list of summarised comments received on … rules on flexible use of airspace final report -...

IMPLEMENTING RULES ON FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE FINAL REPORT – RELEASED ISSUE - 30 DECEMBER 2004 / EDITION 1.0

ATTACHMENT 3

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY (SES) REGULATION

LIST OF SUMMARISED COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE

DRAFT IMPLEMENTING RULES ON FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES iii

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE FORMAL CONSULTATION iv

LIST OF SUMMARISED COMMENTS v Presenting the Summarised Comments ..........................................................................v


iii

INTRODUCTION

Within the scope of the mandate to EUROCONTROL to assist the European Commission in the development of implementing rules on the Flexible Use of Airspace (Article 8 of the SES Framework Regulation), EUROCONTROL is requested to establish a consultation process and to take into account the opinions of the stakeholders including:

- Relevant national authorities (Civil and Military),

- Military users.

- Civil and Military air navigation services providers,

- Relevant user’s organisations,

- Relevant international organisations,

- Relevant social and industrial representatives. The objective of this summary of comments received during the consultation process is to present in tabular format for an easy reading: • A summary of all comments received so far during both the informal and formal

consultation processes.

• A clear indication on actions taken after evaluation of each individual comment. This summary of comments is a component of the Final Report and constitutes its Attachment 3.

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

Having regard to the European Commission consultation requirements for the development of the Flexible Use of Airspace Mandate, and the specific responsibilities of the EUROCONTROL Agency towards the EUROCONTROL Members States, the use of both informal and formal consultation processes has provided adequate opportunity for consultation of both the EUROCONTROL Members States as well as a more widespread stakeholder population. Hence, the carrying out of informal consultations of affected parties during the development process of the “draft implementing rules” was split into two types of consultation, respectively during the drafting activities themselves and at the end of the drafting process. During its preparation, the draft material has been viewed and commented by the Agency and National experts supported by dedicated Internet access in the One Sky Team pages. The objective of this initial stage was to gain an initial appreciation of impact issues through exposure to National experts of visibility of draft requirements, key issues, listed opportunities and difficulties. Once the first drafting was complete, the “draft implementing rules” have been offered for consultation and comments to a first widespread stakeholder workshop held on 3rd June 2004. This workshop has provided EUROCONTROL with the consultation required to ensure that all initial stakeholder inputs had been addressed. Once the proposed draft implementing rules were considered as sufficiently mature, EUROCONTROL has launched a formal consultation, in accordance with the appropriate ENPRM process mechanisms, to allow widespread review and comment by stakeholders and other interested parties (including the public) on the proposals.


iv

The formal consultation took place between 16/07/04 and 27/08/04. Following completion of the formal consultation, a review of all the comments received from the stakeholders was carried out in accordance with the appropriate ENPRM process mechanisms. A Summary of Responses (SOR) document was produced to report on the outcome and action taken as a result of the formal consultation. Following the formal consultation and having incorporated all comments received, a second widespread informal workshop has been organised on 6 to 8 September 2004 to discuss the outcome of the formal consultation. This process ensures that all stakeholder inputs have been addressed and have for most of them been taken into account in the “draft implementing rules”.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE FORMAL CONSULTATION

The formal consultation process described above provides also a clear indication of the majority consensus in support of the proposal, 28 out of 40 consulted have considered the text proposed as acceptable (70%), and the 12 others considered it as acceptable after amendments. None expressed rejection.

ENPRM/04-003 - SES Mandate on Flexible Use of Airspace Comments Received by Stakeholders

A B C D Total by

Stakeholder %

Authority (Civil & Military) 2 7 9 0 18 45,00% Service Providers (ANSPs) 6 6 3 0 15 37,50% Users 2 2 0 0 4 10,00% Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% Other 2 1 0 0 3 7,50% Total Received Comments by Category 12 16 12 0 40 100%

Percentage (%) 30,00% 40,00% 30,00% 0,00% 100%

ENPRM/04-003 - SES Mandate on Flexible Use of AirspaceComments by Category

A30%

B40%

C 30%

D 0%

A B C D A = Acceptable without amendments B = Acceptable but would be improved with amendments C = Not acceptable but would be acceptable with amendmentsD = Not acceptable under any circumstances


v

After a final review made by the Airspace & navigation Team (ANT), in its function as Sounding Board, at two special meetings convened respectively on 24th September and 1st December 2004, the pending issues were addressed and accepted, enabling the final draft proposal attached at Attachment 1 to be considered as acceptable by all parties consulted (100%). LIST OF SUMMARISED COMMENTS

Presenting the Summarised Comments

In consolidating all comments received so far, they have been listed per each recital or article of the final draft proposal attached at Attachment 1, indicating the originator of comments, the date of submission during the informal or formal consultation and a summary of comments made.

In addition and in order to ensure an easy reading, concerns raised by European Commission experts at the informal meeting with EUROCONTROL representatives held on 22 October 2004 are listed in Attachment 1 in a similar way.

The actions taken as a result of a detailed review process are also listed for each comment indicating first the status of the comment and then for most of them the revision made and for the others the main reasons of having rejected it.

The comments are summarised for each recital or article in the following table format.

Recital : Whereas (x) Proposed text after consideration of all comments received as presented at Annex 1.

Comments from: Date Summary of Comments S1 Actions Taken

State Organisation

or

Article x : Title of the Article Proposed text after consideration of all comments received as presented at Annex 1.

Comments from: Date Summary of Comments S1 Actions Taken

State Organisation

1 Status of comment: Noted, Accepted, or Rejected


vi

This page intentionally left blank

IMPLEMENTING RULES ON FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACEFINAL REPORT - RELEASED ISSUE - 17 December 2004 / Edition 1.0

Comments from:

Date Summary of Comments S Actions Taken

Recital : Whereas,

(1) The accession of the Community to EUROCONTROL is an important component in the creation of a pan-European airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: Rational for each recital have been listed in the Final Report to the Commission.

Whereas: basic assumptions are foundation of the building, where do they come from and are they truthful?

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: This recital is the strict copy of Recital (13) of the SES Framework Regulation.

The words “the creation of a pan-European airspace” must be avoided.Proposal: .. is an important component in the creation of a pan-European airspace achieving a progressively more integrated airspace in Europe.

Attachment 3 - Page 1 Accepted, Noted, Rejected


Comments from:


Recital

(2) Flexible use of airspace is an airspace management concept which determines that airspace should not be designated as either pure civil or military airspace, but rather considered as one continuum in which all user requirements have to be accommodated to the maximum extent possible.

GermanyANS DFS

01/07/2004 A DELETION: of reference to EUROCONTROLProposal: Flexible use of airspace is an airspace management concept currently developed and endorsedestablished and currently enhanced by Eurocontrol? which determines that airspace should…

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: Current definition adopted by EUROCONTROL Member States on 05/02/96 with Edition 1.0 of the ASM Handbook.

one continuum : with exception of the Prohibited areasto the extent possible? used efficiently and safe!

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedreplace underscore with space between "continuum" and "in"

InternationalAEA & IATA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedAdd the word “airspace” to ‘’all user requirements’’.Add the word “maximum” to “the extent possible”



Comments from:


Recital

(2) Flexible use of airspace is an airspace management concept which determines that airspace should not be designated as either pure civil or military airspace, but rather considered as one continuum in which all user requirements have to be accommodated to the maximum extent possible.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Propose to use the word 'users' instead of 'airspace users' with a new definition in Article 2.

Need to stick to the definitions in use in the framework Regulation; in particular if the wording “airspace users” is used.



Comments from:


Recital

(3) In accordance with the statement by the Member States on military issues related to the Single European Sky, attached to the single European sky Framework Regulation, the Member States will cooperate with each other, taking into account national military requirements, in order that the concept of flexible use of airspace is fully and uniformly applied in all Member states by all users of airspace.


25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesAdd the word “airspace” to ‘’all users’’.

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies“Member States have declared” need clarification.

United KingdomCAA, NATS &

MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: Quotation of an original text should not be altered.The Member States have declared in a general statement on military issues related to the single European sky that they will cooperate with each other, taking into account essential national security and defence policy interests, in order that the concept of flexible use of airspace is fully and uniformly applied in all Member states by all users of airspace.



Comments from:


Recital

(3) In accordance with the statement by the Member States on military issues related to the Single European Sky, attached to the single European sky Framework Regulation, the Member States will cooperate with each other, taking into account national military requirements, in order that the concept of flexible use of airspace is fully and uniformly applied in all Member states by all users of airspace.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvementNeed to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.



Comments from:


Recital

(4) The application of the flexible use of airspace concept over the high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty shall be without prejudice to the rights and duties of Member States under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and its annexes or the international law of the sea.

MaltaATS

15/07/2004 N NONE: The purpose of Recital (4) is to recall the overall agreement reached in 1996 on the FUA application over the high seas. The detailed application of FUA over the high seas was then developed in the ASM Handbook, updated recently on 22/10/03 with Edition 2.0. In paragraph 3.3.2 of this document, it is clearly stated that activities potentially hazardous to safety of air navigation can only take place in Danger Areas over the high seas.Then in Chapter 4.10 of the same document, there is a clear description of the management process of operations over the high seas required in the FUA context.

Would military operations over the high seas conducted under the provision of 'due regard' require the temporary reservation of airspace? If not, how can the civil ATS unit ensure that the level of safety of aircraft under its control is not infringed if there is another 'controlling unit' responsible for applying a different set of safety rules in the same airspace. Who is liable in any incident/accident?Would any part of the FUA concept and associate mandate and directives be applicable to operations over the high seas and if so under what circumstances?



Comments from:


Recital


FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.“… shall not be in contradiction with ICAO” is weak. Member States have to comply with rather than not be in contradiction with a ratified international Convention – this being understood without prejudice of notifying differences with the Annexes.Proposal: Replace : “shall not be in contradiction” by : “shall comply with

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R NONE: As the area of application of the proposed FUA Directive is all airspace within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where Member States are responsible for the provision of air traffic services, there is a need to specify how FUA should be applied over the High Seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty.

It is not clear the meaning of the application over the High Seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty that is not added in the Airspace Design Implementing Rule (art. 3) nor in the Airspace Regulation. Why to mention the international law of the sea?Proposal: Delete statement on FUA application over the high seas.



Comments from:


Recital


SwitzerlandSAF

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Should be considered to change the wording ”shall not be in contradiction”. Instead of a negative sentence, an affirmative one would be preferred.Proposal: Replace: “shall not be in contradiction” by : “shall be in line with ….”

InternationalRegulatory Committee

31/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesIn the ”Montego Bay Convention” on international law of the sea, airspace issues above the high seas are also addressed to some extent

Wording is not clear enough, especially when referring to airspace of undetermined sovereignty.Is "international law of the sea" relevant?



Comments from:


Recital


EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Moved as new recital (4)Implementing rules on flexible use of airspace should not go beyond the scope of the basic act of SES Regulation.

Proposal: move Article 2(2) as a recital.



Comments from:


Recital

(5) Member States have specified, in accordance with ICAO provisions, the rules and procedures for the handling of general air traffic.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: the new text states “have specified” instead of “enact”.(but differences are filed!)



Comments from:


Recital

(6) Member States have specified the rules and procedures for the handling of military operations and training which do not comply with the provisions stated for general air traffic.

No Comments Received

00:00:00



Comments from:


Recital

(7) Effective and harmonised application of flexible use of airspace at European level needs clear and consistent implementing rules with sufficient flexibility appropriate to the levels of military activity.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedProposal: Effective and harmonised application of FUA …

FranceDGAC/DNA

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedA measure of flexibility - but without diluting the basic principle - seems desirable in this recital to cater for cases where military airspace and coordination requirements do not impact significantly on civil operations. Proposal: Redraft as follows: “Effective and harmonised application of FUA at the European level needs clear and consistent implementing rules with sufficient flexibility appropriate to the levels of military activity”

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: RenumberedRecitals to be renumbered to reflect the sequence of the Articles they introduce, as they are the part of the act which contains the statement of reasons for the act.



Comments from:


Recital

(8) Rules and standards should be established to ensure efficient use of airspace by all users, within the context of relevant policies, in particular the common transport policy of the European Communities.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Which Transport Policy?


MOD

07/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedChange this recital in order to reflect that the rules and standards adopted by the Commission will apply to all types of users under GAT. In the SES Framework Regulation, “airspace users” means all aircraft operated as general air traffic. Proposal: .. airspace by civil and military all users, ….

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(9) Although both civil and military aviation activities have different requirements, these activities occur in the same airspace and their coordination should therefore be oriented towards the common objective of optimising the use of airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: “Co-ordination concerning civil and military use of airspace should be based on optimum use of the airspace concerned.

NetherlandsCombined

31/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedProposal: Suggestion "… their coordination should be based on oriented to the same objective...".

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Renumbered. Drafting improvement.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.Recitals to be renumbered to reflect the sequence of the Articles they introduce, as they are the part of the act which contains the statement of reasons for the act.



Comments from:


Recital

(10) It is necessary to optimise the use of airspace structures for civil and military traffic in the same airspace, especially during peak demand periods.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NOTED: Proposal: … of civil and or military traffic or both in the same airspace.

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 R NONE: The purpose of a recital is to set out concise reasons for the act. It uses non-mandatory language to avoid confusion with enacting terms. There is no need to repeat a recital used already in the SES Airspace Regulation, but only to highlight some reasons for regulating FUA provisions, such as the need to optimise the use of airspace structures.

According to SES package, FUA is applicable permanently, and not only during peak periods.Proposal: The recital (13) should be removed or changed to be fully in accordance with recital (14) of the SES Airspace Regulation.


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: This underlines the relevance of the interdependency of all parts of airspace structures in achieving safety and efficiency in time.

This is an irrelevant statement in the context of EC legislation. We feel that this preamble would be better placed in a supporting document.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(11) There are activities, which require the reservation of portion of airspace for their exclusive or specific use for determined periods, due to their hazardous attributes and the need to ensure separation from non-participating air traffic.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A DELETION: of 'It is recognised that'Proposal: It is recognised that there are military…

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesThis recital shall reflect that all types of users have to be protected from hazardous activities conducted within segregated areas.Proposal: .. and safe separation from civil other traffics.

NorwayAVINOR & CAA

20/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedUse the phrase “non participating traffic” instead of “civil traffic”.Proposal: .. and safe separation from civil non-participating traffic.

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesThere must be a balance between civil and military airspace users.Proposal: .. and safe separation from civil traffic between airspace users.


25/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedAdd the word “air” to ‘’civil traffic’’.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedSeparation has to be - by definition - effective and safe.Proposal: Delete “effective and safe” in Recital (4) as it is a tautology: “.… the need to ensure effective and safeseparation from civil traffic”.



Comments from:


Recital

(11) There are activities, which require the reservation of portion of airspace for their exclusive or specific use for determined periods, due to their hazardous attributes and the need to ensure separation from non-participating air traffic.


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies as far as the ICAO definition of airspace reservation addresses the segregation notion.

Whilst the act of providing airspace reservations achieves separation, this activity is commonly known as segregation

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(12) Flexible use of airspace is based on efficient civil-military coordination procedures. Adequate organisation of civil-military cooperation should therefore greatly enhance the actual implementation of the flexible use of airspace and ensure effectiveness of cross-border airspace management.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesProposal: Split the sentence.

… by a safe and an adequate organisation of civil-military cooperation.(Safe = 100%)

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Differences in the organisation of civil-military cooperation are not so much the cause of the negative impact on cross border management of airspace. The problem rather lies with the uneven accuracy and performance levels of the procedures, which may exist even with similar organisations.Proposal: Differences in the organisation level of achievement and performance of civil-military cooperation….

NorwayAVINOR & CAA

20/08/2004 A REVISION: The two former articles (11) and (12) have been merged.

It is out of mandate to give directives on how States should organise their internal organisations. However, it is our opinion that Recital (12) covers the intention of Recital (11) as well.Proposal: Delete Recital (11).



Comments from:


Recital

(12) Flexible use of airspace is based on efficient civil-military coordination procedures. Adequate organisation of civil-military cooperation should therefore greatly enhance the actual implementation of the flexible use of airspace and ensure effectiveness of cross-border airspace management.


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesRewording this paragraph could pass the same message in a productive and positive manner.Adoption of common civil-military cooperation procedures between Member States has a positive impact on the effectiveness of cross border airspace management and should be encouraged.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The wording of the draft final report is too generalising and creates a false overall impression.Differences in the organisation do not necessarily have a negative impact on cross border management of airspace. They may have an impact - but it is not up to EUROCONTROL or the EC to judge whether this impact is negative and lay this statement down in an EC directive.Proposal: Change Recital (11) as follows: “…. Member States may have a negative an impact on effective cross border management of airspace and consequently should be reduced”.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Renumbered.Recitals to be renumbered to reflect the sequence of the Articles they introduce, as they are the part of the act which contains the statement of reasons for the act.



Comments from:


Recital

(13) The Commission shall identify and adopt the EUROCONTROL safety regulatory requirements (ESARRs) and subsequent amendments to those requirements that shall be made mandatory under Community law.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A INSERTION: Recital inserted.The European Commission suggests to insert a new recital stating Article 4 of the service Regulation (adoption of ESARRs by the European Commission).



Comments from:


Recital

(14) Member States having implemented flexible use of airspace provisions or parts thereof have assessed that their current applications meet an accepted safety level.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesProposal: …. their current applications are safe has an accepted safety level. (Safe = 100%)

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 N NOTED: This recital establishes the grounds for Article 6What is the purpose of this recital? What evidence exists for its validity?

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 R NONE: The purpose of a recital is to set out concise reasons for the act. This recital establishes the grounds for Article 6 which acknowledges the fact that Member States have already ensured themselves that their current applications of FUA provisions are safe and that these applications have been granted approval by the respective State regulatory authorities.The demonstration, that the civil and military operational ATM system in place before FUA, or with the harmonised introduction of FUA in April 1998 is acceptably safe, remains a Member States responsibility.

This consideration is not needed in the context of the Draft Implementing Rules. Furthermore the statement made here is an unverified assumption, which for principal reasons cannot remain part of the draft resolution.Proposal: Delete Recital (14).



Comments from:


Recital

(14) Member States having implemented flexible use of airspace provisions or parts thereof have assessed that their current applications meet an accepted safety level.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 N NOTED: This recital acknowledges only any safety assessments made in 1996 with initial introduction of FUA and establishes the grounds for Article 6. Comments further considered under Article 6.

Changes to ATM systems/procedures already existing before the implementation of ESARR 4 shall not be subject to a safety case. As such, FUA - in its current implementation according to the EUROCONTROL ASM handbook - is not to be post-assessed by the Member States. The new text should focus on future concepts, not on already implemented concepts.Proposal: Rephrase Recital (14) and add a subpara to Article 6.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Renumbered. Drafting Improvement.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.Recitals to be renumbered to reflect the sequence of the Articles they introduce, as they are the part of the act which contains the statement of reasons for the act.



Comments from:


Recital

(15) The regular assessment of airspace utilisation is an important way of increasing confidence between civil and military providers and users and an essential tool for improving airspace design and airspace management.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Assessment is a tool not data.Proposal: … military providers/users and an essential tooldata for improving airspace design and airspace management.

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 R NONE: The purpose of a recital is to set out concise reasons for the chief provisions of the enacting terms, without reproducing them. Recital (15) is a statement of reasons leading to the proposed Article 14 and should therefore not paraphrase it, as suggested by DIRCAM

The content of this recital is not compliant with SES Regulations and is not acceptable by French Defence as currently proposed.Proposal: This recital should preferably be changed as follow: “Member States shall report annually to the Commission on the application, in the context of the common transport policy, of the concept of the flexible use of airspace in respect of the airspace under their responsibility”.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(16) Consistency in flight plan processing during all phases of flight is essential to ensure that any airspace change affecting a Filed Flight Plan (FPL), as well as actions in flight to update such a flight plan as a Current Flight Plan (CPL) are properly addressed, stored and distributed.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedProposal: …. are properly addressed, and stored and distributed.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(17) The timely distribution and quality of presentation of airspace status to civil and military controllers has a direct impact on safety and efficiency of

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: … controllers (actually and in advance) has a direct impact on safety and efficiency of real-timeoperations.

GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedThe two aspects mentioned in this paragraph, “Distribution” and “Presentation” should be linked with the proper quality to illustrate the meaning in an unambiguous manner. Furthermore the words “real time” should be deleted since those are the only operations that rely on safety and efficiency.Proposal: Amend Recital (17) as follows: The quality oftimely distribution and quality of presentation of airspace status to civil and military controllers has a direct impact on safety and efficiency of real-time operations”.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedIt is not the quality (whatever is meant to be this), but the "timely" distribution of information, which has an impact on the safety and efficiency. Operations are always "real-time.Proposal: Rephrase Recital (17) as follows: “The quality oftimely distribution and quality of presentation of airspace …and efficiency of real-time operations “.



Comments from:


Recital

(17) The timely distribution and quality of presentation of airspace status to civil and military controllers has a direct impact on safety and efficiency of


31/08/2004 R NONE: No it’s a fact. The timely distribution and quality of presentation of airspace status to civil and military controllers has a direct impact (positive or negative) on safety.

The sentence is too strong when referring to safety aspects. Safety shall always prevail.Proposal: Suggestion "… has a direct impact on safety and efficiency of real-time operations while at least of maintaining safety”.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(18) Timely access to up-to-date information on airspace status is essential for all stakeholders wishing to take advantage of airspace structures made available, when (re)filing their flight plan.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: An easy access to up-to-date information on airspace status and coming changes is ….

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(19) Consistent procedures for civil-military co-ordination and use of cross-border airspace are a key enabler for the establishment of Functional Airspace

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesProposal: Consistent and similar procedures for civil-military co-ordination and use of airspace…


25/08/2004 R NONE: Proposed additions are out of the context and the scope of this regulation.

Add the words “and application of air traffic control ” to “use of airspace across boundaries” and adjust “a key enabler” to “key enablers”.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 R NONE: The word “Consistent” is more objective than “Compatible”.As key enabler for the establishment of FAB, procedures do not necessarily be "consistent and similar" but compatible.Proposal: Rephrase Recital (19) as follows: “Consistent and similar Compatible procedures for civil-military co-ordination … “.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Renumbered.Recitals to be renumbered to reflect the sequence of the Articles they introduce, as they are the part of the act which contains the statement of reasons for the act.



Comments from:


Recital

(20) Airspace design, airspace planning, airspace management and airspace use are separate ATM functions addressed by the flexible use of airspace concept which are closely interdependent and which need to be achieved simultaneously to ensure efficient use of airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesProposal: … as required to ensure efficient and safe use of airspace.(Safe = 100%)

InternationalUsers Easyjet

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Wording “… which need to be achieved as completely as required to ensure efficient use of airspace “ is not clear as to specific intention.Proposal: Rewrite to make intention clear

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(21) Common principles and criteria for the optimised design of airspace, route and sector have been established in the Commission Regulation laying down implementing rules for the airspace design and classification.

NetherlandsCombined

02/07/2004 A REVISION: the new text states “the Commission Regulation laying down implementing rules for the airspace design and classification” instead of “the Commission Directive…”.

Recital (21) refers to Directive for Airspace Design and classification. However, the last draft of the document has been written as a Regulation.Proposal: ensure consistency between the proposed FUA and Airspace Design Implementing rules.


27/08/2004 R NONE: The correct wording is “Commission Regulation laying down implementing rules for the airspace design and classification”.

Wording can be simplified to give clarity.Proposal: “ … … have been established in the Commission Regulation laying down implementing rules for the airspace design and classification in the Airspace Design Implementing Rules Directive”

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(22) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee established by Article 5(1) of the framework Regulation.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:


Recital

(23) Member states having implemented enhanced flexible use of airspace concept shall not be forced to adopt elements which will lead to decreased efficient use of the airspace.


27/08/2004 N NOTED: Final version will be amended accordingly.• Apply consistent format rules;• Remove acronyms entirely from document.

SwedenCAA

11/10/2004 R NONE: The purpose of a recital is to set out concise reasons for the chief provisions of the enacting terms and not negative statements.

Those states that already has a developed flexible use of the airspace should not make the use less flexible than today.


MOD

11/10/2004 A REVISION: Amended, starting with Recital (1) instead of (0).Paragraph numbering is incorrect



Comments from:


Article 1 : Objective and Scope

1 The objective of this Directive is to achieve an optimum and safe use of airspace for all users by introducing common rules and standards for airspace planning and management through uniform application of the Concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace as recommended by ICAO and as developed by EUROCONTROL, in order to facilitate air traffic management across Europe.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: It is a quotation of the SES Airspace Regulation.Proposal: … as recommended by ICAO.. (where? Put the doc or Annex in Annex 1 of this doc).

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R NONE: Even though it is stated in the SES Airspace Regulation, the Concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace is not described by ICAO, but only recommended.ICAO references – Annex 11 Chapter 2PANS-ATM Doc 4444 3.1.5Air Traffic Services Planning Manual Part I, Section 2, Chapter 3, 3.1.3.

Coherence with Airspace Regulation (art. 7.1).Proposal: .. and management through uniform application of the Concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace as recommended described by ICAO and as developed by EUROCONTROL, in order to facilitate air traffic management across Europe.”


27/08/2004 R NONE: The regulation of European airspace is based on a clear European vision called, the Flexible Use of Airspace Concept developed in 1996 in order to facilitate air traffic management across Europe.

The regulation of European airspace is based on a clear European vision called, the Flexible Use of Airspace Concept developed in 1996 in order to facilitate air traffic management across Europe.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedThere is no need to make cross references throughout the text to the SES Regulations.



Comments from:



2 This Directive contains provisions relating to the interface between civil and military air traffic management organisations notwithstanding national borders and/or flight information region boundaries.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvement.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.



Comments from:



3 This Directive shall be applied without prejudice to Member States’ sovereignty over their airspace in conducting military operations and training to safeguard their national security and defence interests.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted. In any case it was a quotation of the SES Framework Regulation

Proposal: … their national security and defence interests and protecting natural resources.

InternationalNATO

25/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted. In any case, EC Regulation should not impose obligations on Member States that are already covered by other international treaties.

Add: “and to meet obligations of other international agreements”

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted.Better wording in the explanatory material.Proposal: “ …over their airspace and their requirements to safeguard national security and defence interests, in particular those needed to conduct military operations and training in conducting military operations and training to safeguard their national security and defence interests.”


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted.Proposal: “This Directive shall be applied without prejudice to Member States’ sovereignty over their airspace and in conducting military operations and training to safeguard their national security and defence interests”.



Comments from:



3 This Directive shall be applied without prejudice to Member States’ sovereignty over their airspace in conducting military operations and training to safeguard their national security and defence interests.

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted. Text already existing in airspace regulation should not be repeated.

Article 8.1 of the Airspace Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 allows the Member States to suspend temporarily the application of the Flexible Use of Airspace Concept.For clarity, the text of article 8.1 of the Airspace Regulation should be repeated in the Directive.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedCopy of the framework Regulation statement on sovereignty issue in its Article 1(2); no need to repeat it.Proposal: to be deleted



Comments from:


Article 2 : Definitions

For the purpose of this Directive, further to the definitions of the Framework Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

MaltaATS

15/07/2004 R NONE: The purpose of Article 2 is to provide definitions of some elements used in the FUA Directive which are not yet covered in the SES Framework Regulation. As OAT and ‘due regards’ are not used in the proposed text, they do not need to be defined in Article 2.

There are no definitions for OAT and 'due regard' -phrases which are commonly used among ATS personnel and cross-border letter of agreements. Does this mean that these definitions are not recognized in these directives and regulations?

NetherlandsCAA, MOD &

LVNL

26/08/2004 N NOTED: Acted upon.Definitions which are already within the Framework Regulation should not be repeated. In any case the definition can not be different. Also general references to ICAO are preferable instead of rehearsing every ICAO-t t


27/08/2004 N NOTED: Acted upon. Consistency with Airspace Design Definitions is done.

Wording not consistent with Airspace Design Article 2 –Definitions. Standardisation is must be the goal. The starting point is ICAO Standards/Definitions. If we feel we have a better definition then we should work to change the Standard, either by amendment or addition, not vary the definition in isolation i.e. EC or Eurocontrol documents.This applies in to the Framework regulation as well.



Comments from:



For the purpose of this Directive, further to the definitions of the Framework Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A NOTED: Acted upon. However, without extending the scope of SES Regulations, some definitions such as 'airspace management (ASM)' or 'ATS Route' have been complemented to provide additional elements applicable in the context of the flexible use of airspace.

The definitions of the Framework Regulations can not be amended, and in particular if it means that the scope of the basic act (SES Regulations) is extended.



Comments from:



‘airspace design’ means a planning process to ensure or increase the established safety level and increase the airspace capacity through the development and implementation of advanced navigational capabilities and techniques, improved route networks and associated sectorisation, optimised airspace structures and capacity enhancing ATM procedures.

Czech RepublicANS

02/07/2004 A REVISION: REVISION: the new text is the same as the one used in the proposed Airspace Design Regulation.

Definition of ‘airspace design’ in the Draft IR (version 0.9) on FUA is different from the one used in the Draft IR on the airspace design (version 1.1).

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 N NONE: The purpose of Article 1 of the proposed Airspace Design Regulation is to formulate the objectives and scope of the Regulation and not to define airspace design as such. In Article 2 of the proposed Airspace Design Regulation, ‘airspace design’ is defined with the same text as proposed in the FUA Directive Article 2.

Airspace Design goal is not only to increase the capacity of airspace. The definition must refer to the Airspace Design directive contents and in particular to its Article 1 which is sufficiently explicit. All further texts should strictly refer to that Article. Proposal: The definition proposed should be removed or reworded as follows: “airspace design’ refers to the concept defined / described in the Article 1 of the Airspace design regulation XX/04”.

SpainAENA

13/08/2004 N NONE: As “aeronautical information publication” is not used in the proposed FUA Directive, there is no need to define it in Article 3.

The concept of “airspace design” should be defined more in line with the provisions of the proposed Regulation on airspace design. It is also convenient to include a definition of “aeronautical information publication”

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 R REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Consistency with Airspace Design Definitions is done.

Definition not the same as AD definition



Comments from:



‘airspace design’ means a planning process to ensure or increase the established safety level and increase the airspace capacity through the development and implementation of advanced navigational capabilities and techniques, improved route networks and associated sectorisation, optimised airspace structures and capacity enhancing ATM procedures.


MOD

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted. See Actions taken under the Airspace Design Mandate.

The current definition focuses on increased capacity. We would prefer to highlight increased efficiency.Proposed text: “…means a planning process to ensure safe and efficient use airspace structures through the development and …”.

SlovakiaLPS SR

27/08/2004 R REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Safety is referred.The Safety aspect is missing in the definition of “airspace design”.


31/08/2004 N NONE: This text refers to the improved airspace design processes adopted in February 1997 in the ECAC Institutional Strategy for Air Traffic Management in Europe (Appendix 3).

Airspace Design - does not address the development and implementation of advanced navigational capabilities and techniques. Proposal: Rephrasing is suggested as follows: “… means a planning process based on the development and implementation of advanced navigational capabilities and techniques, to increase the airspace capacity through improved route networks …".



Comments from:



‘airspace management’ (ASM) means a planning function with the primary objective of maximising the utilisation of available airspace by dynamic time-sharing and, at times, the segregation of airspace among various categories of users based on short-term needs. In the context of the flexible use of airspace concept, airspace management is a generic term covering any management activity at the Strategic, Pre-tactical and Tactical ASM Levels, provided for the purpose of achieving the most efficient use of airspace based on actual needs and, where possible, avoiding permanent airspace segregation.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Even though the ASM Definition exists already in the framework Regulation, there is a need to add a sentence highlighting this specific term in the context of the flexible use of airspace concept.

Proposal: To be deletedNo definitions which are subscribed in higher level documents (ICAO, EU) or other directives.

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedDelete THREE before Strategic



Comments from:



‘airspace management cell’ (AMC) means a joint civil/military cell responsible for the day-to-day management and temporary allocation of national or sub-regional airspace under the jurisdiction of one or more Member State(s).

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A INSERTION: Definition reinstated.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.Need to reinstate AMC definition as it is mentioned again in revised Article 9(1).



Comments from:



‘airspace reservation’ means a defined volume of airspace normally under the jurisdiction of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by common agreement, for exclusive use by another aviation authority.

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 R NONE: The proposed definition is the ICAO definition which is also used in the following FUA Reference Material recently updated on 22/10/03:

• EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management – Edition 2.0;

• EUROCONTROL Manual for Airspace Planning Vol.2 - Edition 2.0.

Adopt a definition for the ‘airspace reservation’ more compliant with FUA. Proposal: The definition proposed should be reworded as follows: “airspace reservation’ means a defined volume of airspace normally under the jurisdiction of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by common agreement, for exclusive use by one airspace useranother authority [ICAO]”.

SpainDGCA

11/10/2004 A REVISION: Article 8.2 has been reviewed accordingly replacing the word “segregation” by “restriction”.

In art. 8.2 there is a mention of “segregation” term that is not defined in art. 2. In addition, in the Airspace Design implementing Rule there is a mention to a “restrictive airspace” (art. 8.7) and to a “segregated airspace” (art. 11.1). Proposal: There must be coherence between both implementing rules.



Comments from:



‘airspace restriction’ means a defined volume of airspace taking the form of:

• danger area: an airspace of defined dimensions within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at specified times; or

• restricted area: an airspace of defined dimensions, above the land areas or territorial waters of a State, within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with certain specified conditions; or

• prohibited area: an airspace of defined dimensions, above the land areas or territorial waters of a State, within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesFor the sake of clarity, all elements of a definition need to be fully described.



Comments from:



‘airspace structure’ means specific portions of airspace designed to accommodate the safe operation of aircraft

Czech RepublicANS

02/07/2004 A REVISION: the new text is the same as the one used in the proposed Airspace Design Regulation.

Definition of ‘airspace structure’ in the Draft IR (v. 0.9) on FUA is different from the one used in the Draft IR on the airspace design (v. 1.1).

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: It is a pure EUROCONTROL definition in use in the context of FUA since 1996.

Check on ICAO definitions.



Comments from:



‘ASM Levels’ encompass:

• ‘Strategic ASM Level 1’ which means the act of defining and reviewing, as required, the national airspace rules taking into account national and international airspace requirements;

• ‘pre-tactical ASM Level 2’ which means the act of conducting operational management within the framework of pre-determined ATM structure and procedures defined in Level 1 and of reaching specific agreement between civil and military authorities involved;

• ‘tactical ASM Level 3’ which means the act, on the day of operation, of activating, de-activating or real-time re-allocating airspace allocated in Level 2 and of solving specific airspace problems and/or of individual traffic situations in real-time between civil ATS units and controlling military units.

GermanyMOD

18/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted.Definitions are listed according to the alphabet. Regarding the ASM Levels this order is not logic. The logic order is

- level 1 strategic ASM- level 2 pre-tactical ASM- level 3 tactical ASM

Proposal: Delete existing description of the ASM levels at the end of Article 3. Insert as 3rd definition: ”ASM Levels- Level 1 strategic ASM (+ text as before) - Level 2 pre-tactical ASM (+ text as before)- Level 3 tactical ASM (+ text as before).



Comments from:



‘ATS route’ means a specified route designed for channelling the flow of traffic as necessary for the provision of air traffic services.In the context of the flexible use of airspace concept, the term "ATS route" is used to mean variously permanent route and conditional route.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Even though the ASM Definition exists already in the framework Regulation, there is a need to add a sentence highlighting this specific term in the context of the flexible use of airspace concept.


SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 P NONE: Noted.The second paragraph of the definition seems not to be in line with the definition of conditional route.Proposal: Ensure coherence between the definitions of the Framework Regulation, other implementing rules (such as the Airspace Design implementing rule) and ICAO definitions.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesNeed to stick to the exact wording of ICAO definition.



Comments from:



‘ATS unit’ means variously; air traffic control unit, flight information centre or air traffic services reporting office.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: As this definition is not listed in the framework Regulation there, is a need to coever it in the FUA Directive.


EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesNeed to stick to the exact wording of ICAO definition.



Comments from:



‘civil-military coordination’ means the interaction between civil and military components of air traffic management (ATM) necessary to ensure safe, efficient and harmonious use of the airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: It is the EUROCONTROL definition in use within the context of FUA since 1996.

Proposal: To be rewordedThis definition does not cover the term. The co-ordination contains more aspects.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvement.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.



Comments from:



‘conditional route’ (CDR) means an ATS route or a portion thereof which can be planned and used under specified conditions.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: Only defined in the EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.




Comments from:



‘controlling military unit’ means any established or mobile military control and/or air defence unit controlling air traffic and/or other activities requiring airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: As this definition is not listed in the framework Regulation there, is a need to cover it in the FUA Directive.


FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted.The definition of military units is “old-fashioned” and not reflecting the current situation. Military units are not always “affecting” civil flights, but are also providing GAT services. Even if the definition is close to the “old” one chosen by ICAO, it should be reviewed by the Commission in order to adapt it in conjunction with SES spirit and the FUA concept itself. Proposal: The definition proposed should be reworded as follows: “controlling military unit’ means any established or mobile military ATS unit controlling GAT and/or specific activities that may affect flights of civil aircraft”.

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The definition of “controlling military unit” should make a distinction between military ATS units and Aircraft Controlling Units.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesAs Article 1(2) of the Framework Regulation expressly excludes "military operations and training" from the scope of application of the SES Regulations, these terms must be avoided.



Comments from:



‘cross-border airspace’ means an airspace structure extending across national borders and/or FIR boundaries.


00:00:00



Comments from:



'flexible use of airspace' (FUA) means an airspace concept …. to the maximum extent possible.


25/08/2004 A DELETION: There is no need to repeat an existing definition already listed in Article 2 of the SES Framework Regulation.Proposal adopted in Recital (2)

Additions reinforce text such that interest of all airspace users is recognised and taken into account to maximum, best possible, extent.Proposal: “….in which all airspace user requirements have to be accommodated to the maximum extent possible.”



Comments from:



‘flight intention’ means flight path and associated flight data describing the planned trajectory of a flight to its destination, as updated at any moment.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies‘Flight path’ is a better wording than ‘flight profile’ to express the three dimensions aspect of a trajectory.



Comments from:



‘flight path’ means the path of an aircraft through the air, defined in three dimensions, usually with reference to an origin at the start of take-off roll or at the landing threshold.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies‘Flight path’ is a better wording than ‘flight profile’ to express the three dimensions aspect of a trajectory. Need to define this wording.



Comments from:



‘interface’ means the place where interaction occurs between two systems.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: It is used in Article 1(2).See definitions in Airspace Design Implementing Rules. (also, not used in this document).



Comments from:



‘non-participating activities’ means those activities not associated with the purpose of an airspace reservation or an airspace restriction.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A INSERTION: Definition inserted.Need to define all non obvious terms used in the proposed Articles.



Comments from:



‘operational agreement’ is used to cover agreements (including bu not limited to protocol, letter of agreement, operations letter) concluded between two or more adjacent ATS units or between one or more ATS unit(s) on the one side and other authorities, agencies or bodies (for example the military, aerodrome operators) specifying the conditions, means and procedures employed to regulate their co-operation or the conduct of specific operations affecting ATS.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: As this definition is not listed in the framework Regulation there, is a need to coever it in the FUA Directive.


EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvement.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission. In particular, avoid using abbreviations in a definition.



Comments from:



‘participating activities’ means activities conducted within a defined volume of airspace for which an airspace reservation or an airspace restriction has been established.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:



• ‘pre-tactical ASM Level 2’• ‘strategic ASM Level 1’• ‘tactical ASM Level 3’

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A NONE: Only defined in the EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.


GermanyMOD

18/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted.Proposal: Delete existing description of the ASM levels at the end of Article 3. Insert as 3rd definition: ”ASM Levels- Level 1 strategic ASM (+ text as before) - Level 2 pre-tactical ASM (+ text as before)- Level 3 tactical ASM (+ text as before).



Comments from:



‘real-time’ means the actual time during which a process or event occurs.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: It is a definition of English dictionary.(Has something to do with interactions between processes and impact of data input or events on a process).



Comments from:



‘separation’ means spacing between aircraft, levels or tracks.

EuropeanCommission




Comments from:



'single unified system' means a system that integrates activities otherwise provided by distinct civil ATS units and controlling military units.


00:00:00



Comments from:



'territory' means …

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R REVISION: ‘Territory’ is not a new term as it is used in the ICAO Chicago Convention in its very first Article 1 without the need to define it.Only terms used in the proposed FUA directive are subject to a definition in Article 2. “Aeronautical Information Publication” (AIP) is no more used

Proposal: There is a need to define the term “Territory” used in art. 8.3.

It should also be convenient to include a definition of “aeronautical information publication” (same as in the Airspace implementing rule)



Comments from:



‘users’ means all aircraft operating in the air as well as any other activities requiring airspace.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 N NONE: It is a new definition needed in the context of the FUA Directive so far as '' definition of the framework Regulation is too restricted limited to general air traffic users only.


SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.From the military point of view, they are more airspace users than GAT & state aircraft. For example, missile/weapon testing needs airspace (and not always linked to an aircraft operation. A truck, a submarine or a ship could be launching platform). In addition there are artillery exercises that need airspace too.Proposal: ‘airspace users’ means all organisation in need of airspace in order to fulfil his activity or duty, in particular all aircraft operated as general air traffic as well as all state aircraft involved in military operations and training.


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.There is potentially a legal problem here as this definition contradicts the Framework Regulation. Furthermore, there are activities other than aviation that require airspace reservations and, to ensure the maximum effectiveness, these must be encompassed within the FUA concept. Consequently, we would suggest that both the Framework Regulation definition and this proposed definition are incorrect.



Comments from:



‘users’ means all aircraft operating in the air as well as any other activities requiring airspace.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Instead of using 'airspace users' it is proposed to introduce the word "users" acknowledging the fact that in addition to general air traffic users , there are other activities requiring airspace and to be considered within the contect of the flexible use of airspace concept.

The term 'airspace users' can only be used within the scope of the definition provided in the Framework Regulation.



Comments from:


Former Article 2 : (Area of Application) DELETED

1 Member States shall apply this Directive to the airspace within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where they are responsible for the provision of air traffic services.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A NONE: Initial proposal deletedReference should be made to the ICAO EUR Region as regards area of applicability.Proposal: As a preamble for the two paragraphs, add: Within the ICAO EUR Region ,….

SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deleted. According to the SES Airspace Regulation, the limitation to regulate initially only upper airspace above FL285 concerns essentially the Airspace Architecture addressed in Chapter II with Article 3 (EUIR), Article 4 (Airspace Classification), Article 5 (Reconfiguration of the upper airspace) and Article 6 (Optimised route and sector design in the upper airspace). Regarding Chapter III and its Article 7 (Flexible Use of Airspace), the area of application is the same as the overall Airspace Regulation stated in its Article 1(3).

It is not clear if “all airspace” means all above FL285 according to SES or if it really means all airspace.For the military it is of utmost importance that the FUA Directive is applied from the GND level to FL660 at least. The TSA are only of interest if the dimensions & volume are big enough for the required training. In the vertical dimension a good example would be from FL130 to FL660.Proposal: Add after “services”: … above and below FL285.



Comments from:


Former Article 2 : (Area of Application) DELETED

1 Member States shall apply this Directive to the airspace within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where they are responsible for the provision of air traffic services.

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 A NONE: Initial proposal deletedThere must be coherence between the Area of Application of the Airspace Regulation (Art. 1.3) and the Area of Application of the implementing rules derived from it (Airspace Design, FUA, etc).Proposal: “ …Member States shall apply this Directive within all airspace where they are responsible for the provision of air traffic services to the airspace within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions where Member States are responsible for the provision of air traffic services in accordance with the service provision Regulation. Member States may also apply this Regulation to airspace under their responsibility within other ICAO regions, on condition that they inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof.”


MOD

26/08/2004 A NONE: Initial proposal deletedProposal: “Member States shall apply this Directive within airspace within ICAO EUR and AFI regions where Member states are responsible for the provision of ATS in accordance with the service provision regulation”.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedThe proposed Article 2(1) related to “Area of Application” can be deleted as it repeats the scope of airspace Regulation defined in its Article 1(3).



Comments from:


Article 3 : Framework Agreements

In applying the Flexible Use of Airspace Concept, Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that framework agreements between the competent civil and military authorities or equivalent legal arrangements are established.

BelgiumANS

26/08/2004 N NONE: Noted.Monitoring of compliance will be addressed later on in accordance with Chapter IV provisions (see Articles 11 to 14 above).

Complying with article 11 of the “service provision Regulation”, Belgocontrol considers its Letter of Agreement with COMOPSAIR, the Belgian military authority, as the written agreement between the competent civil and military authority and as such the basis for formal adoption of the FUA Concept.Request confirmation whether Letter of Agreements are considered an adequate measure to meet the framework and legal arrangements envisaged by this article.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Former article 15(1) has been moved as new Article 3 "Framework Agreements"

Elements of Article 15(1) should be put in a seperate article.



Comments from:


Article 4 : Principles

1 Member States shall ensure that civil and military authorities define, through operational agreements, the circumstances under which airspace can be used by military and civil aviation.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: “….shall ensure that civil and military authorities define, through national and international operational agreements, the circumstances under which airspace can be used by military and civil aviation”.

Proposal: … shall ensure that national and international operational agreements have been concluded between civil and military authorities defining to define under which circumstances airspace can be jointly used by military and civil aviation and where and when establishing conditions for priority access should be given to specific users. (CBA’s)

SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 R NONE: The term “operational agreements” as defined in Article 2 refers only to agreements between ATS units concerned.

The word “circumstances” covers the issue in a less restrictive manner as it includes both the possible joint use of airspace by military and civil aviation and the conditions for priority access to specific users

The term “international operational agreements” is not clear. Avoid that a third country can interfere in the national strategies that defines the circumstances for usage of airspace. It is a question of sovereignty.The definition of the priorities is missing in this article. This issue shall be addressed in order to assure that national interest is represented in the definition of the priorities. Proposal: Delete the words “and international operational agreements,..” and add a new sub-article as follows: “ Member States shall define the priorities for the use of the airspace in regard of the national sovereignty”.



Comments from:



1 Member States shall ensure that civil and military authorities define, through operational agreements, the circumstances under which airspace can be used by military and civil aviation.


MOD

26/08/2004 N NONE: Noted. Detailed application should be addressed within the means of compliance.The word “circumstances” covers the issue in a less restrictive manner as it includes both the possible joint use of airspace by military and civil aviation and the conditions for priority access to specific users

Without reading the rationale, this statement can be mis-interpreted.The intention of this statement is not wholly clear. Airspace can be used concurrently by military and civil aircraft, especially if the military a/c is operating as GAT. Do you really mean to highlight that States should define procedures where GAT and non-GAT ac can operate within the same airspace? Conversely, do you mean that states should define when segregation is required as opposed to separation?

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedAn EC text cannot oblige Member States to have international obligationsProposal: delete "national and international".



Comments from:



2 Member States shall harmonise, where needed, their airspace management rules with those of neighbouring Member States to commonly address cross-border activities through bilateral or, where appropriate, multilateral cooperation.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: … extend share their national collaborative airspace planning process with neighbouring Member States by harmonising their airspace management rules to commonly address cross-border activities, where needed, through multilateral civil/military cooperation. (also civil/civil and mil/mil)



Comments from:




MaltaATS

15/07/2004 N NONE: The proposed Article 4(2) is not limited to cross-border areas as such, but aims at covering any cross-border activities including for instance, closure of some structures in one State which may have an impact in another adjacent State. The intention is to establish as from the beginning during the airspace planning process, the required co-ordination between adjacent States when some activities in one State have an impact in another one.The end result and the form of the bilateral cooperation between States will depend on the importance of the issue to be co-ordinated and could in some instance be limited to a Letter of Agreement between ATS units concerned.

This Article essentially requires that adjacent States harmonize their planning process to ensure common ASM rules for cross-border activities. Is this requirement to share the national collaborative airspace planning process applicable only where cross-border areas are needed? If not, then under what circumstances and what kind of multilateral agreement would be required for this regional planning process to take place. For example today there is no bilateral or multilateral agreement between Malta and adjacent states applying the FUA concept. State A argues that there is a military requirement in its FIR (high seas included) and closes routes etc, while State B has to adapt its procedures according to these requirements. The coordination to adapt procedures to this new requirement is conducted at ATS level and endorsed in a Letter of Agreement. Does this fall under the definition of 'multilateral cooperation'?



Comments from:




FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted“through multilateral cooperation” should be amended. It is mainly a bilateral cooperation and, where appropriate, a multilateral cooperation.Proposal: … through bilateral or, where appropriate,multilateral cooperation,….

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedIt might be necessary for some Member States to enter into bilateral cooperation as well. Not all Member States are members of military alliances.Proposal: … through bilateral or, where appropriate,multilateral ,….


31/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedThe current wording is quite strong as far as it requires to share the airspace planning process itself, with no apparent restrictions. May be this is the intention of the sentence but this sharing (with no restrictions) may be incompatible with the national sovereignty and security aspects. Proposal: “.. shall harmonise share their national collaborative airspace planning process with neighbouring Member States by harmonising their airspace management rules”.



Comments from:




EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvement. Renumbered.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.



Comments from:



3 Member States shall ensure that airspace reservations are of a temporary nature, applied only during limited periods of time based on actual usage and are released as soon as the activity having caused their establishment ceases.

More direct and alternative temporary routes shall be defined in the form of conditional routes (CDR) by complementing the permanent ATS route network to offer multiple routing options, where so required.

NetherlandsCombined

05/06/2004 R NONE: For the protection of natural resources, airspace restriction and NOT reservation are used.

Proposal: Member States shall ensure that, except for protection of natural resources, airspace reservations are of a temporary nature, only applied during limited periods of time based on real-time actual usage and are released for use…

DenmarkMIL (TACDEN)

06/07/2004 R NONE: Please refer to provisions of the EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management and ICAO Doc. 9426 explaining the differences between “airspace reservation” and “airspace restrictions”.

Using “reservation” instead of “restrictions” gives an unclear picture since temporary restrictions of airspace is what happens when TSA’s are activated – reservations covers only the pre-tactical phase of the whole FUA timeline.

SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 R NONE: By definition, airspace reservation refers to an area (TSA or TRA) only and not to a temporary route which is well known in the FUA Concept as CDR addressed in the second part of this Article.

In this paragraph, the civil flexibility requirements are not well enough addressed.Proposal: “Member States shall ensure that airspace reservations (areas or routes) are of a temporary nature…..”



Comments from:






25/08/2004 R NONE: Proposed text would also mean that same principles should be applied to permanent routes, hence no fixed route network. Current text is adequately balanced in enabling satisfaction of all airspace users within the overall demand.

Proposal: Member States shall ensure that airspace in principle is available to all airspace users and that reservations for exclusive use are of a temporary nature and only applied during limited periods of time, based on real time usage.Reserved airspace will be released for use by all airspace users as soon as the activity, having caused its establishment, ceases.As a consequence, more direct and alternative temporary routes shall be defined in the form of conditional routes (CDR) by complementing the permanent ATS route network.

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedThe use of real-time seems to be inappropriate in this context.



Comments from:





SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 N REVISION: Article 8.1 has been reviewed accordingly replacing the word “segregation” by “restriction”.

In art. 4.1, it is mention the “airspace reservations” which are defined in art. 3 as a temporarily reserve airspace, but “segregation”, that appears in different parts (art.8 and in two definitions in art. 3) is not defined (it seems to be associated with permanent airspace although in many cases referring to Temporary Segregated Areas TSA). In addition, both terms appear in the Airspace Design Implementing Rule plus “restrictive airspace”. Both implementing rules must be coherent and with the same terminology. In addition, there must be place to the Prohibit Areas / Restricted Areas / Dangerous Areas, that may be establish by member states to safeguard national security and defence interest, being either permanent or temporarily.Proposal: These terms must be clearly defined in both implementing rules.


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: The notion of permanent restriction (e.g. Prohibited Areas) should not be mixed with the notion of airspace reservation which, as an essential principle of Flexible Use of Airspace, should always be of temporary nature.

There are numerous reservations that, by their very nature, require permanent status.Insert “……….shall ensure that, wherever possible,airspace reservations….”



Comments from:





EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedProposal: Suggest to delete "for use by other users".



Comments from:



4 In order to accommodate highly diverse variations of flight paths and short-term changes of flights requiring temporary reservation of airspace, Member States shall establish criteria and procedures within the context of flexible use of airspace application providing for the creation and use of laterally and vertically adjustable areas compatible with the needs of all users.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: … with the needs of the total all airspace users.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: Article 4(4) states precisely that it is a Member State responsibility to “establish criteria and procedures within the context of FUA application providing for the creation and use of adjustable training areas …”Guidance material for the creation and use of temporary segregated area has already been produced by EUROCONTROL in the Manual for Airspace Planning – Vol.2 - Edition 2.0 in Sections 1 & 3.

The prime responsibility remains at the State level; however production of a guidance material can be useful. In addition, the creation of temporary segregated areas falls outside the competence of regulation 551/2004.Proposal: … providing for the creation and use of adjustable training areas compatible with the needs of the total airspace users serving as guidance material for the use of adjustable training areas.


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedIs an adjustable training area the same as Temporary Reserved Airspace If so, do we mean adjustable in space as well as time? Also, “Total Airspace User” is a new phrase. Does this mean “All airspace users”?



Comments from:



4 In order to accommodate highly diverse variations of flight paths and short-term changes of flights requiring temporary reservation of airspace, Member States shall establish criteria and procedures within the context of flexible use of airspace application providing for the creation and use of laterally and vertically adjustable areas compatible with the needs of all users.


31/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedProposal: To achieve maximum flexibility in ASM , complement text as follows: "… for the creation and use oflaterally and vertically adjustable training areas…



Comments from:



5 Member States shall set up consultation mechanisms to ensure that confidence is built and maintained between airspace regulators, users and service providers and that cooperation with all other relevant partners and organisations is established.

InternationalNATO

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: Add at the end: “…partners and organisations “, in order to ensure that international organisations, in particular NATO, are fully acknowledged within the scope of this paragraph.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: Text should be drafted in an obligatory way using for instance "consultation mechanisms should be set up..."



Comments from:



5 Member States shall ensure transparency throughout the FUA process in addressing the respective interests of military and civil aviation and ensure that both airspace planning, allocation and use take into account all user interests.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: The word usually used is 'use' as for flexible use of airspace.

Proposal: … both airspace planning, allocation and useutilisation take into account all user interests.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: The former text is now combined with the one of article 4(5) introducing the need to set up 'consultation mechanisms'. Transparency process is now covered by the new Article 7: 'Common Provision to the three ASM Levels'

Obligations are needed. Text should be redrafted in an obligatory way.



Comments from:


Article 5 : Co-ordination between Civil and Military Authorities

1 In organising the provision of air traffic services, Member States shall establish and maintain adequate co-ordination and cooperation between civil and military authorities to ensure the safe and efficient use of airspace in the conduct of both civil and military flights.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: Article 5 refers specifically to the requirement of organising the provision of services to both GAT and OAT in a safe and efficient manner, and not to airspace management activities as such which are addressed later on in Chapter III (Articles 8, 9 & 10).

The added value of Article 5 is not clear. Later in the Implementing Rules (Articles 8, 9 and 10) the three levels of the civil-military co-ordination are developed.Proposal: Delete Article 5 or add at the end of the article : “as developed in Chapter III (Articles 8, 9 and 10)”.

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 R NONE: Article 5 refers specifically to the requirement of organising the provision of services to both GAT and OAT in a safe and efficient manner, and not to airspace management activities as such which are addressed later on in Chapter III (Articles 8, 9 & 10).

The text should specify that cooperation shall take place between civil and military authorities at all levels.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Reworded to avoid the use of “military operations and training” (this wording has been expressly excluded from the scope of the framework Regulation by its Article 1(2)).



Comments from:



2 Member States shall ensure that operational agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of this Directive specify, without ambiguity, the circumstances and the applicable rules under which the responsibility for separation between civil and military flights, or between participating and non-participating activities in an active area, rests on the civil and/or the military controller.These agreements are to be documented and considered in the safety assessment referred to in Article 6 of this Directive.

GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 R NONE: See comments below on Article 6.Same comments as for Article 6.Proposal: Amend Article 5(2) as follows: “ … These agreements are required to be well documented and be included in the safety assessment. Any difference from the conditions specified in the EUROCONTROL Safety Assessment shall be subject to a separate national safety assessment”.


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: By definition, current text establishes that operational agreements achieve what is proposed by UK.The responsibility for separation lies on the person providing the service not on the Unit

Proposal: “Member States shall ensure that operational agreements referred to in Article 4.4 above specify when airspace is being shared (ie not segregated) procedures are prescribed whereby, without ambiguity, the circumstances …., rests on the civil and/or the military controller service provider.

SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 R NONE: The responsibility for separation lies on the person providing the service not on the Unit.

To give fighter controllers the possibility for spacing aircraft Proposed text”….the military controller unit.”



Comments from:



2 Member States shall ensure that operational agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of this Directive specify, without ambiguity, the circumstances and the applicable rules under which the responsibility for separation between civil and military flights, or between participating and non-participating activities in an active area, rests on the civil and/or the military controller.These agreements are to be documented and considered in the safety assessment referred to in Article 6 of this Directive.

MaastrichtUAC

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adoptedFirst sentence of Art. 5(2) requires that Member States shall ensure operational agreements specify “without ambiguity”. Therefore, it is superfluous to mention that these agreements are required to be “well” documented.


31/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies. The word “well” has been deleted.

The expression "to be well documented" is too vague.



Comments from:



3 When establishing a cross-border airspace structure, the Member States shall specify one common set of applicable rules and standards for separation between civil and military flights.

BelgiumCAA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfiesExperience shows that rules in CBA can be confusing for airspace users and controllers, due to differing national legislation. (Uniformity). Text should also imply CBA’s.Proposal: “..…..in an active national or cross boundaryarea,…”.



Comments from:



4 At international level, Member States shall also establish and maintain adequate coordination and cooperation with civil and military authorities of other States and those of non-European NATO Member States whose aircraft operate in European airspace.

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 R NONE: These Level 1 bodies or Level 2 facilities are functional arrangements by essence.

Chapter II deals with Institutional Provisions. It is therefore a bit surprising that the institutional bodies ‘National Airspace Policy Body’ and ‘Airspace Management Cell’ are NOT introduced in Art. 5 of Chapter II. They are only defined in Chapter III. Proposal: Improve structure.

InternationalNATO

25/08/2004 R REVISION: Initial proposal deleted.Proposal: Add sentence: “At international level, Member States shall also establish and maintain adequate coordination and cooperation with civil and military authorities of other Member States and those of non-European NATO member States whose aircraft operate in European airspace”

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Initial proposal deleted. Required cooperation between civil and military authorities whose aircraft operate in European airspace is now covered by the new Article 4(5).

There is no need to tell Member States to comply with their obligations under international organisations.Proposal: The reference to aircraft of international organisations (NATO AWACS) should be deleted as such and encompassed in a broader wording.



Comments from:


Article 6 : Safety

Member States, in order to maintain and enhance safety levels, shall ensure that within the context of a safety management process, a safety assessment, including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation, is conducted prior to introducing any changes to flexible use of airspace operation which may result from the implementation of this Directive as well as, systematically, for any subsequent changes thereto.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: As ESARR 4 and ESARR 3 provisions are not yet transposed in the Community Law, it is proposed to maintain this Article.

This paragraph should be deleted. The concern will be covered in general by adoption / transposition of ESARR 4.Proposal: Delete Article 6.

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R NONE: The European Commission cannot regulate military aviation.It is a State decision to involve military personnel in the safety assessment activities

The military personnel must be properly involved in the safety assessment (see statement on military issues by member states)Proposal: Add the following text: “… may result from implementation of this Directive, involving properly the military personnel.”


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: “Member States shall ensure that a safety assessment is conducted before the introduction of any changes to the ATM system which may result from implementation of this Directive any introduction or change to FUA processes shall be subject to a safety assessment within the context of a Safety Management System that ensures the maintenance or enhancement of safety levels.”



Comments from:


Article 6 : Safety


GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Updated text satisfies partially.The Article 6 does not ask for retroactive safety case, but seeks to ensure that a safety assessment takes place in regard to any ATM system modification occurring as a result of application of the present Directive. The proposed wording does not prevent Member States to collectively ask EUROCONTROL to develop an “Outline Safety Case” before the introduction of any Europe wide (or multi national) changes to the ATM system stemming from a framework programme lead by EUROCONTROL - here enhanced FUA.

Changes to ATM systems/procedures already existing before the implementation of ESARR 4 shall not be subject to a safety case. As such, FUA - in its current implementation according to the EUROCONTROL ASM handbook - is not to be post-assessed by the Member States. The new text should focus on future concepts, not on already implemented concepts. For international programmes like FUA, EUROCONTROL should conduct the safety case - not the Member StatesProposal: Rephrase Article 6 and add a subpara as follows: “Member States EUROCONTROL shall ensure that a safety assessment is conducted before the introduction of any changes to the ATM system which may result from implementation of this Directive. Member States shall ensure to conduct a safety assessment in case of national deviations to the implementation assessed by EUROCONTROL.Systems/procedures existing before the implementation date of this Directive shall not be subject to a safety assessment”



Comments from:


Article 6 : Safety


GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Updated text satisfies partially. Even though if EUROCONTROL, as part of new programme/project such as RVSM or enhanced FUA process, usually prepares a common safety assessment for the use of the Member States in the form of an "Online Safety Case", regarding the FUA Concept developed in 1994-1996, long time before adoption of ESARRs, the demonstration that the civil and military operational ATM system in place before FUA, or with the harmonised introduction of FUA in April 1998 is acceptably safe, remains a Member States responsibility as acknowledged in Recital (14).

The Article shall be changed to reflect the principal responsibility of EUROCONTROL to provide an umbrella safety assessment for all programmes/projects that are developed by EUROCONTROL on behalf of or for the use by the Member States. It would be counterproductive to require a full individual safety assessment from each State for every Pan-European Project implemented based on the technical work of EUROCONTROL.Proposal: Amend Article 6 as follows: “Member States shall ensure that a safety assessment is conducted before the introduction of any changes to the ATM system which may result from implementation of this Directive the conditions and assumptions contained in the EUROCONTROL Safety Assessment for the implementation of Flexible Use of Airspace apply in their area of responsibility before introducing any changes to their ATM system based on the requirements of this Directive”.



Comments from:


Article 6 : Safety


EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 R NONE: As ESARR 4 and ESARR 3 provisions are not yet transposed in the Community Law, it is proposed to maintain this Article. Add a new Recital (13) on the future adoption by the Commission of ESARRs.

There is no basis for safety issue in the airspace Regulation. 'Safety management process' is a new process part of the Commission Requirements for ATS provision, which do not exist yet.Proposal: Delete Article 6



Comments from:


Former Article 7 : (Co-ordination with ICAO) DELETED

Within the framework of relevant international conventions, Member States shall develop common proposals of applicable flexible use of airspace provisions for inclusion in the appropriate ICAO documents.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedProposal: …. common proposals for amendment of applicable FUA provisions for inclusion in the appropriate ICAO documents.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedFUA provisions are not worldwide but region-wide. “… common proposals of applicable FUA provisions” should be amended.Proposal: … common proposals of applicable regionalFUA provisions,…

SpainAENA

13/08/2004 N NONE: Initial proposal deletedThere is a lack of a reference to the concrete mechanism through which the Commission and Member States would formulate their position before ICAO, having into account that European Commission is not a member of ICAO.Proposal: A possible way would be that the member State holding the Presidency of the European Union present before ICAO the proposal developed jointly with the other Member States, the Commission and EUROCONTROL.



Comments from:





MOD

26/08/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedIt is considered this Article is not required. The Framework Regulation Article 1, para 3, states that the application of the SES regulations is without prejudice to the rights an duties of Member States under the Chicago Convention. Furthermore, whilst ICAO does not articulate the detailed modus operandi of FUA it does reference the need to apply it. Consequently, it is considered there are already established mechanisms to develop/propose amendments to ICAO documents without the need for an underpinning EC Directive.

GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 N NOTED: Initial proposal deletedThe point of this Article is not clear enough. It is understood and accepted that EUROCONTROL forwards “common” proposals on behalf of its Member States to ICAO. However, national sovereignty must be borne in mind in this context, i.e. each State is represented individually in the International Civil Aviation Organisation and speaks for itself – in connection with FUA, too. This article shall not prescribe, that in future, only “common” proposals can be developed for inclusion in ICAO documents.Proposal: Rephrase Article 7 as follows: “Member States together with EUROCONTROL shall may develop common proposals … “.



Comments from:




SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 N NONE: Initial proposal deletedThe responsibility is upon States….States together with Eurocontrol shall togetherdevelop…and may use the expertise of Eurocontrol

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deleted.The EUROCONTROL Revised Convention Art. 2.1(c) addresses ICAO matters.

A Commision's act can not oblige the Member States to coordinate in an intergovernmental way. This is not the right place to deal with ICAO.Proposal: Delete Article 7



Comments from:


Article 7 : Common Provision to the Three ASM Levels

1 Member States shall establish mechanisms at the three ASM Levels providing for a continuous dialogue between airspace management (ASM), air traffic flow management (ATFM) and air traffic services (ATS) functions in order to ensure transparency for the concerned stakeholders in airspace planning, allocation and use.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: The current text covers every case. There is no need to mention to whom transparency applies.

In Article 8(4), the text should mention to whom transparency should be applied.Proposal: … in order to ensure transparency in airspace planning to the concerned stakeholders including the airspace users ...

NorwayAVINOR & CAA

20/08/2004 R NONE: The proposed FUA Directive is under the umbrella of the SES Airspace Regulation and should therefore use the same wording for air traffic flow management, the one currently used by ICAO.

Use the phrase Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM) instead of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM).The new concept within ECAC uses the ATFCM.Proposal: Not critical, but should be considered.


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: Proposed text is too restrictive and not covering the necessary collaboration between the three ATM components for planning, allocation and use of airspace.

Proposal: “Member States shall establish collaborative mechanisms at the three ASM Levels that define priorities and protocols for the allocation of airspace whilstproviding for a continuous dialogue between airspace management (ASM), air traffic flow management (ATFM) and air traffic services (ATS) functions in order to ensure transparency in airspace planning, allocation and use, referred to in Article 4.5”.



Comments from:


Article 7 : Common Provision to the Three ASM Levels

1 Member States shall establish mechanisms at the three ASM Levels providing for a continuous dialogue between airspace management (ASM), air traffic flow management (ATFM) and air traffic services (ATS) functions in order to ensure transparency for the concerned stakeholders in airspace planning, allocation and use.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Moved to new Article 7. Drafting improvement.This text refers to the three ASM levels. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the text formerly proposed as Article 8(4) relating to Level 1 will better fit as a separate article covering the three ASM Levels.Need to comply with the legal drafting techniques of the European Commission.



Comments from:


Article 8 : The Strategic ASM Level 1

1 Member States shall appoint a joint civil-military authority responsible for the definition of the national ASM policy in line with this Directive and for the application of the Concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace in the airspace under their responsibility. Such authority shall in particular regularly:• consider cross-border airspace utilisation with neighbouring Member States, • review users’ requirements, • validate those activities which require airspace reservation or restriction;• assess actual usage of airspace and review national procedures and performance of flexible use of airspace operations at the three ASM Levels; • assess the national airspace structures and ATS route network with the aim of planning for flexible airspace structures and procedures.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partially.There is a requirement for a joint civil military process.

Proposal: …. The “National Airspace Policy Body” process shall arrange in particular: (can never be an objective! Must fulfil a requirement).

DenmarkMIL (TACDEN)

06/07/2004 N NOTED: Reporting issues are addressed under Article 11, and associated Annex 1 to the Directive.

• assess regularly actual usage of airspace and review national procedures and performance of FUA operations at the three ASM Levels.

TACDEN considers this only relevant if the review is based on the same structure pan-European. If not, the reviews from different states will not be fully comparative and therefore have diminished value in the search for European improvement on FUA performance.


26/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Proposal: Insert the word “at least” before ‘annually’ in bullet points 2 and 3 and make a new bullet point starting with :

• validate those activities which require airspace reservation or segregation …



Comments from:




FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The review process should refer to permanent action rather than to annual procedures. “…“assess annually” and “review annually” and “assess regularly” should be amended.Proposal: … The National Airspace Policy Body shall in particular, permanently: …“ and then delete “annually and regularly” in the bullets.

SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies“National Airspace Policy Body” in this article has only a “civil” sense. For the first time in the text, the words “National Airspace Policy Body” are used; there should be a reference to the military side of it.Proposal: “Member States shall establish a joint civil-military “National Airspace Policy Body” responsible …..”



Comments from:




SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 R NONE: The European Commission cannot regulate military aviation.It is a State decision to determine who participates in the safety assessment activities and to involve military personnel.

The military personnel must be properly involved in the safety assessment (see statement on military issues by member states)Proposal: Add a new bullet point: “Participate in the safety assessment described in art.6.”

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: replace the word “segregation” by “restriction”.In art. 8.1 there is a mention of “segregation” term that is not defined in art. 2. Proposal: There must be coherence between both Airspace Design and FUA implementing rules.


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: These bullets establish a minimum number of required functions to be carried out.Statements in Art. 11 and 14 are in consistency with these required functions

All bullets should be deleted. These link directly to Arts 11 & 14 creating repetition. Would suggest removal from Art 8.



Comments from:





26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.• 2nd Bullet: As understood from the proposed text the review of airspace users’ requirements could be only once per year, but there should be the opportunity for more reviews e.g. for summer or winter season or even more depending on requirements.

• 3rd bullet: Make new bullet starting with’’ Validate’’• 4th bullet: As understood from the proposed text the

assessment of national airspace structure and ATS route network could be only once per year, but there should be the opportunity for more assessments e.g. for summer or winter season or even more depending on requirements.



Comments from:




IrelandIAA

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partiallyThe way of Member States would establish such authority and how far the military would be involved in it, is a State decision.

As currently drafted the creation of a “National Airspace Policy Body” would be a mandatory requirement. It is not clear where this body would “fit” in relation either to Ministers/National Departments of State or other national supervisory bodies such as NSAs or other regulatory authorities. Inclusion of the term “Policy” in the title adds to confusion. Also there appears to be a similar provision for a further body proposed in the draft implementing rule for Airspace Design. The establishment of a “National Airspace Policy Body” should be mandatory only where there is requirement for a significant sharing of the airspace between civil and military users. Proposal: Redraft as follows: “Member States shall establish a “National Airspace Allocation Policy Body”(or other alternative and appropriate organisational arrangements where military airspace use and requirements do not significantly impact on civil requirements except in cases of emergency) responsible for the definition of the national ASM arrangements policy in …..”



Comments from:




IrelandDGCA

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partiallyThe way of Member States would establish such authority and how far the military would be involved in it, is a State decision.

Article 8 envisages the establishment in each Member State of a “National Airspace Policy Body”. While the need for such a body is accepted Ireland sees its role as regulatory rather than policy forming (which should remain the responsibility of the Minister/ Government Department of the Member State). It is envisaged that this body would form part of the National Supervisory Authority in Ireland. Proposal: Deletion of “Policy” may resolve the difficulty.



Comments from:





31/08/2004 R NONE: Updated text satisfies partiallyThe organisational arrangements to establish a join civil-military authority and how far the military would be involved in it, is a State decision.

As currently drafted the creation of a “National Airspace Policy Body” would be a mandatory requirement. It is not clear where this body would “fit” in relation either to Ministers/National Departments of State or other national supervisory bodies such as NSAs or other regulatory authorities. Inclusion of the term “Policy” in the title adds to confusion. Also there appears to be a similar provision for a further body proposed in the draft implementing rule for Airspace Design. The establishment of a “National Airspace Policy Body” should be mandatory only where there is requirement for a significant sharing of the airspace between civil and military users. Proposal: Redraft as follows: “Member States shall establish a “National Airspace Allocation Policy Body”(or other alternative and appropriate organisational arrangements where military airspace use and requirements do not significantly impact on civil requirements except in cases of emergency) responsible for the definition of the national ASM arrangements policy in …..”



Comments from:




GermanyANS DFS

31/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The temporal conditions (e.g. “annually”) should be deleted and replaced by “periodically”. Proposal: Rephrase Article 8(2) as follows: “…assess periodicallythen national airspace structures and … review periodically the airspace users' requirements… “.

BulgariaATSA

03/09/2004 N NONE: Noted. ’airspace structures’ are defined in Article 2.The detailed elements for flexible ‘airspace structures’ will be defined in the future Community Specifications.

In Article 8.2 for the first time the term ‘flexible airspace structure’ is used.Proposal: In Article 3, the definition for ‘flexible airspace structure’ needs to be added.



Comments from:




EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies with the merging of the formaer Articles 8(1) and 8(2).

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, EC law can not force the member States to establish something which would already exist.

Proposal: Use the wording “joint civil-military authority” instead of “National Airspace Policy body” and to combine the two Articles 8(1) and 8(2) knowing that description of a joint civil and military process will be introduced in a later stage with the development of associated Community Specifications as means of compliance.



Comments from:



2 Member States shall ensure that when promulgating aeronautical information on the detailed description of airspace structures under their responsibility, such information is in conformity with agreements reached within the framework of a co-ordinated and cooperative European-wide ATS route structure.

NetherlandsCombined

05/06/2004 N NONE: It is precisely the purpose of this article to ensure for instance that cross-border areas (CBA's) are published in the same way by States involed.

How applied to CBA’s?


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Is this not already an international requirement? Regardless, elsewhere in this document we note reference to the provision of aeronautical information. If we feel it necessary, is it worth adding a specific article that encapsulates this requirement?

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted. Renumbered.The Commission cannot deal with international obligations of Member States.Proposal: delete "internationally"



Comments from:



3 Member States shall establish mechanisms to archive data on the requests, allocation and actual use of airspace structures for civil or military purposes for further analysis and planning activities.

Security mechanisms shall be put in place to ensure that sensitive information is protected with a restricted access, as required by the information owner.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Flexible airspace structures are established for civil or military purposes (i.e. CDR vs TSA/TRA).

Proposal: …. of airspace structures for civil or and military purposes….

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 R NONE: Article 8(3) refers to the need for Member States to establish mechanisms to archive data for further analysis and review of the procedures and efficiency of FUA operations, as part of ASM Level 1 functions listed in Section 3 of the EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.Whereas, Article 7.2 of the SES Airspace Regulation refers to the requirement for Member States to report annually to the Commission on the application, in the context of the common transport policy, of the concept of the flexible use of airspace. This requirement is addressed under Article 11 (Reporting)

This Article must be in conformity with Article 7.2 of the SES Airspace Regulation that obliges only civil authorities to provide annual reports. Proposal: “Pursuant to Article 7.2 of the [Airspace Regulation], Member States shall establish mechanisms to archive data on the concerning requests, allocation and actual use of airspace structures for civil or military purposes for further analysis and planning activities”.



Comments from:





GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 R NONE: Article 8(3) refers to the need for Member States to establish mechanisms to archive data for further analysis and review of the procedures and efficiency of FUA operations, as part of ASM Level 1 functions listed in Section 3 of the EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.Whereas, Article 7.2 of the SES Airspace Regulation refers to the requirement for Member States to report annually to the Commission on the application, in the context of the common transport policy, of the concept of the flexible use of airspace. This requirement is addressed under Article 11 (Reporting)

Requirements for data collection and analysis as far as the implementation of SES provisions are concerned are already contained in the respective SES regulations. Specific additional requirements for data collection and analysis are considered an unnecessary burden that increases the administrative workload in an unacceptable manner.Proposal: Delete Article 8(3).



Comments from:





GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 R NONE: Proposed text prescribes on purpose archiving of data in generic terms without specifying which data should be archived in a common format for further overall analysis.Means of compliance of Article 8(3) and in particular which data need to be commonly archived will be further developed in form of Community Specifications.

There is no point in prescribing archiving of data to the Member States in generic terms as there is no specification of which data should be archived and what and by whom it is used for. Archiving and analysing data can be a very complex, and as such costly, procedure.Proposal: Rephrase Article 8(3) as follows: “Member States shall establish mechanisms to archive for future analysis of data on ..… “.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 N NOTED: A new Article 12 "Confidentiality" is added to address restricted access to sensitive information with reference to Regulation 1049/2001

The EC Legal Service wishes this article to refer to Regulation 1049/2001 as regard to the sensitive information issue.



Comments from:



3 While recognising that every Member State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, Member States shall cooperate with each other, taking into account national military requirements, in order to develop proposals concerning the arrangements referred to in the “Airspace Design Regulation” for the strategic design of ATS routes and supporting airspace structures at a European level.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedArticle 8(3) should be deleted as it refers to Airspace design rules.Proposal: Delete Article 8(3).

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedCopy of the Framework Regulation statement on sovereignty issue in its article 1(2); no need to repeat it.



Comments from:


Article 9 : The Pre-Tactical ASM Level 2

1 Member States shall establish on a national, bilateral or multilateral basis an airspace management cell (AMC) or a joint civil/military airspace management facility for the day-to-day management of airspace and temporary allocation of flexible airspace structures in accordance with procedures defined by the Strategic ASM Level 1.

CroatiaANS

23/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.In the “Initial Draft”, it was clearly stated that, when flexible airspace structures do not exist, a point of contact for international ASM coordination should be sufficient. This statement is still mentioned in the “Explanatory Material”. It is expensive to build the AMC including proper equipment, staffing and training. If flexible airspace structures do not exist, there is no need to establish an AMC as such.Proposal: Add at the end: “…When flexible airspace structures do not exist, Member States shall establish a point of contact for international day-to-day ASM coordination”.

EstoniaANS

24/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The national military traffic activity in Estonia is very low and there is only in lower airspace. The functions related to AMC could be conducted by contact person. If the current text of the Article will remain, it is desirable to clarify in community specification (means of compliance) that the MS can establish a point of contact for international ASM coordination instead of AMC, if national conditions make it more preferable.Give a more flexibility to MS in FUA implementation according to national circumstances.



Comments from:



1 Member States shall establish on a national, bilateral or multilateral basis an airspace management cell (AMC) or a joint civil/military airspace management facility for the day-to-day management of airspace and temporary allocation of flexible airspace structures in accordance with procedures defined by the Strategic ASM Level 1.

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partiallyMember States shall set up a joint civil/military Airspace Management Cell (AMC) responsible for the day-to-day management of airspace under the responsibility of one or more Member State(s) and temporary allocation of flexible airspace structures in accordance with procedures defined by the Strategic ASM Level 1’.Suggest to substitute ‘temporary’ by ‘time-limited’

SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Too restrictive text.….Airspace Management Cell (AMC) or equal function for…

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Drafting improvement to avoid to have in a same article an obligation (setting up of a facility) and a recommendation (jointly if possible).



Comments from:



2 Member States shall ensure the establishment of co-ordination procedures, dialogue processes and supporting communication means to facilitate decisive, timely and efficient airspace allocation operations.Member States shall ensure the timely communication of the airspace allocation decision(s) to all affected users and ATS providers.

HungaryMoD

26/08/2004 N NONE: NotedAccording to the SES Interoperability Regulation Article 2(3), and its Annex II, Part A, para.4 on Civil-military co-ordination: “The EATMN, its systems and their constituents shall support the progressive implementation of civil/military coordination …., through the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace”.Proposal: Implementing rules for interoperability should specify the requirements concerning procedures and the supporting communication means at ASM Level 2.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Article 9(2) is too general.Proposal: split it into two sub-articles to highlight the mandatory elements.



Comments from:


Article 10 : The Tactical ASM Level 3

1 For those Member States, where a single unified system has been established for the provision of air traffic services to civil and military aircraft, the distinction made in this Directive between civil ATS units and controlling military units is not applicable.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: “….and controlling military units is not applicable”.Proposal: Delete: shall not be is not applicable.

MaltaATS

15/07/2004 N NONE: The Article 10(1) covers only the cases where States have decided to establish a unified system for ATS provisions to both civil and military aircraft.In the case of States like Malta which do not have national military forces, but where foreign military forces operate over the high seas, the provisions of the FUA directive are also applicable.

Does this mean that all the provisions of this directive are only applicable to those States which have a national military air force? If this is so, can you confirm that States like Malta which do not have a national military force are excluded from all the provisions of this directive?Over the high seas a 'controlling military unit' could be any foreign military force operating in any area under OAT rules in 'due regard' mode. Would this mean that this FUA directive should also be applicable to member states where foreign military forces operate over the high seas?



Comments from:



1 For those Member States, where a single unified system has been established for the provision of air traffic services to civil and military aircraft, the distinction made in this Directive between civil ATS units and controlling military units is not applicable.

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated definition of “controlling military unit” in Article 2 satisfies.The purpose of using a generic term like “controlling military unit” is precisely to try to encompass in one wording all cases currently used by Member States for providing services to military.

The concept controlling military unit is too general and includes air defence control.Proposal: In order to avoid confusion, it is proposed to add a new definition of “ATS military unit” and in the text insert always controlling military unit / ATS military unit:• “ATS civil unit” instead of “ATS unit” with same

definition• “ATS military unit” (new): means the various air traffic

control unit, flight information centre or air traffic services reporting office (ICAO) for general air traffic (GAT) and Operating Air Traffic (OAT.)

“controlling military unit”: (change to) “means any established or mobile military unit controlling activities related with Air Defence.

GermanyANS DFS

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The last sentence should be amended to read: “… the distinction made in this Directive between civil ATS units and controlling military units is only applicable when the military units concerned are Aircraft Controlling Units.”



Comments from:



2 Member States shall ensure the establishment of civil/military controller to controller co-ordination procedures between civil and military ATS units supported by communication facilities permitting direct communication and mutual provision of flight data to solve specific traffic situations and/or airspace problems in order to ensure the safe and expeditious conduct of civil and military flights operating within their area of common interest.

4 Member States shall ensure the establishment of civil/military co-ordination procedures supported by communication facilities between appropriate civil ATS units and controlling military units permitting mutual provision of airspace data within their areas of responsibility to allow the real-time activation, deactivation or reallocation of the airspace allocated at the Pre-tactical ASM Level 2.

SwitzerlandSAF

17/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies with the split into two sub-articles 10(2) and 10(4).

The text is quite complicated with long sentences and difficult to read.Proposal: It should be rewritten to avoid misunderstandings.



Comments from:






MOD

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. New text satisfies partially.Safety and efficiency are the justifications for these data to be exchanged between civil ATS Units. Same objectives are totally valid for a safe and efficient exchange of same flight data between civil to military Units in making Flexible Use of Airspace of a real value for the efficiency of the overall ATM Network in Europe.Cost being an important element, adequate balance between cost of implementation and obtained efficiency should be considered

By insisting on direct communications and common data exchange facilities, we feel that we are being too prescriptive in the manner in which coordination is affected. There are many examples of safe and effective coordination procedures that do not necessarily require controllers to have such comprehensive access to each other’s information. Furthermore, the implementation of such infrastructure may be extremely costly and, it is our belief, that the benefits of developing such facilities need to be balanced against the costs. It is important to ensure that any proposed change is subject to a Cost Benefit Analysis.Proposal: “Member States shall define civil/military co-ordination procedures, supported where necessary by appropriate communications facilities, to permit the safe and expeditious conduct of civil and military flights and to resolve specific airspace problems and/or individual traffic situations”.



Comments from:





HungaryMoD

26/08/2004 N NONE: NotedAccording to the SES Interoperability Regulation Article 2(3), and its Annex II, Part A, para.4 on Civil-military co-ordination: “The EATMN, its systems and their constituents shall support the progressive implementation of civil/military coordination …., through the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace”.Proposal: Implementing rules for interoperability should specify the requirements concerning procedures and the supporting communication facilities, flight and data provisions, notifications on airspace status, etc… at tactical ASM Level 3 real-time civil/military coordination.

SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. New definition of “controlling military unit” in Article 2 provides the possibility to each State to specify, in detail the exact title of those involved in the co-ordination procedure.

Too restrictive. Co-ordination between fighter controller and controller is also important to get real time flexibility.Proposed text: ….shall establish civil/military controller to military unit controller co-ordination…



Comments from:





DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 R NONE: Reference is made to co-ordination procedures to be established between controllers (civil/military) as a general term to identify the functions that are to be addressed.

The term “military controller” could mean “military ATC controller” as well as “military ACU controller” and could give rise to confusion. The exact meaning in this context should be specified.



Comments from:



3 Member States shall ensure that arrangements are made between appropriate civil ATS units and controlling military units to permit positive identification by the controllers of all civil and military flights involved in the coordination process and, whenever necessary, the display of the relevant traffic situation through the prompt exchange of flight data, including the position and flight intention.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: Updated text partially satisfies.Proposal: “Arrangements shall be made between appropriate civil ATS units and controlling military units to permit positive identification by the two controllers of all civil and military flights involved in the coordination process through the prompt exchange of relevant flight data.”

SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partially. The text has been revised, but not moved.

Proposal: What is stated in art. 10.3 must be transferred to art.4 as a new principle with the following text:“Member states shall ensure that adequate arrangements shall be made between appropriate civil ATS units and controlling military units/ATS military units to permit positive identification by the two controllers of all civil and military flights involved in the coordination process and, whenever necessary, the display of the relevant traffic situation through the prompt exchange of flight data, including the position and flight intention”.

BelgiumCAA

25/08/2004 R NONE: In Article 10.3, “whenever necessary” refers to the case where it is necessary to have the display of the relevant traffic situation in both the civil and military units to permit the co-ordination process.

The meaning and purpose of “whenever necessary” is unclear, as it takes the meaning out of the article and even contradicts Art 10.2.Proposal: Supplementary explanation is necessary or drop “whenever necessary”.



Comments from:



3 Member States shall ensure that arrangements are made between appropriate civil ATS units and controlling military units to permit positive identification by the controllers of all civil and military flights involved in the coordination process and, whenever necessary, the display of the relevant traffic situation through the prompt exchange of flight data, including the position and flight intention.

InternationalNATO

25/08/2004 R NONE: The objective is expected to be ensured through the relationship between the national Military Unit and NATO, hence exempting NATO from the obligation of providing data to the civil ATS Unit.

Add”… controlling military units, together with the NATO integrated Air Defence system, to permit…”

BelgiumMOD

25/08/2004 R NONE: In Article 10.3, “whenever necessary” refers to the case where it is necessary to have the display of the relevant traffic situation in both the civil and military units to permit the co-ordination process.

“whenever necessary” takes the meaning out of the article and even contradicts Art 10.2Supplementary explanation is necessary or drop “whenever necessary”


MOD

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. See above actions taken for Article 10(2).

Same comments as for Article 10(2)Proposal: “Member States shall define civil/military co-ordination procedures, supported where necessary by appropriate communications facilities, to permit the safe and expeditious conduct of civil and military flights and to resolve specific airspace problems and/or individual traffic situations”.

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 R NONE: Reference is made to co-ordination procedures to be established between controllers (civil/military) as a general term to identify the functions that are to be addressed.

The term “military controller” could mean “military ATC controller” as well as “military ACU controller” and could give rise to confusion. The exact meaning in this context should be specified.



Comments from:



5 Member States shall ensure that notification of actual airspace status and any modification thereto, in particular those relating to the opening and closure of temporary airspace structures located within their area of responsibility, are exchanged in a safe, timely and effective manner between concerned controlling military units and civil ATS units.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: By , actual date cannot be sent in advance.Proposal: …. shall be exchanged in advance and without delay between civil ATS units and controlling military units concerned ..

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partially.Notification of actual airspace status and any modification there to, in particular opening and closure of managed airspace structures located within their area of responsibility and common interest shall be exchanged without delay between civil ATS and controlling military units concerned.


MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Proposal adopted.The phrase “without delay” would be difficult to define. Furthermore, there may be situations where a short delay would be entirely acceptable. Proposal: “…shall be exchanged in a safe, timely and effective manner between participating ATS units ..…

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies partially.The term “managed airspace structures” is confusing.We believe that all airspace is managed in accordance with ICAO Annex 11.



Comments from:



5 Member States shall ensure that notification of actual airspace status and any modification thereto, in particular those relating to the opening and closure of temporary airspace structures located within their area of responsibility, are exchanged in a safe, timely and effective manner between concerned controlling military units and civil ATS units.

SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. New definition of “controlling military unit” in Article 2 provides the possibility to each State to specify, in detail the exact title of those involved in the co-ordination procedure.

Too restrictive. Co-ordination between fighter controller and controller is also important to get real time flexibility.



Comments from:



6 Member States shall ensure that aeronautical information on actual airspace status and any modification thereto, is provided with a timely update of information readily accessible by all parties involved in air traffic management (ATM).

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 A REVISION: “..on actual airspace status and any modification there to..”

Proposal: …. on actual airspace size and status shall ….How applied to CBA’s? Development of graphical NOTAM?


MOD

26/08/2004 R NONE: This exchange of actual (not planned) data between the involved Level 3 units is essential for a safe as well as efficient operation.

Is this not already an international requirement? Regardless, elsewhere in this document we note reference to the provision of aeronautical information. If we feel it necessary, is it worth adding a specific article that encapsulates this requirement?

SwedenCAA

27/08/2004 R NONE: This exchange of actual (not planned) data between the involved Level 3 units is essential for a safe as well as efficient operation.Cost being an important element, adequate balance between cost of implementation and obtained efficiency should be considered

Art.10.6 is not mature enough yet. Further studies are needed concerning costs, safety etc.Proposal: delete



Comments from:


Article 11 : Reporting

In reporting annually on the application of the flexible use of airspace referred to in Article 7(2) of the airspace Regulation, Member States shall report on the elements detailed in Annex 1 to this Directive.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Annex 1 has been populated.

In Article 11, the text should be amended to indicate more specifically the content of the annual report published by member States. More over, the framework of transport policy can justify some limits to the information in this report.Proposal: “Member States shall annually publish a report on the operational application of this Directive, in the context of the common transport policy ….

FranceDIRCAM

07/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Annex 1 has been populated.

The content of this Article is not compliant with Article 7.2 of the SES Airspace Regulation. There is no information on the data to be transmitted to the Commission.Consequently, a definitive position from French Defence authorities cannot be given at this stage on the document before reception of the content of Annex 1 for comments.

SpainAENA

13/08/2004 N REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Annex 1 has been populated.

Article 11 establishes that the annual report to be submitted by Member States “shall contain the elements required for compliance monitoring listed at Annex 2”.This Annex 1 is not included in the documentation of this proposal.

EstoniaANS

24/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon.Annex 1 has been populated.

Article 11 has reference to Annex 1. If Annex 1 is still not developed, it could be noted in the Draft Directive to remain consistent.



Comments from:




SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon.Annex 1 has been populated.Consistency between the two proposed IR on Airspace Design and FUA has been addressed

The last phrase indicating the format of these annual reports can be established here or as a Mean of Compliance. Annex 1 is not included.Proposal: There must be coherence with art. 13 of the Airspace Design implementing Rule.

GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 R REVISION: Article 11 addresses more than the submission of annual reports requested in the Art. 12 of the Framework Regulation sub. 2 and in particular the monitoring of the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace in general. Annex 1 has been populated.

Requirements for data collection and analysis as far as the implementation of SES provisions are concerned are already contained in the respective SES regulations. Specific additional requirements for data collection and analysis are considered an unnecessary burden that increases the administrative workload in an unacceptable manner.Proposal: Delete Article 11.



Comments from:




GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies. Annex 1 has been populated.The purpose of proposed Article 11 is to address both the submission of annual reports requested in the Art. 12 of the SES Framework Regulation sub. 2 and the annual report on the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace in the context of the common transport policy as requested in the SES Airspace Regulation, Article 7.2, as well as the EUROCONTROL monitoring of the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace in general

According to EC Regulation 551/2004, Article 7.2 Member States shall report annually to the Commission on the application of FUA. This does not mean that reports have to be published. It shall be up to the Commission to decide how the reports are treated (either published or whatever). The referenced Annex 1 is missing.Proposal: Use the wording of EC Regulation 551/2004, Article 7, para 2



Comments from:





MOD

26/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.This implies that States should make an report in addition to the one detailed at Art 12 of the Framework Regulation. What is Annex 1?As FUA is a major part of the SES concept, surely it would be more advantageous to include an FUA element within the annual State report required at Art 12 of the Framework Regulation.It is wholly inappropriate to produce draft legislation without defining the scope of that legislation. Without visibility of Annex 1, how can Member States indicate whether they are content with the draft IRs? We would wish to know what we would be reporting on.Proposal: “A report on the application of this Directive and, more generally, on the application of the concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace shall be included in the annual state report detailed in Article 12 of the Framework Regulation”.


LVNL

26/08/2004 R REVISION: Article 11 addresses more than the submission of annual reports requested in the Art. 12 of the Framework Regulation sub. 2 and in particular the monitoring of the application of the concept of the flexible use of airspace in general. Annex 1 has been populated.

Art. 11 is not necessary, with regard to Art. 12 of the Framework Regulation sub 2. There is no Annex 1!Proposal: To be deleted



Comments from:




HungaryMoD

26/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Annex 1 has been populated.There was no Annex 1 enclosed to the document.

DenmarkJoint CAA,

NAVAIR & TAC

27/08/2004 N REVISION: Noted – Acted upon. Annex 1 has been populated.The list of elements required for compliance monitoring should be subject to the ENPRM procedure as well as the rest of the Draft Directive, if it will part of Eurocontrol’s final report to the Commission.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Annex 1 populated.

Article 11 needs to be redrafted with reference to Article 7(2) of the airspace Regulation relating to FUA instead of Article 12 of the Framework Regulation and introducing an Annex1 detailing elements to be reported annually.



Comments from:


Former Article 11 : (Compliance) DELETED

Means of compliance in support of the application of this Directive shall be developed in application of Article 4 of the interoperability Regulation. They shall be derived from relevant flexible use of airspace reference material.

NetherlandsCombined

05/07/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedProposal: …. on-going flexible use of airspace reference/guidance material …

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedIn Article 11, the text does not indicate who should develop specifications and the way they would be adopted.Proposal: Specifications shall be developed by EUROCONTROL in cooperation with the Member States ….

EstoniaANS

24/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedArticle 11 is not clear, the compliance with Directive is requirement for FUA application by MS or it is requirement for Eurocontrol (or States themselves) to prepare means of compliance during one year after Directive adoption. Proposal: If Article 11 enforce requirement for FUA application by MS, then the Article text could be modified as follows: “Application of Directive shall be according to specifications which shall be developed as means of compliance within a period of one year after its adoption…”



Comments from:




SpainDGCA

25/08/2004 N NONE: Initial proposal deletedIn the airspace design implementing rule, these means of compliance are referred as Community Specifications, and there is no period of adoption. It is not clear how are they going to be approved (Community Level?). (see the Interoperability Regulation art. 4).Proposal: There must be coherence with art. 12 of the Airspace Design implementing Rule.

BelgiumMOD

25/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedSystems may not be able to comply or can not be upgraded in one year. Parliamentary procedures tend to last longer than one year.Defence budgets are fixed one year before and may not allow for the extra investment required.

BelgiumCAA

25/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedTechnical reasons, legal terms, financial constraints can all make it impossible to comply within one year.Systems may not be able to comply or can not be upgraded in one year. Parliamentary procedures tend to last longer than one year.



Comments from:




GermanyANS DFS

26/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedIn regard to “… reference material, referred to in Annex 1”, it has to be stipulated how the reference material is changed/developed further. This might be an agreed EUROCONTROL process which involves all Member States.

GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedThe adoption of this draft proposal into EU law is going to create legally binding requirements, which have to be transposed into national law by Member States. It is not acceptable that specifications and means of compliance are developed without conducting an appropriate consultation process and without consent by the Member States.Proposal: Amend Article 11 as follows to include the necessity for coordination with Member States: “….They shall be derived from existing and on-going flexible use of airspace reference material agreed to by the Member States as well as based on best practice and the experience with the application of flexible use of airspace by the Member States, referred to in Annex 1”.


31/08/2004 R NONE: Initial proposal deletedIn the first sentence, it is not stated which body/organisation should develop the Specifications as means of compliance. Please clarify.



Comments from:




EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A DELETION: Initial proposal deletedThere is no need to introduce in a particular article further activities related to the development of Cummunity Specifications.Proposal: Delete Article 11



Comments from:


Article 12 : Confidentiality

1 Member States shall, in accordance with their national legislation, take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate confidentiality of the information received by them. They shall use this information solely for the purpose of this Directive.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A INSERTION: of a new article addressing confidentiality issues.There is a need to introduce a new article to address the required confidentiality at Member States’ and at European Commission’s levels. In doing so, please refer to the (EC) Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to Commission documents.



Comments from:


Article 12 : Confidentiality

2 The principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to Commission’s documents are defined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A INSERTION: of a new article addressing confidentiality issues.There is a need to introduce a new article to address the required confidentiality at Member States’ and at European Commission’s levels. In doing so, please refer to the (EC) Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to Commission documents.



Comments from:


Article 13 : Supervision and Monitoring

Member States shall ensure that periodic inspections, surveys and safety audits are conducted to verify compliance with the requirements of this Directive.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Member States are responsible for organising the supervision of the application. The proposed text could create difficulties to military authorities. More over, it looks absurd, even shocking, to specify thus that State authorities, here NSAs, as a general behaviour, do work in a partial and not transparent manner.Proposal: Delete “…. in an impartial and transparent manner “.

BelgiumCAA

25/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.This item is important, but NSA will have a lot of new tasks to set up, to implement or to improve ( SES regulations, including ESARRs). To start new surveys task, immediately and without formalised procedure will be contra productive. NSAs need a fair transition time to organise their surveillance work. Moreover, the NSA survey is the 2° step, coming after the start of the work of the collaborative process of FUA. A efficient and well adapted transition period to establish national implementation procedure is a key factor toward the success of the SES!Proposal: Art 13 will entry into force 18 months after the publication of this directive.



Comments from:




GermanyMoT

26/08/2004 R NONE: See remarks above to maintain Article 11.Requirements for data collection and analysis as far as the implementation of SES provisions are concerned are already contained in the respective SES regulations. Specific additional requirements for data collection and analysis are considered an unnecessary burden that increases the administrative workload in an unacceptable manner.Proposal: Amend Article 13 as follows: “.… To that end, inspections and surveys shall be organised to verify compliance with the requirements of this Directive and provide the Member State with the information necessary to draw up the annual reports mentioned in Article 12”.


27/08/2004 N NONE: Noted. Quality Assurance Regime may be not appropriate for monitoring compliance of regulatory measures.

“Inspections” as a primary compliance tool are not consistent with practices elsewhere in aviation and industry in general. They are now largely superseded by a Quality Assurance regime. Proposal: “…To that end, quality assurance systems, supplemented by inspections and surveys shall…..”


31/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.In addition to the safety assessment of article 6 (after a change to the ATM system), the NSA should ensure the safety management during day to day operation.Proposal: Second paragraph should read : "To that end, periodic inspections, safety audits and surveys shall be organised…".



Comments from:




EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Delete reference to NSA, not yet in existence.



Comments from:


Article 14 : Review

In the context of the examination and evaluation of air navigation performance and of the periodical review referred to respectively in Article 11 and Article 12(2) of the framework Regulation, an overall periodic review of flexible use of airspace application shall be conducted in order to ensure the most effective use and evolution of the flexible use of airspace concept.The Commission shall endeavour to seek EUROCONTROL's expertise in this regard.

FranceDGAC/DNA

06/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.The text should indicate the responsible organisation for the overall periodic review. An overall periodic review cannot be conducted by individual Member States but by Eurocontrol – as it encompasses both civil and military expertise - in cooperation with the Member Sates and the air navigation service providers.Proposal: Add a sentence: “….This overall periodic review shall be conducted by EUROCONTROL together with Member States and make use of available reports and reviews issued by States and air navigation service providers. The results of such reviews are sent to the Commission and the concerned States authorities“.

NorwayAVINOR & CAA

20/08/2004 A REVISION: Updated text satisfies.Define responsibility for initiating this review.Proposal: When the text proposes an annual review, a body responsible for initiating this review should be stated in this Article.


LVNL

26/08/2004 R NONE: Article 14 addresses more than the periodical review requested in the Art. 12 of the Framework Regulation sub. 2 and in particular an overall periodic review of FUA application. The additional text indicates how the review process will be conducted.

Art. 14 is not necessary, with regard to Art. 12 of the Framework Regulation.Proposal: To be deleted



Comments from:


Article 14 : Review

In the context of the examination and evaluation of air navigation performance and of the periodical review referred to respectively in Article 11 and Article 12(2) of the framework Regulation, an overall periodic review of flexible use of airspace application shall be conducted in order to ensure the most effective use and evolution of the flexible use of airspace concept.The Commission shall endeavour to seek EUROCONTROL's expertise in this regard.


27/08/2004 N NONE: Noted. Involvement of the Performance Review Commission will be addressed in associated Means of Compliance

This activity should be co-ordinated and reported by the Performance Review Commission as part of their annual report.

EuropeanCommission

22/10/2004 A REVISION: Drafting improvement.The Commission cannot put obligations on third part, in casu EUROCONTROL.Proposal: to be redrafted



Comments from:


Article 15 : Transposition

1 Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by […day/month/year…] at the latest.

When Member States adopt those provisions; they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

BelgiumCAA

25/08/2004 N NONE: NotedThe process of transposition of a directive is an administrative plus a legislative process that take quite a long time.Proposal: A delay of 24 months is asked

MaastrichtUAC

25/08/2004 R NONE: Usual article at the end of Community directive.Difficult construction of sentence: does ‘they’ refer to Member States or to provisions?



Comments from:


Article 15 : Transposition

2 Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national legislation which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.


00:00:00



Comments from:


Article 16 : Entry into force

1 This Directive shall enter into force on […]


00:00:00



Comments from:


Article 16 : Entry into force

2 This Directive is addressed to the Member States.


00:00:00


list of summarised comments received on … rules on flexible use of airspace final report -...

Documents