The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation LSSIP Year 2011 KOM LSSIP changes 20 - 21...

The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

LSSIP Year 2011 KOMLSSIP changes

20 - 21 September 2011

LSSIP Changes - LSSIP Year 2011 KOM 2

LSSIP: High level changes (General)

• Same reporting set up: Documents (Level 1 – Level 2) / Infrastructure (Data Base - Web)

• Some adaptations to template - Level 1

• Introduction of closed questions for new objectives – Level 2 (Database)

• Signature?


Level 1: High level changes

1. Signature pages: TBD

2. Part I, State Context: Minor adaptations due to coordination with OVS and PRU.

3. Part II, ESSIP Objectives: No change (aside from new/modified Objectives).

4. Part III, SES Legislation: Some changes due to priorisation / new legislation.

5. Part IV, Traffic & ATM Performance: Some changes due to performance scheme, NM IR, and coordiantion with PRU and NM.


PART I: State Context

• One additional question on the production of an ‘Annual Report’ by the CAA/DGAC to align with SOODs.

• Additional column added to the National Projects table on contribution to KPAs (requested by PRU).


PART II: Various changes of ESSIP Objectives

Already covered in item 2 of the agenda


Part III - SES Template: Drivers for Change

• Identified issues in the SES Report 2010:• Refine/improve questions on e.g. FABs, Cross-Border, Interoperability.

• Lessons learnt from previous reporting cycle:• NSA competences put back in section 14.1 (removed from Annex);• Reduced sections for compliant States (safety oversight, interoperability,

cross-border);• … and as usual, improving wording, ‘yellow’ text, explanatory notes, etc.

• Prioratisation:• Performance Regulation followed-up by PRU/PRB -> removed from Template;• Deadline for ATFM Regulation is November 2011 -> Section expanded;• Deadline for FAB Information Regulation is June 2012 -> Section expanded.

• New Regulations in place (August 2010):• Regulation No 929/2010: Amendment to the IFPS Regulation;• Regulation No 1191/2010: Amendment to the Charging Reg.;• Regulation No 176/2011: FAB Information;• Regulation No 283/2011: Amendment to FMTP Regulation;• Regulation No 677/2011: Network Management Functions;• Regulation No 805/2011: ATCO Licensing.


Part III - SES Template: Detailed Changes (I)

• NSA Establishement & Responsibilities:• Table with NSA competences put back in page 1;• ‘Performance’ added to the list of competences;• ‘ATCO Licensing’ updated with reference to new regulation.

• NSA Resources• Required info on measures taken by States made more specific.

• Certification & Designation -> No change

• Cross-Border• Tables slightly modified to allow easier comparison between States;• New CAB numbering introduced; traceability with previous

numbering ensured; • Fields ‘Reference in the AIP’ & ‘Rationale for delegation’ removed;• Short version for fully compliant States created.

• Ongoing Compliance -> No change


Part III - SES Template: Detailed Changes (II)

• Safety Oversight:• Section re-organised separating ‘static’ (procedures, processes and

documentation) and ‘dynamic’(exercise of oversight) information;• Short version of the static part created for fully compliant States;• Some questions on the ‘Dynamic’ part re-worded/clarified.

• Safety Software Assurance:• Questions re-worded to make them clearer.

• ATCO Licensing• Section aligned with new Regulation.

• FABs • Section expanded due to approaching deadline, new Regulation on

FAB Information and NM Regulation (interaction with FABs);• Expanded question/guidance on improvements implemented.

• ATFM:• Section expanded due to prioratisation (deadline is November 2011).


Part III - SES Template: Detailed Changes (III)

• Interoperability:• Short version of the static part created for fully compliant

States;

• Questions/guidance added to ensure ‘verification of compliance’ with IRs is well understood/reported;

• MSI: One question added to clarify applicability;

• Air Navigation Charges -> No Change

• Penalties -> New section added on PRU request.

• Consultation of Stakeholders -> Removed due to prioratisation.

• Performance -> Removed due to prioratisation and to avoid duplication of work with PRU/PRB.


Part III - SES Template: Detailed Changes (IV)

Principles for the use of the ‘short versions for compliant states’:• The short versions of cross-border, safety oversight and interoperability are NOT to be used by States under their own initiative. • After analysing the 2010 SES Annual Reports and verifying other sources of informaiton (e.g. LSSIP, ESIMs and corrective action plans), the SES Reporting Team will propose to some States the use the ‘short versions’.• This will be reflected in the strawmans for the 2011 SES Annual Reports. If the short version is not proposed in the 2011 strawman, the State should not use it.


Part III - SES Template: Coverage of Regulations published after August 2010

• Regulation No 929/2010- Amendment to the IFPS Regulation;

• Regulation No 1191/2010- Amendment to the Charging Regulation;

• Regulation No 283/2011- Amendment to FMTP Regulation;

• Regulation No 176/2011- FAB Information -> Limited coverage in the FAB section.

• Regulation No 677/2011- Network Management Functions -> Coverage limited to relations with FABs (so included in the FAB section).

• Regulation No 805/2011- ATCO Licensing -> Covered in the ATCO Licensing section.

No impact. Already included in the 2010 Report.


Part III - SES Template: Reminder of Cross-Border Legal Frameworks

• CASE A – ICAO Annex 11

2.1.1 – A state may delegate to another the responsibility for establishing and providing air traffic services in (airspace) over its territory.

2.1.3.Note 2 – Situation 2: A route, or portion of a route, contained within airspace under the sovereignity of a State which has, by mutual agreement, delegated to another State, responsibility for the establishment and provision of ATS.

• (In this situation) The State which designates the authority responsible for establishing and providing ATS is the State to whom responsibility for the establishement and provision of ATS has been delegated.



• CASE A – ICAO Annex 11

State A

DelegatedCAB

State B

ANSP (B)

• States sign agreement

• State B designates ANSP (B) to provide ATS in delegated CAB(s)

• The Designation Act(s) of ANSP (B) should include the delegated CAB in its area of responsibility.

• This should be reflected in the ‘Designation’ Section of the SES Report.



• CASE B – Designation of a ‘foreign’ provider as per Art. 8 of the service provision Regulation

• Article 8(1): Member States shall ensure the provision of air traffic services on an exclusive basis within specific airspace blocks in respect of the airspace under their responsibility. For this purpose, Member States shall designate an air traffic service provider holding a valid certificate in the Community.



• CASE B – Designation of a ‘foreign’ provider as per Art. 8 of the service provision Regulation

State A

DelegatedCAB

State B

ANSP (B)

• State A designates ANSP (B) to provide ATS in delegated CAB(s)

• NSAs concerned are notified

• State A should report ANSP (B) in the ‘Designation’ Section of the SES Report.



• CASE C – ATSP avails itself of the services of a ‘foreign’ ATSP as per Art. 10 of the service provision Regulation

• Article 10(1): Air navigation service providers may avail themselves of the services of other service providers that have been certified in the Community.

• Article 10(2): Air navigation service providers shall formalise their working relationships by means of written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements… Those arrangements shall be notified to the national supervisory authority or authorities concerned.

• Article 10(3): In cases involving the provision of air traffic services, the approval of the Member States concerned shall be required.



• CASE C – ATSP avails itself of the services of a ‘foreign’ ATSP as per Art. 10 of the service provision Regulation

State A

DelegatedCAB

State B

ANSP (B)

• State A designates ANSP (A) to provide ATS in delegated CAB(s)

• ANSP (A) reaches agreement with ANSP (B) so the latter provides the service

• NSAs are notified

• States approve / agree

• No impact on the ‘Designation’ section of the SES Report

ANSP (A)



• The reality is that many C-B areas are based on LoAs that pre-date SES;

• Many of these LoAs were even drawn before the separation between ANSP and regulator;

• And many of the C-B relations do not fit in any category because:

1. The ICAO Annex 11 was not always followed;

2. Even if followed, the LoAs were not updated when ANSPs and regulators separated;

Conclusions: • SES offers them now two additional legal basis to use;• States need to commonly agree which case they want to use;• Any of the three cases is Ok as long as both States agree.


Part III: FUA Template

• Additional guidance added to ensure better capture of information;

• Questions on performance assessment of FUA operations expanded;

• Section on evaluation of agreements, procedures and systems clarified.


Part III: Methodology

No change from last year:

• EIPR to produce strawmans with prefilled info;

• Strawmans for SES and FUA will be in separate files;

Additional material:

• Some supporting material will be produced to facilitate comparison of cross-border info between neighbours;


Three chapters:

1.Chapter 16 (Cost Efficiency) – Major Changes

2.Chapter 17 (En-route Traffic & Capacity) – No Change in structure

3.Chapter 18 – Airport Traffic & Capacity – Medium changes

EIPR is responsible for the structure of Part IV, coordination, assembling of content and quality. However the various information elements and data are not provided and filled in by States (unlikely the remaining parts), they are coming from different Eurocontrol Units. This entails an extensive coordination effort and dependence upon the release of data.

PART IV: Traffic and ATM Performance

Overview



Chapter 16 – Cost Efficiency• IR 691 July 2010 (Performance Schema) and EU wide targets RP1 Feb 2011)

are in force• NSAs presented their performance plans June 2011• Approved plans will be available end October 2011• Revised plans will be resubmitted end 2011 • Changes:

• For the EU 27+ an indication will be included on the cost efficiency target proposed in the respective performance Plan

• For Non EU a similar structure will be kept as in previous editions (including Azerbeijan and Georgia)

• CP for Azerbaijan and Georgia will ask for their data• Enlarged Committee for Route Charges data will be used (meeting in

November)• PRU (Cecile Capart) will provide support. • Estimated timing:

• Chapter available for distribution by December



Chapter 17 – Capacity Planning

• The set up of the Network Manager Function may have, in the future, an impact on this chapter;

• However kick off meeting of NM Admin Board will only take place in September and the strategy for publication of future plans is unknown;

• DNM/COO/NOM/OPL (Operations Planning) wants the LSSIP to publish their capacity planning data (is the only available means);

• Capacity Planning data will be available after the coordination meetings with States (from middle November till mid January)

• Some States (eg UK and Spain) don’t want to schedule their visit before January due to budget approval issues, this leads to late distribution of chapter 17;

• CP at the kick off meeting shall address this issue and urge their States to schedule the capacity planning meeting as soon as possible for not delaying further the availability of Chapter 17

• A reference will be inserted at the beginning of the chapter pointing to an explanation on the methodology used for targets breakdown as well as to definitions of relevant terminology and concepts used;

• CP will receive the chapter directly from Stephanie Vincent (OPL) copying APF



Chapter 18 – Airport Traffic and Capacity

• This chapter is based on a tailored list of airports build around the following criteria:

1. The main national airport of each State

2. Airports identified as having an impact in the network in terms of ATFM delays (NOP Summer 2011)

3. Airports with more than 150 000 movements (also in IR 691) - STATFOR

• List was updated with recent data for criteria 2 and 3. The final list contains 60 airports to be considered.



Chapter 18 – Airport Traffic and Capacity

• Inclusion of delay section for airports having an impact on the network – data will come from CODA or CFMU

• Airport traffic and graph will be improved to include also data/forecast provided by airports (local data)

• Enhanced with additional data/questions on TMA/APPROACH related to capacity issues

• Overall Template improved and pre-filled with tables for capacity• Delay reduction plan and planned developments will incorporate also

data coming from the airport corner• Three main sources of data and timings:

• STATFOR MTF - early October 2011• Airport Corner (Airport Unit)- November 2011 • NM/CODA or “CFMU” - early October


Requests/recommendations

• CP to keep track of changes made by States in chapter 18 (Airport Traffic and Capacity) and report them back to APF

• In the context of EIPR cooperation with STATFOR and Airport Corner those changes will be fed back to them for further improvement of the content/data in their databases

• CP to urge their States to schedule their Capacity Planning meetings as soon as possible for not delaying the availability of chapter 17

Part IV is currently a unique compilation of relevant data, also used by other ECTL Units, and a quick overall reference to stakeholders/general public. Additionally it may constitute the foundation for a (much needed) alignment and link of the technical and operational implementation progress with relevant performance targets and overall ATM performance.


LSSIP Progress Definitions and Application

Some principles:• Strongly discourage use of ‘Partially Completed’ at SLoA level;• If you use ‘PC’ at any level, always explain what part has been

done, what hasn’t and when is it going to be completed;• If the deadline is past (≤31/12/2011) the progress is ‘Late’. Not

‘Partially Completed’, not ‘Planned’, not ‘No Plan’ (unless there is no intention of implementing this action);• This is a change with respect to previous years that we

need (to try) to enforce.


Questions?

The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation LSSIP Year 2011 KOM LSSIP changes 20 - 21...

Documents

Transcript of The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation LSSIP Year 2011 KOM LSSIP changes 20 - 21...