nefab project initiative 1 ats routes and sectorisation · the airspace should be considered as one...

NEFAB FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 02 Initiative 01.doc

of 70

NEFAB Project

Initiative 1

ATS Routes and Sectorisation



of 70

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 4

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE.................................................................. 6

3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE ........................................... 9

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STATE .................................................... 12

4.1 ATS Routes 12

4.2 Sectorisation 13

4.3 Airspace Classification 14

4.4 Flexible Use of Airspace 15

4.5 En-route Airspace 16

4.6 Improvement Areas 17

5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 19

5.1 Introduction 19

5.2 FRAN – Free Route Airspace Norway Initiative 19

5.3 Night Time Free Route Initiative Finland 19

5.4 Southern Norway Airspace Project (SNAP) 19

5.5 ASP 2012 Project Finland 19

5.6 European Improvement Initiatives 20

5.7 EUROCONTROL RNDSG Process 20

5.8 ICAO RDGE Process 20

6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT........................................................................ 21

6.1 Improving the Current Situation 21

6.2 2015 Vision – Main Elements 22

6.3 2020 Minimum Scenario – Main Elements 23

6.4 2020 Performance Scenario – Main Elements 23

6.5 ATS Route Network Improvements 24

Note: This table shows the potential combined savings in NEFAB and DK/SE FAB resulting from the developed ATS-route proposals (see appendix 2) 26

6.6 Route/Network Structure 26

6.7 ATC Sectorisation 29



of 70

6.8 Airspace Classification – 2015 and 2020 38

6.9 Military Areas/FUA Structures 39

6.10 NEFAB interface airspace development 2015 – 2020 43

6.11 Pre-requisites and Dependencies 44

6.12 NEFAB Airspace Design Activities in 2009 and 2010 44

7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS .................................................... 46

7.1 Introduction 46

7.2 SAAM Modelling 46

8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION............................ 50

8.1 ATS Routes 50

8.2 Free Route Airspace 50

8.3 Sectorisation 51

8.4 Airspace Classification 51

8.5 FUA Structures 51

8.6 Implementation Costs for 2015 Vision and 2020 Scenarios 52

9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION OF THE FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT .............................................................................................................. 56

9.1 ATS Route Improvement Implementation 56

9.2 Free Route Airspace Implementation 57

9.3 Airspace Classification Harmonisation for the Year 2015 58

9.4 Airspace Classification Harmonization for the Year 2020 59

9.5 FUA Structure Design for the Year 2015 59

9.6 FUA Structure Design for the Year 2020 59

10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS .......................................................................... 62

10.1 Introduction 62

10.2 2015 Scenario Implementation Risks 63

10.3 2020 Performance Scenario Implementation Risks 66

11. SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS ................................................................... 70



of 70

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The airspace should be considered as one continuum with seamless transitions. The Airspace design shall be based on operational requirements, without the constraints of national borders, in order to increase ATM performance and deliver substantial benefits.

The 2015 scenario is a step towards a performance driven airspace scenario where the network functionality will be enhanced through increased cross-border functionality, whilst providing the states with different tools to ensure national requirements (e.g. military and sovereignty issues) with regard to airspace design and application.

In 2015 ATS routes will be optimised in the NEFAB area to offer more routing options for the airspace users. However, there will also be a Free Route Airspace (FRA) implemented in sections of NEFAB FIRs, where this is deemed feasible within the timeframe, operationally and technically. In the used Airspace design principles main traffic flows are given priority over minor flows and efficient connectivity is assured between the ATS Routes and terminal routes. Route continuity and connectivity will also be assured in NEFAB, and at the interfaces of neighbouring FABs and third states. Airspace Design, Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM) and Airspace Management (ASM) will be closely linked.

In 2015 ATC sectors will be adapted to support the optimised ATS-Route network/traffic flows as well as Free Route network unconstrained by national borders and/or FIR/UIR-boundaries. As a design principle cross-border sectorisation, instead of delegation of ATS, is established. A number of sectorisation improvement areas have been defined. These areas are airspace blocks, which can be allocated to existing sectors in NEFAB or in neighbouring FABs. The allocation options should be subject to a detailed study in order to find the best allocation solutions.

A common application and access rules of class C airspace above FL95 in continental en-route airspace is envisaged in the 2015 vision. Harmonisation of airspace classification will facilitate cross-border sectorisation, and thereby avoid complexities involved with applying different rules and procedures. A removal of the division level between upper and lower airspace by 2015 is also envisaged, pending regulatory requirements.

In 2015 military training areas will be realigned, where feasible, to allow increased flexibility in their pre-tactical and tactical use. Increased modularity in area design allows the airspace users and Airspace Management Cells to use Airspace Management-scenarios that have a reduced network effect. Cross-border areas can be designed and implemented as required in geographical areas suitable for multi-national training according to common best practices.

Benefits related to improved flight efficiency (reduced route extensions, mission effectiveness), which result in reduced fuel burn and emissions, have been identified and are deemed achievable by 2015.

The 2020 scenarios build on the principles used for 2015 but the longer lead-time available for implementation and the expected system capabilities will make it possible to introduce more comprehensive improvements to the airspace design. Core elements of the 2020 scenarios are extensions of the Free Route Airspace: a



of 70

sector design, which supports the changes in the traffic flows and copes with the forecasted traffic growth, a Dynamic Sector Configuration Management, which also allows for allocation of sectors between centres (where supported by the ATM-systems) for an optimal balancing of capacity to demand, and increasingly flexible/modular military training areas based on the Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace concept of operations and SESAR A-FUA principles. Harmonisation of airspace classification in 2020 will be continued according to the European regulations.

The development of the NEFAB Airspace design scenarios – in coordination with EUROCONTROL – has taken into consideration the Pan-European ATS route network, developments in other FABs and the ICAO requirements.

Developing major airspace changes is a complex and time consuming process, designed to allow systems, processes and procedures to be sufficiently tested and validated prior to introduction, so as to ensure that the overall level of safety is maintained or enhanced. A step-by-step implementation of new concepts is a likely way forward to create quick-wins and make the changes manageable.



of 70

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE

This initiative describes the airspace design activities envisaged and required to achieve the NEFAB performance requirements for the 2015 vision and 2020 scenarios.

The following areas for improvement are encompassed by the Airspace Design initiative:

• Route Structures; both the fixed ATS route network and the Free Route concept

• Sectorisation; design principles and cross-border functionality

• Airspace classification; harmonization, access rules and vertical delineation

• Flexible Use of Airspace; FUA structure design principles and network integration

The Airspace Design vision for 2015 describes an operational environment, which merges national airspace improvement initiatives into a common regional network improvement plan and incorporates into that plan new initiatives in a coordinated and planned manner. The identified 2015 improvement areas focus on the continental part of the en-route airspace, including interfaces with terminal areas and oceanic airspace.

There should be a continuous focus on the improvement of the ATS-route network as this will provide quick-wins and should be regarded as an evolutionary step towards the implementation of the Free Route Airspace (FRA). If further detailed studies and development plans indicate that the Free Route Airspace scenarios cannot be implemented as described in some areas of NEFAB as early as 2015, implementation of an improved ATS-Route network, unconstrained by national borders and FIR-boundaries, will still provide benefits at the 2015 milestone.

The 2020 minimum scenario is based on similar principles as the 2020 Performance scenario, but the Free Route Airspace extension and the sectorisation proposals are less ambitious and should be easier to implement, while still providing substantial benefits in comparison to the current environment. The application and management of the airspace structures stemming from the Airspace Design 2015 and 2020 scenarios are further elaborated within the ATS and ASM/ATFCM initiatives.

The key aspect of the 2020 Performance scenario is that it represents major changes to the airspace design and requires extensive developments and changes from current ATM systems and concepts. The potential benefits are expected to be higher than in the 2020 minimum scenario, but the realisation of these is subject to higher risks, both in implementation timelines and costs. Several prerequisites have to be in place in order to implement the scenario.

A common Transition Altitude in the NEFAB area has not been addressed in the context of the Feasibility Study as it has no direct effect on the developed scenarios as such, nor on the Cost Benefit Analysis. This harmonisation issue is expected to be handled on a European-wide basis.



of 70

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) has the potential of improving flight efficiency and capacity in Terminal airspace as well as in en-route airspace through efficiently spaced routes and airspace reservation areas. During the feasibility phase, the airspace design initiative does not consider procedure design and other development initiatives fully contained within the airspace of TMAs and CTRs, only the interface between the en-route airspace and terminal airspace. However, the sectorisation and structures related to major NEFAB TMAs are taken into account, to ensure network functionality at the interfaces. Future navigation performance requirements in NEFAB have not been dealt with in detail in the airspace design scenarios.

The described scenarios are developed from an operational point of view. They constitute different degrees of evolvement from the current environment and thereby constitute different degrees of potential benefits, challenges and risks.

The Airspace design initiative’s relevance to the requirements of article 9a of the Service Provision Regulation:

1. Be supported by a safety case;

The implementation of airspace design scenarios will be supported by a safety case.

2. Enable optimal use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows;

The optimised ATS Route Network, including implementation of Free Route Airspace in NEFAB together with realignments of military training areas and supporting ATC-sectors will provide for reductions in additional route lengths and more optimal trajectories. The increased network functionality will provide for a balanced airspace usage with more flexibility in Airspace Management, ensuring military mission effectiveness.

3. Ensure consistency with the European route network established in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No. 551/2004;

The NEFAB entry/exit points for the proposed ATS-routes and Free Route airspace are connected to the existing ATS-Route network in neighbouring FABs and third countries. Further airspace scenario development will be done in accordance with the airspace development in neighbouring FABs or third states to ensure network continuity. This development takes into consideration the development of the overall European ATS-Route network through coordination with EUROCONTROL/ICAO. Airspace improvements envisaged for the NEFAB area will not place any requirements for airspace changes in third states.

4. Be justified by their overall added value, including optimal use of technical and human resources, on the basis of cost-benefit analyses;

The optimised ATS-route network, including Free Route Airspace traffic flows with supporting ATC-sectors are designed without the constraint of National borders and FIR-boundaries within the FAB. This provides for a Sector Configuration Management enabling a more optimal balancing of capacity to demand and the efficient utilization of human resources.



of 70

5. Ensure a smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic service units;

The alignment of sectors according to the ATS Route Network, traffic flows and conflict areas will reduce the complexity in the coordination between ATS units. Handover procedures are established to decrease the controller workload and increase sector capacity. These enhancements will result in seamless operational environment for the airspace users and service providers.

6. Ensure compatibility between the different airspace configurations, optimising inter alia the current Flight Information Regions;

Connectivity between the TMAs and the en-route airspace is ensured in the optimised ATS route network/Free Route Airspace. Transitioning from a fixed ATS route network to a Free Route network and vice versa is not expected to increase airspace complexity and controller/pilot workload to a level that would reduce capacity or have a negative impact on safety. The realigned sectors support the traffic flows and priority is given to major flows in the airspace design. Common application of airspace classification will be implemented in NEFAB.

7. Comply with conditions stemming from regional agreements concluded within the ICAO;

The airspace design scenarios developed within this initiative are in accordance with the ICAO EUR/NAT regional agreements.

8. Respect regional agreements in existence on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, in particular those involving European third countries;

Regional agreements involving third countries are respected as airspace changes introduced in the NEFAB area will not place any requirements for change to third states. The development of the NEFAB Airspace design scenarios has taken into consideration overall European ATS route network development in coordination with EUROCONTROL /ICAO.

9. Facilitate consistency with Community-wide performance targets

The NEFAB Airspace design will contribute to achieving the targets in all performance areas: safety, capacity, flight efficiency, environmental impact and mission effectiveness.

The initiative and the described scenarios are ambitious but are expected to provide substantial benefits and will provide a valuable contribution to the overall European network performance.



of 70

3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE

From the definition of a FAB, it is apparent that implementation of FABs will need to fulfil three overriding attributes, which are central to FABs:

1. Design on the basis of operational requirements,

2. More integrated management of the airspace, and

3. Delineations free from the constraints of national borders.

The airspace design shall, with reference to the appropriate requirements of EC Regulation 1070/550 ensure:

• The optimal use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows;

• Consistency with the European route network established in accordance with Article 6 of the airspace Regulation

• A fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic services units;

• Compatibility between the different airspace configurations, optimising, inter alia, the current flight information regions.

The purpose of the initiative is to design and organise the NEFAB route network (consisting of both the fixed ATS route network and the Free Route Airspace) and supporting ATC sectors in the en-route airspace and the interface to terminal areas, in such a way that maximum capacity and efficiency of the Air Traffic Management network within the NEFAB airspace is achieved. It is expected that by doing so the ATM related safety levels shall be maintained or enhanced.

The airspace should be considered to be one continuum with seamless transitions between airspace structures and/or ATS units. The route structure/traffic flows should be optimised to cater for user-preferred trajectories taking into account military requirements. Sectors should be designed to enable more optimum sector configuration management and thereby an efficient use of human resources. Airspace design is an enabler for ATS related improvements regarding functionality at the interfaces of the ATS units as well as within the ATS units.

Today ATS route design is somewhat constrained by, and sectorisation is largely based on national borders and/or FIR boundaries. Limited cross-border functionality is available through the use of ATS delegation in specified areas but as these procedures need to be based on state level agreements, any changes to the agreed procedures are time consuming and require high level coordination.

It is realised by all key actors that there is room for improvements and benefits related to flight/mission efficiency (reduced route extensions, improved mission effectiveness through better access to airspace, Continuous Descent Approaches/Continuous Climb Departures), resulting in reduced fuel burn and emissions. Improving cross-border functionality will give the opportunity to design the



of 70

sectors to support the optimised ATS Route Network and the traffic flows in Free Route Airspace. This is envisaged to reduce the complexity in the operations and improve controller productivity.

The Airspace Design is a prerequisite for FAB-wide improvements by providing the operational environment for other improvement initiatives upon which to base their design. Cross-FAB proposals and initiatives are developed in coordination with EUROCONTROL.

The Airspace Design for 2015 can be seen as a major driver for benefits in the FAB context, as it provides:

• An optimised route structure and Free Route applications enabling increased flight efficiency resulting in a reduction of the environmental impact of flight operations,

• Sectorisation realigned according to the traffic flows to deliver the required demand-capacity balancing, whilst providing an environment for increased controller productivity and optimised use of human resources, and

• An operational environment where the potential traffic growth can be accommodated in a safe and expeditious manner.

The Airspace Design for 2020 is intended to provide:

• Extended Free Route applications enabling more optimal flight trajectories resulting in increased flight efficiency and reduction of the environmental impact of flight operations,

• Optimised sectorisation according to the traffic flows irrespective of national borders and FIR boundaries to deliver the required demand-capacity balancing, whilst providing an environment for Dynamic Sector Configuration Management, increased controller productivity and an optimal use of human resources.

• An operational environment where the potential traffic growth can be accommodated in a safe and expeditious manner.

The optimisation of route and sector design in the 2015 and 2020 scenarios is expected to deliver benefits in all operational performance areas: safety, capacity, flight efficiency, environmental impact and mission effectiveness, including:

• More trajectory choices for the airspace users, reducing the average route extension and reduction in the environmental impact.

• Reduced route extensions through free route environment.

• Sectors realigned to support the traffic flows based on optimal routes.

• Enhanced sector configuration with improved resource utilization.



of 70

• Improved TMA capacity and utilization through cross-border Feeder sectors.

• Improved functionality to enable CDA and CCD procedures reducing costs and environmental impact.

• Increased controller productivity.

• ATS route connectivity ensured.

• Improved military mission effectiveness through dynamic ASM processes based on modular training area design.

These developments will contribute to the overall European network performance.

SAAM Modelling

SAAM (System for traffic Assignment and Analysis on Macroscopic level) modelling was used to evaluate the traffic flows within the NEFAB area. The potential benefits resulting from this activity are described in chapter 7 of this document.



of 70

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STATE

4.1 ATS Routes

The ATS route structure in NEFAB non-oceanic CTA/UTA area consists of permanent and CDR RNAV routes with required navigation accuracy of 5 NM (RNP5). Route alignment is in most cases based on traffic flow requirements in order to facilitate necessary traffic flows within and between adjacent FIRs and ATC sectors. However, in some cases most optimal route possibilities are restricted by national and/or FIR boundaries. In areas where Free Route airspace is applied, the fixed ATS route structure also remains for the time being.

As a common rule, published ATS routes must be adhered to, whenever practicable. However, all States have implemented procedures allowing aircraft operators to flight plan their route outside the published ATS routes. These procedures are described in national AIPs and/or EUROCONTROL RAD (Route Availability Document). It should be noted though, that these procedures differ between the NEFAB States.

4.1.1 Additional En-route Distance

According to the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Report 2009 the additional en-route distance in the different FAB-initiatives were as follows:

Note: The diagram is for illustration purposes as the scope of NEFAB was different in 2009.



of 70

4.2 Sectorisation

In order to reduce controller workload and increase capacity, the airspace is divided into smaller airspace volumes, ATC sectors. ATC sectors in the NEFAB area are designed to facilitate the main traffic flows in the Area of Responsibility (AoR), based on the ATS route structure and the associated route restrictions. Sectors within AoRs are combined or split according to traffic demand, which is monitored by Flow Management Positions. The opening schemes are based on traffic density, complexity, capacities, technical and meteorological conditions, but also availability of human resources within the ACC/AoR.

Sector design is currently constrained by national boundaries, although there are some delegations of responsibility for the provision of ATS in cross-border airspace. ATC sector boundaries are always considered as a key element when new ATS routes are planned. In some cases, optimal solutions for routes can be found, but implementation could be restricted by sector designs not supporting the route change.

Sectors in NEFAB are horizontally defined covering the whole altitude band of the area of responsibility. Additionally some feeder sectors are established to assist the sequencing of arriving traffic to the major airports within the NEFAB area, including some cross-border feeder sectors. Other cross-border functionality is enabled by using defined ATS delegated areas as agreed between the participating states. The following map displays the current ATS delegated areas within NEFAB and versus neighbouring FABs. The ATS delegated areas at the boundaries of NEFAB airspace and adjacent states/FABs has been included in this map as the operational functionality of these areas has a direct impact on the operations of the associated NEFAB ATS unit:



of 70

4.3 Airspace Classification

The following table illustrates the existing airspace classifications in the NEFAB States, including also the upper limit of controlled airspace (CAS) and the division level (DFL) between the upper and lower airspace.



of 70

FL or Alt Band

EST FIN NOR LVA

Up Limit CAS

660 660 660/UNL* 460

195- UL CAS

C

95-195

C C

D G

C

3K-95

SFC-3K G G G G

Major TMA** C C C

Minor TMA C D G+ C D

C D C

CTA/UTA/

ATS routes C D C E C

CTR/TIA/TIZ C D G+ C D G+ D G+ C G

DFL CTA/UTA 285 285 285 285

* Bodø Oceanic Control Area (Class A)

** Major TMA - Terminal Control Area established around major airports.

Remark: National implementation plans exist for changes in current airspace classification.

4.4 Flexible Use of Airspace

4.4.1 Manageable Military Training Areas Applied

State Current

Estonia TSA

Finland TSA, TRA, MIL CTAs

Latvia TSA AMC Manageable

Norway TSA / AMC Manageable Danger areas 1)

1) AMC Manageable Danger areas over international waters.



of 70

4.4.2 CDR Definition

It has been noted that there are differences between the NEFAB states with regard to CDR route (conditional route) application. A common CDR route management methodology will enhance cross-border CDR route functionality to ensure network continuity.

4.4.3 Cross-border Operations

Within the NEFAB context, cross-border operations refer to both civil ATS operations as well as military cross-border area (CBA) operations. CBAs are established to allow military training and other operational flights to operate while not being constrained by national boundaries. CBAs permit the improvement of the airspace structures and military area availability in border areas for use in national and multi-national training, and assist in improving the overall ATS route network.

Military CBA operations have been established between some of the states based on letters of agreement for specific military purposes. There is no agreed common methodology regarding the establishment of permanent CBAs and the associated procedures.

Political, operational and military agreements between the States concerned are required prior to the establishment of CBAs. Formal agreements for the establishment and use of CBAs have to address issues of sovereignty, defence, legality, operations, environment, search and rescue.

Finland and Sweden are currently in the process of establishing common CBAs in the Northern part of these states with a planned implementation in 2011. The lessons learned from this implementation project will be provided for the whole NEFAB area to be considered as a best practice case study.

4.5 En-route Airspace

The NEFAB airspace comprises the FIR/UIRs of Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway (including Bodø Oceanic FIR). These FIRs contain around 90 airports with IFR operations and around 30 elementary ACC sectors. The map below shows the extention of NEFAB airspace:



of 70

4.6 Improvement Areas

The following improvement areas are encompassed within the Airspace Design initiative:

• Route Structures; the fixed ATS route network and Free Route concepts

• Sectorisation; design principles and cross-border implementation

• Airspace classification; harmonisation, access rules and vertical delineation

• Flexible Use of Airspace; FUA structure design principles and network integration



of 70

• Enhanced consistency with the overall European ATS route network



of 70

5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Introduction

This section describes the ongoing and planned airspace related improvement initiatives in the NEFAB states. The following national improvement initiatives are in progress or are envisaged to be initiated within the NEFAB area:

5.2 FRAN – Free Route Airspace Norway Initiative

A Free Route Airspace initiative with the aim to provide selectable user preferred routes in the Norwegian airspace. A working group, which will look into different FRA scenarios for Norway, was constituted in 2010.

5.3 Night Time Free Route Initiative Finland

Finland is planning to implement the possibility for the operators to flight plan from FIR/UIR entry or TMA exit to TMA entry and/or FIR/UIR exit during the night time. The initiative is to be implemented in all controlled airspace of EFIN FIR/UIR between flight levels 95 – 660. This procedure would be available between 2300 and 0530 LMT daily with extended availability during Sunday mornings. The initiative is currently on hold awaiting the release of CFMU version 15, which will facilitate time based Free Route concept application. Expected implementation according to the CFMU release schedule is spring 2011.

5.4 Southern Norway Airspace Project (SNAP)

SNAP is a project for the redesign of airspace and ATS routes in Southern Norway comprising Oslo AoR, Stavanger AoR and the southern part of Bodø AoR with planned operational date in 2013.

5.5 ASP 2012 Project Finland

The ASP 2012 project in Finland covers the evaluation of current airspace structure (MIL areas, ATS route network, TMAs) and service provision principles (ACC merger, sector manning principles). The project is a common CIV/MIL initiative in order to provide a balanced airspace delineation taking into account all user requirements. Additionally, the requirements of the NEFAB initiative will be taken into account in the planning process to ensure compatibility and regional airspace functionality. The ASP 2012 project aims to provide a platform for future network applications, such as dynamic airspace management by reducing the requirement for airspace segregation and Free Route Airspace through enhanced CIV/MIL coordination. Pan-European initiatives, such as airspace classification harmonisation, are monitored and implemented through the project according to European Commission requirements. The ASP 2012 project is the first phase in the transition to 2020 network scenarios within the NEFAB framework and will be linked to NEFAB roadmap and implementation plans.



of 70

5.6 European Improvement Initiatives

Additionally, several improvement initiatives are coordinated on pan-European level and as such should be integrated with the planned implementation of NEFAB-wide improvement plans. Common FAB – LSSIP plan will ensure a timely and coordinated implementation of these airspace related initiatives. A condensed list of current major improvement programs and strategies include:

• SESAR programme

• ESSIP/LSSIP procedure

• 2015 Airspace Concept and Strategy for the ECAC Area

• DMEAN (Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network) framework programme

5.7 EUROCONTROL RNDSG Process

The EUROCONTROL ANT Route Network Development Sub-Group coordinates the implementation of national and multinational airspace improvement proposals in the ECAC-area. Proposals are grouped into short-, medium- and long term projects depending on the expected implementation schedule. The current RNDSG-catalogue improvement initiatives for the NEFAB-area are included in Appendix 1 to this report. Additionally, for the internal use of the NEFAB project, a similarly formatted catalogue should be developed from which mature airspace improvement proposals can be transposed to the appropriate official EUROCONTROL catalogues. First draft of this catalogue is included in Appendix 2 to this report. This will ensure the overall consistency of the NEFAB with the European network.

5.8 ICAO RDGE Process

The ICAO Route Development Group Eastern Part of the ICAO EUR Region coordinates the planning and implementation of airspace improvement proposals related to the Russian Federation and its neighbouring states through a similar process as the RNDSG. NEFAB will have the longest continuous boundary with the Russian Federation in Europe and will therefore be in a key position to develop the interface with the European airspace network and a fast growing market in the Russian Federation and beyond. All of the NEFAB states are members of the RDGE group. This will ensure the overall consistency of the NEFAB with the network in third countries, as per the EC regulations requirements. The current RDGE-catalogue improvement initiatives for the NEFAB-area are included in Appendix 1 to this report.



of 70

6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT

6.1 Improving the Current Situation

An assessment of the airspace within a FAB area of responsibility should include, but not be limited to the ATS route network, ATC sectorisation, supporting technical infrastructure and airspace structures supporting military operations. Current ATC rules and procedures relating to cross-border operations need to be reviewed and associated. Structural restrictions (arising from LoA procedures, RAD publications, etc.) should be removed or reduced as practical. As a result, potential improvements to the airspace structure may be identified, which will lead to an optimised airspace structure. The technical infrastructure, and rules and procedures required to implement the envisaged airspace design are detailed under the appropriate initiatives.

In order to reach the performance targets, and reduce the fragmentation of the ATM network, a common improvement plan developed under the NEFAB initiative is required. The scenarios described in this document highlight improvement areas required to be able to provide the necessary capacity, whilst ensuring that safety levels are maintained or improved. Flight efficiency constraints need to be identified along with the environmental impacts and the Concept of Operation should provide a cost efficient ATM network in NEFAB.

2011 to 2015 will be a transition period from a fixed ATS route environment towards a Free Route Airspace environment, and how much is achievable during this time period will depend on the various organizations (ANSPs, MIL & CAAs in the participating countries). In the NEFAB environment close cooperation between Airspace Design, ATFCM/ASM and ATS will enable effective management of the airspace.

The Airspace design in the 2015 vision shall be based on operational requirements, without the constraints of national borders, in order to increase ATM performance and deliver substantial benefits. The 2015 scenario is a step towards a performance driven airspace scenario, where the network functionality will be enhanced through increased cross-border functionality. This will be done while providing the states with different tools to ensure that national requirements (e.g. for military and sovereignty) with regard to airspace design and application are taken into account.

The ambition level for 2015 is very much dependent on the States’ and ANSPs’ ability to cope with the inherent changes in a relatively short timeframe. A 2015 vision should be regarded as a milestone on a migration path to a future scenario based on an Operational Concept aligned with the European ATM Master Plan.

In the current environment the ATM related delays in the NEFAB airspace are minor, compared to the rest of Europe, and it is expected that capacity will exist to cope with the expected traffic growth in the next 5 years. Limiting capacity factors could be infrastructure constraints at major hubs.

In the Free Route Airspace (FRA) concept, airspace users will be able to flight plan user preferred trajectories (subject to any overriding airspace restrictions) with links to the fixed route network at both ends. The number of interventions by the controllers to avoid conflicts must be manageable and the scope of the FRA



of 70

application has to be more firmly defined (e.g. within defined geographical areas, above specified flight levels or at certain times of the day).

Current cross-border operations are largely based on delegation of ATS in designated areas. Implementing and/or changing these ATS delegation principles is rigid as they are often based on state level agreements, although some current arrangements have been agreed on an inter-centre LoA level only. Furthermore, with the ATS procedures and airspace structures being fragmented, the service providers are possibly presented with operational requirements different from those applied within the state when managing the ATS delegated areas. Cross-border sectorisation instead of delegation of ATS is therefore of operational preference and the sectorisation scenarios are based on this principle.

In order to harmonise the current FUA procedures in the NEFAB States, a detailed assessment of current FUA procedures will need to be completed, according to commonly agreed parameters. This assessment should be used to develop common rules and procedures for harmonised FUA application in the NEFAB area. FUA harmonisation in NEFAB will require a phased implementation where initial harmonisation needs to be achieved at the interfaces followed by gradual harmonisation throughout the area. It should be noted that prior to implementing common FUA procedures, the full impact of MIL operations to the NEFAB scenarios cannot be accurately assessed. The harmonisation aims to provide external clients, e.g. AOs and military airspace users, with an environment of a common end user functionality, whilst utilising procedures tailored for different areas depending on airspace complexity, rules and regulations, traffic intensity and cross-border functionality requirements.

6.2 2015 Vision – Main Elements

The NEFAB airspace design for 2015 builds on ongoing developments in the different states and takes into consideration what is deemed ambitious but achievable within the timeframe. It focuses on the following main elements to reach the performance targets:

ATS Route Network – Implementation of Free Route Airspace above FL 285 in defined portions of NEFAB and optimisation of the ATS Routes within the FAB. This will provide for more user preferred route selections, reduce additional route lengths and create “quick wins”. The extension of the Free Route concept is dependent on operational requirements, e.g. access to/from major TMAs, both for ARR/DEP traffic, taking military training areas into consideration.

Sectorisation – Realignment of sectors unconstrained by national borders and FIR boundaries to support the ATS route network, including Free Route traffic flows. This will reduce the complexity in the operations, increase controller productivity and increase the airspace capacity. Cross-border sectorisation is established as a principle instead of delegation of ATS.

Airspace Classification – Common application and access rules of class C airspace above FL95 in continental en-route airspace are envisaged in this scenario. Harmonisation of airspace classification will facilitate cross-border sectorisation and thereby avoid complexities involved with applying different rules and procedures. The division level between upper and lower airspace is proposed to be removed.



of 70

Flexible Use of Airspace structures – Military users’ requirements and mission effectiveness is assured through collaborative CIV/MIL airspace design. Military areas will be realigned where required to allow increased flexibility in their pre-tactical and tactical use. Increased modularity in area design allows the airspace users and AMCs to use ASM scenarios that result in a reduced network effect.

6.3 2020 Minimum Scenario – Main Elements

The NEFAB airspace design for 2020 minimum scenario builds on the 2015 vision and is taking into account the longer timeframe available until implementation.

ATS Route Network – Free Route Airspace is further extended in the NEFAB area with FL245 to be used as the implementation baseline. A fixed route network will be maintained in areas where Free Route airspace cannot be implemented within the timeframe and/or where there is a need to segregate and organise the traffic flows.

Sectorisation – Further development of sectorisation is required by the extension of Free Route Airspace and the expected increased traffic demand for 2020.

Airspace Classification – Further harmonisation of airspace classification in accordance with EC regulations.

Flexible Use of Airspace structures – Further integration of military training areas into the extended Free Route Airspace area, using the Variable Profile Area (VPA) design principles as described in the Advanced FUA Concept of Operations. The military area design process will take into account the network effect for the whole NEFAB area.

6.4 2020 Performance Scenario – Main Elements

The NEFAB airspace design for 2020 performance scenario represents major changes to airspace design, which require extensive development and changes from the current ATM systems and concepts.

ATS Route Network – Free Route Airspace is fully implemented in the NEFAB area with FL195 as the implementation baseline. The extension of the Free Route concept to lower levels will need to take into consideration transit traffic through terminal areas.

Sectorisation – Conceptual change regarding sectorisation principles for the continental NEFAB area is foreseen for the 2020 performance scenario. Sectors are constructed from air blocks to enable dynamic sector configuration management. Terminal Airspace System concept with associated feeder/stacker sectors may be applied.

Airspace Classification – Further harmonisation of airspace classification below FL95 in accordance with EC regulations to facilitate cross-border sectorisation. In case of the regulation not covering the airspace below FL95, a common harmonisation plan for NEFAB will be developed.



of 70

Flexible Use of Airspace structures – In addition to the existing types of airspace structures, new flexible airspace structures will be developed as constituent elements of the Airspace Configurations for a given airspace volume and/or time. Variable Profile Areas (VPA) and Dynamic Mobile Areas (DMA) may be designed, taking into account their network effect.

6.5 ATS Route Network Improvements

2011 to 2015 will be a transition period from a fixed ATS route environment towards a Free Route Airspace environment. In the same period the fixed ATS route network will be improved to provide more optimal trajectories as compared to the current network. These improvements can be seen as a migration path towards a Free Route Airspace environment in NEFAB as they can consist of relatively long DCT alignments crossing several States and/or FABs in the North European area.

In the 2015 vision the route structure exists outside the defined FRA, where operationally required. In the scenarios for 2020 there will still be overlapping networks, both FRA and fixed ATS route network, but the fixed route network will not be as extensive and it will be simplified as a result of continued FRA development.

Several new route alignments offering “quick wins” have been identified during the NEFAB airspace design workshops. Some of these routes are implemented already during 2010/2011, whereas many of them require further coordination and analysis before they can be considered to be mature enough for concrete implementation plans. This is due to the fact that some of the new route alignments create new crossing points in undesired locations such as directly over sector and/or FIR/UIR boundaries and the flight times through the current sectors are not sufficient for de-confliction and other traffic management procedures, such as arrival sequencing. This will result in the need for re-alignment of current boundaries in some areas. For these improvements further analysis is required, including business and system support related decisions.

The following potential route segments have been identified for further study (NEFAB ATS Route proposals are described in more detail in Appendix 2 to this Initiative document):



of 70

Green lines depict eastbound ATS routes and blue lines westbound. Solid lines represent permanent routes and dotted lines CDR1/2 routes.

The route segments depicted above contain a potential for savings of 2026NM/day with 422 flights affected (traffic sample 27.6.2008) assuming the alignments could be implemented as described with 24 hour availability. The actual savings can only be assessed following a more detailed study of the routes, taking into account the military requirements and final agreed alignment of the routes. All this development



of 70

takes into consideration overall European ATS route network development and the NEFAB contribution to the overall European network performance.

2010-2015 NEFAB ATS route proposals

Per day (all flights) Per year (all flights)

Reduced route extensions 2 026 Nautical Miles 739 490 Nautical Miles

Reduced flight time 294 minutes 107 310 minutes

Reduced fuel burn 19 182 kg of fuel 7 001 430 kg of fuel

Reduction in CO2 emissions

60 232 kg of CO2 21 984 680 kg of CO2

Note: This table shows the potential combined savings in NEFAB and DK/SE FAB resulting from the developed ATS-route proposals (see appendix 2)

6.6 Route/Network Structure

6.6.1 Route/Network Structure – 2015 Vision

In 2015 ATS routes will be optimised throughout NEFAB to offer more routing options for the airspace users. However there will also be Free Route Airspace implemented in sections of NEFAB FIRs, where this is deemed feasible within the timeframe, operationally and technically. Where ATS routes are maintained the airspace will be designed based on traffic flows, where main flows are given priority over minor flows and efficient connectivity is to be assured between the ATS Routes and the terminal routes. There will be close co-operation between Airspace Design, ATFCM and ASM. Route continuity and connectivity will be assured across the Network within NEFAB as well as with the interfaces of other FABs and third states.

Improvements in the design, as well as pre-tactical and tactical management of trajectories, will enable improved usage of available options and reduce the need for tactical re-routing by air traffic controllers. In areas where a need exists for a fixed route network and permanent routes cannot be implemented, conditional routes will be implemented. Unidirectional routes may be changed to bi-directional in defined time periods by managing the RAD restrictions. RAD procedures will be harmonised and RAD restrictions will be valid only when needed. To enable flight planning outside the ATS routes a lifting of RAD restrictions is needed.

Different Free Route concept applications may exist in different areas depending on technical limitations and/or operational requirements. FRA areas can be limited horisontally, vertically, geographically or within timeframes, but as a principle the implementation of Free Route Airspace should be as homogenous as possible. It is proposed that as the baseline, the lower limit of Free Route Airspace is set to FL285. However, this does not preclude any states from implementing regional Free Route applications, which differ from this baseline. In low density areas the FRA could be applied from a significantly lower level, whereas in third state/FAB interfaces a harmonised implementation of FRA may prove to be beneficial.



of 70

A mixed environment with both Free Route Airspace and ATS routes in the same airspace will be a possible step by step implementation approach. However, when applying FRA and the fixed ATS route network in the same geographical area, caution should be exercised in defining the associated sectors and procedures, so that the overall complexity does not increase to an unacceptable level due to the application of two different network concepts.

Even with the implementation of FRA in a defined area, route structure may still co-exist with FRA where operationally justified. Additionally, a fixed ATS route network is required outside the defined FRA. Before FRA can be implemented, it is envisaged that there may be a need for controller supporting tools (e.g. STCA, MTCD and APW), depending on airspace complexity. Continuous Free Route Airspace across FIR/UIRs or ATCCs also requires ATM systems to support “floating” coordination points or other evolved coordination procedures. It should be noted as well, that FRA has to be supported by CFMU and IFPS systems to provide Aircraft Operators with the potential benefits. The benefits of the Free Route Airspace are increased route profile choices for the airspace users, reducing the average route extension, flight time and negative environmental impact.

In areas where Free Route Airspace or a fully optimised fixed ATS route network cannot be implemented even within the 2015 timeframe due to, e.g. operational issues, cross-border direct routings may be used to provide similar benefits. Tactical cross-border procedures can be increasingly implemented in the NEFAB continental area through increased ATM system facilitated coordination and in some cases through procedures described in the appropriate Letters of Agreement (LoA). These cross-border direct routings based on LoAs or system supported coordination enable tactically performed re-routings. With the use of these direct routings there are significant benefits available and by developing these procedures the airspace can be utilised more efficiently. The disadvantage of these procedures is that as tactical procedures they cannot be used in the flight planning phase and they have negative effects on the predictability and calculation of the entries in downstream sectors and create inaccuracies in the Flow Management.

A fixed ATS route network will also be maintained in areas where there is a need to segregate and organize traffic flows in order to provide safe and expeditious ATC service, as in the vicinity of airports to facilitate continuous descent and climb and de-conflict arrival and departure traffic. This is also the case in areas where the complexity, technical limitations or airspace restrictions do not warrant a Free Routes implementation process. ATS routes in these areas will be designed unconstrained by national borders or FIR boundaries.

Traffic into terminal airspace will still be managed using published route segments and sequenced where appropriate by using AMAN (Arrival Manager) functionality. Holding procedures will continue being used and these may be redefined by using the RNAV design principles. Departure management will also be improved by using DMAN (Departure manager) from terminal airspace to en-route airspace or to smooth the delivery of traffic from multiple departure points that converge in key en-route sectors. The interfaces of en-route and terminal ATS units will be improved to enable the increased use of CDA (Continuous Descent Approach) and CCD (Continuous Climb Departures) procedures.



of 70

6.6.2 Route/Network Structure – Minimum Scenario 2020

Different Free Route Airspace applications are expected to be implemented with varying dimensions in the NEFAB area. In this scenario FL245 is considered as a Free Route implementation baseline. In low traffic density areas a significantly lower FRA floor can be applied. There may still be a need for time based availability of FRA in some areas, but the limitations are not expected to be as restrictive and rigid as they are in 2015.

In the minimum scenario for 2020 a fixed route network will be maintained in areas where there is a need to segregate and organise traffic flows, but by 2020 that will be the case only in the vicinity of major hubs or due to military requirements. As free routes are widely used in the NEFAB area by 2020, it is not practical to have the fixed ATS route network as comprehensive as it is in 2015 vision. A fixed route network will be simplified for the major flows and it exists mainly to support connectivity between en-route airspace and terminal route structure. The reduction in the number of routes will be a result of a continuous development in airspace design “natural evolvement” and there is no need to give special effort for that development in the NEFAB context.

Improvements in airspace design will reduce the complexity of interfaces within the FAB, other FABs and third states. To be able to respond to the requirements set for FABs, continuous harmonisation and development in airspace design will simplify and unify the classifications of routes as well as their management (RAD) procedures by 2020. By providing the optimal ATS route network for flight planning purposes, and thereby reducing the need for cross-border tactical re-routing, aircraft operators may benefit from the reduced route extension already pre-tactically and the controllers’ workload will be decreased. This development will simplify the operational environment and have a positive impact on available sector capacities.

6.6.3 Route/Network Structure – Performance Scenario 2020

In the 2020 performance scenario Free Route Airspace is fully implemented in the NEFAB area with FL195 as the implementation baseline. The extension of the Free Route concept to lower levels will need to take into consideration transit traffic through terminal areas.

In low density airspace Free Route may be applied from an altitude as low as FL95 with possible minor regional exceptions due to, e.g. TMAs extending higher than the defined lower limit of FRA. A possible implementation of an area-wide common Transition Altitude will need to be taken into account. In low density areas aircraft operators will ideally be able to join or leave the FRA to/from TMA entry/exit point to the boundary of the area either directly or via managed waypoints to avoid specific geographical areas (e.g. military activity or arrival / departure sequencing in the vicinity of larger TMAs).

Around major hubs arrival and departure transitions points need to be extended to enable traffic sequencing, CDAs and CDDs. There may be a requirement to implement a FRA transition area between the NEFAB area and the Russian Federation.

The implementation of a NEFAB-wide Free Route Concept is a major step in the migration towards a trajectory based environment where aircraft operators will be



of 70

able to flight plan and execute a business trajectory from an entry point to an exit point of the FAB or to/from a specific point where the flight will follow a CCD/CDA 4D trajectory to/from the terminal area assisted by arrival and departure management systems.

As it is anticipated that the dynamic TMA management procedures (variable predefined TMA dimensions depending on runway configuration and traffic flows) will be developed as an element of the NEFAB performance scenario, the en-route network design will need to support this interface. Flight management in the en-route FRA environment will, in the later migration steps, be achieved through the use of shared trajectory where the trajectory changes are negotiated between the affected parties. The benefit of the Free Route Airspace is an increase in trajectory selection options for the airspace users, reducing the average route extension and flight time resulting in a reduction in negative environmental impact.

Improvements in airspace design will reduce the need for tactical re-routings and improved pre-tactical procedures will yield benefits for the aircraft operators. Available ATC capacity will be utilised for the primary function of conflict detection and de-confliction instead of secondary coordination tasks caused by structural inefficiencies. RAD restrictions and tactical LoA based procedures are reduced to a minimum and superseded by system supported tactical coordination.

ATCO productivity and increased level of safety are not directly related to the Free Route implementation. Rather they can be affected by the supporting systems and procedures required to implement the scenario.

6.7 ATC Sectorisation

ATC sectors will be adapted to support the traffic flows unconstrained by national borders and/or FIR/UIR-boundaries. Sectors may be designed to cover the entire Flight Level-band of NEFAB airspace, or a defined level band, as required by the traffic flows, structure, composition, densities and overall airspace complexity. In order to provide for optimal demand-capacity balancing, a sector group principle could be used. A sector group is a combination of several sectors that strongly interact with each other and cover specific homogenous air traffic flows and conflict areas. System developments by 2020 are expected to enable dynamic sectorisation based on pre-defined air blocks. This sector design principle enables a dynamic intra-inter centre, Sector Configuration Management (SCM).

The airspace structures around major hubs should be designed to cater for cross-border feeder/stacker sectors, allow sufficient time for traffic anticipation and facilitate traffic sequencing, Continuous Descend Approaches (CDAs) and Continuous Climb Departures (CCD).

The characteristics of the traffic flows and traffic structure in the NEFAB area are fundamental elements in the establishment of the sectorisation principles. The focus areas and underlying principles are:

• Areas in the south with a high density of overflying traffic/en-route traffic;

• The continental areas in the north with relatively low traffic density;

• Oceanic airspace and the interface with continental airspace;



of 70

• Major hub airports, the traffic flows to and from each of them and between them;

• Interface areas with neighbouring FABs and third states;

• Military training area integration with the network;

• Avoid different classes of airspace within the same sector;

• Avoid sector boundaries in areas of high interaction.

The Sector Configuration Management will have to take into account:

• Variations in traffic demand over the day, week and season and regions of NEFAB;

• EU Regulations on working hours;

• ATCO ratings and license groups;

• Number of sectors where a controller can hold a valid local rating;

• Agreements regarding staff rosters and work schedules.

The map below depicts the current NEFAB sector boundaries (FL330) with current capacity monitoring values (excluding Latvia where average capacity values are used). The traffic sample used was traffic for 27.6.2008 as filed in the flight plan. Similar maps for FL280, FL350 and FL390 are included as Appendix 3. In the map colouring scheme green areas represent sectors where the peak traffic load was below 90% of the monitoring value. Yellow areas represent peak traffic loads of 90 to 110% of the monitoring value and red areas represent loads of over 110%. The traffic demand is calculated by SAAM according to CFMU standards. The map depicts the sector configuration with maximum number of sectors open.



of 70

6.7.1 Sectorisation – 2015 Vision

Realignment of sectors unconstrained by national borders and FIR boundaries to support the ATS route network, including Free Route traffic flows. This will reduce the complexity in the operations, increase controller productivity and the airspace capacity. Cross-border sectorisation is established as a principle instead of delegation of ATS. For the 2015 sectorisation, the main goal is to re-align existing sector boundaries according to the developed FRA traffic flows and route proposals.

The map below depicts the current NEFAB sector boundaries (FL330) with current capacity monitoring values (excluding Latvia where average capacity values are used). The traffic sample used was traffic for 27.6.2008 modified for the year 2015 (average traffic increase of 22%) according to the description in chapter 7. The map depicts the sector configuration with maximum number of sectors open.

Improvement areas have been identified at the smallest scale possible, isolating individual flows or conflict areas, without looking at existing national or ACC boundaries. It should be noted that the evaluation is based on the horizontal dispersion of traffic of a single day traffic sample assigned to the shortest possible route for a fixed runway configuration. The wind pattern effect on traffic dispersion, 3D evolution of flights, sequencing tasks and sector configurations (single sector/combined sectors) have not been evaluated. Therefore this list is to be considered as indicative only, and detailed analysis on individual improvement areas should be conducted. Impact on the TMA interfaces should be assessed together with the TMA specialists to ensure the interface functionality.

Identified improvement areas for the 2015 scenario have been given project names and include (but are not limited to) the following areas:

• PEXEN - FL095-FL660-could be assigned to EETTWES or EFES 1

• RUNGA - could be assigned to EFES 1 or ESOS 6

• KVARKEN - could be assigned to ESOS F (already delegated)



of 70

• HALTI - could be assigned to ENBD SE (already delegated)

• MANTO_XL - could be assigned to ENBD SE

• MANTO_LOW - could be assigned to Kirkenes TMA

• EGAGO - could be assigned to ENBD ST or ESOS N

• NUTKO - could be assigned to ENBD SC or ESOS N

• USIKI - could be assigned to ENBD SC or ESOS K

• GILEN - could be assigned to ENBD SN or ESOS K

• ABADA - could be assigned to ENBD SC or ENBD ST

• TUVIG - could be assigned to ENBD ST or ENSV SE

• AMSEV - could be assigned to ENOS 8 or EKDK V/UV

• DANKO -could be assigned to ENOS S8 or ENSV SS or EKDK N or EKDK V

• OSLOB - could be assigned to ENOS S3 or ESMM 4

• ESEBA - could be assigned to ENOS S3 or ESOS 3

• TIVOL - could be assigned to ENOS S4 ESMM 4

• LOGNA - could be assigned to EETT WES or EVRR N

• RASEL - could be assigned to EVRR N or ESMM Y

• PIMEX - could be assigned to LOGNA or RASEL improvement areas.

A number of these areas impact airspace adjacent to the NEFAB area and the development of these improvement areas will be done in co-operation with the adjacent states/FABs.

This list can be further expanded following a detailed study of current sector capacities and the effect the envisaged traffic increase will have on them.

A number of areas are already delegated between the ATC units (see map in section 4.2) in order to enhance coordination procedures and overall interface functionality. Implementing these procedures either via delegation of airspace or via delegation of ATS in a defined portion of airspace is a complex and time consuming process. To enhance flexibility, cross-border sectors instead of delegated areas should be established.



of 70

This map shows proposed sector improvement areas which have been analysed in the NEFAB project. Some of these improvements areas relate to the interface between NEFAB and the DK/SE FAB and need to be further studied as an inter-FAB development issue.

Below is an example of the data on one of these improvement areas that is provided by this initial analysis.



of 70

Improvement area PEXEN

The PEXEN Improvement Area can be assigned to EFESIN1 or EETTWES. The main purpose of this area is to allow sequencing of EFHK arrivals in a Free Route compatible network. In this scenario, landing RWY15 is used. Trajectories landing RWY04L/R shall be evaluated at a later stage in a dedicated TMA interface study.

The traffic numbers are comparable to the reference situation – more detailed analysis required to find an optimum solution. When evaluating the effect of Area PEXEN to the EE and EF sector loads and flight numbers, the effect of additional improvement areas has been taken into account (Area RUNGA for EF and Areas LOGNA and PIMEX for EE ref. area list and map above) to evaluate their cumulative effect.



of 70

EFESIN1 REF

EFESIN1 without RUNGA and PEXEN

EFESIN1 with RUNGA

EFESIN1 with PEXEN

EFESIN1 with RUNGA and PEXEN

EFESIN1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

time

a/c

EFESIN1 REF Entry Rate EFESIN1 Entry Rate EFESIN1+R Entry Rate

EFESIN1+P Entry Rate EFESIN1+RP Entry Rate EFESIN1 REF Instantaneous

EFESIN1 Instantaneous EFESIN1+R Instantaneous EFESIN1+P Instantaneous

EFESIN1+RP Instantaneous Capacity

Number of flights

376

275

315

349

389

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

EFESIN1 REF EFESIN1 EFESIN1_Ru EFESIN1_Px EFESIN1_RuPx

EFESIN1 REF

EFESIN1

EFESIN1_Ru

EFESIN1_Px

EFESIN1_RuPx

EETTWES REF



of 70

EETTWES without LOGNA, PIMEX and PEXEN

EETTWES with LOGNA and PIMEX (FL095-FL660)

EETTWES with PEXEN (FL095-FL660)

EETTWES with LOGNA, PIMEX and PEXEN (FL095-FL660)

EETTWES

05

101520253035404550

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

time

a/c

EETTWES REF Entry Rate EETTWES Entry Rate

EETTWES+LoPi Entry Rate EETTWES+Px Entry Rate

EETTWES+LoPiPx Entry Rate EETTWES REF Instantaneous

EETTWES Instantaneous EETTWES+LoPi Instantaneous

EETTWES+Px Instantaneous EETTWES+LoPiPx Instantaneous

Capacity

Number of flights

450

374 384420 430

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

EETT

WES R

EF

EETT

WES

EETT

WES_L

oPi

EETT

WES_P

x

EETT

WES_L

oPiPx

EETTWES REF

EETTWES

EETTWES_LoPi

EETTWES_Px

EETTWES_LoPiPx



of 70

6.7.2 Sectorisation – 2020 Minimum Scenario

The 2020 sectorisation minimum scenario involves further development of sectorisation as required by the extension of Free Route Airspace and the expected increased traffic demand for 2020. Two main elements are identified:

1. Further refining of improvement areas identified in the 2015 vision to enable cross-border sector configuration management;

2. Additional airspace modifications providing capacity to meet the expected traffic growth.

Additionally, the airspace structures around major hubs should cater for cross-border feeder sectors, allow sufficient time for traffic anticipation and facilitate traffic sequencing, Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) and Continuous Climb Departures (CCD).

6.7.3 Sectorisation – 2020 Performance Scenario

Conceptual change regarding sector design and allocation principles for the continental NEFAB area is foreseen for the 2020 performance scenario. Sectors are constructed from air blocks, which can be dynamically allocated and enable flexible (cross-border) sector configuration management. Terminal Airspace System (cross-border) concept with associated feeder/stacker sectors may be applied.

En-route sectors will be designed to provide the capacity needed to accommodate the forecasted traffic growth:

• En-route sector design to support the main traffic flows and potential conflict areas;

• En-route sector design to support Feeder/Stacker functionality;

• Sector design to accommodate the different traffic environment in the NEFAB area;

• The developed sectors are grouped based on their interaction and homogenous unconstrained by FIR and national boundaries.

The map below depicts the current NEFAB sector boundaries (FL330) with current capacity monitoring values (excluding Latvia where average capacity values are used). The traffic sample used was traffic for 27.6.2008 adjusted for the year 2020 (average traffic increase of 51%) according to the description in chapter 7.



of 70

In the high density area dynamic sector configuration management, cross-border when applicable, would provide opportunities to improve the balance between demand and capacity (peak-/off peak traffic situations). For the low density area the operational impact of the predicted traffic growth is not expected to be significant. The sector design should accommodate the seasonal variations, including military exercises.

While in the high density area the forecasted traffic growth will be a challenge in order to provide the capacity needed, in the low density areas there will be opportunities for larger cross-border sectors, while still delivering the capacity needed.

6.8 Airspace Classification – 2015 and 2020

Following the European Commission (EC) Regulation No 730/2006 from 11th of May, 2006 on airspace classification and access of flights operated under visual flight rules above flight level 195, all NEFAB states have implemented Airspace class C in their FIRs above FL195.

EC Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009, which amends EC No 551/2004 article 9a states: FAB shall, in particular ensure compatibility between the different airspace configurations, optimising, inter alia, the current flight information regions. This means that Airspace Classifications should be harmonised in the FAB, also below FL 195. This is an important factor for dynamic sector configurations. Majority of the NEFAB states have already implemented airspace class C from FL95 upwards (with the exception of NOR) with only minor variations from this delineation due to operational requirements.

Under the SES umbrella EC has given EUROCONTROL mandate to develop a set of Draft Implementing Rules on Airspace Classification and the design of ATS Routes and ATC Sectors. Airspace Classification Draft Implementing Rules propose harmonisation in line with current developments. ATS Route Network and ATC Sector Draft Implementing Rules propose principles and criteria that will enable design to be firmly based on user requirements, forecast traffic flows, stakeholder



of 70

proposals, existing and proposed airspace reservations/restrictions, connectivity, adaptability for change, and be capable of facilitating capacity management through its design concepts. All of this to be done regardless of, and unconstrained by, national borders, FIR boundaries and non-relevant divisions of the airspace.

Furthermore, EUROCONTROL has developed “The 2015 Airspace Concept & Strategy for the ECAC States.” This document gives a high level description and roadmap to fulfil SESAR and DMEAN concept requirements. In order to achieve SESAR 2020 requirements, intermediate steps that are described in the document for airspace design will be followed for airspace design within NEFAB.

Airspace classification harmonisation within Europe shows currently clear sign of moving towards reducing the number of different airspace classes within a FIR to minimum. Mostly used classes are C and D in controlled airspace and G in uncontrolled airspace. Currently within NEFAB Latvia is using only two classifications (C and G), Finland, Estonia and Norway (except for Bodø Oceanic FIR) use four classifications (C, D, G, G+). In order to reduce the number of the different classifications, states with more than two different classes will have to study the possibility of reducing the number.

A common application and access rules of class C airspace above FL95 in continental en-route airspace is envisaged in the 2015 vision. Harmonisation of airspace classification will facilitate cross-border sectorisation and thereby avoid complexities involved with applying different rules and procedures. Therefore it is envisaged that further harmonisation of airspace classification below FL95 would be beneficial for the 2020 performance scenario.

The division into upper and lower airspace has a historic background and the operational need for such a division has disappeared, especially with the harmonisation of airspace classification. In operational terms the continued division into upper and lower airspace creates difficulties due to potential discontinuances between route segments across states and/or FABs. In general the ATS routes in the NEFAB lower and upper airspace are to a large extent identical. As there is no operational need for it, nor a requirement by the ICAO to have such delineation in place, a removal of the division level between upper and lower airspace is considered beneficial. However, regulatory requirements may affect the decision to remove the division level and should be taken into account. Additionally, current systems have been designed with the assumption that such a division level exists and prior to the removal of a division level, an extensive impact assessment of the potential removal needs to be completed.

For the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis, the removal of the division flight level and airspace classification harmonisation will be considered under the umbrella of “Rules and Procedures” development track.

6.9 Military Areas/FUA Structures

There must be a commitment from the militaries to support the development of the NEFAB military airspace structures. Therefore the design process of military airspace structures needs to be a common CIV/MIL process. National military and especially air defence doctrines set specific operational requirements impacting on the use and availability of airspace. The military operators will require areas which cause route extensions compared to an “ideal” Free Route Airspace. Those areas will not be as



of 70

permanent as today, but a need for some degree of segregated airspace will continue to exist. Advanced pre-tactical and tactical management of airspace will reduce the negative effects of airspace restrictions, but these restrictions will always have a negative impact on the overall network functionality. To achieve the optimal use of airspace there is a need to design these areas and the associated management procedures in a way which integrates the areas of reserved airspace to the network to a high degree and enables flexible airspace management. This design shall take into account the Free Route applications as well as the fixed ATS route network.

6.9.1 Modular Design Principles

In designing modular training areas, the core of the area should be designed in an area where the training area affects the non-participating traffic flows as little as possible. Preferably these areas should be located in the “white spots”, i.e. areas where there is generally little or no traffic. Around the core of the training area, smaller modules may be added which are aligned with the identified major traffic flows. While the core of the area is primarily dedicated to the military flight operations with non-participating traffic routed around it, these modular areas surrounding the core may be used more flexibly to accommodate the traffic operating on the major flow axis. Minor flows may be re-routed around these core areas either by using fixed ATS routes or in FRA by managing predefined waypoints established around the areas at a suitable distance. Major flows should be defined in terms of areas of geographically closely located trajectories as well as in 3D evolution of the flights.

6.9.2 Cross-border Areas

Cross-border areas will be designed and implemented in geographical areas suitable for multinational training areas according to common best practices and by using the same design principles applicable for other military areas.



of 70

Conditional routes (CDR) will be designed and implemented according to common principles where military training areas affect the published ATS route network. Cross-border areas in the Free Route Airspace will be implemented using commonly agreed procedures (re-routing scenarios for non-participating traffic).

6.9.3 Military/FUA Structures 2015

Military areas will be realigned, where feasible, to allow increased flexibility in their pre-tactical and tactical use. Increased modularity in area design allows the airspace users and AMCs to use ASM scenarios that have a reduced network effect. Whilst the military airspace users’ requirements for mission realisation must be ensured, the use of modular areas outside the core military operations areas (the “Variable Profile Area” concept as described in the Advanced FUA Concept of Operations) offers the CIV/MIL interface with additional options in flow and area management. The use of RNP1/2 as a criterion in area design potentially enables the design of smaller buffers between the areas and routes, reducing the effect on the civil airspace users’ network and enabling efficient use of the airspace. Military areas will be designed as an integrated part of the whole network, where the recognised major civil traffic flows should be considered to have priority over military areas and military areas can be given priority over minor flows. This does not restrict the design of military areas in the same geographical area with the major flows but the ASM/ATFCM scenarios define the management and access rules for these areas.

In designing the modular areas different types of military operations should be considered and the area design should allow for the areas to be used for both manned and unmanned flight operations, pending regulatory requirements for the conduct of UAS operations in controlled/uncontrolled airspace.

The following military training areas were considered to be the most penalising in the analysed Free Route Airspace scenarios and their re-alignment and/or increased modularity could be considered in order to achieve better network integration:

EF: TRA905

(EE/EV): CBA TSA2

EN: TSAO1A/B, DT1C and B

Formatert: Engelsk(Storbritannia)



of 70

This map shows military training areas which are proposed to be realigned or where increased modularity may yield benefits.

6.9.4 Military Areas/FUA Structures – Minimum Scenario 2020

For the 2020 minimum scenario the military area development will follow a natural evolution from the 2015 vision where overall ATM infrastructure and environment developments may affect the overall design of the NEFAB military structures. The application of the Variable Profile Areas will be the baseline for military training area design. No specific performance targets are set for the 2020 minimum scenario regarding military areas.

6.9.5 Military areas/FUA Structures – Performance Scenario 2020

For the NEFAB 2020 performance scenario it is envisaged that, together with the development of the ASM/ATFCM and ATS procedures (supplemented by the appropriate system support), military area design for the core training areas will follow the same modularity principle as for the 2015 scenario. However, to accommodate the military mission requirements in a more dynamic manner “ad hoc” training areas may be established on the pre-tactical level in order to be able to provide the military users with training areas where the impact of non-participating traffic is minimal. Variable Profile Area (VPA) and Dynamic Mobile Area (DMA) principles, as described in the Advanced FUA Concept of Operations may be utilized to achieve this level of dynamicity. Areas are designed to accommodate the expected



of 70

traffic flows for the day of operations and therefore require close coordination with the ASM/ATFCM initiative. The area design principles should be developed together with the ASM/ATFCM initiative in order to ensure the integration of military users’ needs and the overall network functionality. The design should be based on a set of parameters (area minimum size, orientation, identified major/minor flows, area buffers, transit distance to/from the area etc.) agreed between the CIV/MIL stakeholders allowing for the same operational functionality for the relevant stakeholders, as fixed military training areas.

In order to be able to accommodate special military flight operations such as air patrol flights and refuelling operations, moving/flexible airspace reservations may be developed according to the Dynamic Mobile Area concept. As a principle, a block of airspace of agreed vertical and lateral dimensions may be allocated around flights engaged in the operations described above, allowing for this block of reserved airspace to move along the agreed flight trajectory of the participating flight. The design criteria should be agreed between the relevant stakeholders and the application and management procedures of such moving airspace reservations should be developed together with the ATS and ASM/ATFCM initiatives.

6.10 NEFAB interface airspace development 2015 – 2020

The airspace improvements which are to be implemented in NEFAB during the development phase will not place any requirements to third states/FABs with regard to airspace within their area of responsibility. All development projects affecting the interfaces will be developed in coordination with the appropriate neighbours to ensure network continuity and to enable the extraction of additional benefits for the airspace users and ANSPs.

6.10.1 NEFAB and DK/SE FAB airspace development 2015 – 2020

The DK/SE FAB airspace is adjacent to and to a large degree enclosed by the NEFAB airspace. This highlights the importance of coordinated airspace development efforts between these FABs to ensure the overall network functionality. Even though FRA has been implemented in parts of the DK/SE FAB already there are no major differences in the airspace strategy between the FABs and based on previous cooperation on bi/tri-lateral level it can be envisaged that the North European airspace as a whole can be developed in coordination between the FABs. A common coordination forum may be established to ensure the harmonised development of the North European axis.

6.10.2 NEFAB and other FABs

The common interfaces with the Baltic FAB and UK/Ireland FAB will be taken into account in all airspace developments affecting these adjacent areas and all changes will be implemented in coordination on bi-lateral or international (EUROCONTROL/ICAO NAT) forums.

6.10.3 NEFAB and Russian Federation interface development

NEFAB will have the longest continuous boundary with Russian Federation in Europe making NEFAB a key player in maintaining and improving the network between a fast



of 70

growing market – in Russia and beyond – and the European network. Even though it may be the case that NEFAB cannot be an official signatory party in agreements made with the Russian Federation, a common strategy for the development of the transition area between the Russian Federation airspace and SES airspace is essential in harmonising the procedures for the NEFAB area.

6.10.4 NEFAB and NAT interface development

The interfaces between the NAT ANSP´s are managed through the NAT Interface Control Document (ICD). Development of that document is through the work of ICAO NAT Systems Planning Group (NAT SPG) subgroups. The NAT SPG subgroup dealing with the technical aspects of the NAT interface is the Communication Navigation and Surveillance Group (NAT CNSG) but the operational issues are addressed in the NAT Air Traffic Management Group (NAT ATMG). The proposals from those subgroups are presented to the NAT Implementation Group (NAT IMG) for approval and if approved the proposal will be transmitted to the NAT states for implementation.

6.11 Pre-requisites and Dependencies

Satisfactory solutions have to be found to major issues to support the operationally based vision:

• Cross-border provision of Air Traffic Services to military traffic to facilitate cross-border sectorisation. Common application of FUA airspace structures to enable network continuity and improve network efficiency.

• Regulatory and supervisory issues in an airspace, which is designed irrespective of national borders.

• Language, competency and licensing issues need to be resolved in order to establish cross-border sectors.

• Harmonisation of Rules, Regulations and Procedures is required in order to establish cross-border sectors.

• Technical Systems to support the implementation of the vision/scenario.

• To apply a charging scheme, which enables the most efficient use of the airspace design (avoid that AO’s plan and fly sub-optimal routes due to differences in charging levels).

• Incorporating civil and military airspace design requirements and processes on national and FAB level to ensure all airspace users’ needs are addressed by the design.

6.12 NEFAB Airspace Design Activities in 2009 and 2010

A total of five NEFAB Airspace design workshops were performed during the autumn of 2009 and spring 2010:



of 70

• 21st to 22nd of October, 2009 in Copenhagen

• 24th to 26th of November, 2009 in Malmö

• 16th to 18th of March, 2010 in Helsinki

• 13th to 15th of April, 2010 in Oslo

• 25th to 27th of May, 2010 in Riga

The workshops were assisted by EUROCONTROL. Operational experts from the NEFAB ACCs, danish and swedish ACCs and military experts from different states participated. At these workshops the Airspace scenarios for 2015 and 2020 were elaborated and analysed using the SAAM tool. These activities took into consideration the overall European ATS route network development and the NEFAB contribution to the overall European network performance.



of 70

7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS

7.1 Introduction

This section provides a high level description of the expected benefits with regard to airspace improvements, according to the SAAM modelling activity. In order to be able to assess the potential benefits in more detail, further evaluations of the proposed improvements need to be conducted on a smaller scale.

Capacity baselines in SAAM evaluations for 2015 and 2020 are based on current declared capacities, not taking into account any ATM system improvements between the present and 2015/2020. In addition to the airspace design, major drivers for capacity enhancement are system supported tools. Such system improvements are for example:

• Increased system supported coordination intra- and inter-centre,

• Implementation of other automated support systems (e.g. OLDI implementation at the NEFAB RUS interface etc.)

7.2 SAAM Modelling

The SAAM modelling performed during the NEFAB Airspace design workshops resulted in the identification of potential benefits with the proposed enhancements of the ATS route network. SAAM economic scenario AEM modelling (origin-destination) was used.

The following traffic evolution was used in the evaluation of the 2015 vision and 2020 scenario (high growth model):

Flights 20080627 Flights 2015-H Traffic increase

ECAC 34315 43663 27.2%

NEFAB 3166 3931 24.2%

Flights 20080627 Flights 2020-H Traffic increase

ECAC 34315 54011 57.4%

NEFAB 3166 4898 54.7%

The following assumptions and limitations should be considered when analysing the results of the SAAM modelling activity:

• Aircraft are assigned on the shortest available route from origin to destination

• All RAD conditions (restrictions and DCTs) valid for AIRAC cycle 1003 apply

• Differences in route charges are not taken into account



of 70

• Meteorological conditions are not taken into account

• Sector capacities are not considered in the traffic assignment

• Tactical re-routings are not taken into account

• 200NM DCT flight planning option is not available

• Off-shore helicopters, circular flights and flights to unknown ADEP/ADES are not included in the traffic sample used.

The following set of data was used in the reference scenario:

• Route network: VST (RNDSG Very Short Term) 1003, including Oslo ASAP project and Free Route Airspace FL285+ in DK/SE FAB. The VST model was validated and corrected to represent the current operations.

• Traffic sample: based on 27.6.2008 and adjusted according to the STATFOR forecast for the year 2015 (high growth model) and artificially adjusted for the year 2020 (based on 2015 model with 50% traffic increase in comparison to 2008).

• Military areas activated according to a “typical day” scenario as agreed with the military partners.

The SAAM analysis compares the reference scenario with the various development scenarios on a one on one basis. The Route Length Analysis module automatically excludes the segment of flight inside a 30NM of the airport of origin and destination of each flight. The comparison is calculated by adding the differences of the en-route segment (between the circles) of all the flights. The reductions in flight time, fuel burn and CO2 emissions are calculated using fixed average multiplication factors.

In the 2015 vision the following potential benefits were calculated for flights within NEFAB airspace compared to the reference scenario:

2015 vision (FL285) Per day (all flights) Per year (all flights)

Reduced route extensions 6 321 Nautical Miles 2 307 256 Nautical Miles

Reduced flight time 1 020 minutes 372 139 minutes



126 425 kg of CO2 46 145 125 kg of CO2

The following set of data was used in the 2015 scenario:

• Route network: VST (RNDSG Very Short Term) 1003, including Oslo ASAP project and full Free Route Airspace above FL285 in the continental NEFAB area. The VST model was validated and corrected to represent the current operations.



of 70

• Traffic sample: based on 27.6.2008 and adjusted according to the STATFOR forecast for the year 2015 using the high growth model.


• ATS route proposals as described Appendix 2.

In the 2020 minimum scenario the following potential benefits were calculated for flights within NEFAB airspace, compared to the reference scenario:

2020 minimum scenario Per day (all flights) Per year (all flights)

Reduced route extensions 8584 Nautical Miles 3 133 317 Nautical Miles

Reduced flight time 1 385 minutes 505 375 minutes



171 689 kg of CO2 62 666 339 kg of CO2

The following set of data was used in the 2020 minimum scenario:


• Traffic sample: based on 27.6.2008 and artificially adjusted for the year 2020 (based on 2015 model with 50% traffic increase in comparison to 2008).



In the 2020 performance scenario the following potential benefits were calculated for flights within NEFAB airspace, compared to the reference scenario:

2020 perf. scenario Per day (all flights) Per year (all flights)

Reduced route extensions 9112 Nautical Miles 3 325 712 Nautical Miles

Reduced flight time 1470 minutes 536 404 minutes



182 231 kg of CO2 66 514 242 kg of CO2

The following set of data was used in the 2020 performance scenario:



of 70


• Traffic sample: based on 27.6.2008 and artificially adjusted for the year 2020 (based on 2015 model with 50% traffic increase in comparison to 2008).



Free Route connectivity to fixed ATS route network was largely based on the use of existing points. Location of these points can potentially be refined offering additional savings. Traffic growth beyond assessed figures will potentially increase the benefits.

The analysis also showed that flights through DK/SE FAB and entering/leaving NEFAB will benefit from additional reductions in route lengths due to the enhanced routing options in NEFAB (estimated 2948 NM per day/ 1 075 907 NM per year with NEFAB FRA FL285+ in 2015, and estimated 4303 NM per day/ 1 570 770 NM per year with NEFAB FRA FL195+ by 2020).



of 70

8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION

This chapter provides a high level estimate of the types of costs that will accrue from the implementation of the scenarios. The costs are characterised by cost drivers and cost types in the tables below. Cost drivers may include items such as additional FTEs, severance costs, systems investments etc. Cost type indicates whether the cost will be permanent or a onetime cost. The development of the 2015 and 2020 scenarios follow the same general development path with some variations depending on the scope of the planned change.

8.1 ATS Routes

• Check the demand for the proposed routes;

• Check if alternative routes are needed/available;

• Check for impact of the proposed routes (e.g. conflicts, workload issues);

• Determine if there is a need to perform Fast-time/Real-time simulations/Live-trials;

• Conduct coordination of the proposals within the FAB, with neighbouring FABs, at European level, at ICAO-level;

• Approval by NSAs prior to submission for publication;

• Publication preparation (generally 6 months, multinational coordination required in FAB).

8.2 Free Route Airspace

• Develop the concept including, application, procedures and phases;

• Consultation with the military stakeholders and NSAs;

• Evaluate the impact on systems, ATS units, neighbouring areas, IFPS, CFMU;

• Perform Fast-time simulations of Flows;

• Perform Real-time simulations;

• Conduct coordination of the proposals within the FAB, with neighbouring FABs, at European level, at ICAO-level;

• Approval by NSAs;

• Publication (3-6 AIRAC cycles).



of 70

8.3 Sectorisation

• Procedure design proposals/options;

• Validate the proposals;

• Coordination with military stakeholders and NSAs;

• Determine which proposal should be subject to further study;

• If sectors are cross-border an additional set of activities has to be performed in several areas;

• Assess sector capacities;

• Assess sector opening schemes and sector possible configurations;

• CFMU coordination;

• Perform Fast-time simulations;

• Perform Real time simulations if deemed needed for specific areas;

• Develop OPS Rules and procedure, Letter of Agreements;

• Perform training of operational staff;

• Approval by NSAs;

• Publication (2 AIRAC cycles).

8.4 Airspace Classification

• Validate the impact of the (regulatory driven) change to the operational environment;

• Coordinate change with NSA and other external stakeholders;

• Develop and validate procedures for the adapted operational environment;

• Consider training requirements;

• Publication coordination;

• Implementation.

8.5 FUA Structures

• Identify military operational needs through collaborative CIV/MIL airspace design, develop operational concept and safety case;



of 70

• Assess military requirements’ impact on the network on FAB level;

• Design applicable airspace structures as a CIV/MIL coordinated proposal together with ATS and ASM/ATFCM;

• Assess design impact on system level;

• Design applicable procedures and ASM/ATFCM scenarios;

• Perform design and procedure validation with fast time/real time simulations;

• CFMU/CADF coordination;

• Concept of operations;

• Appropriate stakeholder agreements;

• Required training;

• Publication coordination;

• Implementation;

• Lifespan monitoring and performance evaluation.

8.6 Implementation Costs for 2015 Vision and 2020 Scenarios

High level roadmap Cost drivers Cost type

ATS route and sectorisation development:

Validate route demand and options

Project cost for resources

Project cost for planning tools

Running cost for project duration

Validate design impact and robustness

Project costs for resources

Project cost for simulations


Coordinate changes Coordination forums, meetings, CFMU cooperation

Onetime cost (n)

Conduct training and trials

Project (design & training staff) and salary cost (ATCOs & simulation specialists)


1.

Publish changes Project cost (AIS), publication cost, external cost (airspace users)

Running cost for project duration (publication planning)



of 70

Onetime cost (users)

Implement changes System updates Onetime cost

Free Route development:

Develop FRA concept Project cost for resources


External participation (MIL, other airspace users)


Develop FRA procedures





Evaluate and validate change impact

Coordination forums, meetings, CFMU cooperation, airspace users, neighbouring states

Onetime cost (n)

Conduct simulations and trials


External participants


Conduct training Project (design & training staff) and salary cost (ATCOs & simulation specialists)

External training


2.




Implement changes System updates

System Support

Operational support

Onetime cost

Continuous maintenance cost

Salary cost for duration

3. Airspace Classification:



of 70

Assess operational impact

Project costs for resources Running cost for project duration

Develop procedures Project costs for resources Running cost for project duration






Implement changes System updates Onetime cost

FUA structures development:

: Validate operational requirements and concept on network level

Project cost for resources


Running cost for project duration.

Design structures Project cost for resources


Running cost for project duration.

Validate design impact and robustness, develop procedures





Conduct simulations and trials


External participants


Evaluate and validate change impact

Coordination forums, meetings, CADF cooperation, airspace users, neighbouring states

Onetime cost (n)

4.





of 70

External training




Implement changes System updates

System Support

Operational support

Onetime cost

Continuous maintenance cost

Salary cost for duration



of 70

9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION OF THE FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT

Note: The CBA (see separate document) for this initiative is based on a benefit realisation in 2017 for the Performance scenario. This implies that the duration and end dates for the relevant activities described in the tables below will need to be compressed accordingly if the Performance scenario is chosen with an implementation already in 2017..

9.1 ATS Route Improvement Implementation

High level roadmap Start date

End date

Duration Dependencies

Enhance the fixed ATS route network where required

2011 2020* 10 years

Rules and procedures

MIL coordination procedures

ATC system support

System support from EUROCONTROL systems, IFPS, CFMU etc.

Flight planning rules

Sectorisation

Simulations

Safety assessment

ASM/ATFCM

1.1 Identify areas of ATS route network enhancement

->

1.2 Design ATS route alignment solutions

1.3 Identify CDR category and management principles

Together with ASM/ATFCM

1.4 Design supporting sectorisation solution

1.5 Implement enhanced ATS route network

->1 – 3 years

Depending on complexity of airspace in question

1.

*ATS route network development is a continuous process, which cannot be described as a “start-end” type activity. Implementation of a specific segment follows the described pattern.



of 70

Migrate from fixed ATS route network to free route application where possible

2011 2020

2.1 Identify areas of free route application

->

2.2 Identify Free Route application type

2.3 Adjust appropriate airspace structures to accommodate Free Route application

2.4 Implement Free Route in defined area

-> 3-5 years

Depending on free route solution and existing airspace structures

2.

ATS route development, sector adjustments and free route migration and implementation are all linked.

9.2 Free Route Airspace Implementation


End date


Establish NEFAB Free Route Airspace

2011

2020* 10 years


ASM procedures

ATC system support

System support from EUROCONTROL systems, IFPS, CFMU etc.

Flight planning rules

Sectorisation

Simulations

Safety assessment

1.3 FRA Norway 2011 2015 4 years Decision lies with Avinor

1.

1.4 FRA Finland 2011 2015 4 years Decision lies with Finavia

Phased implementation:

• Night free route 2011



of 70

• Free route in defined area (ref ESAA FRAS phased implementation) 2014

• Free route in EFIN FIR above FL285 2015

1.5 FRA Estonia 2011 2015 4 years Decision to be made by EANS

Not feasible prior to system upgrade planned for 2012.

1.6 FRA NEFAB-wide On-going

2020 10 years

Decision lies with NEFAB

*The “2015 Vision” and “2020 Minimum Scenario” represent steps leading towards the “2020 Performance Scenario”.

9.3 Airspace Classification Harmonisation for the Year 2015


End date


Reducing airspace classifications to two classes

2011 2015 5 years European Commission regulation

Military requirements

Service provision policies

Regulatory Framework


1.

1.1 Analyse current airspace classifications by Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway.

2011

2012

1 year

1.2 Harmonise application of airspace classification according to European Commission Regulation

2011 2012 1 year

Removal of Division Flight Level between Upper and Lower airspace

2011 2015 4 years ATS route design

ATC systems

State legislation

2.

2.1 Removing letter “U” from route designators.

2011 2012 2 years ATS systems

ICAO requirements



of 70

9.4 Airspace Classification Harmonization for the Year 2020


End date


1. Harmonisation of Airspace Classification below FL95

2015 2020 5 years European Commission regulation

Military requirements

Service provision policies

Regulatory Framework


9.5 FUA Structure Design for the Year 2015


End date


Establish FUA structures allowing for increased flexibility in ASM

2011

2015 4 years


MIL coordination procedures

ATS

ASM/ATFCM

System support

Simulations

Safety assessment

1.1 Identify traffic flows affecting area design (major and minor flows)

2011 2011 6-12 months

1.2 Design core training areas limited by the major flows

2011 2012 1 year

1.3 Design modular training areas around core area for flexible ASM procedures

2012 2013 1 year Adjust flows as required

1.4 Implement modular training areas

2013 2015 3 years ASM/ATFCM procedures required

1.

Area design to be performed according to the common CIV/MIL planning procedure together with the ASM/ATFCM track.

9.6 FUA Structure Design for the Year 2020


End date




of 70

Establish FUA structures allowing for ASM in Free Route Airspace

2014

2017* 3 years


MIL co-ordination procedures

ATS

ASM/ATFCM

System support

Simulations

Safety assessment

1.1 Identify traffic flows affecting area design (major and minor flows)

2014 2015 6-12 months

1.2 Design core training areas limited by the major flows

2015 2017 2 year

1.3 Design modular training areas around core area for flexible ASM procedures according to VPA principles

2015 2017 2 year Adjust flows as required

1.4 Design re-routing options (e.g. waypoints)

2015 2017 2 years ATS and ASM/ATFCM procedures required

1.

*Continuation of the 2015 scenario which is a pre-requisite to achieve these timelines.

2. Design Dynamic Mobile Areas

2015 2020 5 years Rules and procedures

MIL co-ordination procedures

ATS

ASM/ATFCM

System support

Simulations

Safety assessment

2.1 Establish common design and operational criteria for DMA

2015 2017 2 year

2.2 Ensure system support for DMA application

2016 2019 3 years

2.3 Establish ATS/ASM/ATFCM procedures for DMA management

2018 2020 2 years



of 70

Steps 2.2 and 2.3 can overlap previous steps once their concept and requirements are mature enough.



of 70

10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS

10.1 Introduction

This section provides a high level description of key risks together with an assessment of probability and impact. Risks regarding the implementation of Airspace design improvements include at least the following items:

10.1.1 National Laws and Regulations

Differences in the national laws, aviation acts, and other associated regulations may pose a risk to the implementation of cross-border sectors and the potential for increased performance.

10.1.2 National Interests

National military and national sovereignty issues; unless the different military requirements and sovereignty issues can be accommodated in an acceptable yet harmonised way, this poses a major risk to the implementation of the airspace design scenarios.

10.1.3 ANSP Interests

The national service providers have their own business interests, which are not necessarily common among the ANSPs in the FAB. Implementation of effective airspace and network management solutions could be constrained by such discrepancies. ANSPs commitment to the overall best airspace solutions is therefore a key success factor.

10.1.4 Resource Allocation

The planning and implementation of ambitious airspace scenarios within tight timelines will require the allocation of substantial human and financial resources. Developing major airspace changes is a complex and time consuming process and unless sufficient resources are made available the risk of failure will be high.

10.1.5 Concept of Operations

A Concept of Operations, which describes in detail how the Operational Concept should be applied, is a prerequisite for the implementation of the future airspace scenarios. If this is not in place, or of sufficient quality, it will pose a risk on the successful implementation of the scenarios.

10.1.6 Technical System Support

The operational concept and the implementation of the future airspace scenarios are dependent upon a system support, which enables their implementation. If these



of 70

systems are not in place, there is a substantial risk that concepts and scenarios cannot be implemented as described and performance targets cannot be met.

10.1.7 Charging Scheme

Unless a charging scheme is established to avoid that Aircraft Operators plan and fly suboptimal routes/trajectories, there is a risk that the increased performance foreseen by implementing the airspace scenarios will not be fully achieved.

10.2 2015 Scenario Implementation Risks

The initiatives listed in chapter 6 of the document (Future Service Concept) are assessed in this section. The following risk classification scheme has been applied in the high level risk assessment of the scenarios:

Risk classification:

Low < 40% - Not likely, probability of 0-40%

Medium 40-70% - Likely, probability of 40-70%

High >70% - Very likely, probability of more than 70%

The following impact classification scheme has been applied in the high level impact assessment of the scenarios:

Impact severity:

Low: Low impact, such as slight delays or small adjustments to budget.

Medium: Impact with substantial effects on budget, time plan, performance etc.

High: Critical impact, enough to potentially cause implementation failure.

10.2.1 Route Structure 2015

Risk 1: ATS routes are not optimised in NEFAB

Risk Level: Low

Impact Severity: Medium

Risk Mitigation:

• Continuous cooperation between ANSPs;

• A common airspace design management in NEFAB;

• Participation in international airspace design forums such as RNDSG and RDGE;

• Continuous development of route structure based on traffic evolution.



of 70

Risk 2: Free routes are not implemented in sections of NEFAB

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Common concept of operation;

• A common airspace design management in NEFAB;

• Cooperation between ANSPs to ensure an objective charging scheme, which enables the use of most efficient flight trajectories and use of airspace.

10.2.2 ATC Sectorisation

Risk 1: ATC sectors are not adapted unconstrained by national borders and/or FIR/UIR boundaries

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Common concept of operation;

• Harmonised rules and regulations in NEFAB states;

• Cooperation between ANSPs to ensure objective charging scheme.

Risk 2: Sectors are not designed according to traffic flows, route structure or traffic density

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Cooperation between ANSPs;

• Continuous demand for airspace requires an ongoing program to follow changes in sector capacity, sector configuration and traffic flows.

Risk 3: The principles for sector design are not being used

Risk Level: Low

Impact Severity: High



of 70

Risk Mitigation:

• Cooperation between ANSPs to ensure use of common methods.

10.2.3 Airspace Classification

Risk 1: NEFAB states are not able to fulfil the EC Regulation No 1070/2009 and harmonise airspace classification below FL195

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted to achieve unified airspace classification in NEFAB.

Risk 2: NEFAB states are not able to produce common application and access rules of class C airspace above FL095

Risk Level: Low

Impact Severity: Low

Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted to achieve unified airspace classification throughout NEFAB;

• Harmonised procedures in the use of airspace classes.

Risk 3: NEFAB states are not able to reduce number of airspace classes

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted to achieve unified airspace classification in NEFAB.

Risk 4: NEFAB states are not able to remove division between upper and lower airspace

Risk Level: Low




of 70

10.2.4 Military Areas/FUA Structures

Risk 1: Militaries do not support the NEFAB airspace structure

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted at early stages to achieve consensus between all parties concerned;

• Continuous cooperation between CIV/MIL.

Risk 2: Airspace design process is not a collaborative CIV/MIL process

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted at early stages to achieve consensus between all parties concerned;

• Continuous cooperation between CIV/MIL.

10.3 2020 Performance Scenario Implementation Risks

10.3.1 Route Structure 2020

Risk 1: Free Route Airspace concept is not implemented in NEFAB

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Establishment of NEFAB-wide airspace planning unit;

• Harmonisation of rules and procedures;

• An objective charging scheme established;

• Continuous cooperation between ANSPs, other FABs and third states;

• Cooperation between system development and ASM.



of 70

Risk 2: Free Route Airspace is not applied (division of flight levels) as it is described in the scenario

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:

• Harmonisation of rules and procedures;

• Continuous cooperation between ANSPs, other FABs and third states;

• Cooperation between system development and ASM.

Risk 3: A common charging scheme approved by all NEFAB states is not applied

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:

• Issue which need to be solved at state level.

Risk 4: Common NEFAB-wide network development plan has not been established

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• NEFAB-wide network development plan need to be managed under the NEFAB governance.

10.3.2 ATC Sectorisation

Risk 1: Collaborative sector management for dynamic sectorisation is not in place

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:

• Centralised NEFAB network management unit in place;

• Harmonised rules and regulations in NEFAB states;

• Cooperation between ANSPs and common concept of operation;



of 70

• Continuous demand for airspace requires an ongoing program to follow changes in sector capacity, sector configuration and traffic flows.

Risk 2: Language, licensing and regulatory issues are not solved

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:

• Harmonised rules and regulations in NEFAB states.

10.3.3 Airspace Classification

Risk 1: NEFAB states are not able to fulfil the requirements set by Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA).

Risk Level: Low


Risk Mitigation:

• Militaries need to be consulted to achieve unified airspace classification throughout NEFAB.

10.3.4 Military Areas/FUA Structures

Risk 1: Regulatory and supervisory issues to support collaborative planning are not in place

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:

• Cooperation between ANSPs, CAAs and militaries.

Risk 4: Rules and regulations concerning cross-border operations and common concept of operations are not in place

Risk Level: Medium


Risk Mitigation:



of 70

• Centralised cross-border area management need to be in place;

• Harmonised rules and regulations concerning affecting states;

• Cooperation between CIV/MIL.



of 70

11. SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS

The summary of net benefits in this initiative is included in the NEFAB CBA.

nefab project initiative 1 ats routes and sectorisation · the airspace should be considered as one...

Documents