria has defined safety targets in its territory.

Luxembourg ATS- airspace delegations to Belgocontrol.

1.4.3 Some FABEC States have decided to include specific safety targets or PIs in their national part of their Performance Plan. In this case, a description is included in the specific individual assessment reports, attached to this report.

1.4.4 The PRB has the following Safety observations on the FABEC Performance Report:

The acceptance of FABEC safety case is scheduled by mid 2012.

There is a heterogeneity of lagging safety indicators (based on safety occurrences) used by CAA/NSA and ANSPs.

There is heterogeneity of practices for monitoring safety performance in FABEC Sates.

An agreed FABEC indicator to measure safety occurrences does not exist yet.

Not All FABEC States have a SSP.

1.4.5 Key point on SAFETY:

The PRB recommends FABEC to undertake a sensitivity analysis based on the hypothesis that the FABEC safety case would not be accepted initially.

The PRB encourages the FABEC States to reduce the current heterogeneity of the ANS related parts of the SSP as much as possible.

PRB appreciates the amount of data collected within the FABEC States on safety items like airprox, separation infringements, runway incursions, etc.

The PRB would recommend FABEC to make a firm commitment to introduce the use of RAT methodology in all FABEC States and ANSPs well in advance of the end of RP1 in order to start the monitoring of the application of RAT methodology during RP1 in accordance with EC 691/2010 requirements.

PRB recommends that all entities in charge of investigating ATM safety occurrences in FABEC should use the RAT methodology, not only the ANSP, without compromising the independence of AIBs in selecting and analyzing serious incidents.

PRB recommends to establish a plan to implement common indicators based on safety occurrences already in RP 1. The plan should take into account all major ANS-related risks which are contained in SSPs of FABEC Sates.

PRB recommends that the FABEC performance monitoring and annual reporting during RP1 should also include the performance of both States and their NSAs with regard to Effectiveness of Safety Management and Just Culture.


7

1.5 Environment

1.5.1 The EU-wide environmental target is generally supported in the FABEC Performance Plan. Three environmental indicators are included in the FABEC Performance Plan:

ENV KPI #1: % of route extension within FABEC airspace: The indicator is based on the difference between the length of the actual route flown and the great circle distance within the FABEC airspace.

The target for KPI #1 is a 5% improvement in 2014 compared to the 2011 level.

ENV KPI #2: Approach procedures in place supporting Continuous Descent Operations (CDO): The indicator relates to airports with more than 50k movements per year in the FABEC area.

The target KPI #2 is to have procedures at 21 of the 23 airports (i.e. 90%) by the end of 2014, as compared to 43% in April 2011. CDO is defined as 'established' when CDO facilitation is published and effective, no matter how long or short the timeframe is and no matter which type of facilitation (i.e. implementation process is not necessarily finished).

ENV PI #1: % of route extension of intra FABEC flights: The indicator is based on the difference between the length of the intra FABEC flight in accordance with the last filed flight plan and the great circle distance within the FABEC area.

For RP1 there is no target on PI #1.

1.5.2 Some FABEC States have decided to include specific environment targets or PIs in their national part of their Performance Plan. In this case, a description is included in the specific individual assessment reports, attached to this report.

The PRB appreciates the initiative of FABEC to improve the intra-FABEC flight efficiency and encourages the FABEC States to coordinate closely with the network manager to ensure consistency with the EU-wide target.

The PRB acknowledges the efforts of MUAC to improve flight efficiency by implementing the ‘free route airspace’ concept and recommends further implementation of the concept throughout the FABEC area.


8

1.6 Capacity

1.6.1 Figure 6 presents the delay targets proposed by FABEC against the historical delays as well as the reference values provided by the Capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL in January 2011.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

per

flig

ht (

min

.)

Historic values 0.72 0.84 0.93 0.62 2.12

Reference values 0.52 0.47 0.40

Capacity target 0.77 0.68 0.50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

XXX

Source: CFMU; Performance PlanFABEC

Figure 6: Capacity targets overview

1.6.2 Delay level check in 2014: The FABEC Performance Plan sets a joint FABEC capacity target. Although FABEC’s Performance Plan aims for a continuous improvement in RP1, the FABEC capacity target for 2014 (0.5 min./flight) is notably less ambitious than the contribution required by FABEC to meet the EU-wide capacity target in 2014 (0.4 min/flight).

FABEC’s Performance Plan is assessed as not passing the “Delay level” check.

1.6.3 The FABEC capacity target was based on an ANSP “bottom up” Capacity Forecast which is an amalgamation of the individual capacity plans proposed by the ANSPs. According to the FABEC Performance Plan the approach relies on “the plans by the ANSPs of the best improvements they [the ANSPs] deem achievable during the period, both individually and collectively, taking into account the combined need for cost-efficiency gains and for a balance with the national targets on en-route determined unit rates (p.49).” In addition to the targets in figure 6, the FABEC ANSP delay forecast for 2011 is 1.11 min / flight.

1.6.4 Whereas the FABEC Performance Plan mentions a number of considerations as to why the capacity target should not be too ambitious, it fails to provide any evidence on the underlying reasons as to why the EUROCONTROL reference values cannot be met by 2014.

1.6.5 According to the FABEC Performance Plan, the selected FABEC capacity target is “between the planned value at 0.55 minute per flight in 2014 and the EUROCONTROL reference value of 0.40 minute per flight, it goes into the direction of the wish expressed by airspace users by putting an additional pressure on performance. It is the same figure as the EU-wide target, and is clearly below the average of the years until 2009.”


9

1.6.6 ANSP Capacity planning (LSSIP 2011-2015): Figure 7 illustrates the evolution of ANSP capacity planning in the past three years and compares it to the reference capacity profile in the LSSIP 2011-2015. It combines all FABEC ACCs and provides a simplified high level view.

1.6.7 At FABEC level the capacity plans were continuously revised downwards over the past three years.

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Baseline

2011-2015(REF)

2009-2013(PLAN)

2010-2014(PLAN)

2011-2015(PLAN)

mov

emen

ts p

er h

our

FABEC

Figure 7: Evolution of ANSP capacity planning (LSSIP)

vs. required capacity

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

201

12

012

201

32

014

FABEC DSNA(France)

DFS(Germany)

Skyguide(Switzerland)

Belgocontrol(Belgium)

LVNL(Netherlands)

MUAC(Maastricht)

2011-14 ANSP Plan vs. 2011-15 reference capacity profile2011-15 ANSP Plan vs. 2011-15 reference capacity profile

FABEC ANSP capacity plans vs. required reference profile (LSSIP 2011-15)

Sur

plus

Sh

ort

fall

5.9%29.3% 30% 12.6% 5.8% 16.5%Traffic weight

Figure 8: Capacity plan vs. required reference profile

1.6.8 Figure 8 compares the reference capacity profile for the period 2011-2015 to the ANSP capacity plans in 2010 (LSSIP 2010-14) and 2011 (LSSIP 2011-2015) at ANSP level.

1.6.9 ANSP Capacity planning (LSSIP 2011-2015): The simplified view at FABEC level shows a continuous improvement in RP1 leading to a small capacity surplus in 2014.

1.6.10 With the exception of the French DSNA, all ANSPs show a sufficient level of capacity to meet the reference capacity profile by 2014 at ANSP level. Year on year, DFS (Germany) revised their plans upwards which resulted in a small capacity surplus at ANSP level by 2014 but at ACC level a capacity shortfall at Langen ACC is observed.

1.6.11 A notable downward revision compared to the previous year can be observed for Belgocontrol and DSNA. Whereas Belgocontrol adjusted their plans to the reference capacity profile, the DSNA capacity plans in the latest LSSIP (2011-2015) are no longer consistent with the reference capacity profile leading to a predicted ATFM delay in 2014


10

by the network manager which is 40% higher than the required contribution towards the EU-wide target.

With the exception of DSNA and Langen ACC in Germany, the latest available capacity plans of the FABEC ANSPs (LSSIP 2011-2015) show a sufficient level of capacity to meet the reference capacity profile in 2014.

1.6.12 In addition to the average ATFM en-route delay per flight (EU/FABEC KPI#1), two capacity performance indicators were included in FABEC’s Performance Plan.

FABEC PI #1: Percentage of controlled flights with an en-route ATFM delay of 15 minutes or more;

FABEC PI #2: Percentage of controlled flights with any en route ATFM delay.

1.6.13 The two additional indicators shall be monitored at FABEC level in RP1 but no target is set at FABEC level. Furthermore the following three airport performance indicators will be monitored at FABEC level, subject to refining definitions with PRB as may be necessary:

Total ATFM delays (en-route & terminal);

Additional time in the taxi out phase;

Additional ASMA time (airports more than 100k movements).

1.6.14 Key points on CAPACITY:

A. The PRB welcomes the development of a common FABEC Performance Plan with a joint capacity target and a collective accountability of all ANSPs but is concerned about the lack of transparency on capacity performance; the lack of clear accountabilities and processes regarding capacity performance monitoring; and how corrective actions will be handled.

B. Although the FABEC Performance Plan aims for a continuous improvement in RP1, the intermediate values and the FABEC capacity target for 2014 (0.5 min./flight) are notably less ambitious than the contribution required by FABEC to meet the EU-wide capacity target in 2014 (0.4 min/flight).

C. The FABEC capacity target was based on an ANSP “bottom up” Capacity Forecast which is an amalgamation of the individual capacity plans proposed by the ANSPs (there is no Common FABEC ANSP Business Plan), based on what the ANSPs “deem achievable” in RP1. Whereas the Performance Plan mentions a number of considerations as to why the FABEC capacity target should not be too ambitious, it fails to provide any evidence on the underlying reasons as to why the EUROCONTROL reference values cannot be met by 2014, despite a traffic level which is predicted to be only 4.5% higher than in 2008.

D. There is no evidence in the FABEC performance plan to show how capacity is enhanced by working together as a FAB.

E. The review of the latest ANSP capacity plans suggest that there is a capacity shortfall in France as a result of the significant downward revision of the capacity plans compared to the previous year but no reason is provided to justify such a capacity reduction and the issue is not addressed in FABEC’s Performance Plan, despite the considerable traffic share of France within FABEC.

F. In view of the large traffic volume controlled by FABEC, the additional cost of


11

delay resulting from the notably less ambitious FABEC capacity targets is estimated to be €265M6 during RP1. This is a considerable cost to airspace users and a revision of the FABEC capacity target which capitalises on FAB synergies as well as a providing a higher level of transparency and clear accountability as to how performance will be ensured should be developed.

1.7 Cost-efficiency 1.7.1 The FABEC States have decided that the provisional FABEC RP1 Performance Plan

will not include a target on a FABEC en-route determined unit rate in its Performance Plan but that cost-efficiency targets will be set in each of the FABEC States assessment reports.

1.7.2 FABEC’s Performance Plan however describes some PIs that will be monitored at FABEC level:

The aggregation of the national cost-efficiency targets.

A global figure demonstrating the cost efficiency effort at FAB level (for information purposes).

The average FABEC determined unit rate for terminal ANS.

The determined en route cost/revenue.

The total en route cost per flight hour.

The total economic cost per flight hour, per SU and per Km.

1.7.3 A detailed analysis of each national en-route determined unit rate is included in each specific individual assessment reports attached to this report.

1.7.4 It must however be noted that the aggregated determined unit rate at FABEC level will decrease by -2.0% p.a. over the 2011-2014 period and by -2.2% p.a. over the 2009-2014 period which is significantly different from respectively -3.5% and -3.2% for the EU-wide cost-efficiency target.

1.8 Interrelations between performance targets 1.8.1 FABEC recognises the inter-dependencies between all KPAs, but has limited its

assessment to qualitative terms. In setting performance targets the FABEC States were conscious of the need to ensure that safety is not compromised.

1.8.2 The FABEC Performance Plan does not provide any indication that the achieved level of safety could not be maintained in relation to performance targets set for RP1.

1.8.3 Based on the information in the FABEC Performance Plan for cost-effectiveness, staff and operating costs increase but the information from some Member States indicate a reduction of staff (e.g. see page 57 of BELUX Performance Plan) or reduction of training (see paragraph 2.2.1 of German Performance Plan) but no assessment of the safety implication is provided.

Based on the information in the FABEC Performance Plan, there are no significant issues on the interrelations between targets.

6 Assuming a cost of 81€ per minute (source:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/European%20airline%20delay%20cost%20reference%20values%20(Final%20Report,%20V3.2).pdf


12

1.9 Additional Comments Monitoring Performance Plans 1.9.1 FABEC’s Performance Plan provides some preliminary information on the proposed

process for monitoring achievement of the targets. The monitoring will be carried out under the auspices of the Financial and Performance Committee (FPC), assisted by the NSA Committee (NSAC) as appropriate.

1.9.2 According to FABEC’s Performance Plan, “the ANSPs agree on a process among themselves to address delay and, where appropriate, environment issues identified at local and FABEC level, whether part of the corrective action plans imposed by NSAs, or as own improvement actions.”

1.9.3 For Capacity Performance Monitoring, this will take place:

Through the AFG/PGM (ANSPs), the individual ANSPs shall collectively submit a quarterly report to the FPC on their joint progress in achieving the FABEC capacity, environmental and safety targets/ indicative values and on performance at appropriate level (FABEC, ANSPs and/or ACCs).

In case the set targets/ indicative values are threatened not to be met, the AFG/PMG report shall also include any action (at FABEC, ANSP and/or ACC level) which the ANSPs consider suitable to rectify the situation. In this report the ANSPs are also required to describe to which extent they have complied with the findings of and the recommendations made by the FPC during the monitoring process.

The FPC evaluates the ANSP report, assesses the actions considered by the ANSPs together with the necessity of appropriate measures to be taken by the States or the NSAs, and – after consultation with the AFG/PMG – “make an advice to the proposals, made by the AFG/PGM, to the FABEC Council for such appropriate measures”.

The measures to be taken shall reflect the seriousness of the risk of not meeting the set targets and could include a higher monitoring frequency. If at the end of the year and/or the reference period the targets/ indicative values were not achieved, the incentive mechanism shall apply.

In its annual report to the EC, the FPC reports on the measures taken to ensure that the FABEC performance plan is appropriately implemented.

1.9.4 No financial incentives on capacity are envisaged for RP1.

1.9.5 In case the measures undertaken by ANSPs do not deliver the results of achieving the capacity target after a given year, the FPC (assisted by the NSAC) shall activate the incentive mechanism consisting of:

identifying the locations and causes of the overall and local sub-performance;

identifying corrective actions, at FABEC level and/or at local level;

the ANSPs concerned elaborating an action plan to address the identified overall underperformance at FABEC level and if necessary at local level, together with associated timelines, taking due account of the other developments planned both at national and at FABEC level to achieve the required performance levels. In case that action plan would impact other developments planned the concerned ANSPs should be associated to the action plan.

setting checkpoints with dates for specific reports in a proportionate manner, assessing the progress made at predetermined intervals.

Depending on the situation the FPC could take any other appropriate action deemed necessary.


13

1.9.6 For Safety Performance Monitoring, according to FABEC’s Performance Plan:

There is a comprehensive plan to establish a common safety performance monitoring system. The detailed safety performance monitoring practices are described in the Process Description Document.

In FABEC’s Performance Plan there is not enough information to demonstrate that FABEC will monitor safety indicators based on incidents/ occurrences (lagging indicators) during RP1.

FABEC is committed to harmonise Safety Management Systems, safety occurrence handling, working methods, definitions and historical data building in RP1.

FABEC would plan to develop the performance monitoring based on the following “RAT assessed” occurrences: Separation Minima Infringement between IFR (total number and the sub-total with ATC contribution), Runway Incursions (total number and the sub-total with ATC contribution), and ATM Specific Technical Events.

The safety performance monitoring will in particular focus on the achievement of the performance related issues (if any) defined in the ANS State Safety Programme(s) and ANSP business plans.

The 7 ANSPs are considered as collectively accountable for the targets and objectives on FABEC level. The monitoring will be carried out under the auspices of the Financial and Performance Committee (FPC), assisted by the NSA Committee (NSAC) as appropriate.

Further, it is known that:

States have got the legal obligations to collect, investigate and collate safety occurrences stemming in particular from Directive 2003/42/EC, Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 and ICAO Annex 13.

States and ANSPs have got the legal obligations to set ALoS and monitor it in accordance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 11, EC 2096/2005.

Therefore it is expected that FABEC States will continue monitoring lagging indicators at national level until FABEC will take over and that FABEC States and ANSPs will discharge the obligation to set ALoS and to monitor it.

Investments related to IP1 of the ATM Masterplan 1.9.7 In the letter of European Commission’s Air Transport Director dated 15 April 2011,

States were invited to provide, in their Performance Plans, detailed information on their investments planned for the period 2012-2014, in particular those associated with the 29 IP1 OI steps recognised as critical by the Single Sky Committee.

1.9.8 The FABEC Performance Plan does not contain a list of the investments as they are provided in the State Performance Plans.

Military dimension of plan 1.9.9 According to the latest Annual Reports on the Application on FUA, all FABEC States are

fully compliant with the FUA regulation.

1.9.10 Three KPIs and four PIs related to “Military Mission effectiveness (MME)” are included in the FABEC Performance Plan for performance monitoring. Although it was foreseen that national targets would be set for the three KPIs – “due to the lack of consolidated data” - only Belgium set quantitative targets for those KPIs in RP1. FABEC targets are envisaged for RP2.

MIL KPI #1: “Published SUA structure vs. Optimum SUA dimension” (% difference).


14

MIL KPI#2: “Percentage of SUA capacity allocated” in order to indicate how much airspace can be allocated after taking the civil constraints into account, compared to the required SUA.

MIL KPI#3: “Total training time vs. total airborne time” to provide a measure of actual time spent in the SUA compared to the total airborne time. Corresponding targets are provided at State level.

1.9.11 Additionally four PIs are provided for development within FABEC and for measurement in RP2:

MIL PI #1: “Percentage of SUA requested” to show how much a SUA is requested compared to the time the SUA is available for booking.

MIL PI#2: “Percentage of SUA capacity used” to provide a percentage of the allocated airspace that has actually been used.

MIL PI#3: “SUA Time allocated vs. time requested” to provide an indication of the share of time a SUA has been allocated compared to the time it has been requested, due to civil constraints.

MIL PI#4: “Average transit time” per aircraft to and from the SUA.

1.9.12 No incentives are envisaged for Military Mission Effectiveness. While Section 6.3. of the FABEC performance plan addresses the monitoring of capacity, environment and safety performance, it is unclear how Military Mission Effectiveness will be monitored within FABEC.

1.9.13 While the PRB welcomes the use of indicators related to military mission effectiveness it is important that a balanced approach considering both the civil and the military dimension is ensured.

1.9.14 Within the SES performance scheme, a performance indicator measuring the effective use of civil/military airspace structures will be developed. Hence the exchange of information of FABEC’s experience (i.e. data sources, etc.) with monitoring MIL PI#2 (% of SUA capacity used) is welcomed by the PRB.

The PRB appreciates the effort by the FABEC to develop military indicators to be implemented and monitored already during RP1. The PRB recommends that FABEC develops additional civil-military indicators which ensure a balanced approach in the evaluation of civil military performance.

Stakeholders’ views on NSA stakeholder consultation 1.9.15 Because of the structure of the FABEC plan, stakeholder consultation took place at both

State (for cost efficiency) and FABEC level (for capacity, safety, environment military aspects of the plan). The details of the States’ stakeholder consultation is included in each of the individual assessment reports.

1.9.16 The FABEC stakeholder consultation meeting took place on 20 May 2011, following two preparatory workshops on 4 and 11 April. This May meeting followed the consultations taking place at a national level.

1.9.17 Details of the stakeholders who attended are not provided in FABEC’s Performance Plan, however airspace users, staff representatives, ANSPS, and observers from Airports Council International and the Performance Review Body were invited. The consultation material can be found on FABEC website and is not attached to the Performance Plan.

1.9.18 Airspace users provided the following key comments in letters sent to each of the FABEC States (the details of State specific issues are provided in each State’s assessment report):


15

A general comment of FABEC’s plan lacking ambition and not providing a sufficient contribution to meet EU-wide targets given the size of the airspace covered.

1.9.19 FABEC’s Performance Plan notes the following feedback from stakeholders:

Airspace users believed the plan was not ambitious as it took a bottom-up approach of consolidating ANSP plans rather than top-down. Furthermore airspace users noted the lack of accountability and processes for ensuring plans are implemented.

Staff representatives did not support the EU-wide targets.

Airspace users declared themselves dissatisfied with the bottom-up approach to setting capacity targets. They requested a more ambitious target at the level of the CEF reference value. They supported use of the second capacity indicator but asked for a change in definition, which was subsequently implemented.

Airspace users stated that given the lack of ambition by the FABEC States collectively it would not be possible to meet the EU wide targets. The cost efficiency targets are discussed further in each of the State’s assessment reports.

ANSPs and Staff made a number of suggestions with regards to safety aspects of the plan.

The Military were asked to make airspace sufficiently in advance in order to be effectively planned and to balance Civil and Military needs.

1.9.20 FABEC’s Performance Plan provides only limited commentary on the responses to stakeholders views.

FABEC Performance Plan was subject to stakeholder consultation. however there is insufficient information on the process and outcomes. There is a lack of evidence that FABEC addressed the comments received.

Uncontrollable costs 1.9.21 This section is covered in each of the FABEC States’ assessment reports.

1.10 Assessment Conclusions 1.10.1 An overview of the technical assessment of FABEC’s Performance Plan for RP1 is

presented in Annex 1 in the form of a one-page dashboard.

Conclusions on capacity 1.10.2 Overall FABEC’s Performance Plan is assessed as not making an adequate contribution

to the achievement of the EU-wide capacity target in 2014.

The proposed en-route ATFM delay target, of 0.5 minutes per flight in 2014 is higher than the required contribution from the FABEC to achieve the EU-wide capacity target in 2014 (0.4). In view of the high impact on missing the EU-wide target, the PRB invites the EC to ask the FABEC States to revise their Performance Plan with regard to capacity.

The PRB suggests that the FABEC revises the performance plan to improve transparency on capacity performance; provide clarity on accountabilities and processes regarding capacity performance monitoring, and how corrective actions are handled within the FABEC.

The PRB recommends that all FABEC partners, evaluate the capacity situation within the FAB and develop intra-FAB solutions to resolve any remaining capacity shortfall.


16

Conclusions on compliance 1.10.3 In addition, FABEC’s Performance Plan should be complemented by the following

missing elements:

The missing and incomplete information as listed in Section 1.3.

The stakeholder consultation materials, and confirmation that information was provided 3 weeks in advance.

Further evidence that FABEC addressed the comments received at the stakeholder meetings.


17

Annex 1: Technical assessment dashboard

FABEC’s Performance Plan

Assessment criteria Details Conclusion

Cap

acit

y

Delay level check

En-route ATFM delay (minutes) per flight

2012 2013 2014

Reference values 0.52 0.47 0.40

Delay target in Performance Plan

0.77 0.68 0.50

ANSP’s Capacity Plan NOT OK

Not Consistent

Traffic forecast checks

Economic assumptions checks

Unit rate trend checks

Unit rate level checks

Cos

t-ef

fici

ency

Return on equity checks

See details for each State in the individual assessment attached to this report

See conclusions for each State in

the individual assessment

attached to this report


18

Annex 2: Performance Plan checklist

Ref Requirement (option requirements shaded)

Check

(Yes / No / Incomplete

Notes / reference in plan

Scope of plan (dates, level) Yes Executive Summary

Entities covered Yes Section 1.1b

NSA responsible for drawing up plan No Not included

Geographical scope of plan Yes Section 1.1b

The airspace of the six FABEC states (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg, The Netherlands and Switzerland

FIRs not named

National or FAB plan Yes Section 1.1b

Capacity: FAB Level

Cost-eff: national levels although summary provided in FAB plan

1.1 Description of situation

For National Performance Plans, NSA or body responsible for providing the aggregation of performance targets for the FAB

N/A FAB level plan

GDP forecast Incomplete Description of macroeconomic scenario Inflation forecast Incomplete

Section 1.2a

Qualitative terms only in FAB plan. Included in national plans in annex to FAB plan (but missing for some states, Switzerland, Germany)

Traffic forecast Yes Section 1.2b

STATFOR February 2011 base forecast

Status of aviation safety and Aviation State Safety Programme

Yes Section 1.2d

Included for all member states

1.2 Overall assumptions

Institutional context and governance Yes Section 1.2f

Format and timing Yes Section 1.3 (1)

List of stakeholders consulted Incomplete Section 1.3 (1)

Stakeholder types included but not full list.

Issues raised Yes Section 1.3 (2), (3)

1.3 Stakeholder consultation

NSA response to issues raised No Not included


19


Check



Confirmation that information provided 3 weeks in advance

Incomplete Section 1.3 (1)

Exact dates not provided

Effectiveness of safety management Yes

Application of severity classification Yes

2.1a

Just culture targets for each year Yes

Section 2.1 (1), Annex C

2.1b Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight Yes Section 2.1(3), Figure 21

2.1c Description of route design improvement process Yes Section 2.1(2)

Additional FAB KPIs included instead of using EU envt. target for RP1

Determined en-route costs for each year Yes Section 2.1(4), Figure 28, 29

National and aggregated at FAB level. Nominal and real

Determined terminal costs for each year No Not included

En-route service units forecast for each year Yes Section 2.1(4), Figure 27

National and aggregated at FAB level.

Determined unit rate for each year Yes Section 2.1(4), Figure 30,31

National and aggregated at FAB level.

Description and justification of return on equity

No Not included

Capex for each year No

Breakdown of projects Yes

2.1d

Description of investment needed to achieve targets

Description of relevance and coherence

Incomplete

Section 2.1(3), Figure 23, Annex B

Includes measures but no breakdown of capex by year. Descriptions of relevance not included.

Capacity Yes Section 2.2(3) Explanation of consistency with EU-wide targets

Cost efficiency N/A Cost-efficiency set at national level

2.2

Explanation of any interdependencies and trade-offs Incomplete Section 2.3

No quantitative analysis included


20


Check



2.3 Explanation of carry-overs from previous years Yes Section 2.4

Noted that all carry-over tables are in the national plans

Capacity Incomplete Section 2.5

Risk sharing not described. Noted there will be no financial incentives.

Traffic risk sharing keys

N/A Cost-efficiency set at national level

2.4 Description of risk-sharing and incentives

Cost -efficiency

Identification of uncontrollable costs

N/A Cost-efficiency set at national level

3.1

Individual performance targets for each accountable entity

The 7 ANSPs of the member states of the FAB

Incomplete Section 3.1

Capacity only

No information o each individual ANSPs which are considered as collectively accountable

3.2 Description of incentives for each entity

The 7 ANSPs of the member states of the FAB


Non-financial Ex post: Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of the underperformance

No detail on corrective actions or incentives provided

4 Description of civil-military dimension Yes Section 4, Annex D

5 Analysis of sensitivity to external assumptions Incomplete Section 5.1

No sensitivity analysis carried out. Very brief qualitative statement only.

Safety No

Capacity Yes

Environment No

Measures to be put in place to achieve the targets

Cost-efficiency N/A

Section 2.1(3), Figure 23, Annex B

List of measures

Monitoring to ensure safety and business plans implemented

Yes Section 6.1, 6.2

6 Implementation of the Plan

Contingency plans if targets are not met during reference period


Contingency plans are not included. General description is insufficient.


21


Check



Annex A: Reporting Tables and additional information Yes Annex A includes national plans for each of the FABEC Member States

Annex B: Extracts from ANSPs Business Plans No Not included

Annex C: Extracts from States Safety Programmes Yes Annex C

Annex D: Public consultation material No Not included

Performance plan submitted on time (by 30 June 2011) Yes Delivered 29 June 2011

Plan submitted in English Yes

Plan signed by a person with clear responsibility from the State Yes Signed by representatives of all members of FABEC


22

Annex 3: Investments related to IP1 of the ATM Masterplan

Not provided in the FABEC Performance Plan but in each national part (see the individual national assessments attached to this report)

Annex 4: List of uncontrollable costs

Not provided in the FABEC Performance Plan but in each national part (see the individual national assessments attached to this report)

prb assessment report of performance plans for … · this document is published by the performance...

Documents