UK European ATM Stakeholders Forum 2 nd November 2011 Agenda - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

UK European ATM Stakeholders Forum 2nd November 2011

Agenda

• Admin/Intros
• Eurocontrol Consultation Mechanism (post-reform)
• SESAR – A GA Perspective
• SES/SESAR – An MoD Perspective
• SESAR – General update
• SES – General Update
• Performance Scheme – NPP update
• EASA
• Airport Observatory/Package
• AOB & Next Meeting
• Admin/Intros
• Eurocontrol Consultation Mechanism (post-reform)
• SESAR – A GA Perspective
• SES/SESAR – An MoD Perspective
• SESAR – General update
• SES – General Update
• Performance Scheme – NPP update
• EASA
• Airport Observatory/Package
• AOB & Next Meeting

Eurocontrol Consultation Arrangements Steve Hand (CAA)

4

AAB Consultation Arrangements

Wednesday 2nd November 2011

5

?

NMB

ICB SSC

EC

EASA

Admin. Board

Provisional Council

38 Member States (civil and military) as “owners” of the Organisation define scope and mission

Director General Eurocontrol

EUROCONTROL Agency Reform – Proposed Governance* and Consultation Arrangements

Decision Level

Ectl Agency Consultation Level Eurocontrol Organisation Team &Expert Level Mandated Decision Level Colour Code:

SRC PRC Audit Board

Network Operations Sounding Body

(former SBs CFMU + CND)

Decision Level New Eurocontrol V.17 SCG Workshop 07.Dec.2010 Customer-Supplier-Relation

NMF PRB

Agency Advisory Body

Members: REG, MIL, ANSP, AO, Airports, Manufacturers, …( - similar to SCG + OCG + CMIC) Dealing with: NM pillar issues, Single Sky and SESAR pillar issues as per EC/ SJU request/ Framework Agreements

Safety

Pan-pillar, activity-based and (in general) timely restricted Expert Groups Definition, coordination and monitoring of Expert Groups by AAB in accordance with objectives set by ANSB and requested by Directors

Technical (CNS) Infrastructure

(COM/ tech ANT/ SUR)

Directorate Network Management Directorate Single Sky Directorate SESAR & Research

Security Airspace Management

(ODSG + ops ANT)

Aeronautical

• Info. Mgmt.

+ SWIM Airport Operations Mandated Decision Level „reinforced“ Air Navigation Services Board (Supervisory Board of the Agency)

Members: MIL, ANSP, AO, Airports

PDR PDATM DCRCO DMUAC AGR AGAT * The governance for the Network Manager function will have to be factored in, based on the related IR

6

Draft outline workplan for AAB TF

Joint Session May 2011

AAB/1 Oct 2011

 Redrafted ToR

for 8 Teams

 List of critical

coordination activities

 Mapping of

ToR to draft AWP TF/1 12 July TF/2 14 Sep

Agency Input for TF/1

 Review

redrafted ToR

and exemptions

 Revised ToR

after TF/1

 Proposal for

sub-structures

Agency Input for TF/2

 Agree way

forward: interim acceptance of ToR and revision

• f sub-structures

Output

• f TF/2

 TF Report

to AAB/1

 PD ATM

invite for Team nomination

 Endorse TF

Report

 Corrections

7

MAIN INTERACTIONS

AAB Network Ops Airport Ops AIM/SWIM CNS Infra Safety Security Research Training NMB

8

STRUCTURE

AAB Network Ops Airport Ops AIM/SWIM CNS Infra Safety Security Research Training NMB

CODA UG STATFOR UG APDSG ASMSG CAPLAN SG NSG ODSG RNDSG RSWG WAKE VORTEX TF EAD SSG AI OPS SG TOD WG AFSCG SUR SG NAV SG COM SG DATALINK FMTP SAT VOTE COM SG COM SG FREQ CG SAG RMA SGEG ACID SSTF CDTF SAF REP TF SH PSG SISG SIPN SG ACCCT TF FEAST UG ELPAC UG RST UG

Virtual

9

PERFORMANCE BASED OPERATION

• principles -

1. All Teams shall develop, and distribute by correspondence to the AAB, their yearly work programme, derived from the ATM MP and the Agency WP 2. All Teams shall submit through correspondence an annual report to the AAB, assessing their performance against the yearly work programme. 3. All Teams shall assess annually the performance of their subordinated working arrangements and the need for keeping them active, in line with the work programme. 4. All Teams, shall assess, on an annual basis, the satisfaction of their members with the functioning of their group

10

So, what does this proposal bring ?

A coherent, managed, performance based consultation process Significant Significant streamlining streamlining and simplification and simplification An opportunity for Agency partners to be involved, An opportunity for Agency partners to be involved, while being able to prioritise and optimise their while being able to prioritise and optimise their involvement involvement A framework for cross A framework for cross-

• Directorate harmonisation and

Directorate harmonisation and pan pan-

• European coordination

European coordination The basis for establishing the Cooperative Decision The basis for establishing the Cooperative Decision making process of the Network Manager, as per making process of the Network Manager, as per the IR the IR

11

QUESTIONS ?

SESAR – A GA Perspective Ben Stanley (AOPA)

13

Managing risk in SESAR

An Airspace User (GA) Perspective

2 November 2011 London

14

Why are we here? Some reminders from the EP agenda

…underlines, however, that the SESAR programme must fully take into account the specificities of general and business aviation and deliver real benefits to the sector without placing unnecessary burdens on it

…insists that the "Single European Sky" legislation and SESAR do not lead to disproportionate and excessively costly technological requirements for small aircraft operated under VFR, while fully recognising that all aircraft using controlled airspace must feature equipment providing for an adequate level of safety, such as positioning devices …believes that it should be one of the

• bjectives to provide Visual Flight

Rules (VFR) users with access to traffic, meteorological and aeronautical information in a user-friendly and cost- effective way …expects that the introduction of a system of Air Traffic Management with state-of-the-art and innovative technologies within the framework of the SESAR Joint Undertaking would contribute to fighting fragmentation of European airspace and its forecasted congestion and would significantly increase airspace capacity, which will benefit all airspace users, including general and business aviation

15

And a quick reminder of SESAR

“The SESAR project aims to integrate and coordinate research and development activities which were previously undertaken in a dispersed and uncoordinated manner” Four Pillars of the Single European Sky

Performance Safety New Technology Airport Capacity

One of the key reasons SESAR was introduced was to de-risk the move from R&D to deployment for all stakeholders, through:

• Part funding by the European Commission
• Aligning R&D activities

16

What SESAR means for GA: The ATM Master Plan

• The European ATM Master Plan

– forms the basis for the SESAR development phase – is produced/maintained by the SESAR JU for the European Commission

• A next update cycle has just kicked off;

update expected Q2/2012

– will be able to view the expectations for implementation by stakeholder group – focused on network performance

17

GA in the ATM Master Plan

• The first version of the master plan recognised five

roles of airspace users

Commercial Operators - Legacy Airlines, Low Fare Airlines, Regional Airlines VFR Only GA - Low-End GA IFR Capable GA - Business Aviation (BA), High-End GA, VLJ Operators, IFR Helicopter Operators, factory demonstrations and flight trials etc. Military and State Aviation (GAT and OAT) UAV/UAS Operators (civil and military) In unmanaged airspace, the only requirement is for ADS- B OUT using low-cost system to be developed by 2011 (e.g. UAT) In addition to VFR requirements, the following enablers will be deployed:

• SBAS: install SATNAV system to utilise SBAS by 2011;
• ADS-B IN: install equipment to be selected through R&D

after 2011;

• Enhance IFR Approach & Landing capabilities;
• SWIM connection, including Processing reception of

aeronautical information and Meteo data.

18

But what are GA’s objectives going forwards?

Fully in line with recent NextGen Advisory Committee findings

19

GA concerns

• Specific GA risks seem to be ignored at present: will the

future ATM System…

– …consider the safety of the whole airspace and all within it? – …be able to cope with unscheduled operations? – …put forward equipage requirements that lead to restrictions in airspace access?

Is SESAR purely a CAT programme?

20

What are IAOPA doing to help de- risk the future for GA and others?

• ‘Airspace user’ support to the SJU

– Integrated in over 100 projects

• GA and rotorcraft contributions to the

“SESAR Conops At A Glance”

– Identifies GA/R specific future vision for

• perations, including gaps

– Identifies Comms, Nav, Sur and ATM (SWIM) needs – Identifies issues relevant to GA with deployment of CNS-ATM; e.g. certification requirements, equipment characteristics etc

21

So what might the (minimum) future look like for GA?

2 November 2011

VFR

(incl light a/c, microlights, gliders, ultralights) > 100,000 aircraft across Europe

VFR

(incl light a/c, microlights, gliders, ultralights) > 100,000 aircraft across Europe

Affordable (<£1000) “Known” (either through kit or airspace designation) Proportionate regulation Affordable (<£1000) “Known” (either through kit or airspace designation) Proportionate regulation

IFR

(incl light a/c, twins) >20,000 aircraft

IFR

(incl light a/c, twins) >20,000 aircraft

Affordable (<£???) “Known” with some form of intent Proportionate regulation Affordable (<£???) “Known” with some form of intent Proportionate regulation

22

But where are the benefits?

• It’s not a very inspiring view – doing the minimum

necessary to gain access and keep flying

• Where are the benefits?
• Where is the innovation?
• How can it be incentivised?

2 November 2011

23

The fragmented nature of operations means specific benefits

• The “business case” for each operator can be unique,

for example:

– IFR personal transport aircraft are interested in access through (large) TMAs, safety (e.g. elimination of non- precision approaches through use of SBAS; use of ADS-B for conflict detection) – Rotorcraft are interested in safety (CFIT etc), new approaches (Simultaneous Non-Interfering, steep approaches) – VFR aircraft are interested in continuing to fly safely, taking account of equipment installation constraints such as power, space, weight, security/portability

2 November 2011

24

How to get there – an example

• At present, we are working with EUROCAE to

identify steps to develop standards for equipment that is:

– Interoperable – Proportionate in requirements (i.e. CS23) – Appropriate characteristics (weight, power etc) – Beneficial to GA

• We are aiming to mitigate the risk of investment

by GA manufacturers

2 November 2011

25

The need for a better top-down view

• Current internal focus appears to be on the

development of the individual technical elements that make up the ATM Master Plan

– Industry’s investment strategies appear to be well catered for – little incentive for change

• One of the SES objectives is to ‘improve the
• verall performance of ATM and ANS for GAT

in Europe, with a view to meeting the requirements of all airspace users’

– Risk of not doing this is timescale related

• To ensure we deliver on the performance based
• bjectives of all users, SESAR should consider

developments top-down to ensure they are aligned with those objectives

26

The next step: SESAR industrialisation and deployment

• Industrialisation and deployment form the link between R&D

and operations

27

Industrialisation and deployment: roles and responsibilities

• European Commission is preparing a strategy for

SESAR deployment

– During consultation in September, three governance levels were introduced:

Political control

Led by the European Commission, with Member States through the SSC and with the relevant institutions (PRB, EASA, etc)

Deployment management

Led by a Deployment Manager based on an industry partnership, with key roles for the Network Manager and the SESAR JU

Project implementation

Focussed on network impact and led by project Managers

28

Industrialisation and deployment: roles and responsibilities

• Views on the industry partnership:

– To be led by Network Users: airspace users, airports, ANSPs – Expertise of manufacturers is appreciated and could contribute to efficient deployment… – …but they face a conflict of interest which will be very difficult to manage – the market is not truly competitive

Deployment management

Led by a Deployment Manager based on an industry partnership, with key roles for the Network Manager and the SESAR JU

29

A GA view on necessary mitigations

• We need the European Parliament to take a

more active role in ensuring the EU R&D funds and deployment incentives are spent from a broad community perspective

– With all users in mind – Re-visiting the EP resolution for the Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation, and assessing the status of the issues it highlights

30

Resolution progress?

• A cursory look at the progress of the EP resolutions reveals

significant concerns

Resolution summary Any progress?

“Stresses the need to take into account the interests and specificities of general and business aviation in the development

• f future air transport policy initiatives, with a view to

strengthening its competitiveness” “Underlines, however, that the SESAR programme must fully take into account the specificities of general and business aviation and deliver real benefits to the sector without placing unnecessary burdens on it” “Believes that it should be one of the objectives to provide Visual Flight Rules (VFR) users with access to traffic, meteorological and aeronautical information in a user-friendly and cost-effective way”

31

Resolution progress?

• A cursory look at the progress of the EP resolutions reveals

significant concerns

Resolution summary Any progress?

“Believes that policy-makers must have at their disposal adequate data and statistical information on general and business aviation in order to fully understand the sector and thus be able to regulate it properly; therefore calls on the Commission and Eurostat to develop and implement a systematic approach to the gathering and sharing of international and European data” “Requests the Commission to report back to the European Parliament by the end of 2009 on progress achieved in relation to the issues identified in this resolution”

32

Our response to the current situation

• We are ready and willing to contribute, be

positive and proactive…

• …but we can only do this if our needs are

taken into account

– We remain convinced that in the long run this will benefit all stakeholders and indeed the public, giving choice and accessibility to air transport and aerial work

SES/SESAR – An MoD Perspective Sqn Ldr David Austen (RAF)

ATM Stakeholders - 13th May 2009 34

SESAR A Benefit or Cost?

A DAATM View

ATM Stakeholders - 13th May 2009 35

SESAR

• Air Traffic Management Network Improvement
• SESAR and SESAR Work-packages
• Benefits
• Cost
• Access to Airspace
• Joint & Integrated
• Conclusion

SESAR Deployment and Governance

Governance, Funding and Financing

• Commission obligation to propose a ‘solution’ by Q4/2011;
• Workshop held in September which referenced the consultation

paper dated Sep 2nd (but which the Cion distanced itself from);

• ‘Mature’ draft of Commission proposal is currently undergoing inter-

service agreement – we are not likely to see it until mid-November (at the earliest), we will circulate it when we have it;

• Commission looking for Council approval of its proposal at the

December Council meeting;

• Will likely look at a 3-tiered approach to governance – Political

Control, Deployment Management, Projects Implementation.

• Commission obligation to propose a ‘solution’ by Q4/2011;
• Workshop held in September which referenced the consultation

paper dated Sep 2nd (but which the Cion distanced itself from);

• ‘Mature’ draft of Commission proposal is currently undergoing inter-

service agreement – we are not likely to see it until mid-November (at the earliest), we will circulate it when we have it;

• Commission looking for Council approval of its proposal at the

December Council meeting;

• Will likely look at a 3-tiered approach to governance – Political

Control, Deployment Management, Projects Implementation.

Contd:

• ‘Likely’ to be EU-funding identified (of @ 10% of the
• verall projected costs);
• Where to apply it for greatest ‘bang per buck’;
• Biggest debate of course surrounds the 2nd tier;
• SJU looking for extension of its mandate, Eurocontrol

looking for a role as ‘deployment manager’…

• Much debate to be had!
• ‘Likely’ to be EU-funding identified (of @ 10% of the
• verall projected costs);
• Where to apply it for greatest ‘bang per buck’;
• Biggest debate of course surrounds the 2nd tier;
• SJU looking for extension of its mandate, Eurocontrol

looking for a role as ‘deployment manager’…

• Much debate to be had!

ATM MP Update

• 1st ‘real’ update in 4 years;
• Commission controlling the process and keen to have it

seriously look at lessons learned from IP1 debates;

• SJU AB will receive a mature update by March 2012;
• SSC will be consulted in June 2012;
• Patently, will reflect the earlier discussions on

Governance and funding.

• 1st ‘real’ update in 4 years;
• Commission controlling the process and keen to have it

seriously look at lessons learned from IP1 debates;

• SJU AB will receive a mature update by March 2012;
• SSC will be consulted in June 2012;
• Patently, will reflect the earlier discussions on

Governance and funding.

Coffee and leg-stretch?

General SES Update

SES Update

• Two regular meetings of SSC (Jul and Sep) and one

ad hoc (Oct) since last meeting of Stakeholder Forum; significant items included:

• Updates on:
• SESAR, NMF, Performance Scheme, FABs…
• Introduction of:
• PRB assessment of NPPs, the concept of an overarching strategy

for SES/EASA/Ectrl;

• Vote/Approval of:
• SPI/ACID, Commission Recommendation on NPPs.
• Two regular meetings of SSC (Jul and Sep) and one

ad hoc (Oct) since last meeting of Stakeholder Forum; significant items included:

• Updates on:
• SESAR, NMF, Performance Scheme, FABs…
• Introduction of:
• PRB assessment of NPPs, the concept of an overarching strategy

for SES/EASA/Ectrl;

• Vote/Approval of:
• SPI/ACID, Commission Recommendation on NPPs.

SES Update (Contd)

• SERA – Parts A and B;
• 8.33 < FL195;
• PBN;
• Harmonised TA.
• SERA – Parts A and B;
• 8.33 < FL195;
• PBN;
• Harmonised TA.

SERA

• (Originally) targeted by the Commission for SSC vote in November
• 2011. Target entry into force date is 4/12/12. Does not appear on the

Nov SSC agenda;

• Part A largely frozen at SSC40 – February;
• Part B Stakeholder consultation workshop Sep 19th;
• CRD Consultation ended mid-October;
• EASA Opinion expected Q4/2011?
• Generation of AMC/GM;
• Part C?? NPA expected Q1/2012.
• (Originally) targeted by the Commission for SSC vote in November
• 2011. Target entry into force date is 4/12/12. Does not appear on the

Nov SSC agenda;

• Part A largely frozen at SSC40 – February;
• Part B Stakeholder consultation workshop Sep 19th;
• CRD Consultation ended mid-October;
• EASA Opinion expected Q4/2011?
• Generation of AMC/GM;
• Part C?? NPA expected Q1/2012.

8.33 < FL195

• Eurocontrol issued final report to Commission Jul 2011;
• SSC vote scheduled for November 2011;
• It does not appear on the November agenda;
• Likely to appear for discussion/vote in March 2012;
• Target implementation deadlines are (bar some exemptions

for Mil) 1/1/14 for aircraft and 31/12/14 for ANSPs.

• Eurocontrol issued final report to Commission Jul 2011;
• SSC vote scheduled for November 2011;
• It does not appear on the November agenda;
• Likely to appear for discussion/vote in March 2012;
• Target implementation deadlines are (bar some exemptions

for Mil) 1/1/14 for aircraft and 31/12/14 for ANSPs.

PBN

• Eurocontrol mandated April 2011;
• Initial plan delivered 29 Jun 2011;
• Q4 – expect written consultation on regulatory approach;
• Q4 – expect 1st workshop;
• Final report expected to be delivered May/Jun 2013;
• UK/Ireland FAB supports the aspirations but may move earlier than the rest of

the EU in implementing;

• Recognition by the Commission and Eurocontrol that work already done at

State/FAB level should be considered in developing Regulatory approach.

• Eurocontrol mandated April 2011;
• Initial plan delivered 29 Jun 2011;
• Q4 – expect written consultation on regulatory approach;
• Q4 – expect 1st workshop;
• Final report expected to be delivered May/Jun 2013;
• UK/Ireland FAB supports the aspirations but may move earlier than the rest of

the EU in implementing;

• Recognition by the Commission and Eurocontrol that work already done at

State/FAB level should be considered in developing Regulatory approach.

Harmonised Transition Altitude (HETA)

• UK/IE FAB is looking to move to 18,000ft with a target date around

winter 2013/14;

• Other Northern European States are interested and are considering

their options;

• FR reluctant on 18,000ft so battle possible, although it could

be mitigated by a ‘FABEC’ approach;

• Commission contemplating whether an IR would be useful to ensure

harmonised implementation;

• Expect EASA opinion Q2/2012.
• UK/IE FAB is looking to move to 18,000ft with a target date around

winter 2013/14;

• Other Northern European States are interested and are considering

their options;

• FR reluctant on 18,000ft so battle possible, although it could

be mitigated by a ‘FABEC’ approach;

• Commission contemplating whether an IR would be useful to ensure

harmonised implementation;

• Expect EASA opinion Q2/2012.

Performance: National Performance Plan

Performance

• To improve the performance of air navigation services

and network functions in the SES, a performance scheme shall be set-up; it shall include:

• Community-wide performance targets on the KPAs of

Safety, Environment, Capacity and Cost-Efficiency;

• National (and/or FAB) plans, including performance

targets (consistent with Community-wide targets).

• To improve the performance of air navigation services

and network functions in the SES, a performance scheme shall be set-up; it shall include:

• Community-wide performance targets on the KPAs of

Safety, Environment, Capacity and Cost-Efficiency;

• National (and/or FAB) plans, including performance

targets (consistent with Community-wide targets).

Performance

• Performance given priority in SES II package;
• Scheme applies to En-Route and Terminal ANS;
• Reference Period 1 (2012-2014);
• Focus on en-route only;
• Data provision requirements on airlines and airport operators;
• Terminal/airport data will be collected in preparation for RP2;
• RP2 (and subsequent RPs) will cover 5-year spans;
• Commission sets EU targets (under MS negotiation).
• Performance given priority in SES II package;
• Scheme applies to En-Route and Terminal ANS;
• Reference Period 1 (2012-2014);
• Focus on en-route only;
• Data provision requirements on airlines and airport operators;
• Terminal/airport data will be collected in preparation for RP2;
• RP2 (and subsequent RPs) will cover 5-year spans;
• Commission sets EU targets (under MS negotiation).

Implementation of Plan for RP1 and preparation for RP2

• RP1
• Performance to be monitored by the CAA and reported quarterly to the

CAA Executive Committee and Government (through DfT);

• Annual reports will be submitted to the Commission.
• RP2
• Planning for RP2 has already begun – workshop on Nov 10th;
• Increasing emphasis on gate-to-gate ANS;
• NERL Price Control and the review of the contract for Met service

provision will be considered in the context of RP2 from the outset;

• UK-Ireland FAB Performance Plan.
• RP1
• Performance to be monitored by the CAA and reported quarterly to the

CAA Executive Committee and Government (through DfT);

• Annual reports will be submitted to the Commission.
• RP2
• Planning for RP2 has already begun – workshop on Nov 10th;
• Increasing emphasis on gate-to-gate ANS;
• NERL Price Control and the review of the contract for Met service

provision will be considered in the context of RP2 from the outset;

• UK-Ireland FAB Performance Plan.

Next steps

• The Commission/PRB, has assessed each Performance Plan;
• Where content, the Commission will notify the State early November;
• Where not content, the Commission has recommend that the State concerned

adopts reviews plans;

• If the Commission is still not content with the subsequently revised targets, it

may decide that the State shall take corrective measures;

• Draft Recommendation agreed on Oct 24th;
• Reviewed plans due by end Dec.
• The Commission/PRB, has assessed each Performance Plan;
• Where content, the Commission will notify the State early November;
• Where not content, the Commission has recommend that the State concerned

adopts reviews plans;

• If the Commission is still not content with the subsequently revised targets, it

may decide that the State shall take corrective measures;

• Draft Recommendation agreed on Oct 24th;
• Reviewed plans due by end Dec.

EASA

EASA Management Board-22 Sep

• Michael Smethers and Maxime Coffin (FR) re-elected as Chair and Vice-Chair for

second three-year terms;

• Trevor Woods (UKCAA/ASSI – Chief Operating Officer) – appointed Approvals and

Standardisation Director from January 2012;

• Review of the Rulemaking Process - 3 key themes in draft report welcome:
• variants to standard RM process for simple, standard or complex tasks;
• better and earlier engagement with all stakeholders on proposals before

formally launching a rulemaking process;

• revising the advisory structure to the Agency so that shorter, focussed

meetings of NAA technical experts (Thematic Advisory Groups eg airworthiness, flight operations, ATM/ANS and aerodromes) plus strategic meetings of higher level safety regulatory administrators (Rulemaking Advisory Group);

• Working group continuing work with view to MB discussion/decision at December

meeting

(see CAA EASA Information Bulletin for more details)

• Michael Smethers and Maxime Coffin (FR) re-elected as Chair and Vice-Chair for

second three-year terms;

• Trevor Woods (UKCAA/ASSI – Chief Operating Officer) – appointed Approvals and

Standardisation Director from January 2012;

• Review of the Rulemaking Process - 3 key themes in draft report welcome:
• variants to standard RM process for simple, standard or complex tasks;
• better and earlier engagement with all stakeholders on proposals before

formally launching a rulemaking process;

• revising the advisory structure to the Agency so that shorter, focussed

meetings of NAA technical experts (Thematic Advisory Groups eg airworthiness, flight operations, ATM/ANS and aerodromes) plus strategic meetings of higher level safety regulatory administrators (Rulemaking Advisory Group);

• Working group continuing work with view to MB discussion/decision at December

meeting

(see CAA EASA Information Bulletin for more details)

EASA Rules

• 3 “fast-track” EASA ATM IRs published in OJEU;
• ATCO licensing EC No. 805/2011;
• Oversight EC No. 1034/2011;
• Common Requirements EC No. 1035/2011;
• Next phase of rulemaking is underway and will be more far-reaching than cut and

paste/fast-track;

• 3 working groups (all with UK reps);
• ATM 001 – Rules for ANSPs;
• ATM 003 – Rules for ATCOs and Approved Training Organisations;
• ATM 004 – Rules for Competent Authorities;
• RM programme subject to consideration but a number of NPAs are anticipated

in 2012/1013;

• UK pressing for articulation of ATM RM strategy – discussions on-going in

Single Sky and EASA Cttees.

• 3 “fast-track” EASA ATM IRs published in OJEU;
• ATCO licensing EC No. 805/2011;
• Oversight EC No. 1034/2011;
• Common Requirements EC No. 1035/2011;
• Next phase of rulemaking is underway and will be more far-reaching than cut and

paste/fast-track;

• 3 working groups (all with UK reps);
• ATM 001 – Rules for ANSPs;
• ATM 003 – Rules for ATCOs and Approved Training Organisations;
• ATM 004 – Rules for Competent Authorities;
• RM programme subject to consideration but a number of NPAs are anticipated

in 2012/1013;

• UK pressing for articulation of ATM RM strategy – discussions on-going in

Single Sky and EASA Cttees.

Airports – Observatory and ‘The Airport Package’

Airport Observatory

• The UK has ongoing concerns - shared by other Member States - that the Commission

has still not clearly defined the Observatory’s work programme. The fourth plenary meeting of the Observatory will be held on 19 December 2011;

• Following on from the 3rd plenary session, the Commission held a meeting with the

rapporteurs of the Observatory’s three Working Groups (WG1 – capacity, WG2 – gate- to-gate issues, and WG3 – intermodality). The main points from this meeting were:

• The Commission invited WG contributions to the Airports Package (this not now

expected before late 2011 at the earliest). The Commission still wants the Observatory to have a role in advising the SES Network Manager (Eurocontrol) and WG2 will take this forward. WG2 also agreed to follow up previous work on revising the slot allocation regulation and producing an inventory of local rules;

• WG1 and WG2 will explore the possibility of merging their work and may produce a

short report on airport capacity in Europe;

• WG3 is looking to agree two or three intermodality topics to focus on;
• The CAA represents the UK on WG1 and UK maintains a watching brief on

WG2/WG3. None of the groups has met so far in 2011.

• The UK has ongoing concerns - shared by other Member States - that the Commission

has still not clearly defined the Observatory’s work programme. The fourth plenary meeting of the Observatory will be held on 19 December 2011;

• Following on from the 3rd plenary session, the Commission held a meeting with the

rapporteurs of the Observatory’s three Working Groups (WG1 – capacity, WG2 – gate- to-gate issues, and WG3 – intermodality). The main points from this meeting were:

• The Commission invited WG contributions to the Airports Package (this not now

expected before late 2011 at the earliest). The Commission still wants the Observatory to have a role in advising the SES Network Manager (Eurocontrol) and WG2 will take this forward. WG2 also agreed to follow up previous work on revising the slot allocation regulation and producing an inventory of local rules;

• WG1 and WG2 will explore the possibility of merging their work and may produce a

short report on airport capacity in Europe;

• WG3 is looking to agree two or three intermodality topics to focus on;
• The CAA represents the UK on WG1 and UK maintains a watching brief on

WG2/WG3. None of the groups has met so far in 2011.

Airport Package

• We are still awaiting details of the Cion’s proposed “Airports Package” (not

now expected before late 2011), and,

• We will consider any such proposals very carefully to:
• Satisfy ourselves that there is a market failure that needs to be addressed,
• Determine whether or not any such market failure requires EU-level involvement
• r if it could, instead, be better dealt with at national level (and, except where

regulation is absolutely necessary, we would recommend alternatives to regulatory

• ptions, such as the sharing of best practices), and,
• Ensure that any resulting measures are proportionate and reduce, or at least

minimise regulatory and administrative burden for industry,

• When/if any such proposals emerge, we will expect them to be accompanied

by thorough impact assessments;

• Slots, Ground handling and Airport Capacity likely to feature most prominently.
• We are still awaiting details of the Cion’s proposed “Airports Package” (not

now expected before late 2011), and,

• We will consider any such proposals very carefully to:
• Satisfy ourselves that there is a market failure that needs to be addressed,
• Determine whether or not any such market failure requires EU-level involvement
• r if it could, instead, be better dealt with at national level (and, except where

regulation is absolutely necessary, we would recommend alternatives to regulatory

• ptions, such as the sharing of best practices), and,
• Ensure that any resulting measures are proportionate and reduce, or at least

minimise regulatory and administrative burden for industry,

• When/if any such proposals emerge, we will expect them to be accompanied

by thorough impact assessments;

• Slots, Ground handling and Airport Capacity likely to feature most prominently.

AOB

Does anybody wish to raise anything else?

Next Meeting

• When (Spring?)
• Topics for discussion
• EASA
• SES – Performance, Technical Mandates etc…
• SESAR
• Civ/Mil Relationship; GA/Cion/Ectrl Relationship?
• When (Spring?)
• Topics for discussion
• EASA
• SES – Performance, Technical Mandates etc…
• SESAR
• Civ/Mil Relationship; GA/Cion/Ectrl Relationship?

Close - Thank you Close - Thank you