report on the ses legislation implementation · 2019-02-18 · report on the ses legislation...

Produced by EUROCONTROL upon request of the European Commission DG-MOVE

Reporting period January/10 - December/10

Report on the SES Legislation Implementation

EUROCONTROLEuropean

Commission

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(European Commission)

Internet (www.eurocontrol.int)

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 NUMBER

EDITION DATE

REASON FOR CHANGE PAGES AFFECTED

1.0 1 June 2011 Original Document All

Danube FAB project assigned to incorrect phase. ‘Feasibility’ replaced by ‘Definition’

93, 95

Text of REC-2010-16 “…clarify the designation process as applied in Germany.” replaced by “…ensure all CARs are correctly reported.”

4, 39, Annexes-2

‘Latvia’ replaced by ‘Lithuania’ in text of Recommendation REC-2010-56

9, 81 & Annexes-4

Sweden added to applicability list of REC-2010-31 6, 55, Annexes-3

ISO code for Slovenia corrected from ‘SL’ to ‘SI’ in REC-2010-4 and 2nd para. of Section 10.2.7

3, 28, 86, Annexes-1

ISO code for the Czech Republic corrected from ‘CR’ to ‘CZ’ in REC-2010-19

4, 45, Annexes-2

ISO code for Poland corrected from ‘PO’ to ‘PL’ in REC-2010-59

9, 82, Annexes-4

ISO code for Austria corrected from ‘AU’ to ‘AT’ in 2nd para. of Section 11.3

89

Recommendations REC-2010-4, 9 & 31 addressed to individual Spanish NSAs

3, 6, 28, 31, 55, Annexes-1, 3

Amount of States that did not verify compliance on IFPL is “six”, not “seven”

78

Improved explanation on application of the Regulation for countries where all airports have fewer than 50,000 CATM per year

89

“CY” removed from the list of 14 States which have yet to establish procedures for handling critical events

100

Amount of States that reported that the AMC is not a joint civil/military cell is “four”, not “five”

106

1.1 27 June 2011

Editorial corrections Various

Sweden removed from applicability list of REC-2010-14 and related text

4, 36, Annexes-1

REC-2010-21 slightly re-worded 5, 46, Annexes-2

Cross-Border section and related recommendations in Executive Summary and Annex 1 corrected

4, 37 to 46, Annexes-2

1.2 25 August 2011

Text “No information was provided for the two AFIS providers” removed from 3rd bullet of text related to REC-2010-38

63

Report on the SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2010 – December/2010 iv

List of NSAs not having received DoVs for three consecutive years corrected

72

Latvia added to applicability list of REC-2010-47 and related text

9, 75, 76, Annexes-4

Sweden removed from applicability list of REC-2010-48 and related text and added to applicability list of REC-2010-46 and related text

9, 75, 76, Annexes-4

Belgium, Cyprus and Czech Republic removed from applicability list of REC-2010-49 and related text

9, 76, Annexes-4

Czech Republic and Norway removed from applicability list of REC-2010-57 and related text. Hungary and Malta added.

9, 81, 82, Annexes-4

Slovak Republic added to applicability list of REC-2010-76 and related text

13, 110, 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.


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.


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

REC-2010-1 France should clarify which DGAC departments are formally NSAs and which provide services to the actual NSA.

FR

REC-2010-2 [REC-2009-4]

Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT

REC-2010-3 [REC-2009-5]

Portugal should confirm arrangements for the supervision of MET service provision.

PT

REC-2010-4

The NSAs of Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-MIL should conduct the assessment of HR and submit their recruitment plans (if necessary) to their governmental authorities as a matter of urgency.

DK, ES-MIL, EE, GR, SI

REC-2010-5 NSAs of Belgium and Luxembourg should update their assessment of HR taking into consideration the evolution in the regulatory framework and associated tasks since 2008.

BE, LU

REC-2010-6

States where NSA has submitted recruitment plans but they are blocked or waiting for approval should take measures so they comply with their obligation to ensure that NSAs have the necessary resources and capabilities to carry out their tasks.

AT, BG, CH, DE, HU, IT,

LT, LU

REC-2010-7 Commission to apply pressure to those States where recruitment plans are on hold or awaiting approval.

EC

REC-2010-8 [REC-2009-7]

The European Commission should encourage States to continue looking for creative solutions (i.e. closer cooperation with other NSAs especially within FABs, secondment of staff from other divisions of the regulatory authorities, etc.) to ensure that NSAs can perform their tasks despite the existing budgetary constraints.

EC All States

REC-2010-9 The Spanish military NSA should establish qualification criteria for auditors/inspectors and take measures to ensure that it avails itself of enough qualified personnel to conduct safety oversight.

ES-MIL

REC-2010-10 Bulgaria and Germany should continue their efforts to recruit/train sufficient number of qualified auditors for an effective conduction of safety oversight.

BG, DE

REC-2010-11 (REC-2009-9)

The European Commission should seek further clarifications from Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this task.

EC SI

REC-2010-12 [REC-2009-1]

The European Commission should investigate the use of Qualified Entities.

EC


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.


REC-2010-13 Portugal and Slovenia should clarify the status of certificates for their ANSPs.

PT, SI

REC-2010-14 France, Portugal and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS providers are correctly designated.

CH, FR, PT

REC-2010-15 Germany should clarify the designation process as applied in Germany.

DE

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.


REC-2010-16 Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, , Serbia and Switzerland should ensure all CARs/CABs are correctly reported.

BE, CH, DE, FR, HU, IT,

NL,RS

REC-2010-17 Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands should re-visit their assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC is operating.

DE, LU, NL

REC-2010-18 Austria is requested to check its reporting of the Case B legal framework.

AT

REC-2010-19

States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. This concerns Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and UK.

AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, SE,

SI, UK


REC-2010-20

States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align the existing agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment.

All States

REC-2010-21 States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and establishing NSA arrangements for supervision of cross-border ATS provision even prior to FAB agreements being in place.

All States

REC-2010-22 NSAs should make use of the NSA Coordination Platform to address this issue.

All States

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.


REC-2010-23

The EC and EASA (in the light of the upcoming standardisation inspections) should support the States to review the safety policies (relation with SSP (ICAO) and ESP (EASA)) and accelerate the adoption of risk based approach to ongoing compliance and safety oversight.

EC

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.


REC-2010-24 Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Slovenia should seek to improve their consultation processes.

AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, LU,

PT, SI

REC-2010-25 EC to remind all States of the importance of stakeholder consultation and to use FAB level processes to reduce the burden on stakeholders.

EC

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


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.


REC-2010-26 Belgium should clarify if the oversight manual includes the safety oversight report for 2009.

BE

REC-2010-27 The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation.

UK

REC-2010-28 NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight Report for 2009 should do so.

EE, ES, GR, MT, NL, NO,

PT, SI

REC-2010-29 NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL, should take swift action to establish and implement the missing processes with regard to safety oversight.

BE, CH, DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, NO, SK

REC-2010-30 Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for the oversight of ASM.

LU

REC-2010-31 NSAs should take measures to established and implement the necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM.

BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, FI, FR, GR, NL, NO, SE, SK

REC-2010-32 Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within the limits of the Ministry of Transport.

AT


REC-2010-33 The European Commission should take actions relating to the support to NSAs in the effective implementation of the safety oversight to ATFM and ASM functions.

EC

REC-2010-34 NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety related changes to their functional system should expedite this process.

DK, EE, ES-MET, ES-

MIL, GR, PT

REC-2010-35 NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional systems proposed by their ANSPs.

DK, EE, ES-MIL, IT, NO,

PL

REC-2010-36 (REC-2009-34)

The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, and inform the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument.

EC

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.


REC-2010-37 States should ensure that a compliant Software Safety Assurance System is developed by the relevant organisations.

BE, CZ, EE, GR, LU, NO,

PT, SK

REC-2010-38 States should ensure that the software safety assurance system of all relevant organisations is fully compliant with the Regulation.

AT, DK, FI, FR, SE

REC-2010-39 NSAs should verify that the certified ANSPs have a compliant Software Safety Assurance System.

AT, CY, DK, EE, ES, GR, 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.


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.


REC-2010-40 Estonia and Switzerland should ensure an adequate allocation of tasks.

CH, EE

REC-2010-41 Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland should complete development of processes for supervision of conformity assessment tasks.

CH, DK, EE, HU, IT

REC-2010-42 The eight remaining NSAs should verify that their certified ANSPs are capable of conducting conformity assessment tasks without recourse to a Notified Body.

CY, CH, DK, ES-AESA,

ES-MIL, GR, HU, LU

REC-2010-43 States should provide an explanation why no DoVs were necessary.

AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, GR, HU, LU,

MT, NO,

REC-2010-44 EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and NCP-IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand the requirements for conformity assessment.

EC

REC-2010-45 EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is applied in the ECAA States.

EC


REC-2010-46 France, Sweden and Switzerland should verify compliance of their ANSPs with the COTR Regulation.

CH, FR, SE

REC-2010-47

The seven States where the ANSP has only partially implemented the provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has not yet verified compliance should ensure that regulatory requirements are met and verified.

DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, LU,

LV

REC-2010-48 The three States where the ANSP has not implemented the provisions of the COTR Regulation but the NSA has claimed to have verified compliance should review their statements.

LT, NL, PL

REC-2010-49

The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in the three reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out.

AT, MT

REC-2010-50

The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take measures to ensure that all mandatory processes will be implemented by December 2012.

GR, MT, NO, PT

REC-2010-51 The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that the non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight data processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified.

LU, MT, SI

REC-2010-52 States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012.

All States

REC-2010-53

NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL Regulation.

CY, DK, EE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, LU,

LV, NL, UK

REC-2010-54 Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of the IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg.

LU

REC-2010-55 Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Latvia should clarify if they require use of the transitional arrangements.

DK, EE, FI, LV

REC-2010-56

Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Romania should clarify why they have reported the intention of using transitional arrangements whilst intending to comply with the initial deadline.

AT, DE, FR, GR, LT, NO,

PL, RO

REC-2010-57 NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS Regulation has been carried out.

AT, HU, MT

REC-2010-58 NSAs should verify compliance of the ANSPs with the AGVCS Regulation.

BE, CH, CY, DK, FR, GR,

RO

REC-2010-59 Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland should confirm that they have applied implemented all the applicable provisions of the AGVCS Regulation.

BE, FI, LU, NL, PO

REC-2010-60 All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are sufficiently robust to achieve the States obligations to meet the provision of the Interoperability IRs.

All States


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.


REC-2010-61 The European Commission should urge the six States which have no effective enforcement measures in place to introduce such measures with no delay.

6 States

REC-2010-62 The European Commission should request clarification from five States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement.

5 States


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.


REC-2010-63 The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of inter-FAB cooperation and coordination.

EC

REC-2010-64 FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB relations.

All States

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


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.


REC-2010-65 States should provide reference to the documents and procedures required for the operations of the ATFM.

CY, FR, MT, 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.


REC-2010-66

Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on the expected delay for full implementation of Level 1 which retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process.

SI

REC-2010-67 States should establish measures to ensure consistency between ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information on the expected timelines.

HU, LU, SI

REC-2010-68 States to provide the Commission with the information stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation.

HU, MT, SI


REC-2010-69 States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all the tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation.

BG, CZ, DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, MT, NL, NO, SE, SI

REC-2010-70 States should establish an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) in compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.

LT, LV, SI

REC-2010-71 States should provide justification of the use of civil/military points of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.

EE, LU

REC-2010-72 States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks.

CY, EE, LU, LV, MT, SE,

SI REC-2010-73 States should implement FUA at ASM Level 2. MT, SI

REC-2010-74 States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the FUA Regulation.

CY, HU, LV, MT, NO, SI

REC-2010-75

States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment of FABs.

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, ES, GR, LT, MT, NO, PL, RO,

SI, SK

REC-2010-76 States should establish with neighbouring States one common set of standards for separation between civil and military flights for cross-border activities.

AT, CZ, FR, IE, LU, MT,

SE, SK

REC-2010-77 States should implement the required safety management processes as a matter of priority.

SI, UK

REC-2010-78

States should establish and implement the required processes for the evaluation of agreements, procedures and supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA covering the areas of safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility.

BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU,

NL, SI

REC-2010-79 States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring process. CH, CZ, HU, IT, LV, MT,

NO, SI

REC-2010-80

The European Commission should consider supporting the States by providing some guidance as to the means for establishing compliance monitoring processes. The European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practices in this area.

EC

REC-2010-81

Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed.

EC


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.


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


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


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


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.

EuropeanATM master Plan

ESSIPReport

ESSIPPlan

Report on SES Legislation

Implementation

LSSIPDocuments(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)


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.

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DK

EE

FI

FR

DE

DE

GR

HU

IE

IT

IT

IT

LV

LT

MT

PL

PT

PTRO

SK

SI

ESES

SE

GB

GB

NO

NO

CH

HR

ME

RS

MK

BA

NL

AL

The 29 States

ECAA States

Figure 1-2: Geographical scope of the SES report


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 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.

2, 4

Performance scheme Regulation

Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 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.

11

Service provision Regulation

Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament 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.

2, 3, 4, 13



Common requirements Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 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.

2, 3, 5, 6

Common charging scheme Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 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.

6, 12

Safety oversight Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 November 2007 on safety oversight in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005, OJ L 291, 9.11.2007, p. 16.

2, 7, 10.1

Software safety assurance system Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 482/2008 of 30 May 2008 establishing a software safety assurance system to be implemented by air navigation service providers and amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005, OJ L 141, 31.5.2008, p. 5.

8

ATCO licensing Directive

Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on a Community air traffic controller licence, OJ L 114, 27.04.2006, p. 22

2, 9

Airspace Regulation Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament 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.


14, 15

ATFM Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management, OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10.

14

FUA Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005 of 23 December 2005 laying down common rules for the flexible use of airspace, OJ L 342, 24.12.2005, p. 20.

15

Interoperability Regulation

Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament 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.


10.1



COTR Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 of 6 July 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.

10.2.1

IFPL Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 of 4 July 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.

10.2.2

FMTP Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 of 7 June 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.

10.2.3

AGVCS Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2007 of 26 October 2007 laying down requirements on air-ground voice channel spacing for the single European sky, OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 25.

10.2.4

AG-DLS Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, OJ L 13, 17.1.2009, p. 3.

10.2.5

Mode S Interrogator Codes Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 262/2009 of 30 March 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.

10.2.6

ADQ Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010 of 26 January 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.

10.2.7

Table 1-2: Applicable legislation


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


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


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.


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.


FR

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

[REC-2009-4] Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT

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

[REC-2009-5]


PT

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).


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.


The safety oversight Regulation specifies that NSAs shall conduct an assessment of the human resources required for safety oversight every two years. It would therefore appear natural for NSAs to expand the obligation of conducting such an assessment beyond safety oversight to all NSA tasks.

Figure 2-2 shows the number of NSAs having conducted an assessment of their resources:

Yes (for all tasks)24

Yes (only for safety oversight)

1

Yes (other NSA tasks)

3

No, but plans for 2011

2

No3

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.

REC-2010-4


DK, EE, ES-MIL, GR, SI

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.


BE, LU


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.


23

5

8

4 5

23

3

14

31

6

11 12

57

7 8 7

19

32

4

9

5

12

23

4

39

34

23

32

2

9

5

9

3

6

22

4 4

29

6

12 13

55

9 9 8

12

7

1

7

35

1316

3

27

43

10

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60AT

BE

BG

CH CY

CZ

DE

DK EE

ES‐AESA

ES‐MET

ES‐MIL FI FR GR

HU IE IT LT LU LV MT

NL

NO PL PT

RO SE SI SK UK

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


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.

REC-2010-6


AT, BG, CH, DE,

HU, IT, LT, LU


EC

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.

REC-2010-8

[REC-2009-7]


EC

All States


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).

23

0

8

3 3 3

9

4

15

5

0

9

53

54

7

14

5

0

5

1

1113

16

6

18

5

2

5

27

2

6

1

8

34

3

8

4

18

4

0

9

56

54

78

6

1

53

1110

18

6

21

6

2

5

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AT

BE

BG CH CY

CZ

DE

DK EE

ES‐AESA

ES‐M

ET

ES‐M

IL FI FR GR


NL

NO PL

PT

RO SE SI SK UK

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).


ES-MIL

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.


BG, DE


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.

REC-2010-11

[REC-2009-9]

The European Commission should seek further clarifications from Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this task.

EC SI

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

[REC-2009-1]


EC


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.


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.


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.

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 03 3 3 4 4 4

8 8 10 10 10 1015

32

62

71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

AT

BE

BG LU CY

GR LV LT MT

PL

RO

SK

SI*

ES

EE

CH CZ FI

NL

DE

PT

* IT

NO

HU IE DK

SE

UK

FR

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.


During the reporting period nine new ANSPs received a certificate (see Table 3.1).

It should be noted that ESSP is the pan-European service provider for the EGNOS satellite augmentation system – their certificate is the first for a Navigation Service Provider.

Spain also reported that it intends to contest the provision of ATC and AFIS services at aerodromes and that five companies are currently undergoing the certification process in addition to INECO which was certified in 2010.

Five certificates have either been withdrawn or not renewed:

State ANSP Certified for

Spain INECO ATS, AFIS

ESSP CNS

DIRISI CNS

Régie personnalisée d’exploitation (BRIVE Souillac Apt.)

AFIS

France

Société d’exploitation de l’aéroport de Toulouse Francazal (TOULOUSE Francazal Apt)

AFIS

HCAA/ANS ATS, AFIS, AIS, CNS

Greece

HNMS/MET MET

Alatoscana SpA (Elba Marina di Campo Airport)

AFIS, CNS, MET

Italy

SOGEAOR AFIS, CNS

Table 3-1: ANSPs receiving a first certificate in 2010

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.


PT, SI

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.


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.

REC-2010-14 France, Portugal, and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS providers are correctly designated.

CH, FR, PT

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.


DE

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.


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 provision Regulation

State X designates ANSP Y (based and certified in Y) to provide ATS in the CAB.

Case C Article 10 of the service provision Regulation

State X designates ANSP X (certified in X) to provide ATS in the CAB. ANSP X avails itself of the services of ANSP Y certified in 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.


AN

SP

Au

stro

con

tro

l

Be

lgia

n D

efe

nce

Be

lgo

con

tro

l

Sky

gu

ide

AN

S o

f C

zech

Re

pub

lic

DF

S

Na

via

ir

AE

NA

DS

NA

Hu

ng

aro

Co

ntr

ol

Iris

h A

via

tion

Au

tho

rity

EN

AV

AN

A L

uxe

mb

ou

rg

LG

S

MA

TS

LV

NL

MU

AC

Avi

no

r

PA

NS

A

NA

V P

ort

uga

l

LF

V

Slo

ven

ia C

ont

rol

LP

S S

R

Eg

linto

n C

ity o

f D

err

y

NA

TS

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol L

td

SM

AT

SA

İsa

via

No

ua

dh

ibo

u A

PP

UkS

AT

SE

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

1 Austria AT 1 1 1 y 1 1

2 Belgium BE 1 1 1

3 Bulgaria BG

4 Switzerland CH 1 1

5 Cyprus CY

6 Czech R CZ 1 1 1

7 Germany DE 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1

8 Denmark DK 1

9 Estonia EE

10 Spain ES 1 z

11 Finland FI 1 1

12 France FR 1 1 1 1 y 1 1 1

13 Greece GR

14 Hungary HU 1 1

15 Ireland IE 1 1

16 Italy IT 1 1 1 1 1

17 Lithuania LT 1

18 Luxembourg LU 1 1

19 Latvia LV

20 Malta MT

21 Netherlands NL 1 1 1 1 1

22 Norway NO 1

23 Poland PL 1 1 1

24 Portugal PT 1

25 Romania RO

26 Sweden SE 1 1

27 Slovenia SI 1 1

28 Slovak R SK 1 z

29 UK UK 1 1 1 1 1 1

30 Albania AL

31 BiH BA 1 1

32 Croatia HR y 1 y

33 Fyrom MK

34 Montenegro ME 1

35 Serbia RS

Iceland 1

Lichtenstein z

State

Sta

tes

hav

ing

res

po

nsi

bili

ty o

ver

the

air

spac

e w

her

e A

TS

is p

rovi

ded

cro

ss-b

ord

er

ANSPs providing cross-border ATS

90%

5%4%1%

Reported by both 2 States

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)

Figure 4-1: Reported CARs


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 certified the ANSP

CABs reported only by the State having the 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.



NL,RS


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.

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 of 118 CABs. Of these:

28 were reported to be in place by both States.

An additional four were reported to be in place by one State.

22

32

68

66

8

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

2009

2010

Yes No Incoherent reporting

Figure 4-2: Arrangement between NSAs

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 for each CAB. The 2010 State reports included:

23 Case A CABs;

3 Case B CABs;

49 Case C CABs; and

43 CABs where the States reported different, multiple or no legal basis.

35

23

3

3

41

48

19

44

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

2009

2010

Reported A cases Reported B cases Reported C cases Incoherent cases

Figure 4-3: Legal arrangements used


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 CABs 2009.

As illustrated in Figure 4-4, of these 23 CABs:

9 were reported by one State; and

14 were reported by both States.

14

14

21

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2009

2010

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.

12

3

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Reported "No"

Reported "No" but mentioned existing plans

Reported "Yes"

Figure 4-5: Case A State agreements

CAB ID Reporting State

Non-reporting State

DEDK-01 Denmark Germany

DEDK-01 Denmark Germany

FRCH-03 Switzerland France

HRIT-01 Croatia Italy

HRIT-02 Croatia Italy

HRRS-01 Croatia Serbia

HRRS-02 Croatia Serbia

LICH-01 Switzerland Liechtenstein

SKUA-01 Slovak Rep. Ukraine

Table 4-3: States not reporting Case A


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.

REC-2010-17 Germany, Luxembourg and the Neterlands should re-visit their assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC is operating.

DE, LU, NL

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.


AT

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.

As illustrated in Figure 4-6 of these 49 CABs:

35 were reported by both States (CC), and

A further 14 were reported by one State (C).

Table 4-3 identifies the non-reporting States for Case C. 8 of the 14 instances are from Germany.

10

35

31

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2009

2010

Reported by both States (CC) Reported by one State (C)

Figure 4-6: Case C reporting

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.


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 number of Case C CABs with respect to agreement between the ANSPs concerned, notification to the NSAs concerned and approval by the States concerned. In all cases, an agreement between the ANSPs was reported as being in place; however the obligations for notification to the NSAs and State approval are not equally being complied with.

In 10 cases, neither State reported that the NSAs had been notified.

49

35

20

11

10

10

48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Agreement between the ANSPs

concerned

Notified to the NSAs concerned Approved by the States

concerned

Reported "Yes" Reported "No" but mentionned existing plans

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 CAB No.

2009 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


2010 CAB No.


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


reported for 2009 and 2010.

2010 CAB No.


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


2010 CAB No.


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


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..

REC-2010-19

States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. This concerns Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and UK.

AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, HU, IT, LU, MT,

NL, NO, SE, SI, 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.

REC-2010-20

States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align the existing agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment.

All States


REC-2010-21 States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and establishing NSA arrangements for ATS provision even prior to FAB agreements being in place.

All States


All States

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.


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 audits.

In all but three States (HU, PT, SE) it covers the annual monitoring of all certified ANSPs.

Hungary omitted to specify the three re-certified ANSPs. Portugal introduced a system of bi-annual inspection for AFIS and CNS providers unless a safety related change occurs. Sweden reported difficulties with available resources.

33

33

31 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2010

2009

2008

Yes No

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).


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 matters), the Netherlands and Spain-MIL).

The comments provided by some NSAs, particularly Austria, Cyprus, Czech, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland suggest that a risk based approach may not actually be followed.

29 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2010

Yes No

Figure 5-2: Is the annual inspection programme based 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.

REC-2010-23


EC

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.


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.


AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, LU, PT, SI

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


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

Certification

Interoperability

Environment

SESAR

Other

Regulatory issues

Performance

Capacity

Environment

SESAR

ANS Charging Scheme

Performance scheme

Capacity

Interoperability

Environment

SESAR

Regulatory issues

Performance scheme

Interoperability

SESAR

Regulatory issues n/a

Performance scheme n/a

FUA n/a

Interoperability n/a

Security n/a

SESAR n/a

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

MILITARY

Examples of Consultation

ANSPs

AIRPORTS

Airspace Users

Manufacturing industry

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.


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.


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 oversight report, namely the safety oversight manual.

The UK reported meeting this requirement via the SES Annual report, which cannot be considered acceptable since, according to Article 14 of the Regulation, the scope, goal and recipient of the safety oversight report are different to those of the SES Annual Report.

Denmark did not provide the required reference to the document.

13

8

3

7

Yes (+ Reference/Link) Yes No but ongoing No

Figure 7-1: Did the NSA produce an annual safety report?


BE

REC-2010-27 The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation.

UK

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.

REC-2010-28 NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight Report for 2009 should do so

EE, ES, GR, MT, 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.


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.

Com

plia

nce

with

saf

ety

regu

lato

ry r

equi

rem

ents

prio

r to

the

issu

e or

ren

ewal

of

AN

SP

cer

tific

ates

Com

plia

nce

with

saf

ety-

rela

ted

oblig

atio

ns in

the

desi

gnat

ion

act

Ong

oing

Com

plia

nce

of

AN

SP

s

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

saf

ety

dire

ctiv

es

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

saf

ety

obje

ctiv

es, r

equi

rem

ents

and

co

nditi

ons

iden

tifie

d in

:

- E

C D

oVs

- E

C D

oC/D

SU

s

- R

isk

asse

ssm

ent a

nd

miti

gatio

n pr

ocs.

req

uire

d by

sa

fety

reg

ulat

ory

requ

irem

ents

ap

plic

able

to A

NS

, AT

FM

and

A

SM

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.

REC-2010-29

NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL, should take swift action to establish and implement the missing processes with regard to safety oversight.

BE, CH, DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, NO,

SK


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.

Belgium Answered ‘Yes’ to the questions but explanations

provided show that processes are not in place in line with the Regulation

Denmark The established processes do not refer to ANS, ASM

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

Luxembourg N/A N/A Not addressing the specific verification of ATFM and

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

Spain-MET N/A N/A Not addressing the specific verification of ATFM and

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.


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).

18 of the 28 applicable NSAs reported having exercised safety oversight to ATFM and 21 reported having exercised safety oversight to ASM.

It should be noted that Luxembourg indicated that safety oversight of ASM is not considered applicable. This claim is questionable as Luxembourg is responsible for the oversight of ASM in the TMA.

23

21

19

18

31

31

7

8

11

11

1

2

1

2

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ANS

ATFM

ASM

Yes No N/A

Figure 7-2: Did the NSA exercise safety oversight?

REC-2010-30 Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for the oversight of ASM.

LU

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.

REC-2010-31 NSAs should take measures to established and implement the necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM.

BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, 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.

REC-2010-32 Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within the limits of the Ministry of Transport.

AT


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.


EC

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.


1 4 4 3

1913

25

5866

310 11

31

5

32

0.5 29 8

211

41

30

142

4

20 1914

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ASM ATFM ANS

1 04

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 0

4

1 1

0

1

0 0 0

1 1

0

1 1

0

1

0 0

1

2

0

2

0 0 0 0 0

2

0

1

2

3

4

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.


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 concerned for the introduction of safety related changes to their functional systems. Denmark, Estonia, Portugal and Spain-MIL indicated that the process is under development and/or planned for 2011. Greece indicated that the ANSPs have not yet submitted procedures for NSA approval. Spain-MET indicated that the ANSP has not yet developed the required procedures.

25

25

6

6

0 10 20 30 40

Accepted the procedures put in place by ANSPs

Internal procedures for review of changes to

functional systems

Yes No

Figure 7-4: The NSA has…

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.

REC-2010-34

NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety related changes to their functional system should expedite this process.

DK, EE, ES-MET, ES-MIL, GR, PT

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.

REC-2010-35 NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional systems proposed by their ANSPs.

DK, EE, ES-MIL, IT, NO, PL

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);


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.

32

3

15

N/A

8

26

5

21

3

1

12

43

*

5

22

35

13

19

1

10

1 12

1819

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

AT

BE

BG

CH CY

CZ

DE

DK EE

ES‐AESA

ES‐M

IL

ES‐M

ET FI FR GR


NL

NO PL

PT

RO SE SI SK UK

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.


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.

REC-2010-36

(REC-2009-34)


EC

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.


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.


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 implemented a SSAS to deal with EATMN software related aspects (nine States in 2009).

Cyprus, Denmark and Sweden gave positive responses for the first time this year. The Netherlands and Slovakia replied “No” this year having replied positively last year.

20

21

9

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

Yes No

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


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.



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.


AT, DK, FI, 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.


18 States declared that the requirements have been applied to new software and 16 States declared that the requirements have been applied to changes of existing software.

Six States declared that there has been no new software installed (CY, DK, PT, RO, SE) nor new major changes implemented (GR) during the reporting period.

Belgium commented that it is planned to apply the requirements for new software in 2011.

19

18

18

16

9

11

11

13

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

2009

2010

New

so

ftwar

eC

han

ges

to e

xist

ing

softw

are

Yes No

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, one more State compared to last year replied positively (19 States in total).

Four States seemed to have difficulties with the interpretation of this issue:

Sweden stated that ‘there has not yet been any case where the Regulation should be applied’ – although they reported having applied the requirements for changes to existing software.

18

19

11

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 8-3: Has the ANSP made available the required assurances to the NSA demonstrating that the

requirements have been satisfied?

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.


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.


AT, CY, DK, EE, ES, 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.


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.

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.

27 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1

Yes No No data

Figure 9-1: Has the State started issuing licences in accordance with the ATCO licensing Directive?


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.

400 450 320 81 276 33263

359

5800

2723

584217 325

2684

88 89350

48 235625

328645

127 125

1997

776 679

4007

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

*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, DE, ES, NL, SE, UK) reported that ATCOs licensed in another State had applied for an exchange of the licence.

However the total applications (71) for exchange is still very limited considering that ATCO mobility has been cited as a key enabler for reducing capacity shortfalls.

11

1

36

1

7 74 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Austria

Bulgar

ia

German

y

Nether

lands

Spain

Sweden

Switzer

land

United K

ingdo

m

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.


1 1 1 13

5

13

23

25

1 2 2 20 1 1 2 2 1

31

3 2

36

1 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

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.


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.


- 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.

The Swiss NSA reported that implementation is ongoing - this answer was also provided in the last report.

Estonia reported plans to address this by the end of 2011 – the same answer has been provided for three years running.

27

28

3

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 10-1: Has the NSA defined tasks and responsibilities?


CH, EE

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 number of States that have developed the necessary procedures. Since 2009, three States (FR, MT, NO) have done so.

However, five States (IT, CH, DK, EE, HU) have not done so - all of which indicated that the processes would be in place by the end of 2011.

In addition, processes have not been established by the Spanish military NSA.

22

25

21

24

8

5

9

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

2009

2010

As

def

ined

in (

EC

)55

2/20

04A

s d

efin

ed in

(E

C)

1315

/200

7

Yes No

Figure 10-2: Development of process descriptions


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.

REC-2010-41 Denmark, Estonia, Hungary Italy and Switzerland should complete development of processes for supervision of conformity assessment tasks.

CH, DK, EE, HU, IT

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 conformity assessment activities without making use of a Notified Body.

Out of the 22 NSAs, only three (DE, FR, NO) provided further details with regard to the process followed for verifications.

Out of the eight NSAs which responded negatively to this question (CH, CY, DK, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, GR, HU, LU) only three

20

22

10

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 10-3: Verification by NSAs of ANSPs to conduct conformity assessments without using a

notified body

(CY, GR, HU) confirmed explicit plans to conduct the verification.


CY, CH, DK, ES-AESA, ES-MIL,

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).


0 02

0 0 0

57

35

2

26

0

6

0 0 03

5 5

0 1 0

7

0 15 4 3 3 3

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AT

BE

BG

CH

CY CZ

DE

DK

EE

ES

ES

-MIL FI

FR

GR


NL

NO PL

PT

RO

SE SI

SK

UK

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.


AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, GR, HU, LU, MT, NO

Figure 10-5 shows the DoCs/DSU submitted per State between 2005 and 2010.

0 0 2 0 0 0

162

35

312

06

0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 012

0 0 1 2 1 0 0

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

AT BEBG CH CY CZ

DE DK EE ES

ES-MIL FI

FRGR HU IE IT LT LU LV M

T NLNO PL PT

RO SE SISK UK

2005-2008 2009 2010

Figure 10-5: Number of DoCs since 2005


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.

REC-2010-44 EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and NCP-IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand the requirements for conformity assessment.

EC

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.

REC-2010-45 EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is applied in the ECAA States.

EC


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 Objective

Date of applicability

Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 on Exchange of Flight Data Between ATC Units (Amended by Regulation (EC) No 30/2009)

ITY-COTR 1 January 2009 to all EATMN 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)

Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 on Procedures for Flight Plans in the Pre-Flight Phase (Amended by Regulation (EU) No 929/2010)

n/a 1 January 2009 for implementation of the ICAO provisions as specified in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 15 November 2012 for implementation of ICAO provisions as specified in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 929/2010

Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 on Flight Message Transfer Protocol for Use by ATC Units (Amended by Regulation (EU) No 283/2011)5

ITY FMTP 1 January 2009 to all systems referred to in the regulations put into service after that date 20 April 2011 to all systems in operation by that date.

Regulation (EC) No 1265/2007 on Air-Ground Voice Channel Spacing in SES

ITY-AGVCS

15 March 2008 for aircraft operators to equip their aircraft with 8.33kHz radio equipment 3rd July 2008 for ANSPs to convert all VHF systems to 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 29/2009 on Data link services for the Single European Sky

ITY-AGDL Aircraft Forward fit: 1 January 2011 Aircraft Retro fit: 5 February 2015 Ground systems (Part A of Annex 1): 7 February 2013 Ground systems (Part B of Annex 1): 5 February 2015

Regulation (EC) No 262/2009 on Allocation and Use of Mode S Interrogator Codes

SUR02 SUR04

Article 4 (Interoperability and performance requirements) apply from 1 January 2011, other Articles apply from 19 March 2009

Regulation (EC) No 73/2010 on the Quality of Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information

n/a 1 July 2013, some Articles applying from 1 July 2014

Figure 10-6: Interoperability implementing rules

5 New transitional arrangements entered in to force on 21st March 2011 – see Section 10.2.2


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 plan to confirm compliance for legacy systems by 31 December 2012.

15 States (AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, FI, DE, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK) reported having verified the compliance of the service providers with the applicable provisions of the COTR Regulation and no non-compliance was reported.

13

15

16

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

Yes No

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.


CH, FR, SE

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.


REC-2010-47


DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, LU, LV

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.


LT, NL, PL

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.

REC-2010-49

The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in the three reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out.

AT, MT

State Notification Initial Coordination Revision Abrogation

Basic Flight Data

Change Flight data

NSA Action

DoVs received

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


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.

REC-2010-50

The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take measures to ensure that all mandatory processes will be implemented by December 2012.

GR, MT, NO, PT

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.

REC-2010-51 The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that the non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight data processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified.

LU, MT, SI

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

REC-2010-52 States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012.

All States

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.


States were asked if their NSA had verified compliance with the IFPL IR. Twelve States (CY, DK, EE, ES, FR, GR, 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 compliance or to finalise the verification in 2011.

Three of these (CY, EE, GR) already reported, in the previous annual report, plans to do the verification in 2010 while now these plans are for 2011.

14

17

15

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 10-8: Has the NSA verified the 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.

REC-2010-53 NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL Regulation.


LV, NL, UK

Luxembourg’s answer indicated confusion with the scope of the Regulation.

REC-2010-54 Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of the IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg.

LU

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.


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 compliance of the ANSPs with the FMTP Regulation.

Of these three (BG, CZ, FI) reported no intention to make use of the transitional arrangements - therefore it may be interpreted that these States have already implemented the regulatory provisions.

7

10

22

19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2009

2010

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 FMTP Regulation.

The information provided by States is largely contradictory with the plans reported by the ANSPs through their LSSIP 2011-2015 documents as shown in Table 1-2.

10 18 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2010

Yes No N/A

Figure 10-10: Does the State intended to use the transitional arrangements?


State

2011-2015 LSSIP Date for implementation by ANSP

NSA has verified compliance

Use of Transitional 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.


DK, EE, 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.


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.

REC-2010-56


AT, DE, FR, GR, LT, NO, PL, RO

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) reported having verified the compliance of the ANSPs with the applicable requirements of the AGVCS Regulation.

The NSAs of three of these States (AT, HU, MT) however reported not having received any DoV since 2005. Article 8 of the AGVCS Regulation specifies that ANSPs shall conduct a verification of systems referred to in Article 1(2) of the Regulation.

18

22

9

7

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2009

2010

Yes No N/A

Figure 10-11: Has the NSA verified the compliance of the ANSP with Regulation (EC) 1265/2007?


These NSAs should provide clarification on how the verification of compliance of the ANSPs has been carried out.


AT, HU, MT

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.


BE, CH, CY, DK, 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.

REC-2010-59 Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland should confirm that they have applied implemented all the applicable provisions of the AGVCS Regulation.

BE, FI, LU, NL, PL

13 States reported having communicated 8.33 kHz assignments for publication in the ICAO COM 2 table. Out of these States Cyprus, France, Italy and the Netherlands did not provide any further information with regard the number of communicated assignments as required by the questionnaire.

None of the States reported the detection of non-compliances with the Regulation.

13 15 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2010

Yes No N/A

Figure 10-12: Have the States communicated during the reporting period any 8.33kHz assignments for 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.


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 declared themselves compliant with both the Regulation and ICAO provisions. France declared itself compliant in 2009 but not in 2010, noting that it will check conformity in 2011 based on information provided by the ANSP (DSNA).

Denmark, Hungary, Malta Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and the UK also declared themselves compliant with ICAO provisions – but do not have operational Mode S.

10

9

10

9

1

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2009

2010

2009

2010

Su

pp

ort

th

e u

se o

fS

I an

d II

co

des

inco

mp

lian

ce w

ith

the

rele

van

t IC

AO

pro

visi

on

s?

Su

pp

ort

th

e u

se o

fII/

SI c

od

eo

per

atio

n in

com

plia

nce

wit

hA

nn

ex II

I?

Yes No

Figure 10-13: Have Mode S operators ensured that they…

Compliance with the Regulation was also noted by Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and the UK.

States were asked whether they had ascertained any non compliance of a Mode S operator with the applicable requirements.

Germany noted non compliance of a Mode S operator in 2010, but did not provide any further information.

Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Switzerland also noted non compliance, despite not having Mode S operators

3

1

7

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 10-14: Has the State ascertained any non-compliance of a Mode S operator with the applicable requirements?


Regarding measures taken by the State to provide a code allocation system to the Mode S operators two (BE, FR) of the ten States with Mode S reported not having provided a Mode S allocation system. Belgium stated that it follows the EUROCONTROL code allocation process.

France reported the intention to check the conformity of the service provider in 2011. However, this needs to be clarified as the requirement is applicable to the State and not to the service provider. It is therefore the responsibility of the State to achieve compliance. Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovakia did not answer the question.

7

4

8

5

3

3

2

2

3

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2009

2010

2009

2010

Per

form

ance

of

chec

ks o

nin

terr

og

ato

r co

de

app

licat

ion

val

idit

y

Pro

visi

on

of

aM

od

e S

co

de

allo

cati

on

sys

tem

Yes No No response

Figure 10-15: Has the State taken the necessary measures to provide a code allocation system to the Mode S Operators?

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.


While in the previous report nine States reported the implementation by the Mode S operators of fall-back modes of operation, in the current report only four States confirmed the existence of such modes of operation.

In general these fall-back modes are based on reverting to Mode A/C interrogations.

France, Italy, Latvia, and Slovakia stated that they had not implemented fall back modes.

9

4

1

4 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2009

2010

Yes No No response

Figure 10-16: Fall back modes of operation

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


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.


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.

REC-2010-60 All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are sufficiently robust to achieve the States obligations to meet the provision of the interoperability implementing rules.

All States


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.


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 ANSP to make the content of their annual report available to the public.

In six States (AT, CH, DE, FR, NO, UK) the NSA has set conditions for the ANSP to make the content of the performance part of the business plan and of the annual plan available to the Commission.

Many States report not having yet taken a decision in this respect.

6

4

23

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Conditions for making business plan available

Conditions for making annual report available

Yes No

Figure 11-1: Conditions set by the NSA for the ANSP to make the content of the business plan and annual report available.

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, the Regulation applies as a minimum to the airport with the highest CATM.

In total, eight States (CY, DE, EE, LT, MT, NO, PL, SK) intend to apply the legislation, including the data provision required by Annex IV.2 to specific ANSPs providing terminal services to airports with fewer than 50,000 CATM per year.

7

8

22

21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ANSPS at Airports below50,000 CATM (Annex IV.2)

Airport Operatros at Airportsbelow 50,000 CATM (Annex

IV.3)

Yes No

Figure 11-2: Application of performance scheme at 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.


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.


6 States

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.


REC-2010-62 The European Commission should request clarification from five States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement.

5 States

Three States reported that these measures have not been effectively applied by the time of submission of the 2010 SES Report.

The evolution of the overall situation can be seen in the Figure 12-1 5

14

13

0

2

2

13

7

8

11

6

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Measures reported in place and ef fectively appliedMeasures planned to be introduced in 2011Measures still to be clarif ied or ef fectively appliedNo ef fective 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 measure for the recovery of air navigation charges applicable in the States is the denial of service (11 States and planned to become applicable in three States in 2011).

Seven States have indicated that detention of aircraft is available.

Four States reported on the application of “other” measures, namely the suspension/revocation of operating permits (in two States), tax-related measures and forfeiture of bond. The effectiveness of these

4

7

11 3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Other

Detention of aircraft

Denial of services

Available In preparation

Figure 12-2: Type of enforcement measures

“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.


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.


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).

SW Portugal-Spain(Definition)

UK/IRL(Implementation)

Blue Med(Definition)

Dan

ish

/Sw

edis

h(I

mp

lem

enta

tio

n)

NEFAB(Feasibility)

Baltic(Feasibility)

FAB CE(Development)

FAB EC(Development)

Danube(Definition)

Figure 13-1: Status of FAB Implementation.


The table below represents a snapshot of the March 2011 FAB Coordinator Report.

Hig

h Le

vel D

ocum

ent

Sig

ned

Agr

eem

ent i

n fo

rce

Not

ifica

tion

to th

e E

C

FA

B s

afet

y C

ase

Enhanced cooperationof the NSAs

E n h a n c e d c o o p e r a t i o n of the ANSPs or

(optionally) of an integrated ANSP

FA

B p

erfo

rman

ce p

lan

(opt

iona

l)

Sta

tem

ent o

f add

ed

valu

e of

the

FA

B e

stab

lishm

ent

ba

sed

on C

BA

s

Agr

eem

ents

on

com

mon

pr

inci

ples

for

char

gin

g po

licy

by th

e A

NS

Ps

UK-Ireland

No joint

supervisory authority planned

No integrated ANSP planned

Danish- Swedish

No joint

supervisory authority planned

NUAC Company will

operate all ANS except MET, AIS & TWR

(Planned)

NEFAB - -

FABEC MoC signed. No concrete effects

visible

Agreement signed. A more substantial one

awaited -

Baltic - - -

FABCE *

NSAs Cooperation

agreement to be signed

30/05/2011

- -

Danube

FAB NSA Coordination

Committee under development

MoU signed. No exact arrangements reported -

SW Portugal-

Spain

Cooperation Agreement

signed. Conditions set.

- -

Blue MED -

Cooperation agreement between 4 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.


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-Swedish

Implementation FAB established. State Agreement in force on 1 July 2010

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 Portugal-Spain

Definition CAA cooperation agreement signed on 25 February 2010

TEN-T financial support achieved on 24 June 2010

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


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.


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.

REC-2010-63 The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of inter-FAB cooperation and coordination.

EC

REC-2010-64 FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB relations.

All States


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 have stated that the mechanisms to ensure the conformity with this requirement would be put in place.

Only five States (DK, EE, ES, SE, UK) reported not having ensured that the relevant personnel have been made aware of the provisions of the Regulation.

However all five States gave assurances that the requirement would be applied in due course.

24

22

5

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

made duly aware of the provisions of this

regulation

adequately trained and competent for their job functions

Yes No

Figure 14-1: Has the State ensured that the personnel of the parties concerned by the application of this 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.


All States except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, reported that they have published the route availability.

All States except Estonia and Latvia, reported that the published route availability is consistent with Route Availability Document (RAD).

However, the comments provided by Estonia would suggest that they are consistent with these requirements.

27

26

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Is the published route availability

consistent with the Route Availability Document (RAD)?

Has the State published the route

availability?

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.

REC-2010-65 States should provide reference to the documents and procedures required for the operations of the ATFM.

CY, FR, NL, MT

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 mechanisms for the adherence to the ATFM departure slots.

Twelve States are yet to provide an annual review of the adherence to the ATFM measures.

17

14

11

14

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

monitoring and reporting mechanism for the adherence to

ATFM departure slots are established?

an annual review of the adherence to

ATFM measures is conducted?

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


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 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’.

States are also required to establish penalties applicable to infringements.

15 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Yes No

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.

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 ongoing to verify their compliance with the ATFM Regulation.

Only four States (AT, NL, NO, SI) have so far notified the European Commission that the provisions of the Regulation will be achieved.

7 22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1

Yes No

Figure 14-5: Has the State laid down penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation?

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 verified that the respective ATS units are coordinating ATFM measures with the central unit for ATFM through their respective local ATFM unit.

Four States have reported that they are not providing the central unit for ATFM with the data set forth by the Article 6(5) of the ATFM Regulation.

26

24

3

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Are the ATS units are coordinating with the

central ATFM unit through the local

ATFM unit?

Are the ATS units providing the central ATFM unit with the

data required under Art. 6.5 of the ATFM

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.


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.


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 having implemented it, established the appropriate mechanisms, e.g. high level airspace policy body and provided details on how FUA at ASM Level 1 is organised at national level.

The implementation of FUA at ASM Level 1 is therefore almost complete.

24

27

28

5

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 15-1: FUA Implemented at ASM Level 1

REC-2010-66

Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on the expected delay for full implementation of Level 1 which retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process.

SI


States are also required to establish measures to ensure consistency between ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS

Only three States (HU, LU, SI) reported not having established measures to ensure consistency between ASM and ATFM, and only two between ASM and ATS (LU, SI).

As it can be seen in the figure, there has been a noticeable improvement during 2010.

23

23

27

22

22

26

6

6

2

7

7

3

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

0 10 20 30

ANS‐ATFM

ASM‐ATS

Yes No

Figure 15-2: Have States established measures to ensure consistency between ANS/ATFM and ASM/ATS?

REC-2010-67 States should establish measures to ensure consistency between ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information on the expected timelines.

HU, LU, SI

Finally, States had to report on whether they had notified the Commission of the persons or organisations responsible for all the tasks listed in Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation.

Again, 2010 has seen a big improvement with only three States (HU, MT, SI) to provide the Commission with the required information compared to 10 last year.

15

19

26

14

10

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 15-3: Have States provided the Commission all information as stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation?

REC-2010-68 States to provide the Commission with the information stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation

HU, MT, SI

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:


Reg

ular

ly r

evie

win

g an

d ad

dres

sing

th

e us

ers’

App

rove

act

iviti

es w

hich

req

uire

ai

rspa

ce r

eser

vatio

n or

res

tric

tion

Def

ine

tem

pora

ry a

irspa

ce s

truc

ture

s an

d pr

oced

ures

to o

ffer

mul

tiple

ai

rspa

ce r

eser

vatio

n an

d ro

ute

opt

ions

E

stab

lishe

d cr

iteria

and

pro

cedu

res

prov

idin

g fo

r th

e cr

eatio

n an

d us

e of

ad

just

able

late

ral a

nd v

ertic

al li

mits

of

the

airs

pace

Ass

ess

natio

nal a

irspa

ce s

truc

ture

s an

d ro

ute

netw

ork

with

the

aim

of

plan

ning

for

flexi

ble

airs

pace

str

uctu

res

and

proc

edur

es

Def

ine

spec

ific

cond

ition

s un

der

whi

ch

the

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r se

para

tion

betw

een

civi

l and

mili

tary

flig

hts

rest

s on

the

AT

S u

nits

or

on th

e co

ntro

lling

m

ilita

ry u

nits

Est

ablis

h m

echa

nism

s to

ass

ess

perf

orm

ance

of F

UA

ope

ratio

ns

Per

iodi

cally

rev

iew

airs

pace

pr

oced

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e as

sess

men

t of

FU

A o

pera

tions

Est

ablis

h m

echa

nism

s to

arc

hive

dat

a on

the

requ

ests

, allo

catio

n an

d ac

tual

us

e of

airs

pace

str

uctu

res

for

furt

her

anal

ysis

and

pla

nnin

g ac

tiviti

es

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

REC-2010-69 States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all the tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation.


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.


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 stable in the three reporting periods and is unlikely to change according to the comments provided.

In many States permanent restrictions are still considered necessary for reasons of security, safety, environmental, etc.

12

14

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2008

2009

2010

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.


15.3 Pre-Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 2

States were requested to confirm the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 2.

Slovenia remains the only State not having implemented FUA at ASM Level 2.


25

27

28

4

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No


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 having established an AMC:

Estonia explained that they have “civil/military focal points performing the functions”

Slovenia reported that the responsibility for daily airspace allocations rests with the ATSP

Lithuania and Luxembourg, while they reported having established an AMC, provided additional contradictory information (see below).

22

2

3

2

Joint Civil-Military Only CivilNo AMC Situation to be clarified

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.


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.

REC-2010-70 States should establish an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) in compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.

LT, LV, SI

REC-2010-71 States should provide justification of the use of civil/military points of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation.

EE, LU

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.

REC-2010-72

States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks.

CY, EE, LU, LV, MT, SE, SI

As for whether the airspace is being allocated in accordance with the conditions and procedures as defined in Article 4.1 of the Regulation, Slovenia and Malta are the two States that reported not being compliant with this requirement.

Malta can therefore not be considered as having implemented FUA at ASM Level 2.

24

25

27

5

4

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

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.


15.4 Tactical Airspace Management - ASM Level 3

States were requested to confirm the implementation of FUA at ASM Level 3.

Slovenia remains the only State not having implemented FUA at ASM Level 3 although reportedly there is a coordinator dealing with the daily co–ordination.


26

27

28

3

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No


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:

The

Sta

te h

as e

nsur

ed th

at th

e re

leva

nt A

TS

and

con

trol

ling

mili

tary

un

its…

Est

ablis

h co

ordi

natio

n pr

oced

ures

and

co

mm

unic

atio

n fa

cilit

ies

to a

llow

the

real

-tim

e ac

tivat

ion,

dea

ctiv

atio

n or

re

allo

catio

n of

airs

pace

allo

cate

d at

pre

-ta

ctic

al le

vel

Est

ablis

h co

ordi

natio

n pr

oced

ures

to

ensu

re th

e tim

ely

and

effe

ctiv

e ex

chan

ge

of a

ny m

odifi

catio

n of

pla

nned

airs

pace

re

serv

atio

ns a

nd th

e ad

equa

te

notif

icat

ion

to a

ll af

fect

ed u

sers

Est

ablis

h co

ordi

natio

n pr

oced

ures

and

su

ppor

ting

syst

ems

to e

nsur

e sa

fety

w

hen

man

agin

g in

tera

ctio

ns b

etw

een

civi

l and

mili

tary

flig

hts

Est

ablis

h co

ordi

natio

n pr

oced

ures

to

perm

it di

rect

com

mun

icat

ion

of r

elev

ant

info

rmat

ion

to r

esol

ve s

peci

fic tr

affic

si

tuat

ions

whe

re c

ivil

and

mili

tary

co

ntro

llers

are

pro

vidi

ng s

ervi

ce in

the

sam

e ai

rspa

ce…

Spe

cific

ally

, dire

ct c

omm

unic

atio

n of

P

ositi

on o

f airc

raft

and

Flig

ht in

tent

ion

of

airc

raft

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


REC-2010-74 States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the FUA Regulation.


States were also asked to report whether all airspace reservations are released as soon as activities having caused their establishment cease.

As it can be seen in the figure, all States report complying with requirement.

27

28

29

2

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

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.


14 States reported not coordinating with their neighbours (AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, ES, GR, LT, MT, NO, PL, RO, SI, SK).

There has been no improvement over the three reporting periods in terms of cooperation between States which, considering the ongoing FAB initiatives, can be considered very unsatisfactory. Airspace policy should be seen as a cooperative effort between neighbours.

14

14

15

15

15

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 15-10: Coordination of airspace management policies with the respective neighbouring States

REC-2010-75

States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment of FABs.


SI, SK

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:

Belgium reported that TRA/TSAs, other than CBAs, are shared with France, the Netherlands and Germany. However, France and the Netherlands did not report sharing TRA/TSAs with other States.

Germany and Switzerland reported having CBOs between themselves and with France and the Netherlands. This was not confirmed by France or the Netherlands.

14

14

15

0 5 10 15 20

Cross-Border Areas

TRA/TSAs

Conditional Routes

Figure 15-12: Type of cross-border airspace use

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.

REC-2010-76 States should establish with neighbouring States one common set of standards for separation between civil and military flights for cross-border activities.

AT, CZ, FR, IE, LU, MT, SE, SK

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.


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.


15.6 Safety Assessment

Only two States (SI, UK) reported not having safety management process in order to conduct all safety assessment activities prior to the introduction of any changes to the FUA operations.

However the UK reported that the major ANSP (NATS) currently employs an in-house system of safety assessment (LTC ATC Procedures Safety Assessment - LAPSA) and any FUA change would be managed and overseen by a special body - ASSG-B (a sub-group of the ASSG).

23

26

27

6

3

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 15-13: Safety Management process to conduct safety assessment of changes to operations

The results show a very positive evolution over the last three reporting periods and a very good level of implementation.

REC-2010-77 States should implement the required safety management processes as a matter of priority.

SI, UK

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.


The States which reported not having the processes to carry out the required performance assessment are:

Safety: six States (BG, CZ, ES, LU, NL, SI). The Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Spain reported that the work to establish the processes is ongoing and/or planned to be implemented in 2011.

Airspace Capacity: seven States (BG, CZ, DK, ES, LU, NL, SI).

Efficiency: seven States (CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU, NL, SI).

Flexibility: eight States (BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU, NL, SI)

17

18

21

18

19

22

18

19

22

22

20

23

12

11

8

11

10

7

11

10

7

7

9

6

200820092010

200820092010

200820092010

200820092010

0 10 20 30

Safety

Capacity

Efficiency

Flexibility

Yes No

Figure 15-14: Performance assessment conducted

A modest positive trend can be observed but the level of implementation remains unsatisfactory, especially on the safety dimension of the assessment.

REC-2010-78

States should establish and implement the required processes for the evaluation of agreements, procedures and supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA covering the areas of safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility.

BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU, NL, SI

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.


However, some of the additional information provided questions this statement in a number of cases:

Cyprus stated that the national plan for the implementation of FUA is fully in line with Community legislation but it has not been fully implemented yet;

Hungary reported that the establishment of FUA compliance monitoring process is in progress;

16

19

23

13

10

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

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.

9 States reported not having this process in place (CH, CZ, HU, IT, LV, MT, NO, SI). Most of them reported that the process is under preparation. 13

19

21

16

10

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

2008

2009

2010

Yes No

Figure 15-16: FUA compliance monitoring process

REC-2010-79 States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring process.

CH, CZ, HU, IT, LV, MT, NO, SI

REC-2010-80


EC

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.


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.

REC-2010-81

Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed.

EC

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.


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.


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


FR

REC-2010-2 [REC-2009-4]

Austria should confirm arrangements for supervision of AFIS. AT

REC-2010-3 [REC-2009-5]


PT

REC-2010-4


DK, ES-MIL, EE, GR, SI,


BE, LU

REC-2010-6


AT, BG, CH, DE, HU, IT,

LT, LU


EC

REC-2010-8 [REC-2009-7]


EC All States


ES-MIL


BG, DE

REC-2010-11 [REC-2009-9]

The European Commission should seek further clarifications from Slovenia who reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this task.

EC SI

REC-2010-12 [REC-2009-1]


EC

Section 3: Certification and designation of ANSPs


PT, SI

REC-2010-14 France, Portugal and Switzerland should ensure all AFIS providers are correctly designated.

CH, FR, PT


DE

Section 4: Cross-Border Provision of ATS





NL,RS

REC-2010-17 Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands should re-visit their assessment of the legal framework under which MUAC is operating.

DE, LU, NL


AT

REC-2010-19

States that reported incoherent legal frameworks are requested to resolve incoherent reporting of such CABs. This concerns Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.

AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, SE,

SI, UK

REC-2010-20

States should undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for cross-border service provision and align the existing agreements with the applicable legislation regardless of the progress with FABs establishment

All States

REC-2010-21 States should take urgent measures to start negotiating and establishing NSA arrangements for supervision of cross-border ATS provision even prior to FAB agreements being in place.

All States


All States

Section 5: Ongoing Compliance

REC-2010-23


EC

Section 6: Consultation of Stakeholders


AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, LU,

PT, SI


EC

Section 7: Safety oversight


BE

REC-2010-27 The UK needs to reconsider the statement of compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the safety oversight Regulation

UK

REC-2010-28 NSAs which have not produced an Annual Safety Oversight Report for 2009 should do so

EE, ES, GR, MT, NL, NO,

PT, SI

REC-2010-29 NSAs, with the support of the EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL, should take swift action to establish and implement the missing processes with regard to safety oversight.

BE, CH, DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, NO, SK

REC-2010-30 Luxembourg should re-consider and clarify its responsibility for the oversight of ASM

LU



REC-2010-31 NSAs should take measures to established and implement the necessary processes for the oversight of ASM and ATFM

BE, DK, EE, ES-AESA, ES-MIL, FI, FR, GR, NL, NO, SE, SK

REC-2010-32 Austria to clarify the issue of the ASM oversight kept within the limits of the Ministry of Transport

AT


EC

REC-2010-34 NSAs who have not yet accepted the procedures put in place by the organisations concerned for the introduction of safety related changes to their functional system should expedite this process

DK, EE, ES-MET, ES-

MIL, GR, PT

REC-2010-35 NSAs should, as a matter of urgency, put in place internal procedures relating to the review of changes to the functional systems proposed by their ANSPs

DK, EE, ES-MIL, IT, NO,

PL

REC-2010-36 (REC-2009-34)

The European Commission should encourage States to make use of the safety directives whenever unsafe conditions to a functional system occur, in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation, and inform the Commission of any aspects identified that might inadequately restrain currently the use of this instrument

EC

Section 8: Software Safety Assurance



PT, SK


AT, DK, FI, FR, SE


AT, CY, DK, EE, ES, GR, LU, NL, PT,

SE

Section 10: Interoperability


CH, EE

REC-2010-41 Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland should complete development of processes for supervision of conformity assessment tasks.

CH, DK, EE, HU, IT


CY, CH, DK, ES-AESA,

ES-MIL, GR, HU, LU


AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, GR, HU, LU,

MT, NO

REC-2010-44 EC should ensure that the material developed by the CATF and NCP-IOP is widely disseminated to ensure all States understand the requirements for conformity assessment

EC

REC-2010-45 EC should ensure that best practice for conformity assessment is applied in the ECAA States

EC




CH, FR, SE

REC-2010-47


DK, EE, ES, GR, HU, LU,

LV


LT, NL, PL

REC-2010-49

The two NSAs that reported having verified compliance with the COTR Regulation but not having received any DoV in the three reporting periods should clarify how the verification of compliance has been carried out

AT, MT

REC-2010-50

The NSAs of Greece, Malta, Norway and Portugal should request further explanation from their ANSPs and urge them to take measures to ensure that all mandatory processes will be implemented by December 2012

GR, MT, NO, PT

REC-2010-51 The NSAs of Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia should ensure that the non implementation of the basic flight data and/or basic flight data processes by their ANSPs is adequately justified

LU, MT, SI

REC-2010-52 States should reconfirm plans with their ANSP to meet all requirements of the COTR Regulation by the end 2012

All States

REC-2010-53

NSAs should take action to verify compliance with the IFPL Regulation


LV, NL, UK

REC-2010-54 Luxembourg should clarify the scope of implementation of the IFPL Regulation in Luxembourg

LU


DK, EE, FI, LV

REC-2010-56


AT, DE, FR, GR, LT, NO,

PL, RO


AT, HU, MT


BE, CH, CY, DK, FR, GR,

RO

REC-2010-59 Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Poland should confirm that they have applied implemented all the applicable provisions of the AGVCS Regulation

BE, FI, LU, NL, PL

REC-2010-60 All States should proactively ensure that the plans of ANSPs are sufficiently robust to achieve the State obligations to meet the provision of the Interoperability IRs.

All States

Section 12: Air Navigation Charging

REC-2010-61 The European Commission should urge the six States which have no effective enforcement measures in place to introduce such measures with no delay

6 States



REC-2010-62 The European Commission should request clarification from five States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement

5 States

Section 13: Functional Airspace Blocks

REC-2010-63 The European Commission (and the Network Manager) should continue the efforts to support FABs in the establishment of inter-FAB cooperation and coordination

EC

REC-2010-64 FABs and FAB initiatives should establish the necessary consultation and coordination mechanism for inter-FAB relations

All States

Section 14: Air Traffic Flow management

REC-2010-65 States should provide reference to the documents and procedures required for the operations of the ATFM

CY, FR, MT, NL

Section 15: Implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace

REC-2010-66

Slovenia to take urgent measures to complete the implementation of FUA and provide urgent information on the expected delay for full implementation of Level 1 which retains accountability over the whole FUA implementation process

SI

REC-2010-67 States should establish measures to ensure consistency between ASM-ATFM and ASM-ATS and provide information on the expected timelines

HU, LU, SI

REC-2010-68 States to provide the Commission with the information stipulated in Article 4.3 of the FUA Regulation

HU, MT, SI

REC-2010-69

States should ensure that the relevant body is performing all the tasks required under Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation


REC-2010-70 States should establish an Airspace Management Cell (AMC) in compliance with Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation

LT, LV, SI

REC-2010-71 States should provide justification of the use of civil/military points of contact instead of a formal AMC as stipulated by Article 5.1 of the FUA Regulation

EE, LU

REC-2010-72 States should ensure that their AMCs have been provided with adequate dedicated ASM supporting systems to perform and communicate the pre-tactical airspace management tasks

CY, EE, LU, LV, MT, SE,

SI

REC-2010-73 States should implement FUA at ASM Level 2 MT, SI

REC-2010-74 States should ensure full compliance with Article 6 of the FUA Regulation


REC-2010-75

States should be encouraged to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment of FABs


SI, SK

REC-2010-76 States should establish with neighbouring States one common set of standards for separation between civil and military flights for cross-border activities

AT, CZ, FR, IE, LU, MT,

SE, SK

REC-2010-77 States should implement the required safety management processes as a matter of priority

SI, UK



REC-2010-78

States should establish and implement the required processes for the evaluation of agreements, procedures and supporting systems established at the three levels of FUA covering the areas of safety, airspace capacity, efficiency and flexibility

BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, LU,

NL, SI

REC-2010-79 States should implement a FUA compliance monitoring process CH, CZ, HU,

IT, LV, MT, NO, SI

REC-2010-80


EC

REC-2010-81

Given the issues noted in the sub-sections, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed

EC

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.


Recommendations from Reporting Period January to December 2009

REC-2009-1

The European Commission should investigate the reasons both for the limited use of Recognised Organisations by the NSAs and the lack of interest in companies in the sector to undergo the recognition process.

EC

REC-2009-2 Austria should be asked for clarification with respect to the allocation of the NSA’s responsibilities between the Minister of Transport and the CAA.

AT

REC-2009-3

The European Commission should seek clarification from Austria on how the process of appointment of its Recognised Organisations by decree is in compliance with the requirements of Article 10.1 of the safety oversight Regulation.

AT

REC-2009-4

The European Commission should seek advice from Austria on how it intends to ensure compliance in terms of supervision of AFIS providers. Belgium should be asked to confirm whether it has any AFIS services.

AT, BE

REC-2009-5 Portugal should be asked to review and advise its intentions in terms of independent supervision of MET provision.

PT

REC-2009-6 States should continue their efforts in providing their NSAs with sufficient and competent staff to ensure that the NSAs have the necessary capabilities to perform their tasks.

All States

REC-2009-7


All States



REC-2009-8 The three NSAs that reported having no qualified safety auditors/inspectors (Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Spain-MIL) should take measures to address this issue as a matter of urgency.

BG, ES, LU

REC-2009-9

The European Commission should seek further clarifications from the NSAs (Germany, Greece, Slovenia and Spain-AESA) who reported having qualified safety auditors/inspectors while reporting not having established qualification criteria for this task.

DE, ES, GR, SI

REC-2009-10

The European Commission should request Austria, Denmark, Italy and Lithuania to provide the details of the qualification criteria established for safety auditors/inspectors and/or references to the relevant documents/Regulations.

AT, DK, IT, LT

REC-2009-11 The European Commission should request Portugal and Italy clarification on the situation with respect to the certification of, respectively, Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. and Altatoscana Spa.

IT, PT

REC-2009-12 France should be requested to provide an update on the situation of the seven AFIS providers whose certificate expired in 2009.

FR

REC-2009-13 [REC-2008-13]

Given the great variety in the duration of validity of certificates, the NSAs should consider the possibility of harmonising the validity periods, especially in relation to FABs. This recommendation can be extended to the harmonisation of ongoing compliance practices and cycles within FABs.

All States

REC-2009-14 [REC-2008-14]

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 the service provision Regulation, have nevertheless 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.

All States

REC-2009-15 The European Commission should request Germany and Hungary to provide all the required information on the designation of their ATS and MET providers.

DE, HU

REC-2009-16 The European Commission should request France to provide clarification on the situation regarding the designation of its 62 AFIS providers.

FR

REC-2009-17 The European Commission should urge Portugal and Switzerland to complete the designation process of all its ATSPs as soon as possible.

CH, PT

REC-2009-18 The European Commission should urge Cyprus to complete the designation process of its ATS and MET providers.

CY

REC-2009-19

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Norway and Spain should provide the required information on the airspace blocks for which their ATS or MET providers have been designated.

AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, LT, NO

REC-2009-20 [REC-2008-21]

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 appropriate arrangements for the supervision of ANSPs in this context. This process should commence as soon as possible irrespective of the progress on FABs.

All States



REC-2009-21 The follow up should continue and be further refined, building on the extensive information collected within this 2009 cycle.

EC

REC-2009-22 The European Commission should request Germany to provide data in the requested level of detail.

DE

REC-2009-23 The European Commission should advise EASA on the situation regarding the need to ensure the certification of ANSPs from third countries that provide services in the SES airspace.

EC

REC-2009-24

The European Commission should request clarification from Germany, France, Norway, Portugal and Sweden as to the reasons for not checking one or several of the certified providers for ongoing compliance as the requirement is for all certified providers to be subject to annual monitoring.

DE, FR, NO, PT, SE

REC-2009-25

The European Commission should endeavour to assess whether the reported lack of resources in NSAs has an impact on the actual execution and effectiveness of the annual inspection programmes.

EC

REC-2009-26 The European Commission should highlight to the NSAs the goal and benefits of consultation of their indicative inspection programmes with ANSPs and other NSAs concerned.

EC

REC-2009-27 [REC-2008-47]

The European Commission should encourage the States to maintain and improve the consultation mechanisms, as these represent one of the main foundations of effective implementation. States should be also encouraged to share applied good practices.

EC

REC-2009-28

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 context, States may have to assess the effectiveness of the 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.

All States

REC-2009-29

The European Commission should require that clear and comprehensive identification of the annual safety oversight reports should be ensured by the States/NSAs by indicating the appropriate references and/or a correct web-link.

EC

REC-2009-30 States should ensure that NSAs provide the full legal references to their documented procedures or national regulations relating to safety oversight activities.

All States

REC-2009-31

The European Commission should clarify if it accepts that States use the SES implementation Annual report submitted as part of LSSIP as a means of compliance with Article 14.1 of the safety oversight Regulation.

EC

REC-2009-32

In order to ensure full and effective implementation of safety oversight by the NSAs in compliance with the safety oversight Regulation there is a need to expedite developing NSAs’ arrangements and processes for the supervision of ASM and ATFM functions.

BE, BG, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, LU, NL, NO, PT, SE

REC-2009-33 NSAs should ensure that they produce and update an assessment of the human resources needed as required by Article 11 of the safety oversight Regulation

All States



REC-2009-34


EC

REC-2009-35 Greece should expedite initiating safety oversight of ANS by its NSA in accordance with the safety oversight Regulation.

GR

REC-2009-36 The European Commission should clarify with Austria the issue of shared responsibility for ASM related safety oversight between NSA and ANSP.

AT

REC-2009-37

States that have reported only partially compliant should review their situation and make efforts to complete implementation for the full scope of applicability of this Regulation.

AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, GR, LU, NO, PT, RO, SE

REC-2009-38 The European Commission should request Luxembourg to communicate the full text of the provisions transposing the Directive into national law.

LU

REC-2009-39 Belgium, Cyprus and Italy should be asked to provide their plans for appointment of competent medical bodies or medical examiners.

BE, CY, IT

REC-2009-40

The European Commission should continue to support the efforts by the States to raise the level of commitment for the establishment of FABs from the level of ANSPs to the highest policy-making authorities in the States going beyond the areas ATM/ANS, as appropriate.

EC

REC-2009-41

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 network and manage successfully the wide variety of complex issues that would not be limited only to intra-FAB State boundaries.

All States

REC-2009-42

The States who are members of the Baltic, Danube, Spain - Portugal FAB should be asked to provide a target implementation date and details of the nature and timing of the intermediary phases required leading to implementation.

LT, PL, BG, RO, ES, PT

REC-2009-43

The European Commission should note the apparent lack of a common view on the meaning of the term “implementation” and clarify the difference between FAB establishment and FAB implementation.

EC

REC-2009-44

The European Commission should require those NSAs that have not done so, to verify that the ANSPs running verifications activities themselves, without involving a Notified Body, fulfil the conditions laid down in the legislation.

CH, CY, DK, EE, ES-MIL, GR, HU, LU, NL, NO

REC-2009-45 [REC-2008-40]

The European Commission should continue supporting the currently on-going work to achieve a harmonised interpretation and granularity of systems further to their present definition in Annex I to the interoperability Regulation as well the identification of constituents.

EC



REC-2009-46

The European Commission should request the seven States who advised no EC declarations of verification of systems to confirm that no systems have been put into service in the reporting period.

AT, CH, CY, CZ, DK, EE, GR, HU, IT, MT, NO

REC-2009-47 The European Commission should maintain the proactive approach through provision of timely clarifications, identification of needs for dedicated support, promotion of best practices, etc.

EC

REC-2009-48

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 SES Legislation Implementation for the period January/2009 – December/2009 114/116 obligation to meet the required deadlines and further, ask what they intend to do to redress priorities to ensure a breach does not occur.

AT, CY, DK, EE, FI, IE, IT, NO, PL

REC-2009-49

The European Commission should ask Denmark, Ireland and Slovenia why, having reported implementation was completed in the previous report, they are now reporting only plans for implementation.

DK, IE, SI

REC-2009-50

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 to this Regulation from the future reporting exercises.

EC

REC-2009-51 The European Commission, together with EUROCONTROL, should investigate the differences found between the reported and coordinated frequency conversions.

EC

REC-2009-52

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 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.

EC

REC-2009-53

The European Commission should maintain the proactive approach through provision of timely clarifications, identification of needs for dedicated support, promotion of best practices, etc., in order to clarify the apparent misunderstandings

EC

REC-2009-54

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 raise the awareness of the stakeholders with regard the applicable regulatory requirements as well as the impact of these requirements on their systems.

EC


REC-2009-56 The European Commission should request clarification to the other six States on the existing measures and their possible enforcement.

REC-2009-57 [REC-2008-50]

The European Commission should address the situation where 10 States have not established assessment mechanisms for the FUA performance and encourage these States to expedite implementing such mechanisms.

CY, CZ, ES, IE, LV, MT, NL, SE, SI, SK



REC-2009-58 [REC-2008-51]

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 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.

EC

REC-2009-59

The ten States who have not notified the European Commission of the identified persons/organisations in accordance Article 4.1 of the FUA Regulation should do so as a matter of priority.

CY, DE, FR, GR, HU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SI

REC-2009-60 Considering the poor application of FUA assessment process and review of airspace procedures, the development of some form of guideline material that details this process should be considered.

EC

REC-2009-61 [REC-2008-52]

The European Commission should clarify to States that, whenever there is any form of interactive civil/military airspace utilisation, they should implement some form of ASM Level 2 (planning for airspace reservation).

EC

REC-2009-62 [REC-2008-55]

There is a need to emphasise the critical importance of establishing coordination procedures permitting direct communication of relevant information in order to resolve specific traffic situations or concerns wherever civil and military controllers are providing services in the same airspace.

EC

REC-2009-63

The European Commission should encourage States to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA and an essential condition for the establishment of FABs

EC

REC-2009-64 The European Commission should urge those States that have yet to implement safety management processes to address this issue as a matter of priority.

LV, SI

REC-2009-65

The European Commission should clarify to States that no exception should be made and/or allowed in establishing effective processes for the evaluation of the functioning of agreements, procedures and supporting systems from a safety standpoint.

EC

REC-2009-66 The European Commission should seek clarification from those States who previously reported compliance in the previous reporting period and not confirming it in 2009.

BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, NL

REC-2009-67 [REC-2008-57]

The European Commission should remind States that performance assessments in the areas of airspace capacity and efficiency are required to achieve the objectives of the FUA implementation

EC

REC-2009-68 [REC-2008-58]

The European Commission should emphasise to the States the importance and necessity of effective compliance self-monitoring and request those States who do not meet the requirements to advise their plans for compliance.

AT, BG, CH, CY, DK, EE, ES, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, NL, NO, SI, SK

REC-2009-69 [REC-2008-59]

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 compliance monitoring. The European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practice as to what should be the frequency of such activities.

EC



REC-2009-70 [REC-2008-62]

Given the issues noted in the sub-sections on Compliance Monitoring, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice proposed.

EC

Recommendations from Reporting Period July 2007 to December 2008

REC-2008-1

The European Commission should consider what actions/mechanisms should be put in place in order to ascertain that the NSAs established or nominated by the States are indeed fully operational, legally empowered and adequately resourced to fulfil their tasks.

EC

REC-2008-2 The European Commission should clarify with France the situation of DIRCAM, whether this entity is a second NSA or a Recognised Organisation.

FR

REC-2008-3

The European Commission should consider clarifying the situation of several States (France, Germany) which reported not having implemented the economic oversight function in their respective NSAs, or where the reported information was ambiguous (Norway).

DE, FR, NO

REC-2008-4

The European Commission should clarify the situation reported by two States (Portugal and Malta) where NSA responsibilities are discharged by the ANSPs in respect of ATCO licensing and interoperability.

PT, MT

REC-2008-5

The European Commission reminds the States which have not yet made the necessary provisions for their NSAs, that it is a legal obligation not only to establish an NSA but also to ensure that it has the necessary authority and resources to carry out its tasks as laid out in the SES legislation.

EC

REC-2008-6

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 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.

All States

REC-2008-7

The issues of the adequate resourcing of NSAs and of their competence should be monitored more closely in the next annual reporting cycle, especially having in mind their future obligation under SES II to develop performance plans.

EC

REC-2008-8

While the list of areas reported as difficult to implement will not be detailed in this report, the European Commission should raise this issue with the Single Sky Committee as a priority, considering the serious increase of tasks facing NSAs under the forthcoming SES II performance scheme and SESAR implementation.

EC

REC-2008-9

Efforts should be put forth at Community and State levels to overcome the impediments to the implementation of a more cooperative approach. This recommendation, however, does not necessarily imply additional legislative measures.

EC



REC-2008-10

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 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.

EC

REC-2008-11 It is also recommended that, to avoid duplication of work, the European Commission accepts the information in the SES Annual Reports as official notification.

EC

REC-2008-12

Considering that the provision of ANS in the Community shall be subject to certification, the European Commission should urge the States which have not yet done so (Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal) to expedite their certification processes as soon as possible.

GR, LU, PT

REC-2008-13

Considering the great variety in the duration of validity of certificates, the European Commission and the NSAs should envisage the possibility of harmonising the validity periods, especially in relation to FABs.

EC

REC-2008-14

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 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.

EC

REC-2008-15 The requirement for the NSAs to check the on-going compliance of all certified providers should be applied without exception.

DK, ES, FR, LV, MT, RO

REC-2008-16

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 recommended that the European Commission identifies and 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.

EC

REC-2008-17

The European Commission should remind the States that, according to the current legislation in force, the verification of compliance is a responsibility of the NSAs and that Recognised Organisations can also be used in this process.

EC

REC-2008-18 The European Commission should clarify with Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland the situation in respect of certified but not designated ATSPs.

CH, DE, HU, PT, SE

REC-2008-19 The European Commission should clarify with Italy the situation in respect of designated but not certified ATSPs.

IT

REC-2008-20 The European Commission should monitor the completion of the designation process in Greece and Luxembourg.

GR, LU



REC-2008-21

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 appropriate arrangements for the supervision of ANSPs in this context. This process should commence as soon as possible irrespective of the progress on FABs.

All States

REC-2008-22 The European Commission should clarify how to proceed in the case where cross-border services are provided by an ATSP from an ECAA or third country.

EC

REC-2008-23

In order to enable the clear identification of the airspace blocks concerned by cross-border ATS provision and monitor the application of the SES Regulations in these blocks, this issue should be followed up in more depth in the next reporting cycle.

EC

REC-2008-24

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 the transposition details to the European Commission should be encouraged to do so, mentioning their corresponding national legislative acts.

EC

REC-2008-25

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 Training”, dated 10 December 2004, while a new EUROCONTROL specification for ATCO Training is already available.

EC

REC-2008-26

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. For this, it may be necessary for the European Commission to 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.

EC

REC-2008-27

The European Commission may consider requesting Estonia, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Slovenia, UK, and Norway to clarify the situation in respect of their application of Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) N° 1794/2006.

DK, EE, FI, HU, LU, LV, NL, NO, PT, SE, SI, UK

REC-2008-28 The European Commission may consider requesting Estonia to clarify the modalities of the reported incentive schemes.

EE

REC-2008-29

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 documentation submitted on terminal costs and charges pursuant to Articles 8 and 15 and published on the European Commission website.

EC

REC-2008-30 The European Commission may consider requesting Luxembourg to clarify if the State applies or not Article 1.6.

LU

REC-2008-31

The European Commission should clarify to the States that their annual reports should accurately display the reality as regards the implementation of this Regulation. States should be reminded that they cannot claim achievement or compliance with a legal act before it has come into force.

EC



REC-2008-32 The European Commission should clarify with Germany the declared absence of plans as regards full implementation.

DE

REC-2008-33 The European Commission should clarify with Luxembourg and Belgium which State is responsible for Luxembourg airspace classification above FL 135.

BE, LU

REC-2008-34

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 an effective inter-FAB coordination so as to achieve a significant 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.

EC

REC-2008-35

The different initiatives currently demonstrate significant differences in speed and depth. This, however, may be partially streamlined through the introduction in SES II of a deadline for FAB implementation, implementing rules and the new focus on performance-driven and optimised service provision.

EC

REC-2008-36

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 minimise the risks of delays in meeting the forthcoming deadline of SES II. The European Commission should assess possible means in supporting the States to manage those risks accordingly.

EC

REC-2008-37 The development of implementing rules and guidance material for FABs foreseen in the SES II should be considered as one of the highest priorities in the short-term.

EC

REC-2008-38

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 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;

All States

REC-2008-39

The fact that FABCE and Blue MED involve non-SES States poses the question (also under Cross-Border Provision of ANS) on how to handle certification, designation and supervision of the providers which are not bound by the SES Regulations. The European Commission should clarify this issue.

EC

REC-2008-40

The European Commission should continue supporting the currently on-going work to achieve a harmonised interpretation and granularity of systems further to their present definition in Annex I to Regulation (EC) Nº 552/2004.

EC

REC-2008-41 The European Commission, in cooperation with the States, should analyse the possible causes and impact of the reportedly very low number of Notified Bodies.

EC

REC-2008-42

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 about meeting the set deadlines. This presumes that States should report consistently on their implementation actions even in advance of the target dates;

EC



REC-2008-43

Considering the complexity of achieving a harmonised implementation of this Regulation, the European Commission should take a proactive approach to increase its monitoring to States in this respect, e.g. by providing timely clarifications, identifying the need for dedicated support, promoting enhanced coordination, etc.

EC

REC-2008-44 The same recommendations apply as in the case of Regulation (EC) Nº 1032/2006 (COTR).

EC

REC-2008-45 The same recommendations apply as in the case of Regulation (EC) Nº 1032/2006.

EC

REC-2008-46 The European Commission should clarify what measures States should specifically take in order to ensure compliance with the IFPS Regulation.

EC

REC-2008-47 The European Commission should encourage the States to maintain and improve the consultation mechanisms, as these represent one of the main foundations of effective implementation.

EC

REC-2008-48

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 Commission may consider establishing a practice by which States and all relevant stakeholders would meet regularly in a wide consultation forum.

EC

REC-2008-49

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 stakeholders - the FAB projects being the obvious first choice. 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.

EC

REC-2008-50

The European Commission should address the situation where 11 States have not established assessment mechanisms for the FUA performance and encourage these States to expedite implementing such mechanisms.

EC

REC-2008-51

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 and military users nevertheless share the national airspace (e.g. Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Slovenia), so that these States implement the FUA requirements at ASM Level 1 which are respectively necessary.

CY, IE, MT

REC-2008-52 The European Commission should clarify to States that, whenever there is any form of interactive civil/military airspace utilisation, they should implement some form of ASM.

EC

REC-2008-53

It should be also clarified that even if a State considers the implementation of a fully fledged AMC as not necessary in that particular case, some form of airspace management coordination is nevertheless necessary, e.g. through a focal point ensuring effective implementation of the required ASM Level 2 functions.

EC



REC-2008-54

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 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.

EC

REC-2008-55

There is need to emphasise the critical importance of establishing coordination procedures permitting direct communication of relevant information in order to resolve specific traffic situations or concerns wherever civil and military controllers are providing services in the same airspace.

EC

REC-2008-56

The European Commission should encourage States to continue their efforts in establishing and maintaining sound mechanisms for the cross-border policy consultation, as this is one of the main foundations of effective FUA.

EC

REC-2008-57

The European Commission should remind States that performance assessments in the areas of airspace capacity and efficiency are indispensable means to achieve the objectives of the FUA implementation.

EC

REC-2008-58 The European Commission should emphasise to the States the importance and necessity of effective compliance self-monitoring.

EC

REC-2008-59

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 compliance monitoring. The European Commission should also consult with States in identifying good practice as to what should be the frequency of such activities.

EC

REC-2008-60

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 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.

EC

REC-2008-61 The European Commission should consider whether it wishes to reply to any of the individual comments made by the States as regards their respective identified problems.

EC

REC-2008-62

Given the issues noted in the sub-sections on Compliance Monitoring, the European Commission should consider, in consultation with the States, whether to provide support through a dedicated event (e.g. a workshop) where the identified problems would be discussed and also cases of best practice.

EC


Annex 2 List of NSAs

State Name of the NSA Separation from the ANSP

MIL13 Legal Basis

AT CAA (Oberste Zivilluftfahrtbehörde) Institutional Aviation Act

BE Belgian Supervising Authority for Air Navigation Services (BSA–ANS)

Institutional Law of 25 July 2006 (Article 48 – 51) and Royal Decree of 14 February 2006 – NSA.

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 Navigation Services, Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), Ministry of Communications and Works.

Functional Article 8B of the Civil Aviation Act 213 (I) 2008 and Council of Ministers decision no. 62.376 of 21.7.2005

CZ Civil Aviation Authority (Úřad pro civilní letectví)

Institutional Civil Aviation Act No. 49/1997 Coll.

DE Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung (BAF)

Functional, institutional and organisational

Federal law, dated 29 July 2009

DK Danish Transport Authority Institutional. AIM is separated functionally

Air Navigation Act (Consolidated Act no. 1484 of 19 December 2005 with the amendments following § 97 of Act no. 538 of 8 June 2006, § 5 of Act no. 542 of 8 June 2006, Act no. 242 of 21 March 2007, and § 31 of Act no. 512 of 6 June 2007)

EE Estonian Civil Aviation Administration (ECAA)

Institutional Aviation act § 7

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



MIL13 Legal Basis

(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 (Only MET)

Real Decreto 1443/2010 por el que se desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. (Royal Decree 1443/2010, laying down the basic structure of the Ministry of the Environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs)

FI Liikenteen turvallisuusvirasto; Finnish Transport Safety Agency

Institutional Aviation Act (1194/2009), 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 Authority (HANSA)

Functional Law 3446/2006 establishes the NSA 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 National Transport Authority (NTA DAT)

Institutional Act XCVII. of 1995, National Aviation Act and Government Decree No.263/2006.(XII.20.)

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 -ENAC

Institutional ENAC, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority, has been appointed as regulator and National 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



MIL13 Legal Basis

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 Malta (CAD-TM)

Institutional Civil Aviation (Provision of Air Navigation Services) Order, LN 281/2006



MIL13 Legal Basis

NL (Part of) the Transport and Water Management Inspectorate, within MoI&M (IVW, “Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat”)

Organisational separation of IVW from LVNL, MUAC; Functional separation from KNMI (certified MET services provider).

The Aviation Act (Article 11.1(2)), last amended in Sept 2007 (State Journal 2007, 405) and the Ministerial Decree (Article 2a(3)) concerning the establishment of IVW, last amended May 2008 (State Journal 26 May 2008): IVW is the nominated NSA

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 Aviação Civil, I.P.), except for Meteorology, which is outside of the scope of INAC, I.P.

Organisational/Structural and functional.

Decree–Law no. 145/2007, 27 April.

RO Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA) for all specific tasks of NSA, except the security matters

Separation from ANSP (ROMATSA) – Organisational, institutional. Separation from AIS Dept. within RCAA functional

Aviation Act of Romania approved by Government Ordinance no. 29/1997 concerning the Civil Air Code of Romania with further amendments, MoT Order no. 1185/ 2006, designating RCAA as NSA for all the specific tasks of NSA, except the security matters which are in the responsibility of MoT–DGCA (published in Monitorul Oficial No. 602 of 12 July 2006); MoT Order no. 11/2008, approving the national regulation entitled RACR–SSNA ed. 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: Institutional separation both from ANSP (ROMATSA) and RCAA.

MoT–DGCA is acting as the NSA in the field of civil aviation security based on the provisions set in the Aviation Act, Government Decision No. 443/2005 concerning the approval of the National Civil Aviation Security Programme, further amended by Government Decision No. 533/2008 and Government Decision No. 1869/2005 for the approval of National Quality Control Programme on civil aviation security.



MIL13 Legal Basis

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, Organisational and Institutional.

Amendment of Aviation Law, No 113, dated 6 November 2006

SK CAA SK Institutional Civil Aviation Act

UK Civil Aviation Authority Institutional (ATCO

Licensing, Engineerin

g & technical

staff, Interopera

bility)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), a public corporation, was established by Parliament in 1972. The CAA is the UK's independent specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection.

The CAA has been appointed as the NSA under a Statutory Instrument, the Single European Sky (National Supervisory Authority) Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1958).

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


Annex 3 List of Certified ANS Providers

State Name of the ANSP ATS AFIS AIS CNS MET Date of Last Certificate

Valid Until Derogation Granted

Type of Derogation

AT Austro Control GmbH Y Y Y Y Y 19/11/2010 Unlimited subject to ongoing compliance

N

BE Belgocontrol Y Y Y Y 01/06/2007 31/05/2013 N

BG Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority (BULATSA)

Y Y Y Y 21/06/2007 21/06/2012 N

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 Czech Republic (ANS CR)

Y Y Y Y 01/12/2010 01/12/2016 N

CZ Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute (CHMI)

Y 07/06/2007 07/06/2011 N

CZ Vodochody Airport Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2012 N

CZ Aircraft Industries Y 12/10/2009 11/10/2011 N




Type of Derogation

DE DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH

Y Y Y Y 30/11/2006 Unlimited N

DE The Tower Company GmbH Y Y 26/03/2007 Unlimited N

DE Deutscher Wetterdienst DWD German Meteorological Service

Y 14/03/2007 Unlimited N

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 (Aerodrome Control services for Lahr)

Y Y 13/04/2007 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

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




Type of Derogation

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 (DMI)

Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N

DK Luftfartsinformationstjenesten (AIM)

Y 15/12/2006 15/12/2012 N

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 Hydrological Institute (EMHI)

Y 21/12/2008 21/12/2011 N

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: 11/06/2010 ATS: 10/11/2010

AFIS: 11/06/2011 ATS: 10/11/2011

N

FI Finavia Corporation Y Y Y Y Y 20/12/2006 20/12/2012 N




Type of Derogation

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 (SAINT-BARTHELEMY Apt.)

Y 20/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y Regulation (EC) 2096/2005 Annex 1 Articles 2.2, 3.2, 4, 6, 8.2 and 9, Annex 2 Article 3.2

FR Régie autonome de l’aéroport de Saint Martin Grand Case (SAINT-MARTIN GRAND-CASE Apt.)

Y 20/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Commune de saint Bon Courchevel (COURCHEVEL Altiport Apt.)

Y 30/06/2008 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de commerce et d’Industrie du Cantal (AURILLAC Apt.)

Y 23/12/2010 31/12/2014 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion Aérodrome Départemental Le Puy en Velay / Loudes (Le Puy en Velay Loudes Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above




Type of Derogation

FR Aéroports de Lyon (Lyon BRON Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Moulins-Vichy (MOULINS Montbeugny Apt.)

Y 30/06/2008 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Grand Roanne Agglomeration (ROANNE Renaison Apt.)

Y 23/12/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion de L’aerodrome de Saint Flour - Coltines (SAINT-FLOUR Coltines Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Commune de Vichy (VICHY Charmeil Apt.)

Y 30/06/2010 30/06/2014 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et de l'Industrie d’Amiens (AMIENS Glisy Apt.)

Y 22/06/2010 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Syndicat mixte pour l’aménagement et l’exploitation de l’aérodrome de Valenciennes-Denain (VALENCIENNES Denain Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de l'Yonne (AUXERRE Branches Apt.)

Y 27/05/2010 20/06/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie du Doubs (BESANCON la Veze Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 21/06/2011 Y As above

FR Société d’Exploitation de Vatry Europort (S.E.V.E.) (CHALONS Vatry Apt.)

Y 15/12/2009 17/12/2013 Y As above

FR Société de l’Aéroport de Colmar SAS (COLMAR Houssen Apt.)

Y 20/06/2008 20/06/2012 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Dijon (DIJON Longvic Apt.)

Y 12/06/2009 21/06/2011 Y As above




Type of Derogation

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie du Jura (DOLE Tavaux Apt.)

Y 21/06/2008 20/06/2011 Y As above

FR Société d’exploitation de l’aéroport d’EPINAL Mirecourt Apt.)

Y 28/05/2010 27/05/2012 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de l’aérodrome du Pays de Montbéliard (MONTBELIARD Courcelles Apt.)

Y 17/09/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de Gestion de l’Aéroport de Nancy (NANCY Essey Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above

FR Chambre de commerce et d’industries de la Nièvre (NEVERS Fourchambault Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Reims et d’Epernay (REIMS Prunay Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 21/06/2013 Y As above

FR Société de Gestion de l'Aéroport de Troyes en Champagne (TROYES Barberey Apt.)

Y 01/06/2010 20/05/2012 Y As above

FR Société d'exploitation Chalon Champforgueil aéroport (CHALON Champforgueil Apt.)

Y 08/11/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above

FR Société de Gestion de l’Aéroport d’Angers Marcé (ANGERS Marcé Apt.)

Y 21/06/2008 21/06/2011 Y As above

FR Communauté de Communes de Belle-Île-en-Mer (BELLE ILE EN MER Apt.)

Y 16/06/2010 21/06/2012 Y As above

FR Conseil général du LOIR et CHER (Blois Le Breuil Apt)

Y 16/06/2010 30/06/2014 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et de l'Industrie du Cher (BOURGES Apt.)

Y 27/10/2010 30/10/2013 Y As above

FR Aéroport Chateauroux Centre Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above




Type of Derogation

(CHATEAUROUX Déols Apt.)

FR Ville de Cholet (CHOLET Le Pontreau Apt.)

Y 29/09/2009 30/09/2012 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et de l'Industrie de DIEPPE (DIEPPE Saint Aubin Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie Centre et Sud Manche (GRANVILLE Apt.)

Y 21/12/2009 31/12/2012 Y As above

FR Syndicat Intercommunal de l’Aéroport de La Baule-Escoublac - Pornichet - Le Pouliguen (LA BAULE Escoublac Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de la Vendée (La Roche sur Yon les Ajoncs et l’île d’Yeu Le grand Phare Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de l’Aéroport de Laval et de la Mayenne (S.M.A.L.M.) (LAVAL Entrammes Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Morlaix (MORLAIX Ploujean Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR SMAEDAOL (ORLEANS Saint Denis de l'Hôtel Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 30/11/2011 Y As above

FR Commune de Ouessant (OUESSANT Kerlaouen Apt.)

Y 11/06/2010 21/06/2014 Y As above

FR Commune de Quiberon (QUIBERON Apt.)

Y 21/12/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte Aéroport Saint-Brieuc Armor (St BRIEUC Armor Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2013 Y As above

FR Société d’exploitation Tours –Aéroport SNC-Lavalin (TOURS Val

Y 21/12/2010 31/03/2011 Y As above




Type of Derogation

de Loire Apt.)

FR Syndicat Mixte de Pierrefonds (Saint Pierre Pierrefonds Apt.)

Y 31/12/2009 31/12/2013 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte de l’aérodrome civil d’Albi-Le Séquestre (ALBI Le Séquestre Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Société d’Economie Mixte du Gers (AUCH Lamothe Apt.)

Y 15/10/2010 31/10/2013 Y As above

FR Régie personnalisée d’exploitation (BRIVE Souillac Apt.)

Y 15/06/2010 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Syndicat mixte Aérodrome Cahors Lalbenque (CAHORS Lalbenque Apt.)

Y 08/10/2009 31/10/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Castres-Mazamet (CASTRES Mazamet Apt.)

Y 30/09/2009 30/09/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Montlucon-Gannat Portes d’Auvergne (MONTLUCON Gueret Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Syndicat Mixte pour l’Aménagement et l’Exploitation de l’Aérodrome d’Intérêt Départemental de Pamiers-Les Pujols (PAMIERS les Pujols Apt.)

Y 17/06/2009 30/06/2012 Y As above

FR Chambre de commerce et d’industrie d'Alès et des Cévennes (ALES Deaux Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above

FR AUSAT (GAP Tallard Apt.) Y 25/10/2009 21/12/2011 Y As above

FR Aéroport du Golfe de Saint-Tropez (La MOLE Apt.)

Y 07/12/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above

FR Société Aéroport International du Castellet (Le CASTELLET Apt.)

Y 12/10/2009 30/09/2011 Y As above

FR Mairie de Lézignan Corbières (LEZIGNAN Corbières Apt.)

Y 19/02/2009 28/02/2011 Y As above




Type of Derogation

FR Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de La Lozère (Mende-Brenoux Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 30/06/2011 Y As above

FR Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie d’Angouleme (Angoulème Brie-Champniers et Rochefort Saint-Agnant Apt.)

Y 30/06/2009 29/06/2012 Y As above

FR Communauté d'Agglomération du bassin d'Arcachon Sud (ARCACHON La Teste de Buch Apt.)

Y 30/06/2008 29/06/2011 Y As above

FR Commune de Périgueux (Périgueux-Bassillac Apt.)

Y 21/12/2010 31/12/2012 Y As above

FR Commune de ROYAN (ROYAN-Médis Apt.)

Y 21/06/2009 20/06/2012 Y As above

FR SEAAP - Société Exploitation Aéroport Albert Picardie (ALBERT BRAY Apt.)

Y 22/10/2009 31/12/2011 Y As above

FR Société d’exploitation de l’aéroport de Toulouse Francazal (TOULOUSE Francazal Apt)

Y 03/01/2011 30/06/2011 Y As above

GR Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority / Air Navigation Services (HCAA/ANS)

Y Y Y Y 25/06/2010 25/06/2011 N

GR Hellenic National Meteorological Service (HNMS/MET)

Y 20/05/2010 20/05/2013 N

HR Croatia Control Ltd. Y Y Y Y 31/03/2009 Unlimited until revocation

N

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)




Type of Derogation

- 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 Division)

Y 06/12/2010 04/12/2012 N

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




Type of Derogation

mitigation regarding changes (part 3.2)

IT Società Aeroporto Cerrione SpA (Biella)

Y Y Y Y 09/03/2010 09/03/2012 Y As above

IT Aeroporto Lucca SpA Y Y Y 14/10/2010 14/10/2012 Y As above

IT Alatoscana SpA (Elba Marina di Campo Airport)

Y Y Y 20/01/2011 19/01/2013 Y As above

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 Navigation Service provider in Lithuania

Y Y Y Y 21/12/2006 21/12/2012 N

LT Lithuanian Hydro-Meteorological Service Provider??

Y 19/06/2008 18/06/2014 N

LU Administration de la navigation aérienne (ANA)

Y Y Y Y 07/12/2009 07/12/2011 N

LV State Joint-Stock Company Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS)

Y Y Y Y Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 N

LV Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency (LEGMA)

Y 20/12/2010 20/12/2016 N

MK M-NAV Y Y Y Y 10/03/2010 10/03/2012 N

MT Malta Air Traffic Services Limited (MATS)

Y Y Y Y 11/06/2007 11/06/2013 N

MT Malta International Airport plc (MIA) Y 11/06/2007 11/06/2013 N

NL Air Traffic Control Netherlands (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




Type of Derogation

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 Grubekompani AS

Y Y ? ? Y As above

NO Meteorologisk Institutt (met.no) Y 01/07/2007 01/05/2013 N

PL Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

Y Y Y 18/06/2008 17/06/2011 N

PL Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (IMGW)

Y 07/08/2008 22/04/2011 N

PT Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E.

Y Y Y 11/12/2008 11/12/2011 N

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)




Type of Derogation

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 Transportes, E.M.

Y 20/02/2009 28/02/2011 Y As above

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: 10/03/2009

AFIS: 15/03/2011 CNS: 17/06/2011

Y As above

PT Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. Y* *Not yet certified

N/A

RO Regia Autonoma Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration – ROMATSA

Y Y(only PIB)

Y Y Amd. 2 30/12/2009

15/12/2012 N

RO AIS Dept. within RCAA Y (exce

pt PIB)

20/06/2009 20/06/2011 N

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




Type of Derogation

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




Type of Derogation

SI Slovenia Control Ltd. Y* Y* Y* Y* 21/12/2008 21/12/2010 *In the end of 2010 the renewing of ANSPs certificates validation was in progress. Because of insufficient resources the process was aggravated.

N

SI Agency for Environment of Republic of Slovenia.

Y* 21/12/2008 *As above N

SK Letové prevádzkové služby Slovenskej republiky (LPS SR)


SK Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMU)

Y 12/12/2006 Unlimited N

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 Island)

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above




Type of Derogation

UK BAE Systems (Aviation Serivces) Ltd (Bristol Filton)

Y Y Y 01/09/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

UK BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd (Warton and Woodford)

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

UK Belfast City Airport Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N

UK Bickerton’s Aerodromes Ltd (Denham)

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 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 (Barton)

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

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 Mary’s)

Y 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




Type of Derogation

scaled appropriately to the size and complexity of each operation, together with the number of annual aircraft movements.

UK Cormack (Aircraft Services) Ltd (Cumbernauld Airport)

Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

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 Ltd

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

UK Herefordshire Aero Club Ltd (Shobdon)

Y Y 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 Y As above

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




Type of Derogation

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 Airport

Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N

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 Ltd

Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

UK Manchester Airport Group plc Y Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 N

UK Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd

Y 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.




Type of Derogation

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 (Elstree)

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

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




Type of Derogation

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 (Headcorn)

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 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 Aerodrome

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

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) Ltd

Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above

UK Wolverhampton Airport Ltd Y Y 01/01/2010 31/12/2011 Y As above


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

BG BULATSA Training centre Y 14-11-2009 14-11-2012 ATCO basic, rating and refreshment trainings as well as the different type of endorsement trainings.

CH Skyguide Training Center Y 26-09-2010 25-09-2013 ATCO, SRT

CH Sky Watch Aerodrome FİSO Training Provider Y 25-06-2009 24-06-2011

FİSO

CY Department of Civil Aviation Training Unit Y 20-10-2009 –––––

Initial Basic, 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

DE DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH Y 02-12-2008 unlimited

Initial ATCO–Training

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).

DK Mittarfeqaarfiit, Greenland Airport Authority Y 24-11-2005 30-11-2012

Practical ATC Training. 1 unit (DK/ATC/001).

DK SİU, Mittarfeqaarfiit, Greenland Airport Authority Y 19-12-2007 30-11-2012

Theoretical ATC training, Basic Training only (DK/ATM/103).

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).

EE Estonian Aviation Academy Y 06-03-2009 30-06-2011 Air Traffic Control Basic Training Rating Training ACS, ADV/ADİ, APP, APS(RAD)

ES N n/a n/a Training for military Air Traffic Controllers

ES

Servicios y Estudios para la Navegación Aérea y la Seguridad Aeronáutica, Sociedad Anónima (SENASA, S.A.)(Services and Studies for the Air Navigation and the Y 07-12-2010 06-12-2015

–



Aeronautical Safety)

ES

İngeniería y Economía del Transporte, Sociedad Anónima (İneco, S.A.)(Engineering and Economy of Transport) Y 02-12-2010 01-12-2015

–

ES

Aena (Aeropuertos y Navegación Aérea)(Airports and Air Navigation) N – –

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 transitoria cuarta).The application has been already received and is being processed with the view of certifying this provider by the first quarter of 2011.

FI Avia College Y 12-05-2009 Until further notice ATCO Initial training Continuation training

FI Finavia Corporation, Air Navigation Services Y 17-05-2010 17-05-2013

ATCO Unit training Continuation training Training of on–the–job training instructors 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



FR SNA Région parisienne Orly et Aviation générale Y 13-05-2008 12-05-2011

Unit training and continuation training

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

GR "HCAA/Civil Aviation Training Center" (SPOA) N – –

SPOA is certified in accordance with National Law. Certification by HANSA is pending.

HU HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. Y 26-06-2008 30-06-2013

– 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; –English language endorsement training.

HU Pécs Pogányi RepülQteret MqködtetQ Ltd. Y 27-01-2010 31-01-2015

AFİS initial training, rating training, –continuation training, keeping the endorsements of the licence valid,

HU

Tréner RepülQgép–vezetQ oktató, szolgáltató és kereskedelmi Ltd. (Nyíregyháza) Y 22-04-2010 30-04-2015


HU Szegedi Közlekedési Ltd. Y 29-07-2010 31-07-2015


HU Bekes Airport Ltd. (Bekescsaba) Y 22-12-2010 31-12-2015 AFİS rating training, continuation training, keeping the



endorsements of the licence valid,

HR HUSK, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences Y

First cert.05-06-2009 ext. to 07-07-2013

ATCO Basic Training

IE İrish Aviation Authority – Technology & Training Y 23-11-2010 22-11-2012

Training courses for– Student ATCO Additional ratings Licence endorsements

IT ENAV S.p.A. Y 06-2009 06-2011 all

LV ANS Training Centre Y 24-09-2008 Unlimited Initial Air Traffic Controller training, unit training and development training.

LV Riga Aeronautical İnstitute Y 06-09-2010 Unlimited Initial Air Traffic Controller training

LT SE Oro navigacija Training Centre Y 01-10-2010 01-10-2011

Air traffic controller training: – Unit training – Continuation training – Refreshing training Air traffic electronics specialist training: – Unit training – Continuation training – Refreshing training

LT

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Antanas Gustaitis' Aviation İnstitute Y 30-09-2010 30-09-2011

Initial training of air traffic controllers

LU Not applicable, no training provider. – – –

–

MT Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd. Y 29-10-2010 28-10-2013

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 Refresher Training using İANS e–learning

NL

Air Traffic Control Netherlands (LVNL, Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland) Y 28-05-2008

The certificate is valid whilst the organisation

remains compliant with the attached conditions

All as per ATCO licensing Directive Article 2.12 (Initial training, Unit training, Continuation training, training of OJT instructors and training of examiners/assessors

NO Avinor Y 29-07-2009 29-07-2014 ATCO Unit training and parts of institutional rating training



NO University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation Y 05-01-2010 01-06-2013

Ab initio institutional training ADİ, APS, ACS

PL PANSA Training Provider Y 15-11-2010 14-11-2011 ATCOs, FİSOs

PL Polish Air Force Academy Training Provider Y 05-10-2010 04-10-2012

ATCOs, FİSOs

PT NAV Portugal, E.P.E. Y 21-12-2010 20-12-2013

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 Courses

RO ROMATSA N* – –

*An application for the certification of training organization has been received from ROMATSA according to the letter no. 19788/10.11.2010 and for the time being it is under review.

SE Entry Point North AB, Nordic ATS Academy Y 18-08-2009 17-08-2015

Training Organisation for personnel in Air Traffic Service

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

SK Technical University of Koaice, Faculty of Aeronautic Y 05-10-2010 15-11-2011

ATCO Initial Training (Basic training/theoretical part)

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

UK Bae Systems (Aviation Services) Ltd Y 01-09-2010 31-12-2011

Unit and Continuation

UK Belfast City Airport Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation



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

UK London Southend Airport Company Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011


UK Manchester Airport Group Plc Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011 Unit and Continuation

UK Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011


UK NATS En–Route Plc NATS En–Route College' Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011

Initial, Unit and Continuation

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

UK Newcastle İnternational Airport 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



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

UK Westward Airways (Lands End) Ltd Y 01-03-2010 31-12-2011



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: 02/03/2005MET: 01/01/2005

ATS: 01/03/2010 MET: 31/12/2010


23/12/2008 21/06/2012

CH Skyguide FIR Switzerland plus Airspace of delegated Services from France, Italy and Germany.

01/07/2007 Withdrawal

CY Cyprus ANS (CYANS) of DCA Nicosia FIR 21/06/2007 Not defined

CZ Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic (ANS CR)

(FIR Praha, LKPR, LKTB, LKKV, LKMT) 01/12/2010 01/12/2016

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 airports

01/12/2009 -

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 Control services for Lahr)

Aerodrome Control services for Lahr 01/12/2009 -

DK Naviair All airspace within Copenhagen FIR except TIZ, TIA and military CTR, TMA and LTA.

25/10/2010 N/A

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 CTR ja TMA permanently, and Kärdla CTR, Kärdla FIZ,

23/04/2010 termless



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, Kuressaare FIZ, Kuressaare TMA, Pärnu FIZ

23/04/2010 termless

ES Aena Responsible for providing area and approach control services within all air space under Spanish responsibility. Responsible for providing aerodrome control services in those aerodromes granted to AENA.

15/06/1991 Unlimited based on Law 4/90

ES INECO Flight Information Zones of the aerodromes of La Gomera and El Hierro and CTR of El Hierro.

La Gomera: (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 to ICAO rules, or due to international agreements or bilateral Letters of Agreement.

09/04/2007 No formal limitation

GR Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority / Air Navigation Services (HCAA/ANS)

ATHINAI FIR/ HELLAS UIR 27/12/2010 -

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.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

03/07/2009 -

HU LHPP Pécs-Pogány The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

17/06/2009 -

HU Békéscsaba The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

21/05/2009 -



HU Győr-Pér The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

29/05/2009 -

HU Nyíregyháza The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

05/06/2009 -

HU Szeged The related airspaces are designated by 26/2007.(III.1.) GKM-HM-KvVM joint order. (GKM=Ministry of Economy and Transport, HM=Ministry of Defence, KvVM=Ministry of Environment and Water.)

13/05/2009 -

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 provider in Lithuania

- 21/12/2006 unlimited

LU Administration de la navigation aérienne (ANA) Ref. to LSSIP 2010-2014 Chap.2 21/12/2007 unlimited


RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016

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, “Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland”)

LVNL provides ATS up to FL 245. 18/09/2007 unlimited

NL Maastricht UAC MUAC provides ATS above FL245 18/09/2007 unlimited



NO Avinor All airspace under Norwegian responsibility except where stated otherwise

09/03/2007 03/09/2012

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, E.P.E.

Lisbon and Santa Maria FIRs 19/12/2006 The designation is valid along the certification period

and is automatically extended upon certification

renewal. It may be cancelled upon State decision.


- 21/12/2006 -

RS SMATSA Beograd FIR/UIR 29/12/2003 Unlimited period

SE LFV SWEDEN FIR ARVIDSJAUR CTR/TMA/TIZ/TIA BORLÄNGE T CTR/TMA GÄLLIVARE TIZ/TIA GÖTEBORG TMA GÖTEBORG/LANDVETTER CTR GÖTEBORG/SÄVE CTR/TIZ HAGSHULT CTR/TMA HALMSTAD CTR/TMA JOKKMOKK CTR/TMA JÖNKÖPING CTR/TMA KALMAR CTR/TMA KARLSBORG CTR/TMA KARLSTAD CTR/TMA KIRUNA CTR/TMA KRISTIANSTAD CTR/TMA KRONOBERG CTR KRONOBERG TMA LJUNGBYHED CTR/TMA LULEÅ TMA

01/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/2010

31/12/2012 31/12/2010 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2012 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 28/02/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011



KALLAX CTR MALMÖ TMA STURUP CTR PAJALA CTR/TMA PAJALA YLLÄS TIZ/TIA RONNEBY CTR/TMA SKELLEFTEÅ CTR/TMA STOCKHOLM TMA STOCKHOLM/ARLANDA CTR STOCKHOLM /BROMMA CTR/TIZ STOCKHOLM/SKAVSTA CTR STOCKHOLM/VÄSTERÅS CTR SUNDSVALL CTR/TMA SÅTENÄS CTR TROLLHÄTTAN CTR UMEÅ CTR/TMA UPPSALA CTR VIDSEL CTR VISBY CTR/TMA ÄNGELHOLM TMA ÖREBRO CTR/TMA ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK CTR/TMA ÖSTERSUND CTR/TMA ÖSTGÖRA TMA KUNGSÄNGEN CTR MALMEN CTR SAAB CTR

01/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/2010

31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 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



SI Slovenia Control Ltd. Air traffic services are provided for the entire territory of the State.(AIP-19 November 2009)

23/03/2006 Undetermined

SK Letové prevádzkové služby Slovenskej republiky (LPS SR)

FIR Slovak Republic 12/12/2006 Unlimited

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 Filton)

Bristol Filton 01/09/2010 See above

UK BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd (Warton and Woodford)

Warton Woodford

01/01/2010 See above

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



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 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 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 Humberside Nottingham East Midlands


UK Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd Cambridge Great Yarmouth / North Denes


UK Montclare Shipping Co. Ltd (Elstree) Elstree 01/01/2010 See above

UK NATS NERL London Area Control Centre London Terminal Control Centre Western Radar (Sudden Loss of ATSOCAS Management ‘SLAM’ Facility) Scottish Area Control Centre

01/01/201001/01/201004/05/2010

01/01/2010

See above

UK NATS NSL Aberdeen / Dyce Belfast/Aldergrove Birmingham




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 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 Hawarden London Heliport Scatsta Coventry

01/01/201001/01/201001/01/201001/01/201029/07/2010

See above

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


Annex 6 List of Designated MET Providers


AT Austro Control GmbH FIR WIEN 01/07/2008 unlimited

BE Belgocontrol Belgian FIR/UIR from ground till FL 245 ATS: 02/03/2005MET: 01/01/2005

ATS: 01/03/2010 MET: 31/12/2010


23/12/2008 21/06/2012

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 Provider

- 19/07/2007 unlimited

LU Administration de la navigation aérienne (ANA) Ref. to LSSIP 2010-2014 Chap.2 21/12/2007 unlimited


RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016

LV Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency (LEGMA)

RIGA FIR/UIR 20/12/2010 20/12/2016

MK M-NAV Skopje FIR 03/02/2006 Unlimited

MT Malta International Airport plc (MIA) Luqa International Airport and Malta Flight Information Region

06/11/2007 11/06/2013

NL KNMI 18/09/2007 unlimited

NO Meteorologisk Institutt (met.no) All airspace under Norwegian responsibility except where otherwise stated.

01/01/2010 31/12/2012



PL Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (IMGW)

FIR Warsaw 09/01/2008 22/04/2011

PT Instituto de Meteorologia, I.P. - - -


- 21/12/2006 -

RS SMATSA Beograd FIR/UIR 29/12/2003 Unlimited period

SE LFV SWEDEN FIR ARVIDSJAUR CTR/TMA/TIZ/TIA BORLÄNGE T CTR/TMA GÄLLIVARE TIZ/TIA GÖTEBORG TMA GÖTEBORG/LANDVETTER CTR GÖTEBORG/SÄVE CTR/TIZ HAGSHULT CTR/TMA HALMSTAD CTR/TMA JOKKMOKK CTR/TMA JÖNKÖPING CTR/TMA KALMAR CTR/TMA KARLSBORG CTR/TMA KARLSTAD CTR/TMA KIRUNA CTR/TMA KRISTIANSTAD CTR/TMA KRONOBERG CTR KRONOBERG TMA LJUNGBYHED CTR/TMA LULEÅ TMA KALLAX CTR MALMÖ TMA STURUP CTR PAJALA CTR/TMA PAJALA YLLÄS TIZ/TIA RONNEBY CTR/TMA SKELLEFTEÅ CTR/TMA STOCKHOLM TMA STOCKHOLM/ARLANDA CTR STOCKHOLM /BROMMA CTR/TIZ STOCKHOLM/SKAVSTA CTR STOCKHOLM/VÄSTERÅS CTR SUNDSVALL CTR/TMA SÅTENÄS CTR

01/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/2010

31/12/2012 31/12/2010 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2012 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 28/02/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011



TROLLHÄTTAN CTR UMEÅ CTR/TMA UPPSALA CTR VIDSEL CTR VISBY CTR/TMA ÄNGELHOLM TMA ÖREBRO CTR/TMA ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK CTR/TMA ÖSTERSUND CTR/TMA ÖSTGÖRA TMA KUNGSÄNGEN CTR MALMEN CTR SAAB CTR

01/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/201001/09/2010

31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 28/02/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2011 31/12/2010 31/12/2011 31/12/2010

SI Agency for Environment of Republic of Slovenia. MET Services are provided for the entire territory of the State.

23/03/2006 Undetermined

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 aerodrome forecast for the UK)

01/01/2010 31/03/2012


Annex 7 CABs (Cross-Border Airspace Blocks)

CAR # (CAB #)

State (airspace)

ATSP

State has reported the CAR/CABState 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 has been reported by both State

There is an agreement between the States concerned in this Case AThere is NO agreement between the States concerned in this Case A

Case B has been reported by one State

Case B has been reported by both State

Case C has been reported by one State

Case C has been reported by both State

There is an agreement between the ANSPs concerned in this Case CThere is NO agreement between the ANSPs concerned in this Case C

This agreement has been notified to the NSAs concerned in this Case CThis 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 CThis agreement has NOT been approved by the States concerned in this Case C

ATCH-01

AT Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Skyguide Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ATCZ-01

AT Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ANS CZ Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

ATDE-01

AT Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

DFS Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ATHU-01

AT Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Hungarocontrol N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ATIT-01

AT Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ENAV Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

ATSI-01

AT Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SloveniaControl Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Case A

Case A

Case B

Description of the CAB(s) Additional information/references

NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Case C

Case C

Case C

Case C

Complete sector delegation for VOR and İNN sectors Arrangements between the NSAs are planned in late 2011.

GERAS Area and Lanux Line LoA between Austo Control and ANServices CRepublic Praha ACC, effective: 21.10.2010 (as reported by CZ report). Agreement between NSAs is planned for March 2011 (pending signature of FAB CE agreement). NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

NSA Arr.: Case A Case B

Parts of FIR (north ROCKY-Line) Currently based on previous arrangements with the MoT. Arrangements between the NSAs planned in late 2011.


Case C

Part of South-eastern FIR (East of SOPRO-Line) The relevant NSAs will be notified following signature of the FAB CE agreement (planned for March 2011).


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), notified to ENAC. Arrangements between the NSAs of Austria and Italy are planned in late 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

AT: south of SBOTH-Line, south of Klagenfurt-LineSI: Klagenfurt ATS

LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Vienna (there is no agreement at State level).


BAHR-01

BA Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CroatiaControl Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

BARS-01

BA Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SMATSA Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

BEFR-01

BE Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

DSNA Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

Western part of Sarajevo FİR FL 290–FL 660; Sarajevo FİR FL 100–FL 285

Temporary agreement on Delegation of Responsibility for the Provision of Air Traffic Services in the Upper Airspace of BiH and Temporary agreement on Delegation of Responsibility for the Provision of Air Traffic Services in the Lower Airspace of BiH.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Eastern part of Sarajevo UİR Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, agreement on the delegation of responsibility for the provision of air traffic services over a portion of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 05.01.2000.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Lille TMA 2 (1500ft/4500ft AMSL) class D / Lille TMA 9 (2000ft/4500ft AMSL) class E

LoA SNA Nord (Lille APP) / Brussels ACC 16.02.2006. France reports that arrangement between the NSAs is foreseen under the FABEC MoC applicable as of 27.01.2011.



BELU-01

BE Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

ANA Luxembourg Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

BENL-01

BE Y Y ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

MUAC Y Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CHFR-01

CH Y Y Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


CHIT-01

CH Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ENAV Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CHIT-02

CH Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


CZAT-01

CZ Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

AustroControl Y N ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CZDE-01


DFS Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CZDE-02


DFS Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CZPL-01


PANSA Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

DEAT-01

DE Y Y Y N Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DEAT-02

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


ELLX: TMA7 (2500ft AMSL / FL75) ; CTA South (FL55 / FL135) LoA Brussels ACC / Luxembourg APP 13.04.2006, checked by BSA-ANS and approved by the States. Luxembourg also reports on an Agreement between the ANSP and the delegating airspace authority.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

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 EUROCONTROL at MUAC, date 25.11.1986. Agreement by the 4 States' NSAs on a Manual for the 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.


Swiss portion of Basel TMA LoA between Basel APP and Zurich ACC. Agreement of 19.05.2009 between the two NSAs (France/ Switzerland). Approval/agreement by States pending FABEC agreement.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Lugano approach LoA between Milan ACC and Lugano APP (Lugano CTR). State-to-State Agreement in place. Switzerland reports that an NSA agreement is under development; to be completed in 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Portion of Milano TMA over Ticino NSA agreement is under development; to be completed in 2011. Agreement between States is under development; to be completed in 2011. LoA between Milan ACC and Marseille ACC, 05.06.2010 (last rev. 04.06.2009); LoA between Rome ACC and Marseille ACC 06.05.2010 (last rev. 18.11.2010).


BUDEX Area and south of LANUX-Line At present, the operations are covered with letters of Agreement between ANSPs. NSA arrangements and States approval pending FABCE agreement.


East of Praha Rhein Line States refer to different LoAs. Negotiations for an arrangement between NSAs concerned for the supervision of DFS are planned for 2011-2012. Approval by the States has not taken place due to reorganisation of the responsible authorities in CZ.


East of Praha Munich Line LoA between DFS Munich ACC and ANS CZ Praha ACC, effective: 19.11.2009. Negotiations for an arrangement between NSAs concerned for the supervision of DFS are planned for 2011-2012. Approval by the States has not taken place due to reorganisation of the responsible authorities in CZ.


Area S of DESEN LoA between ANS of CR and PANSA effective 21.10.2010. Negotiations for an arrangement between NSAs concerned for the supervision of PANSA are planned for 2011-2012. Approval by the States has not taken place due to reorganisation of the the responsible authorities in CZ.


10 regional airports in Germany Inconsistently reported by States. Notification exchange between Germany NSA and Austrian NSA on 26.06.2007 (as reported by Germany); Austria reports that this is pending signature and is planned for 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Southeast of ROCKY-Line and within Königsee-Area NSAs concerned not notified to date. Signing of agreement planned for 2011.


DEBE-01

DE Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

Belgocontrol Y N Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y

DEBE-02


Belgocontrol Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

DECH-01

DE Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DECZ-01

DE Y N Y N ‐ Y Y N N


DECZ-02

DE Y N N Y ‐ Y Y N N


DEDK-01

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Naviair Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Maskirchen and Vaals areas LoA between Belgocontrol and DFS, sectors MGB, DKAW), 04 June 2009. NSA arrangements planned for 2011 within the FABEC project.


R7 / UN853 LoA Langen ACC (sectors RUD, KİR, EİF and PFA) / Brussels ACC, date of effectiveness of the LoA differs between States. NSA arrangements planned for 2011 within the FABEC project.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Region of Bodensee Discussions ongoing for State agreement. Proposal for NSA supervision has been exchanged.


West of Praha - Rhein Line LoA between Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH Branch Upper Karlsruhe UAC and Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Praha ACC, date of effectiveness of the LoA differs between States. State approval to be be finalised by 2012 between the parties concerned and will be aligned to FABEC and FAB CE project.


West of Praha - Munich Line Letter of Agreement between Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH Branch South Center Munich, Munich ACC and Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Praha ACC, effective: 19.11.2009. State approval to be be finalised by 2012 between the parties concerned and will be aligned to FABEC and FAB CE project.


Michaelsdorf Area No plans to address arrangements between the NSAs concerned. LoA between Danish Transport Authority and Eurocontrol. The LoA has not been updated in order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and Service Providers.



DEDK-02

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DEFR-01

DE Y N Y Y ‐ Y Y N Y

DSNA Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

DEFR-02

DE Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

DSNA Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

DELU-01

DE Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


DENL-01


LVNL Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

DENL-02



DENL-03



DENL-04

DE Y Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-05

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

MUAC Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

DENL-06

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-07

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-08

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Alsie Area No plans to address arrangements between the NSAs concerned. LoA between Danish Transport Authority and Eurocontrol. The LoA has not been updated in order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and Service Providers.


Rhine valley LoA between Strasbourg APP and Lahr TWR effective 8 June 2006.LoA between Strasbourg APP and Langen ACC effective 18 November 2010.Approval by States is foreseen under FABEC agreement.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

German portion of Basel TMA LoA between Basel APP and Stuttgart APP. Approval by the States and arrangements between NSAs foreseen under FABEC Agreement.


TMA3: from 1000ft AGL to FL95 included; TMA4 and TMA 2: from 1000ft AGL to FL135 included

Letter of Agreement established between the ANSP and the delegating airspace authority (Germany reports agreement by the MoT). FABEC agreement signed in 2010 creates the required legal framework for NSA cooperation; a specific MoC between the FABEC NSAs will define working arrangements. LoA between DFS and LUX APP (reported by Germany).


Maaskirchen A Area and VAALS A Area, between 1000 ft GND and FL 095

LoA between LVNL Beek ATS and DFS Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008; LoA between 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 luchtvaart) and Article 2 Ministerial Decree for ATS by LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening) last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007, 225).


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 5.23 Aviation Act (Wet luchtvaart) and Art. 3, respectively, of Ministerial Decree for ATS by LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening), last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007, 225).


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 5.23 Aviation Act (Wet luchtvaart) and Art. 4c, 4d an 4e, respectively, of Ministerial Decree for ATS by LVNL in foreign countries (Regeling belasten LVNL met luchtverkeersdienstverlening), last amended November 2007 (State newspaper 2007,


Hannover UİR above FL244 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 EUROCONTROL at MUAC, date 25.11.1986. Agreement by the 4 States


KOSIT Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

BITBU Area 245/660 with the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

POBIX Area 255/265 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

WARBURG Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

DENL-09

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-10

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-11

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DENL-12

DE N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


DESE-01

DE Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y

LFV Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

KEMAD Area 295/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

KEMAD Area 245/295 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

NOMKA Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

RISOK Area 245/660 within the Rhein UIR LoA between Maastricht UAC and DFS Karlsruhe, dated 19.11.2009. This airspace is not contained in the Hannover UIR, but in the Rhein UIR which is not part of the State Agreement (NL, BE, DE, LU) signed on 25.11.1986.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Area Rönne South West LFV and DFS, LoA between ATCC Malmö and Bremen ACC, 16.12.2006, D–LFV 2008–002095. LFV and DFS, LoA between ATCC Malmö and Karlsruhe UAC, 21.12.2006, D–LFV D–LFV 2008–002910. States agreement is foreseen to be approved beginning 2011.



DKSE-01

DK Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LFV Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ESPT-01

ES Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

NAV EP Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

ESMR-01

ES Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Nouadhibou APP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FINO-01

FI Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Avinor Y Y Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FINO-02

FI Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Avinor Y Y Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FISE-01

FI Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LFV Y Y Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRBE-01

FR Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N


FRBE-02

FR Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

Belgocontrol N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRCH-01

FR Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Skyguide Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRCH-02


Skyguide N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRCH-03

FR N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Skyguide Y Y Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRDE-01


DFS Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRDE-02


DFS Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

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 (memorandum) 1981-01-23 (SÖ 1981-25). The LoA has not been updated in order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and the Service Providers (reported by Denmark) .


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 and is undergoing final revision for signature. Arrangement between the NSAs is in place 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).


60 NM radius centred on VOR/DME PE joining the Canarias FİR limits Letter of Agreement between Canarias Area Control Centre (Canarias ACC) and Nouadhibou Approach Control Office (Nouadhibou APP), formulated in Las Palmas on the 23rd September 1998. No reporting on applicable case.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

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 connection with the preparation of the State level agreement (ATS delegation), which will be started soon after the similar agreement between Finland and Sweden has been adopted during the year 2011.


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 connection with the preparation of the State level agreement (ATS delegation), which will be started soon after the similar agreement between Finland and Sweden has been adopted during the year 2011.


Area Kvarken Letter of Agreement jointly agreed between the responsible ATC-units. The intergovernmental agreement concerning the delegation of ATS between the States is under approval process of Finland. Finalization during the Q1 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

L607, KONAN-KOK LoA between Lille APP and Brussels ACC effective 16 February 2006. LoA between PARIS ACC and Brussels ACC effective 13 April 2006. From France: Approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC Agreement. From Belgium: Belgium reported approval by States concerned through LoA.


Oostende TMA LoA between Lille APP/Oostende APP effective 16.02.2006, reported by France that approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC Agreement.


Region of Geneva: ARR/DEP to/from Geneva airport Agreement between France and Switzerland signed 22/06/2001. Entry into force: 01/08/2001. LoAs between Paris ACC/UAC and Geneva ACC, LoA between Reims ACC/UAC and Geneva ACC, LoA between MarseilleACC/UAC and Geneva ACC/APP all effective from 17 December 2009.


Region of Geneva - TMA 8 of Lyon APP LoA between Lyon APP/Geneva ATC effective 22.10.2009, reported by France that approval by the States concerned is foreseen under FABEC agreement. An agreement of 19.05.2009 addresses the supervision of Skyguide. Switzerland remains responsible for its own ATSP supervision.


Arrival to Zurich TMA France removed this CAR from its 2009 Report.


French portion of Karlsruhe Baden Baden CTR LoA between Strasbourg APP and Karlsruhe-Baden Baden TWR effective since 12.03.2009. Approval by the States and arrangements between NSAs foreseen under FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC applicable as of 27.01.2011.


French portion of Sarre TMA + Saarbrücken CTR + Zweibrücken CTR LoA between Strasbourg APP and Langen ACC, revision effective since 18.11.2010. Approval by the States and arrangements between NSAs foreseen under FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC applicable as of 27.01.2011.


FRIE-01


IAA Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

FRIT-01


ENAV N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

FRLU-01



FRNL-01


MUAC Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

Triangle area Brest UİR near TULTA, FL>245 LoA between Brest ACC and Shannon ACC, approved formally by Ireland (letter from DoT endorsing arrangements). France reported that arrangement between NSAs is planned but not a priority for 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Areas over South Alps LoA between Marseille ACC and Roma ACC effective 06.05.2010. LoA between Marseille ACC and Milano ACC effective 17.12.2009. NSAs arrangements planned in 2011.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

TMA5 and TMA6: from 2500ft MSL to FL75 included LoA between Reims ACC and LUX APP, effective 27.11.2003; LoA between Paris ACC and LUX APP, effective 08.06.2006. Approval by the States foreseen under FABEC Agreement. France reported an arrangement under FABEC MoC applicable as of 27.01.2011.


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 NSA, DSNA requested to have a reference to Reg. 550/2004 Art 10 in the LoAs between MUAC Reims and MUAC-Paris. The LoA between DIRCAM, DSNA and Maastricht UAC also refers to these areas.



FRNL-02

FR Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

MUAC Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

FRUK-01


NATS Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

FRUK-02



HRIT-01

HR Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ENAV N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

HRIT-02

HR Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ENAV N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

HRRS-01

HR Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SMATSA N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

HRRS-02

HR Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SMATSA N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

HRSI-01

HR Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


HUAT-01

HU Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


HUSK-01

HU Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

LPS, SK Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

IEUK-01

IE Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


IEUK-02

IE Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

Eglinton City of Derry Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

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 of FR NSA, DSNA requested to have a reference to Reg. 550/2004, Art 10 in the LoAs between MUAC Reims and MUAC-Paris. The LoA between DIRCAM, DSNA and Maastricht UAC also refers to these areas.


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 - UK reports 06.05.2010. Cooperation agreement between UK and French NSAs signed 22.07.2010. Approved by UK. FR to be approved.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Areas above Channel: La Manche East High LoA between Reims ACC and London ACC, effective 10.04.2008 as reported by FR - UK reports 17.12.2010. Cooperation agreement between UK and French NSAs signed 22.07.2010. Approved by UK. FR to be approved.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

UM859 segment UMBEK-MONFA; UN606 segment BABAG-PEVAL No State level agreement (only ANSP operational agreement exists). According to the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure is responsible to resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported to Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement.


M859 segment CRAYE-BEVIS; A482 segment CRAYE-LOKDI-BALEM; B9 segment GISAM-CRAYE; W36 segment CRAYE-TEPKO-PINUK; A48 segment CRAYE-BEVIS

No State level agreement (only ANSP operational agreement exists). According to the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure is responsible to resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported to Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement.


UM19 segment RENDA - TUVAR (FİR Boundary); UL863 segment RAKIV-XAPAN

There is no State level agreement in place, only ANSP operational agreement exists.


UL607 segment KONUV-TIMUS There is no State level Agreement, only ANSP operational agreement exists.


Portoroz CTR LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Zagreb. There is no State level agreement in place. HR: According to the Aviation Act, Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure is responsible to resolve this issue. CCAA as NSA has reported to Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure to initiate State level Agreement.


LESMO Area and west of SOPRO-Line Letter of Agreement between HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. and Austro Control G.m.b.H. Approved by HU through 26/2007.(İİİ.1.) GKM–HM–KvVM joint order, ANEX 2. Plans to start negotiations for NSA arrangements within the FAB CE agreement on supervison of ATS providers in 2011.


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 States concerned. Plans to start negotiations for NSA arrangements within the FAB CE agreement on supervison of ATS providers in 2011.


Donegal Area Overarching FAB MoU between the İAA and the CAA established 06.06.2008 (as reported by UK). LoA between NATS (SAC) and IAA (Shannon ACC), 23.01.2010.


Eglinton CTA 1, 2 and 3 LoA between City of Derry Airport/SATCC Revision 1 effective 13.01.2011. NSAs notified by written agreement dated 29.07.2010. Approval by the States - exchange of assurance IAA to CAA dated 23.07.2010; CAA to IAA dated 23.07.2010.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

ISUK-01

IS Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


ITAT-01

IT Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N


ITCH-01



ITFR-01


DSNA Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

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 01.06.2010. Both NSAs completed this agreement. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement (to comply with Reg EC 550/2004 Article 2 (4)) agreed with Iceland CAA, dated 01.11.2010.


AT: North of SOLNI-LineIT: Trentino Alto Adige

LoA between Padova ACC and Wien ACC, 11.11.2007 (last rev. 21.10.2010), notification to ENAC, in progress. Unclear plans with respect to the NSAs arrangements for supervision.


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 have been taken up and are ongoing to have one agreement for the two situation (ENAV providing ANS within the Swiss airspace and Skyguide providing ANS within the Italian airspace).


Area over South Alps (Straightening of boundaries) LoA between Marseille ACC and Roma ACC effective 06.05.2010. LoA between Marseille ACC and Milano ACC effective 17.12.2009 (as reported by France, Italy reports date of 05.06.2008). NSA arrangements for supervision planned for 2011 (as reported by France).



ITFR-02

IT N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

DSNA Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

ITMT-01


MATS Y N Y N ‐ Y Y Y Y

ITSI-01

IT Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


LICH-01

LI ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Skyguide Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LTLV-01

LT Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LGS Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LUBE-01

LU Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

BelgoControl Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LUNL-01

LU Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


MERS-01

ME Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SMATSA Y Y ‐ ‐ Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

NLBE-01

NL Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


NLBE-02


Belgocontrol Y N Y N ‐ Y Y Y Y

Area over South Alps (ARR/DPT to/from Nice airport) LoA between Marseille ACC and Nice APP effective 05.06.2008.


Area South–West of Sicily over international waters LoA between Rome ACC and Malta ACC 14.01.2010 (last rev. 18.11.2010), notification to ENAC in progress. There are intentions to formalise NSA arrangements for supervision.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

IT: Friuli Venezia GiuliaSI: Border Straightening

LoA between Padova ACC and Ljubljana ACC 20.11.2008 (last rev. 27.08.2009), notification to ENAC in progress. Unclear plans with respect to the NSAs arrangements for supervision.


Airspace of the Fürstentum Liechtenstein State Act and political agreements, full delegation to Switzerland.


Route segment NİNTA ADAXAState Agreement signed in April 1998 according to which Lithuania delegated to Latvia only 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 supervision or for the States’ liabilities. A meeting took place in Vilnius on 24.11.2009, where Lithuania presented a draft of a new Agreement. Latvia agreed to examine it and has not replied yet.


Luxembourg National airspace > FL135 and < FL245 Covered by a LoA. FABEC agreement to be signed in 2010 will create the required legal framework for NSA cooperation; a specific memorandum of cooperation between the FABEC NSAs will define working arrangements.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Luxembourg National airspace > FL245 State Agreement (NL,BE, DE and LU) signed in Brussels on 25.11.1986. Joint NSA committee of the 4 MUAC States (NL,BE, DE and LU)


Entire airspace under the responsibility of Montenegro Designation act: Contract of Establishment of limited liability corporation under the name Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency, Limited. MoU between Serbia and Montenegro signed 26.04.2010 (as reported by Serbia).NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Amsterdam UTA southern part LoA between LVNL - Amsterdam ACC and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated 28.08.2008. Arrangements for supervision are under development subject to a FABEC NSA task force. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Maastricht TMA-1 and TMA-2 excluding ROMIN area, Worms North and Worms South between FL 095 and FL 195

LoA between LVNL – ATS Beek and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated 12.05.2005. Belgium reports date of 15.05.2005. Arrangements for supervision are under development subject to a FABEC NSA task force.


NLBE-03


Belgocontrol Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N Y

NLBE-04



NLBE-05

NL N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


NLBE-06


Belgian Defence Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

NLDE-01

NL Y N Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y

DFS Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

NLDE-02


DFS Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SASKI A (FL55 – FL245) LoA between LVNL (Amsterdam ACC) and Belgocontrol – Brussels ACC, dated 28.08.2008. NSA arrangement between NL-BE is being developed within the FABEC frame.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

L179 Area between FL 095 and FL 195 LoA between Mil ATCC Nieuw Milligen to Brussels ACC and Approach, dated 08.05.2008 (as reported by NL report). Belgium reports date of 28.08.2008. Arrangements for supervision are under development subject to a FABEC NSA task force.


Zeeland area (3500ft AMSL - FL555) LoA MilATCC Nieuw Milligen/Brussels ACC effective 08.05.2008.


Amsterdam UTA southern part; Nieuw–Milligen TMA–D in Amsterdam UTA; Kleine Brogel Coordination Area; Kleine Brogel CTR

LVNL/Amsterdam ACC has no LoAs with military units apart from AOCS NM (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 Belgian Defense, Air Traffic Control Centre/RP Semmerzake, dated 10 April 2008.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Niederrhein CTR, ROMİN Area, WORMS North Area, WORMS South AreaTreaty Niederrhein', dated 29.04.2003, Trb. Nr. 85, 2003, State Journal 421, 2006. Delegation from Beek ATS to Langen ACC. NSA arrangement between NL-DE is being developed within the FABEC frame.


L179 airway area between DİBİR and ROMİN LoA between LVNL – Beek ATS and DFS – Langen ACC, dated 14.02.2008. NSA arrangement between NL-DE is being developed within the FABEC frame.



NLDK-01



NLUK-01

NL Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y


NOUK-01

NO Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y


PLCZ-01

PL Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N


PLDE-01


DFS Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PLSE-01


LFV Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

PTES-01

PT Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

AENA Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y N N

SEDK-01

SE Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Naviair Y Y Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SENO-01

SE Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y N

Avinor Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SIAT-01

SI Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


SIIT-01

SI Y N Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


GREFİ Area Delegation of responsibilities for ATS provision between Maastricht UAC (ATSP designated in the NL) and Naviair, ACC Copenhagen, as described in the Letter of Agreement between both centres dated 29.12.2007. NSA arrangement to be signed in 2011.


REFSO Areas A and B; SASKİ Areas B and C Inter-NSA cooperation agreement between UK and NL NSAs has signed in 2010. LoA between NATS (LAC) and LVNL, latest issue 17.12.2009 as reported by UK - NL reported date of 28.08.2008. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

North Sea Area I Exchange of assurances informally agreed on, pending Norwegian Ministry approval. LoA between NATS and AVINOR updated (requested by UK CAA) - latest issue 08.07.2004; pending final confirmation. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement prepared – informally accepted 10.11.2010, pending final confirmation.


Area W of OKX and area S of Klodsko LoA between ANS of Czech Republic (ACC Praha, APP Ostrava and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (ACC Warszawa, APP Krakow) effective 22.11.2007 (as reported by PL, CZ reports date of 21.10.2010). Negotiations for NSAs agreement planned for 2011-2012.


Heringsdorf TMA/CTR, Cottbus-Drewitz CTA/FIS LoA Between DFS Control Center Bremen (ACC Bremen) and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (ACC Warszawa) effective 04.06.2009 (as reported by DE, PL reports date of 16.12.2006).NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Areas Midsea, Rönne South LoA between LFV Group ANS (Malmoe ATCC) and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (ACC Warszawa/APP Gdansk) effective 31.07.2008 (as reported by Sweden, Poland reports date of 13.04.06). Draft agreement at State and NSA level is planned to be exchanged during 2010 and in place 2011.


W106/UW106 from RALUS to MOSEN Lateral limits: 10 NM widthVertical limits: FL460/FL105

LoA signed between Area Control Center of Madrid (MADRİD ACC) and Area Control 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 drafted and signed on 25.02.2010. The arrangement will be applied in the adjustment to the planning of oversight visits to ANSP due to take place in the beginning of 2011.


Areas H2, L2, L3, Kastrup and SundetPromemoria (memorandum) 1981.01.23 (SÖ 1981–25)New agreement referring to the 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 agreement. Denmark reported that the LoA between DTA and LFV has not been updated in order to reflect clearly that there is now a separation between the Authorities and the Service Providers.


Areas Sumak North, NOR1, NOR2 LFV and Avinor, Letter of Agreement to define the coordination procedures to be applied between ATCC Stockholm and ATCC Oslo, 07/12/22 D–LFV 2007–049597. Draft agreement at state– and NSA level has been exchanged expect to be signed in 2011.


Mura sector FL125+, Kanin Area and north of DIPSA-Line LoA between ATCC Ljubljana and ATCC Vienna (there is no agreement on the State level). The plan is to cover the supervision issue within the FAB CE Agreement. Proposal for NSA Cooperation Agreement has been prepared.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Slovenia - Italy (Border straightening) LoA between Padova ACC and Ljubljana ACC 20.11.2008 (last rev. 27.08.2009), notified to ENAC. NSA arrangement is foreseen by 2011 (as reported by Italy). No agreement at State level.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

SKHU-01

SK Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

HungaroControl Y N ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

SKUA-01

SK Y N Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

UkSATSE ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

UKDK-01

UK Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y


UKFR-01



UKFR-02



UKFR-03



RUTOL–box LoA between HungaroControl and LPS, 01.03.2007, notified to the NSAs and approved by the States concerned. NSA coordination agreement has been developed under FAB CE. The planned date of the Draft Arrangement is April 2011.


LZR 49, LZR 50 - Approach to Uzghorod Airport At present time SK and UA have an agreement which does not cover supervision of ANSP. In 2010 SK and UA negotiated and concluded draft text of bilateral interstate agreement for the provision of ATS. The signature of this agreement is expected in 2011. In the same time the NSAs Agreement shall be concluded.


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 - subject to final agreement from Denmark CAA (DTA) or ministry. Non–compliance with the CRs by Naviair will result in a withdrawal/limitation to certificates or personal licences.


Southwest Corner of the UK UIR (PEMAK triangle) LoA between Brest ACC and London ACC latest issue 17.12.2009. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement issued 22.07.2010. LoA between NATS (LAC) and DSNA (Brest) to be signed by UK CAA on next re-issue.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Brest Oceanic Transition Area (BOTA) LoA between Shanwick OAC and Brest ACC last issue 23.01.2010. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement issued 22.07.2010. LoA (Shanwick with Brest) to be signed by UK CAA on next re-issue. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

A Section of Lille TMA (TMA 7) LoA between Lille APP and LAC latest issue 30.09.2010 (as reported by UK - France reports date of 15.03.2007), countersigned by UK CAA. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement on 22.07.2010. LoA between NATS (LAC) with DSNA signed by UK CAA.



UKIE-01



UKIE-02



UKIE-03



UKIE-04



UKIE-05



UKIS-01


Isavia Y Y ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y

UKNL-01


LVNL Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y

UKNL-02


LVNL Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y

UKNO-01


Avinor Y Y Y Y ‐ Y Y Y N

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 10.11.2010, pending final confirmation. LoA between NATS & AVINOR,11.03.2010 + 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.


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 reports signature date of Oct 2010). LoA between LVNL and NATS (LAC), 17.12.2009; LoA between LVNL and NATS (SAC), 23.01.2010 (as reported by UK; 20.11.2008 as reported by NL).


Southern North Sea: CTA 2 (GODOS), CTA 3 (MOLIX)

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 letter, dated Aug 05.From Ireland: Delegation of ATS at UK/Ireland Boundary letter, dated 3 Mar 06. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 6 Jun 08.


Irish Sea (Airway L975 LIFFY-GINIS; Airway L70 BAGSO-RAMOX) LoA NATS (SAC) & IAA (Dublin ACC), 23.01.2010, countersigned by UK CAA and IAA. An updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Southwest Corner of the UNİTED KİNGDOM UİR (TAKAS Box) LoA NATS (LAC) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 17.12.2009, countersigned by UK CAA and IAA, 17.12.2009. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008. NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Northern Oceanic Transition Area (NOTA) LoA NATS (Shanwick OAC, Prestwick) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 18.11.2010, countersigned by UK CAA and IAA. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

Shannon Oceanic Transition Area (SOTA) LoA NATS (Shanwick OAC, Prestwick) & IAA (Shannon ACC), 18.11.2010, countersigned by UK CAA and IAA. Updated Exchange of Assurance sent to IAA 24.09.2010 - response pending. FAB MoU between NSAs dated 06.06.2008.NSA Arr.: Case A Case B Case C

RATSU Triangle; The Common Boundary Line (61N) LoA between NATS and Isavia dated 01.10.2010. Approved by states - From UK: Delegation of ATS Provision letter, dated 10 Sep 09. From Iceland: Delegation of ATS from NATS to Isavia letter, dated 16 Sep 09. Inter-NSA co-operation agreement 1 Nov 10.


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 reports signature date of Oct 2010). LoA between LVNL and NATS (LAC), 17.12.2009; LoA between LVNL and NATS (SAC), 23.01.2010 (as reported by UK; 20.11.2008 as reported by NL).



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


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


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.