Egats’ new appearance IFATCA conference Taiwan Nordic …Hi Everybody, It is only a little over a...

Egats’ new appearanceIFATCA conference TaiwanNordic meeting

summer 2006

OUTPUT summer 2006 �

welcome

Hi Everybody,

It is only a little over a year ago that I was sitting at this same desk, writing a short text introducing myself as the newest member of the EGATS Board. For those of you who missed that: I’m �1, Belgian nationality, married to the lovely Dutch lady Natasja and we have a pet rabbit called Sammie, which we treat just as if it was our kid. I’m a spotter and an aircraft model collector (1/400 scale) and a huge Yankees fan. So if you are wondering why I’m replying to your emails at 2:�0 in the morning, it’s because I was watching the baseball on the internet.

Now I’m sitting here again, and I’m trying to think of a few words to write for you as the new president of the association. If anybody would have told me this last year, I would certainly have declared them insane. Being the most junior member of the board, I didn’t envisage myself as the next president.

When Patrik declared his intention to stand for election as EVP Europe for IFATCA it soon became clear that, if he was elected, he would not be in a position to continue his work as EGATS president. So at last years EB away day the question was asked, who was going to step in his shoes and become the official face of the organisation. At that time, I was the one with the most time on my hands as I was still feeling my way around and not yet so much involved in projects etc…so the choice was made. I was to follow Patrik in his work to get a feel for the job until the time was there to take over.

After the IFATCA conference in Taiwan we had our first EB meeting for this year and since Patrik was successful in his bid to become EVPE, I officially took over as president. Luckily for me (and the association) Patrik will continue to serve on the EB for at least the rest of this year, and he will assist me with all his knowledge as vice-president. I hope that together we can build on the work from the past years and continue serving the professional needs of our members.

One of the things we want to work on this year is an improved communication between the board and the membership. The first result of which you have already seen in the revival of the e-link. We want to continue keeping you updated about things that are going on via this route. Of course communication is a two way street so I would like to urge you all to contact the EB if you have any problems that you think should be handled by us. Don’t wait until we hear it through the rumour network. If you want us to act on things, we need to know, sooner rather than later!

I would like to finish with wishing you all a good summer. As we are already breaking records, I can see a few interesting months ahead of us! Remember to keep it safe at all times.

Professionally Yours,

Ive Van Weddingen

Important news on the EGATS Annual Fees look quick at page 7

EGATS OUTPUT is published twice per year during sum-mer and winter. It is solely for our members. No part of the information contained in this issue is of any busi-ness to the outside world, unless otherwise dedicated by the Executive Board of EGATS. Anybody who forwards this information outside the EGATS membership without the express, written approv-al of the EGATS Executive Board will be proposed forexpulsion at the next AGM for acting against the inter-ests of the EUROCONTROL GUILD OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES. The articles, letters, opinions etc. contained in OUTPUT are those of the writers who are solely responsible for their content. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EUROCONTROL Guild.The EGATS name and logo are our trademarks and are not to be used without permission.

THE 2005/2006 EGATS Executive Board President Ive Van Weddingen [email protected] Patrik Peters [email protected] Executive Secretary Martin Norris [email protected] Treasurer Paul Hooper [email protected] SecretaryProf/Tech Committee Cornelia Klee [email protected] LiaisonChairman Prof/Tech Committee Raffaele Vigorita [email protected] [email protected] TUEM LiaisonProf/Tech CommitteeVince Poty [email protected] DFS LiaisonOffice Manager Ralf Zech [email protected] Working in close cooperation with the EB:EGATS Website Manager Philip Marien [email protected] Flight Department Manager Steven Pelsmaekers [email protected] MOSAIC Liaison Frederic Deleau [email protected] Representatives Inge Vander Eyken and Sven Dutrieue [email protected] OUTPUT Editor Robert Klos [email protected] [email protected]

PrintingEUROCONTROL printing office - THANK YOU!

4 OUTPUT summer 2006

Patrik’s Editorial / Egats’ design

EGATS’ new appearanceRobert Klos

As you can already see the Output has changed. It is a slightly different view on the same concept and this is due to a change of Editor. As you also know from the previous Out-put (02-2005) there were some trials aimed at designing a new logo for EGATS.

The idea is to develop a corporate identity, and to get the website, Output and any publication, fitted in this new identity. It was triggered by the fact that some of the aircraft within the

existing logo are now found in a museum and not in the Maastricht Airspace.

Some ideas and designs where presented to EGATS at the AGM but there was no clear favourite. Therefore it was decided at the last AGM to make it an open competition to come up with a new logo/corporate design for EGATS. This edition of Output is a good showcase for me to present my personal idea for the new logo and corporate identity.

If you like this design, then please let us know. If you can make a better design, then we also want to hear from you. If you have any good

ideas, then please get in touch, I would be happy to help you to transform your idea into a design.

The winner of the competition will enjoy eternal fame and see his/her design on everything related to EGATS in future.

Dear Members,

“Times are changing” – a phrase often used in the last years, but ever more valid today when we look at increasing traffic and working conditions. But also for your professional association there are a number of changes, which I would like to announce to you.

Most of you might have read about it in recent Eurocontrol publications: At the last annual IFATCA Conference in Kaohsiung/Taiwan (see report inside this magazine), Member Associations of more than 125 countries have elected me as the new IFATCA Executive Vice-President Europe. I feel very honored and I am proud to stand at the front of 45 European MAs. This step onto the Executive Board of the worldwide Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations means a lot to me personally and it is a big achievement for our association who nominated their President for this position. Following this election, I stepped down as the President of EGATS as I could not foresee in the future of being able to combine these two very important positions in an appropriate and professional manner.

At our last Executive Board meeting, the tasks of all board members have been reassigned. The board voted unanimously for Ive van Weddingen as the new President of the association for which I am very happy. To have Ive following in my footsteps is in a very special way a remarkable achievement as he was the winner

of the IFATCA attendance lottery in 2004. The participation to the Hong-Kong conference was setting the terms for his continuous involvement in the professional work. To provide Ive with the assistance and support he deserves and for him not to feel too exposed at the top, I volunteered to finish my 2-year term with one last year in the function of Vice-President of EGATS. I would like to remark that it is not easy for me to let go of the Presidency, which I have held for more than 5 years and which I was at all times proud to carry out. But as I said in the beginning – times are changing. New input and new motivation are needed to take the association on to bigger and better things.

That will also be valid for Raffaele Vigorita. Having gathered more experience in the international field at some of the Federations conferences, he will be the future Liaison Officer between IFATCA and EGATS.

But not only these positions are changing. You are holding a completely revamped magazine in your hands - the first edition of a hopefully ongoing story of success. With a new Captain steering the association, we also wanted to change the appearance of the Guilds publication. Robert Klos, a real web- and publishing wizard, has accepted what could be described as one of the most interesting jobs that of Editor of the OUTPUT magazine. Please support him with articles and other contributions in order to promote our magazine beyond our own EGATS membership.

Despite all these nice words there are also some sad and very disappointing news, which I would like to share with you. Our constructive and well balanced proposal to enhance and renew the rest-facilities and dormitories for ATCOs – the so-called “Space-Management Project” has recently been completely discarded. With the focus on cost-benefit and efficiency, the well being of staff is not an issue any longer. Or, if it is still an issue, then its importance is minor. A new entry, visible to all visitors has more value to our agency then the staffs rest facilities. Engineers and controllers, who serve this company with a lot of motivation and energy, deserve better treatment. OPS room staff feels that there is a deliberate attempt to be split into different classes to create unrest amongst an otherwise united group. But we should not let set backs detract us from our mission. Only by continuously raising our issues and concerns will we one day succeed in enhancing the conditions and wellbeing of the staff. We need to gather all parties at the round table to continue the good work that has been started.

Looking forward to more improvements for the benefit of all.

Yours truly,

Patrik PetersEGATS Vice-President

OUTPUT summer 2006 5

summer 2006INREPConfidential reporting system 6

SWAP GroupOnline Roster 6

Annual FeesDid you pay your annual fee? 7

JAL & JALAn update about the near miss 20

EGATS’ designHow should EGATS look like? 4

IFATCA conferenceKaohsiung 2006 9

CPDLC workshop“Driving ADS-B and CPDLC forward in Europe”

17

UzbekistanThe Tashkent visit 16

Linate An update of the court case 21

Changing standardsA look at the Boeing 777 22

Nordic meetingBrace yourselves, the Scandinavians are coming

25MOSAICOr a credible alternative to privatisation and competition

26

Contributions by;members of the Executive Board of EGATSGabriel Bangiu, Kris Vermeiren, Philippe Domogala, Adrian Cantero Sanchez, Clare Taylor, Frederic Deleau & Robert KlosPhoto cover: Raf VigoritaBackground photo CPDLC workshop: Airbus S.A.S.All other photos are taken by the writters of the articles.


INREP / SWAP Group

SWAP GroupRobert Klos

There has been a Swap Group in the Brus-sels Sector for some time now. It is a way for Controllers to help each other to get leave or to change duties when the Roster doesn’t allow it. The idea started with a small number of people from the sector, and the system was basic but it worked. If you wanted somebody to work for you, you sent an email to everybody in the Swap Group. The first one to reply would do the duty and the person who had made the request informed the Roster Office. To make sure there would be some kind of balance a status was also part of the system. If you worked for somebody your status went up and if somebody worked for you your status went down. A swap of duty or cycle had of course no

influence on your status.

Over time more people became interested and joined the Swap Group. Here was a system that worked well, that worked for a lot of people and was relatively quick. However due to it’s success you received a lot of emails from the Swap Group, which meant it became harder to keep track of all the requests. In some cases people who had put up a request had to go to everybody individually to check if they could work for them, which really defeated the object of having the Swap Group.

Georgi Stoimenov (B6) and I got the idea to make something web based i.e. a site where all the requests would be gathered. As we started to think about the site the possibilities and ambitions we had for the site grew.

In March we had a test version ready and in April the site went online. With some feedback from the Roster Office and the Swap Group members the site evolved and is still evolving. For now we have all the functions of the original Swap Group incorporated and some extra’s like, an Info Centre where all the contact details can be found, the possibility to request leave from the Roster Office, and the possibility to view your roster online. However there is no link between the roster at work and the site.

Of the approximately 90 controllers in the Brussels Sector almost 70 are a member of the Swap Group and are using the site.If you want to have a look at the possibilities of the site you can have a look at a test version on http://www.imaginer.be/swap/ and log on using GUEST as a USERNAME and PASSWORD.

INTRODUCING ( at last ! ) a voluntary and confidential reporting system in Maastricht.Philippe Domogala

You may have heard by now that INREP, the voluntary reporting of safety issues for controllers has been introduced in Maastricht since 09 June . It has been a long struggle to get this done, mainly due to some legal and regulatory issues that took time to overcome.But we now have the protection from disciplinary actions we were looking for , and confidentiality is assured as well.Now it is time for you to make use of it .

How the system works is very simple. They are specific (light blue ) forms that are available in the rack in the locker room for you to pick up and use . (alternatively you can also download the form on the intranet.)Fill the form as best you can. You will see that there is room to indicate your eventual proposal for a solution to solve the problem you are reporting.We have high expectations with this, as experience with similar schemes in other industries ( e.g. oil or airlines ) show a

tremendous potential for improving safety with these staff proposals.

Once you have filled the form put it on the letter box in the entrance of the ops room ( near the rotating doors ) . It will be read only by one of the so called INREP Trustees , which are individuals that will guarantee confidentiality. EGATS has been asked by management to help in that respect, and Raf Vigorita and Vincent Poty , both from the EGATS Executive Board, have volunteered and are now your INREP trustees. You can also pass on the form directly to them if you prefer.They are the only persons that will know who has filled the form, as the top part of the form , containing your ID will be cut and returned to you (or put into your locker )The trustee will then pass on the de-identified form to the Occurrence Manager (Ernst Kiehn )who will in turn work as a router . Depending on the problem reported , he will directs the form to either the Incident investigator, OASYS, OPS management, OMAS, etc.. He will insist in receiving feed back within a few weeks . His job is also to then summarize the feed backs and produce a quarterly INREP feedback bulletin that will be distributed to all controllers. Like this everyone can learn and the controllers

who have been submitting reports will be aware of what has been done with their input.

We have to be realistic however, feed back does not mean guaranteed solution . But it is a start and experience shows that awareness of problems, even without immediate or easy solution is already beneficial.

Finally it is up to you to make it work. We have made the process in place., but is only a process. To make it work it needs your input, not only in the beginning , but also to keep using it . In many other centers, the system died , or almost died after a year or so, mainly due to the poor feed back mechanism. We are aware of this possibility and will try to guarantee proper and timely feed back to the reports we receive.In other ATC units using a similar system, where the quality of the feed back has been good, the response has been tremendous, and continue to be of a high level .So the challenge is both on you, and on the management to make sure proper feed back is given.

I guarantee you that if everyone takes this seriously, INREP will be a very effective and cheap way to improve safety in Maastricht.


Annual Fees

If this applies to you please pay before

15 August

Failure to do so will result in suspension of

your membership, including suspension of the

right to use the flight department and loss

of seniority.

ALL MEMBERS applying for a flight through the flight department

are kindly requested to include proof of payment of the

membership fee with their application form.

Annual Fees 2006Paul J. Hooper

As announced at the AGM I have had major problems in setting up the direct debit of EGATS annual fees for this year. The system is administered by Interpay and not the banks themselves as more than one banking company is involved in the transactions. I set up our ‘incassos’ in 2004 and assumed that, accord-ing to the contract, the appropriate fee would be deducted from your accounts each January. The Interpay interpretation of the contract ap-parently just gave me the right to extract that money annually but that I had to set up the payments manually each year – a time consum-ing exercise. Staff at the ABN AmRo suggested I make use of the Office Net software, which would allow me to enter all the members’ names, along with their bank details, and send them off to the bank just once per year for

onward transmission to Interpay. However, whilst entering all this information the system decided to crash, sending all the entries into cyberspace, never to be seen again! With all my new found confidence in Office Net lost I was not going to take the chance of feeding it the information again and thus I decided to set everything up manually again via the bank’s Internet banking system. Withdraw-als were set for two dates in March but when those dates came around nothing happened! Since then I have spent hours in meetings or on the phone listening to Interpay blaming the bank and the bank blaming Interpay. All I know is that the requests for payment left me in the correct format and arrived, via the bank, at Interpay in the wrong format. Logic and deduction tell me where the problem lies but I have yet to find anyone who will admit to having made a mistake. It has been suggested to me that I might try to use the ‘AcceptGiro’

form system, but investigation led me to discover that that procedure is also adminis-tered by – Interpay!! I shall look into it further but my confidence in Interpay is now totally shattered. In the meantime all I can do is ask those 225 members who filled out ‘Machtig-ing’ forms to transfer their annual fee of €55 manually via their banks. Our account number is 46.86.12.254, with Maastricht Airport as the location, and perhaps you could add ‘EGATS Annual Fee’ in the description window.My sincerest apologies for this inconvenience but my efforts to employ a system which would save me an awful lot of work have resulted in quite the opposite. I will look further into the ‘AcceptGiro’ system but I am not holding my breath in anticipation of a successful outcome. I’ll keep you advised.Thanks in advance for your co-operation.


IFATCA conference Taiwan

IntroRaf Vigorita

Dear Members,

As you may remember, I gave you appointment for the IFATCA Annual Conference report on the winter edition of OUTPUT. And here we are. This year’s Conference was held in Kaohsiung, in southern Taiwan. The Annual Conference is set up differently from the Regional Meeting, as it welcomes controllers from all over the world, and it lasts for 5 full days compared to only a long week end of the ERM. For this reasons, the Conference is divided into � Committees, each of them dealing with pressing issues of different nature. This year’s EGATS delegation was composed by Patrik Peters, former EGATS President and newly elected IFATCA EVP-EUR, Ive Van Weddingen, the EGATS new President and assigned to Committee A (mainly financial/admin), Cornelia Klee, assigned to Committee C (professional), the new-comer Adrian Cantero Sanchez, who was busy following the most important discussions of all Committees and myself, following Committee B (technical), but not before fighting a nasty flu that had the best of me during the preceding week end, and sadly took me out from both the pre-conference drink and welcome dinner! What a shame.We all had a tight schedule, but despite the Committees ending everyday in late afternoon, we all took our chances to visit Kaohsiung and other parts of Taiwan. Let me say that Taiwan is a very fine island, located only 1 hour flying time east of Hong Kong and has all the typical characteristics of busy and beautiful Far East, from the glittering lights and state of the art skyscrapers (like Taipei’s 101, the tallest in the world), to the sights and sounds of the numerous traditional night markets and the chaotic operations of the island’s harbors,

the vivid contrasts between the ancient temples and the vibrant production of high tech, which are the honest representations of this two-sided country. If this is not enough, the country has many natural treasures, like for example the Taroko and Kenmin National Parks, with their forests, gorges, waterfalls and magnificent sceneries, or the Sun-Moon Lake, best reached from the city of Taichung, has a mystical feeling surrounding it. But if you are a seaside lover, you can surely visit the beautiful (and hot!) resort of Kenting, located to the south east of the island, with its white beaches, transparent clean waters and great cliffs or one of the many smaller islands, probably the prettiest of all being Green Island, the Taiwanese paradise for divers. If this is not convincing enough of the hidden beauties of Taiwan, what about tasting some traditional Chinese food while watching an entertaining Dragon Boat race or a relaxing stay at one of the many national hot springs?? Taiwan is a true pearl located in the East China Sea, and its distinctive colors are the bright blue of the sky and the sea, and the deep green of its vegetation, being rainforests or palm trees.

Furthermore, the island position is favorable to easily access China (via Hong Kong, as the strained relations with the motherland aren’t good enough to guarantee direct flights between the two countries), Japan, the Philippines and Micronesia. But the real treasure of this nice place is the friendliness and kindness of its people, example of which was the incredible hospitality given to all of us by our Taiwanese colleagues. We would like to thank the Taiwanese organizing committee and all ROCATCA (the ATCO

association) for making sure we could spend an enjoyable and fruitful week. And if you ever decide to go and visit Taiwan, forget about finding a place where to play Mahjong, rather stop by one of the thousands of its karaoke bars, the most popular past time of the last decade in Asia. Good luck with the subtitles!

Next stop, the 2006 ERM in Sofia. Needless to say, you will find that report in the winter edition of the Output. But for now, take your time to read the reports from Kaohsiung.

Committee A report (Administration)Ive Van Weddingen

This year, committee A was chaired by Mr Paul Robinson from New Zealand. As well, Mr Dale Wright (EVPF) and Mr Marc Baumgartner (PCX) were present at the head table for most of the sessions. As has become standard practice in the last few years, the first item on this years agenda was the application for membership. This year, there were two applications: Comoros Island and France. The application of the Association Professionnelle des Controleurs de la Navigation Aerienne des Comores (APCNA), representing all 6 controllers of the Comores Island, was accepted without much discussion. However the application of ‘French Air Traffic Controllers Association (FATCOA)’ led to some interesting discussions, as there was already an MA from France: ‘APCA’. Due to the sensitivity of the issue this was dealt with in two closed sessions. There was even a video conference organised with one of the representatives of FATCOA for them to be able to defend their cause, as they were unable to travel to Taiwan. As it was determined by the representatives that FATCOA represented far more active controllers than APCA it was decided to accept FATCOA as full member, thus automatically terminating the affiliation of the APCA.

In his report, Marc Baumgartner focused on the limited financial resources of the federation. This makes it difficult to achieve it’s goal of becoming a powerful lobbying organization. Also



the problems in finding suitable representatives make it difficult to attend all meetings where IFATCA is invited. Despite this contacts with IFALPA and IATA have been maintained or even improved. Establishment of a permanent representation at ICAO is desirable, but financially not possible under the current contribution scheme. Once again Mr Baumgartner emphasised the need for a non-punitive legal system to be implemented worldwide, as the threat of penal proceedings still causes concern to many MA’s.The Africa & Middle East region continues to be one with many problems, as Mr Albert Taylor EVP AFM reported. Mr Taylor urged the MA’s of the region to actively participate at national level in ATM development, with technical and professional input. However certainly not all the news coming from this region was bad. In the past year, several legal cases have been resolved in favour of the controllers involved, either by court rulings, or after diplomatic pressure from IFATCA. This was the case in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda and Egypt. In the case of Uganda, EGATS restated it’s intention to co-fund the retraining of one of the controllers. It is to be noted that this was Mr Taylor’s last report as EVP AFM after many years of excellent and very hard workFrom the EVP Asia & Pacific we learned that staff shortages combined with steady increases in traffic are a mayor problem for many countries in the region. During the conference, the good news reached us that the controllers in the JAL 907 case had been acquitted. However, much to everybody’s surprise, the prosecutor decided to appeal against this decision and this case will continue to be closely monitored by IFATCA.In the Americas region, a lot of labour issues have surfaced in recent times, and IFATCA has been asked to serve as mediator between ANSP’s and ATCO’s on many occasionsThe report from EVP EUR Mr Nicolas Lyrakides concentrated on the current state of affairs in several of the recent accident investigations as well as their respective legal proceedings. The trial of the controller involved in the Linate crash is now in the appeal fase and support continues to be provided. In the case of the tragic Helios Airlines crash, it seems that the controllers will not feature in the causes of the accident. The development in the SES initiative continues to be monitored closely as it will have a serious

impact on the work of controllers in the region. Due to the fact the Europe continues to be a dynamic region with a lot of work, the need for volunteers is still very big and EVP EUR urges the MA’s to provide the necessary support to the federation. Also for Mr Lyrakides this was the last report to the federation as he has accepted a new position in Brussels.

Some of the main work done in committee A concentrates on the finances of the federation. As indicated before, IFATCA continues to suffer from budgetary constraints and this has a serious impact on the ability to attend meetings. To alleviate the costs of the federation a number of work studies were carried out in the past year e.g. on the bank charges paid but these did not lead to significant savings. IFATCA continues to investigate possible sources of “other income” but this seems to be very difficult to achieve on a consistent (yearly) basis. The finances of the Controller magazine were fully integrated in those of IFATCA and subscriptions and advertising now form a significant part of the overall finances of the federation. There is an ongoing effort to reduce the cost involved in printing and distributing the magazine, and the result of this will prove vital for the future of the magazine.

Last year the Constitution and Administration Committee was only tasked with two items. The first of these deals with the timeframes for voluntary termination and in this matter the constitution was amended to bring it in line with Swiss law. The second item deals with elimination of the CMC and reassignment of these responsibilities to the Deputy President. For next year 4 items are scheduled, and Ireland, U.K and U.S.A were elected to the CAC.After the decision from last year to host the 46th annual conference in 2007 in Istanbul, we were treated at this years conference to a presentation from the organising committee

providing more details. Although the registration fees and hotel prices were considered to be a bit too high by some, Istanbul was confirmed as the venue for 2007. The conference will be held from 15 to 20 April 2007 at the Istanbul Convention & Exhibition Centre. More details will become available in the coming months via http://www.ifatca2007.com For the 2008 conference there were proposals from Jordan, Dominican Republic and Tanzania. All three provided us with a very entertaining and interesting presentation in support of their bid to host the conference. After a very close vote, the directors voted to accept the offer from Tanzania to host the 47th annual conference in Arusha. For the 2009 conference, offers to host were accepted from Croatia, Egypt, Greece and U.A.E

Election of the executive board:Mr Marc Baumgartner (Switserland) is elected President and CEOMr Doug Churchill (Canada) is elected Executive Vice-President ProfessionalMr Patrik Peters (Germany/EGATS) is elected Executive Vice-President EuropeMr Cedric Murrell (Barbados) is elected Executive Vice-President AmericasMr Dave Grace (UK) is elected Executive Vice-President TechnicalMr Jimmy Dale Wright is elected Executive Vice-President Finance

Congratulations to all, but of course especially to our own Patrik Peters, who has chosen to take on the daunting task of EVP EUR.



After that, a number of speakers took the floor for 4 days, illustrating various aspects and issues that needed special attention from IFATCA. I won’t bore you with details of each and every one, as the working papers combined for a whopping �20 pages of reports, but I will try instead to summarize the most important ones.

Although we work in an Upper Area Control Center, I would like to start from the most debated subject in Committee B, airport operations. It’s just as important to know, as the ATM cannot be divided into sectors if we want to ever implement the gate to gate concept.

A report on runway safety was presented, underlining runway incursions as a severe hazard and a frequent cause for accidents. Nevertheless, it seems that the actions taken are pointed at solving this problem on the short term, thus reducing the associated risks. The report quotes that poor attention is devoted to solutions that are able to remove such hazards, since they are considered non cost efficient. Where poor design in aerodrome layout was identified, or insufficient environmental procedures were designed, the problem was usually “solved” with the involvement of heavy operational personnel, and this poor attention to human factors could lead to errors and mistakes. Runway incursions is a complicated topic and the increase in incursions worldwide is cause for concern.

As Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) are being introduced at various locations, and we had experience with EHAM inbounds at night time over a period of time, the Technical and Operations Committee was asked to perform a study. CDAs are requested by airports in a bid to reduce both noise and emissions during the approach phase and aircraft operators are also eager to fly CDAs as these are usually flown at near flight idle, decreasing fuel burn, and thus reducing costs. The main difficulties for the time being in the implementations of CDAs are the complexity of traffic during day time and a number of operational issues that directly affect ATCOs when providing CDAs. On top of that, concerns have been raised by ATCOs as to their responsibilities for non-compliance with CDAs.

Another very important discussion is the potential applications of ADS-B (Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Broadcast). In simple terms, ADS-B is cheaper than radars, easier to install and maintain, and can be used in those parts of airspace where for the time being procedural control is provided or can be integrated in a radar environment to enhance coverage. The main motivations for implementation are a possible reduction of runway incursions through improved aircraft situation awareness, enhancements to STCA, enhanced visual approaches, closely spaced parallel approaches, reduced spacing on final, surface operations in lower visibility conditions and improve ATC services in non radar airspace. A number of locations around the world have been equipped with ADS-B and extensive trials are being carried out. Eurocontrol, through CASCADE, is working with a large number of its European stakeholders to bring an initial set of ADS-B ground and airborne surveillance applications to reality. It is predicted that ADS-B application will result in increase in terminal capacity and in non radar areas.

A very extensive and interesting report was presented on Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations (SIRO) and Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). It was eye opening to understand what sort of problems out TWR colleagues are facing, and the effort put into solving potentially hazardous situations. A great deal of details very discussed, but since it’s not of any concern to MUAC, I will leave it at that.

As you can see, there was a lot of focus and effort on airports and airport operations. But if you think that was a lot, the following reports are just as eye opening on how much there is to do to keep up the safety level in an ever busier environment.

As one of the most ambitious projects, the Air Traffic Management Requirements and Performance Panel illustrated that they have a lot of work to do in the coming few years, working on the creation of a set of ATM Requirements that will lead to the development of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS), the creation of a transition plan to implement the Global ATM Operational Concept and the creation

For me this was my first conference as a full EGATS EB member, having attended the 2004 Hong Kong conference as lucky winner. I can only say that I continue to be impressed with the work done by IFATCA.

Committee B reportRaf Vigorita

For the second year, I had the pleasure and duty to follow IFATCA Committee B during the Annual Conference in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Once again, there was a large number of subjects discussed, but not to my surprise, a lot of time was dedicated to airport operations and airport safety, since the airports are identified as the bottlenecks of the ATM system.

Committee B started off together with C for the first one and a half days, as common subjects were to be discussed. Initially, the reports of the EVP-Tech (mr. Andrew Beadle), the chairman of technical and operations Committee (mr. Akos van der Plaat) and the technical and professional Secretary (mr. David Guerin) paved the way to the rest of the speakers. Their reports were mainly to inform the audience of meetings attended, organizational issues and a general overview of the work done since last year’s Conference.



of an ATM Performance Manual. Its tasks are to develop ATM system requirements, integration and operation of a global ATM system on the basis of the global ATM operational concept so as to provide for efficiency of service, while maintaining or improving the existing levels of safety and a minimum set of requirements for interoperability with the goal of achieving transparency of functions, procedures and operations of the global ATM system. Furthermore, develop transition strategies to guide implementation based on operational concept and formulate performance objectives and related guidance for a future global ATM system.

A lot of work was also undertaken by the Separation and Airspace Safety Panel, whose objectives are to undertake further development of SARPS, PANS and guidance material for the application of safety management to ATM systems, in accordance with the safety

approach as described in the report of the

11th Air Navigation

Conference. Also develop techniques for determination of the level of communication, navigation and surveillance performance needed to support new separation minima and ATM procedures, and apply safety analysis techniques to the development of separation minima and associated ATM procedures. This Panel played an important role in defining objectives and rules for the implementation of RVSM and it also has a relevant role in defining separation minima using ADS-B or the use of GNSS instead of DME for procedural separation.

The Surveillance and Conflict Resolution System Panel highlighted the main issues in its report. The ICAO State letter mandated the requirement of aircraft altitude data sources. Only the altimetry is improved but other additional features are included in the proposal, namely error checking. It is a pity that the indication of “on ground status” of Mode S transponders was converted from mandatory to a recommendation only. As ground usage of Mode S transponder for surveillance is increasing e.g. for

A-SMGCS and M-LAT operations, the cluttering of en-route radar screens and the overload of TCAS system memories due to wrongly fitted transponders is a real safety concern.In regard to ASAS, there is a tendency to move away from “separation” to ASAS being described as a system that enhances the situational awareness of the aircrew and for ASAS to be used as sequencing and merging tool.

The IFALPA ATS Committee had something interesting about TCAS RAs. The Committee has drafted a policy to solve ambiguities between PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS about RAs reporting. They support the idea that only those RAs which result in deviation from the current ATC clearance should be reported. In busy continental airspace, such as ours, this could definitely save frequency time, but this is undergoing further discussion. About CPDLC procedures, the Committee will be questioning ICAO on why there are different requirements for voice acknowledgment (i.e.

for level clearance) between Oceanic and Continental Europe airspace. It is believed

that a level bust in

OUTPUT summer 2006 1�


Oceanic airspace can have a similar catastrophic effect as in Continental airspace.

Closely related to this, the Study of TCAS RAs underlined the change in Amendment 12 of ICAO doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) stating that all TCAS RAs must be reported over R/T: “Pilots shall, as soon as permitted by flight crew workload, notify the appropriate ATC unit of the RA, including the direction of any deviation from the current ATC instruction or clearance”. Controllers, especially those working in high density airspace, where R/T is often already overloaded, found the reports of preventive RAs of no added value to them, and even disturbing as they were taking up precious R/T time. A study carried out after these complaints, convinced ICAO to publish a State Letter proposing that only TCAS RAs that imply a deviation from the ATC clearance must be reported on the frequency. ATCOs, from their side, are required to “not try to attempt to modify the flight path of any aircraft involved in the RA” and ICAO PANS-ATM (doc 4444) clearly states this under 15.6.�.2: “When a pilot reports a manoeuvre induced by an ACAS resolution advisory, the controller shall not modify the aircraft flight path until the pilot reports returning to the terms of the current ATC instruction or clearance but shall provide traffic information as appropriate”. IFATCA stresses that ATCOs shall receive appropriate TCAS training and that responsibility for separation provision during a TCAS RA must be clearly defined. ICAO doc 4444 under 15.6.�.� reads: “Once an aircraft departs from its clearance in compliance with a resolution advisory, the controller ceases to be responsible for providing separation between that aircraft and any other aircraft affected as a direct consequence of the manoeuvre induced by the RA”. This statement is not satisfactory, as the systematic reporting of preventive RAs will result in situations where the ATCOs have to “give up” control on very frequent occasions. For the time being, in line with ICAO, IFATCA policy on this issue reads: “Pilots shall only report TCAS RAs on the frequency that requires a departure or deviation from the current ATC clearance or instruction”. Also: “Once an aircraft departs or deviates from the current ATC clearance or instruction in response to an RA or when a pilots reports a TCAS RA, the controller ceases to be

responsible for providing separation between that aircraft and any other aircraft under control until clear of conflict. This must be automatic and unambiguous, and must happen irrespective of whether the aircraft is manoeuvring or not, and also whether or not ATC clearance is left.”

New IFATCA policies were added to the manual on the issue of “interception”. Since the facts of September 11, the number of interceptions has dramatically increased. IFATCA states that: “It is recommended to take additional separation, above that required by standard separation when separating from an interceptor or intercepted aircraft” due to the unknown flight path of the above mentioned aircraft. Also “CISM must be available for ATC staff involved in an interception”. And “The responsibility for providing separation between the intercepting aircraft and all other aircraft must be clearly defined. ATCOs should not be held liable for incidents or accidents resulting from an interception”. An extensive document on rules for interceptions has been attached to the working paper.

As always, a discussion on paperless environment has taken place, especially between those ATCOs whose ANSPs are in the process of implementing it. And as usual, there is always a big confusion between paperless environment and stripless environment. But on this subject, we have more than a decade of experience and it’s really no issue for us.

Finally, a discussion on a matter that sometimes we feel being just a paper work exercise, the safety case. Safety case is an essential element of the safety management process for ATM. All changes to a system or the introduction of a new system should not be implemented until a satisfactory safety case has been produced with justified claims backed with strong arguments and reliable evidence to prove that the system is safe to operate.

There were many other subjects taken up for discussion, from “Formation flights within controlled airspace” to the “Study on virtual towers”, reviewed policies on Optimum flight profiles or RTF phraseology for helicopters, CEATS and EATM. There is neither the need nor

the space to report all the work that has been done at this year’s Conference, as it’s impossible to put in few words the work done over a year time. But I’m sure that the effort that everyone puts in trying to improve a system we all use to its maximum is clearly recognized and appreciated. Before letting you move on to the next article, let me spend a couple of words of appreciation. Appreciation for a colleague, and a great example for everyone, mr. Andrew Beadle. Andrew has served as IFATCA’s Executive Vice-President Technical for 7 years. He decided to take a break after this year’s Conference, but we all appreciate his deep knowledge and his phenomenal capacity to explain complicated concepts in simple words so that everyone in the audience can easily follow and understand. His friendliness and relentless dedication for the ATC world is a true legacy, and his composure and wisdom are his trademark. Thanks Andrew!

The appointment is then for the IFATCA Regional Meeting’s report in the winter edition of the Output (the ERM will be held in Sofia on 20-22 October). I want to wish to everyone a safe summer in our busy Ops Room. Although things are far from perfect, and without stopping the effort for improving our working environment, let’s do our best as we are all the best professionals every ANSP would wish to have!!

Committee C reportCornelia Klee

Another year, another conference, another committee „C“ sessions.As in the previous years committee C was chaired again by Mr. Neil Vidler guaranteeing an efficient progress throughout the week.Many reports and items were covered in this week, some were of more importance to us in Maastricht ,some of less but still being interesting to listen to.

Unless we decide in building a high level runway at 24500 feet, topics like “runway incursions” or “ remote tower” concepts are of no concern to us but still these reports opened your mind as to the worries and problems our colleagues working in aerodrome control are facing and to



a bar named “the western riders”-. I know so far this sounds like a lot of fun but when you have been travelling for 25 hours straight with almost no sleep it takes quite an effort to remain awake. Also it is very important because you get to make a lot of friends. Personally it was a great chance and made me some good friends with the Belgian and the Irish delegations. After only a few hours sleep we assembled on buses which took us to the Kaohsiung’s cultural centre where the official opening act took place. We were honoured by the attendance of the transportation minister and the mayor of the city; amongst other distinguished guests. We, then, where taken back to the hotel were the committees were housed to start with the actual work. An IFATCA annual meeting is a place where controllers from all over the world get together and discuss plenty of issues. Every year it is housed in a different part of the world; as IFATCA is a worldwide body. The meeting consist of three committees, named A, B and C which discuss different aspects of the profession and IFATCA itself. Committee A decides on administrative and IFATCA’s constitutional matters; committee B meets to talk about technical and operational matters; committee C deals with human factors, legal and professional matters. At the beginning of every session there is a role call and every MA -member association- collects a “stick” with their name on it -normally the country from where they belong or the name of the association in our case-. Later on these “sticks” are used by raising them when asked if you agree (or disagree) to a vote.

This year the star debate on A was related to the acceptance of a new association from France or not. Due to IFATCA’s constitution

IFATCA realised the need for a definition of “unsafe airspace” and concluded the item with the following draft recommendations:4.1. An airspace is deemed unsafe whenever there is unacceptable risk to the safety of aircraft.4.2. IFACTA should issue a warning to airlines, air traffic service providers and all other relevant bodies concerning the aviation industry and users of the risk of operating in unsafe airspace according to the unsafe airspace definition and criterions.

IFATCA, a newcomer’s insightAdrian Cantero Sanchez (H�) Around last December I saw at the EGATS board an announcement about a ballot. Some of you may have heard of it or seen the ad itself but luckily for me not many people decided to join and give it a try, though. EGATS, in an effort to stimulate interest and support amongst the base members, would pick up a lucky one and give him the chance to travel with their representatives to the IFATCA annual conference. And it was my pleasure to be the winner! This year’s conference was held in Kaohsiung, in the south of the island of Taiwan. There are more than 22 million Taiwanese and friendly is a word which would describe them pretty well. Kaohsiung is the second largest city in the island and has been, along time, under control of different world powers (with the Dutch amongst them). It is also one of the biggest harbours in the world. That’s probably why the city boasts such a colourful culture. The proceedings started as soon as I arrived at the hotel; for a very important part of the conference is networking. That is, getting to know people and to create contacts. The first night there was a welcome drink party to break the ice titled “Tango and Whisky”. Luckily we didn’t have to dance much as it is a very difficult dance to perform- I think they did run out of whisky, though. As soon as that was over some 50 controllers decided to continue at what, during the week, became our lay back spot -

what a possible future in ATC will look like.Can you imagine controlling an aerodrome only by means of video surveillance sitting miles away from the actual airport?

One of the main topics raising a lot of concerns of different member associations (MA) from all over the world was a working paper dealing with the “English proficiency requirements” as set by ICAO.Again for us, having had all our training in English, no further problems are to be expected passing any English test but as we notice already the level of English of some of our coordination partners in Maastricht, it is quite obvious that a lot of MAs are afraid of such tests and fear the consequences these tests will have. Adequate language training has to be the solution and we hope for our colleagues that their ANSP and the National Authorities will take the appropriate action and guarantee such training.IFATCA’s role in this will be to “continue to monitor and promote the progress of states (&ANSPs) as they implement their plans for language proficiency requirements as recommended by ICAO and to continue to liaise with them to ensure the end projects timely and appropriate in addressing the needs of controllers.”

The topic “forcing controllers to work at a specific foreign location” was set on the agenda following an incident in Guatemala in January 2005 .After an industrial dispute in Guatemala, ATCOs were forced to stop their work , while at least six Mexican controllers were forced by their director to board an airplane to take them to Guatemala to replace their Guatemalan colleagues.(Imagine being forced from one day to another to work in Reims ACC..!)The working paper was presented and IFATCA concluded that their policy doesn’t allow controllers to work at foreign locations without proper training.“When controllers are forced to work at foreign locations without proper training IFATCA is one of the channels to inform the public about the compromised safety.”Declaring such airspace as unsafe led to another paper which was presented by an Israeli colleague: “operating in unsafe airspace”.



only one association can be accepted from the same country and there was a new association requesting to get in whilst there was an older association still being a member. This doesn’t happen often and, as it was the case, meant that the older association had to go to make room for the new one to get in. It took several days to decide as everybody was expecting a presentation from the new members -which could only be provided via Skype as they didn’t have funding enough yet to pay for the travel expenses-. Committees B and C were combined for a couple of days as some of the matters dealt with were complex and needed both attention from the technical side as from the professional approach. One very good example was the debates on virtual towers and remote towers. The terms are very close though there are differences between the two of them as the fact the in the virtual tower you may not be located in the airport nor have direct eye sight of what is going on in the ground/runway. Even though this matter is not of a direct impact to EGATS and the controllers it represents we followed with interest the talks and, personally, it was a refreshing experience to be in touch with other parts of the profession which I would normally would not deal with. Other examples, of more interest to our sector, of what was dealt with here could be the study on the report of TCAS RA and what implication it has on our work. Specially we focused on the case when a pilot reports a TCAS RA which doesn’t require him to deviate from ATC clearance -known as preventive RA- which may load the frequency unnecessarily and also take us to an unambiguous terrain as we are not responsible for separation since a pilot reports a TCAS RA till the “clear of conflict” is again announced -in this case the pilot will still adhere to ATC instruction unless TCAS says otherwise-. The results of these meeting are generally or information notes or policies which IFATCA will issue in order to express the air traffic controller’s point of view of a subject. These are then forwarded to ICAO and States. Unfortunately, IFATCA is not a ruling body but our opinion is heard and sometimes followed by a lot of Nations worldwide. I was glad to see how

many countries seek advice and the expertise of IFATCA and their members when dealing with situations in their aviation worlds. As I have mentioned before, one of the great things of these meetings is that you get to see and interact with people from virtually all over the world. And you get to hear about their stories too. I didn’t know and I am certain that many people will not know as yet of how, through being a member of EGATS, we have helped the controllers from Ghana. Some years ago they decided to go on strike and � fellow colleagues from that country got fired unjustly. Court decided in their favour some time ago -however the controllers needed to come up with fees for their training themselves. EGATS has paid for the training of one of these � controllers in South Africa as for our association it was not such a big cost but for the individual it was a fortune out of reach. An important thing to mention also is that our former president, Patrick Peters, became formally appointed as Executive Vice President Europe, an honour which will come with a lot of sacrifice but with bigger rewards for all. The conference reached to an end Friday evening with an informal ceremony in the Kaohsiung “pier 12” with a boat ride and fireworks included. There was a band and Finnish controllers...delighted?...us with an interpretation of “YMCA”

which went on by “ATCO” instead. This learning exercise was very beneficial also for the most senior EGATS members present in the conference as by having someone new and almost completely ignorant on normal IFATCA business they were forced to master their knowledge (and probably their patience). I must say they did master it quite easily though as I don’t know of any case when tranquillisers were needed. As well, by taking aboard people from the newer generations of associates, they can monitor the level of involvement, knowledge and interest (between others) of the base members. Amongst one of the identified problems which EGATS intends to tackle shortly we saw the need to inform better newcomers as what is happening “out of the ops room” normally remains unknown with the exceptions of what is written on output and some other matters which may reach the “ops room”. The idea of a quick guide is floating in the air and hopefully it will become a reality in the future. I would like to thank from here to everybody in IFATCA who is making such an effort so that our opinion, point of view and interests within the aviation industry are heard and taken into account so that we can continue improving our working environment and our effectiveness. Also would like to thank our EGATS board for giving me the chance to have such a wonderful week. Thank you!


Uzbekistan

UzbekistanKris Vermeiren

Since years already a group of controllers are visiting ATC centres in Europe. It all started off in the light of the OTG (the ODS Transfer Group). In was in those days when ideas had to be col-lected which could be useful to be implemented in our new ODS. Several ATC centres were already switching to new display systems or had good working prototypes available to show to their Maastricht colleagues. The centres of Bordeaux, Amsterdam, Ljubljana and Warsaw were visited in the early nineties. Discussing ATC problems, changing views, looking at various, sometimes exotic, systems became an almost yearly event. After the well-known centres, the lesser known centres were paid a visit. The centres of Chisinau in Moldavia, Odessa ACC in the Ukraine, Tirana Acc in Albania. Prior to all these visits contacts were established with the controllers, to be sure the people had the willingness and time to receive

a group of Maastricht controllers. Every time we received a warm welcome by our colleagues, we were shown around, received all the information we wanted and spent also very often pleasant evenings together in a more informal way.

As almost all centres in western Europe were visited more remote ACC`s were envisaged. Mur-mansk ACC, Archangelsk ACC, these last visits were always arranged after the introduction of our colleague Sergej Poluhin in Petersburg, who took care of the introduction and invitations to these far-away places. But always our colleagues would be standing waiting for us at the airport to show us around and try to make our visit as pleasant and interesting as possible. This year we thought that Uzbekistan could be a nice destination. Again Sergej from Petersburg would take care of the introduction to the Tashkent

ACC. And indeed upon arrival a group of Uzbek controllers was awaiting us at the airport. Af-ter arrival we went straight to the Tashkent ACC where we were welcomed by the director of the Tashkent ACC Victor Andrejevitsj. The director was very pleased with visitors from the famous Maastricht Eurocontrol Centre. After exchanging formal word of welcome we were shown the very modern Tashkent ACC.

Now it was time for the social events, and so we were shown the highlights of the city of Tash-kent and we were also introduced to the Uzbeki-stan cuisine. Next day two taxis, arranged by the Tashkent controllers, brought us, in a five

hours leisure drive to Samarkand the medieval capital and architectural pearl of Central Asia. Many historical sites were visited, including the Registan Square and its marvellous monuments. In total we spent five days in Uzbekistan, com-bining professional interest , adventure and friendship. We are looking forward to next years visit, we have not yet chosen a destination, so all suggestions are welcome.

Danny DaemsKris VermeirenChris GeelenJohn van der PijlJoop Beckers


CPDLC workshop

Report on the CPDLC and ADS-B workshop, Toulouse 26-27 April 2006Raf Vigorita

Not even the time to shake the jetlag off from the trip to the IFATCA Annual Conference in Taiwan, Patrik and myself found our way to Brussels airport, ready to fly to south of France for a very important workshop called “Driving ADS-B and CPDLC forward in Europe” organized by Eurocontrol and presenting an amazing number of qualified speakers.

As usual (but probability says sometimes this will change!) the flight was uneventful, and landing at Toulouse airport, we could distinguish in the darkness the shape of the massive Airbus A�80 parked just outside the hangars opposite the terminal. The weather was fine, the terminal empty and the ride to the hotel quick.

The next morning, in the hotel restaurant for breakfast, we met plenty of familiar faces, from IANS, EEC, HQ, CEATS and MUAC itself. We wondered if there was anyone left home to work! A quick walk through a public garden, and we arrived to the convention center. The organization of the event was smooth, and we had no troubles at all to make ourselves at ease.

I apologize if at times, I will be giving a lot of numbers, stats or acronyms, but they are necessary to clarify where we stand now, and what we are facing for the future. A future that if we want to call ours, we need to help creating.

The workshop was officially opened by the chairman and moderator, mr. Alex Wandels, of Eurocontrol. Some interesting figures were given to start the workshop off, and it’s worthwhile to report them here: traffic sustained a 20% growth since 1998, this is quite an astonishing stat, but what’s more surprising, is that in the mean time the average delay has gone down from 5 minutes to 90 seconds for each flight. There are many causes for delays, and to top this category are the airlines themselves being

responsible for delays on the 5�% of the times, the en-route phase accounts for 11%, security 4%, weather 11%, and the real bottleneck of our times are airports, responsible for 18% of the delay figures. Traffic growth has lately stabilized on a �.�% annually, and the forecast for 2006-2012 traffic remains the same, except for East Europe, where we can expect a growth of 6.5% annually. Also important to notice is that in the 1997-2005 period, the traffic increased by �0% and the capacity to accommodate it increased by 45%, reducing the capacity gap. In 2005 alone, the traffic increased by 4.2% and the capacity by only 2.2%, thus increasing the capacity gap. It seems we have stretched as far as we can, somewhere. We have gone from 7 million flights in 1997 to the forecasted 16 millions for 2020, and to achieve the performance targets, we need a 20-25% network capacity increase through new tools and techniques for ATM. To close this gap, a multiple-phase strategy has been developed, from the 2006 with the use of 8.��MHz and the DMEAN program, to the 2007-2010 phase 2 period with Mode S/EHS, Link 2000+, Cascade and Fasti, to the 2010+ phase � of SESAR. This means that we went from a departure clearances/digital ATIS/oceanic clearances/classic-radar environment achieved with ACARS and P+S radars, to the Link 2000+ and en-route CPDLC, with the downlinking of airborne parameters achieved with Mode S and VDL2, to the initial ADS-B, more CPDLC and more D-FIS foreseen for 2010+ through ADS-B receiver, to finally have airborne separation, trajectory negotiation and autonomous separation. Obviously, this sounds so strange to traditional ATCOs, but it seems to be the way ahead, so it’s better to be involved in the decision making rather than having it imposed upon us, as 2010 isn’t that far away.

But what is Cascade? Cascade is the implementation of ADS-B and in flight datalink using the technology of Mode S/ES and ATN/VDL2 to ultimately achieve higher sector productivity. The initial implementation in 2008 (Stream 1) will see ground surveillance applications of ADS-B-out and the use of CPDLC and D-FIS. In Stream 2, foreseen for 2011, we will see the implementation of airborne surveillance applications, such as situational awareness,

sequencing and merging and visual separation on approach through ADS-B-in and TIS-B while seeing an increased use of CPDLC. Sequencing and merging trials are already carried out in Louisville airport by UPS since 2004; I will refer to this in more details later. In Europe, the validation sites of these new technologies are spread out throughout the whole continent. What we will be able to achieve with ADS-B is cost effective quality surveillance and improved situational awareness in the cockpit, and with CPDLC is clear and unintrusive messages and a significant reduction of voice communication workload.

The Cascade trials in Europe are carried out throughout all of the former “Western Europe” with the sole exceptions of Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland and Iceland. ADS-B-out validations are active in few countries, with the most relevant being in the Mediterranean region, England and Sweden, while testing for the ADS-B-in application ATSAW (Air Traffic Situation Awareness, which requires certain sets of avionics to display other ADS-B traffic in the cockpit) which would eventually lead to airborne separation, are ongoing in Sweden, Frankfurt, Paris and Toulouse.

And how are things around us?

Rick Castaldo, representing the FAA office for ADS-B implementation, stressed the fact that ADS-B is designed to improve the safety, capacity and efficiency of the airspace system, while providing a flexible and expandable platform to accommodate future traffic growth. In the USA, the target is to have completed the rules for ADS-B by 2010, have the ADS-B deployment by 201� and have 100% complete avionics upgrade by 2020. But, what is exactly ADS-B? ADS-B is: Automatic (periodically transmits with no pilot or operator input required), Dependent (position and velocity vector are derived from GPS or FMS), Surveillance (a method of determining the position of the aircraft), and Broadcast (transmitted information available to anyone with the appropriate receiving equipment). One question comes to mind: what if GPS fails or is taken out of line by the militaries? Will Galileo or Glonas be available for backup? And


CPDLC workshop

how feasible is that? Could this impair the whole system? As you can see, these are feasible but ambitious programs, with plenty of challenges to be resolved before final implementation is safely possible.

Representing Airservices Australia, Greg Dunstone provided a good overview of the advanced ADS-B trials carried out in downunder. Currently in the trial area, as crew training has been performed and certification received from CASA (the regulator), a separation of 5NM is being applied. The ADS-B project ideally will help providing a better service, especially in upper airspace, as in 2005 the areas covered by single or multiple radars were Perth, Darwin and the entire East Coast. With the implementation of ADS-B + GPS, the whole of Australia will be covered, thus providing radar-like environment possibilities. The full ADS-B implementation is due for 2007. Interesting intra-boundary trials are on going and multiplying with Jakarta and Surabaya as well as Singapore and even Bangkok. This aims to accelerate regional cooperation in ADS-B implementation and one that enables cross international FIR data sharing in the Asia/Pacific region. It has to be said that Australia is leading the way in ADS-B implementation due to the fact that many radars are approaching the end of their life-cycle and they are very expensive to be replaced. So it was a question to spend a large sum to install new radars or test and develop ADS-B, cheaper and deployable over the entire territory, and also used for Oceanic flights. The money saved by not needing to replace the radars will be used to subsidy the GA equipage for a quicker transition. Terminal areas will remain with the traditional radar coverage.

Christopher North, DG TREN-ATM and airport unit for the European Commission, expresses his view on the need of SESAR by arguing the fact that ATC is actually working as it was 20 years ago, the airspace cannot be divided further (someone should tell him about the DECO 5th sector) and that the technologies are obsolete. ATM reforms are needed because the traffic growth cannot be sustained without a substantial technological step. What does all this mean? In practical terms, it means implementations of national supervisory authorities, separation between regulators and

providers, but mainly the creation of cross-border FABs and their interoperability. Ideally the SESAR program calls for the future ATM system to be developed collectively (by users, industry, providers, military…) and ensure a Europe-wide implementation. A wonderful idea on paper, that sums up the basic idea of the European Union and its existence, but I wish everyone good luck with this. In the long term, the European Commission expects the SESAR system to comprise datalink communication as standard, a multi-layered planning process based on 4D trajectories and, the one you are all waiting for, delegation of responsibility for separation to the aircraft. As for ADS-B, the Commission view is that 4D and ADS-B are complementary, where 4D will be used for planning and avoid overload in certain areas to ensure system efficiency and ADS-B for local tactical control to ensure safety and maximize capacity.

Airbus expectations are pretty high, just like everyone else’s. With the plans for the new ATM environment, they expect an increase in capacity, together with an increased safety, improved flexibility and cost effectiveness, and global interoperability. With a full exploitation of aircraft capabilities and continuous evolution toward more navigation precision less dependent on ground navaids, a performance based ATM will use a dense but defined route network for capacity and efficiency, and execute planned schedule for predictability and robustness. Another major trend is the evolution of CNS avionics: Communications (ATCO/Pilot unambiguous and digital, aircraft trajectory predictions shared between air and ground), Navigation (Aircraft will fly more precise �D routes within dense networks, aircraft operating more independently from ground structures and ground will predict 4D trajectories-with time), Surveillance (Flight crews will have enhanced situational awareness and some tasks will be transferred to those crews). Airbus view is that ADS-B is a key enabler to cost effective ATC surveillance, and will support the ASAS concept (Airborne Separation Assurance System) which is an important element of future ATM as a tactical complement to collaborative process. It is the opinion of Airbus that ATSAW will improve the experience and confidence in ASAS, and its

promising benefits are a fuel burn reduction, increased capacity and an overall enhanced safety in every environment. In principle, the controller can delegate separation relative to designated aircraft to the flight crew through a new clearance BUT the controller will remain responsible for providing separation in accordance with the applicable separation minima from the other aircraft. So it is believed that the logical sequence of events will be the implementation of ADS-B-out, then ATSAW, then spacing through sequencing and merging, and finally ASAS. Self separation, however, is NOT in Airbus roadmap. As for CPDLC, Airbus sees it as a key contributor to capacity improvement and as a key enabler of ATM evolution, from A62� (the first ATC datalink used for departure clearances, D-ATIS and Oceanic clearances delivery), to FANS A (CPDLC and ADS over ACARS network in Oceanic and en-route airspace), to FANS B (compliant to the Link 2000+ baseline and integrated with ATN - it’s where we stand now), to 4D trajectories integrated to the gate to gate concept throughout all phases of flight.

Paul Conroy, our Mr. CPDLC, gave an overview of the steady progress made by the CPDLC applications in MUAC. I think we are all aware of them, and if you remember, CPDLC was introduced into Maastricht in form of PETAL trials, and from there, we arrived to the current situation where CPDLC is currently in daily operational use and the potential for some automation of CPDLC (NSSR automatic uplink) is clearly recognized. His presentation was an explanation of how CPDLC works, its HMI, the options available and eventually the advantages that brings to us, mainly a reduction in R/T workload and a different task sharing. It may seem all logical to us as we know all about it since we have been using it for quite a while, but the attention and curiosity in the audience couldn’t have been higher.

Eventually, the first day of workshop draws to an end. It’s been a long, busy day full of a lot of information and plenty figures. But I believe I left the conference room with a better overview and understanding, and I think in doing that, I reached the objective of being here already. And


CPDLC workshop

off we go back to the hotel for a well deserved shower, and after that, a nice dinner with some Eurocontrol colleagues. Walking to the city center takes only 10 minutes, and here we are, in the heart of Toulouse. It’s a lively city, with a lot of people out in the streets to enjoy an evening of great weather and really fine temperature, allowing us to enjoy the night till late. Dinner… well, since I’m in France, why not trying out some of their specialties? Some foie gras, some escargots, baked lever. All with a fine glass of Italian, oops, I mean French wine. I know at least half of you would have chosen a “safer” steak, but I found it boring. And let me tell you, the food was truly excellent! Anyway, although the night is still young, I am not, so it’s better to go and get some rest.

The next day, we opened with an overview of the operational testing performed at Brussels airport including the use of D-OTIS (Datalink Operational Terminal Information Service) and D-TAXI. D-OTIS is basically a Cascade application that allows the crew to request and receive, amongst others, updated NOTAMS, VOLMETS, ATIS via datalink and thus having always the latest information available; it’s selected and reliable information, it’s easy to use and requires the minimum effort by the pilots who can concentrate more on other matters, it’s readable so not subject to misinterpretations and it’s always available. All this improves safety as the pilots are able to collect early the landing conditions for the approach preparation, avoids increasing workload on the final stage of the flight, produces an early recognition of weather deterioration, and the main effect is an improved CRM. D-TAXI works in a similar way, providing the pilots with basic information and instructions for surface operations. D-TAXI at the present moment is expressed in plain datalink messages, but for the future, it’s foreseen to have all traffic on the airport surface displayed on the aircraft MCDU (Multi-function Control and Display Unit) for a better crew awareness.

A presentation was delivered by Rockwell-Collins, underlining their close cooperation for the development of equipment to be used in datalink and ADS-B environments, providing data about early testing, especially to evaluate the

viability of integration between ADS-B and radar, and eventually to promote their business plan. A couple of interesting slides on the future CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) kept my level of attention on an acceptable level, but in all honesty, I was waiting for the UPS presentation, next to come.

An interesting and innovative presentation came from UPS on the testing of sequencing, merging and spacing implementation carried out at Louisville airport. Tests were conducted by the UPS fleet on CDAs where arrival procedures on idle power descent were performed with clear saving in fuel (between 250 and 465 pounds per flight), lower emissions (up to �4%) and lower noise (up to �0%), as low level vectoring wasn’t needed. For fairness, it has to be said that these trials were possible due to the proper aircraft equipage and in low traffic periods. Nevertheless, due to the positive results obtained, UPS supports the need for ADS-B merging and spacing applications for wide-scale implementation in higher density situations with the proper “affordable” aircraft retrofit to make the concept feasible. For merging and spacing operations, normally the ATCO provides delaying vectors to merge an aircraft behind another one, and at bunching times, this can result in queuing and sometimes holding at low altitudes. The idea is to shift the control to AOC (Airline Operation Centers) which, utilizing a new tool, calculates and assigns speeds to flight crews based on the calculated predicted sequencing and spacing thus reducing bunching and allowing the use of CDAs to a greater extent. The ATCO maintains control and responsibility for separation, and for operational needs, can alter the aircraft speed. At this stage, the AOC would recalculate the sequence according to the new aircraft speed. Apparently, this is supposed to be an interim phase, as the objective is to have ATC managing such sequencing tool to assign speeds. Will it work? Only time can tell. Currently UPS is also testing CAVS (CDTI Assisted Visual Separation) and SAMM (Surface Area Movement Management), but these are purely APP and surface related, so I won’t go into details. Just let me say that one advantage of SAMM, which we can appreciate as passengers, is that the crew will be alerted of potential traffic or runway incursions, making

our stay onboard safer.

Patrik, invited to present the ATCO and IFATCA point of view, listed a series of problems related to voice communications (like phraseology, R/T overload, noise and distortion, c/s confusions and English proficiency) which will worsen with the predicted traffic increase expected for the coming years. From this point, datalink will be helpful to ATCOs to free the frequency, especially from routine calls, reduce the workload as some tasks can be taken up by the planner and some by the automated transmissions and will provide additional information via aircraft parameters downlinking. What we have to monitor is the link security, the system degradation and the link speed. The IFATCA policy states that “voice communication be retained as a communication’s channel in all circumstances…”. It also states that voice should be used in an emergency situation, but I see this purely as a legal exercise, as it seems obvious to everyone involved that there is nothing more immediate than voice to reach an aircraft in need as soon as possible. The way ahead should be mainly to harmonize systems since momentarily we are working in mix mode operations, have more user friendly HMIs, have safety cases and proper training and procedures. IFATCA, from its side, recognizes the benefits of datalink as a supplementary tool, and will continue to address the shortcomings of the system and provide feed-back from experiences gained to improve safety.

Capt. Bob Arnesen, an SAS pilot, provided the IFALPA (International Federation of AirLine Pilots’ Association) and ECA (European Cockpit Association) position on datalink which was very much in line, and luckily so, with the ATCOs point of view. At least, the two end users are on the same line on when and how using datalink. The pilots see the same problems and advantages as we do, so for once, amazingly we are on the same side. The pilots see in the saturation of the system one of the major challenges as traffic steadily increases, and their request is that any frequency allotted to an ADS-B link must have the freedom to use that frequency without having to compete with other technologies (like probably 1090Mhz, and that’s why this proposal has been rejected by them so far) operating


CPDLC workshop / JAL & JAL

The JAL907-JAL958 near miss. UPDATERaf Vigorita

At the end of January 2001, a near miss between 2 JAL flights resulted in TCAS resolutions and some people injured onboard both aircraft. The ATCOs (one of which a trainee), were once again prosecuted. At that time, TCAS procedures were not clearly laid down and specified as they are today by ICAO. After 5 years, the court ruling was somehow surprising. On a Japanese newspaper, the prosecutor said that taking the feelings of the injured people and their relatives into account, they could not overlook this case in spite of the global trend of non punishment policy for the pilots and air traffic controllers involved in air accidents to give priority to the prevention of the recurrence of such accidents.But he also said at the end that the time may have come, that we should be focused on prevention of the recurrence rather than

prosecution, in Japan as well as everywhere else. Let’s all hope that the Japanese judicial system have set the tone for future reference, leading by example and having at heart the safety of the whole community rather than focusing on punishing someone dedicated who was carrying out his/her important tasks. Following, you can read the message presented at the IFATCA Annual Conference by our colleague mr. Itsuro Nakajo, General Secretary of the Japanese Federation of ATC.

“To all participants to the IFATCA Annual Conference in Kaohsiung. We wish to express our gratitude to all ATC colleagues in IFATCA. We had been prosecuted for the near mid-air collision incident of JAL907 flight and JAL 958 flight that occurred on January �1st 2001.

On March 20th 2006, the sentence of acquittal was passed on after 14 trials. In the history of justice in Japan, it is epoch-making and meaningful that the court recognized it was an incident connected to the whole

system.We felt great remorse for the injured people

in this incident for a long time. Therefore, we could not analyze this incident objectively. However, we gradually came to recognize that various factors contributed to this incident.

One and a half years after the incident, the mid-air collision accident between the Bashkir flight and the DHL flight occurred over Überlingen in Germany. This accident is a similar case to the JAL907 incident on the point that both were related to TCAS.

We think that the accident might have been prevented if the cause of JAL907 incident was properly clarified at an earlier stage, and notified world-wide.

It was a big problem that the incident investigation could not be completely separated from the police investigation. For this reason, the incident investigation was delayed and to our regret this incident could not be used as prevention of accidents afterward.

A lot of people such as ATC colleagues, member of all transportation labor unions,

there at the same time. IFALPA and ECA see the safety case as the most important issue to be addressed in any ADS-B link. The quality and integrity of the aircraft position data is one of the crucial building blocks for any future ADS-B link, together with the issue of the ownership of this link information.

Also, there was a report on the datalink convergence, since two different systems are being used in the USA and Europe, just like for everything else, and one on setting the baseline for everything involved in this project (procedures, equipment, system design, certification, regulation and safety case), but there is no need in this instance to dig into this any further. There were also few other presentations, going from the ADS-B trials held in Sweden to the ones held in UK and in the Mediterranean region, involving 9 countries. Or the one on the ADS-B operational study in La Reunion, where procedural service is currently provided and the installation of radars is out of reach, economically speaking. It appears that the use of the more affordable ADS-B could provide an improved ATC

service and will surely improve co-ordinations with the neighboring countries, Mauritius and Madagascar.

All the speakers provided an updated overview of the steady progress made in the direction of ADS-B implementation, and it shows that every country is actively involved in R & D, because it’s better to lead and chose, cooperate and exchange experiences rather than sit still and wake up one day, finding ourselves in unpleasant situations we didn’t expect. ATC has been a static environment for many years, the technology hasn’t advanced as much as it should have to keep up with the increasing demand. In the coming years, we will be facing major changes, and challenges, and some of them are not so far away as we may think. We should be ready, and more, we should be proactive and work in the R & D so that the final results will be as close as possible to our requirements.

One last thought is that, in the two days spent in Toulouse, I came to appreciate the work of Alex Wandels. His workshop was nicely organized, and mostly, presented the top group of speakers and

professionals of the entire spectrum of CPDLC and ADS-B development. His stinging sense of humor and his capacity to make well timed funny remarks for each and every one of the speakers during their introduction, had the great capacity to attract and maintain the attention of the audience.

I hope I was able to give you a general overview of what to expect in the coming years. There is an evolving world around us, and more times than not, we are not involved even if we are the end users. It’s also up to us to actively participate to the process that leads us to the future of ATM. Our future.

So, time to leave France. I have enjoyed every single moment I have spent in Toulouse, it was a short period of time, but definitely intense. I had to soak in a great deal of information, I just hope I was able to relay at least a small part of it through this article.

Till the next workshop in 2008, a bien tot!


title article

Superman don’t need no seatbelt!

The rich-and-famous don’t always succeed in flaunting the rules, as the world-boxing

champion learned on one flight. While the aircraft was pushed

back, the flight attendant asked him to buckle his seatbelt. The champ replied, “Superman don’t need no seatbelt!” Without missing a beat, the savvy flight attendant replied “Superman don’t need no airplane, either!” The boxer buckled up without another word.

So that’s what it’s for!

The propeller is just a big fan in front of the plane used to keep the pilot cool. When it stops, you can actually watch the pilot start sweating.

Linate

and the airline crews supported us for these 5 years until acquiring the judgment of “not guilty”.

We got many messages of support from IFATCA MAs. We strongly felt that we were supported by quite a lot of people. It gave us energy to move forward to fight in the court.

This sentence of innocence is not only ours but for all of those who had supported us. After the ruling, many ATC colleagues and others congratulated us.

But let us say “Congratulations” to all of you. Please convey our feelings of “Thanks” and “Congratulations” to your colleagues when you go back home.

Thank you again for your continuous concerns and support from the bottom of our hearts.”

March 24, 2006Tokyo Area Control

CenterHideki Hachitani

and Yasuko Momii

The Linate court case. An updateRaf Vigorita

As you all remember, on a foggy October day of 2001, a Scandinavian MD80 on a take off run collided with a Cessna Citation crossing the very same runway in poor visibility conditions at Linate airport, the downtown airport of Milan, causing 118 casualties.

After about 4 and half years, the court case has reached the second stage, where sentences handed out in the 1st stage can be appealed.Needless to say, this case has been taken to heart by the Italian ATCOs association (ANACNA), as one of their members and colleagues is facing possible jail time and a sentence that seems to look for a scapegoat rather than real justice.

Following you can read the translation from the last update on this court case received from ANACNA on 26 May 2006.

“Stating the case against the defendants during the appeal process, prosecutor dr. Sinagra proposed a reduction of the previously imposed sentences for � of the 4 defendants, accused of manslaughter for the accident occurred at Linate on October 8, 2001:

- Paolo Zacchetti (the ATCO) from 8 years to 5 years and 5 months;

- Vincenzo Fusco, then GM of Linate airport, from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months;

- Francesco Federico, then GM for the Milan airports network, from 6 years and 6 months to 5 years and 6 months.

The last court hearing took place on May 25, 2006 where the lawyer ( dr. Cicorella) representing solely the ATCO involved , presented his case.

ANACNA feels a great injustice has taken place. Despite multiple complaints being filed, the case for the other defendants will be presented only at the end of June. This will give time to the other defendants’ lawyers to study ad-hoc defenses based on the ATCO’s case, and in addition giving time to the court to forget about the ATCO’s defense arguments.”

You can draw your own conclusions from the above transcript, but the fear of ANACNA of the ATCO being made a scapegoat seems well founded.

On a technical note, ANACNA reported that the defense asked and obtained the re-listening

of the original sound recording. This because what occurred was that the court expert only listened to duplicated and copied sound recording data without having doubts on the technical trustworthiness of its job. The result was a total of 24 folders with transcript errors! The recording method and device in place today can actually compromise the reconstruction of the acoustic scene when not giving a false view of reality altogether. The RACAL (the recording system) records 64 tracks simultaneously but doesn’t allow any useful indication of the real situation taking place at the time. This is because it automatically does a check of the GAIN: if it records a low-tone voice it raises it to let it be heard at the same level of the others. This equipment is so totally unable to reproduce the acoustic scenario in place at the time the accident occurred. A scenario that furthermore couldn’t be even reproduced today within the TWR, staying to the fact that in 5 years the TWR lay-out and technical equipments have been entirely changed. This to underline the fact that the Cessna pilot did report twice being at the wrong position, but both times the R/T transmission overlapped with the one of another pilot. But given the technology available for the recording, the reality is definitely distorted as it the recordings do not represent truthfully what the ATCO heard. Our thanks go to ANACNA for keeping us up to date on this important issue.


Changing the standards

CHANGING THE STANDARDSGabriel Bangiu

The end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s have marked the dawn of a new era in aviation transport. The incredible expansion of air travel had put a big pressure on the aircraft designers and producers, demanding for revised concepts in air travel. The Boeing 747 was deemed too big for some new routes and the only alternative for the American manufacturer was the B767. But the 767 was already considered an old concept, although it had had its first flight less than 10 years before.At the same time, another menace came from the other side of the Atlantic, where Airbus was in an advanced stage with the new A��0/�40 family, which turned out to be a serious competitor for the mighty Everett giant.Therefore, in order to remain competitive on the aircraft market, Boeing needed a major change in their philosophy, a new product which was supposed to revolutionize air travel, matching, in the same time, the needs of the airlines and the incoming oil crisis. This was also a challenge for the engine manufacturers, who had to come up with new, improved engines, more powerful, more economic, quieter and, very important issue, less pollutive. While Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney had already prepared their Trent and PW4000, respectively, as derivatives of earlier models, to reduce development costs and risk of eventual technical failures, General Electric had opted for a completely new engine ( the GE90 series), relying on accumulation of past experience. That caused a lot of teething problems, resulting in higher development costs, some unexpected problems and, consequently, delays in service entry. There was, though, a big advantage, represented by a greater development potential.Boeing had foreseen many configurations, studying layouts with two, three and four engines, choosing, eventually, a twin-engine structure, which was offering a lower fuel consumption and also reduced maintenance costs. The designers also opted for a wingspan of around 60 m, offering aerodynamic benefits and avoiding the need of upturned winglets,

therefore making an uncomplicated wing structure.Having all these conditions in mind and also a project designator (Boeing 777), the managers opted for something undone until that moment in the history of aircraft design: they invited all the airlines interested in the 777 and asked each of them to come up with its own proposals, in order to establish the goals concerning the quality levels and performances. So, the 777 was the first completely market-driven design in the aviation history. This was also mentioned on the first Boeing 777 aircraft, by writing below the flight-deck windows the logo “Working Together”. The first meeting of the “working together” group took place at Boeing headquarters in January 1990, where each participating airline was given a questionnaire on what the 777 should be like. The initial “working together” teams were formed with advisory full-time staff from four of the launch airlines, these being United Airlines, British Airways, All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines. Two months later the basic configuration of the new airliner was defined based on the answers given by the airlines. The problems caused by the compatibility with the existing airport boarding gates were solved, following the request of American Airlines, by offering an optional variant with folding wingtips.

Another major innovation in the design of the 777 was the use of advanced computers, using three-dimensional design programs, in order to achieve the aim of a “paperless” design whenever possible, thus reducing the use of expensive full-scale design and engineering mock-ups.One of the most difficult goals that Boeing had to achieve was to deliver a service-ready airliner, complete with ETOPS certification, in the past this being obtained only after a number of years in normal commercial service. ETOPS approval allows a twin-engined airliner to operate up to 180 minutes flying time on a single engine from a suitable diversionary airfield, in the event of an engine failure. One of the key requirement for the ETOPS certification was that one 777, powered by each of the three engine types must complete at least 1000 cycles, simulating about three years of actual airline operation, and one of the engines installed on the test aircraft, complete with its pylons and systems, must go through a 2000 to �000 cycles ground test beforehand, and fly for a minimum of 500 cycles on the test program. For initial flight testing of the PW 4084 engine, Boeing had leased back the original 747 prototype from the Seattle Museum of Flight and fitted the test engine to the no. 2 position, the flight-test beginning in June 199�. The procedure was repeated with

OUTPUT summer 2006 2�


the Rolls-Royce Trent 884 engine, while for the GE90 another B747-100 was leased from Mojave, California. The RR Trent 884 powerplant for the 777 ran for the first time at Derby, on 8 October 199�, with the thrust reached exceeding �75 kN. The certification was targeted for February 1995, the first customer being Thai Airways, in early 1996.The first engine for the 777 to become airborne was the PW 4084, fitted on the 747 test-bed, on 10 November 199�.The first flight of a Boeing 777 occurred on 12 June 1994, from Everett’s Paine Field and it lasted for � h and 48 min. A noticeable thing was that, very unusual for a first flight, one engine was shut down, allowed to cool and restarted afterwards. The second PW 4084-powered 777 had its maiden flight on 15 July and it was followed by two more PW powered 777s, joining for the basic certification program, with a fifth one added later for ETOPS certification program.During flight testing of the first 777s, the engineers noticed that the drag was at a better than expected level, allowing an increase in speed, from the planned Mach 0.8� to more than Mach 0.84, thus shortening considerably the long-haul flights.But the flight certification program had, obviously, its problems. On 2 February 1995, the WA002 (the second prototype) made an emergency landing at Boeing Field, descending rapidly from 4�000 ft, due to a sudden cabin-depressurisation. Strangely, on the same day, another prototype, WA00�, being on loads’ survey flight test in Hawaii, had suffered the same problem. Both events were caused by a check valve failure in the air conditioning system and it was corrected in short time. Another incident was the failure of a high-pressure turbine blade of a GE 90 engine, on 14 November 1994, but it didn’t delay the certification program, which went on without any other incidents.Another noticeable thing happened in February 1995, when a GE90-powered 777 reached Mach 0.96, in a shallow dive, during a flight meant to assess the airframe/engine envelope.On the 19 April 1995 the Boeing 777 became

the first US airliner to get simultaneous type design and production certificates from both the US and European authorities. By the time the first 777 joined United Airlines fleet (the launch customer…), the overall certification program reached almost ��00 hours, that compared with 1800 hours on the 767, at the same stage.Finally, on the 7 June 1995, the first revenue service of a 777 was made by United Airlines, when the B777 with the registration N777UA, named Working Together, took off from Heathrow, bound for Washington Dulles Int. Airport.As many other airlines started to place orders for the new 777, the need of a diversification of the 777 range seemed unavoidable, that being meant to satisfy each airline needs and

requests.The basic 777 was designated Boeing 777-200 and it was 6�.7 m long, it had a wingspan of 60.9 m, a MTOW between 2�0 and 240 tons and a range of up to 5�00 nm, at a speed of Mach 0.84. It could accommodate �75 passengers in two-class layout and �05 passengers in three-class layout.Following the request came from many airlines, especially the one from British Airways, Boeing started, almost immediately after the launch of the 777, to work on a new, improved variant which had to have a longer range. The weight of the new 777 had to be increased, therefore the new 777 variant was named 777-200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight). It shared the same airframe with its predecessor, having a redesigned landing gear and some additional

fuel tanks, bringing the MTOW to 267 tons. The range went up to 8100 nm.In the same time, in order to cope with the continuously increasing demand in air travel, some other companies were asking for an aircraft smaller than the 747 and bigger than 777, to accommodate more passengers and to be used also on shorter and busier routes. This was the first step towards a stretched variant of the 777, designated 777-�00. The official announcement for starting production was made in June 1995 and the first prototype took off for the first time in October 1997. It had an increased length, 7�.9 m, being the longest airliner in the world at that time, but the wing span was kept at the same dimensions, for cost saving reasons. Its MTOW was 260 tons and it could accommodate up to

550 passengers, depending on the configuration chosen by customers.In February 1997 Boeing Board gave the “go-ahead” for producing longer range 777-200X and 777-�00X, which, eventually, became the 777-200LR (Long Range) and the 777-�00ER (Extended Range). The differences between the new and the old frames were kept at a minimal level, again for reducing the costs. The only noticeable difference can be seen at the wings, which have raked wingtips, for aerodynamic improvements, this shape bringing a greater fuel saving than the

winglets and making the wing structure less complicated.Probably the “jewel on the crown” of the 777 family can be considered one of the derivatives above mentioned, the ultra long range airliner Boeing 777-200 LR (Long Range).For this last masterpiece, the raked wingtips were used, additional fuel tanks were added, bringing the MTOW to an amazing �47 tons. The dimensions of the airframe are the same with the older -200 series , except for the wingspan, which has been increased, due to the new shape of the wingtips. The thrust of the new generation GE90 engines exceeds 500 kN, more than twice the thrust of a classic 747 engine!But the biggest improvement is the range, which goes up to 9500 nm, enabling the new


“Atlanta tower,

United 12� is with you.”

“United 12�, you are cleared to land on 27 right.” “Atlanta tower, Delta 765.” “Delta 765, you are cleared to land on 9 left.” After a pause to digest this, we hear.... “Uh... Atlanta, I think you have that United flight and us coming into the same runway in opposite directions?” Another pause.. “Y’all be careful, now, y’ hear?”


EGATS MOSAIC MOTION

The membership of the Eurocontrol Guild of Air Traffic Servicessupports EGATS participation in the MOSAIC project for the

creation of a Common European Airspace Block.

The EGATS membership delegates the EGATS ExecutiveBoard to cooperate on this matter with Trade Union EurocontrolMaastricht in view of the motion as adopted at the TUEM AGM

on 20/02/06.

Approved unanimouslyEGATS GM 15/06/06

777 to fly non-stop from London to Sydney, carrying �01 passengers. The launch customer for the 777-200LR was Pakistan International Airlines, at the end of February 2006. On the 9 November 2005, the prototype B777-200LR, registered N6066Z, broke the world record, for the longest flight of an airliner, departing Hong-Kong and going eastbound, over-flying the U.S., and landing in Heathrow, after a flight of 22 hours and 42 minutes, covering 11664 nm. The arrival of the 777-200LR has established a new market segment, the ultra long range airliners, represented so far by the Airbus �40-500 and the B777-200LR, the only problem now being the capacity of the passengers to endure these long flights, which can last up to 20 hours!The 777-200LR and the 777-�00ER were launched simultaneously, the stretched version being 10.2 m longer than the basic version and being able to accommodate �65 passengers in a three-class cabin layout and having a range of up to 7880 nm. The last member to join the 777 family was the freighter variant, the 777F, based on the -200 series frame, which was officially launched on 2� May 2005. The 777F will not

use the auxiliary tanks, used on the LR version, and it will be able to carry over 10� tons of payload on distances going up to 4965 nm. The service entry for the 777F is foreseen for the last quarter of 2008 and, so far, Boeing has received 2� orders.Considering all said before, we may say that Boeing is well prepared for conquering

the supremacy in the civil aviation market, continuing to fight for that its fiercest rival from Toulouse, this battle bringing high benefits to customers all over the world and representing the main contributing factor in the revival of the aviation industry.


Nordic meeting

A pilot was attempt-ing to deal with New

York, and the controller shot everything out a mile

a minute. The pilot came back with “New York, you hear how fast I’m a-talkin’? Well, that’s how fast I’m a-listnin.”

Report on Nordic Meeting 2005Reykjavic 21st -23rd September 2005Clare Taylor

Volker Dick and Clare Taylor attended on behalf of EurocontrolRepresentatives from Icelandic CAA; Avinor, Norway & FAFDA, Denmark

I was very excited to be invited to Iceland again to attend the 2005 Nordic meeting. Not only is it and amazing part of the world but the exchange of information with our Scandinavian colleagues always reminds me of the fact that it is an interesting and varied field we work in.

Landing at Keflavik was still like landing on the moon, the sparse volcanic landscape was punctuated by 4 x 4 moon buggies on the way into Reykjavik. Here we checked into our hotel and prepared for the meeting starting early the next day.

The meeting was held across the road in the Kaffi Reykjavik, sadly our conference room was not attached to the ice bar downstairs (apparently “the coolest place in town”) It began with the introduction of our Icelandic hosts and the presentation of our respective “Since Last”reports.

It seems that Air Traffic Control in general has never before been in such a period of change and transition than it is now - Scandinavia is going through consolidation and closures of centres, privatisation discussions and new software development at the same time as dealing with rising traffic levels which seem finally to have risen to pre 2001 levels.

The Icelandic Flight Data role has become what we envisage as the future for our FD staff at MAS UAC. The greatly reduced numbers are working mainly as systems operators, pseudo pilots and NOTAM officers. The development of a new FDPS means that the Controllers will be unaware of system instability as it is a

replica of the main system. Electronic strips will shortly be introduced for domestic traffic meaning, of course, that numbers of FDS will be reduced further. The opportunities in the training department are set to increase as the Icelandic CAA has been training Kosovan Controllers and hopes soon to enter into a contract with NATO, sending Controllers to Afghanistan and helping train their tower/approach Controllers. A pretty unique opportunity for work experience I’d say!

Our meeting took place shortly after the Icelandic Minister for Transport had released a report recommending that ICAA become a state owned limited company. The Minister’s Committee suggested separating the regulator from the service provider and make ATS part of ICAA. What this means for the staff no one is sure; the staff was not consulted during the formulation of these plans.The Norwegian Report was also full of interesting developments – the cost reducing programme “Take Off 05” having slimmed down their FD numbers from 290 to 60. The Norwegian Board of Aircraft Investigation concluded that the changes had gone a bit too fast and recommended that Avinor make a thorough investigation into the safety aspects of this programme. Their plan is also to merge the air traffic centres, with Trondheim and Bodø already having done so. In October 2004 the decision was made to combine Oslo ACC and Stavanger, starting in 2008. This lead to a 2 day unofficial strike by the Oslo Controllers who just walked off the job. They returned due to the management promising financial incentives and a review of the plans.

The future is very uncertain for the Norwegian Air Traffic staff, there are rumours of one central unit for the whole country and even that an “other” may take responsibility for the provision of services – another FAB maybe?

Next was the turn of the Danish contingent to present their report. Always optimistic

about pay and conditions, the number of aircraft movements has increased (55,000 for 2005) and there are some major projects under way. The NUAC project (Nordic UAC) aims to set up an Upper Area Control centre over Denmark and Sweden and will be based in Malmö. Despite a few problems they have already established a joint Nordic School which will begin training early 2006. There are also some new system developments in the pipeline – DATMAS, the new operating system for the new Copenhagen tower and ACC is nearing completion.

In spite of all of these positive developments (or maybe even due to) June 2005 saw the laying off a number of Air Traffic Assistants. The DG has however promised that this will not occur again until 2008. A recent staff satisfaction survey had revealed some interesting points that were now being discussed with management and the Union FADFA hopes that it will benefit all of the Naviair employees.---There were so many things to discuss in this report that I haven’t even mentioned the other essential “networking “part of our visit. Needless to say, our hosts were very hospitable, the food and scenery adding to the company. As always we left the meeting full of information and enthusiasm for the next one. (Which will incidentally be held in MAS

UAC.) So brace yourselves

everyone, the Scandinavians are coming in September 2006!!


MOSAIC

MOSAICor a credible alternative to privatisation and competition.Frederic Deleau

Dear members,

From every corner of Europe, people are starting to talk about one project: MOSAIC. Meetings are held at regular intervals, Common Statements and advertisement are coming out, promotion clips are circulating and a web site will shortly be available. But what is MOSAIC? Does it affect you?

In fact, we, in Maastricht are more than involved. We are leading!

When did we start with this idea?

The Project MOSAIC was initiated by TUEM and SNCTA (French Union) during a meeting in summer 2005. The two organisations contacted other Unions and Professional Associations and they got positive returns immediately from every one. All knew something had to be done to improve the ATC system but also to defend our profession and social conditions from the dangers of privatisation but alone, no one knew were to start.

When the basics of MOSAIC were laid down, it sparked energy, a new hope.

“YES”, there was a credible alternative to competition. “Yes”, we could achieve something sustainable, and “Yes”, the staff organisations of 7 nations wanted to be part of it and join forces.

Why did we initiate such concept?

There are two possible reactions to the extension of the policy of competition advocated by the European Commission and adopted by certain service providers: either to back down or to build a viable alternative.Since the adoption of the Single Sky in 2004, the competition-based model in Europe has

continued to gain ground. It is always the staff that pays the price for the following attitudes: “the most important thing is not to change anything and everything will turn out fine …” In the end, the outcome is always the same: staff (and the users) will suffer the consequences.“Sorry, we couldn’t do anything about it” is all that remains to be said. By which point it is too late.

What is our practical starting point?

The cost of fragmentation

Fragmentation involves the proliferation of systems much more that the proliferation of control centres. Today EUROCONTROL estimates the cost of fragmentation at EUR 1.5 billion. Standardisation of the systems would cover up to 40% of the cost of air traffic control. A reduction in costs borne by systems rather than by staff.

Why can’t we do it alone?

With the problem of fragmentation in mind, it is natural to join forces and take action to improve our future.

Further, on the political side, since the European Commission’s first communication on the Single Sky in 1999, it has been clear that joining forces to mount an opposition has always been a complex matter. The disparate cultures, with different rights and regulations from one country to the next have always divided the various organisations. MUAC is so far an isolated example of international cooperation.Time has come to join our forces, our experience and differences to others if we don’t want to end up alone and even more vulnerable.

What are our basic demands?

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE STATES:

The management of MOSAIC will be under the supervision of the Member States. This key fact is to ensure that private service providers, whoever they are, do not infiltrate the institutional

structure and open the way for competition.

AN ORGANISATION FINANCED EXCLUSIVELY FROM PUBLIC FUNDS:

Exclusive financing by public funds is an essential requirement for ensuring that safety remains the primary objective, taking precedence over all other considerations ( capacity, cost, etc.). It is a way of perpetuating the principle of recovery of costs, which allows the service to be financed from an independent budget, with any over-recoveries being repaid to the users, rendering any profits impossible.

FROM THE GROUND UP:

Working from the ground up enables the same service to be provided from Palermo to Hamburg, via Geneva or Brest. This safety chain is still the best asset in providing all users with a quality service. It is also a bastion against the European Commission’s economic vision which saw in the FABs a separation between “the profitable” (above FL 285) and “the costly” (lower levels).

Why is it so important to act?

To keep control over our future!

Competition has always resulted in privatisations and vice-versa. Air traffic control is no exception to this rule.

The privatisation of NATS (the UK service provider) and the move to privatise the German service provider serve as good examples. You do not have to be an economist to realise that privatisation leads to cost cutting with the aim of making savings for the shareholders. The quality and fundamentals of our service are at risk.As professionals, we must act to defend an activity whose prime objective is to ensure the safety of all air traffic. Therefore, we have a duty to reject the competition model.Today, MOSAIC is the only credible and realistic alternative to the competition which is emerging in air traffic control over continental Europe.We must build up this model, based on cooperative alliances, as a matter of the utmost


MOSAIC

urgency.

Why are we getting support from politicians?

We propose to build the first Regional European Public Service from ground to unlimited:

The building of Europe has come to a grinding halt. Politicians and European stakeholders are all looking for a solution to demonstrate that Europe can be more than just an economic tool.In this context, controllers and all air navigation staff have the power to build the first European public service from ground to unlimited.

Collectively, we have the power to actually make real this idea, which politicians are talking at length about and which citizens are demanding. This is another reason why we have to act.

Why are we strong?

When the staff representatives of seven countries and MUAC suddenly join together in a common vision, then, we constitute a credible group.The creation, through reinforced cooperation between the States concerned, of a European public service model, which may subsequently be extended to other States, is very appealing in today’s context.

What is our shared value?

The Trade unions and Professional Associations of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Maastricht UAC are today working together to achieve the same objective.

All trade unions reject the European Commission’s competition-based precepts. They would like European air navigation to be built around a safe,

continuous and efficient service for the users and the populations over flown. By signing up for MOSAIC, they are together opting for a Europe where the notion of citizenship is central.

Why is MOSAIC a realistic concept?

To believe that we can create a Regional European Control System in one fell swoop is as unrealistic as thinking we could build a European air traffic control service in 25 countries in one go.

Progressive steps are therefore essential. They will make it possible to build up the structure in which officials will work, and ensure that the project also meets the expectations of staff. There can therefore be no question of throwing away what we already have before we know for sure where we are going.

The first stage is the introduction of technical and operational cooperation. An improved version of what we have already at MUAC level.

The second stage is the pooling of money from route charges. Until now, operational projects have always been limited by financial considerations, since a flow of traffic means the generation of route charges and therefore money for the service provider. Once the question of money and individual interests has been eliminated, common airspace management can be really set up…towards integration.

The third stage will involve imposing MOSAIC internal structures as the sole service provider for the 7 countries.

The staff from the original service providers will be attached to the new structure as European officials. With a single status and uniform high-quality training, the risk of social dumping in our

profession will be eliminated.

This project concerns all service provider staff and not just air traffic controllers. This is another reason why various national trade unions support us on this project.

Conclusion:

Whether we like it or not, Europe is moving on and history shows that the deregulation steamroller has never been stopped.It is crucial to act to avoid any repeat of the mistakes made in other areas.We are convinced that the MOSAIC structure and alliances with neighbours who share the same values will rise to the challenges of the Single Sky, while maintaining a high level of safety, if organised in an integrated way (institutional, social, technical and operational service).

We must unite to build our European air traffic control service together.

Rejecting competition is a good thing. Saying that we want something else is also a good thing.

However, the best thing of all is to define a model, draw it up, and work to make it a reality!

By defending the Project MOSAIC, we are making the skies a safer place. It is our duty towards the travelling public and the population over flown, towards our principles.

More and more people understand our goals. Politicians are supporting us at national but also at international level.

MOSAIC is slowly becoming a reality.

Enjoy your summer!till the next OUTPUT

A staff initiative to answer the Single European Sky

A staff iniative to build one provider for several states

A staff initiative to avoid DFS privatisation

Operational staff for an operational project

Another answer for Single Europeann Sky

An answer according to the SES An initiative for a european idea of safety & social dialogue and employees improvement

‘‘He who shall not be willing to run any risk is condemned to live

the life of others’’ Traditional Indian saying

MOSAIC-

Egats’ new appearance IFATCA conference Taiwan Nordic …Hi Everybody, It is only a little over a...

Documents

Transcript of Egats’ new appearance IFATCA conference Taiwan Nordic …Hi Everybody, It is only a little over a...