DNM Annual Network Operations Report 2012 - ACC Annex · ─ ACC Target Delay per ACC is the delay associated with the ACC capacity required to meet the ... This information was taken

Annual NOR 2012 ANNEX I – ACC Capacity Evolution

March 2013 Annual NOR 2012 Annex I ©2013 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)I

1

ANNEX I: ACC CAPACITY EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................3

1. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC.......................................................................................................................5

2. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC ...................................................................................................................6

3. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC........................................................................................................................7

4. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC....................................................................................................................8

5. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC .................................................................................................................9

6. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC......................................................................................................................10

7. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC....................................................................................................................11

8. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC......................................................................................................................12

9. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC.....................................................................................................14

10. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC .......................................................................................................15

11. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC ....................................................................................................................16

12. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC................................................................................................17

13. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC ..................................................................................................................18

14. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC................................................................................................................19

15. FRANCE BREST ACC ........................................................................................................................20

16. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC................................................................................................................21

17. FRANCE PARIS ACC .........................................................................................................................22

18. FRANCE REIMS ACC .........................................................................................................................23

19. FYROM SKOPJE ACC........................................................................................................................24

20. GEORGIA TBILISI ACC ......................................................................................................................25

21. GERMANY BREMEN ACC..................................................................................................................26

22. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC...........................................................................................................27

23. GERMANY LANGEN ACC..................................................................................................................28

24. GERMANY MUNICH ACC...................................................................................................................29

25. GREECE ATHENS ACC......................................................................................................................30

26. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC ..............................................................................................................31

27. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC..............................................................................................................32

28. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC......................................................................................................................33

29. IRELAND SHANNON ACC .................................................................................................................34

30. ITALY BRINDISI ACC .........................................................................................................................35

31. ITALY MILAN ACC..............................................................................................................................36

32. ITALY PADOVA ACC..........................................................................................................................37

33. ITALY ROME ACC ..............................................................................................................................38



2

34. LATVIA RIGA ACC .............................................................................................................................39

35. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC..................................................................................................................40

36. MALTA MALTA ACC ..........................................................................................................................41

37. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC................................................................................................................42

38. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC.........................................................................................43

39. NORWAY BODO ACC ........................................................................................................................44

40. NORWAY OSLO ACC.........................................................................................................................45

41. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC.............................................................................................................46

42. POLAND WARSAW ACC ...................................................................................................................47

43. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC..................................................................................................................48

44. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC............................................................................................................49

45. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC ...................................................................................50

46. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC ..........................................................................................52

47. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC............................................................................................................53

48. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC..................................................................................................................54

49. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC......................................................................................................................55

50. SPAIN MADRID ACC ..........................................................................................................................56

51. SPAIN PALMA ACC............................................................................................................................57

52. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC .........................................................................................................................58

53. SWEDEN MALMO ACC ......................................................................................................................59

54. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC.............................................................................................................60

55. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC ..........................................................................................................61

56. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC............................................................................................................62

57. TURKEY ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC .................................................................................................63

58. UKRAINE DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC...............................................................................................65

59. UKRAINE KYIV ACC...........................................................................................................................66

60. UKRAINE L’VIV ACC ..........................................................................................................................67

61. UKRAINE ODESA ACC ......................................................................................................................68

62. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC ...........................................................................................................69

63. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC ....................................................................................................70

64. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC .......................................................................................................72

65. UNITED KINGDOM PRESTWICK ACC ..............................................................................................73



3

INTRODUCTION The following annex provides a detailed analysis of ATC capacity evolution in 2012 for ACCs within the ECAC States for which data is available. The source of statistics is the NMOC unless otherwise indicated. The analysis covers: • Traffic & Delay

The chart and data table provide comprehensive information concerning the evolution of traffic and delay from 2008 to 2012 (where data is available). It includes the following values: ─ Peak day traffic is the number of flight entries to the ACC on the peak day of each year. ─ Summer & Yearly Traffic is the daily average number of flight entries during the summer season

(May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December). ─ Summer & Yearly Enroute Delay is the average enroute delay per flight (including weather and

special events e.g. industrial action), attributed to the ACC during the summer season (May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December).

• 2012 Realisation of Capacity Plan

─ Traffic Evolution gives the percentage difference between the total traffic (number of flight entries) in 2012 compared to 2011, for the summer and the full year.

─ Enroute Delay gives the number of minutes per flight of enroute delay attributed to all causes and also excluding delays attributed to weather and special events. Values are provided for the summer and the full year.

─ ACC Target Delay per ACC is the delay associated with the ACC capacity required to meet the expected demand at the ACC and to achieve the European delay target of 0.7 min/flight for the full year, and 1 min/flight in the Summer season. It is calculated according to the expected demand and the cost of provision of additional capacity at each ACC.

─ Capacity Baseline – Offered or Potential: 1. ACCESS or Reverse CASA was used to measure the capacity actually offered by the

ACC during the reference period (9-22 July 2012). This is calculated from actual delay (Reverse CASA) or from projected delay (ACCESS). Projected delay is obtained by increasing the traffic and creating a regulation scheme for the studied ACC using traffic volume capacities and configuration data (sector opening schemes) provided by ANSPs.

2. NEVAC measures the potential capacity of the ACC, i.e. that which could have been made available at the ACC during the reference period, if all existing sectors had been open and fully staffed. This potential capacity is calculated from the maximum configuration and traffic volume capacities, as recorded in the CFMU database by ANSPs, and assumes that sufficient staff are available to open the maximum configuration.

─ Planned capacity increase for Summer 2012 is the percentage value provided by ANSPs in the Network Operations Plan 2012-2014. This figure represents the ANSP commitment to increasing ACC capacity for Summer 2012, when compared to Summer 2011.

─ Capacity enhancement: planned enablers This information was taken from the local capacity plan in the Network Operations Plan 2012-2014. An indication is given as to whether each measure was implemented as planned.

─ ACC capacity achievement This provides an analysis of the observed performance and of the achievement of the planned capacity increase. ACC performance has been assessed by analysing traffic and delay statistics



4

for each ACC and the evolution of the capacity baseline. Where relevant, other significant factors were also taken into account, such as industrial action or planned major events that resulted in a temporary reduction in capacity.

• Allocation of and reasons for Enroute delay

The table lists the reference locations (sectors) causing most of the ACC delay, the number of minutes of enroute delay attributed to each location and the percentage of the total ACC enroute delay. The graph shows the total ATFM enroute delay generated by each ACC, broken down into the 5 most significant reasons given for the delay in 2012 compared to 2011.

Note: The scale on all graphs varies from ACC to ACC - graphs should not be directly compared.



5

1. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC Traffic & Delay

LAAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 626 745 831 880 926

Summer Traff ic 494 559 617 671 666

Yearly Traff ic 405 442 497 541 533

Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,8 0,0

Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,5 0,1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2012 Realisation of Capacity Plan

The average en-route delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight during Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments ATS route network improvements Yes

Capacity benefits from new ATM system Yes

1 additional sector Yes

New Met system Yes

Refresh ATCO on unusual situations Yes

STCA No Not implemented – Postponed to 2013

Flexible DFL Yes

MFCR with LIBB No Postponed to 2013

Increased sector capacities Yes

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes

Summer 2012 performance assessment

The ACC capacity baseline of 65 was calculated with ACCESS and represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 55 and the peak 3 hour demand was 49. A maximum configuration of 4 sectors was opened (3 en-route + 1 TMA).

Traffic Evolution (2012 v 2011) Enroute Delay (min. per flight)

Traffic Forecast Tirana LAAA ACC Current

Routes Shortest Routes

Actual Traffic

All reasons

Delay without weather

ACC Target Delay

ACC Capacity Baseline

(% difference v 2011)

Year -1.2% 0.1 0.1 0.31

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.6% B: -0.6% L: -2.0%

+3% -0.8% 0.0 0.0 0.47 No Offered: 65 (+16%)

Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Delay



6

2. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC Traffic & Delay

Armenia Yerevan UDDD ACC - Traffic

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Flig

hts

TOTAL YEAR 51.870 48.390 52.874 57.164 56.010

TOTAL SUMMER 27.037 24.845 27.690 29.782 28.782

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: STATFOR


Capacity Plan : Sufficient Capacity to meet demand Comments Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 12 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 9.


Traffic Forecast Yerevan UDDD ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2% 0.0 0.0 0.03

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 6.6% B: 6.1% L: 4.1%

No sig. impact -3% 0.0 0.0 0.04 No Offered: 25 (0%)



7

3. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC Traffic & Delay

LOVVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,4

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2841 2565 2598 2782 2788

Summer Traffic 2424 2269 2293 2347 2303

Yearly Traff ic 2108 1976 1969 2015 1961



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight for all reasons remained at 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. Without weather, it decreased from 0.3 min/flight during Summer 2011 to 0.1 min/flight in Summer 2012. 31% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 15% for ATC Staffing, and 54% for Weather. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improved operational procedures including FMP/AMC Yes

ATS route network improvements Yes

Sector configuration management Yes

Static cross border sectorisation (FAB CE) Yes

10 additional controllers Yes

Maximum configuration: 11 sectors Yes Maximum configuration : 12 sectors


The capacity baseline of 180 was calculated with ACCESS, showing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 172 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 160. A maximum configuration of 12 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Vienna LOVV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.4% 0.2 0.1 0.30

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.0% B: -1.7% L: -2.9%

+10% -1.9% 0.3 0.1 0.42 No Offered: 180 (+7%)




8

4. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC Traffic & Delay

AZERBAIJAN BAKU UBBA ACC: Traffic

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

Flig

hts

TOTAL YEAR 107.877 108.357 120.236 120.763 130.310

TOTAL SUMMER 55.027 55.184 62.030 65.141 67.505

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Data Source: STATFOR


Capacity Plan - Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments

ATS route network optimisation - an on-going process in co-operation with neighboring States. Yes

Ongoing process. Segment of M737/R973 upper/lower route DISKA-GND was implemented. N644, L850, N319, R315, G177 have been published as bidirectional since 20.09.2012

Building of new Baku ATC Center.Installation of new ATC system : Installation phase Yes In progress

Resectorisation of airspace structure : Simulation and training phase Yes In progress Summer 2012 performance assessment It is assessed that the capacity offered was enough to meet demand.


Traffic Forecast Baku UBBA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +7.9% 0.0 0.0 0.11

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 1.6% B: 1.1% L: 0.2%

No sig. impact +3.6% 0.0 0.0 0.08 No Offered: 40 (0%)



9

5. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC Traffic & Delay

EBBUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2036 1905 1906 1997 1926

Summer Traffic 1712 1579 1615 1673 1644

Yearly Traff ic 1606 1470 1471 1547 1503



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in 2011 to zero minutes per flight in 2012. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Dynamic use of sector configurations Yes New configuration to address NWC problem Yes Implementation of provisions contained in the temporary LoA on FUA between Brussels ACC, MUAC and COMOPSAIR Yes On-going recruitment to maintain level of controllers No EBCI project Yes Maximum configuration: 7 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 122 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 112. A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Brussels

EBBU ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.6% 0.0 0.0 0.25

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.5% B: -1.2% L: -2.5%

No sig. impact -1.8% 0.0 0.0 0.4 No Offered: 131 (0%)




10

6. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LBSRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1948 1992 2150 2337 2253

Summer Traffic 1556 1533 1677 1802 1807

Yearly Traff ic 1187 1230 1322 1418 1422



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.1 min per flight in Summer 2011 to zero minutes per flight during the same period. Capacity Plan - Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network development and increase of maximum sector configurations available YES Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 149 was measured by ACCESS and reflects the delivered capacity in the ACC. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 130 and the peak 3 hour demand was 119. A maximum 7 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast Sofia LBSR ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +0.5% 0.0 0.0 0.11

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 1.2% B: 0.0% L: -1.0%





11

7. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC Traffic & Delay

LDZOACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1676 1795 1974 2247 2407

Summer Traff ic 1305 1342 1500 1626 1635

Yearly Traff ic 1039 1063 1177 1287 1286



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.9 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 61% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 29% for weather and 9% for ATC Staffing. Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments 5 Additional ATCOs Yes Optimisation of manpower planning Yes Further increase of sector capacities according to CAPAN Yes Improved sector opening times Yes Application of sector occupancy techniques Yes DFL and/or sectorisation changes Yes Extension of sector opening hours Yes Extension of CroATMS to major APP and TWR Yes Optimisation of ATS route network and sectorisation Yes Maximum configuration: 10 sectors No Maximum configuration was 9 sectors Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 133. During the same measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 134, and the average peak 3 hour demand was 121. The peak hourly traffic load was 165. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Zagreb LDZO ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +0.2% 0.3 0.2 0.31

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.2% B: -2.1% L: -3.2%

+5% +0.6% 0.4 0.3 0.44 No Offered: 133 (+6%)




12

8. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traffic 1050 1063 1085 1170 1049

Summer Traff ic 806 794 849 855 819

Yearly Traff ic 739 729 776 770 736



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight slightly decreased from 1.7 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 1.6 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 90% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 10% for ATC staffing. 42% of the delays were in sector E2S and 32% in WN. Until August, only 3 sectors could be opened due to limited capability of the back-up system. Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments

OLDI with Athens and possibly with Egypt No The OLDI connection is expected to be operational by March 2014 with the upgrade of the new ATM system.

Use of 3 and 4 sectors for extended hours Yes This is expected to be a normal mode of operations. The 4th

sector could be opened for extended hours from August.

Improved working processes with CFMU Yes Training with CFMU to be completed by December 2012.

More experience gained via the interaction with CFMU Establishment of an ATFM function at the ACC Yes ATFM function established. Regulations based on traffic volumes Yes ATS route network and sectorisation optimisation Yes Optimization of rostering techniques – improvements in HRM No Social dialogue still on-going

Additional ACC staff: 4 net additional en-route ATCOs No Six additional ATCOS to be added to the roster as of

December 2012

4th en-route sector: WN Upper/Low, South1/South2 or South Upper/Low Yes

WN U/L since early August South1/2 since mid August

South Upper/Low configuration to be effective in 2013 subject to analysis.

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was evaluated to be 50 with ACCESS/Reverse CASA, based on the traffic and delay situation. A maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened until August.


Traffic Forecast Nicosia LCCC ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -4.1% 1.6 1.6 0.93

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 7.0% B: 5.6% L: 4.4%

No sig. impact -4.2% 1.6 1.6 0.48 Yes Offered: 50 (-11%)



13




14

9. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC Traffic & Delay

LKAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2245 2233 2306 2386 2338

Summer Traffic 2000 1905 2032 2078 2017

Yearly Traff ic 1782 1707 1771 1841 1793



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight remained at to zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +2.5% Achieved Comments Improved flow and capacity management techniques Yes Adaptation of sector opening times depending on available staff Yes Improved ATS route network & sectorisation Yes Additional controllers Yes Maximum configuration of 10 sectors if needed Yes Minor improvements of system functionalities Yes Change DFL between high and top sectors Yes Static cross border sectorisation (FAB CE) Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as last year. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 152 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 141. A maximum of 9 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast Prague LKAA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.3% 0.0 0.0 0.15

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.4% B: -1.4% L: -2.2%

-13% -2.9% 0.0 0.0 0.26 No Offered: 161 (0%)




15

10. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC

Traffic & Delay

EKDKACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,4

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1760 1638 1793 1769 1688

Summer Traffic 1561 1411 1519 1562 1485

Yearly Traff ic 1457 1354 1403 1476 1409



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan 0 % Achieved Comments FRA project – DK/SE FAB Yes Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Yes COOPANS Implementation Yes Gradual increase of controller numbers Yes Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes Gradual consolidation of operations within NUAC company Yes Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3 (W) Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 112 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 103. A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened – 4/5 (E) + 3 (W).


Traffic Forecast Copenhagen

EKDK ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -4.3% 0.0 0.0 0.06

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.4% B: -1.2% L: -2.4%





16

11. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC Traffic & Delay

EETTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 529 499 522 597 632

Summer Traffic 468 429 449 517 544

Yearly Traff ic 433 401 410 468 493



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute ATFM delay increased from zero in Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 47% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 26% for Special event, and 20% for Equipment (ATC). Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Sector boundaries updating Yes Changed boundary of ATC sectors E (East) and W (West) Adaptation of sector opening times Yes

ATM system renewal Yes

Route network updating Yes Introduced direct route between RANVA and SOKVA (N619)

Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 62 was measured with ACCESS, indicating the capacity actually offered. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 50 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 43. A maximum configuration of two sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Tallinn EETT ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +5.5% 0.1 0.1 0.11

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 2.2% B: 1.1% L: -0.1%

-8% +5.3% 0.1 0.1 0.17 No Offered: 62 (+2%)




17

12. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC Traffic & Delay

EDYYUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 5245 4858 5113 5348 5244

Summer Traffic 4752 4366 4627 4788 4793

Yearly Traff ic 4397 4070 4174 4407 4389



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in 2011 to zero minutes per flight in 2012. Capacity Plan 2 % Achieved Comments

AMAN & DMAN interface No Integrated in FABEC XMAN Project

Central Supervisory Suite Yes

HOLSTEIN Split HI/LO Yes

Revise Pre-tact Processes Yes

Traffic Management System (TMS) Levels 1-2+ On-going Delivery April 2013

Maximum configuration: 19 sectors Yes Not required due to levels of traffic in 2012

Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 328. During the same period, the peak 3 hour demand was 308 and the peak 1 hour was 338. Maximum sector configurations opened were: Brussels group - 6 sectors, DECO group - 5 sectors and Hannover group - 6 sectors.


Traffic Forecast Maastricht

EDYY UAC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.1% 0.0 0.0 0.30

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 0.1% B: -0.9% L: -2.0%





18

13. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC Traffic & Delay

EFESACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,00,1

0,2

0,30,4

0,5

0,6

0,70,8

0,9

1,01,1

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 632 596 645 711 620

Summer Traffic 475 436 472 537 480

Yearly Traff ic 474 444 459 533 485



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 1 minute per flight in Summer 2011 to zero minutes per flight in summer 2012.

Capacity Plan : sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Enlarge feeder sector OKLOR to Helsinki No New target date 21.3.2013 OLDI with ULLL Yes System upgrade for ACC and APPs (24 March 2012) Yes Full OLDI with Tallinn ACC and EFHK APP Partially EFHK achieved, Tallinn impl. target Q1 2013 6 additional controllers Yes 5 more in Q1 2013

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline of 58 was measured using ACCESS, indicating the capacity delivered during the Summer period. A maximum configuration of 5 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Tampere

EFES ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -8.9% 0.0 0.0 0.10

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 0.0% B: -1.1% L: -2.1%

+7% -10.6% 0.0 0.0 0.05 No Offered: 58 (+21%)




19

14. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC Traffic & Delay

LFBBALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 3066 2802 2837 2945 2978

Summer Traffic 2627 2391 2434 2557 2575

Yearly Traffic 2324 2122 2114 2238 2222



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012, at the same level as in 2011. 47% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 49% for Industrial Action ATC. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved Airspace Management and ATFCM Procedures Yes Staff deployment / Flexible rostering Yes Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 191 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 175. A maximum configuration of 21 sectors was opened during the measurement period.


Traffic Forecast Bordeaux

LFBB ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.4% 0.3 0.3 0.21

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.0% B: -2.3% L: -3.5%

+6% +0.7 0.1 0.1 0.36 No Offered: 201 (0%)




20

15. FRANCE BREST ACC Traffic & Delay

LFRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 3537 3151 3165 3347 3294

Summer Traffic 2793 2541 2560 2800 2752

Yearly Traffic 2461 2249 2229 2440 2398



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.2 minutes per flight during Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 70% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 10% for Industrial Action (ATC), and 14% for ATC Staffing. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Reorganisation of lower airspace and delegation of ATS to APP units below FL145 (for relevant airspace) Yes Maximum configuration: 18 UCESO Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 203 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 188. A maximum configuration of 18 sectors was opened during the measured period.



Traffic Forecast Brest LFRR ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.5% 0.2 0.2 0.16

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.2% B: -2.6% L: -3.5%




21

16. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC Traffic & Delay

LFMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 4018 3792 3898 3928 3929

Summer Traffic 3285 3092 3162 3257 3268

Yearly Traffic 2868 2694 2732 2806 2763



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 66% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 12% for ATC Staffing, and 11% for Weather. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Reorganisation of interface with LECB (LUMAS) Phase 1 Yes Reorganisation of sectors E and K Yes Reorganisation has started. Process is on going. Maximum configuration: 28 UCESO Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was evaluated to be 237 with ACCESS/Reverse CASA, based on the traffic and delay situation. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 242 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 226. A maximum configuration of 28 sectors was opened during the measured period.


Traffic Forecast Marseille

LFMM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.3% 0.5 0.5 0.17

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.1% B: -2.4% L: -3.7%

No sig. impact +0.4% 0.5 0.5 0.28 Yes Offered: 237 (+2%)




22

17. FRANCE PARIS ACC Traffic & Delay

LFFFALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,91,01,11,2

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 4192 4032 3823 4017 4000

Summer Traffic 3628 3423 3334 3462 3429

Yearly Traffic 3449 3266 3122 3284 3227



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 57% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 26% for Weather. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes DVR la (Nov 2011) Yes Grenelle – Change of transition altitude (Nov 2011) Yes Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011 During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 261 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 235. A maximum configuration of 21 sectors was opened during the measured period.


Traffic Forecast Paris LFFF ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.5% 0.3 0.2 0.23

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.1% B: -1.0% L: -1.8%





23

18. FRANCE REIMS ACC Traffic & Delay

LFEEACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 3035 2758 2743 2795 2903

Summer Traffic 2680 2374 2372 2537 2587

Yearly Traffic 2459 2175 2142 2311 2334



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 83% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 15% for Weather. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Resectorisation (additional layer over KH and KE and new DFL 375 between KR/HR and between KN/HN) Yes DVR I step 1 Yes Maximum configuration: 16 UCESO Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 184 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 168. A maximum configuration of 16 sectors was opened during the measured period.


Traffic Forecast Reims LFEE ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +1.3% 0.3 0.2 0.19

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.0% B: -1.9% L: -2.9%

+9% +2.0% 0.4 0.3 0.32 No Offered: 178 (0%)




24

19. FYROM SKOPJE ACC Traffic & Delay

LWSSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 597 661 635 696 642

Summer Traffic 457 461 467 465 418

Yearly Traffic 336 337 340 340 306



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The delays remained at zero during Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan 15% Achieved Comments Controller ratings Yes Night routes No Planned implementation – March 2013 Introduction of 5 NM separation in Skopje FIR Yes

Reassess and increase the sector capacities following a CAPAN study Yes

New capacities: CONF1A, LWSSALL1 (collapsed sectors) – 33 CONF2, LWSSUPP1 (upper sector, above FL345) – 33

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. The average peak 1 hour was 38 during the measured period. A maximum 2 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast Skopje LWSS ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -9.6% 0.0 0.0 0.12

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -2.1% B: -2.0% L: -3.4%

+12% -10.1% 0.0 0.0 0.17 No Offered: 59 (%)



25

20. GEORGIA TBILISI ACC Traffic & Delay

GEORGIA UGGG ACC: Traffic

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

Flig

hts

TOTAL YEAR 80.242 77.354 94.361 109.080 107.966

TOTAL SUMMER 39.909 40.212 49.824 57.700 55.407

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Data source: STATFOR



Traffic Forecast Tbilisi UGGG ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1% 0.0 0.0 0.0

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: +6.3% B: +5%

L: +3.7%

No sig. impact -4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Offered: 40



26

21. GERMANY BREMEN ACC Traffic & Delay

EDWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 2369 2087 2251 2228 2239

Summer Traffic 1900 1732 1836 1830 1826

Yearly Traffic 1762 1623 1661 1709 1674



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The yearly traffic decreased by 2.1%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement decreased slightly from 0.2 min/flight in Summer 2011 to 0.1 min/flight in Summer 2012. The ADM Summer is lower than expected and nearly by the optimum. There no capacity deficit was observed.

Planned Measures -2% / 0% Achieved Comments

Commissioning of new TWR Berlin (25.03.2012) The realisation was completed successfully on 25.03.2012

The commissioning of the new Berlin airport BER (expansion of Schönefeld) and closure of Berlin Tegel including new airspace structure and implementation of AMAN (03.06.2012)

The commissioning is postponed indefinitely to 2014/2015


The traffic decreased by 0.2% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity was the same as 2011. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (49%) and ATC Capacity (35%). A maximum configuration of 14 en-route sectors and 3 en-route/APP- sectors (Hamburg, Hannover) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Berlin) was available. Only 12 en-route sectors were opened during the whole year. The ALLER LOW sector was combined, the sectors EIDER EAST and MÜRITZ LOW only open for military exercises.


Traffic Forecast Bremen EDWW ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.8% 0.1 0.1 0.04

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.9% B: -3.5% L: -4.2%





27

22. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC Traffic & Delay

EDUUUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 4867 4601 4703 4795 4748

Summer Traffic 4413 4124 4233 4305 4345

Yearly Traffic 4015 3747 3743 3871 3905



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The yearly traffic growth is 0.9%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement decreased from 0.5 during Summer 2011 to 0.1 during Summer 2012. The ADM Summer is lower than expected and lowers than the calculated optimum. There no capacity deficit was observed.

Planned Measures +8% Achieved Comments

Free Route Airspace Karlsruhe / FRAK (Phase 2) The realisation was completed successfully on 15.12.2012

Reduction of staffing problems

Positive effects of the new ATM system (P1/VAFORIT) Increase of sector capacities in all sectors


The traffic growth 0.9% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity increased continuously in 2012. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (46%) and Weather (41%). A maximum configuration of 26 en-route sectors was available.


Traffic Forecast Karlsruhe

EDUU ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +1.2% 0.1 0.1 0.34

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.2% B: -1.4% L: -2.3%

+4% +0.9% 0.1 0.1 0.38 No Offered: 299 (+3%)




28

23. GERMANY LANGEN ACC Traffic & Delay

EDGGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 4425 4055 4271 4138 4190

Summer Traffic 3811 3560 3699 3654 3688

Yearly Traffic 3578 3364 3382 3434 3377



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The yearly traffic decreased by 1.7%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement decreased from 1.4 min/flight in Summer 2011 to 0.9 min/flight in Summer 2012. The capacity gap is caused by the staff shortages.

Planned Measures -2% / +2% Achieved Comments

Additional overflow sector in the Dusseldorf APP is planned Postponed after 2016


The traffic growth 0.9% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity increased continuously in 2012. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (39%), ATC Capacity (38%) and Weather (22%). A maximum configuration of 23 en-route sectors (including 3 sectors with predominantly military traffic) and 2 en-route/APP- sectors (Stuttgart) and 10 APP/TMA- sectors (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn) were opened. Due to staffing issues reduced configurations were operated.


Traffic Forecast Langen EDGG ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.4% 0.6 0.5 0.23

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.5% B: -2.9% L: -3.6%





29

24. GERMANY MUNICH ACC Traffic & Delay

EDMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4914 4601 4912 5012 4798

Summer Traffic 4440 4115 4468 4504 4390

Yearly Traff ic 4022 3781 3979 4080 3911

Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5

Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The yearly traffic decreased by 4.1%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement increased slightly from 0.4 minutes/flight during Summer 2011 compared to 0.5 minutes/flight in the Summer 2012. The ADM Summer 2012 was higher than expected and higher as the calculated optimum. A reason was the ATCO training for the relocation of the airspace to Karlsruhe.

Planned Measures -2% / -5% Achieved Comments

Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) SF East The realisation was completed

successfully on 01.04.2012


The traffic decreased by 2.5% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity decreased through the traffic decline in 2012. The delays were mainly due to Weather (46%), ATC Capacity (26%) and ATC Staffing (18%). There was a slight capacity deficit observed due to the preparation for the relocation. A maximum configuration of 26 en-route sectors and 3 en-route /APP- sectors (Nuremberg, Dresden, Leipzig) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Munich) was available. In preparation for the relocation was open all sectors in the upper airspace for training. Two sectors were every time combined.


Traffic Forecast Munich EDMM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -3.9% 0.3 0.2 0.12

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.1% B: -2.2% L: -2.9%

No sig. impact -2.5% 0.5 0.2 0.20 Partially Offered: 287 (-5%)




30

25. GREECE ATHENS ACC Traffic & Delay

LGGGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,51,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traffic 2087 1997 2117 2211 2197

Summer Traff ic 1515 1460 1513 1555 1521

Yearly Traffic 1201 1169 1212 1230 1195



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 5.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 41% of the delays were for the reason ATC Staffing, 16% for ATC Capacity, and 38% for ATC equipment. Capacity Plan 20% Achieved Comments Improved ATS route network and airspace management Yes Improved civil/military coordination Yes ATFCM Actions (traffic volume monitoring, traffic management scenarios etc…) Yes Possible minor resectorisation Yes OLDI with Cairo Yes

Enhanced ATCO availability No Extremely high flexibility was shown by staff even if

effective number of ATCOs was reduced Maximum configuration: 7/8 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment

The capacity baseline of 121 was calculated with ACCESS / Reverse CASA, based on the traffic and delay situation. The average demand was 105 (peak 3 hour) and 114 (peak 1 hour). A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Athens LGGG ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.6% 0.2 0.2 0.29

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -2.1% B: -2.6% L: -3.3%

No sig. impact -2.2% 0.3 0.3 0.43 No Offered: 121 (+27%)




31

26. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LGMDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traffic 1461 1495 1623 1729 1708

Summer Traff ic 1177 1192 1264 1258 1268

Yearly Traff ic 914 935 982 976 961



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay per flight decreased from 1.9 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 68% of the delays were for the reason ATC Staffing and 31% for ATC Equipment. Capacity Plan +18% Achieved Comments Improved ATS route network and airspace management Yes Improved civil/military coordination Yes ATFCM actions (traffic volume monitoring, traffic management scenarios etc…) Yes

Enhanced ATCO availability No Extremely high flexibility was shown by staff even if effective number of ATCOs was reduced

Resectorisation of LGMDW/LGMDE sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 4/5 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment

The capacity baseline of 97 was calculated with ACCESS based on the traffic and delay situation. The average demand was 82 (peak 3 hour) and 90 (peak 1 hour). A maximum configuration of 4 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Makedonia

LGMD ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.28

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.7% B: -1.9% L: -2.7%

-3% +0.8% 0.1 0.1 0.39 No Offered: 97 (+21%)




32

27. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC Traffic & Delay

LHCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 2372 2336 2338 2434 2316

Summer Traffic 1922 1881 1947 1913 1847

Yearly Traffic 1602 1572 1612 1594 1526



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimization of airspace structure Yes Ongoing Recruitment and training of controllers Yes 8 ACC and 2 APP trainees were licensed in 2012

New ATM software Yes New ATCC building and software operational from 18/12/2012

Multi sector planning Pending Under analysis Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, a maximum 6 sector configuration was open in the ACC, the peak 1 hour demand was 153 and the peak 3 hour demand was 131.


Traffic Forecast Budapest

LHCC ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -4.0% 0.0 0.0 0.03

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.7% B: -1.3% L: -2.4%

-9% -3.5% 0.0 0.0 0.04 No Offered: 165 (0%)




33

28. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC Traffic & Delay

EIDWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 758 621 619 623 624

Summer Traffic 661 547 537 529 544

Yearly Traffic 620 520 481 489 491



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012 as 2011.

Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes FAB with UK/NATS Yes Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment

The capacity baseline was calculated with ACCESS to be 59, representing the delivered capacity. A maximum 4 sector configuration was opened. The peak 1 hour demand was 48 and the peak 3 hour demand was 39.


Traffic Forecast Dublin EIDW ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.19

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -3.9% B: -6.0% L: -6.1%

No sig. impact +2.8% 0.0 0.0 0.33 No Offered: 59 (+4%)



34

29. IRELAND SHANNON ACC Traffic & Delay

EISNACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 1578 1401 1501 1470 1381

Summer Traffic 1324 1175 1184 1199 1189

Yearly Traffic 1204 1086 1072 1089 1075



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Enroute Delay (min. per flight) Traffic Evolution (2012 v 2011)

Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012, same as 2011.

Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Extra sectors as required – Dynamic sectorisation available Yes Data Linking On-going On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes FAB with UK/NATS Yes

Maximum configuration: 10/12 sectors Yes Due to levels of traffic, maximum configuration of 8 sectors

was sufficient Summer 2012 performance assessment

The ACCESS measured baseline of 121 indicates the capacity available during the measured period. A maximum 8 sector configuration was opened. The peak 1 hour demand was 102 and the peak 3 hour demand was 92.

Traffic Forecast Shannon

EISN ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.03

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.0% B: -1.6% L: -2.0%




35

30. ITALY BRINDISI ACC Traffic & Delay

LIBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 1480 1325 1434 1459 1349

Summer Traffic 1058 967 1035 1054 978

Yearly Traffic 865 817 863 872 808



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay per flight remained at zero, the same as during Summer 2011.

Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation assessment according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes

Maximum configuration: 6 sectors if needed Yes The summer traffic was accommodated using maximum 5 sectors (FIC not included)


The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 77 and the peak 3 hour demand was 69. A maximum 5 sector configuration was opened during peak hours. (FIC not included)


Traffic Forecast Brindisi

LIBB ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -7.1% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.8% B: -3.0% L: -4.1%




36

31. ITALY MILAN ACC Traffic & Delay

LIMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 2306 2096 2153 2198 2165

Summer Traffic 1923 1808 1888 1893 1853

Yearly Traffic 1783 1664 1701 1719 1659



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay per flight stayed at zero in Summer 2012. Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation assessment according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes RAD revision

Implementation of CDO in LIMC and LIML according to ENV01 Yes AIC 4/2012 Mode S trial No Postponed to 2013

Maximum configuration: 18 sectors Yes The summer traffic was accommodated using maximum 17 sectors


The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 145 and the peak 3 hour demand was 134. A maximum 17 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast Milan LIMM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -3.2% 0.0 0.0 0.06

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -2.1% B: -3.2% L: -4.5%

-4% -2.1% 0.0 0.0 0.11 No Offered: 164 (0%)



37

32. ITALY PADOVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LIPPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 2779 2575 2696 2755 2826

Summer Traffic 2107 1969 2156 2210 2220

Yearly Traffic 1799 1673 1792 1865 1844



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay per flight was zero minutes per flight during Summer 2012. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes According to BZO NDB area reorganization

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes RAD revision

ATS network to/from LIPZ BZO NDB area reorganization

Implementation of CDO in LIPZ according to ENV01 Yes AIC 4/2012 Sectorisation and configuration revision to optimise ATM and sectors loads according to network needs Yes Maximum configuration: 12 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment

The capacity baseline of 187 for Padova ACC was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity delivered during the Summer season. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 174 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 163. A maximum 12 sector configuration was opened (FIC not included).


Traffic Forecast Padova

LIPP ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.9% 0.0 0.0 0.14

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.3% B: -2.1% L: -3.4%





38

33. ITALY ROME ACC Traffic & Delay

LIRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 3773 3629 3725 3744 3798

Summer Traffic 3110 2971 3109 3081 3068

Yearly Traffic 2700 2589 2684 2662 2583



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, the same as during Summer 2011.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users expectations, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes RAD revision

Implementation of CDO in LIRF according to ENV01 Yes AIC 4/2012 Mode S trial Yes

Maximum configuration: 21 sectors if required Yes The summer traffic was accommodated using maximum 19 sectors (FIC not included)

Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 244 for Rome ACC was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity delivered during the Summer season. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 225 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 215. A maximum 19 sector configuration was opened (FIC not included).


Traffic Forecast Rome LIRR ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.7% 0.0 0.0 0.09

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.1% B: -2.2% L: -3.7%

-4% -0.4% 0.0 0.0 0.15 No Offered: 244 (+1%)



39

34. LATVIA RIGA ACC Traffic & Delay

EVRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 630 571 620 819 833

Summer Traffic 556 498 516 716 704

Yearly Traffic 515 460 477 639 634



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


As in 2011, Riga ACC did not generate enroute ATFM delay. Capacity Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Additional APP sector No To be implemented 07 March 2013 Various ATM system improvements Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was calculated with ACCESS at 85, representing the capacity offered. The average peak 1 hour demand was 63 and the peak 3 hour demand was 52 flights during the measured period, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the demand.


Traffic Forecast Riga

EVRR ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.02

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 0.2% B: -1.2% L: -2.7%

-8% -1.7% 0.0 0.0 0.02 No Offered: 85 (+10%)



40

35. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC Traffic & Delay

EYVCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 771 617 681 691 685

Summer Traffic 630 550 555 591 602

Yearly Traffic 584 516 513 534 545



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


In Summer 2012, no en route ATFM delay was generated by Vilnius ACC, as in Summer 2011. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The peak 1 hour demand was 51 and the peak 3 hour demand was 45 during the measured period. A maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Vilnius EYVC ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +2.3% 0.0 0.0 0.04

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 2.5% B: 1.2% L: -0.1%

+3% +1.8% 0.0 0.0 0.06 No Offered: 77 (+0%)



41

36. MALTA MALTA ACC Traffic & Delay

LMMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 336 316 385 366 389

Summer Traffic 253 256 290 231 305

Yearly Traffic 231 233 260 222 264



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, as in Summer 2011. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. The peak 1 hour demand was 24 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 21, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system.


Traffic Forecast Malta LMMM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +19.0% 0.0 0.0 0.02

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.3% B: 0.5% L: -3.1%

-23% +31.9% 0.0 0.0 0.04 No Offered: 39 (+0%)



42

37. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC Traffic & Delay

LUUUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 165 186 241 256 284

Summer Traffic 125 136 173 187 202

Yearly Traffic 110 119 147 162 171



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, as in Summer 2011. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 20 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 17, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. During the measured period a 2 sector maximum configuration was declared open.


Traffic Forecast Chisinau

LUUU ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +6.0% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -3.9% B: -4.9% L: -5.7%

-6% +7.9% 0.0 0.0 0.01 No Offered: 40 (0%)



43

38. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC Traffic & Delay

EHAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,10,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

1,1

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1720 1554 1607 1673 1645

Summer Traffic 1543 1422 1457 1532 1509

Yearly Traffic 1439 1331 1330 1416 1393



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight slightly increased from 0.2 minutes per flight during Summer 2011 to 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 81% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 14% for reason weather. 67% of the delays were in the traffic volume EHARTIP, and 28% in EHSUGOL. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 137, representing the delivered capacity. This was sufficient to accommodate the traffic demand, with an average peak 1 hour of 121 during the measured period and an average peak 3 hour of 107. A maximum 5 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast Amsterdam

EHAA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.3% 0.2 0.2 0.12

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 2.0% B: 1.1% L: -0.1%





44

39. NORWAY BODO ACC Traffic & Delay

ENBDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 693 693 721 719 729

Summer Traffic 545 535 557 558 572

Yearly Traffic 530 522 534 544 555



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2012.

Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Yes

Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers Yes Revision of FUA operations No Postponed to 2013 Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the measured period, the average peak hour demand was 47 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 42. A maximum configuration of 5 to 6 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Bodo ENBD ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +2.4% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.9% B: 2.9% L: 2.0%





45

40. NORWAY OSLO ACC Traffic & Delay

ENOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1213 1080 1154 1135 1135

Summer Traffic 990 904 962 911 947

Yearly Traffic 929 866 891 884 898



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight increased from zero minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 100% of the delays were due to ATC staffing. 36% were in combined sector 1267, 33% in combined sector 3458 and 21% in combined sector 345. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers No Net: 1 ATCO less Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity offered was measured with ACCESS Reverse CASA at a level of 67, for an average peak demand of 74 (peak 1 hour) and 69 (peak 3 hour). A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Oslo

ENOS ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +1.9% 0.5 0.5 0.0

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.3% B: 2.3% L: 0.9%

No sig. impact +4.0% 0.8 0.8 0.0 Yes Offered: 67 (-29%)




46

41. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC Traffic & Delay

ENSVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 761 704 806 805 831

Summer Traffic 578 556 575 619 653

Yearly Traffic 558 540 541 588 625



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Yes Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers Yes Revision of FUA operations No Postponed to 2013 Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 58 was measured with ACCESS, indicating the capacity actually offered. During the measured period, the average peak demand was 53 (peak 1 hour) and 48 (peak 3 hour). A maximum configuration of 3 + 2 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Stavanger

ENSV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +6.6% 0.0 0.0 0.08

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.3% B: 2.8% L: 1.9%





47

42. POLAND WARSAW ACC Traffic & Delay

EPWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,42,6

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 2099 1884 2089 2222 2395

Summer Traffic 1793 1640 1801 1954 2017

Yearly Traffic 1623 1505 1594 1748 1806



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.9 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 67% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 21% for ATC staffing and 7% for weather. 20% of the delays were in sector D, 15% in sector G, 21% in sector J, 11% in sector R. Capacity Plan + 5 % Achieved Comments Improved traffic handling through enhanced cooperation FMP/DNM Yes Minor ATS route network improvements Yes Not covering out of area issues

Improved sector configurations Yes New sector configurations and management, improved flexible use of configurations

Maintain number of ATCOs Yes Change structure of EPPO/EPWR/EPGD TMAs to improve traffic distribution and relieve en-route sectors Yes

Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS / Reverse CASA and represents the capacity actually offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak demand was 148 (peak 1 hour) and 138 (peak 3 hour). A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Warsaw EPWW ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +3.6% 0.5 0.5 0.32

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.0% B: 2.0% L: 1.0%





48

43. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC Traffic & Delay

LPPCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1431 1391 1473 1484 1516

Summer Traffic 1162 1061 1160 1217 1178

Yearly Traffic 1121 1036 1097 1153 1121



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Delays increased from 0.1 min/flight in Summer 2011 to 0.8 min/flight in Summer 2012. 46% of the delays were for the reason ATC capacity, and 43% for ATC Staffing. There is no operational bottleneck currently identified for Lisbon ACC. This situation occurs as the result of social issues in Portugal, as a result of the general economic situation and the austerity measures taken at national level. Capacity Plan +3 % Achieved Comments Improved rostering and sector opening schemes Yes According to available staff

12 additional ATCOs No Due to retirement, the actual number decreased by 4 ATCOs

Free route extension to LECM FIR No Postponed to June 2013 Update traffic volume definition to take new traffic pattern into account in line with the free route extension to LECM FIR No Postponed to June 2013

Maximum configuration: 9 sectors (7 ENR + 2 TMA) Yes During the first part of the Summer season Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline (83) was calculated with ACCESS / Reverse CASA and represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 89 and the peak 3 hour demand was 81. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors (7ENR+ 2TMA) was opened during the first part of the Summer season.


Traffic Forecast Lisbon LPPC ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.5% 0.7 0.7 0.28

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -2.3% B: -3.2% L: -4.3%

No sig. impact -3.2% 0.8 0.8 0.37 Yes Offered: 83 (-7%)




49

44. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC Traffic & Delay

LRBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1679 1825 1874 1945 1982

Summer Traffic 1416 1385 1520 1588 1566

Yearly Traffic 1212 1186 1284 1333 1308



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute ATFM delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2012, the same as in Summer 2011. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments ATS route network and sectorisation improvements Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. It was calculated with NEVAC, giving the potential capacity of the ACC. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 13 sectors was opened, the peak 1 hour demand was 117 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 106, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system.


Traffic Forecast Bucharest

LRBB ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.1% B: -1.2% L: -2.4%

+5% -1.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Offered: 183 (0%)



50

45. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC Traffic & Delay

LYBAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1991 2182 2251 2464 2435

Summer Traffic 1638 1710 1832 1870 1803

Yearly Traffic 1314 1373 1459 1502 1435



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


En-route delay decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to zero in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Route network Development Yes Improved airspace management Yes Flexible use of staff Yes Civil/military coordination improvement Yes Additional controllers Yes Consolidated operation of the FAMUS Yes Improvement of TMA airspace organisation and introduction of RNAV in TMA No Postponed for 2014 Reorganisation of lower airspace – establishment of FIC No Postponed for 2014 Consolidation of new ATCC concept of operation Yes

CPR, CCAMS No Entry node is installed and under testing.

CCAMS functionality is ready and implementation postponed for 2013

Elementary Mode S implementation No Postponed for 2013 Night DCTs Yes Radar sharing project No Postponed for 2013 Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The peak 1 hour demand was 137 and the peak 3 hour demand was 128 during the measurement period. A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Belgrade

LYBA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -4.2% 0.0 0.0 0.20

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.0% B: -1.6% L: -2.3%

-4% -3.6% 0.0 0.0 0.30 No Offered: 164 (0%)



51




52

46. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LZBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1338 1317 1461 1504 1553

Summer Traffic 1066 1052 1183 1213 1217

Yearly Traff ic 891 880 974 1006 1004



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Continuous improvements of the route network and sectorisation Yes Adaptation of sector opening times Yes Improved flow and capacity management techniques Yes Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes Radar system upgrade Yes Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 108 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak hour demand was 100, indicating that enough capacity was provided. A maximum of 5 sectors were opened during the Summer season.


Traffic Forecast Bratislava

LZBB ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +0.1% 0.0 0.0 0.24

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 0.5% B: -0.4% L: -2.0%

-8% +0.4% 0.0 0.0 0.38 No Offered: 108 (+7%)



53

47. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC Traffic & Delay

LJLAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 986 937 1035 1189 1262

Summer Traffic 815 759 830 912 909

Yearly Traffic 671 632 673 741 735



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


The average en-route delay per flight remained zero in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan : Up to +5% Achieved Comments Flexible sector configurations Yes ATS route network and traffic organisation changes Yes 5% increase in sector hours Yes During the WE Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS, representing the delivered capacity (87). The peak 1 hour demand was 78 and the peak 3 hour demand was 70 during the measurement period. A maximum configuration of 4 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Ljubljana

LJLA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.5% 0.0 0.0 0.31

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.9% B: -2.2% L: -3.6%

+10% -0.3% 0.0 0.0 0.46 No Offered: 87 (0%)




54

48. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 3282 3062 3071 3204 3138

Summer Traffic 2638 2410 2475 2599 2523

Yearly Traffic 2250 2033 2054 2138 2013



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average en-route delay decreased from 1.9 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 74% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity and 22% for weather. There was a transfer of 3 sectors from LECBCTA to LEBLTMA. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments Minor ATC system upgrades Yes Optimised sector configurations Yes Reduce radar separation to 5 NM Yes LUMAS Project Phase 1 No Developments depending on France Route structure improvements Madrid-Baleares Yes Night direct routes Yes

Maximum configuration: 12/13 sectors Yes 11 sectors in the ACC after transfer of sectors to the TMA

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured at 137, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 139 and the peak 3 hour demand was 131, and a maximum configuration of 11 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Barcelona

LECB ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -5.6% 0.6 0.5 0.23

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -4.6% B: -6.1% L: -7.2%

No sig. impact -3.0% 0.8 0.6 0.36 Yes Offered: 137 (N/A)




55

49. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC Traffic & Delay

GCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1234 1124 1082 1145 1141

Summer Traffic 816 693 739 792 715

Yearly Traffic 840 730 753 814 749



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.8 in Summer 2011 to 0.2 in Summer 2012.

87% of the delays were for ATC Capacity, and 7 % for Equipment. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Implementation of SACTA CF2 version Yes Reduce radar separation to 5 NM Yes Maximum configuration: 8 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 65. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 58 and the peak 3 hour demand was 51. A maximum configuration of 7/8 sectors was opened.



Traffic Forecast Canarias

GCCC ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -7.7% 0.4 0.4 0.69

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.2% B: -1.0% L: -1.6%




56

50. SPAIN MADRID ACC Traffic & Delay

LECMALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 3303 2947 3195 3139 2877

Summer Traffic 2978 2724 2829 2887 2677

Yearly Traffic 2863 2611 2651 2728 2500



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 1.6 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 93% of delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 6% for weather. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Minor ATC system upgrade Yes Night direct routes Yes Reduce radar separation to 5 NM Yes

Maximum configuration: 16/17 sectors Yes Maximum configuration of 15/16 sectors was sufficient to cope with the demand

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 187, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 185 and the peak 3 hour demand was 174. Maximum configurations of 16 sectors were opened.


Traffic Forecast Madrid LECM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -8.1% 0.2 0.2 0.34

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -5.2% B: -6.3% L: -7.2%





57

51. SPAIN PALMA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 1545 1478 1513 1572 1527

Summer Traffic 1017 936 964 1035 1011

Yearly Traffic 733 678 685 717 682



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.5 minutes in Summer 2011 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 94% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 5% for weather. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Minor ATC system upgrade Yes Reduce radar separation to 5 NM Yes Route structure improvements Madrid-Baleares Yes Maximum configuration: 7 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/REVERSE CASA at 92, giving the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 85, the peak 3 hour demand was 78. A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Palma LECP ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -4.7% 0.2 0.2 0.14

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -4.3% B: -6.3% L: -7.7%





58

52. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1343 1286 1291 1301 1195

Summer Traffic 1139 1031 1056 1087 984

Yearly Traffic 1067 956 978 1002 894



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay decreased from 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 100% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Minor ATC system upgrade Yes Reduce radar separation to 5 NM Yes New airspace structure for Malaga APP Yes Night direct routes Yes

Maximum configuration: 8 sectors Yes Not required due to the lower level of traffic demand – Maximum configuration of 7 sectors

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 89, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 78 and the peak 3 hour demand was 68. A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Sevilla LECS ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -10.6% 0.1 0.1 0.41

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -6.1% B: -7.1% L: -8.0%





59

53. SWEDEN MALMO ACC Traffic & Delay

ESMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 1908 1544 1658 1732 1698

Summer Traffic 1546 1335 1408 1498 1451

Yearly Traffic 1449 1271 1296 1391 1359



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan: +1% Achieved Comments COOPANS implementation Yes FRA project – DK/SE FAB Yes Implemented Nov 2011 Gradual availability of additional controllers Yes Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes Gradual consolidation of operations within NUAC company Yes Maximum configuration: 10 +1 sectors Yes Possible but not required due to traffic levels Summer 2012 performance assessment

The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 113 and the peak 3 hour demand was 103. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was open – 4/5 (E) + 3/4 (W) + 2 (L).


Traffic Forecast Malmo ESMM ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.0% 0.0 0.0 0.02

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 1.2% B: 0.1% L: -1.5%





60

54. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC Traffic & Delay

ESOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 1549 1392 1444 1485 1428

Summer Traffic 1157 1040 1069 1133 1090

Yearly Traffic 1129 1028 1021 1094 1062



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan: +1% Achieved Comments FRA project – DK/SE FAB Yes

Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes

Gradual availability of additional controllers Yes Gradual consolidation of operations within NUAC company Yes Parallel new routings for arriving traffic to Stockholm area Yes Split of sector 1 (impl. Nov 2011) Yes Maximum configuration: 4 (M) + 3 (N) + 4 (S) Yes Possible but not required due to traffic levels Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The actual calculated value was lower, in line with traffic demand decrease, showing good adaptation of capacity to traffic demand. During the measured period, the average traffic demand was 81 for the peak 1 hour and 73 for the peak 3 hour. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was opened – 2/3 (M) + 2/3 (N) + 3/4 (S).


Traffic Forecast Stockholm

ESOS ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.7% 0.0 0.0 0.00

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 1.0% B: 0.6% L: -1.0%

No sig. impact -3.8% 0.0 0.0 0.00 Offered: 112 (0%)




61

55. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LSAGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 2251 1992 2086 2104 2072

Summer Traffic 1981 1788 1832 1873 1848

Yearly Traffic 1813 1645 1648 1704 1654



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.2 min per flight in 2011 to zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012. Capacity Plan : 0% / 1% Achieved Comments Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes FABEC - ATFCM No Cross qualification of ATCOs (Upper/Lower) On-going Revised sector capacities following CAPAN study Yes Further benefits from EFD implementation Yes Maximum configuration: 9 sectors (6+3) Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment

The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 149, which represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 141, and the peak 3 hour demand was 132. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Geneva LSAG ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.7% 0.1 0.0 0.19

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.5% B: -3.1% L: -4.4%

-4% -1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.33 No Offered: 149 (+3%)




62

56. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC Traffic & Delay

LSAZACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,91,01,11,2

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 2637 2430 2543 2502 2504

Summer Traffic 2350 2193 2262 2273 2249

Yearly Traffic 2156 2014 2031 2078 2031



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. 93% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 5% for Weather. 73% of the delays were in M4. Capacity Plan : 2%/ 5% Achieved Comments Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes FABEC/ATFCM No Further benefits from EFD implementation Yes Revised sector capacities following CAPAN study Yes Maximum configuration: 10 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 170. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 175, and the peak 3 hour demand was 156. A maximum configuration of 10 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Zurich LSAZ ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.0% 0.2 0.2 0.17

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -1.1% B: -2.6% L: -3.8%

+7% -1.1% 0.3 0.3 0.30 No Offered: 170 (+3%)




63

57. TURKEY ANKARA/ISTANBUL ACC Traffic & Delay

LTAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2113 2163 2336 2685 2445

Summer Traffic 1760 1803 1981 2186 2193

Yearly Traff ic 1544 1600 1760 1914 1928



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

LTBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2270 2341 2623 2865 2821

Summer Traffic 1860 1943 2169 2375 2418

Yearly Traff ic 1569 1655 1842 2003 2050



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



64


Average enroute delay per flight in Ankara decreased from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. Reason for the delay was 74% ATC Capacity and 21% Other. Capacity Plan : +6% Achieved Comments Improved civil/military coordination Yes Improved surveillance infrastructure (Replacement of current stations and addition of new sensors) Yes Implementation of A/G and G/G communications infrastructure improvements (including Bagdad ACC) Yes Except Bagdad ACC

ATS route structure development Yes Additional controllers (45 per year for en-route) Yes Finalisation of the Turkish airspace design plan – Summer/Autumn 2012 to be implemented in 2014 No New airspace design plan linked to the new ATM system

and the transfer of airspace RTS of Istanbul TMA – Autumn 2012 Yes Enhanced management of restricted and danger areas (activation by NOTAM) Yes Withdraw of some restricted and danger areas

Maximum configuration: 18 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment Ankara: The capacity baseline of 140 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 139 and the peak 3 hour demand was 129. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was opened. Istanbul: The capacity baseline of 134 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 129 and the peak 3 hour demand was 118. A maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened. Izmir: The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 58 and the peak 3 hour demand was 51. A maximum configuration of 5 sectors was opened, including APP sectors.


Traffic Forecast Ankara LTAA ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +1.0% 0.2 0.2 0.19

Capacity gap?

Summer H: 4.8%

B: 3.5% L: 2.5%

No sig. impact +3% 0.2 0.2 0.30 No

Offered: Ankara: 140 (+7%) Istanbul: 134 (+3%)

Izmir: 68 (0%)





65

58. UKRAINE DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC Traffic & Delay

UKDVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 512 533 527 577 703

Summer Traffic 415 382 443 488 522

Yearly Traffic 364 337 382 422 446



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2011. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised sector configurations according to traffic demand Yes

Installation of new ATM systems in UKCC APP and UKHH APP Partially achieved

ATM systems in UKCC APP is already used ATM systems in UKHH APP is under installation

Implementation of P-RNAV procedures in TMA airspace Yes

Re-definition of sector configurations (DFL change) Yes There was created new sector configuration (it is used as default sector configuration)

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS. The peak 1 hour demand was 38 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 33. A maximum configuration of 4 sectors was declared open.


Traffic Forecast

Dnipro-petrovsk

UKDV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +6.0% 0.0 0.0 0.09

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 4.0% B: 3.5% L: 2.5%




66

59. UKRAINE KYIV ACC Traffic & Delay

UKBVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 743 721 789 876 1099

Summer Traffic 622 549 630 713 754

Yearly Traffic 550 498 549 626 650



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute ATFM delay decreased from 0.1 min per flight in 2011 to zero min per flight in 2012.

Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised sector configurations according to traffic demand Yes Modernization of ATM system Yes Implementation of P-RNAV procedures in UKBV TMA airspace Yes Re-sectorisation of TMA airspace (according to SOIR procedure in UKBB) Yes

Maximum configuration: 6 sectors Yes There was created 7 sector configuration. It was used due to special event (final of EURO2012)

Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The peak 1 hour demand was 57 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 51 flights. During the measured period a 7 sector maximum configuration was declared open.


Traffic Forecast Kyiv

UKBV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +4.2% 0.0 0.0 0.02

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 2.7% B: 1.6% L: 0.9%




67

60. UKRAINE L’VIV ACC Traffic & Delay

UKLVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 643 616 644 721 757

Summer Traffic 488 461 514 546 554

Yearly Traffic 429 419 451 486 488



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2011.

Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised sector configurations according to traffic demand Yes Modernization of ATM system Yes Implementation of P-RNAV procedures in TMA airspace Yes Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes



Traffic Forecast L’viv UKLV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.00

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 1.5% B: -0.2% L: -1.5%

-8% +1.6% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No Offered: 72 (0%)



68

61. UKRAINE ODESA ACC Traffic & Delay

UKOVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 334 329 416 450 480

Summer Traffic 256 247 307 324 332

Yearly Traffic 215 208 250 266 272



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments

Revised sector configurations according to traffic demand Yes Existing configurations and default opening schemes were sufficient to meet the demand

Modernization of ATM system Yes Maximum configuration: 3 sectors Yes



Traffic Forecast Odesa UKOV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year +2.5% 0.0 0.0 0.00

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 2.2% B: 1.4% L: 0.1%




69

62. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC Traffic & Delay

UKFVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 682 668 804 758 760

Summer Traffic 537 526 648 616 618

Yearly Traffic 481 463 559 544 541



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments

Revised sector configurations according to traffic demand Yes Existing configurations and default opening schemes were sufficient to meet the demand

Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. The peak 1 hour demand was 46 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 40 flights. During the measured period a 5 sector maximum configuration was declared open.


Traffic Forecast Simferopol

UKFV ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.3% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: 3.4% B: 2.7% L: 1.5%

-17% +0.4% 0.0 0.0 0.01 No Offered: 75 (0%)



70

63. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC Traffic & Delay

EGTTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 6644 6046 6014 6180 6028

Summer Traffic 5971 5457 5408 5499 5426

Yearly Traffic 5430 4982 4800 4971 4894



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 (May to October inclusive). 37% of delays were due to ATC Capacity, 12% to ATC Staffing and 49% to Weather. NATS attributable average en-route delay per flight decreased from 10 seconds in Summer 2011 to 2 seconds in Summer 2012. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff (including cross-sector training) more closely related to sector demand Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes iFACTS Yes UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes Airspace & traffic management of arrangements for Olympic games Yes Maximum configuration: 19 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity of 390 was calculated with ACCESS. During the period June/July, the peak hour demand was 396, the peak 3 hour demand was 358. A maximum 19 sector configuration was opened.


Traffic Forecast London EGTT ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -1.3% 0.1 0.0 0.22

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.3% B: -1.3% L: -2.1%





71



72

64. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC Traffic & Delay

EGTTTC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

Peak Day Traffic 4568 4151 4015 4133 4059

Summer Traffic 4053 3716 3635 3680 3663

Yearly Traffic 3780 3480 3318 3420 3386



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012. NATS attributable average enroute delay per flight was unchanged at 1 second in Summer 2012 compared with Summer 2011.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Airspace & traffic management of arrangements for Olympic games Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes Maximum configuration: 22 sectors Yes 14 ENR + 8 APP Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2011. During the period June/July, the peak hour demand was 270, the peak 3 hour demand was 247. A maximum configuration of 22 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast London EGTT

TC Current Routes

Shortest Routes

Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -0.7% 0.0 0.0 0.11

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.5% B: -1.2% L: -2.0%





73

65. UNITED KINGDOM PRESTWICK ACC Traffic & Delay

EGPXALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

ver

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er f

a

Peak Day Traffic 3267 3190 3080

Summer Traffic 2694 2704 2621

Yearly Traffic 2410 2452 2381

Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,0

Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,0

2010 2011 2012


The delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2011 to 0.0 minutes per flight in Summer 2012. NATS attributable average delay per flight decreased from 3 seconds in Summer 2011 to less than 1 second in Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes Electronic Flight Data (EFD) implementation Yes UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes Maximum configuration: 23 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 224 was measured with ACCESS. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 210, the peak 3 hour demand was 187. A maximum configuration of 23 sectors was opened.


Traffic Forecast Prestwick

EGPX ACC Current


Actual Traffic

All reasons


ACC Target Delay



Year -2.6% 0.0 0.0 0.17

Capacity gap?

Summer

H: -0.4% B: -1.4% L: -2.3%




INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


74

Documents

DNM Annual Network Operations Report 2012 - ACC Annex · ─ ACC Target Delay per ACC is the delay associated with the ACC capacity required to meet the ... This information was taken