Cuma Civ. Mil

Siluri

A Study on Existing Legislation, Regulation, Procedures and Practices across ECAC and Relevant Non-ECAC States in the Joint Civil-Military use of Military Aerodromes

Version: 1.0 Date: 19 August 2008 Undertaken on behalf of DCMAC, EUROCONTROL, by Siluri Integration Ltd The Studio, Llanbedr, Crickhowell, NP8 1SR UK Tel: +44 1873 810316

Siluri CUMA Fact Finding Study

19 August 2008 Siluri Integration Ltd

Page | i

Executive Summary

1. Background, Rationale and Conduct of the Study The European air transport market continues to grow and demand is forecast

to increase by a further 70% by 2020. The air transport system’s ability to accommodate this increased demand safely and efficiently is a major challenge and airport capacity in particular has been identified as a significant limiting factor. The joint civil-military use of military aerodromes is already undertaken in many ECAC States and, whilst its expansion has been mentioned as a possible contribution to increasing overall airport capacity, the measure has not yet been considered in detail.

Acknowledging that defence matters remain a state prerogative, the

EUROCONTROL Directorate of Civil-Military ATM Coordination (DCMAC), with support from the Military ATM Board (MAB) and Civil-Military Interface Committee (CMIC), has launched an initiative to investigate the joint Civil Use of Military Aerodromes (CUMA). The initiative comprises two parts, this initial fact finding study and an ad hoc CUMA Task Force comprising national military representatives and appropriate EUROCONTROL experts.

The aim of the fact finding study is to investigate existing legislation,

regulation, procedures and practices in the joint civil-military use of military aerodromes across ECAC states and the USA to assess the feasibility of its future expansion. It is argued that such expansion could contribute to overall airport capacity, which would be in the wider public interest, and would benefit from a harmonized approach. The Task Force will develop a set of guidelines and recommendations to support states in the development of CUMA.

CUMA is well-established in many ECAC states, routinely overseen through

national agreements between MOD, MOT and local governments. Military stakeholders from four states, the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Italy agreed to host fact finding visits and the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom provided information by correspondence. In addition, information was received from the authorities of the USA. The views of CAT user groups were also sought and responses were received from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and European Regions Airline Association (ERA). In the context of the study, ‘civil use’ is limited to CAT operations as defined in Single European Sky (SES) Regulation (EC) 2096/2005, Common Requirements and includes Business Aviation. It does not include aerial work, General Aviation, or non-military ‘state’ flights.

Recent authoritative reports on the lack of airport capacity in Europe were

studied, along with existing and proposed EU regulation, to assess their impact on CUMA. The information received from states was analysed under institutional, legal, financial and operational issues to identify arrangements that were considered successful and which could be suggested for adoption by others.



Page | ii

2. The Lack of Airport Capacity in Europe – an Untapped Opportunity? Airport capacity is recognised as a significant constraint to the continued

development of the European air transport system. The Commission Action Plan for Airport Capacity recommends supporting the airport sector through its financial instruments and unlocking existing latent capacity at regional airports. The 2007 High Level Group Report requested that member states provide strategies for addressing the airport capacity issue and the SESAR definition phase also discusses the civil use of military aerodromes.

Under the right circumstances, military aerodromes could be considered as

similar to regional airports and opened to commercial aviation, if agreement could be reached by military and civil authorities and other interested parties. It can also be argued that any expansion of the civil use of military aerodromes, being state-owned, would be in the wider public interest, since it could contribute to an increase in overall airport capacity and ensure a greater distribution of air transport service across states’ territories. However, no evidence was found of a concerted effort either at state or European level to organise or expand CUMA. CUMA should not hamper military effectiveness and the SESAR PD Phase recognized that any such expansion should be at no cost to military budgets. Effective engagement between military and civilian authorities is essential if such potential is to be realised.

3. The Impact of European Legislation and Regulation - Current and

Planned Recognising that the European Union does not have competence for defence

and national security matters, which remain the responsibility of individual member states, the first SES legislative package included a series of safeguards to protect military interests. To illustrate, when considering the certification of ANSPs, those that provide services primarily to aircraft movements other than general air traffic, such as military ANSPs, do not need to be certified. This Article provides significant latitude of interpretation and in some Member States military authorities have embraced SES regulations wholeheartedly, whereas in others implementation has been limited. This means that to date, whilst SES legislation has influenced military authorities in CUMA, it has not been decisive.

Similarly, when looking at ICAO Annex 14, the current civil standards for

aerodrome design and operations, although military authorities in most states are working towards compliance at military aerodromes that accept CAT, few such aerodromes are fully compliant.

The recent announcement of SES II, the second legislative package of the

Single European Sky, may have far more significant impact, although it is recognised that this proposed legislation is still in the early stages of the co-decision process. Divided into four ‘pillars’ the two pillars of SES II most likely to impact on CUMA are the Safety Pillar and the Airport Capacity Pillar. The Safety Pillar proposes the extension of EASA competence into the regulation of ATM and aerodromes and, whilst acknowledging the military prerogative,



Page | iii

does not appear to offer the same latitude as that provided in earlier legislation. It is proposed that any ANSP providing a service to a civil aircraft and likewise any aerodrome open for ‘public use’ should be regulated by EASA. The Airport Capacity Pillar endorses the action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe, including the establishment of a Commission Observatory on airport capacity which with military representation could be a useful vehicle to open discussions on the expansion of CUMA.

4. Current Arrangements for CUMA by State In most states consulted, including the USA, CUMA had been conducted for

many years but to varying degrees. In Italy, France and Spain it was a significant commitment for military authorities but in Germany, the Netherlands and UK it was less widespread. In the Czech Republic, CUMA has been undertaken since 1993 and is a relatively recent occurrence in Slovenia.

Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements All participants reported good working relationships with both civil operators

and regulators and those military authorities where CUMA was more significant tended to be those who had also implemented SES legislation to a greater extent. Although different states have different relationships between their military and civil regulators, in all cases military authorities are independent of their respective Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs). Whilst few military aerodromes were wholly compliant with the requirements of ICAO Annex 14, it was the aim of all respondents to work towards such compliance.

Legal and Contractual Arrangements in most instances CUMA is governed at the national level in Aviation Acts

such as the French ‘Code de l’Aviation Civile’ and UK Air Navigation Order and then at subordinate levels by decrees and protocols. However, because CUMA tends to have developed on an ad hoc basis to meet local requirements there was little evidence of an overarching legislative package covering all aspects of CUMA. In all states, military authorities were liable for the services that they provide to CAT at military aerodromes.

Contract signatories varied in military authorities between the MOD, the Air

Staff or Commands and, on the civilian side, tended to be the representative of the civil airport operator. This was often the company established by local town administrations or chambers of commerce or occasionally as private commercial companies.

Financial Arrangements Understanding the diverse financial arrangements in each state covering the

civil use of military aerodromes proved to be the greatest challenge during the fact finding study. In general, the contractual arrangements between military



Page | iv

authorities and civilian airport operators specify cost sharing arrangements for the use of military-owned facilities and services provided, in turn the civilian company charge CAT users landing fees and handling charges. In the majority of states it was clear how landing fees are charged to CAT, but in some states there was less clarity with regard to charges for ANS and there was some concern that military authorities were not being equitably reimbursed.

Whilst there was evidence of EU financial assistance to support CUMA from

regional development and convergence funding, it tended to be for ground infrastructure projects such as terminal buildings, rather than as direct subsidies to airlines. In all states, evidence was provided that regional administrations were keen to promote and develop CUMA, to stimulate local economies through tourism and to improve transport links. Several comments were received suggesting that civil flights from military aerodromes were high on the agendas of local politicians.

If spare capacity could be identified at military aerodromes that could be

utilised by CAT to alleviate pressures elsewhere in the ATM system, at no cost to the MOD budget, then the response from military stakeholders might be favourable.

Operational Arrangements There is great similarity amongst participating states in the operational

arrangements and division of responsibilities between military and civil stakeholders at individual aerodromes. In all cases, the military base commander remains in overall charge of the aerodrome and all of its services and is responsible for its operational status. The better the joint use agreement, the better tends to be the military civil relationship. Military operations take priority and military authorities are responsible for provision of the ANSP function and most CNS infrastructure. Civil operations are generally conducted from a separate enclave on the aerodrome, with separate access to a terminal building where a private company, often established by local administrations provides aircraft ground handling, passenger security and handling and additional ‘land-side’ infrastructure.

In the USA local arrangements are similar to best practice identified in

Europe. However, at the macro-level the experience is very different with military aerodromes being part of the National Plan of Integrated Aerodrome Systems and joint use facilities eligible for funding under the FAA’s Military Airport Program.

5. Conclusion CUMA is well-established in several ECAC states, having developed over

time to meet particular local requirements. There was no evidence of a macro-level initiative to expand CUMA but, in light of the forecast pressures on airport capacity, under appropriate financial and operational conditions agreed between military and civil authorities, there may be opportunity to



Page | v

utilise spare capacity at military aerodromes for CAT in the wider public interest.

CUMA is finely balanced. On one hand, if future civil regulation at military

aerodromes is perceived to be overly restrictive and costly to implement, then the expansion of CUMA will prove difficult. On the other hand, especially in those states where military authorities have already implemented elements of civil regulation, if military and civil stakeholders can engage effectively, then there could be significant expansion of CUMA for the benefit of all parties.

Acknowledgements Thanks go to all of the individuals from participating states who have given their time and professional expertise to contribute to this study. Particular thanks to our hosts in Italy, the Czech Republic, France and Germany for their kind hospitality. Thanks also to Kendall L. Ball PE, from the Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports, US Federal Aviation Administration, for his fascinating insight into the US Military Airports Program.



Page | vi

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... i

Contents ..................................................................................................................... vi

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Preface .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Rationale for the Study .................................................................................. 2

1.4 Conduct and Scope of the Study ................................................................... 3

1.4.1 States’ Participation ................................................................................ 3

1.4.2 Scope – Categories of Flight .................................................................. 4

1.4.3 Performing the Study .............................................................................. 4

1.4.4 Follow-up – The CUMA Task Force ....................................................... 5

2. THE LACK OF AIRPORT CAPACITY IN EUROPE – AN UNTAPPED OPPORTUNITY? ....................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Background ................................................................................................... 6

2.2 The Commission Action Plan for Airport Capacity ......................................... 6

2.3 The HLG Final Report (2007) ........................................................................ 7

2.4 SESAR D2 .................................................................................................... 8

2.5 SESAR D3 .................................................................................................... 8

2.6 SESAR D4 .................................................................................................... 9

2.7 SESAR D5 .................................................................................................... 9

2.8 SESAR Investment Principles ..................................................................... 10

2.9 An Untapped Opportunity? .......................................................................... 10

3. IMPACT ON CUMA OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AND REGULATION ...... 12

3.1 The Current Situation .................................................................................. 12

3.1.1 The Military Relationship with SES ....................................................... 12

3.1.2 How SES Legislation Can Affect CUMA ............................................... 12

3.1.3 The Impact to Date of SES Legislation ................................................. 14

3.2 Single European Sky II Overview: Towards More Sustainable and Better Performing Aviation .............................................................................................. 14

3.3 SES II Second Pillar: A Single Safety Framework ....................................... 15

3.3.1 The Relationship between EASA and Military Authorities .................... 16

3.3.2 The Implications for Military Authorities of an Extension of EASA Competence into ATM Regulation. ................................................................... 17

3.3.3 The Implications for Military Authorities of an Extension of EASA Competence into Aerodrome Regulation .......................................................... 18



Page | vii

3.3.4 EASA Regulation and ICAO Annex 14 Requirements .......................... 18

3.3.5 Proposed Extension of EASA Competence to Civil Aviation Environmental Protection .................................................................................. 19

3.4 Fourth Pillar: Managing Capacity on the Ground ........................................ 20

4. CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR CUMA BY STATE ................................... 21

4.1 Nature & Scope of CUMA ........................................................................... 21

4.1.1 Common Themes ................................................................................. 21

4.1.2 States Visited ........................................................................................ 22

4.1.3 Overview of Participating States Not Visited ......................................... 23

4.1.4 The Views of User Groups .................................................................... 24

4.1.5 Business Aviation ................................................................................. 24

4.2 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements ..................................................... 26

4.2.1 Common Themes ................................................................................. 26

4.2.2 States Visited ........................................................................................ 27

4.2.3 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements in Participating States Not Visited 29

4.2.3 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements – An Aircraft Operators Viewpoint .......................................................................................................... 30

4.3 Legal and Contractual Arrangements .......................................................... 30

4.3.1 Overview ............................................................................................... 30

4.3.2 Liability.................................................................................................. 31

4.3.3 Contracts .............................................................................................. 32

4.4 Financial Arrangements .............................................................................. 32

4.4.1 Overview ............................................................................................... 32

4.4.2 Arrangements by State ......................................................................... 33

4.4.3 Observations on CUMA Financial Arrangements ................................. 34

4.4.4 The Concept of Irreducible Spare Capacity .......................................... 34

4.4.5 EU Funding in Respect of Civil Use of Military Aerodromes ................. 35

4.5 Operational Arrangements .......................................................................... 36

4.5.1 Division of Responsibility ...................................................................... 36

4.5.2 Civil Airport Operator ............................................................................ 36

4.5.3 ATS Provision ....................................................................................... 37

4.5.4 CNS Equipment .................................................................................... 38

4.5.5 Priority of Operations ............................................................................ 38

4.5.6 Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) and Met Service Provision ...... 38

4.5.7 Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) ............................................ 38



Page | viii

4.5.8 Security ................................................................................................. 39

4.5.9 Environmental Issues ........................................................................... 39

4.6 The USA Experience ................................................................................... 39

5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 42

5.1 General Perceptions ................................................................................... 42

5.2. Obstacles to the Expansion of CUMA ......................................................... 43

5.2.1 Civil Regulation - EASA ........................................................................ 43

5.2.2 Costs and Funding Associated with CUMA .......................................... 43

5.2.3 Current Financial Arrangements ........................................................... 44

5.3 Identified Best Practice ............................................................................... 44

5.3.1 Well-Prepared Joint Use Agreements .................................................. 44

5.3.2 JSP 360 ................................................................................................ 44

5.3.3 Categorisation of Aerodromes .............................................................. 45

5.3.4 SES Implementation ............................................................................. 45

5.4 Final Observations ...................................................................................... 45

5.5 Recommendations for Further Activities ..................................................... 46

Attachments: 1. Request for State Documentation 2. Framework Questions and Discussion Topics for Visits to States

Annexes:

A. Italy Report B. Czech Republic Report C. France Report D. Germany Report E. Netherlands Report F. Slovenia Report G. Spain Report H. UK Report I. USA Report (including FAA MAP) J. Users Report K. Glossary L. References



Page | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preface

The European air transport market has seen major growth, with demand forecast to increase by a further 70% by 2020. The air transport system’s ability to accommodate this increased demand safely and efficiently is a major challenge and airport capacity in particular has been identified as a significant limiting factor.

Taking into account the environmental impact of aviation and competing

demands for land, building new airports or expanding existing ones with additional runways and taxiways is unlikely to provide a comprehensive solution.

To address the problem the European Commission (EC) has launched a

series of measures under the Airport Package, which aims to enhance the Community framework for airports and includes an Action Plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety. The Action Plan considers both measures to enhance capacity within existing airports and also the potential expansion of existing regional airports. The EC is also developing a European Union (EU) integrated policy on airports and is considering a network of EU airports.

The joint civil-military use of military aerodromes1 is already undertaken in

many ECAC States and, whilst its expansion has been mentioned as a possible contribution to increasing overall airport capacity2, the measure has not yet been considered in detail.

This study considers whether the expansion of civil use of military aerodromes

is an untapped opportunity that could help alleviate some of the pressure that exists on airport capacity. It considers how civil use is currently organised a selection of ECAC states against the backdrop of existing and emerging European legislation, identifying the major issues and suggesting potential solutions.

1.2 Background

Research indicates that previous work on the civil use of military aerodromes has been limited.

In 2002 the NATO Standardisation Agency (NSA) received proposal to

develop a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) covering ‘The Certification of NATO Aerodromes used by Civilian Aircraft’, as a means for NATO nations to assure their respective national civil aviation authorities of the level of safety at NATO aerodromes used by civilian aircraft. However,

1 Throughout this study, to avoid any confusion, the internationally recognised ICAO term ‘aerodrome’

is used instead of common, but not universal, military terms such as airfield or airbase. 2 SESAR D3 Report: http://www.sesar-

consortium.aero/mediasandfiles/File/05_docs/NewSesar3ForWeb_SESAR3.pdf



Page | 2

there appeared to have been little interest from member states in developing the proposal and the study was formally cancelled in 2006.

Other open-source information includes a presentation at an International Civil

Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Aerodrome Safety Workshop, held in Kazakhstan in November 2002, on the use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft. The presentation identified that civil use of military aerodromes was small in comparison to the volume of civil operations and acknowledged that there was no evidence that military aerodromes have a worse safety record than their civil counterparts. It was also noted that military and civil aerodromes have different and conflicting objectives and regulations, and whilst suggesting that a harmonised approach could improve safety, cautioned that there were delicate safety issues associated with civil use that may require safety regulation.

In contrast, the issue of (civil) Air Traffic Management (ATM) capacity in

Europe and airport capacity in particular, has been the subject of exhaustive analysis. The role of military aerodromes in the context of these studies is discussed in Chapter 2 ‘The Lack of Airport Capacity in Europe – an Untapped Opportunity?’ of this report.

1.3 Rationale for the Study

Acknowledging that defence matters remain a state prerogative, including the utilisation and regulation of military aerodromes, the EUROCONTROL Directorate of Civil-Military ATM Coordination (DCMAC) is well-placed to conduct an overview of the civil use of military aerodromes to inform debate on its potential expansion and to provide guidelines and recommendations to assist in decision making and the implementation of proposals.

DCMAC has therefore launched an initiative to investigate existing legislation,

regulation, procedures and practices in the joint civil-military use of military aerodromes across ECAC states to assess the feasibility of its future expansion. It is argued that the expansion of the use of military aerodromes by civil aviation could be in the wider public interest and would benefit from a harmonized approach. If successful, such a measure could not only help to address the shortfall in airport capacity, but also presents an opportunity to further enhance civil-military cooperation and harmonisation.

It is argued that spare capacity is likely to exist at military aerodromes which

could be utilised by CAT. This initial fact finding study examines current arrangements for civil use in a selection of ECAC states, identifying associated issues, including the potential impact of existing and planned EU legislation and regulation, and suggesting possible solutions.

Before embarking on a programme to expand civil use of military aerodromes,

it is recognised that the user community would have to be convinced of the benefits of operating from military aerodromes as opposed to concentrating solely on improving capacity at existing airports.



Page | 3

Furthermore, it is inevitable that there would be costs associated with any future expansion and a key issue is to address where those costs lie. Although expansion of civil use of military aerodromes would be in the wider public interest, to alleviate airport capacity pressure and/or for a better distribution of transport service for the benefit of populations and local economy, it would be inappropriate for these costs to be met from Defence budgets. Military authorities would have to be convinced by a positive cost benefit analysis before embarking on the activity. To that end, relatively low-cost options focussed on business aviation are considered.

The results of the study will hopefully stimulate debate and help inform military

and civil authorities of the factors to consider and the activities required should they wish to expand the civil use of military aerodromes in their state.

1.4 Conduct and Scope of the Study

The DCMAC Civil Use of Military Aerodromes (CUMA) initiative comprises two parts: an initial fact finding study, the results of which are contained in this report, and an ad hoc CUMA Task Force comprising national military representatives and appropriate EUROCONTROL experts. D/DCMAC asked for support for the initiative from members of the EUROCONTROL Military ATM Board (MAB) and Civil-Military Interface Committee (CMIC). This was complemented by a further request for support to the Military Harmonization Group (MILHAG).

It was recognised that the joint civil military use of military aerodromes is not a

new practice and is common in many ECAC states, normally regulated by national agreements involving MOD, MOT and local and regional bodies. At all stages it has been stressed that any decisions reside with the individual state and EUROCONTROL’s role is to provide support in their decision making by providing a set of guidelines and recommendations.

1.4.1 States’ Participation

In response to these requests, several states agreed to participate in the initiative, either in the task force, by hosting ‘fact finding’ visits, or by providing information on current arrangements by correspondence. These were: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom. In addition, an approach for information was made to the authorities of the USA.

Whilst other ECAC states may operate civil aircraft from military aerodromes,

the results of this study are limited only to those states who have participated in the initiative. Similarly, because the aim at this stage is to collect information on current arrangements for civil use, only military stakeholders within states were invited to participate.



Page | 4

1.4.2 Scope – Categories of Flight

In the context of the study, ‘civil use’ is limited to ‘Commercial Air Transport’ (CAT) operations at military aerodromes as defined in Single European Sky (SES) Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Common Requirements as;

‘Any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for

remuneration or hire’. It does not include aerial work, General Aviation, or non-military ‘state’ flights. In addition to ‘traditional’ and ‘low cost’ airlines who operate scheduled and

charter services available to fare paying passengers, the study also includes ‘business aviation’ flights defined by the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA)3 as:

‘that sector of aviation which concerns the operation or use of aircraft by

companies for the carriage of passengers or goods as an aid to the conduct of their business, flown for purposes generally considered not for public hire and piloted by individuals having, at the minimum, a valid commercial pilot license with an instrument rating’.

1.4.3 Performing the Study

Following a kick-off meeting, a strategy for the conduct of the fact finding study was agreed. The first stage was to collect and then assess existing practices from participating states. To that end, the EUROCONTROL Task Manager distributed a request for relevant documentation to all participating states (attachment 1).

Four states (Czech Republic, France, Germany and Italy) accepted requests

for information-gathering visits by the contractor and the EUROCONTROL Task Manager and a list of discussion topics were sent in advance of the visits (attachment 2). With the exception of one visit to a military aerodrome that operates CAT, all other visits were to military ATM headquarters. To supplement the information gathered on visits, a similar list of discussion topics was distributed to all remaining participating states.

It was also considered appropriate to invite the views of CAT user groups who

operate from military aerodromes and to that end, approaches were made to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), European Regions Airline Association (ERA), the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) and also direct to easyJet.

Reports were then compiled for each visit undertaken and from the responses

received from the remaining participating states. The reports were reviewed and agreed by state representatives and are included in Annexes A to I of this study. The responses received from user groups are included at Annex J.

3 http://www.ebaa.org/content/dsp_page/pagec/busaviation



Page | 5

Once the reports were agreed, arrangements for each state were analysed

under institutional, legal, financial, operational issues to identify those arrangements in each state that were considered successful and could be suggested for adoption by other states.

Two additional activities were undertaken concurrently; first an analysis of

existing and proposed EU regulation, to assess its impact on civil use of military aerodromes, where the timely announcement of the SES II regulatory package provided much food for thought. Secondly, recent authoritative reports on the lack of airport capacity in Europe were studied to identify where there might be potential for an expansion of civil use of military aerodromes.

1.4.4 Follow-up – The CUMA Task Force

The completed fact finding study provides the starting point for the second element of the initiative, the Ad-Hoc CUMA Task Force. The aim of the CUMA Task Force will be to develop a document set providing guidelines and recommendations to support those States which decide to implement or to extend the joint civil/military use of military aerodromes under their sovereignty.

The task force is scheduled to begin its activities on 18 September 2008 for a

9 month period and specifically it will:

• Identify the benefits and limitations of CUMA for all interested parties. • Identify and assess all institutional, legal, technical, financial, operational

issues associated with CUMA. • Propose guidelines and recommendations to support States who decide to

implement or extend CUMA under their sovereignty. • Co-opt EUROCONTROL experts as required (DCMAC, DAP/AOE,

DAP/AIM, CFMU and Legal Service) to assist experts nominated by States’ military Authorities.



Page | 6

2. THE LACK OF AIRPORT CAPACITY IN EUROPE – AN UNTAPPED OPPORTUNITY?

2.1 Background

This chapter provides general context by examining several recent authoritative reports that have identified a lack of airport capacity as a limiting factor in the future development of European ATM capacity. These include the Commission Action Plan for Airport Capacity, Efficiency and Safety in Europe4, the High Level Group (HLG) Final Report5, and various deliverables of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Programme6.

Civil use of military aerodromes is mentioned on several occasions in these

reports as a beneficial practice, but there is little evidence to date of any detailed discussion or analysis on its expansion at ECAC-wide level.

2.2 The Commission Action Plan for Airport Capacity

Looking first at the Commission Action Plan, it noted: “The capacity crunch at airports poses a threat to the safety, efficiency

and competitiveness of all actors involved in the air transport supply chain”.

And goes on to state: “After liberalising the air transport market by the creation of the internal

market and addressing the "saturation of the skies" through the Single European Sky initiative, the Commission will now focus on airports. Capacity will not be able to match demand and risks becoming the most constraining factor on air transport. The knock-on network effects of this weakest link threatens the efficiency of the whole air transport chain. Since air transport is seen as a 'motor' for economic growth, this in turn risks undermining the overall competitiveness of the European economy.”………..Given the expected traffic evolution, Europe will face an ever growing gap7 between capacity and demand and if current capacity is not drastically increased, it is estimated that over 60 European airports will be heavily congested and the top 20 airports will be saturated at least 8-10 hours per day by 2025.

The Commission listed a number of actions and these include: 4 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/airports/doc/2006_communication_action_plan_en.pdf dated 5 European Commission Vice President Barrot appointed the High Level Group for the Future European Aviation Regulatory Framework in November 2006 in response to strong demand from industry, EU member states and other stakeholders to simplify and increase the effectiveness of the regulatory framework for aviation in Europe. The Group reported in July 2007. See: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/hlg/doc/2007_07_03_hlg_final_report_en.pdf 6 http://www.sesar-consortium.aero/

7 Joint ECAC and Eurocontrol Study on Airport Capacity: Challenges to Growth, 14 December 2004, see: http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gallery/content/public/library/CTG04_report.pdf



Page | 7

– The European Community could also support the airport sector

through its financial instruments: TEN-T, European Cohesion Policy's programmes through European Regional Development and the Cohesion Funds, or through initiatives such as SESAR;

– In order to promote safety, binding Community rules are needed in

particular on the safety for the aerodrome air side, including not only the infrastructure, but also operations and management;

– Regional airports are important to the development of an integrated

European air transport network. In this respect, it would be desirable to unlock existing latent capacity at regional airports provided that Member States respect Community legal instruments relating to state aid.

2.3 The HLG Final Report (2007)

In a similar vein, the HLG in its final report when considering airport capacity: Addressed the forthcoming airport capacity crunch by asking the

European Commission to raise the profile of this emerging bottleneck in the European aviation system….. Request member states to provide strategies for addressing the airport capacity issue …… Integrate airports more systematically into the total system approach……..Noted that Airports are an essential element in the performance of the overall system…. National authorities are disengaging from the management of airports…… Many airports are developing into fully-fledged businesses offering a range of services. To date airport policy has largely been a matter of national competence. However, the time has come to acknowledge the issue of airport capacity at the European level as European airports face increasing difficulties in securing their licence to grow at the national level.

The HLG proposed the following actions to strengthen commitment to

addressing the problem of capacity and to integrate airports more effectively into the total system.

- Raise the profile of airport capacity on the EU agenda: The European

Commission should raise the profile of the airport capacity issue and stimulate member states to address capacity constraints. The High Level Group proposes that the Commission maintains a policy on airport capacity which should clarify that optimising existing capacity is not a sufficient response longer term. Furthermore, the European Commission should request that member states develop and provide strategies for addressing their own airport capacity issues.

However, the HLG also made the following telling observation:



Page | 8

The EC's lack of formal competence in defence and security matters prevents military authorities from engaging fully with European Union (EU) institutions. This is considered to be a severe limitation to the implementation of the future European ATM Master Plan for 2020 and beyond

2.4 SESAR D2

Looking next at SESAR, each of its Definition Phase Deliverables (D1-D6) mention not only the problem of a lack of airport capacity, but also recognises that some military airfields [sic] are available for civilian co-use. In D2, when discussing their ‘Vision of Air Transport in 2020’ and lack of airport infrastructure it states:

If airports’ capacity fails to meet demand, there could be a potential

yearly loss to Europe of about €50 Bn of added value in 2020. As 70% of the 50 largest European airports have reached their saturation points today, a clear vision is needed of how to both create more capacity to ensure the European economy overall remains competitive and to ensure the best operations. The obvious solution would be to simply build more runways and this must certainly be strongly progressed. However ecological and land management considerations within Europe prevent new runway capacity to be added easily. Therefore complementary measures must also be taken to mitigate against the potential impact of a lack of airport capacity.

In addition to measures such as developing new technologies and procedures

to optimize available airport capacity, improving departure and arrival coordination and enhancing ‘all weather’ capabilities to maintain airport capacity, D2 also states:

Other possibilities to provide additional airport capacity should include

measures such as engagement with local communities, improved and enforced land-use protection, as well as an increased joint civil-military use of military airfields and/or a transformation of airfields abandoned by the military.

2.5 SESAR D3

This theme is developed briefly in D3, the Performance Analysis of the ATM Target Concept for 2020, which states:

Notably certain major congested hub airports and some high-density

terminal airspace areas at major network nodes are seen as potential bottlenecks and will be severely constrained…… Consequently, additional capacity needs to come from new runways complemented by the greater use of regional and other un-congested airports (including military airports) to satisfy the demand. Capacity will be provided with the required level of safety and security while minimizing the environmental impact.



Page | 9

Furthermore, D3 goes on to state: When making a cost assessment of the financial aspects of the

implementation of the SESAR ATM Target Concept, estimation of the cost to Military Organizations as airport operators, i.e. operators of civil-military airports, was not pursued since it is assumed that investments related to the implementation of the SESAR programme required at civil-military airports in principle would be borne by the (civil) airport operator and thus would not be recovered on the military stakeholder;

2.6 SESAR D4

However, by the time that SESAR D4 was written, the investigation of any increased civil use of military aerodromes had not been taken forward:

Where a major hub airport is at capacity, additional traffic needs to be

displaced to a less busy time or to a nearby, less busy, regional airport. Where neither is possible, the demand will remain un-accommodated. This assessment has not attempted to establish the scope for such displaced demand to be accommodated. In particular, the potential runway capacity provided by military airports has not been assessed.

For states who might wish to expand civil use of military aerodromes, an

initial activity would be to quantify this potential spare runway capacity.

2.7 SESAR D5

SESAR D5 represents the High Level Overview of the SESAR Master Plan and is the agreed strategic guideline delivered by the SESAR Consortium, including stakeholder deployment plans. For each of these plans it identifies the actions which must be taken to implement the ATM Target Concept. In D5, whilst the civil use of military aerodromes is not discussed specifically, the role of the military as an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) is addressed, without differentiation between the Approach/Terminal and the En Route roles.

The Stakeholder Deployment Roadmap section of D5 states: Existing military systems supporting ATM processes will be enhanced

to support the exchange of data and information necessary for effective Collaborative Decision Making processes. Military communication infrastructure and services will be enhanced in line with the new System Wide Information Management (SWIM) environment to support new ground-ground and air-ground applications. Connectivity with the SWIM network and a military Datalink capability for ATM purposes will be defined.

The majority of airport infrastructure such as new runways, terminals,

rapid exit taxiways or aprons is outside the Master Plan scope and



Page | 10

have not been considered, but are essential enablers to obtain the benefits from the deployment of the Master Plan. Also costs for ground-handlers have not been included.

…. The Wing Operations Centre (or its equivalent) is the focal point for

all military aerodrome activities. Any implementation of new responsibilities or roles will need further consideration by military authorities.

Where these systems and processes are deployed at civil-use military

aerodromes, the active participation of relevant military stakeholders will be essential for the eventual success of the Plan. However, as in the preceding HLG report, the issue of civil-military engagement has also been identified in the SESAR programme:

It is unclear, because of the EU's limited remit in terms of defence and

security issues, how military authorities can fully engage with EU institutions on ATM matters. This is considered to be a severe limitation to the implementation of the future European ATM Master Plan unless it is solved quickly.

2.8 SESAR Investment Principles

Nevertheless, it should be reassuring for military stakeholders to note that the investment principles specified in D3 are reiterated in D5:

Investments required on civil-military airports in principle would be

borne by the Airport Operator Civil operator. When this is considered alongside the Commission’s earlier stated position,

that: The European Community could also support the airport sector through

its financial instruments: TEN-T, European Cohesion Policy's programmes through European Regional Development and the Cohesion Funds, or through initiatives such as SESAR;

Whilst military aerodromes across Europe are engaged on defence tasks,

anecdotal evidence gathered during the fact finding study suggests that, on the whole, they do not routinely operate at full capacity.

2.9 An Untapped Opportunity?

The preceding paragraphs illustrate the forecast gap in airport capacity in the civil air transport system and give an indication of the cost to the European economy of not addressing that gap. The problem could be addressed in part through EC financial instruments and by unlocking latent capacity at regional airports.



Page | 11

As suggested in SESAR D2, under the right circumstances military aerodromes could be considered in the same vein as regional airports, and therefore opened to the use of commercial aviation, under specific conditions agreed between the responsible military and civil Authorities and other parties, such as aircraft operators or companies involved in the management of civil operations at those airports.

It can also be argued that any expansion of the civil use of military

aerodromes, being state-owned, would be in the wider public interest, since it could contribute to an increase in overall airport capacity and ensure a greater distribution of air transport service across states’ territories.

SESAR D3 and D5 recognize that such expansion should be at no cost to

military budgets and that it should not hamper the effectiveness of military operations at those designated airports.

The need for effective engagement between military and civilian authorities is

essential if such potential is to be realised. There are cost issues that need to be addressed but there are some potential benefits for military authorities, for example in maintaining Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO) currency through higher traffic levels and maintaining control techniques required for mixed GAT/OAT operations.



Page | 12

3. IMPACT ON CUMA OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AND REGULATION

Having identified a forecast lack of airport capacity, before looking at how CUMA is organised in individual states, this chapter first considers the overall impact on CUMA of current European legislation, the implications for individual states being considered in Chapter 4.

The potential impact of the recently announced SES II package is then

considered, with particular emphasis on the proposed extension of EASA competence to include regulation of ATM and aerodromes.

3.1 The Current Situation

3.1.1 The Military Relationship with SES

The aim of the Commission-led SES initiative is to develop a legislative approach to reduce fragmentation and delays in ATM across Europe. Proposals for the first package of SES regulations were submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and adopted in March 2004.

The European Union does not have competence for defence and national

security matters, which remain the responsibility of individual member states. The first legislative package therefore included a series of safeguards to protect those interests, but recognising the importance of military participation in the development and implementation of SES, Member States issued a statement on military issues related to the SES8 that includes the following:

‘taking into account that SES Regulations apply only to GAT and do not

cover military operations and training ……. taking full account of the needs related to national defence and security policy …..

…. enhance civil-military cooperation and, if and to the extent deemed

necessary by all Member States concerned, facilitate cooperation between their armed forces in all matters of air traffic management.

In some Member States, military authorities have embraced SES regulations

wholeheartedly, whereas in others implementation has been limited. Military authorities are each organised differently and have different relationships with civil ATM stakeholders, ranging from close integration to more parallel structures. This is reflected in the different ways each state organise and oversee arrangements for the civil use of military aerodromes.

3.1.2 How SES Legislation Can Affect CUMA

Looking in detail at SES legislation when considering CUMA, the key elements that can have an impact are contained in the Framework Regulation

8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:096:0009:0009:EN:PDF



Page | 13

(No 549/20049) and the Service Provision Regulation (No 550/2004)10. Article 2, Definitions, of the Framework Regulation defines General Air Traffic as:

All movements of civil aircraft, as well as all movements of State

aircraft (including military, customs and police aircraft) when these movements are carried out in conformity with the procedures of the ICAO.

And states that:

Decisions relating to the content, scope or carrying out of military operations and training do not fall within the sphere of competence of the Community’ (Recital 5) “This Regulation and the abovementioned measures do not cover military operations and training” (Article 1.2)

Article 13 of the Framework Regulation, Safeguards, goes on to state:

This Regulation shall not prevent the application of measures by a Member State to the extent to which these are needed to safeguard essential security or defence policy interests. Such measures are in particular those which are imperative ….. in order to conduct military operations and training, including the necessary possibilities for exercises.

Moving on to the Service Provision Regulation, Article 7, on the certification of

air navigation service providers, states: Notwithstanding paragraph 1 (that the provision of all air navigation

services within the Community shall be subject to certification), Member States may allow the provision of air navigation services in all or part of the airspace under their responsibility without certification in cases where the provider of such services offers them primarily to aircraft movements other than general air traffic. In those cases, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of its decision and of the measures taken to ensure maximum compliance with the common requirements.

The expression ‘primarily’ has been left open to interpretation. Military

authorities in some states have chosen to certify their military ANSPs where they control GAT and to implement further elements of the Regulations, even where that implementation is not mandated, whereas other states have not certified military ANSPs.





Page | 14

3.1.3 The Impact to Date of SES Legislation

The variety of arrangements observed in each of the states visited during the fact finding study, described in detail in the following chapter, illustrate how military authorities have reacted to SES legislation, where decisions on the extent of implementation tend to have been left to those authorities. When asked specifically about the impact to date of SES legislation on the civil use of military aerodromes, all respondents had a similar view, that whilst SES had undoubtedly made a contribution in the decision making process, discussions with civilian stakeholders were invariably already underway and SES tended to be a catalyst rather than a deciding factor in resultant agreements.

In conclusion, due to the latitude afforded to military authorities in the

wording of existing SES legislation, it has not had a decisive impact on the incidence of CUMA across ECAC states. It must be noted however, that these discussions were held prior to the announcement of the second package of legislation for SES.

3.2 Single European Sky II Overview: Towards More Sustainable and Better Performing Aviation

On 25 June 2008 the EC announced its second package of legislation for a Single European Sky (SES II)11. The package is divided into four pillars, summarised below:

Regulating Performance The first pillar introduces several enhancements to the original SES

legislation, including binding performance targets for ANSPs, a European network management function to ensure convergence between national networks and a definitive date for Member States to improve performance, initially through Functional Airspace Blocks.

The Technological Pillar

The technological pillar focuses on introducing better technology. The SESAR programme brings together all aviation stakeholders to develop and operate a new generation, Europe-wide ATM system. Its deployment will enable the safe, sustainable and cost-effective handling of twice the current traffic by 2020.

The Safety Pillar

The safety pillar provides for increased responsibilities for the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would ensure precise, uniform and binding rules for airport safety, ATM and air navigation

11

Communication:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/traffic_management/ses2/doc/communication/com_2008_0389_1_communciation_en.pdf



Page | 15

services, as well as sound oversight of their implementation by Member States.

The Airport Capacity Pillar

Finally, the airport capacity pillar tackles the shortage of runways and airport facilities, which currently threaten to become a major bottleneck. The initiative seeks to co-ordinate better airport slots issued to aircraft operators with ATM measures as well as the establishment of an airport capacity observatory to fully integrate airports in the aviation network.

The success of SES II proposals will depend on the full involvement of all

stakeholders, including military representatives. The common transport policy is based on civil requirements, but it is incumbent on Member States to integrate the interests of defence and this requires the close involvement of military authorities in the SES institutional framework. The existing Single Sky Committee with adequate military participation will assume a strategic role in this regard.

When considering CUMA, the safety pillar and the airport capacity pillar are of

greatest relevance. The safety pillar, with the increased involvement of EASA, could have significant implications and perhaps poses the greatest threat to the future expansion of CUMA, whereas the airport pillar provides perhaps the greatest opportunity.

In the discussions that follow, it should be remembered that having only

recently been promulgated, the SES II package is in the very early stage of its development, has to pass through the full co-decision process, and resultant legislation may be significantly different from that currently proposed. Nevertheless, until the uncertainty that currently exists is resolved, the package poses a significant risk to the future expansion of CUMA.

3.3 SES II Second Pillar: A Single Safety Framework

Under the second pillar of SES II, the Commission plans to extend the competence of EASA to the remaining key safety fields of aerodromes and ATM under an amendment to the existing Regulation governing EASA, EC 216/200812. The proposed amendment suggests a basic framework for EASA’s responsibilities for aerodrome and ATM/ANS safety, which principally involve the setting of safety requirements and standardisation activities providing uniform safety rules for aerodrome and air traffic management across the European Community.

Under the proposed changes, Member States would largely remain

responsible for overseeing compliance with the new requirements. The

12

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/traffic_management/ses2/doc/communication/com_2008_0390_1_proposal_regulation_en.pdf



Page | 16

aerodrome provisions in the Regulation are largely consistent with existing ICAO standards. Those for ATM and ANS are based on the safety requirements within SES Regulations. These include those transposed from ESARRs and the European requirements on the licensing of Air Traffic Controllers.

3.3.1 The Relationship between EASA and Military Authorities

Consultation on the proposals to extend EASA competence to ATM/ANS and aerodromes was conducted separately through the EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 13,14 process. Before considering their possible effect on CUMA, it is worth considering the broader impact of the proposals. Both Regulation 216/2008 and the proposed amendment to it states in Article 2 that:

This Regulation shall not apply ….. while carrying out military, customs,

police, search and rescue, fire fighting, coastguard or similar activities or services. The Member States shall undertake to ensure that such activities or services have due regard as far as practicable to the objectives of this Regulation;

However, study of earlier feedback shows that there was significant concern

from many stakeholders that the ATM/ANS NPA did not adequately address the civil-military interface. The following extract from the Consultation Response Document15 being typical:

A noticeable feature of the consultation document was the absence of

any guidance / proposal to work with the military authorities either nationally or internationally through EUROCONTROL bodies such as CMIC or NATO. It is acknowledged that in several countries the civil and military ANSPs work very closely together to the extent that in some instances the ATS provided is the same. This close working relationship must be encouraged in all member states to the extent that EASA should consider establishing guidelines for the development of a joint (civil and military) and integrated system in terms of operating standards. In some countries, the military is not subject to the full extent of the civil law in terms of aviation legislation. However, this must not preclude the military ANSPs from establishing levels of safety in accordance with the appropriate civil standards. The logic and benefit seems to have been accepted by the military ANSPs (based on the EUROCONTROL established forums) but this needs to be confirmed throughout the EASA area of responsibility. As a general principle, the military must be included in EASA processes to ensure a cohesive and comprehensive ATS environment as required by SES.

13

NPA 6/2006 basic principles and essential requirements for the safety and interoperability regulation of aerodromes http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA_2006_06.pdf 14 NPA 2007-16 Extension of the EASA system to the regulation of ATM/ANS: http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA%202007-16.pdf 15 EASA CRD NPA 2007-16 “Extension of the EASA system to the regulation of Air Traffic Management and Air Navigation Services (ATM/ANS)” http://www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Rulemaking/CRD-2007-16.pdf



Page | 17

Hence, military traffic operating at OAT will be operating amongst civil controlled GAT at the same or similar levels of safety. To do other that this, in the crowded skies of Europe, would be unwise and potentially dangerous.

The response from EASA was: Many comments query the absence of reference to civil-military

coordination in the NPA. The Agency wants to recall that the Basic Regulation only encompasses civil aviation safety and explicitly excludes aircraft engaged in State missions. The interpretation of this has been more or less identical in the EASA system and the SES framework – the decisive criterion is the nature of the operation, not the registry.

Civil-military coordination implies arbitration between various, possibly

conflicting, objectives. This would be better left to a body with the power to make this kind of political choices. The Agency does not see itself in a position to be directly involved in such a function. Therefore, it assumes that the civil-military interface will continue to be handled in a similar way as the SES framework does. Moreover, the NPA clearly states that ATM/ANS services provided to any civilian airspace users have to be safe and regulated accordingly, independently of who the provider is. This applies of course to military organisations providing services to civilian users and is consistent with the principles already established by the SES framework. This does not exclude ad-hoc adaptations on a case-by-case basis when it can be demonstrated that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by other means.

This response suggests that the civil-military interface already established in

SES is successful. However, the HLG 2007 Final Report offered a different analysis in that the more strategic role that the military has in achieving the objectives of the SES is currently not properly enabled. The military has no mechanism for establishing a common European view to the extent that civil aviation does. Where formal agreements are in place, they have been developed on a bilateral or multilateral basis between a limited number of states. It is understood that authorities in several Member States still have concerns over this strategic relationship between EASA and military stakeholders, which could have a significant impact on both existing and any future potential expansion of CUMA.

3.3.2 The Implications for Military Authorities of an Extension of EASA

Competence into ATM Regulation.

Looking more closely at the implications for military authorities of an extension of EASA competence into ATM, on first interpretation, it appears that military ANSPs providing a service to any civilian airspace users, including those operating from military aerodromes, will be subject to regulation by EASA. This would be a fundamental change from earlier SES legislation and the concept that ANS could be provided without certification when



Page | 18

‘primarily’ provided to aircraft other than GAT. This could have significant wider implications on military ANS provision to civil aircraft and specifically on CUMA.

3.3.3 The Implications for Military Authorities of an Extension of EASA

Competence into Aerodrome Regulation

Turning to the proposals for an extension of EASA competence into aerodrome regulation, whilst the broad exemption of military activities still applies, where:

aerodromes exclusively used for military, customs, police, or similar

services are not affected by the present opinion…... The proposal also refers to ‘aerodromes open to public use’, which is defined

in the amended Article 3: "aerodromes open to public use" shall mean aerodromes which are

included in the official Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) publication and offer services to any user without discrimination

Aerodromes open to public use, including equipment, located in the

territory subject to the provisions of the Treaty and, which can serve traffic conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules or aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 2730 kg or more shall comply with this Regulation. Personnel and organisations involved in the operation of these aerodromes shall comply with this Regulation.

The precise application of this proposal has yet to be decided, but these

statements suggest that all military aerodromes that are not ‘exclusively’ for military use and allow civilian aircraft (above the specified weight) to operate will also be subject to EASA regulation. Such an interpretation would have a significant impact on CUMA.

3.3.4 EASA Regulation and ICAO Annex 14 Requirements

The proposal for aerodrome regulation states: As regards aerodrome safety, the intention is to ensure that the

essential requirements and related implementing rules for aerodromes, aerodrome equipment, organisations, operations and personnel are based on the relevant ICAO standards

The wider regulation of civil aviation is based on ICAO Standards and

Recommended Practices (SARPS). Specifically, Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume I ‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’, contains SARPS that prescribe the physical characteristics, obstacle limitation surfaces and visual aids to be provided at aerodromes, as well as certain facilities and technical services normally provided at an aerodrome.



Page | 19

Annex 14 requirements should apply to all aerodromes open for civil aviation. However, compliance does vary between states and even when standards are similar, interpretation may differ. It is understood that EASA plan to address these variances and interpretations and develop a common, universally applied framework across all Member States. They have been assisted in this work by the Group of Aviation Safety Regulators (GASR16), who have developed the GASR Aerodrome Regulation (GAR). This document, based closely on ICAO Annex 14, contains harmonised requirements for aerodromes and which will be presented to EASA as a basis for developing implementing rules and Acceptable Means of Compliance, once the regulation for aerodromes has been adopted.

As described in more detail in the following chapter, the fact finding study

found that military aerodromes tend to be designed differently to civil aerodromes, often being optimised for fighter aircraft. Also, reiterating an important principle, military aerodromes fulfil a specific defence role and any civil use is in addition to that primary role. Therefore, meeting civil regulatory requirements should be seen in that light.

Once more, the precise interpretation and application of this element of the

proposal has yet to be decided, but like the interpretation of ‘public use’ the current uncertainty over the application of ICAO standards clouds the issue of CUMA.

3.3.5 Proposed Extension of EASA Competence to Civil Aviation

Environmental Protection Although not part of the SES II package, another complicating factor in the

wider aviation regulation debate that may impact on CUMA is the EASA proposal17 to extend its system to include the environmental regulation of aerodromes design and operations. This would imply that organisations and personnel involved in the design and operation of aerodromes, including aerodrome equipment, would be subject to common rules, as appropriate to implement the applicable essential requirements. As yet it remains unclear where the boundary between civil and military competence would sit.

The extent of EASA competence at the civil-military interface is a

potential paradigm shift that will exercise all regulators, military authorities in particular, and the eventual implementation of SES II (and related) regulation on safety could have a dramatic impact on the future of civil use of military aerodromes.

16

GASR is an informal group of European aerodrome regulators founded in 1996 who have worked to

harmonize aerodrome requirements in Europe and serves as platform for aerodrome safety issues among Member States. See http://www.gasr.info/web/index.htm 17

EASA NPA No 2008-15 http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-15.pdf



Page | 20

3.4 Fourth Pillar: Managing Capacity on the Ground

Having considered the potential impact of the Second Pillar of SES II and the threats that it might pose to CUMA, by contrast consideration of the Fourth Pillar offers potentially significant opportunities. As described earlier, airport capacity has been identified as a key limiting factor in the future expansion of air transport and needs to remain aligned with ATM capacity to preserve the overall efficiency of the network. The SES II Communication mentions that the European Parliament and the Council have endorsed the ‘action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe’.

As discussed earlier the Action Plan includes the aspiration to support the

airport sector through Community financial instruments, to unlock existing latent capacity at regional airports and to establish a Commission Observatory on Airport Capacity. If, under the right circumstances and appropriate conditions, military aerodromes could be considered in the same light as regional airports, then there may be opportunity to expand CUMA.

The Commission Observatory that has been established to look specifically at

airport capacity will comprise Member States, relevant authorities and stakeholders to exchange and monitor data and information on airport capacity as a whole. Whilst Terms of Reference and membership of the Observatory are not yet in the pubic domain, if there is an appetite amongst stakeholders to expand CUMA, this body could provide a forum to discuss how this might be achieved.

Military participation in the Community Observatory on airports is

therefore highly recommended.



Page | 21

4. CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR CUMA BY STATE

4.1 Nature & Scope of CUMA

Having identified the need for additional airport capacity and analysed the potential impact on CUMA of current and planned European legislation, this chapter describes how CUMA is currently organised across a range of ECAC states. Four states were visited over the course of the fact finding study and a further four European states provided feedback by correspondence; the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and airport user groups were also consulted. There follows an analysis of CUMA activities under the following headings:

• Institutional and Regulatory arrangements • Legal and Contractual arrangements • Financial considerations • Operational arrangements

Detailed reports of CUMA activities in each of the four states visited, together

with reports from the remaining participating states, the USA and user groups consulted can be found at Annexes A – I.

4.1.1 Common Themes

As depicted on Diagram 1, the generic arrangements for CUMA were very similar amongst all of the states consulted. Military authorities are generally responsible for the aerodrome, its safety and perimeter security and provision of the ANSP function and Communications Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) infrastructure. Civil operations are generally conducted from a separate enclave on the aerodrome, with separate access to a terminal building where a private company, often established by local administrations and in receipt of some form of grant aid, provides aircraft ground handling, passenger security and handling and additional ‘land-side’ services and infrastructure. All participating states operate both ‘traditional’ and ‘low cost’ airlines, together with Business Aviation from military aerodromes. In all cases a major consideration in the success of civil operations at a military aerodrome was the commitment of local authorities, keen to develop commercial aviation in their region for its perceived economic benefits.

Worthy of particular note is that in all cases military authorities reported that

the civil-military relationship was good, both at the institutional level and at individual aerodromes.



Page | 22

Runway

Military responsible for:•ATS

•CNS

•Perimeter security

•RFFS (generally)

Military/civil areas clearly

delineated

Mil

ATSMil

CNS

Mil Apron

Civil operator responsible for: •Aircraft and Passenger Handling

•Physical and passenger security

Aerodrome Perimeter

Figure 1. CUMA – Generic Arrangements

RFFS

Transport

Civil Apron

Civil Terminal

4.1.2 States Visited

Italy

Until 1980, the Italian Air Force (ITAF) provided all ATS in Italy, so there is a long tradition of military ATCOs providing ATS to GAT and of civil use of military aerodromes. CAT has operated from 18 military aerodromes for several decades, with annual movements of 285,000 in 2007, comprising the vast majority of movements at Rome Ciampino, Pisa San Giusto and Verona. Despite 2 military aerodromes being notified as Coordinated Airports, capacity to meet continued demand remains a significant issue. However, a major programme is currently underway to transfer identified military aerodromes to civilian control.

Czech Republic

Prior to formation of the Czech Republic in 1993, there were no CAT flights from Czech military aerodromes. Today, CAT operates from two military aerodromes, most from Pardubice, where civil airport operations are managed by a company set up by the local civil administration. Since 1993, all new CNS equipment at military aerodromes has complied with civil (ICAO) regulation. Relationships are good, based on agreements that clearly state each stakeholder’s responsibilities. Despite an increasing trend for civil use, there are no current plans to open other military aerodromes for civil use.



Page | 23

France

CUMA is well-established in France and CAT comprises a large proportion of movements at six military aerodromes, individual arrangements at each having evolved over time. Lorient, since it opened in 1946, and Hyères handle significant numbers of passengers. In general, the rules for military and civil traffic are very similar and military authorities only apply specific rules when they are essential to perform the military mission.

Germany

Civil commercial use of military aerodromes in Germany is not especially widespread. It is conducted from two aerodromes in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Rostock-Laage and Neubrandenburg, where civilian operator companies were established following the reunification of Germany by local administrations keen to encourage the economic benefits of aviation. In addition, there is one in Bavaria and civilian cargo operations are flown from a Naval air station to the west of Hamburg. Civil operations are conducted under Joint-Use Agreements between the local company and the Federal government.

4.1.3 Overview of Participating States Not Visited

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, two military aerodromes, Eindhoven and De Kooy, regularly operate CAT and other aerodromes accept CAT on an occasional basis. CAT has operated from Eindhoven for more than 20 years and although currently stable, demand is forecast to increase in the near future.

Slovenia

Slovenia does not have a long tradition in operating CAT from military aerodromes, but are keen to participate in the initiative to better understand other states’ arrangements in order to adopt best practice and capitalise on future opportunities.

Spain

CAT has operated from military aerodromes in Spain for many years, with six open to CAT on a regular basis generating around 100,000 movements per annum, and the trend is increasing, under arrangements that were regularised under a legal framework in 1995.

UK

CUMA in the UK is limited; operations have been conducted from St Mawgan for many years, but will be transferred to civilian ownership later in 2008 and since 2007 CAT has operated from RAF Valley under a Public Service Obligation (PSO) arrangement. A significant number of civil movements are



Page | 24

also made from RAF Northolt in west London, but these are business aviation rather than fare-paying passenger operations and are not discussed in detail.

4.1.4 The Views of User Groups

Of the user groups invited to contribute, only IATA and ERA provided a response. Whilst perhaps not definitive, responses indicated that airlines sought to optimise and enhance capacity at existing civil airports, rather than use military aerodromes, and that any increase would be new business, rather than a redistribution of existing capacity. However, this might be because users are unaware of the potential to utilise military aerodromes and have not previously engaged with military authorities to explore possibilities.

Provision of ATS and Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) to an

appropriate (civil) standard was highlighted, as was the potential negative impact on existing ATM flows if GAT was introduced at previously military-only aerodromes. However, most attention focussed on the infrastructure requirements of passenger operations. These included baggage handling and security, terminal buildings and transport links. However, as the synopsis above shows, under current arrangements there are no examples of military authorities providing these facilities and in all cases they are provide by separate civilian organisations associated with local administrations. This demonstrates that any future expansion of CUMA would need to be undertaken with the full support of the local civilian community.

4.1.5 Business Aviation

However, if one considers Business Aviation, the infrastructure requirements would be smaller and there is potential to investigate how greater use of military aerodromes by Business Aviation could prove mutually beneficial. Compared to an airline, business aviation aircraft passenger numbers are very small, but the economic value of each passenger is likely to be very high. A typical large charter company in the business aviation sector will have a client base in four figures, with wide range of destinations.

Recent studies, such as the UK CAA Strategic Review of General Aviation

(2006)18 comment that ‘the Business and corporate aviation segment has seen rapid growth recently as its customers increasingly place a high value on the time-saving and convenience afforded by this option over the scheduled airline alternative’. Furthermore, the Commission has also recognised the importance of the Business Aviation sector. In its Communication, ‘An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation19’, issued in January 2008, the Commission reiterates the arguments for the expected evolution of air traffic in Europe and the ever growing gap between capacity and demand. It goes on to state that in 2006 about 9% of all aircraft movements registered by Eurocontrol could be attributed to General and Business aviation and since 2003 this segment has been growing almost

18

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/StrategicReviewGA.pdf 19

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/internal_market/general_aviation/doc/en.pdf



Page | 25

twice as quickly as other sectors and the trend is expected to be maintained in years to come.

Business Aviation mainly operates from secondary airports providing point-to-

point services and contributing to a more even distribution of traffic. However the infrastructure of secondary airports is being increasingly used by the airline industry in its search for additional capacity, heightening the competition between Business Aviation and airlines. Ultimately, slots in some of these regional airports may be available for non-scheduled operators only on an ad-hoc basis. Furthermore, small aircraft can also be unattractive to airport managers, as they carry fewer fare-paying passengers and are more sensitive to wake vortices created by larger aircraft.

To address the problem, the Commission recommends better planning to

optimize the use of existing capacity and suggests dedicated, reliever aerodromes to meet the needs of General and Business aviation. This pressure on airport capacity could be relieved if a nearby military aerodrome were available for Business Aviation aircraft, which have potentially lower ground infrastructure costs than those associated with more traditional high passenger volume airlines. A good example of where this has already been achieved is in the UK at RAF Northolt in West London, close to London Heathrow airport. Here, up to 7000 movements per annum of aircraft with up to 30 seats, many of which previously operated from Heathrow, are accepted with civilian ground handling using a shared terminal.

However, passenger security requirements would be a concern for any such

expansion. At present, formal security requirements are applied to commercial aircraft above 10 tonnes MTOW or more than 19 passenger seats, detailed in EU Regulation 2320/2002 and 622/200320, but it is understood that the Commission is currently reviewing these regulations to include aircraft below 10 tonnes and less than 20 passenger seats.

4.1.6 Very Light Jets (VLJs) There is a new sector developing for very light jets, typically aircraft with a

four-seat cabin, with lower operating costs than aircraft with comparable performance. These aircraft could be expected to operate from regional (and potentially military) aerodromes, as well as flying in the airways system at high altitudes along with CAT. Integrating VLJs into the current ATM system presents many challenges, such as whether their pilots could meet the necessary standards to operate safely within controlled airspace. However, they are likely to enable high-speed inter-regional links for high-worth individuals and create economic benefit for those regions. This will only be possible if there is a sufficient network of suitable regional aerodromes with

20 EC Regulation No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:089:0009:0010:EN:PDF



Page | 26

adequate runway lengths (a likely minimum of 1000 metres) and existing military aerodromes may meet this requirement.

4.2 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements

4.2.1 Common Themes

Analysis of the institutional and regulatory arrangements for the civil use of military aerodromes focussed on the relationship between civil and military regulators, specifically on the oversight of ANS provision.

There appeared to be less of a relationship between military authorities and

civil Flight Operations regulators. Military stakeholders were comfortable with the relationship with their civilian counterparts in ANS regulation and in some states that relationship was very close. Assessment of the current CUMA situation provided a good example of how military authorities have reacted to the introduction and implementation of SES discussed in the previous Chapter, where some have wholeheartedly embraced the initiative whilst others have not.

What was also clear in all states was that whilst there were national

regulations that dealt with many aspects of CUMA, there were invariably differences between individual aerodromes, where operations had developed on a case by case basis to meet particular and specific requirements. As such, there appeared to be no comprehensive and overarching policy in any state that addressed all aspects of the regulation of CUMA.

The implementation of SES I legislation has not had a specific impact on the

civil use of military aerodromes, as measures were already underway to bring military regulation closer to civil.

Although different states have different relationships between their military

and civil regulators, in all cases military authorities are not accountable to their respective Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs). However, by accepting civil use they legally commit to offer some level of safety and following an accident caused by negligence or failure to meet standards, military authorities may be found legally responsible.

All respondents stated their aspiration that all military aerodromes from which

CAT operated should meet ICAO Annex 14 requirements. However, it was unlikely that they would achieve full compliance at all aerodromes because some essential military equipment such as arrestor cables would still be required. Military authorities in most states were ‘working towards’ meeting ICAO standards. For example in the UK, whenever new work begins on an aerodrome, the policy is for the applicable standard to be as good as, if not better than, the equivalent civilian requirement. The degree of difference is therefore steadily reducing but new regulations are not applied retrospectively. Similarly, in the Czech Republic since 1993 all new military aerodrome and CNS equipment has been fully ICAO compliant.



Page | 27

If military aerodromes are considered fit for purpose to meet their defence obligations, to meet ICAO Annex 14 (and other civil) requirements is likely to incur significant costs at a time when MOD budgets are under particular pressure. From a military perspective, costs to meet existing and future civil legislation may outweigh benefits, unless some form of incentive can be identified.

It is recommended that participating states conduct a gap analysis at

military aerodromes where CAT operate to identify the differences between existing arrangements and those required to meet ICAO Annex 14 requirements or, depending on when such work is undertaken, with emerging EASA requirements. Having identified those differences, the costs associated with achieving compliance could then be calculated which would help inform debate on the expansion of CUMA .

4.2.2 States Visited

Italy

As a result of concerted effort by military staff, in Italy the institutional arrangements for the regulation of ANS, and therefore of CUMA, is clear. Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (The Italian Civil Aviation Authority) (ENAC) is the nominated National Supervisory Authority (NSA) under SES legislation and regulates all GAT. ITAF has made a commitment to ENAC to comply with SES regulation for the control of GAT. Under this formal relationship, ITAF will not be inspected by ENAC but is accountable for safety and will conduct internal audits to demonstrate compliance through equivalence with SES regulation. Similarly, all major civil-use military aerodromes are compliant with ICAO Annex 14, where the physical infrastructure, including runways and taxiways, is regulated and inspected by ENAC, who provide the required certification.

Unique in the fact finding study are the pressures placed on ITAF to meet civil

capacity demands at military aerodromes, where two are notified as Coordinated Airports under EC Regulation 95/93. However, such is the demand from civil operators that ITAF is seeking to also have Verona notified as a Coordinated Airport.

Categorisation of Military Aerodromes for Civil Use

In what could be a useful template when considering future expansion of CUMA in other states, under a national military plan21, military aerodromes in Italy are allocated to one of 5 categories, described in detail at Annex A. These range from Main Operating Bases (MOB) for exclusive military use, through military aerodromes that can ‘co-exist’ with CAT, through to military aerodrome with no military requirement that can be transferred to entirely civil use, although achieving transfer under this final category is proving to be a

21 MoD DECREE 25 Jan 08 “Atto di indirizzo relative agli aeroporti militari a doppio uso militare-civile”.



Page | 28

challenge. A similar framework is long-established in France, but with 3 categories rather than 5. Here, Category 1 aerodromes are only open to military aircraft, Category 2 are open to some civil aircraft subject to conditions stipulated by the Air force and Category 3 are open to all civil aircraft subject to a range of protocols. These frameworks have real utility in identifying those aerodromes suitable for an extension in civil use.

It is recommended that a generic categorisation framework is developed

to assist states who wish to expand CUMA. Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) regulates, certifies and is both responsible and accountable for the safety of military ATS/CNS provision and aerodrome infrastructure, including operational approval to ICAO Annex 14 standards and the application of relevant ICAO and SES regulation. A revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Civil Use of Military Aerodromes has been developed for the signature of the Chief of the General Staff and the First Deputy of the MOT. The Czech CAA has cooperated fully with the MAA in the development of this Agreement and under a highly innovative arrangement the CAA is ‘invited’ by the MAA to audit military ANS provision to GAT and relevant operational approvals are signed by both the MAA and CAA.

France

The French military, working closely with the civil NSA has certified its Armed Forces and Test Flight Directorate as ANSPs in accordance with SES legislation, with DIRCAM taking the role as the MOD NSA. However, SES has had no specific impact on the institutional arrangements for the civil use of military aerodromes, which are defined by regulations established jointly by civil and military authorities, many of which are available on the internet.

Each aerodrome in France is assigned to a Ministry (represented by an

‘affectataire’), or several ministries. Where there is more than one affectataire, a ‘primary affectataire’ is designated, in charge of the general administration of that aerodrome. At a military aerodrome open to CAT, a representative of the MOD would be the primary affectataire and a representative of the MOT would be a secondary affectataire with specific responsibility for commercial aviation.

Germany

German military ATM authorities work closely with their civil counterparts and a military liaison office is contributing to the establishment of the state NSA. The Bundeswehr Air Traffic Services Office (AFSBw) is the competent military authority for all military ATS matters in Germany, including civil use of military aerodromes, providing an oversight function comparable to SES-standards and which is in the process of reorganising as the German MOD NSA. The



Page | 29

only involvement by civil regulators in operations at Rostock-Laage is oversight of aircraft and passenger handling by the civilian operator.

4.2.3 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements in Participating States Not

Visited

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, permission for civil co-use of a military aerodrome is currently given by the MAA, but an amendment to the Aviation Act is being planned with specific regard to the civil use of military aerodromes, to better harmonise military and civil operations. Military authorities are investigating the certification of the military ANSP and implementing other aspects of SES legislation. Although MOD remains accountable for the oversight of activities at military aerodromes that operate CAT, in light of the close relationship in the Netherlands between military and civil regulators, they do so in mutual agreement with the MOT.

Slovenia

CAT operators in Slovenia are regulated by civilian authorities and specific ATC regulations based on Slovenian air law have been developed by the MAA for the control of CAT. The aerodrome that operates CAT is fully compliant with ICAO Annex 14 standards and is inspected by the CAA.

Spain

In Spain an MOD NSA has been established and, whilst the military ANSP is not certified in accordance with SES, measures are in place to ensure maximum compliance with the Common requirements. The military NSA works in close cooperation with the CAA and occasionally seeks support from them when specific expertise is needed, but retains full responsibility for the inspection and audit of all military installations and equipment used to control GAT. Civil-military consultation and cooperation is conducted at 3 levels, from inter-ministerial to local level.

UK

The UK Civil Aviation Act, through the Air Navigation Order (ANO) permits flights for the public transport of passengers (which equates with CAT) from suitable Government aerodromes. Whilst these aerodromes are not certified in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 requirements, they do meet the requirements of the military equivalent JSP 554, ‘Military Aviation Aerodrome Criteria and Standards’. Comprehensive rules for all civilian flying from military aerodromes, irrespective of type, are contained in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 360, ‘Use of Military Airfields by British and Foreign Civil Aircraft’. ATS and CNS services are provided and regulated by military authorities. However, there is no separate regulation, for example for ATS provision for the limited CAT activity at military aerodromes, instead arrangements are made on a case by case basis. UK MOD does not plan to



Page | 30

certify its military ANSPs and it was reported that the introduction of SES legislation had had no impact on CAT operations from UK military aerodromes.

4.2.3 Institutional & Regulatory Arrangements – An Aircraft Operators Viewpoint

The EU technical requirements and administrative procedures applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane (OPS 1.22022) demand that air operators have completed a safety assessment to confirm that the aerodrome is suitable for its operation and this requirement is valid for all aerodromes. Civil Operators are often bound by these requirements to define the military aerodrome safety level in their Operations Manual, which is expected to specify the requirement for Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and visual aids which effect operating minima. If other facilities do not meet requirements, these may not be considered essential by Regulators. The Regulations state:

An operator shall only authorise use of aerodromes that are adequate

for the type(s) of aeroplane and operation(s) concerned. Where an adequate aerodrome is defined as an aerodrome which the

operator considers to be satisfactory, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and runway characteristics; at the expected time of use, the aerodrome will be available and equipped with necessary ancillary services such as ATS, sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids and emergency services.

In the case of CAT operations from a military aerodrome, this suggests that

the onus is with the aircraft operator developing a robust safety case and demonstrating equivalence with civil regulatory standards.

4.3 Legal and Contractual Arrangements

4.3.1 Overview

During the fact finding study all direct contact was with ATM and ATC practitioners, who provided details of the legal framework and arrangements that govern civil use of military aerodromes in participating states.

At the state level, there are Aviation Acts such as in France the ‘Code de

l’Aviation Civile’23 that specifies the regulations for civil aviation, including the use of all aerodromes, (military included), and in the UK the ANO24 that enables the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and similar legislation is replicated in other states.

22

Commission Regulation (EC) No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as regards common technical requirements and administrative procedures applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:010:0001:0206:EN:PDF 23

See ‘Legifrance’ website: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/home.jsp 24

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm



Page | 31

This high level legislation is supported by further enabling legislation such as

in Italy25 and in Germany, where provision of ATS for GAT by military ATCOs is legislated in State law, then in Ministerial Regulations for the Armed Forces and in Special ATS Directives (BesAnMilFS), signed respectively by the president of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Secretary of State for the MOD and the Director of the AFSBw.

In the Netherlands, there is similar practice, where legislation for the civil use

of military aerodromes is at national level through the Aviation Act, then through regional agreements and locally through concepts of operations and standing orders.

German Military Regulations on the provision of ATS for both Operational Air

Traffic (OAT) and GAT cover to the widest possible extent civil regulations (ICAO, EU, EUROCONTROL, national) and are supplemented by purely military issues where essential.

Practice in France was very similar, where all military regulations are based

on their civilian equivalents unless there is a particular military need for a different approach.

4.3.2 Liability

All of the evidence provided indicated that military authorities are liable for all of the services that they provide to CAT at military aerodromes, including vicarious liability26. For example, the entry in the German Military AIP, when detailing arrangements for the permanent civil use of military aerodromes states:

Local air traffic services and flight procedures at aerodromes which are operated by the armed forces shall remain within the area of responsibility of the armed forces.

Similarly, in the UK, the Station (Air Base) Commander at the military

aerodrome has overall responsibility for the safety of operation including ANS, which is regulated under a EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESARR) 3 compliant Safety Management System (SMS).

Several participants indicated that much of the work to implement elements of

SES legislation had been undertaken to demonstrate that when providing services to civil, passenger carrying aircraft, military safety standards were at least as good as their civilian counterparts, and thus to strengthen the position of military authorities (and individuals) in law. However, this initial fact finding study does not analyse the complexities of specific case law.

25

Law 484/81 26

An employer is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions by his employee in the course of employment whether or not such act or omission was specifically authorised by the employer. To avoid vicarious liability, an employer must demonstrate either that the employee was not negligent in that the employee was reasonably careful or that the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer's business.



Page | 32

4.3.3 Contracts

Arrangements for contract signature between respective parties tended to be similar, although at different levels. In most states, joint use agreements are concluded at ministerial level.

In Spain, for example, contractual arrangements are governed by a legal

framework regulation established at inter-ministerial level. Thereafter, in each state arrangements are made with the Air Staff or Operational Commands (eg Czech Republic) and then at local level. In France, Contracts for the civil use of military aerodromes are established on a case by case basis between the local Chamber of Commerce, or its nominated commercial agent, and the respective affectataires.

Military signatories ranged from Ministers of State, through the senior

appointments in the highest Military Commands, through to senior officers in subordinate commands. What was common was that there was no evidence of contracts being signed by a military base commander. On the civilian side, signatories tended to be the representative of the civil airport operator, often the company established from local town administrations or chambers of commerce, occasionally as private commercial companies.

The civil use at RAF Valley in the UK gives an indication of the complexity that

can be common in these arrangements. Under the terms of the PSO, the Welsh Assembly Government awarded the air service contract to Highland Airways Limited. The military command responsible for RAF Valley has a contract to operate the aircraft from the aerodrome with the Isle of Anglesey County Council (the local administration) who in turn awarded an Airport Operators contract to a private company.

All participants agreed that detailed, well-developed contracts, laying down

clear responsibilities and accountabilities at local level were essential to the smooth functioning of the operation and provided the bedrock upon which cooperative and successful working relationships were developed.

4.4 Financial Arrangements

4.4.1 Overview

Understanding the diverse financial arrangements in each state covering the civil use of military aerodromes proved to be the greatest challenge during the fact finding study.

Whilst in some states there was great clarity about how a civil aircraft are

charged when operating form a military aerodrome, in other states such clarity was missing and there was a concern that some military authorities were not equitably reimbursed for the cost of providing ANS to CAT.



Page | 33

4.4.2 Arrangements by State

In general, the contractual arrangements between military authorities and civilian airport operators specify cost sharing arrangements for the use of military-owned facilities and services provided, in turn the civilian company charge CAT users landing fees and handling charges.

At Pardubice in the Czech Republic, East Bohemia Airport (EBA) (the civilian

airport operator) collects approach and landing fees and passes them direct to the MOD.

At Rostock-Laage in Germany, under the joint use agreement, the civilian

airport operator is responsible for meeting a percentage of the running costs of the aerodrome and in return derives income from charges for aircraft handling fees. The joint use agreement, last updated in 1996, is currently being renegotiated.

At Eindhoven in the Netherlands, a contract for the operation of CAT is signed

at MOD level that includes arrangements for the reimbursement of costs for ATC, Meteorological (Met) services and infrastructure provision.

In the case of CAT operations from RAF Valley, UK MOD is remunerated for

the services it provides including landing, navigation and aircraft parking charges as laid down in JSP 360, based on actual movements rather than a separately negotiated flat-rate. Similar arrangements are in place for Business Aviation aircraft that operate from RAF Northolt. Furthermore in both the UK and Spain, if a civilian aircraft operates outside normal opening hours an additional charge is payable.

In France, the Chamber of Commerce collects landing charges and handling

fees and, based on the legal Decree of 8 March 200627, highly detailed Letters of Agreement (LOAs) have been developed for each aerodrome specifying the cost-sharing arrangements between the respective affectataires for aerodrome facilities and services. However, DSNA, the French civil ANSP, collects charges for ATS provision during the terminal (approach) phase of flight. In a quid pro quo arrangement, MOD is not reimbursed for ATS provision to GAT landing at military aerodromes and when military aircraft are flying as GAT they are not charged en route fees.

In Slovenia there is no distinction in the cost recovery mechanisms between

CAT operating at the military aerodrome and at civilian airports. All revenues are retained by the civilian ANSP, but in future the MOD would like to review this arrangement.

Spain reported that remuneration for civil use of military aerodromes is

undertaken at national level and the Spanish Air Force complies with EC Regulation 1794/2006, the Common Charging Scheme, regarding ANS to civil traffic.

27

http://admi.net/jo/20060318/EQUA0500606A.html



Page | 34

In Italy, where CUMA makes probably the greatest contribution to the overall

ATS system, all charges levied for ANS are received by the Ministry of the Economy, who own and subsequently fund the national ANSP. ITAF receive no funds directly for ATS provision based on aircraft movements, but instead MOD funding is based on national macro-economic policy decisions. It was reported that the discrepancy between the cost to ITAF of ANS provision to CAT and the amount reimbursed, is a cause for concern.

4.4.3 Observations on CUMA Financial Arrangements

The question of charges in respect of CUMA is particularly complex and one that requires more detailed study, engaging experts in the field where appropriate. During the fact finding study, whilst arrangements between contracting parties at individual aerodromes were clear, there was less clarity in the financial relationships between military and civil ANSPs and between respective ministries that have responsibility for military and civil aviation. In addition, the implications of the implementation of the SES Charging Regulation28 were not discussed. Acknowledging national prerogatives, on first reflection there appears to be enough evidence to recommend a review within states of the arrangements for the allocation and recovery of charges for civil use of military aerodromes.

4.4.4 The Concept of Irreducible Spare Capacity

Using the UK as an example, it is government policy to dispose of any existing defence capacity which is surplus to requirements. This is the case with military aerodromes, as evidenced by the closure of several aerodromes over recent years and transfer to civilian ownership later in 2008 of RAF St Mawgan. The same pressures to reduce costs on the defence budget have also led to the ITAF initiative to take the decision to close or transfer specific aerodromes to civilian control.

However, those assets that are retained, again including some military

aerodromes, will include some spare capacity which is not fully utilised. This spare capacity is referred to as ‘irreducible spare capacity’ and in the UK its exploitation is encouraged wherever possible, provided this is consistent with defence requirements and does not unreasonably affect local amenities. This ‘Wider Market Initiative’ and is defined as:

‘The commercial exploitation …. of MOD assets which need to be

retained but are not fully used.’ MOD aerodromes in particular represent a valuable national asset, and

the income from civil operations provides a useful contribution to the defence budget. However, any services utilised by civil aircraft at MOD aerodromes must be provided at no cost to MOD. For example, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and ATS may be available H24, but

28

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:341:0003:0016:EN:PDF



Page | 35

are not fully utilised for Defence tasks at all times and can therefore be used to handle civil aircraft within the spare capacity available.

However, a further consideration is that the UK air transport market is de-

regulated, highly competitive and most civil airports are privately and not state owned, unlike other European states. In such an environment the MOD is not permitted to use resources funded by the tax payer to undercut competitors and this may be one of the reasons why civil use of military aerodromes in the UK remains limited.

A further note of caution is the allocation of regional subsidies to encourage

airlines to operate from state owned airports. Whilst it is not a military aerodrome, the so called ‘Charleroi Ruling’ could have an impact. Whilst some rebates are permissible as an element of regional development support for airports, the Commission decided that subsidies granted to the low cost operator Ryanair by Belgium's Wallonia regional government, were an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money that damaged competition.

There was no evidence presented by other participating states on the

potential impact of competition law on the future expansion of CUMA. However, it is recommended that legal advice is sought to confirm whether there is any legislation at European level that might have such an impact.

Where states may wish to expand CUMA, they could begin by identifying

irreducible spare capacity at military aerodromes and then categorizing them along similar lines to the Italian or French models.

4.4.5 EU Funding in Respect of Civil Use of Military Aerodromes

Whilst there was some evidence of EU financial assistance to support CUMA, it was for ground infrastructure projects such as terminal buildings, rather than directly to airlines, which came from regional development and convergence funding.

Following the reunification of Germany, the potential benefits for the local and

regional economies had a significant influence on the introduction and development of CAT operations at Rostock-Laage and similarly at Neubrandenburg. It was reported that substantial Federal and European aid had been made available for infrastructure development projects such as Rostock’s new terminal building, which was completed in 2005.

In some areas of France, a military aerodrome is the largest aerodrome in the

region and, if it accepts CAT, will have a significant economic impact. In all states, evidence was provided that regional administrations were keen to promote and develop CUMA, to stimulate local economies through tourism and improved transport links and several comments were received suggesting that civil flights from military aerodromes were high on the agendas of local politicians.



Page | 36

The only recent incidence of CUMA in the UK is under a PSO arrangement, to provide a scheduled air service on a route not thought to be economically viable.

There was no evidence of financial assistance being used to help

redistribute air traffic flows from busy civilian airports, or for example of EU funding to assist military authorities in meeting ICAO Annex 14 requirements.

4.5 Operational Arrangements

4.5.1 Division of Responsibility

From the information gathered both during fact finding visits and from correspondence, in the area of operational arrangements and division of responsibility at individual aerodromes there is a great deal of similarity between participating states.

In all cases, the military base commander remains in overall charge of the

aerodrome and all of its services and facilities and is responsible for its operational status. In France Structures and equipment at military aerodromes are compliant with the rules established for civil aerodromes (see arrêté du 28 août 200329). There is a specific sector reserved for the civil airport and installations, either leased or purchased from the MOD, which is placed under the responsibility of a civil manager in a specific contract or agreement. It was noted that the detail and clarity of the division of responsibilities contained in this agreement is fundamental to the establishment of good military-civil relations.

All participants reported that relationship between military and civilian

authorities was good, but in all cases there were joint user committees to resolve any difficulties and additional processes to escalate concerns if these cannot be resolved locally.

4.5.2 Civil Airport Operator

The civil airport operator is normally a company formed by local administrations or the chamber of commerce, acting on behalf of the local community or as a private, profit-making organisation contracted by local administrations. This organisation manages all ‘land-side’ facilities such as passenger handling and terminal facilities. In all cases the civilian aircraft operating area and passenger terminal is segregated from the military aerodrome and has separate external transport links.

The civil airport operator also provides aircraft handling and engineering

support. These civil services are regulated by civil authorities. The only exception was in Slovenia, where CUMA is not well-developed, and unlike in

29

http://cnpp.ysance.com/article.php3?id_article=4634



Page | 37

other states, most ground facilities and services are provided by the military in support of CAT.

4.5.3 ATS Provision

In all cases, the military provide ATS to CAT at military aerodromes, with the

exception of the particular arrangements at Rostock –Laage in Germany that are described below.

In France it was reported that ATS procedures for OAT and GAT were very

similar and differences only existed where it was essential for the military mission. Additionally, when military ATCOs provide ATS to GAT, they do so on behalf of the MOT.

In Germany, there is no requirement for different controlling techniques or

training to meet the needs of aircraft operating as GAT. In the Czech Republic ATS regulations, rules, procedures and standards are

ICAO-based and are the same for all traffic. There are some minor differencies between civil and military requirements, but ATCOs always follow ICAO regulations when civil and military aircraft interact. All personnel providing ATS to CAT pass a CAA-approved training syllabus and are examined annually. They retain a military ATCO licence, but with a certificate to control civil traffic

In Italy, all military personnel are trained in a mixed OAT-GAT environment

and ITAF ATC Training is well established, with a nationally standardised format, to ESARR 5 and ICAO standards, supplemented by local on the job training (OJT).

In Spain procedures for mixed OAT-GAT ATC are described in the ‘Order of

15th March 1995’, which approves the coordination rules between GAT and OAT. Military ATCO’s training syllabi include GAT regulations and OJT includes local procedures and arrangements for GAT traffic.

In Slovenia, military and civilian ATC procedures, standards and training are

very similar, with military ATCOs initially trained to the same standards as their civil counterparts, before receiving additional training for military-specific tasks, rather than specific training to control GAT.

In UK, ATCO training is now ESARR 5 compliant and any particular

arrangements for CAT/GAT is covered by OJT. ATS at Rostock-Laage

During its published hours of military operation, all ATS and CNS provision at Rostock-Laage is conducted by military ATCOs. Outside these hours, the Class D Control Zone remains active and ATCOs contracted to the civilian airport operator, provide a Tower-only ATS using the military facilities.



Page | 38

Predominantly ex-military personnel, these ATCOs are regulated, trained and standardised under military regulations, with no participation or involvement of the civilian regulator.

4.5.4 CNS Equipment

In all cases the military provide and regulate the CNS infrastructure necessary for aerodrome operations. However, there were several examples where the civilian operator had purchased and maintains additional equipment, such as ILS, to enhance the operational efficiency of the aerodrome specifically for CAT operations. These facilities are regulated by civilian authorities. As mentioned earlier, in an innovative arrangement the Czech MAA ‘invite’ the CAA to inspect and certify both ATS and CNS provision at the aerodromes that operate CAT.

4.5.5 Priority of Operations

In most states OAT has priority in law and by regulation at military aerodromes, for example in Italy, according to the rules laid down in national Aeronautical Information Publication based on Law 484/81, OAT normally has priority over GAT. However this is not the case in the Czech Republic, where all air traffic is treated equally.

Arrangements for military exercises tend to be included in the contracts or

joint use agreements between military authorities and civil operators at each aerodrome, where with sufficient notice, CAT flights are re-scheduled to meet the military need. Nevertheless, all respondents commented that in reality a pragmatic approach is taken and aircraft are dealt with to achieve a safe and orderly flow of air traffic, rather then by type.

4.5.6 Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) and Met Service Provision

AIS is in all cases provided by the military, although sometimes to a limited extent during the aerodromes published hours of military operation. Met services are provided either by the military or the national met provider.

In most cases, military aerodromes that accept CAT appear in the state’s civil

Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), but on occasion only in the Military AIP, as is the case with Rostock-Laage, but under an arrangement agreed between Rostock-Laage, AFSBw and national ANSP, this is planned to change.

4.5.7 Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS)

In most cases, RFFS is provided by military authorities, to standards that are compliant with civil operations. The exceptions were in:

• Italy where separate military and civil arrangements exist for the

provision of RFFS, regulated by MOD and the Ministry of the Interior respectively;



Page | 39

• Spain, where RFFS is usually provided by the civil service provider,

with local arrangements for military support if necessary.

• Germany, at Rostock-Laage, RFFS is provided by military personnel but is governed by both civil and military regulations. Recently, maintaining Crash Category 7 H24 has proved difficult to achieve and discussions are underway to resolve the issue, with one potential solution being to augment military personnel with local civilian fire fighters.

4.5.8 Security

Whilst military authorities retain responsibility for aerodrome perimeter security, all terminal and passenger security is the responsibility of civil authorities and was considered particularly rigorous. For example, when establishing the civil operation at RAF Valley in UK, passenger security had to comply with the UK National Aviation Security Programme (NASP), as determined by the Department for Transport (DfT) based on EC Regulation 2320/2002, establishing ‘Common Rules in the Field Of Civil Aviation Security’30 and subsequent amending legislation, some of which remains confidential. This regulation covers infrastructure, equipment and minimum training requirements for personnel within the designated Restricted Zone.

4.5.9 Environmental Issues

In all participating states with the exception of Italy, the MOD, normally through the air base commander, retains responsibility for environment concerns including noise and emissions at military aerodromes irrespective of whether they operate CAT. In Italy, the CAA takes responsibility for the environmental impact of CAT operations, even from military aerodromes. The only other difference reported was in Germany, where regional administrations also participate in the environmental assessment of military aerodromes through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU).

4.6 The USA Experience

The civil use of military aerodromes in the USA is described as Joint Use31 and is described in detail at Annex I. The US air transport and ATM systems are very different to that found in Europe, which as previously described, is characterised by fragmentation. However, at the local level, joint use has many similarities to that found in Europe.

The joint-use arrangements at Charleston Air Force Base, which have been in

operation for more than 50 years, provide a good example of the US experience. The Air Force Base is home to 437th Airlift Wing of Air Mobility

30

See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:355:0001:0021:EN:PDF 31

‘Joint Use’ is defined as: ‘An installation where written agreement between the military department and a local government agency authorizes use of the military runway for a public aerodrome”.



Page | 40

Command and the Air Force Reserve’s 315th Airlift Wing. These comprise a large fleet C17 aircraft, many of which are routinely away from the base on active service, leaving around 20 aircraft at Charleston at any one time. Charleston International Airport is situated adjacent to the Air Force Base and expects to handle over a million passengers in 2008 with direct services to 16 destinations by 7 operators, including the low cost operator AirTran.

The aerodrome is close to the Charleston metropolitan area and in addition to

a mature road network there is a sea-container port and rail freight terminal nearby. The local community has a very strong affinity with the military base and an ambitious commitment to economic growth.

The latest iteration of the joint-use agreement between the United States Air

Force and the Charleston County Aviation Authority was signed in February 2008. In common with elements of best practice found on fact-finding visits in Europe, the United States Air Force considers joint use to be in the public interest and responsibilities and priorities are clearly defined, including the financial liabilities of each partner. For example:

• There is an agreed volume of annual movements. • It is acknowledged that civil operations must be at no cost to the Air

Force. • The civil partner must implement any state and national environmental

and security requirements at no cost to the Air Force. • The civil partner bears a proportionate share of aerodrome operating

costs, collecting fees and charges from civil aircraft and paying the Air Force as agreed, even if those fees are not successfully recovered.

• The civil partner is responsible for all civil aircraft ground handling. • Any civil-specific infrastructure must be agreed by the Air Force and

funded by the civil partner. • The civil partner assumes all risk for civil aircraft operations, names the

United States Government as an insured party and indemnifies any Air Force RFFS activities.

• There is regular open dialogue between the military and civilian authorities to resolve operational matters through a joint Airfield Operations Board.

• Finally, military prerogatives are ensured in the agreement and with an agreed period of notice the Air Force can legitimately suspend or terminate civil operations.

However at the macro-level, in contrast to the fragmentation that exists in

Europe, the US system is far more homogenous. Twenty two military joint use aerodromes are included in the US National Plan of Integrated Aerodrome Systems (NPIAS) which identifies aerodromes which are significant to national air transportation and eligible for aid under the FAA Aerodrome Improvement Program (AIP32), including the Military Airport Program (MAP). The MAP provides aerodrome infrastructure funding

32

http://www.faa.gov/aerodromes_airtraffic/aerodromes/aip/



Page | 41

assistance to civil sponsors for designated current joint-use military aerodromes or former military aerodromes. In FY 08 approximately $28.8 million funding was available.

Whilst the majority of this aid goes to the conversion of aerodromes no longer

required by the military, in promoting joint-use, existing military aerodromes may also be eligible for assistance and currently three Joint Use aerodromes are in the program. MAP funding will only be considered if it would reduce delays at an aerodrome with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft movements; or enhance aerodrome and ATM system capacity in a metropolitan area, or reduce current and projected flight delays. Whilst there is only anecdotal evidence ATC capacity has been immediately enhanced under the MAP, it can take many years for services at a new aerodrome to become popular.

Another difference between the USA and Europe is that the FAA appears to

be proactive in working with military and local community stakeholders to determine the feasibility of joint use aerodromes, with planners and engineers available to assist. The FAA may fund planning grants to look at any proposition for joint use in detail. If a joint use agreement can be made with the military authorities and the agreement is acceptable to the FAA, additional development grants may be made available. .

No evidence has been found or provided to suggest that any similar scheme

to the US MAP has ever been considered in Europe, either Community wide or in any member state. Such an initiative across the EU’s 27 member states would undoubtedly face a raft of institutional, regulatory and financial issues.

However, when one compares the airport ‘capacity crunch’ with the level

of irreducible spare capacity that is thought to be available in the military aerodrome system across Europe, the concept of financial assistance to develop military aerodromes for civil use to alleviate capacity constraints is considered worthy of further analysis.



Page | 42

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 General Perceptions

In those states that participated in the fact finding study the amount of CUMA varies considerably, but tends to be organised in a similar way. Military authorities are generally responsible for the aerodrome, its safety and perimeter security and provision of the ANSP function and Communications Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) infrastructure. Civil operations are generally conducted from a separate enclave on the aerodrome, with separate access to a terminal building where a private company, often established by local administrations and in receipt of some form of grant aid, provides aircraft ground handling, passenger security and handling and additional ‘land-side’ services and infrastructure.

In most states CUMA has taken place for a significant length of time and in

some states, Italy, France and Spain for example it is a significant commitment for military stakeholders. In the USA, joint use of military aerodromes by civilian operators is widespread and well organised ands offers some very useful lessons for Europe.

Whilst a detailed analysis of statistics for the amount of CUMA across Europe

was not conducted, it is thought to be a marginal activity when considered against the air transport network as a whole. Whilst there was no evidence of plans to significantly increase the number of aerodromes that accept CAT, in several states the numbers of CAT movements appeared to be increasing year by year:

• Traffic movements in Italy continue to increase • The Netherlands expect more civil flights from military aerodromes • There was some interest reported from low cost carriers in France • Slovenia wished to expand into the market.

In addition, the Business Aviation sector remains buoyant and in the UK RAF Northolt provides a good example of the re-distribution of Business Aviation from a busy civil airport (London Heathrow) to a military aerodrome.

The only example identified where an increase in CUMA had been planned to

alleviate capacity problems elsewhere, was at Viterbo in Italy, planned to become Rome’s fourth airport. All other evidence suggests that within recent times (15 years) all new CUMA has been initiated with aid or financial assistance for regional development and the strong support of the local community, keen to see the economic benefits of aviation.

Most states had legislation at national level that dealt specifically with CUMA,

with Italy and France having the most complete regulatory arrangements. Most CUMA across Europe has evolved over time on a case by case basis to meet the particular needs of a local community, and there did not appear to be a coordinated strategy within states to deal with all aspects of the activity.



Page | 43

This has led to a piecemeal approach to its implementation, but nevertheless there was plenty of evidence of good working relationships both at aerodromes and between military and civil regulators. All participants, bearing in mind that these were exclusively military stakeholders, were content with current arrangements and in no state were there plans underway to significantly modify arrangements.

Acknowledging the continued pressure on airport capacity, military

aerodromes could be seen as a national asset, where spare capacity could be optimised in the wider public interest. Whilst several concerns and obstacles to the expansion of CUMA have been identified, none appear insurmountable and there is real scope for the study of the opportunities presented.

5.2. Obstacles to the Expansion of CUMA

5.2.1 Civil Regulation - EASA

Most participating states were generally content with their existing arrangements for CUMA. For those states that currently undertake CUMA the greatest anxiety identified was the potential impact of the planned extension of competence by EASA into the fields of ATM and aerodromes, as notified in the SES II package. There was a widespread perception that at the macro level EASA had not sufficiently considered the civil-military interface in the development of its regulatory proposals. There were four specific areas of concern:

• The potential change in emphasis from SES I that would see EASA

regulate all ATS provided to civilian aircraft. • That ‘Public Use’ aerodromes, ie those promulgated in the Civil AIP,

including the military aerodromes opened to CAT, will all be regulated by EASA.

• The current uncertainty in the detail of the standards EASA will employ to regulate aerodromes and whether they will differ significantly from ICAO Annex 14 requirements.

• Compliance with EASA requirements should not negatively impact on military operations at the aerodrome

To allay and address these concerns it will be essential that military authorities participate fully in the development of the Safety Pillar of the SES II legislative package.

5.2.2 Costs and Funding Associated with CUMA

It was recognised by the vast majority of stakeholders that the costs associated with CUMA should not be borne by military authorities. This was explicit in US joint user agreements and in the UK’s JSP 360. Evidence from fact finding visits also showed that where additional CNS equipment was required specifically to meet a civil requirement, it tended to be funded and maintained by civil authorities. Similarly, in all states visited, all terminal buildings and passenger facilities were provided by the civil operating



Page | 44

company and not by military authorities, albeit often subsidised by grant aid. The SESAR programme also assumes that related investments at civil-military airports in principle would be borne by the civil airport operator and thus would not be recovered from the military stakeholder.

There was some evidence at the aerodrome level that operating costs

associated with CUMA, for example extended or unscheduled aerodrome opening hours, were being met by military authorities and this was not welcomed. Robust and detailed joint use agreements that specify the cost recovery mechanisms to meet such eventualities could be developed to address these concerns.

When considering any expansion of CUMA, it will be essential that

military authorities are convinced by a positive cost benefit analysis and subsequent regulations and agreements that they will not face additional costs from CUMA.

5.2.3 Current Financial Arrangements

Another issue is the current financial and cost recovery arrangements for CUMA, which in many states appeared to be complex. Whilst arrangements for landing fees and cost-sharing for jointly used infrastructure tended to be quite clear, arrangements for the cost recovery of ATS charges in particular were, in many states, less so. Clarity and equity need to be confirmed in this delicate area, then consideration to encourage military authorities to expand CUMA could begin.

5.3 Identified Best Practice

5.3.1 Well-Prepared Joint Use Agreements

At the tactical level, the clearest indication of best practice identified in the study was the importance given to the preparation of joint user agreements and contracts. Where such documents were clear and detailed, laying down with absolute clarity the accountabilities and division of responsibilities between all stakeholders, they formed the foundations of successful operations. Across all states evidence was also provided that there were strong and effective working relationships between military and civil stakeholders, the importance of which should not be overlooked.

5.3.2 JSP 360

Of the documentation provided for the study, the UK’s JSP 360 ‘Use of Military Airfields by British and Foreign Civil Aircraft’ is the most comprehensive ‘user guide’ for civil operations from military aerodromes. Produced at MOD level, although it deals with all civilian aircraft rather than just CAT, it provides clear and practical guidance for military aerodrome operators, including a clearly laid-down charging mechanism. Other states tended to have very detailed (and successful) joint user agreements for individual aerodromes, together with national regulations governing civil use,



Page | 45

rather than state-wide guidance material. However, it is acknowledged that other states may have similar documentation, but it was not identified in the study.

5.3.3 Categorisation of Aerodromes

At a higher level, for states who may be considering an expansion of CUMA, the national military plan developed in Italy for the categorisation of aerodromes provides a good template. Before embarking on such expansion it would be necessary to confirm the amount of capacity available at military aerodromes and the UK concept of identifying irreducible spare capacity as part of wider market initiatives could be usefully employed in this work. Using the second concept to complement the first, it would then be possible for a state to identify those aerodromes most suitable for civilian use.

5.3.4 SES Implementation

At the strategic level, for those states that may wish to expand the civil commercial use of their aerodromes, the clearest example of best practice was the work undertaken by several states to implement SES regulations when providing ANS to GAT. Where compliance with SES regulations can be clearly demonstrated, many of the perceived barriers to an expansion of CUMA are lifted. This takes on even greater significance when one takes into account the potential impact of the recently promulgated SES II legislation package.

5.4 Final Observations

This initial fact-finding study provides an overview of the current incidence of CUMA, from a military stakeholder’s perspective, in those ECAC states that have participated in the study.

Insufficient (civil) airport capacity has been recognised as a significant

constraint to the continued development of the European air transport system. Military aerodromes have been established to meet a particular military purpose and it is likely that due to the nature of military air operations, spare capacity at existing military aerodromes may exist. There is already limited, in terms of overall ATM capacity, civil use of military aerodromes across ECAC states that has developed over time to meet local needs, often stimulated by regional development financial assistance.

Unlike evidence provided by the USA, to date, no evidence has been found of

a concerted effort either at state or European level to organise or expand CUMA in the wider public interest. Instead, the fact finding study discovered that military authorities are generally content with current, mostly ad hoc, arrangements and there was no evidence of strategic engagement with military authorities to assess the possibilities of expanding the civil use of military aerodromes. However looking to the future, if demand for airport capacity increases as projected and military utilisation of its existing aerodrome infrastructure remains stable at its current level, then an



Page | 46

opportunity undoubtedly exists. Only one case was identified, Viterbo in Italy, where it is planned that a

military aerodrome will expand civil airline use to help alleviate capacity constraints at neighbouring civil airports. User groups also commented that they would prefer to enhance capacity at existing airports before considering military aerodromes. This is possibly due to the costs associated in developing passenger-handling infrastructure. However, the Business Aviation sector would have fewer infrastructure demands and could prove easier to relocate to military aerodromes.

If military authorities in states were to be encouraged to expand civil use at

their aerodromes, then it would have to be at no cost to the MOD budget, as there would be no cost benefit in the activity. However if irreducible spare capacity could be identified, that for an appropriate incentive could be utilised by CAT to alleviate pressures elsewhere in the ATM system, then the response might be favourable.

On the negative side, the planned expansion of EASA’s competence into ATM

and aerodromes could jeopardise such developments, as it is likely to provide a further obstacle to the expansion of CUMA. However, this may be less of an issue for those states where military authorities have already embraced SES legislation and can demonstrate equivalence. This all depends on how the SES II legislative package develops through the co-decision process and it will be essential that military stakeholders are fully engaged in that process.

If military stakeholders wished to expand CUMA in their state, then the Italian

model of aerodrome categorisation could prove a useful starting point in identifying suitable aerodromes. Furthermore, to engage with civilian stakeholders, the Commission Airports Observatory appears to be an ideal vehicle in which to initiate discussions.

Key to incentivising military authorities to expand CUMA in their respective

states will be the demonstration of a positive cost benefit analysis. Lessons from the FAA’s Military Airport Program could assist in identifying how the civil community could provide such incentives.

5.5 Recommendations for Further Activities

In addition to continued active engagement in the airport work packages of SESAR and influencing the development of the EASA element of SES II, specific areas considered worthy of closer study for those military authorities that wish to expand CUMA include:

• Seek military participation in the Community Observatory on Airport

Capacity, as military authorities are already airport operators.

• Open the debate at the strategic level about utilising spare capacity at military aerodromes in the wider public interest.



Page | 47

• Seek legal advice to confirm whether competition legislation at European level might impact on the expansion of CUMA, especially through the provision of financial incentives to military stakeholders.

• Analyse existing joint user agreements, particularly from the USA, to develop a best-practice template.

• Acknowledging national prerogatives, conduct a detailed study of charging mechanisms for all aspects of CUMA, engaging financial experts where appropriate.

• Categorize military aerodromes that are suitable for CUMA.

• Quantify potential spare runway capacity at military aerodromes identified as suitable for CUMA.

• Investigate the concept of financial assistance to develop military aerodromes for civil use to alleviate capacity constraints.

• Further analysis of the extent to which military aerodromes comply with ICAO Annex 14 requirements, together with an initial assessment of the cost of achieving such compliance in future.

• Conduct a detailed statistical study of current CUMA movements in all participating states to use as a bench-mark to measure the success of any future initiatives.

• A detailed study of the planned expansion of Viterbo to identify lessons for other states.

• A detailed study of arrangements at Northolt in UK, which has a significant number of Business Aviation movements.

• An assessment of existing Cargo operations from military aerodromes and identifying opportunities for their future expansion.

• An assessment of the role and impact on military aerodromes of the business aviation market, especially the potential future impact of Very Light Jets (VLJs).

A final observation is that the future of CUMA is finely balanced. On one hand, if future civil regulation at military aerodromes is perceived to be overly restrictive and costly to implement, then the expansion of CUMA will prove difficult. On the other hand, especially in those states where military authorities have already implemented elements of civil regulation, if military and civil stakeholders can engage effectively, then there could be significant expansion of CUMA for the benefit of all parties.



Page | 48

Attachment 1 to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008

CUMA FACT FINDING STUDY - REQUEST FOR STATE DOCUMENTATION

Thank you for your offer of support in the DCMAC CUMA Fact-Finding study. The first part of the study will be to collect as much information as possible from participating States on all aspects of the civil use of military aerodromes. It is stressed that the study is only interested in Commercial Air Transport (CAT) flights as defined in Single European Sky legislation and not general aviation or aerial work conducted from military aerodromes.

We are already aware that there is a wide divergence between states in the arrangements for and oversight of civil flights from military aerodromes. For this reason, whilst the list of information requested is as comprehensive as possible, it may still be incomplete. We would therefore be very grateful for any additional information, not included in the list below, but which you consider to be relevant.

Where possible we request copies of documentation in electronic format (preferably in Word format, or in Pdf) although paper copies are also acceptable. Furthermore, it would be very helpful and avoid the delay of translation if you could provide the documentation in English. If the latter proves difficult, the documentation will be translated in English by EUROCONTROL Language Service, but such translation could take time.

We request the following pertaining to civil commercial flights from military aerodromes:

o Any legislation at state level. o Any legislation at regional/local level, including details of the

involvement of regional/local administrations in such operations (for example grant aid or local lobbying for economic regeneration etc).

o Any ATM regulation at state level between civil and military authorities. o Any specific aircraft operating regulations. o Any protocols or memoranda of understanding between civil and

military regulators. o Any protocols or memoranda of understanding between civil and

military service providers. o Any protocols or memoranda of understanding between civil aircraft

operators and military service providers. o Any military directives, rules or regulations at MOD, Single Service, or

Command level. o Details of the relationship between ATS provision and permissions to

use the physical infrastructure of the aerodrome.

Where civil commercial aircraft operate from military aerodromes, but arrangements are made on a case by case basis and there are no specific formal regulations or legislation at a national level, we request as much detail as can be provided to gain



Page | 49

an understanding of those arrangements. We acknowledge that some of this information might be commercially or contractually sensitive and access may prove difficult. In such cases, we would not request access to commercial information but would still be grateful for as much detail as possible on the practicality and oversight of the operation.

Our analysis can begin as soon as you can provide the relevant documentation and we will focus on institutional, legal and regulatory arrangements, together with the financial and operational impact of these activities. We would be grateful for documentation as soon as it is available particularly from those states to which visits are planned.

To meet the agreed timescales for the Task Force, we would like to receive all documentation no later than 31 May 2008, earlier if possible. If this causes any difficulties or you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Mr Simon WRAGG of Siluri Integration Ltd.

We look forward to working with you on what we hope will be a fruitful and productive study.



Page | 50

Attachment 2 to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA – FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR VISITS TO STATES BACKGROUND Before looking at specific issues, it will be important for EUROCONTROL to gain a general understanding of the nature and scope of civil use of military aerodromes in states that are visited. This overview should include:

• The scale of civil operations from military aerodromes, including : o How many aerodromes? o How many movements o How many operators?

• Historical background of the civil use of military aerodromes, including: o For how long have civil aircraft operated from military aerodromes? o How has the relationship between military and civil stakeholders

developed and changed over time? o What is the trend for civil use of military aerodromes (increasing,

decreasing, stable)? • What are your general perceptions on the regulatory environment governing

the civil use of military aerodromes in your state, including institutional, legal, financial and operational (including infrastructure) aspects? Are any changes planned as a result of lessons learned?

INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS

• What are the military prerogatives in the joint use of military aerodromes – who has primacy of use:

o What about military operations and exercises? o Have there been changes to opening hours? How has the associated

cost recovery been arranged? • What are the procedures for civil/military consultation and cooperation on

airport operations – what arrangements are in place and who are the civilian counterparts (at national/regional/ airport level)?

• How are disputes resolved? • What has been the societal impact of civil use of military aerodromes, eg

regional subsidies, regeneration, economic stimulation, development of new markets?

• Who holds responsibility and accountability for any Environmental impact measures taken?

• What are the arrangements and division of responsibilities and

accountabilities between military and civil regulators?



Page | 51

• What has been the impact of SES legislation on civil operations from military aerodromes, for example:

o Designation of the Airport Authority and definition of its competencies? o Certification of facilities and services provided to GAT? o Safety accountability? o Compliance of military aerodrome structures and equipment with ICAO

provisions? o Responsibilities for the installation and maintenance of facilities and

equipment required to meet GAT operational requirements? LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

• What legislation is in place in your state to allow civil operations from military aerodromes (at national, regional and local level)?

• Has any legislation changed as a result of the introduction of SES? • Describe the contractual arrangements between civilian operators and military

aerodromes, are they on a case by case basis or are they for example with individual aerodromes, commands or the MOD?

• Are additional agencies involved in contractual arrangements, eg regional governments or civilian stakeholders such as ANSPs?

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Is there a framework for financial remuneration for the civil use of military aerodromes?

• At what ‘level’ are financial considerations undertaken, case by case at aerodrome, with Commands or at national level?

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

� What is the division of responsibilities and accountability between the civil and military elements at the aerodrome, including:

� ATS, AIS and MET provision? � Airport security? � Airport rescue and fire fighting provision, identifying any differences in

requirement between military and civil? � Engineering and technical support including aircraft handling? � Opening hours? � Passenger handling and infrastructure, including transport access?

� What arrangements are in place to cater for the operational differences

between military (OAT) and civil (GAT) aircraft and associated procedures, including:

� Mixed OAT/GAT ATC procedures? � Training for civil and military personnel to act in a mixed OAT/GAT

environment? � Airspace structure changes to accommodate GAT?



Page | 52

Annex A to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT - VISIT TO ITALY 19 MAY 2008 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 As part of Phase 1 of the EUROCONTROL DCMAC Civil Use of Military Aerodromes (CUMA) Project, a fact-finding visit was undertaken to the Italian Air force (ITAF) on 19 May 2008. In attendance representing DCMAC were:

Fabio GRASSO (EUROCONTROL) Simon WRAGG (SILURI INTEGRATION LTD)

And, representing the ITAF:

Col Claudio LUCCIOLI Lt Col Alessandro REGHELLIN Lt Col Carmelo LOPIS Lt Col Domenico FAVALE Issues were also discussed with Gen Umberto ROSSI – Head of Airspace

Department - USAM 1.2 In Italy, there is a long history of civil use of military aerodromes, that is, state

owned aerodromes on the military inventory. Institutional and regulatory arrangements are in place at state level between the ITAF and ENAC33 (the Italian CAA), with local arrangements at individual aerodromes between civil and military stakeholders. The topic is of particular relevance because there is a major programme currently underway, initiated in 2004 through a protocol34 between the Ministries of Defence and Transport, to transfer aerodromes no longer required for military use to civilian control.

1.3 Regional administrations are keen to further increase the amount of

Commercial Air Transport (CAT)35 operating from military aerodromes to stimulate local economies through tourism and improved transport links. Despite 2 military aerodromes being notified as Coordinated Airports under EC legislation36, capacity to meet continued demand remains a significant issue.

33

Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) http://www.enac-italia.it/pa_en/default.asp 34

“Protocollo d’intesa propedeutico a specifici accordi di programma” dated 14 Oct 04. 35 This study is limited to ‘Commercial Air Transport’ (CAT) operations at military aerodromes as defined in SES Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Common Requirements as, “any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire”. It does not include aerial work, General Aviation, or non-military ‘state’ flights. 36 Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports



Page | 53

1.4 In discussion, 2 issues in particular were raised by ITAF, the direct remuneration to ITAF for ANS provision to CAT and the arrangements for handover of military aerodromes to civil control.

2 BACKGROUND – THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 2.1 In Italy, CAT flights have operated from military aerodromes for many years

and there is extensive experience of military ATCOs providing ATS to General Air Traffic (GAT). Until 1980, when ENAV37 was established, all ATS was provided by ITAF. Today, in addition to Tower and Approach services at military aerodromes, ITAF still provide the ANSP function at 9 Control Zones (CTRs and CTZs) above adjacent civil and military aerodromes.

2.2 CAT currently operate from 18 military aerodromes across Italy, with annual

movements in 2006 of 306,000 and in 2007 of 285,00038, indeed at some military aerodromes such as Rome Ciampino, Pisa San Giusto and Verona, CAT comprise the vast majority of aircraft movements. Operators include both ‘traditional’ airlines such as Alitalia and ‘low cost’ airlines such as Ryanair and EasyJet. As depicted in Figure 1, joint use aerodromes routinely have separate military and civil ground infrastructures, with ITAF providing the ANSP function and private companies providing ground handling and passenger services.

Civil Apron

Civil Terminal

Runway

Military responsible for:•ATS

•CNS

•Perimeter security

Traffic lights/gates to delineate

military/civil areas

Mil

ATSMil

CNS

Mil Apron

Civil operator responsible for: •Aircraft and Passenger Handling

•Physical and passenger security

•Customs

Aerodrome Perimeter

Figure 1. CUMA – The Italian Approach

37

Ente Nazionale Assistenza al Volo http://www.enav.it/portal/page/portal/PortaleENAV/Home_EN 38

These statistics include a small number of civil aircraft authorised, by appropriate Military Authority, case by case, to operate in exclusive military airbase. .



Page | 54

3 INSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS - THE DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES BETWEEN MILITARY AND CIVIL REGULATORS 3.1 SES

ENAC is the nominated National Supervisory Authority (NSA) under Single European Sky (SES) legislation and regulates all GAT. ITAF has made a commitment to ENAC to comply with SES regulation for the control of GAT. Under this formal relationship, ITAF will not be inspected by ENAC but is accountable for safety and will conduct internal audits to demonstrate compliance through equivalence with SES regulation. This includes ATS, MET and CNS provision. Initial audits are currently underway and are due to be complete by the end of June 08.

3.2 ICAO

All major civil-use military aerodromes are compliant with ICAO Annex 14, where the physical infrastructure, including runways and taxiways, is regulated and inspected by ENAC, who provide the required certification. However, options exist for CAT to operate from military aerodromes that are not compliant with Annex 14. A temporary use certificate may be issued by ENAC to allow CAT flights from military aerodromes, where responsibility for safe operation rests with the military authority. For example, Ryanair made a request to ITAF to operate from Latina aerodrome and this was accepted as a special case by ITAF and ENAC.

3.3 Impact of SES

With ANSP compliance covered by the Protocol and aerodromes used by GAT certified by ENAC, the introduction of SES legislation, whilst it has involved considerable additional effort for military ATM staff, has not had a major negative impact on the regulatory oversight of the civil use of military aerodromes.

3.4 Capacity

Of major concern to ITAF is the continued and increasing CAT capacity demands at military aerodromes. Ciampino and Pisa San Giusto are notified as Coordinated Airports under EC Regulation 95/93, with formal coordination committees established on behalf of the MOT by ENAC. Such is the demand from CAT to operate from military aerodromes that ITAF has been working for the past 3 years to also have Verona notified as a Coordinated Airport. At military aerodromes that are not notified as Coordinated Airports, but where CAT capacity is an issue, slot allocation is undertaken by a consolidated consultation and decision making process overseen by ENAC between all main stakeholders including ground handling agencies, carriers and ITAF; where ITAF’s role is both as ANSP and with responsibility for military traffic movements.



Page | 55

4 CATEGORISATION MILITARY AERODROMES FOR CIVIL USE 4.1 Under a national military plan39, military aerodromes are allocated to one of 5

categories (note: there follows an interpretation, rather than a formal translation of the original decree):

a) Military aerodromes designated as a MAIN OPERATING BASE (MOB) for exclusive military use, where ITAF conducts fundamental activities that cannot be re-located without detrimental effect on military operational capability.

b) Military aerodromes designated as a MAIN OPERATING BASE (MOB) where existing civil operations can be expanded, on condition that such expansion does not have a negative impact on military activities, institutionally defined, and does not impact negatively on the MOD budget.

c) Military aerodromes where ITAF, other Armed Forces and Coast Guard flying Units are deployed, in which the compatible co-existence of civil air traffic and operational and training needs of military flying Units is ensured.

d) Military aerodromes designated for the role of DEPLOYMENT OPERATING BASE (DOB), where there is minimal military presence in support of temporary operational deployment and that can be used by civil aviation, subject to the following conditions: • Civil and military operations are conducted on separate sides of the

manoeuvring area • Civil air traffic can be restricted and is of subordinate priority to military

needs • Companies responsible for civil operations shall fund the start-up and

regular conduct of airport operations, taking over responsibility to provide aerodrome services from ITAF.

e) Military aerodrome where there is no requirement for further military use that are being, or planned to be, handed over from military to civil status in accordance with the Protocol, subject to the transfer of responsibilities for airport facilities and services to civil aviation agencies.

4.2 Up to 15 aerodromes have been identified for transfer to civilian control.

However, some of these aerodromes do not fully meet the criteria for certification under (civil) SES legislation and neither the MOD nor their civilian counterparts have funding in place to address the shortfall. The situation is complicated by the fact that Italy has only two institutional ANSPs, ENAV (certified by Italian NSA) and ITAF., ENAV, is not currently in a position to replace the existing military ATS provision for all these aerodromes. Discussions are underway at the highest level, involving ITAF, the MOD, the Ministry Infrastructure and Transport (MOT) and the Ministry of the Economy to resolve the situation.

39 MoD DECREE 25 Jan 08 “Atto di indirizzo relative agli aeroporti militari a doppio uso militare-civile”.



Page | 56

4.3 Viterbo aerodrome provides a good example. About 80 km north of Rome,

and within easy access to the tourist regions of Umbria and Tuscany, it has officially been designated as Rome’s third airport by the MOT. Its capacity is planned to increase to 5 million passengers per annum, but as base to an Army helicopter unit, MOD require assurance that military operational activities can continue without penalty. Multi-stakeholder negotiations are ongoing to ensure the successful transfer of the aerodrome and its facilities to civilian control.

5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 All charges levied on CAT are received by the Ministry of the Economy, who

own and subsequently fund ENAV. For ANS provided to GAT at military aerodromes, ITAF do not receive funds directly for ATS provision based on aircraft movements, but instead MOD funding is based on national macro-economic policy decisions. It was reported that the discrepancy between the cost to ITAF of ANS provision to CAT and the amount reimbursed, is a cause for concern.

6 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS – THE DIVISION OF MILITARY AND CIVIL RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 Whilst local arrangements at each military aerodrome that operate CAT are

different, ITAF normally retains responsibility for all aspects of CNS infrastructure. However, there are a few exceptions, for example at Verona, where to increase ATM capacity, the civil airport handling company funded the installation of an ILS, which is regulated by ENAC. Where there are a large number of CAT movements, a civilian Airport Director is appointed who works alongside his military counterpart. The direct management of the civil component of the aerodrome is contracted to a civil handling company. Ground infrastructure, such as terminal buildings, is not a military responsibility. In addition, coordination committees are established to coordinate military and civil activities and to resolve any disputes.

6.2 Priority of Operations. Under arrangements that other Air Forces would no

doubt find attractive, according to the rules laid down in national Aeronautical Information Publication based on Law 484/81, OAT normally has priority over GAT,

6.3 ATC Training. All military personnel are trained in a mixed OAT-GAT

environment and ITAF ATC Training is well established, with a nationally standardised format, to ESARR 5 and ICAO standards, supplemented by local on the job training (OJT).

6.4 Airspace Structures. As previously discussed, ITAF are responsible for 9 CTRs and airspace changes to accommodate CAT are frequent. ITAF and ENAV work together through a permanent task force to develop airspace changes and these are then approved by ENAC. For example, when Viterbo aerodrome expands, it will require an airspace change to take account of new



Page | 57

SIDs, STARs and the integration of OAT. A second example is the airspace change to include Palermo Boccadifalco aerodrome, recently transferred to civil authorities, in the Palermo CTR.

6.5 Opening Hours. All military aerodromes that operate CAT are usually open for

the maximum possible extent to meet carrier demand. 6.6 Security. Perimeter security and CNS installation security is a military

responsibility. Civilian areas on military aerodromes are clearly delineated and in these, civil contractors, police and national security personnel have sole responsibility for security.

6.7 Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS). Separate military and

civil arrangements exist for the provision of RFFS, regulated by MOD and the Ministry of the Interior respectively.

6.8 Aircraft Handling. Handling of CAT aircraft is the sole responsibility of the

contracted civilian handling agency. However, when parking capacity is a problem, arrangements to use military facilities can be made by local agreement.

6.9 Customs. Customs are a civil responsibility and, if an international military

flight arrives at a military aerodrome that accepts CAT, then that flight is normally parked on the civil apron.

7 SOCIETAL INFLUENCES (INCLUDING THE ENVIRONMENT) 7.1 There is significant interest at regional level in the further expansion of CAT

operations from military aerodromes to encourage the local economy through enhanced transport links and tourism. Requests to operate or increase CAT flights from a military aerodrome are often made by regional administrations, to the MOT initially, but the final decision ultimately rests with the MOD. Regional Development Plans do not involve the specifics of aerodrome operation, but instead focus upon infrastructure, roads and transport connectivity.

7.2 Noise is a major issue at some military aerodromes that operate CAT, for

example, Rome Ciampino. Whilst ENAC has legal responsibility for the noise and environmental impact of commercial flights, because ITAF provide data on noise to ENAC and also control several CTRs, these responsibilities can on occasion become blurred.



Page | 58

Annex B to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT - VISIT TO CZECH REPUBLIC 26 MAY 2008 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 As part of Phase 1 of the EUROCONTROL DCMAC Civil Use of Military Aerodromes (CUMA) Project, a fact-finding visit was undertaken to the Czech Air Force (CzAF) on 26 May 2008. In attendance representing DCMAC were:


And, representing the CzAF, from the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) and Pardubice Aerodrome were:

Col Jan PLEVKA Maj Martin STANCAK Maj Martin JANATKA – (Pardubice) Capt Richard PECINKA (Pardubice)

2 BACKGROUND - NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 2.1 Prior to formation of the Czech Republic on 1 January 1993, there were no

Civil Commercial Transport (CAT)40 flights from Czech military aerodromes. Today, CAT operates from two military aerodromes, Pardubice (ICAO: LKPD) and Prerov (ICAO: LKPO), operations at the former being well established and at the latter still developing. Following the extensive geo-political changes in the 1990s, the CzAF received funding to upgrade its military aerodromes to conform to ICAO Annex 14, which has proved beneficial for CAT. The CzAF has established a Military Aviation Authority (MAA) that is responsible for the regulation of all military ANS, including to CAT, and the MAA works closely with its civilian counterpart (CAA) who are invited to contribute to the regulatory process as described in more detail below. Arrangements at local level are good, based on Memoranda of Agreement (MoA) that have been developed over time and state clearly the responsibilities and accountabilities of military and civil stakeholders. The trend for civil use is increasing, with significant growth in CAT movements at Pardubice (approximately 1500 movements and 100,000 passengers in 2007). However, there are no current plans to open other military aerodromes for civil use, although civilian operators and local administrations are considering opening former military aerodromes as wholly civilian airports for cargo operations.

40 This study is limited to ‘Commercial Air Transport’ (CAT) operations at military aerodromes as defined in SES Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Common Requirements as, “any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire”. It does not include aerial work, General Aviation, or non-military ‘state’ flights.



Page | 59

2.2 General perceptions of CUMA from the military perspective were favourable,

with the institutional, legal, financial and operational aspects all well-established, after 15 years experience at Pardubice.

3 PARDUBICE AERODROME – A CASE STUDY 3.1 With two of our hosts based at the unit, Pardubice Aerodrome served as a

very useful case study. Home to a military ab-initio flying training unit, it also operates as an alternate aerodrome for operational flights. In 1993 the East Bohemia Airport (EBA)41 company was established to operate civil aircraft from Pardubice. Approval for civil VFR flights was granted in 1995 and an IFR license was granted in 1996. In June 2002, Pardubice town became the sole owner of EBA. All facilities at the aerodrome are military owned and operated by the CzAF which provides ATS, the CNS infrastructure, aerodrome facilities and alerting and SAR services. EBA has a separate area to the north west of the aerodrome that provides ground-handling facilities and a passenger terminal. Passenger numbers have increased over time, steadily over the period 1994-2002 when passenger numbers were around 6500 per annum, and more dramatically since, with 46,954 in 2004, 71,655 in 2006 and 93,659 in 2007. Aircraft movements have also increased correspondingly, from 556 in 2000 to just over 1500 in 2007. Fifteen civil carriers operate from Pardubice, including both ‘traditional’ and ‘low cost’ airlines and charter flights, with peak numbers over the summer period. ATM capacity is not a problem, but passenger handling facilities are reaching capacity and a new terminal building is planned.

4 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 4.1 Military ANS Regulation

The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) regulates, certifies and is both responsible and accountable for safety of military ATS/CNS provision and aerodrome infrastructure, including operational approval to ICAO Annex 14 standards and the application of relevant ICAO and SES regulation. A revised MoA for the Civil Use of Military Aerodromes, more detailed than previously, has been developed and drafted for the signature of the Chief of the General Staff and the First Deputy of the MOT. The Czech CAA has cooperated fully with the MAA in the development of this MoA and is invited by the MAA to audit military ANS provision to GAT and relevant operational approvals are signed by both the MAA and CAA. With the redevelopment of military aerodromes and infrastructure since 1993, most CNS equipment at military aerodromes meets ICAO standards and, where there is joint civil-military use, the CAA is invited to inspect and certify such equipment. Establishing a military ANSP, certified by the CAA, had been discussed but due to the many differences in organisational structure such as insurance and budgetary arrangements, it was decided to retain existing arrangements.

41

http://www.airport-pardubice.cz/?lang=en



Page | 60

4.2 Impact of SES

As previously described, civil operations at military aerodromes have CAA oversight and, whilst changes in legislation may have been influenced by SES, such change was likely anyway and SES has been seen as a catalyst rather than a driver.

4.3 Pardubice Contract

CAT operations at Pardubice are detailed in a contract between the Czech Armed Forces Joint Operational Command and EBA. This contract is now in its third iteration and clearly describes the respective roles and responsibilities of military and civilian stakeholders, including periods of routine maintenance, commercial arrangements and charges for landing and ATS provision. There is a strong and positive working relationship between military and civilian counterparts at Pardubice, based on the contract and routine daily contact is supplemented by formal safety meetings on a quarterly basis. As an example of the good working relationship, the civil airport operator sometimes assists CzAF by providing ground handling to military air transport flights.

4.4 Environmental Factors

Aircraft noise from military aerodromes, whether it originates from military or civil aircraft, is an MOD responsibility. As yet, aircraft noise has not been a major problem at Pardubice, because local residents appreciate the economic benefits of commercial aviation and because previously it was a busy fast jet unit with higher noise levels than currently exist.

5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 As detailed in the AIP, EBA collects approach and landing fees and passes

them direct to the MOD. The MOD receive approach fees in full and a flat sum for each CAT movement.

6 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS – THE DIVISION OF MILITARY-CIVIL RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES 6.1 Priority of Flights & Opening Hours

All air traffic is treated equally and, for example, OAT is not given priority over commercial traffic. Services are H24 for military use, although most military flying takes place 0900-1700. Routine civilian opening hours are Mon-Fi 0600-2000 UTC (0700-2100 Winter) or on request. Extending opening hours to accommodate CAT flights is therefore not an issue.

6.2 Service Provision

The Contract specifies clearly the scope of services to be provided to CAT. The CzAF is responsible for the operational status of the airport ie, to maintain the airport ready to receive any aircraft during the designated opening hours.



Page | 61

6.2.1 Military Service Provision:

• Air Navigational Services (ATS- ATC/FIS/SAR/Alerting, AIS, WX). • Radionavigational aids, technical equipment and runway lights

maintainance. • Manoeuvring area maintainance, including runway, taxiways and

aprons and grass cutting. • Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) to CAT 7,

corresponding with ICAO standards, exercised annually with civil emergency service counterparts.

6.2.2 Shared Service Provision:

• Bird Control. • Airport security (military are responsible for perimeter, EBA for its

enclosure and passengers. • Cooperating with accident and incident investigation.

6.2.3 Civil Service Provision:

• Aircraft and passenger handling (eg parking, refuelling, cleaning, catering, customs, transport and further relevant services).

6.3 ATS

ATS regulations, rules, procedures and standards are ICAO-based and are the same for all traffic. There are some minor differencies between civil and military requirements, but ATCOs always follow ICAO regulations when civil and military aircraft interact.

6.3.1 Training for Mixed OAT/GAT Operations

All personnel providing ATS to CAT pass a CAA-approved training syllabus and are examined annually. They retain a military ATCO licence, but with a certificate to control civil traffic.

6.3.2 Airspace Changes

With the exception of revised SIDS and STARs, specific changes to airspace structure have not been required to accommodate CAT at military aerodromes.



Page | 62

Annex C to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT - VISIT TO FRANCE 4 JUNE 2008 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 As part of Phase 1 of the EUROCONTROL DCMAC Civil Use of Military Aerodromes (CUMA) Project, a fact-finding visit was undertaken to the French Air Force DIRCAM HQ on 4 June 2008. In attendance representing DCMAC were:


And, representing DIRCAM were: CC Bernard BASTIER Lt Col Olivier Mrowicki Lt Col Jean-Francois Viegl

2 BACKGROUND - NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA

2.1 Military aerodromes are created by the French government for specific use by military authorities, although many (around 34) are open to all types of civilian air traffic and at 6 Commercial Air Traffic (CAT) comprises a significant proportion of movements. Whilst in 2007 there were around 95,000 civil aircraft movements at military aerodromes (about 15% of the total), these statistics differentiate only between General Air Traffic (GAT) and Operational Air Traffic (OAT) and not between commercial aircraft and General Aviation (GA). Arrangements for the civil use of each military aerodrome can be different and have evolved over time. Some military aerodromes handle significant numbers of passengers, for example Lorient (about 200,000) and Hyères (more than 700,000). Indeed, some for example Lorient, have handled CAT since it first opened in 1946. In addition, there are around 20 cases where military ANSPs provide ATS to adjacent civilian airports where civil authorities do not have an appropriate ATS infrastructure or to improve the management of air traffic in a common area. Civil carriers that operate at military aerodromes include both ‘traditional’ airlines such as Air France, ‘regional’ airlines and more recently ‘low cost’ airlines such as Ryanair.

2.2 There is anecdotal evidence that the trend in CUMA is stable, with the

exception of some interest in the expansion of low cost operations. Discussion suggested that this may be due to the well-developed national transport infrastructure in France with integrated hubs, where for internal journeys the ‘Train à Grande Vitesse’ (TGV) is preferred to regional air travel.



Page | 63

2.3 Military authorities reported that they were generally content with the governance of the civil use of the military aerodromes. Regulations and procedures are enhanced incrementally and defined by specific rules that are established collaboratively between military and civil authorities. In general, the rules for military and civil traffic are very similar and military authorities only introduce specific rules when it is not possible to perform the military mission within those general rules.

3 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 3.1 The use of military aerodromes by CAT is defined by regulations established

jointly by civil and military authorities. Many of these regulations are open source and available at the following internet sites:

a. All regulatory texts can be found at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/home.jsp. b. The main regulatory texts regarding civil-military aerodromes are at http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/ under the « réglementation » item. The characteristics and procedures to be used on military aerodromes by the civil operators are published in the French Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs). c. Military instructions and other information such as instrument procedures and aerodrome information, edited by the French military air traffic directorate, can be found at http://www.dircam.air.defense.gouv.fr/dia/.

3.2 Since 1962, French aerodromes have been registered in one of three lists,

with most military aerodromes allocated to list 2, some on list 1 and a small number on list 3.

a. List 1: Aerodromes opened to the public air traffic, which can be used by

all operators, civil and military; b. List 2: Aerodromes reserved for the use of ‘Administrations’. These are

used only by military or ‘Administration’ aircraft, but civil use may be permitted by special arrangement;

c. List 3: Aerodromes with a restricted use, where aircraft allowed to operate are specially defined. This may include CAT.

3.3 With the exception of minor privately-owned aerodromes and landing strips,

all aerodromes in France are publicly owned. Each aerodrome is assigned to a ministry (referred to as the ‘affectataire’), or several ministries. When there is more than one affectataire, the aerodrome is referred to as an “aérodrome mixte” (joint aerodrome) and a ‘primary affectataire’ is designated, in charge of the direction and general administration of that aerodrome. ‘Secondary affectataires’ are designated with additional specific responsibilities. For example, at a military aerodrome open to CAT, a representative of the MOD would be the primary affectataire and a representative of the MOT would be a secondary affectataire with specific responsibility for commercial aviation.



Page | 64

3.4 Working closely with the French civil NSA, each of the ‘4 French Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force and Test Flight Directorate) have been certified in accordance with SES legislation and DIRCAM has taken the role as Military NSA. However, the implementation of SES legislation has had no specific impact on the regulation and institutional arrangements with regard to the civil use of military aerodromes. In general terms, to promote commonality and enhance integration, OAT rules, regulations and associated documentation is based on the equivalent GAT regulation wherever possible. Only where there is a specific need are OAT regulations different, thus there is a relatively level ‘regulatory playing field’ between military and civil traffic.

4 LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 4.1 The “Code de l’Aviation Civile” specifies the regulations for the use of all

aerodromes, including many texts on the use of the military aerodromes by civil aircraft42.

4.2 Contracts for the civil use of military aerodromes are established on a case by

case basis between the local chamber of commerce or its nominated commercial agent and the respective affectataires.

5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The Chamber of Commerce collects landing charges and handling fees and

DSNA, the French civil ANSP, collects charges for ATS provision during the terminal phase of flight (approach procedure). In a quid pro quo arrangement, when military aircraft are flying as GAT they are not charged en route fees and MOD is not reimbursed for ATS provision to GAT landing at military aerodromes. When MOD controllers provide ATS to GAT, they operate on behalf of MOT.

5.2 Based on the legal Decree of 8 March 200643, highly detailed Letters of

Agreement (LOAs) have been developed for each aerodrome specifying the cost-sharing arrangements between the respective affectataires for aerodrome facilities and services.

6 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS – THE DIVISION OF MILITARY-CIVIL

RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES 6.1 Overview. The air base commander is in charge of the aerodrome and all of

its facilities, for both military and civil use. The Chamber of Commerce is responsible for the civilian side of the aerodrome through a specific agreement (on joint aerodromes, there is a specific sector reserved for the civil airport or installations which is placed under the responsibility of a civil manager).The relationship between air base commander and civilian stakeholders is defined by a specific regulation and a local committee is established with all the stakeholders’ representatives to discuss the common

42

See ‘Legifrance’ website: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/home.jsp 43




Page | 65

use of the aerodrome. Structures and equipment at military aerodromes are compliant with the rules established for civil aerodromes (see arrêté du 28 août 200344).

6.2 ATS Provision. As stated above, when a controller employed by the MOD

provides ATS to GAT, he does soon behalf of the MOT. Military controllers are trained to manage both OAT and GAT and most military ATS procedures are based on GAT rules and are the same for both civil and military aircraft. Soon, controllers will be licensed under the EC ATCO Licence Directive45, with the same qualifications as their civil counterparts. Operationally, the interface between military and civil ATS provision at aerodromes is governed by LOAs between the parent civil Area Control Centre (ACC), the military aerodrome and adjacent civil aerodromes, which include details of how and when the military can provide ATS.

6.3 CNS/AIS/MET/ Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS).

Generally, the military provides all aspects of CNS, aerodromes surfaces and lighting, AIS, MET and RFFS, the only exception being where the civil operator has installed CNS equipment such as ILS and DME, specifically to enhance commercial operations, eg ILS at Nimes and Hyères, DME at Dijon.

6.4 OAT Priority. When the MOD is the primary affectataire at an aerodrome,

both civil and military air traffic arriving and departing from a military aerodrome are treated equitably in accordance with the principles of maintaining a safe and expeditious flow of air traffic respecting the rules of priority set out by flight rules. When a military exercise is scheduled that will impact on flying operations from the aerodrome, any constraints on CAT are generally negotiated and civil operators are informed by NOTAM.

6.5 CAT-Specific Services. Whilst arrangements at each aerodrome are

different, often the local Chamber of Commerce, acting on behalf of the local community or as a private, profit-making organisation, manages all of the ‘land-side’ facilities such as passenger handling and terminal facilities. The civil passenger terminal is always segregated from the military aerodrome and whilst military authorities retain responsibility for aerodrome perimeter security, all terminal and passenger security is the responsibility of civil authorities and is conducted in accordance with EC Regulation 2320/2002, establishing “Common Rules in the Field Of Civil Aviation Security”. CAT aircraft and passenger handling is undertaken by civil staff. Customs services for international flights are provided by the designated (State, not military) authorities.

7 SOCIETAL INFLUENCES (INCLUDING THE ENVIRONMENT) 7.1 In some areas, a military aerodrome will be the largest aerodrome in the

region and, if it accepts CAT, will have a significant economic function. Local

44

http://cnpp.ysance.com/article.php3?id_article=4634 45 Directive 2006/23/EC (on a Community Air Traffic Controller Licence)



Page | 66

administrations, particularly the Chamber of Commerce who is likely to manage the civil aspects of the aerodrome, are therefore always keen to promote CAT operations, stressing the benefits to the local economy.

7.2 As the primary affectataire at a military aerodrome, military authorities retain

responsibility for the environmental impact of operations at that aerodrome, whether those impacts are caused by military or civil aircraft. Whilst the negative impact of aircraft noise is a significant concern, there was no evidence provided to suggest that CAT was a specific problem.



Page | 67

Annex D to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT - VISIT TO ROSTOCK-LAAGE AIRPORT GERMANY 10 JUNE 2008 1 Introduction 1.1 As part of Phase 1 of the EUROCONTROL DCMAC Civil Use of Military

Aerodromes (CUMA) Project, a fact-finding visit was undertaken to Rostock-Laage Airport, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany on 10 June 2008. In attendance representing DCMAC were:


And, representing Rostock-Laage:

Lt Col Michael LOKAY – German Air Force (GAF) Mr J Roske - Flughafen Rostock-Laage-Güstrow (RLG) GmbH Issues were also discussed with Ms M Muller, CEO RLG The visit to Rostock-Laage had a different focus to the 3 previous states visited, being conducted from a more ‘operational’ perspective, rather than a headquarters/staff environment. Therefore, to better understand arrangements at the institutional level, the visit was augmented by study of the Germany Local Coordination and Implementation Plan (LCIP) submission to EUROCONTROL and by discussion with Colonel Itzelberger of the Amt für Flugsicherung der Bundeswehr (AFSBw). These differences made Rostock-Laage especially valuable, particularly as it provided an opportunity to discuss issues with civilian airport operators.

2 BACKGROUND – THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 2.1 Civil commercial use of military aerodromes in Germany is not especially

widespread, but Rostock-Laage provides a good case study. The military element of the aerodrome comprises Jagdgeschwader 73 ‘Steinhoff’ Fighter Wing, operating Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft conducting on-type training for German, and more recently Austrian, pilots. The civilian airport operator, RLG, was first established in 1992 by the 3 local administrations following the reunification of Germany, to encourage Commercial Air Transport (CAT) and its economic benefits into the region. Civil operations are conducted under a Joint-Use Agreement (dated 1996, but currently being renegotiated) between the Federal Government and RLG. Scheduled carriers currently operating from Rostock-Laage include Air Berlin, Germanwings and Ryanair. Charter flights also operate, predominantly on a seasonal basis, and several airlines (eg Lufthansa, Condor, Swiss) conduct training flights from the aerodrome. In 2007 there were around 14,000 CAT movements including training flights.



Page | 68

2.2 Analysis of the German Military Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)46 shows that in addition to Rostock-Laage, that there are 3 joint or co-use military aerodromes:

• Ingolstadt-Manching (ICAO-ETSI), Bavaria, home to both the

Wehrtechnischen Dienststelle 61 (WTD 61), the Defence Technical Service for Aircraft responsible for aircraft flight testing and to the EADS Military Air Systems Division. The aerodrome is designated as a ‘special airport’ in German law and since 2001 has had a civilian element operated by Ingolstadt-Manching GmbH47, mainly for business aviation associated with the local motor industry. A civilian terminal building and hangar were commissioned in 2001 and, with approximately 62,000 passengers in 2006, a second terminal was opened in 2007. The specialist airline Private Wings, providing corporate shuttle services and ad hoc charters operates from Ingolstadt-Manching.

• Neubrandenburg (ICAO-ETNU), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, like Rostock-Laage opened to civilian air traffic following the reunification of Germany, with the establishment of Neubrandenburg Trollenhagen GmbH48, a company formed by local civilian administrations. A terminal building was opened in 1995, with CAT operations similar to Rostock-Laage, but on a smaller scale.

• Nordholz-Cuxhaven (ICAO-ETMN), a Naval Air Station to the west of Hamburg also operates CAT and cargo operations by the Cuxhaven-Nordholz mbH49, a public-private partnership assisted by EU Objective 1 funding. Two regional airlines, Ostfriesische Lufttransport (OLT) and Air Hamburg currently operate from Nordholz, although the volume of CAT movements is not high.

2.3 It proved difficult to detect any specific trends, but anecdotal evidence suggest that civil use was generally stable, although the recent rises in fuel prices had seen the cancellation of some of Air Berlin’s scheduled services from Rostock-Laage.

2.4 There is close cooperation at the institutional level between military and civil

authorities, described in more detail below, and the working relationship between military authorities and the civilian company at Rostock-Laage was visibly positive.

3 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 3.1 German military ATM authorities have for many years worked closely with

their civil counterparts and in 1993 Deutsche Flugsicherung GmBH (DFS) was established as the main civil ANSP. DFS is a 100% state-owned limited

46

http://www.mil-aip.de/ 47

http://www.flugplatz-ingolstadt.de/info_e.shtml 48

http://www.flughafen-neubrandenburg.de/ 49

http://www.sea-airpark.com/index.php?id=7



Page | 69

liability company, governed by Private Company Law and provides integrated civil/military en-route ATS in Germany. ATS at military aerodromes, including those that operate CAT, is undertaken by local military ATS units, who are also responsible for the provision of ATS to civil and military air traffic within defined areas of responsibility in their vicinity.

3.2 To meet the SES requirement to separate regulatory and supervisory

functions from ANS provision, Germany is in the process of setting up a National Supervisory Authority (NSA). In January 2007 an interim NSA office was established, known as LR 23, in the Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (MOT), which is the State federal authority for civil aviation. The close cooperation between military and civilian stakeholders since the formation of DFS has continued with the introduction of SES and a military ATM liaison office is collocated with LR 23.

3.3 Military ATM regulation is undertaken by the Bundeswehr Air Traffic Services

Office (AFSBw), who act as the specialist command for military ATC and report to the Air Staff of the Federal Ministry of Defence. The AFSBw is the competent military authority for all military ATS matters in Germany, providing an oversight function comparable to SES-standards and which is in the process of reorganising as the German Military NSA.

3.4 Turning to flying operations, as specified in the Military AIP, whilst fixed in the

contract with the civil operator that military aircraft have priority over CAT operating from military aerodromes, efficient and effective ATS provision means that such conflictions are rare. At Rostock-Laage, regular planning and liaison meetings are undertaken which ensures the de-confliction of CAT from military exercises and there is close consultation and cooperation to ensure any disputes are resolved at the local level, where the Base Commander has final authority.

3.5 The civil regulators only involvement in operations at Rostock-Laage is

oversight of aircraft and passenger handling by RLG. 3.6 Military aerodromes that operate CAT are not yet compliant with the

provisions of ICAO Annex 14, but are working incrementally to achieve such compliance.

4 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Provision of ATS for GAT by military ATCOs is legislated in State law, the

Ministerial Regulations for the Armed Forces and in Special ATS Directives (BesAnMilFS), signed respectively by the president of the Federal Republic of Germany, the secretary of state of the MOD and the Director of the AFSBw. German Military Regulations on the provision of ATS for both OAT and GAT cover to the widest possible extent civil regulations (ICAO, EU, EUROCONTROL, National) and are supplemented by purely military issues where essential.



Page | 70

4.2 Arrangements for the permanent civil use of military aerodromes are specified in the German Military Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), which states: The right to joint use shall be regulated by co-utilisation contracts to be concluded between the responsible military district office and the civil co-user. Permanent civil co-utilisation of military aerodromes is subject to approval by the responsible aeronautical authority of the individual German Bundesland. Such approval shall regulate the type and scope of civil operation. The interests of military aviation supervision have priority over civil aviation supervision. The military status of the aerodrome shall not be affected. Local air traffic services and flight procedures at aerodromes which are operated by the armed forces shall remain within the area of responsibility of the armed forces.

As previously mentioned, the joint use agreement for Rostock-Laage, first

concluded in 1993 and for which the extant arrangement was signed in 1996, is currently being renegotiated.

5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Under the joint use agreement, RLG is responsible for meeting a percentage

of the running costs of the aerodrome and derives income from charges for landing and handling fees.

5.2 Currently, there is no mechanism in place for military authorities to receive

direct payment for the provision to CAT of ATS and CNS services at aerodromes.

6 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Military authorities are responsible for the provision of all facilities and

associated services at Rostock-Laage, with the exception of those provided by FRLG GmbH on the 38 Hectare civilian site and there involvement in ATS provision, described below.

6.2 ATS. During its published hours of military operation, all ATS and CNS

provision is conducted by military ATCOs. Outside these hours, the Class D CTZ remains active and ATCOs contracted to RLG, provide a Tower-only ATS using the military facilities. Predominantly ex-military personnel, these ATCOs are regulated, trained and standardised under military regulations, with no participation or involvement of the civilian regulator.

6.3 AIS. During its published hours of military operation, AIS is provided by

military personnel, but is restricted to the relay of flight plans. Outside these hours, there is no routine AIS provision, which is recognised as an issue. With regard to publications, the civilian operation at Rostock-Laage currently features only in the Military AIP, but under an arrangement agreed between Rostock-Laage, AFSBw and DFS, in future it will also feature in the Civil AIP.



Page | 71

6.4 Airport security. Perimeter security is the responsibility of the Bundeswehr. The civil airport apron, terminal building and passenger security is the responsibility of RLG.

6.5 Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS). The aerodrome RFFS

is provided by military personnel, with their deployment in the event of emergencies involving civil aircraft governed by the laws, provisions and regulations applicable to military and civil flight operations (LVG [Air Traffic Act], LVO [Air Traffic Regulations], instructions of the LBA [German CAA] and military regulations/orders). Recently, maintaining Crash Cat 7 H24 has proved difficult to achieve and discussions are underway to resolve the issue, with one potential solution being to augment military personnel with local civilian fire fighters.

6.6 Aircraft Handling. RLG provides all engineering support, aircraft and

passenger handling. 6.7 OAT-GAT Differences. In Germany, there are minimal differences between

OAT and GAT procedures and service provision and there is therefore no requirement for different controlling techniques or training to meet the needs of aircraft operating as GAT.

7 SOCIETAL INFLUENCES (INCLUDING THE ENVIRONMENT) 7.1 Following the reunification of Germany, the potential benefits for the local and

regional economies had a significant influence on the introduction and development of CAT operations at Rostock-Laage and similarly at Neubrandenburg. It was reported that substantial Federal and European aid had been made available for infrastructure development projects such as Rostock’s new terminal building, which was completed in 2005.

7.2 With regard to the negative societal impact of aviation, military authorities

remain responsible for all environmental impacts at military aerodromes, whether they involve military or civil aircraft. At local level, this is the military Base Commander, who also retains overall accountability for safety.



Page | 72

Annex E to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT – THE NETHERLANDS APPROACH 1 BACKGROUND - NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 1.1 Two military aerodromes in the Netherlands, Eindhoven and De Kooy,

regularly operate CAT and other aerodromes accept CAT on an occasional basis. There are approximately 40,000 movements per annum, divided between traditional and low-cost airlines and ad hoc charters. CAT has operated from Eindhoven for more than 20 years and has increased over time, although more recently this trend has stabilised. However, in the near future it is foreseen that demand for more civil use will, once more, increase.

1.2 Military authorities are generally content with the arrangements for civil use of

military aerodromes, which are increasingly complaint with ICAO Annex 14 provisions. However, the differences for items such as arresting gear, may cause problems in future when certification under civil regimes is sought. Aerodrome opening hours have been extended as a result of CAT operations and CAT operators are charged for those military services and facilities that they utilise.

2 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 2.1 Permission for civil co-use of a military aerodrome is provided by the Military

Aviation Authority (MAA), on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. An amendment to the Aviation Act is being planned, with specific regard to the civil use of military aerodromes, to better harmonise military and civil operations. Whilst military aircraft have formal priority over CAT, ATS is provided pragmatically based on the safe and expeditious flow of air traffic. Exercises are planned well in advance, when additional restrictions on CAT may be introduced, but careful planning avoids unnecessary restrictions on CAT. ATC coordinate the daily operational programme with the civilian operator‘s duty manager and any disputes are resolved locally by the Base Commander, whose decision prevails. In the unlikely event that a dispute is not resolved, a solution is sought at MOD level.

2.2 Using Eindhoven as an example, the Base Commander and thereafter MOD

is responsible for all aspects of its operation, including environmental aspects such as emissions and noise. Eindhoven as a regional airport has a significant impact on the local economy, handling more than 1,500,000 passengers per year and offering significant local employment. As such, Eindhoven and commercial operations from it are high on the local political agenda.

2.3 At the regulatory level, whilst MOD remains accountable for the oversight of

activities at military aerodromes that operate CAT, in light of the close



Page | 73

relationship in the Netherlands between military and civil regulators, they do so in mutual agreement with the MOT.

2.4 The implementation of SES legislation has not had a specific impact on the

civil use of military aerodromes, as measures were already underway to bring military regulation closer to civil. Military authorities are in the process of investigating certification of the military ANSP and implementing other aspects of SES legislation.

2.5 In addition to the MOD being accountable for all military aspects of safety, the

civil aircraft operator has an obligation to check that aerodrome services (including ATC, Met, infrastructure, Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS)) meet equivalent civil standards and to report any differences to MOT.

3 LEGAL & FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Legislation for the civil use of military aerodromes is at national level through

the Aviation Act, through regional agreements and locally through CONOPS and standing orders.

3.2 Regional administrations also participate in the environmental assessment of

military aerodromes through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). 3.3 In the case of Eindhoven, a contract for the operation of CAT is signed at

MOD level that includes arrangements for the reimbursement of costs for ATC, MET and infrastructure provision. Other civilian operators are charged for the use of the aerodrome by the Treasury Department, who use the charging scheme from a regional civil airport, Eelde.

4 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Division of Responsibilities. Military authorities provide ATS to CAT at its

aerodromes, along with RFFS. AIS and MET provision is integrated civil/military, as is airport security, whereas engineering support, aircraft and passenger handling is a civil responsibility.

4.2 Flight Procedures. Civil Flight procedures at military aerodromes in the

Netherlands are in accordance with PANSOPS and published after consultation with MOT. Civaland military procedures are published in both the civil and military AIPs, with procedures available to civil operators.

4.3 ATS Differences. Any differences in the handling requirements of GAT from

OAT are specified in the appropriate Unit standing orders and publications. Whilst ATC Training to handle GAT is part of the common core content of the military ATS training syllabus, it is augmented by additional OJT at those units that handle GAT.



Page | 74

Annex F to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT – THE SLOVENIA APPROACH 1 BACKGROUND - NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 1.1 Slovenia does not have a long tradition in operating Commercial Air Transport

(CAT aircraft from military aerodromes and their representative is keen to participate in the CUMA Task Force to better understand other states’ arrangements in order to adopt best practice and capitalise on future opportunities. Slovenia has operated CAT from one military aerodrome for the past 5 years, with non-scheduled flights by aircraft carrying up to 30 passengers and no ‘low-cost’ airlines. There are future plans to introduce scheduled flights from this aerodrome, expanding up to 5000 per annum within 10 years, with active support from the local community, industry and business. Whilst existing regulations meet the needs of the current level of CAT activity, to meet the potential increase, military authorities recognise the need to develop a regulatory framework to address all key aspects: institutional, legal, financial and operational.

2 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 2.1 Slovenia has a Military Aviation Authority (MAA) who report to the Ministry of

Defence, General Staff, and who are responsible for military ATC regulation. Slovenian regulations specify that military air traffic, in particular any air defence activity, has priority over CAT. However, with the small number of CAT flights that operate, these can normally be integrated with military flying activity based on the routine implementation of a ‘safe and expeditious flow of air traffic’ and opening hours have not been amended to cater for CAT. The base commander retains responsibility for the safety of operations, including for CAT, and is advised on CAT matters by an aerodrome council. In the event that any dispute cannot be resolved at local level, it will be addressed by a supervisory body comprising representatives from the MOD and local community.

2.2 The local community and its administrative representatives are keen to

introduce scheduled CAT services to promote economic activity and tourism, although the current low level of CAT movements does not have a significant positive impact. Currently, military authorities have responsibility for, and attempt too minimise, the environmental impact of all flying operations at the aerodrome, including for CAT, although CAT operators do have to meet extant Slovenian and EU rules on emissions and related legislation.

2.3 CAT operators are regulated by civilian authorities and specific ATC

regulations based on Slovenian air law have been developed by military authorities for the control of CAT. The aerodrome that operates CAT is fully compliant with ICAO Annex 14 standards and is inspected by the CAA.



Page | 75

3 LEGAL & FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 There is still no specific legislation in Slovenia dealing with CUMA, only the

adaptation of air law, but it is felt that there is a future requirement to develop such specific regulation. The introduction and implementation of SES regulations has had no specific impact on CAT operations from military aerodromes.

3.2 The Slovenian MOD is responsible for contractual arrangements for CAT ops and, in future, it is expected that local and regional administrations will take a more active role in the development of CAT operations from military aerodromes.

3.3 There is no distinction in the cost recovery mechanisms between CAT

operating at the military aerodrome and at civilian airports in Slovenia. All revenues are retained by the civilian ANSP, but in future the MOD would like to review this arrangement.

4 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 As CUMA in Slovenia is not well-developed, unlike in other states where a

civil infrastructure is in place, most ground facilities and services are provided by the military in support of CAT:

• ATS and AIS provision in Slovenia is provided by military ATCOs, who are

also employed in ACCs, in the en-route environment. • MET services are also joint, provided by the Environmental agency • Airport security, RFFS, engineering support, aircraft and passenger

handling are all military, although in future there are plans for separate aircraft and passenger handling for CAT.

4.2 Military and civilian ATC procedures, standards and training are very similar,

with military ATCOs initially trained to the same standards as their civil counterparts, before receiving additional training for military-specific tasks, rather than specific training to control GAT.



Page | 76

Annex G to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT– SPAIN 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 Commercial Air Transport (CAT)50 aircraft have operated from military

aerodromes in Spain for many years. Following the formation of AENA51 in 1991, in 1995 arrangements for the civil use of military aerodromes were regularised under a legal framework in Royal Decree 1167/1995. In total, 9 military aerodromes accept CAT: 2 military aerodromes accept commercial traffic subject to special arrangements; one is jointly used as a military aerodrome and civil airport, with the military providing ATS; and 6 military aerodromes are open to CAT on a regular basis. Annual CAT movements are approximately 100,000 and the trend is increasing. The civil-military relationship is good and military authorities are content with the institutional, legal, financial and operational arrangements, with no plans for major change.

2 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 2.1 With the introduction of SES legislation, a military National Supervisory

Authority (NSA) and a military Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) have been established alongside their civil counterparts. Whilst the military ANSP is not certified in accordance with SES, measures are in place to ensure maximum compliance with the Common requirements. Military air base commanders are accountable for safety and military authorities are responsible for ATS and CNS provision and maintenance, together with aerodrome facilities including runway, taxiways and lighting. However, there are some examples where CNS equipment is required specifically to meet civil requirements and is provided, maintained and regulated by civil authorities. The military NSA works in close contact and cooperation with the CAA and occasionally seeks support from them when specific expertise is needed, but retains full responsibility for the inspection and audit of all military installations and equipment used to control GAT.

2.2 Civil-military consultation and cooperation is conducted at 3 levels, with most

issues resolved by local coordination between base commanders and civil airport authorities. Other problems are solved by direct coordination between Air Force HQ with the civil ANSP. Lastly, there is a Defence-Development Inter-ministerial Committee (CIDEFO), established to create or modify national arrangements and ministerial regulations regarding aviation matters. Contractual arrangements are governed by a legal framework regulation

50 This study is limited to ‘Commercial Air Transport’ (CAT) operations at military aerodromes as defined in SES Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Common Requirements as, “any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire”. It does not include aerial work, General Aviation, or non-military ‘state’ flights. 51

Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Aerea (AENA) Spain’s National ANSP



Page | 77

established at inter-ministerial level. Thereafter, some arrangements are made with the Air Staff and also at local level.

2.3 Military aerodromes that operate CAT do not currently comply with ICAO

Annex 14, although authorities are in the process of making all CUMA aerodromes compliant.

2.4 Some military aerodromes have restricted operating hours and others have

increased their opening times to accommodate CAT outside routine military operating hours. Military aircraft have primacy over CAT only if required for operational reasons. During military exercises or other special circumstances, civilian operations may be restricted or rescheduled. Remuneration for civil use of military aerodromes is undertaken at national level and the Spanish Air Force complies with EC Regulation 1794/2006, the Common Charging Scheme, regarding ANS to civil traffic. Where a request from a civil carrier to extend opening hours is granted, there is a corresponding increase in the charges made, but since the extension is usually of one to two hours, the impact on cost is not significant.

2.5 Local and regional administrations are keen to increase opportunities for CAT

use of military aerodromes to stimulate local economies through tourism and enhanced transport links. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) retains responsibility for the environmental impact of military aerodromes and no special arrangements are in place for civil aircraft.

3 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS – DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 The Spanish Air Force provides ATS and AIS, with MET provided by the

national meteorological provider. Procedures for mixed OAT/GAT ATC are described in the “Order of 15th March 1995”, which approves the coordination rules between GAT and OAT. Military ATCO’s training syllabus includes National GAT regulations and on the job training includes local procedures and arrangements for GAT traffic. In Spain, there have been no changes to the airspace structure above military aerodromes to accommodate civil operations.

3.2 The civil operator provides security for the ‘civil area’ of the aerodrome.

Rescue and fire fighting services are usually provided by the civil service provider, with local arrangements for military support if necessary. Aircraft and passenger handling and infrastructure is civil and customs is provided by the Spanish Police and Guardia Civil.



Page | 78

Annex G to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA – UK APPROACH 1 BACKGROUND - NATURE AND SCOPE OF CUMA 1.1 Whilst all military aerodromes in UK routinely accept limited numbers of

General Aviation (GA) flights, there is no long tradition of commercial, passenger carrying operations from military aerodromes. Some, geographically remote, aerodromes operate postal service flights and RAF Northolt, situated in West London, operates significant numbers of business aviation aircraft52, but only RAF St Mawgan in Cornwall and RAF Valley on Anglesey in North Wales operate Commercial Air Transport (CAT) flights. RAF St Mawgan has operated CAT flights since 1950, more recently as Newquay Cornwall Airport53, but it is now surplus to defence requirements and the final transition to Newquay-Cornwall Airport is scheduled for midnight 30 November 2008. In contrast RAF Valley only began operating CAT on 8 May 2007, under a Public Service Obligation (PSO) linking North and South Wales, as described in more detail below. There are currently no plans to further increase the civil use of military aerodromes.

1.2 Military authorities are generally content with the existing arrangements for

the limited CAT operations from military aerodromes in the UK. Comprehensive rules for all civilian flying from military aerodromes, irrespective of type, are contained in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 360, ‘Use of Military Airfields by British and Foreign Civil Aircraft’. However, there is no separate regulation for the limited CAT activity at military aerodromes; instead arrangements are made on a case by case basis. Authorities are acutely aware of plans by EASA to extend its competence into the fields of ATM and airports and await with interest their potential impact on UK MOD and operations from its facilities.

2 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 2.1 The conduct of civil aviation in the United Kingdom is set out in the Civil

Aviation Act 1982. The enabling document under which powers are delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 200554. ANO Articles 126 and 127 deal specifically with aerodromes used for the public transport of passengers and states:

52

Up to 7000 movements per annum of aircraft with up to 30 seats with civilian handling using a shared terminal, with charges levied in accordance with JSP 360. 53

http://www.newquaycornwallairport.com/ 54




Page | 79

Aerodromes - public transport of passengers and instruction in flying

126 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the United Kingdom other than:

(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such aircraft; or (b) a Government aerodrome notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be; and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.

Use of Government aerodromes

127 With the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the CAA may cause to be notified subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, any Government aerodrome as an aerodrome available for the take-off and landing of aircraft engaged on flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers or for the purpose of instruction in flying or of any classes of such aircraft.

2.2 ‘Public transport of passengers equates with ‘commercial air transport’ and all

military aerodromes are government aerodromes, therefore, in the UK legislation permits flights by CAT into military aerodromes. The CAA Flight Operations Department demands that air operators have completed a safety assessment to confirm that the aerodrome is suitable for its operation and this requirement is valid for all aerodromes whether they are licensed, un-licensed, or government. In the case of military aerodromes in the UK, whilst they are not certified in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 requirements, they do meet the requirements of JSP 554, ‘Military Aviation Aerodrome Criteria and Standards’, which is aligned as closely as possible with ICAO Annex 14 requirements. Moreover, whenever new works are commenced the policy is for the applicable standard to be as good as, if not better than, the equivalent civilian requirement. Therefore the degree of difference is steadily reducing but, the application of new regulations is not retrospective. Exploratory liaison on aerodrome standards has taken place between military authorities and their civilian equivalents, the CAA’s Aerodrome Standards Department. However, it must always be remembered that military aerodromes are considered fit for their defence purpose and meeting civilian requirements is likely to incur additional costs. ATS and CNS services are provided and regulated by military authorities.

2.3 The Operating Agreement for the civil (flying) use of MOD airfields in JSP 360

specifies that all civilian flights into and out of MOD airfields are subject to the regulations contained within it and that no flights may take place without the consent of the Station Commander. Withholding consent shall be at the absolute discretion of the Station Commander and (without prejudice to his absolute discretion) he will withhold his consent if the airfield is required for operational purposes. In practice, at RAF Valley, the single UK military



Page | 80

aerodrome that currently accepts CAT, there are only four aircraft movements each day, military and civil aircraft are treated equitably to achieve a safe and expeditious flow of air traffic and OAT does not need to receive priority.

2.4 Opening hours have not been amended to cater for CAT. However, if a

civilian aircraft either lands or takes off outside normal opening hours the standard landing fee, described below, plus an additional charge of 75% is payable. Procedures are in place for any disputes to be resolved locally and if this cannot be achieved, issues can be raised to Air Command level.

2.4 The station commander at the military aerodrome has overall responsibility for

the safety of operation and air navigation services are regulated under an ESARR 3 compliant Safety Management System (SMS).

2.5 It was reported that the introduction of SES legislation has had no impact on

CAT operations from UK military aerodromes and, for example, UK MOD does not plan to certify its military ANSPs.

3 LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 3.1 Within the overarching regulatory and institutional requirements detailed

above, individual contracts for the operation of CAT from military aerodromes in the UK, which are relatively rare, are developed on a case by case basis. Taking the example of RAF Valley, HQ No 22 (Training) Group RAF has a contract with Isle of Anglesey County Council, granting permission to operate an air route from RAF Valley to Cardiff International Airport, Cardiff being the capital city of Wales. Under the terms of the PSO, the Welsh Assembly Government awarded the air service contract to Highland Airways Ltd55, and Anglesey County Council awarded the Airport Operators contract to a private company, Operon.

4 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 UK Treasury and MOD policy is to dispose of any existing defence capacity

which is surplus to requirements and this is the case with military aerodromes, as evidenced by the transfer to civilian ownership of RAF St Mawgan. However, assets which are retained will include some spare capacity which is not fully utilised. This is referred to as ‘irreducible spare capacity’ and its exploitation is encouraged wherever possible, provided this is consistent with defence requirements and does not unreasonably affect local amenities. This ‘Wider Market Initiative’ and is defined as:

‘The commercial exploitation …. of MOD assets which need to be retained but

are not fully used.’

MOD aerodromes in particular represent a valuable national asset, and the income from civil flying provides a useful contribution to the defence budget. However, any services utilised by civil aircraft at MOD aerodromes must be

55

http://www.highlandairways.co.uk/cgi-bin/airkiosk/I7/181002i?HWY=2&LANG=EN



Page | 81

provided at no cost to MOD. For example, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and ATS may be available H24, but are not fully utilised for Defence tasks at all times and can therefore be used to handle civil aircraft within the spare capacity available.

4.2 In the case of CAT operations from RAF Valley, MOD is remunerated for the services it provides including landing, navigation and aircraft parking charges as laid down in JSP 360, based on actual movements not a separately negotiated flat-rate.

4.3 A further consideration is that the UK air transport market is de-regulated,

highly competitive and most civil airports are privately and not state owned, unlike other European states. In such an environment the MOD is not permitted to use resources funded by the tax payer to undercut competitors and this may be one of the reasons why civil use of military aerodromes in the UK remains limited.

5 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 RAF Valley is a busy flying training unit, home to No 4 Flying Training School

who operate 2 large squadrons of Hawk aircraft conduct all of the UK’s fast jet training. It is also home to the Defence Helicopter Flying School Search and Rescue training Unit and an operational SAR flight. CAT operations from RAF Valley comprise 2 return flights each day, Monday to Friday inclusive operating Jetstream 31 aircraft. There is also an allowance for additional movements to cater for unforeseen circumstances such as aircraft unserviceability.

5.2 Military authorities provide CNS and ATS, together with additional aerodrome

services such as RFFS and including aerodrome perimeter security. 5.3 Part of the former visiting aircraft apron is designated for civil use and

engineering and aircraft handling is provided by the civilian contractor. For several years, all engineering support at RAF Valley has been ‘contractorized’ and setting up the CAT operation required some delicate negotiations with existing companies already operating at the unit.

5.4 A new civil terminal building has been erected with its own road transport

access and perimeter fencing, as an enclave within the aerodrome boundary, on land leased from Defence Estates but for which military authorities have no responsibility. One of the major considerations in developing the CAT operation at RAF Valley was passenger security and the requirement to comply with the UK National Aviation Security Programme (NASP), as determined by the Department for Transport (DfT). This specifies that if the civil aircraft falls within the DfT definition (aircraft weighing 10 tonnes or more or having more than 19 seats) then the receiving aerodrome must apply all the measures outlined within the NASP. This includes meeting the defined levels of infrastructure and equipment requirements and also the minimum training requirements for those personnel operating within the designated Restricted Zone. Each military aerodrome wishing to process civil aircraft



Page | 82

carrying civil passengers must also be accredited by the DfT to ensure conformity with the NASP. It is reported that due to this clear demarcation of responsibility, passenger security has not been an issue for military authorities.

5.5 Customs provision is not an issue in the CAT operation at RAF Valley,

because the only flights provided are internal. 5.6 Whilst military ATC training in UK conforms to ESARR 5 requirements, apart

from local procedures and On the Job Training (OJT), there are no generic arrangements in UK to cater for differences between military and civil aircraft. The airspace above RAF Valley, as it is at St Mawgan, is Class G and to ensure the tactical freedom of the extensive military flying training operations conducted from the aerodrome, there are no plans to change this classification. However, aircraft arriving and departing from RAF Valley benefit from the UK’s unique Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace (ATSOCAS).

6 PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION (PSO) CIVIL OPERATIONS AT RAF

VALLEY 6.1 A PSO is intended to ensure that for a particular route there is adequate

provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing that standard air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their economic interest. The PSO specifies a range of service-related requirements, such as frequency and timings, aircraft capacity and fare levels. PSOs are governed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/9256 and tend to be awarded in geographically remote areas.

6.2 Following public consultation in 2004, the Welsh Assembly Government announced plans for an intra-Wales air service between Cardiff and RAF Valley. An application was made to DfT, and subsequently granted, for a Public Service Obligation (PSO) on the route. The Welsh Assembly Government considered that the service was essential for the economic development of north-west Wales, providing improved business connectivity, new tourism opportunities and significant time savings for travel between North and South Wales. It would enhance the economic, social and political cohesiveness of Wales and will make the island of Anglesey far more competitive in terms of attracting new investment and growing existing businesses. The service has been established for an initial three-year period, but if successful, consideration would be given to the scope for developing the network within Wales. Anecdotal evidence suggests the operation has already been more popular and successful than anticipated.

56

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/internal_market/doc/en_1992R2408_do_001.pdf



Page | 83

Annex I to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA REPORT – THE USA APPROACH 1 BACKGROUND - Nature and Scope of Joint Use at Military Aerodromes 1.1 In the USA, the civil use of military aerodromes is described as ‘Joint Use’ and

is defined as:

“An installation where written agreement between the military department and a local government agency authorizes use of the military runway for a public airport”.

In the USA, one Navy, 9 Army and 11 Air Force (USAF) military aerodromes are designated as Joint Use. This report is based on information provided by USAF staff and the attached report on the FAA MAP57. USAF joint use aerodromes include Charleston and Sheppard Air Force Bases (AFBs) which have operated CAT for over 50 years and have approximately 25,000 and 5,000 CAT movements per annum respectively. The remaining 8 AFBs have operated CAT for around 15 years and host around 5000 movements per annum in total. At Charleston and Sheppard AFBs, the number of movements has increased over time, at the other locations it has remained stable. The relationship between military authorities and civil stakeholders has evolved yet remains supportive and the USAF is content with arrangements and has no insurmountable difficulties with the civil use of its aerodromes.

2 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS 2.1 Military regulations give priority to military aircraft as a pre-condition when

considering joint use. Exercises are planned well in advance and arranged, as much as possible, not to interfere with CAT operations. Joint Use Agreements usually require that the civil operations occur within the existing operating hours of the aerodrome, but extended hours can be negotiated, if acceptable to the military mission and all costs associated with the extension (eg ATC personnel, aerodrome operating personnel, lighting costs) are paid by the civil authority.

2.2 Civil-military consultation arrangements are detailed in a Joint Use Agreement

for each aerodrome, which is approved and signed at the Headquarters United States Air Force level, with an office in the Pentagon (AF/A3O-AC for the Air Force) responsible for negotiating the agreement and to be the point of contact, should problems or concerns occur.

2.3 The civil authority that requests and signs the Joint Use Agreement is a local

government agency eligible under US law to sponsor a public airport. Prior to a final decision on the proposed civil use of a military aerodrome, the

57

FAA website: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/military_airport_program/



Page | 84

community and military base must complete an Environmental Impact Analysis, with Air Force input and to Air Force standards, to determine the impact of the proposed operations on the base, community, and environment. If the environmental study is acceptable then an agreement can be negotiated.

2.4 There is evidence of the positive economic benefit of aviation to the

surrounding region, that includes joint use aerodromes such as Charleston AFB, South Carolina, as detailed by the South Carolina Division of Aeronautics58.

2.5 At Joint Use locations US Federal law and the joint use agreement state that

the civil authority will be responsible for ensure compliance with any CAT laws and regulations and for all requirements on the property under their control (either owned or leased). FAA regulations are applicable only to those portions of the aerodrome controlled by the civil authority. There are restrictions in the Joint Use Agreement that prohibit certain activities, such as construction on the civil portions of the aerodrome adjacent to the military runway. The USAF retains overall responsibility for safety on the ‘jointly used portions of the aerodrome’ and in most instances Military aerodromes meet or exceed Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), and therefore ICAO Annex 14, requirements. Civil operations at military aerodromes must comply with applicable CAT regulations.

3 The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)59 and Military Airport Program

(MAP) 3.1 The USA also provides an example where joint use plays a role in the

strategic management of ATM capacity. A US National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) has been prepared at regular intervals since the mid-1940s and identifies airports that are significant to national air transportation and eligible for aid under the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP provides grants to public agencies and, in some cases, to private owners and entities for the planning and development of public-use airports. Funds for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund, supported by user fees, fuel taxes, and similar revenue sources.

3.2 The MAP is a grant set aside from the AIP and through this program, to

reduce congestion at existing airports experiencing significant delays, the FAA awards grants to civilian sponsors who are converting military aerodromes to civilian or joint military-civilian use. Whilst the majority of this aid goes to the conversion of aerodromes no longer required by the military, in promoting joint-use, existing military aerodromes may also be eligible for financial assistance from the FAA. More details on the MAP are provided at Appendix 1 to this report.

58

See SC Aviation Economic Impact Study at http://www.scaeronautics.com/publications.asp 59

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/



Page | 85

4 LEGAL & FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Legislation at the National level covers the joint civil use of military

aerodromes. Specifically, Title 49, United States Code (USC) Section 44502, states that a Federal Department can regulate public use of its airports and Section 47103, states that military airports will be made available for civil use to the maximum extent feasible. All Joint Use Agreements are developed, negotiated, and approved at the National level (Pentagon) and the local governmental authority is responsible for ensuring that state and local laws are complied with. The agreement is between the local governmental agency and the Air Force at the national level.

4.2 With regard to cost recovery, whilst each Joint Use Agreement is unique,

based on the military requirements of the aerodrome, which could limit the type and number of civil operations, the assumption is that the civil operation will be at ‘no cost’ to the Air Force. The Air Force policy is to require the civil authority to pay ‘fair share’ costs for the operation of the aerodrome based on their percentage of the overall use of the facilities.

5 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 ATS is usually provided by the military; however, at locations like Charleston

AFB, where CAT is the majority user, the FAA could take over ATS. Similarly, in most cases AIS and MET remain with the military. However, if CAT operations require new equipment be installed, used, or be made available, it is at the cost of the civil operator, and it must meet military needs and not interfere with military operations.

5.2 Overall aerodrome security remains a military responsibility; however, the civil

operator is responsible for security in their owned or leased areas, as well as complying with all CAT security requirements of the FAA.

5.3 At military aerodromes, due to the unique nature of military aircraft, the

military’s Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) requirements usually exceed those required by CAT operations. The differences are mostly in the number and type of responding vehicles and the number of personnel.

5.4 At joint use aerodromes, military and civil aircraft do not mix except for taxiing,

takeoff, and landing. The military provides handling and support to their aircraft and the civil operator supports civil aircraft.

5.5 All civil passenger handling, transportation and access is the direct

responsibility of and handled by the civil authority. Access to the civil terminal is not normally permitted through military property, that is, there is separate access for civil operations.

5.6 Customs for CAT operations is the responsibility of the civil operator. 5.7 Other than military aircraft generally receive priority by agreement, air traffic at

most joint use locations is handled on a ‘first come-first served’ basis. The



Page | 86

military or civil Air Traffic Controllers are experienced in handling mixed civil/military traffic and few problems are encountered. Furthermore, as military and civil Air Traffic Controllers are licensed to the same standard, there are no issues concerning whether the Air Traffic Controllers are civil or military, or if the air traffic is civil, military, commercial, or general aviation

5.8 The airspace structure is the same for civil and military traffic. With the

exception of restricted airspace, there is no differentiation between civil and military use.



Page | 87

Appendix 1 to Annex B to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 INFORMATION ON THE UNITED STATES FAA MILITARY AIRPORTS PROGRAM Provided by: Kendall L. Ball, P.E. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports 24 June 2008 BACKGROUND 1. What is the MAP program? MAP provides airport capital development (infrastructure) funding assistance to civil airport sponsors of designated current (joint-use) military airfields or former military airports. MAP does not fund any air traffic control infrastructure. These airports must be in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports included in the MAP may obtain discretionary funds for airport development, including certain projects not otherwise eligible for assistance from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). � The legislative requirement for MAP can be found at 49 CFR §47118. � The total number of designations at any time is limited to 15 of which 1 may be a

general aviation airport the remaining airports must be commercial service or relievers.

� MAP is a set-aside of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Current legislation sets the level at 4% of the discretionary fund. For FY 2008 that was approximately $28.8 million.

The first year of MAP funding began in 1991. 2. What are the eligibility criteria for airports to enter the MAP?

� The Secretary shall consider only current or former military airports for designation to the MAP if a grant would:

� (a) reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings; or

� (b) enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays.

A maximum of 15 airports per fiscal year may participate in the MAP of which one may be a general aviation airport. Currently all slots for airports are filled.



Page | 88

The maximum term for each MAP location is five fiscal years following designation. The FAA can however designate a location for less than five years. The FAA evaluates the conversion needs of a facility, its capital development needs and MAP specifically eligible projects when determining the appropriate length of its designation. 3. How do Joint Use airports participate in the program? Airport Sponsors (owners) must respond to an annual Federal Register publication announcing the period for which applications to the MAP will be taken. 4. How many existing Joint Use airports are in the MAP? Currently there are three Joint Use airports in the program. However, the number has varied since the beginning of the program in 1991. Several airports that were previously Joint Use have since been turned over to their sponsors through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. 5. How many military airports are part of the national air transportation

system and does this change over time? There are presently twenty two Joint Use airfields in the national air transportation system. As stated in number four above this number has changed over the history of the program. 6. Is there evidence that following assistance from the MAP that delays have

been reduced and ATC capacity has been enhanced? There is only anecdotal evidence ATC capacity has been immediately enhanced. It can take years for services at a new airport to catch on with the public. Here are several examples of how the selected airports contribute to our national system. For many years Myrtle Beach International Airport was a growing joint use airport. Since 1993, when the Air Force Base was closed under BRAC, the airport has continued to grow and prosper now serving the Northeastern South Carolina area as a primary small hub airport. Another very successful joint use airport is the Charleston International Airport collocated with Charleston AFB. Over the years this airport has also grown to a primary small hub serving Southeastern South Carolina. Stewart International Airport in Newburg, NY continues to grow. It now has commercial service and continues to attract general aviation aircraft and commercial activity. This adds capacity to the overall aviation system and relieves the New York City metropolitan airports. System capacity air carrier service has been added for rural communities such as: Marquette, Michigan at Sawyer International Airport; Chippewa County International at Sault Ste Marie Michigan; and Waynesville Regional in Waynesville, MO. A.B. Won Pat International Airport, a former joint use facility in Guam, is an extremely important facility in the Pacific. It provides general aviation and commercial service facilities. It is also developing into a valuable regional air cargo hub. A new airport to the program is Roosevelt Roads International Airport. It is anticipated this airport will offer much needed relief to the site restricted San Juan airport by allowing general aviation operations, military



Page | 89

operations and charter flights to relocate to the new airport. Each airport selected for the MAP contributes to the national system capacity in its own way. 7. How does the FAA promote joint use of military aviation facilities? Upon receiving an inquiry from a community the FAA will work with that community and the military facility to determine if a joint use airport is feasible. The FAA may fund a planning grant to look at the proposition in detail. If a joint use agreement can be made with the military facility and the agreement is acceptable to the FAA, additional development grants may be made available. The FAA has planners and engineers available to work with communities. What projects are eligible under the MAP?

� All the generally eligible projects under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP): In addition, MAP provides special eligibility for parking lots, fuel farms, utilities, hangars and air cargo terminals. These projects all help with the conversion of military airports into civilian airports or the development of military areas into civilian facilities.

The FAA places higher priority of the designation of new sites but previously designated airports or joint use facilities may apply for an additional term not to exceed five years. The FAA evaluates applications for redesignation on the number of warranted projects deemed to be MAP-unique or fundable only under the MAP. The FAA may consider AIP-eligible projects that have a lower probability of being funded under the normal AIP priority system if these projects are crucial to the airport’s transition to civilian use. The FAA will evaluate the development needs that, if funded, assist in making the airport a viable civil airport while enhancing system capacity and reducing delays. Another goal of the program is to have MAP airports “graduate” to regular AIP status and participation as quickly as possible. AIRPORTS CURRENTLY IN THE PROGRAM The following 15 airports were in the program in FY 2008: 1. Waynesville Regional (Joint use at Forney Field, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO) Non

Primary Commercial Service Airport 2. Okaloosa County – Valparaiso/Eglin AFB (Joint use Valparaiso, FL) Small

Hub Commercial Service Airport 3. March Inland Port, Riverside, CA (Joint use at March ARB, Riverside, CA)

General Aviation Reliever Airport 4. A.B. Won Pat International Airport (Formerly Agana NAS, Guam) a Primary

Small Hub* 5. Plattsburgh International (PBG) a General Aviation Reliever 6. Griffiss Airpark (Formerly Griffiss AFB, Rome, NY) a General Aviation airport 7. Stewart Int’l (Formerly Stewart AFB, Newburg, NY) a Primary Non Hub Commercial

Service Airport 8. Sawyer International Airport (Formerly Sawyer AFB) a Primary Commercial Service

airport



Page | 90

9. Chippewa County International, (Formerly Kincheloe AFB, Sault Ste Marie, MI) a Primary Commercial Service Airport

10. Portsmouth International Airport at Pease, (Formerly Pease AFB, NH) Primary Commercial Service Airport

11. Cecil Field (Formerly Cecil Field NAS) a Primary Commercial Service Airport 12. Roosevelt Roads International Airport (Formerly Roosevelt Roads NAS,

Ceiba, PR) a General Aviation Reliever 13. Phoenix – Mesa Gateway Airport (Formerly Williams AFB, Mesa, AZ) a

General Aviation Reliever 14. Sacramento Mather Field (Formerly Mather AFB) a Primary Non Hub

Commercial Service Airport 15. San Bernadino Int’l (Formerly Norton AFB) a General Aviation Reliever AIRPORTS FORMERLY IN THE PROGRAM (GRADUATED) 1 Southern California Logistics 2 Oscoda-Wurtsmith (AFB) Airport (OSC) 3 Chippewa County International Airport 4 Myrtle Beach Intl (Myrtle Beach AFB) 5 Alexandria Intl Airport (England AFB) 6 Rickenbacker Intl Airport (Rickenbacker AFB) 7 Sawyer Airport (K.I. Sawyer AFB) 8 Williams Gateway (now Phoenix – Mesa Gateway

Airport) 9 Laredo Intl (Laredo AFB, TX) 10 San Bernardino Intl (Norton AFB, CA)* 11 Smyrna Airport (Smyrna AFB, TN) 12 Portsmouth Intl at Pease (Pease AFB) 13 Lincoln Municipal (Lincoln AFB, NE) 14 Mid America (Scott AFB, IL) 15 Albuquerque Intl (Albuquerque AFB, NM) Joint Use 16 Stewart Intl (Stewart AFB, NY) 17 Ellington Field (Ellington AFB, TX) 18 Manchester Municipal (Manchester AFB, NH) 19 Waynesville Regional (Ft. Leonard Wood AAF) 20 Cecil Field (NAS Cecil Field) 21 Mather Field (Mather AFB)



Page | 91

Annex J to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA - AIRLINE RESPONSES 1 International Air Transport Association (IATA) 1.1 As part of Phase 1 of the EUROCONTROL DCMAC Civil Use of Military

Aerodromes (CUMA) Project, a fact-finding interview was conducted with IATA on 29 April 2008. In attendance representing DCMAC were:

John BYROM (EUROCONTROL) Simon WRAGG (SILURI INTEGRATION LTD)

And, representing IATA, from the CFMU, EUROCONTROL was:

Mr Len HEARNDEN

1.2 Established for more than sixty years, IATA’s mission is to represent, lead and

serve the airline industry. Its members comprise 230 airlines including the world’s leading Established for more than sixty years, IATA’s mission is to represent, lead and serve the airline industry. Its members comprise 230 airlines including the world’s leading passenger and cargo airlines and represents 93 percent of scheduled international air traffic.

1.3 Discussions were at a broad level and strategic in nature, Nevertheless some

interesting points emerged. The interviewee was not aware of any IATA members who were actively pursuing civil use of military aerodromes. Instead airlines appeared content to seek to enhance facilities at existing civil airports, particularly infrastructure, to optimise and increase capacity. There was a perception that if left to market forces, any CUMA flights would be a ‘new’, rather than a redistribution of existing flights from civil airports.

1.4 When discussing CUMA, several obstacles were identified that cause

difficulties in further expansion. These included the lack of land-side infrastructure at military aerodromes to support civil passenger operations, from terminal buildings and baggage handling to local roads and rail links. Security was also a concern, including security infrastructure and arrangements for civil operations, together with potential differences between the military and civil interpretation of security.

1.5 Concern was also expressed on the negative impact on surrounding airspace

structures and ATM flows if GAT flights were introduced at previously military-only aerodromes and it was felt that any new routes and their integration with existing structures would be a challenge.

1.6 Finally, commenting upon recent trends noted in the CFMU, latest figures

suggest a possible decrease in passenger numbers in 2008, which could call



Page | 92

into question the view that capacity and airport demand would continue to be an issue. Such observations may only be a temporary phenomenon, as a prolonged downturn in passenger numbers would have a significant on emerging strategies in the sector.

2 European Regions Airline Association (ERA) 2.1 ERA was approached for a contribution to the CUMA fact finding study as a

body that represents the interests of organizations involved in intra-European air transport. ERA does this by influencing regulatory and environmental conditions, facilitating technical cooperation and advancement, and gaining public and political support. Founded in 1980 with 5 members, since 1987 it has grown to represent over 220 companies and is the only body representing the interests of the intra-European air transport industry in Europe.

2.2 The ERA General Manager Technical Services circulated a request for

information to his members and also discussed the study at their Operations working group. Whilst some interest was shown, no specific inputs to the study were received.

2.3 Nevertheless, General Manager Technical Services identified the following

essential requirements:

• Provision of a radar service for operators who flew to military aerodromes that were outside controlled airspace.

• Provision of RFFS to civil standards for passengers, cargo and

dangerous goods.

• Passenger security provision to EU standards.

• Provision of AIS and MET services.

• Availability of fuel, appropriate aircraft maintenance support and de-icing equipment for commercial aircraft.

• Appropriate catering and passenger handling staff.

• Provision of infrastructure such as transport links, adequate car parking

and hotel accommodation. Note that with the exception of ATS and RFFS provision, evidence collected in the fact finding study indicates that all other requirements are met by contracted civilian airport staff.



Page | 93

3 European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) and EasyJet 3.1 ELFAA, who are reported to account for over 35% of scheduled intra-

European traffic and whose members include, easyJet, flybe, Ryanair, and Wizz Air were approached to contribute to the study, but did not respond.

3.2 EasyJet were approached directly and, although they did not have time to

make a meaningful contribution to the project, wished to remain on the circulation for outputs from the study.



Page | 94

Appendix 1 to Annex J to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 EUROCONTROL STUDY INTO CIVIL USE OF MILITARY AERODROMES (CUMA) – DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR AIRLINES AND AIRLINE ORGANISATIONS 1 Introduction 1.1 Recent studies highlight airport capacity as a potential limiting factor in the

future growth of the air transport system in Europe. Whilst civil air transport capacity may not be a major concern for military authorities, the joint civil military use of military aerodromes could provide benefits for both the civil and military communities. EUROCONTROL’s Directorate of Civil Military ATM Coordination (DCMAC) has therefore launched an initiative to look at these potential benefits, along with potential areas of concern.

1.2 SILURI INTEGRATION Ltd has been engaged to conduct an initial fact-finding

study of existing regulation, legislation and practices across Europe in the civil use of military aerodromes. Initial examination suggests that different states employ a variety of measures to manage the civil use of military aerodromes and, because several airlines already operate from military aerodromes, eliciting the views of the airline community forms an important part of the study.

2 Discussion Topics 2.1 The study will be conducted under five main headings: institutional, legal,

financial, technical and operational (including infrastructure) factors. Rather than conduct a detailed questionnaire, we would prefer an open dialogue with the user community based on the discussion topics listed below and either a written response or the opportunity for a telephone discussion or meeting – whichever you think will be most productive:

• Does your airline / your members currently operate from military aerodromes?

o If not, what are the perceived barriers? o Do you plan to in future?

• If you do operate from military aerodromes, what is your experience? For

example, what issues have you faced or what benefits have accrued with regard to:

o Institutional and legal matters - is your airline comfortable with the

regulatory oversight and division of responsibilities between different stakeholders?

o Are there any Technical or Operational factors upon which you wish to comment?



Page | 95

o Without straying into commercially sensitive areas, is there sufficient clarity in the contractual, financial and business arrangements between your airline, the military authorities and any third parties (eg local or regional government)?

• Are there any additional topics, not covered in the themes above, that you

would like to raise? 2.2 Thank you in advance for your contribution to the study.



Page | 96

Annex K to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA GLOSSARY Acronym

Expansion

ACC Area Control Centre AENA Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Aerea (The Spanish

Civil ANSP) AIP Aeronautical Information Publication ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference AIP Aeronautical Information Publication ANO Air Navigation Order ANS Air Navigation Services ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider AOC Air Operator Certification ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Service CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAT Commercial Air Transport CDM Collaborative Decision Making CFMU Central Flow Management Unit CMIC Civil-Military Interface Committee CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance CNS Communication-Navigation-Surveillance CRD (EASA) Comment Response Document CTR Control Area CTZ Control Zone DCMAC EUROCONTROL Directorate of Civil-Military ATM

Coordination DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (The French

Civil ANSP) EASA European Aviation Safety Agency EBAA European Business Aviation Association EC European Commission ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference ELFAA European Low Fares Airline Association ENAC Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (The Italian Civil Aviation

Authority) ENAV Ente Nazionale Assistenza al Volo (The Italian Civil ANSP) ERA European Regions Airline Association ESARRs EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements

EU European Union FAA Federal Aviation Administration GAT General Air traffic



Page | 97

HLG High Level Group IATA International Air Transport Association ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILS Instrument Landing System ITAF Italian Air Force LOA Letter of Agreement MAA Military Aviation Authority MAB Military ATM Board MET Meteorological Services MILHAG Military Harmonization Group MOB Main Operating Base MOD Ministry of Defence MOT Ministry of Transport NPA (EASA) Notice of Proposed Amendment NSA National Supervisory Authority or NATO Standardisation

Authority OAT Operational Air Traffic OJT On the Job Training PSO Public Service Obligation RFFS Rescue and Fire Fighting Services SARPs (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices SMS Safety Management System SES Single European Sky STANAG (NATO) Standardisation Agreement SWIM System Wide Information Management VLJ Very Light Jet



Page | 98

Annex L to CUMA Study Dated 19 August 2008 CUMA FACT-FINDING STUDY – INTERNET REFERENCES The documents and websites that follow are referenced as footnotes in the main body of the CUMA Fact-Finding Report. 1. The European Commission Title Internet Address

Statement by the member states on military issues related to the Single European Sky dated 31 March 2004


EC Communication - An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/airports/doc/2006_communication_action_plan_en.pdf

Report of the High Level Group for the future European Aviation Regulatory Framework dated July 2007

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/hlg/doc/2007_07_03_hlg_final_report_en.pdf

EC Communication, Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better performing aviation dated June 2008

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/traffic_management/ses2/doc/communication/com_2008_0389_1_communciation_en.pdf

EC Regulation No 2320/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security


EC Regulation No 549/2004 of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation)


EC Regulation No 550/2004 of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the




Page | 99

single European sky (the service provision Regulation) EC Regulation No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services


EC Regulation No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as regards common technical requirements and administrative procedures applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane


EC Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Council Directive 06/23/EEC

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/traffic_management/ses2/doc/communication/com_2008_0390_1_proposal_regulation_en.pdf

2. EUROCONTROL Joint ECAC and Eurocontrol Study on Airport Capacity: Challenges to Growth, 14 December 2004

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gallery/content/public/library/CTG04_report.pdf

3. EASA NPA 6/2006 basic principles and essential requirements for the safety and interoperability regulation of aerodromes

http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA_2006_06.pdf

NPA 2007-16 Extension of the EASA system to the regulation of ATM/ANS

http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA%202007-16.pdf

CRD NPA 2007-16 ‘Extension of the EASA system to the regulation of Air Traffic Management and Air Navigation Services

http://www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Rulemaking/CRD-2007-16.pdf



Page | 100

(ATM/ANS)’

4. SESAR The SESAR Consortium Website, with access to all SESAR documentation

http://www.sesar-consortium.aero/

5. State Websites and Documentation Legifrance website

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/home.jsp

Arrêté du 28 août 2003 relatif aux conditions d’homologation et aux procédures d’exploitation des aérodromes

http://cnpp.ysance.com/article.php3?id_article=4634

Arrêté du 8 mars 2006 relatif aux prérogatives et obligations des affectataires ainsi qu'aux principes de répartition des charges sur les aérodromes à affectation aéronautique mixte affectés à titre principal au ministère de la défense


UK Air Navigation Order 2005


US FAA Airport Improvement Program

http://www.faa.gov/aerodromes_airtraffic/aerodromes/aip/

6. Other Websites Consulted GASR

http://www.gasr.info/web/index.htm

Cuma Civ. Mil

Documents

Transcript of Cuma Civ. Mil