NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Report Initiative 3 Optimisation of … · included in the scope of the initiative are the service elements of Tower, FIS, AFIS, ALERT, and ADVS. The

NEFAB FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 03 Initiative 03

Page 1 of 52

NEFAB Project

Feasibility Study Report

Initiative 3 Optimisation of ATS



Page 2 of 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 3

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE.................................................................. 6

2.1 Scope 6

2.2 Initiative Design Principles 7

3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE ........................................... 8

4. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT STATE ............................................................ 10

4.1 Current Statistics 11

5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 16

5.1 Baseline Assumptions 16

6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT........................................................................ 18

6.1 Vision 2015 18

6.2 Minimum Scenario 2020 20

6.3 Performance Scenario 2020 22

7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS .................................................... 25

7.1 Description of Benefit Potential, Vision 2015 25

7.2 Benefits Realised by the Minimum Scenario 2020 30

7.3 Benefits Realised by the Performance Scenario 2020 31

8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION............................ 34

8.1 Vision 2015 Costs 34

8.2 Minimum Scenario 2020 Costs 36

8.3 Performance Scenario 2020 Costs 36

9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION................................................. 39

10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS .......................................................................... 44

10.1 Vision 2015 Implementation Risks 45

10.2 Performance Scenario 2020 Implementation Risks 49



Page 3 of 52

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this initiative is to explore ways in which to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Air Traffic Services through increased cross-border cooperation, optimisation of ATS through route and sector development (See initiative 1 – ATS Route and Sectorisation) and harmonisation of ATS procedures and service provision principles. This translates into improved productivity in ATS delivery, increased safety, increased capacity, reduced operating costs for ANSPs, and reduced en-route charges.

This paper analyses the ways in which Air Traffic Services (ATS) are currently delivered in the proposed NEFAB area, and the ways in which they can be improved under the NEFAB concept.

The initiative focuses on the ATS elements that share the most common service aspects, mainly en-route/Area Control and Approach Control. The concept relies on service delivery that is independent of state borders and sees benefits in relation to improved service delivery and cost efficient allocation of human resources. Not included in the scope of the initiative are the service elements of Tower, FIS, AFIS, ALERT, and ADVS.

The SES FAB description specifies 9 requirements for the declaration of a FAB. The ATS initiative facilitates benefits that relate to two of these requirements within each of the discussed scenarios (Vision 2015, Minimum and Performance 2020). These requirements are:

• Enabling optimal use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows;

• Ensuring a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between the air traffic service units.

The main areas highlighted for development include:

•••• Cross-border service provision;

•••• More effective allocation of manpower as a result of new sectorisation (initiative 1) improved ASM and ATFCM (initiative 4), increased safety;

•••• On/off peak service rationalisation;

•••• Common conflict and traffic management procedures;

•••• Extended/enhanced AMAN/DMAN utilisation;

•••• Application of common rules and procedures in the provision of ATS.

The NEFAB initiative is based on a concept of how ATS can be provided in an optimal, cost efficient manner in the future ATM environment, considering such things as system development and limitations, harmonisation of rules and procedures, harmonised training, regulation issues, as well as political issues.



Page 4 of 52

Using a framework of two scenarios and three milestones the ATS initiative defines the future NEFAB service concept. The first milestone is the initiation and declaration of NEFAB.

The second milestone, “Best Performing Airspace in Europe is our Vision 2015.” Under the Vision 2015 milestone ATS is characterised by cross-border service provision in a FRA environment, as required by the airspace design solution, increased flexibility through information sharing and resource management, and enhanced cross-border AMAN/DMAN functionalities. Traffic/conflict management procedures are developed to support the cross-border environment.

The future service concepts beyond 2015 are expressed as the Minimum and the Performance scenario.

The rationale behind the Minimum Scenario is that it is a natural evolution of the 2015 vision, through initiatives such as SESAR, and does not include specific initiatives for the NEFAB development. The Performance Scenario contains the most ambitious and practically achievable scenario for NEFAB, 2020. The Performance Scenario is characterised by service provision in a dynamic cross-border environment with an extended FRA application, enhanced ATS procedures suitable for the environment, and ATS human resource and licensing enhancements.

Benefits realised with the optimisation of ATS as described include:

• Improved capacity;

• Reduced operational costs for airspace users;

• Reduced operational costs for ANSPs;

• Reduced environmental effects;

• Maintained or improved safety levels;

• Improved predictability.

Optimisation of ATS, as described in this initiative, is a cost driver for the ANSPs. The system support requirements for ATS provision in a cross-border sector environment are substantial for the 2020 performance scenario with smaller investments envisaged for the Vision 2015 and the 2020 minimum scenario. However, these investments are in turn enablers for the more efficient use of ATCO resources, and will therefore also contribute to the potential benefits. ATS provision in a dynamic cross-border sector environment with appropriate system support is envisaged to have a significantly positive impact on the demand-capacity balancing by enabling traffic growth, while curtailing the requirement to recruit additional staff and establish new CWPs and functional sectors.

A high level time line, which provides a graphical illustration of what functions and concepts are available at each point in time, is found in Chapter 9.



Page 5 of 52

Implementing a FAB that requires the cooperation of 4 different states entails many risks to consider. This report identifies implementation risks that can be expected and assesses them for their potential impact, and methods to mitigate these risks. The risks include political, technological and social factors.

Using a cost benefit analysis, a quantitative summary of net benefits has been calculated. The results of these are accounted for in the separate Cost Benefit Assessment appendix.



Page 6 of 52

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE

Air traffic services in Europe are currently aligned with FIR/UIR boundaries (with the exception of areas of ATS delegation). This creates inherent inefficiencies in regards to the way services are provided for the airspace users. The optimisation of ATS initiative will draft high level scenarios for the organisation and execution of air traffic services across the NEFAB region. This chapter first outlines what this means in terms of the scope for the initiative.

Several of the NEFAB initiatives are inter-connected. The harmonisation of operational rules and procedures (initiative 6), airspace design (initiative 1) and ASM/ATFCM (initiative 4) initiatives are closely linked with this initiative, and as such the consistency and coherency between these initiatives is of high importance. The ATS initiative is concerned with how the service provision within the NEFAB airspace can best be delivered, and how the manpower can be allocated efficiently, taking into account the requirements of ASM/ATFCM.

2.1 Scope

The ATS initiative describes how Air Traffic Services can be organized and executed. ATS is made up of various elements, so therefore the scope of this initiative is limited to those areas that share the most common service aspects; en-route/Area Control and Approach Control. FIS is generally integrated in the en-route service, therefore it is also considered a part of the ATC service. The initiative is primarily focused on investigating:

• More efficient allocation of manpower as a result of new sectorisation (initiative 1), improved ASM and ATFCM (initiative 4), increased safety;

• Service delivery that is independent of international borders;

• Innovative methods of managing ATS staffing, e.g. off peak service rationalisation;

• Conflict/trajectory management and traffic synchronisation procedures in the envisaged NEFAB airspace.

Other service divisions within ATS that are considered outside of the scope for this initiative include Tower, Regional Tower/Approach units, AFIS, ALERT, and ADVS, although service continuity at the interfaces with the regional TWR/AFIS units will be ensured.

The CNS and ATM infrastructure required to facilitate the ATS services are considered when calculating time lines for the high level road map (See section 8), but are not fully considered in the scope of this initiative. These issues are addressed in separate documents to be considered as part of the whole NEFAB concept.



Page 7 of 52

2.2 Initiative Design Principles

The provision of Air Traffic Services is considered the core business for an ANSP. ATS is one part of the ATM (Air Traffic Management) System and this initiative is closely linked to the optimisation of ASM and ATFCM (initiative 4). In principle, application of the ASM/ATFCM scenarios are described in the ATS initiative, but are considered to be within the scope of ASM/ATFCM to implement and manage (e.g. off peak rationalisation in dynamic sector management).

This paper analyses the ways in which Air Traffic Services (ATS) are currently delivered and details the specific elements that make up an ATS. These elements are then addressed to determine areas in which improvements can be made through the establishment of NEFAB.

It is assumed that the performance scenario is the most optimal realistically achievable scenario, and this paper establishes the timeline required to reach this by 2020. This is presented in the form of an expected Vision 2015, supported by a high level road map for the realisation of the objectives.

In order to realise the vision the following concepts are identified for development:

• ATS service provision that supports Free Route Airspace (FRA) evolution as described in the airspace design initiative;

• Cross-border service provision, including human resource management;

• Multi-sector planner within ANSPs;

• Multi-sector planner for cross-border service provision;

• On/off peak service rationalisation, including cross-border scenarios and human resource management;

• Cross-border/inter-system traffic synchronisation procedures;

• Cross-border traffic/conflict management procedures;

• Information sharing and Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) processes;

• Common ATC rating concept for sector families;

• Dynamic cross-border ATS service provision.

The provision of air traffic services is supported by surveillance, communication and navigation infrastructure as well as ATM systems allowing flight data and surveillance data to be processed, updated and distributed to ATS units and their operational staff. Due to this inherent complexity, the ATS initiative is also connected to the system related initiatives (mainly initiative 9) and consistency, coherency and ambition level between these initiatives needs to be assured.



Page 8 of 52

3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE

The purpose of this initiative is to increase the functionality, efficiency and cost effectiveness of Air Traffic Control Services through optimised cooperation and harmonisation, regardless of national borders, whilst supporting the airspace, route and sector development (See initiative 1 – ATS Route and Sectorisation). ATS functionality relates to providing a service that matches the customers’ needs in the envisaged NEFAB environment (2015-2020). Efficiency relates to providing this customer service with a high ratio of output in relation to input (greater productivity). These improvements in turn facilitate cost reductions for the ANSPs, which can then be passed on to the customer in the form of lower en-route charges (cost effectiveness).

The Single European Sky regulations govern the development of all aspects of ATM within Europe. The Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Master Plan (i.e. The European ATM Master Plan) specifies the following goals to be met by 2020:

• Societal benefits;

• Facilitate a 3 fold increase in capacity (reducing delays);

• Improve Safety Performance by a factor of 10;

• Provide ATM services at a cost of at least 50% less;

• Meet performance targets according to SES II.

These ATM Master Plan targets provide a strong mandate for change in this area of ATM. The future concept scenario requires the ANSPs to look at ways of improving their ATS. The NEFAB vision of improved sectorisation, cross-border cooperation and harmonisation, when implemented, will contribute to the realisation of these European goals.

The ATS initiative is a driver of these benefits for ANSPs and network users. In order for ATS improvements to realise these benefits, it is important that enablers, such as the ASM/ATFCM initiative (initiative 4), Harmonised Rules and Procedures initiative (initiative 6), ATS Routes and Sectorisation) initiative (initiative 1) and the Commonality of Systems initiative (initiative 9), are sufficiently developed and coordinated. Chapter 6 of this initiative, Future Service Concept, details the coordination required between the initiatives from an ATS perspective.

The benefits of this ATS initiative will mainly be driven by four factors:

• Optimised service provision in a cross-border sector environment will enable more cost efficient staffing and subsequently increased ATCO productivity;

• Optimised ways of working across national FIR/UIR boundaries;

• Optimisation of human resources;



Page 9 of 52

• Common ATS procedures (traffic synchronisation, traffic/conflict management) as an enabler for cross-border activities and as a contributor to increased levels of safety.

Specific benefits expected from the ATS initiative include:

• Seamless operational environment for the ANSPs and the airspace users;

• Reduced unit rate as a result of ANSP cost savings;

• Increased capacity due to efficient allocation of human resources and application of airspace design, ASM/ATFCM scenarios and system support;

• Improved safety performance, especially at the interfaces, through the application of common procedures and ATS in an optimized airspace solution;

• Reduced emissions due to increased capacity and enhanced procedures.



Page 10 of 52

4. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT STATE

This section aims to clarify the details of how ATS is provided today nationally by the four participating NEFAB nations. The data used has been gathered via surveys sent out to the individual ANSPs. Some of the NEFAB participants are currently developing their own FRA concepts. ATS provision of each respective nation is being adapted to the changes this brings to the ANSPs however FRA is still an immature concept, lacking common definition on the Nordic (and European) level, and is limited by FIR/UIR boundaries.

The concept of cross-border sectorisation is not available and therefore ATS is not adapted to such airspace design. ATS provision is tailored around airspace design limited by FIR/UIR boundaries with areas of ATS delegation used in parts of NEFAB airspace to facilitate some degree of cross-border functionality. However, ATS delegation is a state level process and adaptations to the ATS delegation cannot be made on ANSP level bilaterally. As such the concept is not suitable for enhanced cross-border functionality. Obviously, the ability to dynamically adapt the ATS provision to cross-border sectorisation is also not currently available.

In addition to the services provided to continental air traffic in the NEFAB area, the traffic operating within Bodø OFIR are subject to Oceanic Clearances according to the procedures described for the ICAO NAT region.

The ability to rationalise service provision by combining sectors from multiple ACCs into one ACC during periods of low traffic (for example night time operations between 0000-0600) is not available with current systems. System capabilities are not the only limiting element. Harmonised rules and procedures and ATS, that is adapted to such an arrangement, are currently not investigated completely. Due to national borders there are many airports within the NEFAB that are located close to external FIRs, for example Tallinn/Helsinki (vicinity of the airports and Finnish/Estonian FIRs), and Oslo (vicinity to Sweden). Although some cross-border traffic synchronisation is performed – FIESTA project, with regard to ARR sequencing from Estonia to Helsinki-Vantaa,– there is a need to enhance and expand this functionality across NEFAB. Information sharing across FIRs is limited by current procedures and system coordination limitations. As a result, the sequencing horizon is limited and the use of lateral holding is not always possible due to late EAT allocation.

Departure management is also affected in the same way and applied on a more limited scope than arrival management.

Flow management is centrally executed by the CFMU in Brussels for the entire European airspace and the respective ANSPs must adapt their ATS provision accordingly. ATFM related cross-border ATS procedures are not widely applied in the NEFAB region and are generally limited to bi-lateral agreements with little or no commonality. ATFM related information sharing and CDM processes have not been commonly established across NEFAB, and there is currently no coordinated process to optimise the tactical use of NEFAB airspace/network.

Licensed Air traffic controllers are charged with providing ATS. This licensing system is supported by an endorsement concept, which means that the ATCOs are



Page 11 of 52

authorised to provide services within a specified airspace. These airspace ‘sectors’ are usually grouped according to geographic location or traffic characteristics (i.e. Group North, Group South, Group Lower, Group TMA etc.). An ATC endorsed within Group A is usually not endorsed to provide services in Group B. There currently exists no common endorsement that would create a more flexible manpower base. For example, if introduction of FRA causes the traffic flow to move from the Group South sectors to the Group North sectors, the increases in traffic in Group North can not be catered for with staff from Group South with the current sectorisation scheme and licensing limitations.

4.1 Current Statistics

Air traffic services are currently provided throughout the NEFAB area from a total of 6 air traffic control centres (ATCCs).

Based on the data available in the “2008 ATM cost effectiveness (ACE) benchmarking report” by the Eurocontrol Performance Review Unit, a total of 654 ATCO FTEs are in operation within the NEFAB area of which 266 are employed at the ATCCs.

Delegation of ATS and some cross-border operations are applied between states in the NEFAB area. FIS (Flight Information Service) below controlled airspace is normally performed as an integrated part of the en-route services, but there are some exemptions. Working language of FIS is normally the local language and English.

The ANS providers within the NEFAB area are small organisations compared to the larger European ANS providers. This indicates that efforts to find ways to increase integration of different functions should prove beneficial in terms of reducing fragmentation and improving efficiency.

In terms of costs1, the NEFAB member ANSPs perform better than the European average, both in terms of financial cost-efficiency and gate-to-gate economic cost efficiency. The gate-to-gate economic cost efficiency also takes into account factors such as the unit costs for ATFCM en-route delay and ATFCM airport delay. In terms of support costs per composite flight hour all NEFAB ANSPs have lower costs than the European average.

In terms of ATCO productivity2, the NEFAB member ANSPs score is approximately at the average calculated for the appropriate cluster. Due to the inherent variance between the traffic flows and complexities between the different ACCs a direct ATCO productivity comparison is not justified. 5 of the 6 NEFAB ACCs are evaluated in cluster 3b and all of these score above the average calculated for this cluster. EANS (Tallinn ACC) achieves a significantly higher ATCO productivity score than the European average of 0.95 and is assessed as the third most cost – effective ACC in Europe overall.

1 Cost data is derived from the 2008 PRU ATM Cost Efficiency Benchmarking report.

2 ATCO productivity data is derived from the 2008 PRU ATM Cost Efficiency Benchmarking report.



Page 12 of 52

If ATCO productivity is compared centre by centre, all of the NEFAB ATCC’s with less than 7 sectors perform better than the average within the cluster. Two out of five NEFAB centres in this group are among the top 3 in terms of ATCO productivity. One centre evaluated in a more complex cluster (≤ 7 sectors) falls below the European average for that cluster3).

Based on both costs and productivity figures it can be argued that the ATM performance within the NEFAB area is reasonably good compared to the European average, and it is complicated to show significant improvement in performance figures such as productivity and cost due already high figures compared to the European average. However, it must be taken into account that all ANS providers in Europe are working to improve their cost-efficiency, so this picture is by no means static. Therefore the assumption is that a higher degree of integration among NEFAB ANSPs, cross-border arrangement of airspace volumes and sector configuration management have the potential to deliver future improvements, allowing the NEFAB area to accommodate future growth without a corresponding increased use of manpower. The following tables indicate the current situation within the NEFAB countries.

3) 2008 ACE Report evaluates Tampere ACC and Rovaniemi ACC as separate units.



Page 13 of 52

4.1.1 Services Provided and Cross-border Services

State ACC Units (Total approx number of

FTE ATCOs in ACCs

4)

Services Provided Cross-border Service Provision

Estonia Tallinn ACC

(18)

• En-route

• FIS combined with ATC service

No

Finland Tampere ACC

(62)

• En-route

•

• FIS combined with ATC service

• Delegated airspace to Sweden

• Delegated airspace to Norway

Latvia Riga ACC

(33)

• En-route

•

• FIS combined with ATC

No

Norway

Oslo ACC

Bodø ACC/OAC

Stavanger ACC

(153)

• En-route

• Approach

• Oceanic

• FIS (combined with ACC)

• Delegated airspace to/from Sweden

• Delegated airspace from Finland

4) Eurocontrol ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report



Page 14 of 52

4.1.2 LoAs, Endorsements, Cross-border Sequencing Services

State Number of Different Endorsement Groups

Cross-border Sequencing Availability

Estonia • Tallinn ACC – 3 Endorsement

groups with some ATCO holding all 3 endorsements; West, East, Feeder

• Estonia provides sequencing to Helsinki

Finland • Tampere ACC (EFES); Sectors

1,2,3 &45 (45 combined but will be separated in 2011

• Generally ATC hold endorsements for all sectors

• From Nov 2010: Rovaniemi ACC (EFPS) merged with EFES (forming EFIN)

• Sectors 1, 2, 3, 45, 6 and 7 are co-located at Tampere ACC

• ATC holds endorsement for all sectors (1-7)

• 5 TMC – Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Tampere-Pirkkala, Rovaniemi

• Sequencing service to Helsinki provided by Tallinn

Latvia • Riga ACC consists of 3 sectors:

North, South and East

• Riga TMC is 1 sector

• 1 TWR combined TMC - Liepaja

Norway • 15 sectors in total

• 16 TWR combined APP

• Traffic from Denmark is sequenced to Oslo

• Traffic from Sweden is sequenced to Oslo

4.1.3 Cost per Composite Flight Hour, ATC Productivity, Delay (minutes)

State ATCO employment cost

per Composite Flight Hour (Euros)

5

ATC Productivity (controlled flight hour / ATCO working hour)

5

Delays (Minutes of ATFM delays >15min (‘000)

5)

European average

127 0.95

523 (non-weighed average)

Estonia 40 1.48 2



Page 15 of 52

Finland 102 0.80 18

Latvia 37 1.07 N/A

Norway 106 0.98 84

5) Eurocontrol ACE benchmarking report 2008



Page 16 of 52

5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT

Efforts to improve ATS are not a new phenomenon. As well as European-wide initiatives such as SES ATM Research each participating state has some form of on-going development within the field. In order to capitalise on current research as well as planned initiatives, this ongoing development must be mapped. This chapter summarises the on going development of NEFAB ANSPs that can contribute to the goals of NEFAB ATS provision.

5.1 Baseline Assumptions

With the assumption of an annual traffic growth towards 2020, some new sectors and/or working positions may be established and manned. It is also assumed that traffic growth will be concentrated to and from the major NEFAB airports, and to some extent the regional airports which facilitate, e.g. seasonal traffic and/or low cost operations.

The required number of ATCOs is complex to estimate. Among other things the number will be dependent on airspace structures, systems and procedure development. It will also be dependent on traffic flows and complexity and a more detailed analysis will be required to make reliable estimates.

To estimate how the number of ATCOs will develop until 2020, assumptions have been made based on historical data. The assumption used is that costs will correlate to traffic increases until 2020, in the same way as they have in the years 2003-2007. Historical data (traffic growth vs. number of ATCOs in OPS) can only be used to extrapolate a baseline figure, as the effect of the envisaged changes to the operating environment brought on by NEFAB cannot be directly incorporated into this estimation.

With regard to the number of ATCOs, this method implies a growth of 15% by 2020. Efficiency improvements are considered likely to continue for ATCOs, due to more sophisticated systems and tools. Given an increase in capacity, there are also likely benefits of scale, as ATCO productivity tends to be lower in areas with low traffic volumes. It is therefore reasonable that an increase in traffic will generally correspond to a lower increase in the number of staff.

Furthermore, the following baseline assumptions have been made for 2020:

• No change in oceanic operations except for reduction of present separation minima and improvements in the interface between oceanic and continental airspace;

• New CNS/ATM technologies will evolve but will be implemented locally by the individual ANSP.

Some ongoing developments both within the NEFAB and externally that will contribute to the ATS initiative reaching its goals include:



Page 17 of 52

• Estonian and Helsinki (Vantaa ATM) system upgrade (Q1-Q2 2012) to the same software version and hardware infrastructure as Tampere ACC, enabling enhanced coordination procedures between the units through SYSCO OLDI.

• The SESAR (Single European Sky) ATM Research program aimed at increasing the efficiency in ATM has been launched. The implementation packages include several initiatives (e.g. advanced FUA, traffic synchronisation, CDM, etc.), which are closely related to the initiatives within NEFAB and therefore the efforts between NEFAB and SESAR activities should be coordinated between the participating states through NEAP. Additionally, the SESAR service level 2 and 3 implementations correspond roughly with the 2015 and 2020 milestones set for NEFAB.



Page 18 of 52

6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT

The NEFAB initiative is built around a concept of how ATS can be provided in a future ATM environment considering such things as system development and limitations, harmonisation issues as well as regulatory and political issues etc. The future service concept explains what the NEFAB project hopes to achieve by 2020 under both the Minimum and Performance Scenarios. In addition to these two long term concept scenarios, a medium term Vision 2015 is also described where NEFAB will be considered as the ‘Best Performing Airspace’ in Europe. The diagram below gives a graphical representation of the timeline milestones and scenarios.

6.1 Vision 2015

ATS routes and sectorisation initiative (initiative 1) provides the airspace and route structures on which ATS provision in 2015 is based. Following the design of cross-border sectors developed suitable for the traffic flows in the defined network (ATS route and/or FRA), more efficient sectorisation is achieved. The ATS provision in this environment is based on defining sector manning principles, including the potential use of multi sector planner where applicable, for the sectors and sector families. As cross-border sector solutions (static) are envisaged in the 2015 airspace design scenario, this should be reflected in the ATCO training and licensing schemes. The direct benefits of the static cross-border sectorisation are limited as the sector family grouping cannot be extended dynamically beyond the national ATM system. However, this sector definition is an enabler for the safe implementation of cross-border FRA, as defined by the airspace design initiative. Common sector manning principles regarding the use of multi-sector planners and single ATCO sector manning (low density scenarios) should be developed to ensure optimized service provision in this environment throughout the NEFAB area.



Page 19 of 52

As FRA is envisaged to be deployed cross-border in the 2015 scenario the ATS procedures must be adjusted to enable service provision in this environment. In some areas of NEFAB the traffic flows may be restricted to use specific points in order to facilitate traffic synchronisation and sequencing to “close-by” airports but the majority of sector-sector crossings in this environment will be on point- to point- routings crossing the AoR boundaries in unspecified locations. In order to facilitate traffic and conflict management in “random routing” environment the system support with regard to EST message delivery and system safety net functionality will need to be enhanced. Flight trajectory will need to be updated not only in the controlling sector but in the downstream sectors as well to ensure the validity of controller monitoring aid parameters, with regard to the actual flight path of the aircraft. System safety nets as developed by, e.g. the Eurocontrol FASTI program will be implemented in a harmonized way (parameters, look-ahead times, etc.), taking into account system specific requirements. Standard LoA based procedures may no longer be valid (handover procedures, DCT TO procedures, parallel offset, etc.) due to these procedures generally being point/route specific and they should be replaced in a cross-border “random routing” environment by system support, e.g. SYSCO OLDI functionality. This activity should be developed in parallel with the rules and procedures development, initiative 6. Flight Information Service (FIS) provision in cross-border sector environment will require further analysis as a need to provide this service in a national language of another state, especially in uncontrolled airspace,

Data link services will be implemented by 2015 and this will introduce a new way of working to the operational environment. The DL concept will enable task sharing between the planning and the executive controller and, depending on the message sets to be implemented, enable the automation of routine tasks. A common data link strategy, including the infrastructure and message sets will be defined for NEFAB area.

Flexible Use of Airspace in the Vision 2015 scenario has been implemented based on common rules and regulations and increased area modularity requiring similar adjustments to be made the ATS provision. Area activation and de-activation procedures, access rules, separation criteria and re-routing scenarios will be developed commonly to ensure a consistent level of ATS provision. Common ASM tools are expected to be in place by 2015 equipping the units providing ATS with real time ASM data to support their traffic/conflict management.

CDM processes, especially at the interfaces of “close-by” airports, will be enhanced to enable timely reaction and selection of appropriate ATS procedures in response to the changing environment. Runway configuration changes/closures, sequencing rate changes, sector configuration changes, capacity changes/constraints and airspace management related processes all have an impact on the provision of ATS and the CDM processes required to effectively distribute this data between all the relevant actors are required. As the network management in the 2015 vision is centralised only on a strategic level these processes must be managed pre-tactically and tactically on bi/tri-lateral basis. The processes may be managed through telephone coordination (pre-tactical teleconferences and tactical unit-to-unit coordination) or by using system support (e.g. interoperable ATM systems or sequencing tools). Some CDM enhancements will be enabled through the implementation of CFMU B2B (Business-to-business) connections between the service provision units and



Page 20 of 52

centralized data repositories, such as the CFMU DDR (Demand Data Repository) and ADR (Airspace Data Repository).

Traffic synchronisation procedures for cross-border AMAN/DMAN service are closely related to the enhancement of CDM processes and should be developed in parallel. Current cross-border AMAN/DMAN procedures should be enhanced to exploit the cross-border capability with regard to ATS procedures as well as to extend the sequencing horizon. In areas where traffic synchronisation is performed using sequencing tools, these tools should be made available to the appropriate upstream sectors capable of initiating the sequencing procedures. At “close-by” airports potentially benefiting from enhanced sequencing, where cross-border sequencer is currently not available such tools and procedures will be implemented. Where sequencing tools will not be used the affected traffic should be coordinated tactically by the available means in a proactive manner through CDM processes.

Vision 2015 enablers

As the Vision 2015 represents the initial implementation of cross-border operations the NEFAB regulatory framework and business model are required to accommodate this. Current ATCO licensing regulations enable cross-border ATS provision through the use of ATS delegated areas but do not as such extend to sectors.

NEFAB data link strategy will ensure a harmonised implementation with a common message set implemented.

Airspace changes and strategic ASM/ATFCM measures affecting the ATS provision in NEFAB are designed and implemented through a centralized function ensuring change management and uninterrupted ATS in the whole area.

System support is required to ensure cross-border FRA functionality; traffic/conflict management and traffic synchronisation (AMAN).

Common rules and procedures must be developed to enable cross-border ATS provision.

The development of the NEFAB-wide ATS CDM processes will require a separate project group to:

• Map the relevant processes and scope the need for change and common procedures;

• Involve the appropriate stakeholders and units;

• Develop and implement the CDM processes.

6.2 Minimum Scenario 2020

The Minimum Scenario 2020 describes the evolution from the 2015 vision to 2020 without implementing NEFAB specific initiatives and relying on the “business as usual” type of progression. This minimum scenario assumes that the improvements from 2015 to 2020 are mostly attributable to global ATM development and/or national



Page 21 of 52

projects with no real gains realised as a result of the NEFAB program. This can be due to, amongst other things, system, political or resource limitations (see chapter 10 for implementation risks).

Cross-border ATS provision will be subject to the limitations of the 2015 scenario, i.e. NEFAB-wide dynamic cross-border sector management is not implemented and the procedures are based on a static cross-border structure. Sector manning and resource management principles are therefore the same as in Vision 2015.

FRA implementation, as described in the initiative 1, has been extended to lower levels and therefore has enabled more widespread use of the airspace by operators. However, as the implementation is still based on based on static sectorisation as described above no additional internal benefits are expected. SYSCO OLDI functionalities will be used for tactical traffic management at the boundaries where available. The traffic/conflict management procedures may benefit from SESAR related implementation activities, especially with regard to trajectory data sharing through SWIM. However, the implementation of these functionalities should be regionally harmonised in order to fully extract the benefits available.

Data link services will be based on the same geographical scope and message set as in the Vision 2015. Additional benefits may be derived from the increased fleet equipage levels, reducing the number of non-data link equipped operations in airspace below FL285 and thus providing additional capacity benefits in this section of the airspace. This is dependent on the implementation scope of data link during initial implementation, whether or not traffic below FL285 can be accommodated.

Flexible Use of Airspace is based on the same area design principles in the Minimum Scenario 2020 as in the Vision 2015. However, in 2020 it is expected that the pre-tactical and tactical ASM/ATFCM has been centralised as well as the strategic ASM/ATFCM. This will enable the application of regional ASM/ATFCM solutions, e.g. routing scenarios as prepared D – 1 by the ASM/ATFCM function – in lieu of local scenarios ensuring overall enhanced network functionality.

CDM processes in the Minimum Scenario 2020 will benefit from the implementation of services supporting the Europe-wide network management, mainly the SWIM functionality. It is envisaged that the SWIM functionality will significantly enhance the data flow between the ATS units, airports and airspace users enabling data sharing of real time and planned activities as well as the proactivity of ATS units to changes in the environment and/or traffic flows. However, common infrastructure solutions and implementation would be required to get the full benefit instead of bilateral solutions.

Traffic synchronisation may benefit from the implementation activities related to the SESAR program, as the SWIM network may provide an extension to the sequencing horizon of the AMAN/DMAN tools. Local system integration between the automated AMAN/DMAN tools and the SWIM network is required. In areas where sequencing is based on other techniques than automated tools this will bring no additional benefits.

Minimum Scenario 2020 enablers



Page 22 of 52

In addition to the enablers listed for the Vision 2015 the Minimum Scenario 2020 relies mostly on SESAR implementation activities as coordinated by NEAP/NORACON.

6.3 Performance Scenario 2020

The Performance Scenario 2020 describes the most ambitious and yet possibly achievable scenario by 2020. Under the Performance Scenario 2020, NEFAB is envisaged to be the leading FAB in Europe. The performance scenario represents a continued evolution from the Vision 2015 and/or minimum scenario 2020 and the elements (content and benefits) described therein are as such included also in the performance scenario.

ATS provision is organized to complement the dynamic cross-border sectorisation as designed by the ATS routes and sectorisation initiative. This facilitates the allocation/consolidation of predefined sectors between units, supported by common rules, procedures, requirements and system interoperability. This will enable the application of dynamic demand-capacity balancing scenarios as developed by the ASM/ATFCM initiative, taking defined sector families/groups into consideration. Sectors can also be allocated to different units seasonally, daily or weekly or even to manage a specific flow during peak/off-peak traffic flows. Sectors can also be allocated statically as in the previous scenario in areas of consistent traffic flows. This functionality is not limited to ACC sectors alone but can also be applied (especially to manage specific ARR/DEP flows) in Dynamic TMA environment for “close-by” airports. ATS provision in this environment is further enhanced through the use of cross-border multi sector planners where appropriate, providing additional tools for optimized ATCO resource management both for peak and off-peak scenarios. In the performance scenario the FRA application has been extended to an even lower altitude and this will be taken into account in designing the appropriate sector configuration management scenarios.

ATCO licensing issues related to the Performance Scenario 2020 are to a large extent a regulatory issue but the ANSPs should work together with the NSAs to facilitate the implementation of cross-border licensing for dynamic airspace configurations enabling the efficient use of human resources both during the peak operations in a dynamic environment and off-peak operations during low density traffic flows. ATCO training, licensing and the related endorsements should enable flexible sector configuration management and grouping of sectors, whilst ensuring that the applied sector configuration can be safely managed during periods of high as well as low density traffic. NEFAB human resource management plan based on common manning principles will support the allocation and use of ATCOs, as well as other ATS related personnel in an efficient and cost effective way. Night-time/holiday scenarios can be further evaluated based on the availability of more advanced system support.

Traffic synchronisation, management and conflict management in the Performance Scenario 2020 environment will benefit from the full interoperability of the ATM systems required to support the enhanced cross-border operations. System safety nets will function unit-to-unit as they would within a unit providing assurance of safe and transparent operations within the NEFAB airspace. Safety net functionalities will support the changing sector shapes and sizes arising from dynamic sector allocation



Page 23 of 52

resulting in inherent airspace complexity and evolving traffic flows and orientation, ensuring the safety of operations. Advanced controller monitoring aids developed within the umbrella of SESAR and/or FASTI programmes can be deployed in areas of high traffic densities. SYSCO OLDI functionalities can be used by both upstream and downstream sectors for traffic management procedures.

Data link service provision is extended geographically and by including message sets required for traffic synchronisation (AMAN/DMAN connectivity) as well as route and area uplink functionality for traffic entering NEFAB outside the ECAC area and thus outside of the European network and trajectory management area.

Flexible Use of Airspace is implemented by applying extended area modularity as well as other advanced FUA structures. The ATS provision in this environment is enabled through the use of common ASM tools linked with the ATM system in order to provide real time airspace status data and coordination facilities to the ATCOs via the primary system.

CDM processes are further enhanced in collaboration with the ASM/ATFCM provision, airspace users and airports, taking full advantage of the SWIM-enabled information sharing.

Traffic synchronisation is enhanced through the use of common AMAN/DMAN tools interoperable with the ATM systems, including data link, and the centralized ASM/ATFCM function tasked with managing the NEFAB network. This development is closely linked with the enhanced CDM procedures for NEFAB. Sequencing horizon is extended as far as practical, enabling linear holding procedure utilisation and CDA/CCD procedures even during the peak traffic flows in normal operating conditions.

Performance Scenario 2020 enablers

The Performance Scenario for 2020 represents a major conceptual change to the Vision 2015 and Minimum Scenario 2020. It introduces the concept of dynamic airspace configurations enabled by enhanced ATM infrastructure. Therefore the enablers for the Performance Scenario 2020 are to a large extent either technological, or regulatory in nature.

Dynamic cross-border sectors (both in the en-route environment as well as with regard to TMAs) require:

• Advanced system support to manage the dynamic airspace configurations;

• Regulatory framework with regard to issues related to ANSP roles and responsibilities in dynamic cross-border operations, as well as issues related to national security and sovereignty;

• Regulatory framework to support ATCO licensing in dynamic operational environment;

• Advanced system support to manage the airspace configurations between systems and to provide the ATCOs with safety nets and traffic/conflict management tools in an inherently complex operational environment;



Page 24 of 52

• Advanced CDM processes and SWIM-enabled information sharing to ensure sufficient lead times and proactive management of the airspace configurations and the network managed within

Data link service extension requires interoperability between several components of the ATM system as well as common agreed DL infrastructure, message sets and procedures.

ATS provision in the Advanced FUA scenario requires system support to integrate the required ASM tool functionalities to the primary ATM systems. The ASM/ATFCM processes developed by the appropriate initiative are required to release the capacity of the ATS units from ASM related coordination tasks to the primary task; provision of air traffic services.

CDM processes require system support in integrating the relevant SWIM-enabled data flows to the ATM system used to provide ATS.

Enhanced AMAN/DMAN procedures require the deployment of common AMAN/DMAN systems (or systems with a high degree of commonality and interoperability to enable common functions and parameters to be applied) integrated with the ATM system and taking advantage of the SWIM network and data link functionality.

All of the above are supported by extensive common set of operational rules and procedures and training to ensure the safety of operations in a complex environment and enable the extraction of the full benefits (internal and external) of highly advanced ATS provision.



Page 25 of 52

7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS

The underlying driver for the creation of the NEFAB is the requirement to provide more efficient ATM. In order to determine improvements attributable to NEFAB the following Key Performance Area’s (KPAs) are used:

• Cost efficient operations for the ANSP;

• Cost reductions for the airspace user;

• Capacity;

• Level of safety;

• Environmental effects.

This chapter describes the potential benefits (qualitative/quantitative, internal/external) that airspace users as well as participating service providers can expect as a result of the formation of the NEFAB in terms of the KPAs. The quantitative benefits will be fully evaluated in a separate cost-benefit analysis document and socio-economic analysis. There are also risks associated with the concepts and they are addressed separately in chapter 10 – Implementation Risks.

7.1 Description of Benefit Potential, Vision 2015

Cross-border sectors enable the implementation of cross-border FRA whilst maintaining the overall functionality of the airspace. Re-aligned cross-border sectors ensure the safety of ATS provision by ensuring sufficient lead-time for entry/exit coordination for potentially conflicting traffic. Due to the sectors being “static” the internal benefits expected from this implementation relate to aligning the sectors according to the FRA traffic flows enabling a more balanced traffic load distribution and enable traffic synchronisation by the delivering sector avoiding short cross-sector flight times, Additional benefits are available through concepts applied nationally, e.g. multi sector planner. Operator benefits available through the implementation of cross-border sectors are assessed by the airspace design initiative.

NEVAC modelling of the airspace solution designed by the ATS Routes and Sectorisation initiative (initiative 1) will be used to calculate estimated savings in terms of FTEs. As the Vision 2015 is based on the use of static cross-border sectors the, human resource saving achievable directly through ATS provision in the 2015 airspace solution are limited. However, through the development of a common multi sector planner concept, evaluating night-time/holiday service provision scenarios and other such initiatives a possibility for HR savings exist. These can be evaluated using the NEVAC application following a further definition of NEFAB service provision principles and airspace.

An initial NEVAC analysis was performed to assess effects of the 2015 vision Airspace/Sector Improvement Areas. The objective of the analysis was to compare



Page 26 of 52

two scenarios to see the benefits which could be achieved due to the improvement areas envisaged for the 2015 vision.

Sectorisation / Traffic sample (ref. initiative 1 for details):

Reference scenario:

• Current sectorisation.

Improvement areas:

• Cross-border improvement areas, allocated to sectors depending on operational assessment. Only one option was analysed for the CBA scope.

A full evaluation of the improvement areas and where to allocate them has not been done yet.

In both scenarios Free Route Airspace was applied and the traffic was increased to 2015 level (according to STATFOR and the NAT traffic forecasting group forecast, +21% for the NEFAB area, 2015 vs. 2008). The traffic sample represented 1 week of traffic in June (23 to 29 June 2008 increased to 2015 traffic levels). Traffic was assigned to the shortest route (calculated with SAAM) and the military activity was set to “ON.” The analysis encompassed ACC sectors that extend above FL195. Only the sectorisation was changed between the scenarios (other variables constant), therefore allowing comparing only the improvement areas impact. Capacities were adjusted for some sectors to reflect perceived changes in complexity/ workload (see Methodology 3 below).

Methodology :

1. Allocation of the improvement areas to sectors in the context of the CBA.

2. Check of the possible combinations of sectors / configurations.

3. Assessment of sector capacities based on operational judgment

• Reference scenario: As the reference scenario is with current sectorisation, but free route airspace, some sectors have an increased workload due to non-alignment with the new traffic flows. As a consequence, some capacities were decreased in specific areas.

• Improvement areas scenario: Some improvement areas also have an impact on the controller workload in some sectors. In these cases, the capacity has been evaluated and adapted accordingly.

4. Optimisation of the sector openings with NEVAC

• Reduce the overload to minimum possible, measure remaining overload

• Optimise the number of sectors opened needed, measure total number of controller hours needed



Page 27 of 52

5. Compare overload and controller working position hours in both scenarios.



Page 28 of 52

Results:

Based on the full week of traffic, the following savings could be achieved thanks to the improvement areas6:

• -1% in controller hours

• -13% in overload (total overload is at a level comparable with today)

This indicates that the improvement areas (for the options chosen for the CBA scope) will allow working with the Free Route Airspace, with 2015 levels of traffic, using roughly the same amount of controller hours.

The NEVAC analysis shows that without the improvement areas, the overload and delays would be higher.

The NEFAB ATS system is adjusted to provide services in a FRA environment across most of the FAB. Traffic /conflict management is in FRA is enabled by aligning the sectors according to the traffic flows. This will also enable the airspace users to flight plan a trajectory closer to the optimum as opposed to a fixed ATS route, reducing the need for tactical re-routing by using DCT clearances. This can be expected to reduce the ATCO workload and release some capacity from the appropriate ACC sectors. SYSCO OLDI functions used for tactical ATS traffic management will additionally increase capacity by reducing the need for manual/verbal coordination between units. Operator benefits available through the implementation of FRA are assessed by the airspace design initiative.

Data link implementation through a common data link strategy which extends beyond the minimum required message set has the potential for significant capacity gains. Use of data link enables a higher degree of task sharing between the PLC and EC working in the same sector balancing the workload and increasing the sector capacity. Automated DL functions extending beyond the minimum message set; like SSR code uplink and transfer/assume will increase the sector capacity even further. Additional benefits for the ANSP can be derived from common DL strategy development, including the procurement of equipment. These benefits will be evaluated by the systems initiatives.

Common application of operational rules and procedures related to the FUA concept will enable a network level airspace and trajectory management. The use of common ASM tools related to the tactical use of the areas and their impact on the network as well as real time airspace data sharing have a positive safety effect by reducing ambiguity related to airspace status. Automated ASM tools may also have, depending on the current local FUA application, an effect on the sector capacity and controller workload by reducing the need for manual coordination related to the use of the military areas.

Enhanced CDM processes have a positive effect on the safety by reducing the need for “ad hoc” traffic management decisions by ATC and improving the predictability related to changes to the operational environment (airspace and runway configurations, sequencing measures, re-routing scenarios for capacity balancing, etc.). This will be also reflected in the controller workload and sector capacity to some degree. External benefits include the availability of options for operators during



Page 29 of 52

peak times resulting in a reduction of delays both on the ground and while airborne. This is in turn reflected in reduced fuel consumption and environmental effect.

Enhanced AMAN/DMAN procedures will reduce delays and enable linear holding procedures to be used by the operators resulting in increased fuel economy and reduced environmental impact. Additionally, enabling the sequencing procedures to commence already at upstream sectors through the use of shared/common AMAN/DMAN tools will reduce the need for late sequencing procedure application by the feeder/stacker – sectors reducing the workload at the downstream sectors delivering the traffic to the approach control. Departures can be optimized at busy airports reducing the need for extended waiting times prior to take – off with the engines running.

The NEFAB centralised strategic ASM/ATFCM function will provide the appropriate units with data on planned ATM events, military exercises and specific traffic flows (e.g. Lapland Axis) in advance to enable efficient human resource planning and procedures to accommodate these events with regard to the ATS provision.

The tables below illustrate the benefits under Vision 2015 scenario.

7.1.1 Potential Benefits – Vision 2015

Initiative Benefit

Provision of cross-border ATS based on cross-border sector design

• Increased safety through sufficient lead-time for entry/exit coordination for potentially conflicting FRA traffic

• Increased safety and traffic flow through traffic synchronisation in a cross-border sector

• Demand-capacity balancing through the alignment of sectors according to the traffic flows. Sector capacity better exploited and 2015 traffic levels accommodated.

• Increased efficiency and cost effectiveness through the application of common sector manning principles and concepts

• Increased efficiency and cost effectiveness through the application of night-time/holiday scenarios.

• Potential operator benefits assessed in the airspace design initiative

Provision of ATS in FRA airspace

• Reduction in controller workload due to reduced coordination and system support

• Increase in sector capacity due to reduced coordination and system support



Page 30 of 52

• Non-quantitative customer benefits (customer satisfaction)

• Potential operator benefits assessed in the airspace design initiative

Provision of ATS using data link services

• Increase in sector capacity and reduction in ATCO workload through task sharing

• Increase in sector capacity and reduction in ATCO workload through task automation

• DL infrastructure and procurement related benefits to be assessed in the system initiatives

Provision of ATS in enhanced FUA environment

• Increased safety through the availability of real time airspace data in a FRA environment

• Increased capacity through automation of ASM tasks in CWPs

Provision of ATS using enhanced CDM processes

• Increased safety through the availability relevant shared data and processes

• Increase in sector capacity and reduction in ATCO workload through coordinated events

• Operator benefits through the availability of options reducing delays and waiting periods

Enhanced traffic synchronisation services

• Safety increase through earlier application of sequencing procedures

• Increase in sector capacity and reduction in ATCO workload through task sharing with upstream sectors

• Operator benefit through reduced delays

• Operator benefit through extended sequencing horizon and predictability

• Operator benefit through increased CDA potential

• Non-quantitative operator benefits (customer satisfaction)

• Reduction in environmental impact through CDA and linear holding

7.2 Benefits Realised by the Minimum Scenario 2020

With regard to ATS provision related benefits arising from the airspace design initiative the scope of the changes and benefits is the same in the minimum scenario



Page 31 of 52

for 2020 as it is in the Vision 2015. With regard to CDM processes and ATS procedures related to traffic/conflict management and traffic synchronisation the main driver for the potential benefits is the SESAR programme and therefore these benefits are out of scope for this initiative.

As it is envisaged within the ASM/ATFCM initiative that the ASM/ATFCM pre-tactical and tactical functions will be centralized by 2020 some additional ATS related benefits may be derived from this process. As the coordination of planned and real time airspace activities (area activation/de-activation, ad hoc re-routing scenarios, etc.) affect the ATS procedures, it is expected that ATS capacity and efficiency benefits will be derived through this centralisation. Additionally, the reduction of ad hoc measures required to be taken by the ATCO in the CWP enhance the routing predictability for the operators resulting in increased flight efficiency, as well as increase the overall safety of operations. The potential military mission effectiveness benefits are to be considered within the ASM/ATFCM initiative.

7.3 Benefits Realised by the Performance Scenario 2020

The benefits described for the Vision 2015 and minimum scenario 2020 are applicable as such to the performance scenario as well and are not explicitly listed here.

The dynamic sector configuration management will enable ATS areas of responsibility to be allocated according to the traffic flows and orientation to enable seamless traffic/conflict management and traffic synchronisation, This will ensure the ATCOs have sufficient airspace and reaction time to manage the traffic safely and smoothly. The sector groupings will have the potential to provide optimized demand-capacity balancing scenarios and scaling of operations enabling a more efficient use of resources, cost efficiency improvements can be derived by applying cross-border multi sector planner functionality where applicable. These techniques are not limited to cross-border activities alone but can also be employed within states for additional internal benefits.

Common licensing, endorsement and training scheme incorporated into a NEFAB resource management plan will enable the availability of the appropriate ATS resources required for national and cross-border activities, taking into account seasonal, weekly and daily variations, including potential night time/holiday scenarios.

Deployment of the system functionalities required for traffic/conflict management in a dynamic environment will ensure the safety of cross-border operations by enabling safety nets and coordination facilities functionality in different airspace configurations. Smooth and seamless operations between units are enabled ensuring service continuity throughout NEFAB, Capacity and efficiency increase is envisaged to be achieved through system supported coordination and automation.

Extension of data link services for ATS provision will enable further capacity and efficiency gains by enhanced task sharing between the EC and PLC controllers and by automating additional tasks and reducing RT load. Operator benefits can be achieved through timely availability of e.g. sequencing and/or trajectory data enabling performance adjustments to reach optimal flight profile. Late traffic synchronisation



Page 32 of 52

manoeuvres at low altitudes can be reduced increasing operator cost efficiency and reducing environmental impact. Overall safety of operations is enhanced through reduced ambiguity in ATC clearance delivery and reception as compared to those provided over conventional RT.

The interoperability between the ASM support systems and the main ATM systems will ensure the timely and correct availability of airspace status enhancing the overall safety of operations. This will also enable the selection of re-routing scenario suitable for the overall NEFAB network reducing also the downstream sector workload and enabling optimal profile for the airspace user. Reduction of manual inputs required for data duplication in different systems will increase the capacity and efficiency of the associated roles (ATC or support staff, as appropriate).

The enhanced CDM processes encompassing the ATS, airport functions, ASM/ATFCM and supported by system enabling information sharing and traffic synchronisation will ensure smooth and flexible operations between all participating actors enhancing overall network functionality and safety. Delays and waiting times will be reduced for the airspace users.

7.3.1 Potential Benefits – Performance Scenario 2020

Initiative Benefit

Provision of cross-border ATS based on dynamic cross-border functionality

• Enhanced traffic/conflict management and traffic synchronisation; safe and seamless operations

• Optimized demand-capacity balancing scenarios enabling a more efficient use of resources

• (Cross-border) multi sector planner functionality improving cost efficiency

NEFAB HR plan • Timely availability of the appropriate ATS resources

Deployment of system functionalities for dynamic cross-border environment

• Safety of cross-border operations improved

• Smooth and seamless operations between units

• Capacity and efficiency increase

Extension of data link services

• Capacity and efficiency increase

• Operator benefits through enabling optimal flight profile

• Reduced environmental impact

• Overall safety of operations is improved

System interoperability


• Reducing the (downstream sector) workload



Page 33 of 52

• Enabling optimal flight profile

• Increased capacity and efficiency

The enhanced CDM processes


• Enhanced overall network functionality

• Reduced delays and waiting times for the airspace users



Page 34 of 52

8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION

Realisation of the NEFAB Vision 2015 and Scenarios for 2020 is based on a set of enablers and requirements. This chapter describes the required activities that must be undertaken in order to facilitate the initiatives described in chapter 7.

When establishing the timeline for activities within the NEFAB program it is necessary to make certain assumptions and to rely on activities within other initiatives. Such preconditions and assumptions include:

• ATM system capabilities at a suitable maturity level and suitable compatibility level. The system requirements to support the operational concept are not only based on the requirements of ATS but also those of airspace design and ASM/ATFCM and the requirements will need to be consolidated and coherently implemented to support these initiatives.

• NSA cooperation and coordination is required to establish the regulatory framework to enable cross-border activities. EC directives support the formation of FABs and provide the mandate for harmonisation of national aviation law and rules.

• NEFAB business and governance models need to support the common planning, implementation and application of cross-border activities, including human resource allocation.

• An availability of suitably qualified resources in each participating state for the development, implementation and continued operation of the described initiatives is required.

• An availability and willingness of participating ANSPs to invest in the initiative, as well as the ratio of investment required between the ANSPs. Many initiatives require an initial capital investment with a related pay back period. The costs and pay back periods are evaluated in a separate cost benefit analysis.

• Military cooperation required, including states as well as multinational alliances.

• Mature airspace solution is agreed upon (initiative 1).

• Harmonised Rules and Procedures are developed (initiative 6).

• Harmonised ATCO training is implemented (initiative 7).

8.1 Vision 2015 Costs

Although Vision 2015 is not as ambitious as the 2020 performance scenario, much of the foundation work during this period will facilitate the gains expected to year 2020. As a result some of the costs are included in the Vision 2015 but the benefits are within Performance Scenario 2020. The table below describes, in broad terms, the



Page 35 of 52

implementation costs drivers expected in order to reach Vision 2015. Generally all ATS implementation activities include procedure development and training related costs and these are included in the tables below to ensure that the costs are targeted to the appropriate initiative and not duplicated within other initiatives. Further detailed evaluation of the associated costs is included in the cost benefit analysis for this initiative.

8.1.1 Implementation Costs – Vision 2015

Financial Costs - Vision 2015

Cost driver Cost description

Implementation of communications and surveillance infrastructure to support ATS with cross-border sectors

• Surveillance data sharing is required; sharing of current data can be used instead of new infrastructure

• COM coverage is required; shared use of existing communications infrastructure needs to be evaluated

• Training and procedures development for TECH staff

ATM system support for cross-border ATS

• Available to a large extent within existing/forthcoming (pre 2015) system families (FRESH)

• Functionality between system families to be evaluated

• Training and procedures development for TECH staff

ATS provision for cross-border sectors

• OPS procedure development for cross-border ATS

• Training for OPS and support staff

• Sector manning principle development and alignment of national HR plans

ATS through data link • Development of NEFAB data link strategy

• Development and implementation of data link infrastructure, HMI and message sets

• Data link ATS procedures development



Page 36 of 52

• Training for OPS, TECH and support staff

ATS in common FUA environment • ATS procedure development for common FUA and ASM tools

• OPS, TECH and support staff training

• FUA implementation costs (ASM/ATTFCM procedures, structure design and implementation) to be assessed within the ASM/ATFCM initiative

Implementation of CDM processes • System support for information sharing; including TECH procedures and training

• CDM procedure development

• CDM procedure training for OPS and support staff

AMAN/DMAN enhancements • Implementation of sequencer tools for select airports and associated upstream ACC sectors

• Development of AMAN/DMAN procedures in accordance/jointly with the CDM processes

• Training for OPS and TECH staff

8.2 Minimum Scenario 2020 Costs

As the 2020 Minimum scenario is a continuation of the Vision 2015 and the developments within the scenario are driven by external projects no additional costs are foreseen. The costs associated with the enhanced procedures related to the centralisation of strategic ASM/ATFCM functions will be evaluated within the ASM/ATFCM initiative.

8.3 Performance Scenario 2020 Costs

The Performance Scenario 2020 will require the most investment and resources from the participating ANSPs. The costs in this scenario are driven by system investments related to the implementation of dynamic cross-border functionalities. Generally all ATS implementation activities include procedure development and training related costs and these are included in the tables below to ensure that the costs are targeted to the appropriate initiative and not duplicated within others. Further detailed evaluation of the associated costs is included in the cost benefit analysis for this initiative. Although this requires investment from the NEFAB participants it is also assumed that some of the technological improvements required for the



Page 37 of 52

implementation of the Performance Scenario 2020 will be developed within the SESAR program.

8.3.1 Implementation Costs – Performance Scenario 2020

Financial Costs – Performance scenario 2020

Cost driver Cost description

Implementation of ATM system functionalities to support ATS with dynamic cross-border sectors

• Implementation of dynamic cross-border sector management functionality

• Implementation of coordination functionality (coordination messages and trajectory management) for dynamic cross-border sectors

• Implementation of ATCO safety net functionalities for dynamic cross-border sector operations

• Training and procedures for TECH staff

Implementation of communications and surveillance infrastructure

• Implement communications and surveillance services which can be managed to support the dynamic sector allocation scenarios


Implementation of ATS provision in dynamic cross-border sector environment

• Development and implementation of ATS procedures required

• Development of cross-border multi sector planner procedures based on NEFAB best practices


• Implementation of NEFAB HR plan

Implement enhanced data link functionality

• Establish interoperability between AMAN/DMAN and data link functionalities

• Establish interoperability between ASM support systems and data link functionalities

• Implement common enhanced data link services base on harmonised message sets



Page 38 of 52

• OPS and TECH procedures development for data link service provision

• OPS and TECH training

Interoperability between ASM and ATS systems

• Implement interoperability between the systems to ensure real time airspace status display and coordination via the main ATM – system

• OPS, TECH and support staff procedures and training

Further enhancement of the CDM processes utilizing advanced information sharing facilities

• Implement enhanced system support for CDM

• Develop and implement procedures for enhanced CDM for OPS, TECH, support staff and other actors participating in the CDM process

Implement enhanced AMAN/DMAN

• Implementation of system support for advanced AMAN/DMAN interoperable with the ATS system, including data link, ASM/ATFCM support systems and CDM

• Develop and implement procedures for enhanced AMAN/DMAN

• Training for OPS, TECH and support staff, including CDM process participants



Page 39 of 52

9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION

The table below describes the estimated time line for implementation of the NEFAB ATS improvement initiatives. This time line needs ot be kept aligned with the time lines for initiatives such as the ASM and ATFCM initiative (initiative 4), Rules and Procedures initiative (initiative 6) as well as the ATS Routes and Sectorisation initiative (initiative 1) due to common dependencies.

9.1.1 High Level Road Map – Vision 2015

Concept Start Date End Date Duration Dependencies

1. ATS provision in static cross-border sector scenario

• Implementation of communications and surveillance infrastructure to support ATS with cross-border sectors

• ATM system support for cross-border ATS

• Common sector manning principles

• ATS procedures and training

2011

2015

5 years

• NEFAB regulatory framework, including ATCO licensing

• Mature airspace design

• Rules and procedures in place

• Training requirements and criteria

• ASM/ATFCM procedures established

• MIL commitment

2. ATS through data link

• Common NEFAB data link strategy

• Development and implementation of data link infrastructure

• Development of HMI and message sets

• Data link ATS procedures development

• Training for OPS, TECH and support staff

2011

2015



Page 40 of 52

3. ATS in common FUA environment

• ATS procedure development for common FUA and ASM tools

• OPS, TECH and support staff training

2012 2014 3 years Common FUA established (ASM/ATFCM initiative)

ASM/ATFCM initiative is the leader, joint procedure development between the initiatives

4. Implementation of CDM processes

• System support for information sharing

• CDM procedure development

• CDM procedure training for OPS, TECH and support staff

2011 2014 4 years Linked to the strategic ASM/ATFCM development; time line aligned

Airport CDM to be integrated

5. AMAN/DMAN enhancements

• Implementation of sequencer tools for select airports and associated upstream ACC sectors

• Development of AMAN/DMAN procedures in accordance/jointly with the CDM processes

• Training for OPS and TECH staff

2011 2015 5 years



Page 41 of 52

9.1.2 High Level Road Map – Performance Scenario 2020

* Note: The CBA (see separate document) for this initiative is in the Performance scenario based on a benefit realisation stemming from dynamic cross-border functionality already in 2017.

Concept Start Date End Date Duration Dependencies

1. ATS provision in dynamic cross-border sector scenario

• Implementation of dynamic cross-border sector management functionality

• Implementation of communications and surveillance infrastructure

• Implementation of coordination functionality (coordination messages and trajectory management)

• Implementation of ATCO safety net functionalities

• Development and implementation of ATS procedures

• Develop of cross-border multi sector planner procedures


• Implementation of NEFAB HR plan


2014

2017

3 years

• Start date dependent on the implementation of static cross-border sectors; cannot precede the implementation of static solution



Page 42 of 52

2. Implement enhanced data link functionality

• Establish interoperability between AMAN/DMAN and data link functionalities

• Establish interoperability between ASM support systems and data link functionalities

• Implement common enhanced data link services

• OPS and TECH procedures development for data link service provision

• OPS and TECH training

2015

2020

6 years

3. Interoperability between ASM and ATS systems

• Implement interoperability between the systems

• OPS, TECH and support staff procedures and training

2014 2017 3 years In place for the centralised pre-tactical ASM/ATFCM

4. Further enhancement of the CDM processes

• Implement enhanced system support for CDM

• Develop and implement procedures for enhanced CDM for OPS, TECH, support staff and other actors

2014 2019 5 years In place before the implementation of dynamic sector configurations



Page 43 of 52

participating in the CDM process

5. Implement enhanced AMAN/DMAN

• Implementation of system support for advanced AMAN/DMAN interoperable with the ATS-system – including data link, ASM/ATFCM support systems and CDM

• Develop and implement procedures for enhanced AMAN/DMAN

• Training for OPS, TECH and support staff, including CDM – process participants

2015 2019 5 years In conjunction with CDM developments



Page 44 of 52

10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS

This chapter describes risks associated with the implementation of the NEFAB. The ATS initiative team has identified relevant risks and listed these together with an assessment of how significant the risk is (Risk Classification) as well as potential Risk Impact and a Risk Mitigation strategy. The risks associated with the implementation are not limited to the following list.

The risks are mostly legal and/or political and as such need to be further detailed and processed by the relevant legal tracks within the NEFAB development. Risks regarding the implementation of NEFAB wide ATS provision improvements include at least the following items:

ICAO rules and regulations

• ICAO requirements regarding service provision, including the area of responsibility of a service provider, pose potential limitations to cross-border functionalities. Additionally, FUA application and cross-border area operations are not fully recognized by ICAO.

European Commission regulations

• While the EC regulations as such do not pose a risk to FAB development they might require additional or different measures to those listed in this initiative. Furthermore, the timelines for implementation might differ from those outlined in this initiative and therefore the FAB implementation plans need to be revised according to new and/or revised SES regulations.

EASA/Eurocontrol /SESAR regulations and requirements

• EASA and/or Eurocontrol requirements and implementation rules and SESAR program deliverables may have a different ambition level and functional requirements to those outlined in this document.

National laws and regulations

• Differences in the national laws, aviation acts, and other associated regulations may pose a risk to ATS provision development in the NEFAB, especially in cross-border operations and delegating responsibilities to centralized units.

National interests

• National militaries and national sovereignty issues

• Military interests within the NEFAB states differ somewhat due to issues such as operational requirements, geopolitical issues, partnership agreements and alliances and so forth. Unless the different military requirements and sovereignty issues can be accommodated in an acceptable yet harmonized way, this poses a major risk to the FAB development, especially with in relation to the provision of ATS.

ANSP interests



Page 45 of 52

• The national service providers have their interests in both resource utilisation and revenue sharing. Optimal airspace use and network management is not viable unless these issues are dealt with. ANSP commitment and common agreement between the ANSPs are at the very core of the success – failure case of FAB development.

Political agreements

• When dealing with issues such as combining ATS service provision units, political level agreements will be required (parliamentary and/or ministry level). Unless a common understanding between the states on the service provision principles can be assured, the centralisation of units may prove to be impossible.

10.1 Vision 2015 Implementation Risks

The initiatives described in the Future Service Concept chapter are listed and assessed in this section. The following risk classification scheme has been applied in the high level risk assessment of the scenarios:

Risk classification:

Low < 40%

Medium 40-70%

High >70%

10.1.1 ATS Provision in Static Cross-border Sectorisation

Risk 1: NEFAB regulatory framework, licensing requirements and rules and procedures not implemented

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Not legally possible to provide ATS over foreign territory/FIR/UIR

Risk Mitigation

• NSA and state level coordination and co-operation enabling the cross-border functionality

• A clear timetable needs to be set for the completion of a set of common rules and regulations

Risk 2: System support not in place

Risk Level: Low



Page 46 of 52

Risk Impact:

• Only possible to provide cross-border services in some areas within system families (COOPANS, FRESH)

Risk Mitigation

• Cooperation between ANSPs to ensure consensus, common agreed concept and required interoperability

Risk 3: . ATS procedures and manning principles are not in place.

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Only possible to provide cross-border services in some areas on bi-lateral basis

Risk Mitigation

• Cooperation between ANSPs to ensure consensus, common agreed concept and required interoperability Utilisation of best practises/methods based on existing projects

10.1.2 ATS through Data Link

Risk 1: No common NEFAB data link strategy, implementation and procedures

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Data link services fragmented between the ANSPs

• Service continuity between the service providers inconsistent

• Implementation costs higher

Risk Mitigation

• Common strategy should be agreed to enable a common implementation of data link services according to the data link regulation



Page 47 of 52

10.1.3 ATS in Common FUA Environment

ATS procedure development for common FUA and ASM tools

OPS, TECH and support staff training

Risk 1: Common FUA ATS procedures not in place

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Fragmented implementation of FUA not supporting ATS in NEFAB FRA environment and network functionality

• Operator benefits reduced

• ATS complexity and workload at the interfaces increases

Risk Mitigation

• ASM/ATFCM initiative to develop the procedures in co-operation with the ATS initiative according to a common schedule

Risk 2: Common ASM system support not in place

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Lack of real time airspace data; sub-optimal use of airspace

• Operator benefits reduced, no common re-routing scenarios available

• ATS complexity and workload at the interfaces increases

Risk Mitigation

• ASM/ATFCM initiative to implement ASM system support in co-operation with the ATS initiative according to a common schedule

10.1.4 Implementation of CDM Processes

Risk 1: System support and procedures for CDM not implemented

Risk Level: Medium



Page 48 of 52

Risk Impact:

• CDM relies on manual/verbal procedures, additional resources are required and efficiency is lost.

Risk Mitigation

• CDM system support requirements should be specified jointly by all involved parties.

• Available services (e.g. CFMU B2B services) and COTS products should be utilized to provide readily available and cost efficient system solutions

Risk 2: CDM processes not correctly scoped, participation by all actors not ensured

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• CDM relies on manual/verbal procedures to incorporate external actors, additional resources are required and efficiency is lost.

Risk Mitigation

• CDM process definition and scope should be specified jointly by all involved parties

10.1.5 AMAN/DMAN Enhancements

Risk 1: Systems support is not mature and procedures not established

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Unable to provide cross-border sequencing service in some areas

Risk Mitigation

• A clear vision of the goal that should be achieved must be created and agreed upon

• A clear timetable needs to be set for the development of system support



Page 49 of 52

• Establishment of standards and cooperation between ANSPs

10.2 Performance Scenario 2020 Implementation Risks

10.2.1 ATS Provision in Dynamic Cross-border Sector Scenario

Risk 1: NEFAB regulatory framework, licensing requirements and rules and procedures not implemented

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Cross-border ATS provision not possible in some areas

Risk Mitigation

• NSA and state level coordination and co-operation enabling the cross-border functionality

• A clear timetable needs to be set for the completion of a set of common rules and regulations

Risk 2: Required system support not implemented.

Risk Level: Medium

Risk Impact: Implementation of airspace solution and ATS procedures not possible

Risk Mitigation


• Consistency and dependencies between the initiatives to be ensured

Risk 3: Common procedures for dynamic cross-border area not developed.

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact: Service continuity disruptions possible in the area of common interest, depending on which unit is providing the services. Potential safety issues.

Risk Mitigation



Page 50 of 52



10.2.2 Enhanced Data Link Functionality

Risk 1: No common NEFAB data link strategy, implementation and procedures

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Data link services fragmented between the ANSPs

• Service continuity between the service providers inconsistent


Risk Mitigation

• Common strategy should be agreed to enable a common implementation of data link services according to the data link regulation

Risk 2: No common system support and system interoperability for the enhanced data link capabilities

Risk Level: Medium

Risk Impact:

• Data link services fragmented between the ANSPs due to different level of available interoperability and messages used

• Benefit potential not realised due to incomplete interoperability between systems


Risk Mitigation

• Common strategy should be agreed to enable a common implementation of enhanced data link services

• Consistency with system development initiative to be ensured



Page 51 of 52

10.2.3 Interoperability Between ASM and ATS Systems

Risk 1: Interoperability between the required systems not established

Risk Level: Low

Risk Impact:

• Manual duplication of data to different systems required, workload increased and information inconsistency possible

• Separate coordination tool from the main system increases the workload

Risk Mitigation

• ASM/ATFCM initiative to develop ASM system support in co – operation with the ATS initiative according to a common schedule

• Consistency with system development initiative to be ensured

10.2.4 Further Enhancement of the CDM Processes

Risk 1: System support and procedures for enhanced CDM not implemented

Risk Level: Medium

Risk Impact:

• CDM relies on manual/verbal procedures, additional resources are required and efficiency is lost.

• Tactical centralised network management related procedures not possible (ASM/ATFCM related)

Risk Mitigation

• CDM system support requirements should be specified jointly by all involved parties.

• Available services (e.g. CFMU B2B services) and COTS products should be utilized to provide readily available and cost efficient system solutions



Page 52 of 52

10.2.5 Implementation of Enhanced AMAN/DMAN

Risk 1: Systems support for interoperable AMAN/DMAN and procedures not established

Risk Level: Medium

Risk Impact:

• Unable to provide enhanced traffic synchronisation and NEFAB wide tactical trajectory management

Risk Mitigation



• A clear timetable needs to be set for the development of system support together with system development initiative

Documents

NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Report Initiative 3 Optimisation of … · included in the scope of the initiative are the service elements of Tower, FIS, AFIS, ALERT, and ADVS. The