EUROCONTROL and Association of European Airlines: Partnership

for Performance and Growth

EUROCONTROL and Association of European Airlines:

Partnership for Performance and Growth

Editor-in-Chief
Commissioning Editors
Group Editorial Director
Managing Editor
Deputy Managing Editor
Sub-Editor
Group Art Director
Art Editor
Group Production Director
Group Sales Director
Sales Manager
Sales Executives
Client Relations Director
Chief Operating Officer
Publisher and Chief Executive
CONTACTS
Simon Michell Published by
Christos Petrou Newsdesk Communications Ltd
David Henderson 5th Floor, 130 City Road,
Claire Manuel London, EC1V 2NW, UK
Louise Drew Telephone +44 (0) 20 7650 1600
Zac Casey Fax +44 (0) 20 7650 1609
Nick Gordon www.newsdeskmedia.com
David Cooper Newsdesk Communications Ltd publishes a wide range of
Emma McCaugherty business and customer publications. For further information
please contact Natalie Spencer, Client Relations Director or
Tim Richards Richard Linn, Chief Operating Officer.
Newsdesk Communications Ltd is a Newsdesk Media
Andrew Howard Group company.
Martin Murphy
Doug Crerand On behalf of EUROCONTROL
Phil Sims Rue de la Fusée, 96, B-1130
Brussels, Belgium
Natalie Spencer Tel: +32 (0) 2 729 9011
Fax: +32 (0) 2 729 9044
Richard Linn www.eurocontrol.int
Alan Spence
and Association of European Airlines
Avenue Louise 350
B-1050 Brussels Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 639 8989
Fax: +32 (0)2 639 8999
Email: aea.secretariat@aea.be
www.aea.be
Pictures: Alamy, Corbis, Getty, photolibrary.com, Flughafen
München GmbH, Athens International Airport, Arne V Petersen-
Copenhagen Airports A/S
Repro: ITM Publishing Services
Printed by Buxton Press
ISBN 1-905435-27-4
© 2007. The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
The views and opinions expressed by independent authors and contributors
in this publication are provided in the writers’ personal capacities and are
their sole responsibility.
Their publication does not imply that they represent the views or opinions of
Newsdesk Communications Ltd, EUROCONTROL or AEA and must neither be
regarded as constituting advice on any matter whatsoever, nor be
interpreted as such.
The reproduction of advertisements in this publication does not in any way
imply endorsement by Newsdesk Communications Ltd, EUROCONTROL
or AEA of products or services referred to therein. 3
 CONTENTS

Introductions and forewords ATM: the challenge of growth

Meeting the challenge 11 Social and economic benefits of aviation 28

By Víctor M. Aguado, Director General, EUROCONTROL By Simon Michell

Encouraging co-operation 17 Airline perspective on ATM and ATM funding 34

By Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, Secretary General AEA By Anne Paylor

The Single European Sky forges ahead 21 The Central Route Charges Office 38
By Jaques Barrot, Vice President, European Commission, By Julian Moxon
responsible for Transport
The Central Flow Management Unit 42
Focus on performance 23 By Julian Moxon
By Roberto Kobeh González, President of the Council of the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) The European AIS Database 46
By David Learmount
Addressing challenges 27
By Simon Michell, Editor-in-Chief, ‘Partnership for Dynamic Management of the European 50
Performance and Growth’ Airspace Network
By Julian Moxon

5
 CONTENTS

Recent progress on Functional Airspace Blocks 53

By Jenny Taylor

The EU transport White Paper mid-term review 56

By Jenny Taylor

Controlling fuel costs 59

By Anne Paylor

Challenges at airports 62 The SESAR programme 78

By Simon Michell By Ian Goold

Enhancing capacity 68 European airlines’ external relations 84

By Brendan Gallagher By Martin Todd

Performance of the European ATM system 72 Intermodal transport, competition and co-operation 87
By Anne Paylor By Simon Michell

The Single European Sky 75 Research and development 90

By Ian Goold By Ian Goold

7
 CONTENTS

Safer skies

Airlines’ perspective on safety 92

By Martin Todd

European ATM safety programmes 96

By David Learmount

Airport safety 100

By David Learmount

Security in European skies 104

By Edward Downs

The environment

The environment 108

By Simon Michell
Profiles
The greening of ATM 112
By Brendan Gallagher What is EUROCONTROL? 124
By Simon Michell
The airlines and the environment 115
By Brendan Gallagher What is the Association of European Airlines? 127
By Simon Michell
Weather monitoring 119
By Martial Tardy Advertiser index 130

8
 FOREWORD

MEETING THE
CHALLENGE
Víctor M. Aguado, Director General, EUROCONTROL

T
he air transport industry continues to grow as more
and more passengers take to the skies. However, the The industry
industry is still challenged by fuel prices, security
threats, environmental issues and the potential capacity needs to be able
squeezes that this high level of growth brings in its wake.
In order to overcome these challenges, the industry needs to rely on superior
to be able to rely on superior performance from
infrastructure networks and services. These networks – Air performance from
Traffic Management (ATM) and airports forming two of the
most visible – have to work in smooth partnership with
infrastructure networks
airlines and other airspace users to ensure that the highest
standards are achieved.
and services

11
 FOREWORD
EUROCONTROL is acutely aware of how much the airlines
have done over the last five years to improve their own
performance, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. In
our opinion, it behoves ATM to do its best to support the
airlines’ superlative efforts and make certain that the system is
the best possible, particularly from a cost point of view.
In line with this thinking, various studies on cost-efficiency
have been undertaken by EUROCONTROL’s Performance
Review Commission (PRC). Their findings are unsettling.
En-route horizontal inefficiencies, for instance, cost airspace
users some E1.4 billion annually. Improving en-route
horizontal flight efficiency by one-third during weekends
could generate annual savings in the order of E130 million
per annum. Work has begun on an initiative to make these
improvements a reality.
However, the main cause of these inefficiencies is not, as
was previously thought, the national borders. In fact, the
sub-optimal structure of civil/military airspace is a major
contributor. This is an area in which EUROCONTROL, with its
dual responsibility for both civil and military matters, can
make a sizeable contribution.
There is also the fundamental issue of fragmentation. The
PRC estimates that fragmentation of air navigation service
providers and control centres incurs additional costs of up to
12
EUROCONTROL is
acutely aware of how
much the airlines have
done over the last five
years to improve their
own performance
E1.4 billion per annum – an impressive sum when set against
the fact that the entire cost of en-route air traffic
management in Europe is in the order of E6 billion each year.
These factors will compound the challenge posed by
increasing traffic levels in the future. Traffic has been growing
steadily since 2001 in Europe and will probably continue to
grow at a rate of around 3-4 per cent per annum. This means
that traffic figures in 2024 will be double those of today,
reaching around 18 million flights per year.
Such an amount of traffic could potentially have a
significant impact on safety and capacity levels. In order to
make certain that safety and capacity will not be unduly
affected, a number of technical and operational
developments will have to be made.
Together with all aviation stakeholders – notably the airlines
– EUROCONTROL is planning and working on ensuring that
safety and capacity targets are met; it is dedicated to
ensuring that future systems are built in time and that
inefficiencies are ironed out.
In short, EUROCONTROL aims at facilitating the provision of
an ATM system that is safe, efficient, capacious – and one
that gives excellent value for money. The pages that follow
will give you a more precise idea of how we intend to meet
this goal.

ENCOURAGING
CO-OPERATION
Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, Secretary General,
Association of European Airlines (AEA)
I
am grateful to Víctor Aguado and to EUROCONTROL for
having invited AEA to participate in this yearbook. Airlines
and Air Traffic Management (ATM), along with the
airports, form the three pillars on which air transport is
founded – although there are, of course, many more players
in an extended value chain.
Of course, we in the airlines like to think of it as ‘our’ value
chain, since we are the ones who do the transporting.
I suppose the airports could argue that a journey would not be
a journey without a start and end point, while the ATM sector
would say that it’s the bit in between that matters, and that’s
the bit they look after.
Which only goes to demonstrate that, essentially, we’re all in
the same business, that of satisfying a strong and growing
demand for travel which is safe, affordable, efficient and,
hopefully, a pleasant experience. Evidently, the sustainability
and prosperity of the business is of paramount importance to
all participants.
In recent years, and indeed going forward into the future,
huge question-marks have hung and continue to hang over
our sustainability and prosperity. As a group, the airlines of
AEA are at present making economic returns that are far from
adequate for the long-term viability of the industry.
Competition between airlines keeps prices low, while
numerous forces outside the airlines’ control contribute to
keeping costs high.
The low prices drive the ever-growing demand for travel,
which places great strain on infrastructure provision, while the
FOREWORD
environmental dimension of growth constantly occupies the
attention of all who participate in the industry. We on the
airline side are convinced that solutions to the environmental
dilemma will be found; we can only hope that we will be able
to afford them.
Since this is a EUROCONTROL yearbook, the accent is,
naturally, on ATM, although I hope that readers will take away a
rounded picture of the major issues facing our sector today.
For the airlines, ATM is an area which encapsulates both the
challenge and the solution. It is an area in which the old way of
doing business has led to identifiable inefficiencies that affect
the operational side of the airline business – through schedule
disruption, the economic side – through additional cost, and
the commercial side – through passenger dissatisfaction.
It is also an area in which giant steps are currently being
taken to remedy the situation. Through the Single European
Sky (SES) initiative – which, incidentally, originated with AEA in
the mid-1990s – and the SES ATM Research (SESAR) technical
programme that accompanies it, we can look forward to
massive cost savings and, every bit as important, substantial
environmental benefits.
The SES is a long-term project that will involve some
departures from long-held positions and practices. It is a
journey too, with a destination in a very different landscape
to the point of departure. It will require a strong and
mutually supportive working relationship between the pilots
and the controllers. This co-operative yearbook is a symbol of
that relationship.
17

THE SINGLE
EUROPEAN
SKY FORGES
AHEAD
Jacques Barrot, Vice President of the European
Commission, responsible for Transport
T
he Single European Sky (SES) is progressing. It now
covers 37 States, and by the end of 2006, all Air
Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) should have been
certified by their National Regulatory Authorities.
We reached an important milestone in December 2006
with the political agreement of the Council of Transport
Ministers on the Regulation establishing the Joint Undertaking
to manage the Development Phase of the SES ATM Research
(SESAR) programme. This decision marks the start of a
massive effort to modernise the European Air Traffic
Management (ATM) system and ensure sustainability, safety
and traffic growth to 2020 and beyond.
In the informal Transport Council in March 2007, the
European Commission will report on the progress of the
Definition Phase of SESAR. This report will focus on the main
elements of the future system and the financial contribution
from third parties (particularly from industry). On the basis
of this report, I hope the Council will give the green light to
the Joint Undertaking, allowing it to begin staff recruitment.
The Joint Undertaking should be fully operational by the end
of 2007.
Clearly an initiative as large as the Development Phase of
SESAR requires careful planning to ensure that the necessary
resources are in place when they will be needed. The
Commission has already secured its contribution to the SESAR
Development Phase of E700 million up to 2013 and is working
with EUROCONTROL and the industry to ensure that matching
funds are available when the Joint Undertaking needs them.
2007 is an important year and not only because of the
FOREWORD
start of the next phase of SESAR, but also because a number
of initiatives to create Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) will be
reaching the decision-making stage and the Commission will
be reporting to the Council on the implementation of the
Single European Sky. We will take the opportunity to review
the legislation and to propose changes where improvements
can be made, for example the extension of the SES legislation
to cover lower airspace. We will also be studying the progress
of FABs and their impact in reducing system fragmentation.
However, perhaps the biggest challenge of 2007 is the
reform of the regulatory framework for air transport. In
September 2006 we held a workshop where all interested
parties were asked for their views on the organisation of air
transport regulation. The conclusions were that there is an
urgent need to reform and simplify the regulatory framework;
that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) should be
the ultimate safety authority; that Community powers are the
only driving force in regulation and that the process should
involve all stakeholders.
To further develop the conclusions of this workshop, I
launched a small High Level Group in November 2006 made
up of selected representatives of European States, ANSPs,
airspace users, airports, the aviation industry, EASA and
EUROCONTROL. I asked this group to develop further the
outcome of the conference and to identify a new role for
EUROCONTROL in supporting the EC and States under the EU
umbrella. The group will report back by mid 2007, and we
will take account of its recommendations as we draft the
mid-term review of the SES.
21

FOCUS ON
PERFORMANCE
Roberto Kobeh González,
President of the Council of ICAO
I
n February 2006, the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) sent its 189 Member States a proposal
to amend the Global Air Navigation Plan for
Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic
Management (CNS/ATM) Systems. The revised Plan represents
a milestone in the implementation of an ATM system.
The vision for the ATM system is interoperability and
seamlessness across regions for all users during all phases of
flight, meeting agreed levels of safety, providing for optimum
economic operations, being environmentally sustainable, and
reflecting national security requirements.
The proposed Global Plan, based on recommendations of
the Eleventh Air Navigation Conference of 2003 and two
related industry roadmaps developed subsequent to the
Conference, is a means to that end. It is part of an integrated
set of tools and guidance material, which includes the Global
ATM Operational Concept, ATM Systems Requirements and
Performance-Based Transition Guidelines. Together, they will
guide the aviation community to the seamless global ATM
system we all seek.
ICAO has integrated this work into its new Business Plan,
which stresses the implementation of harmonised ATM
systems and performance-based efficiency improvements, as
well as increased functional integration between ICAO
Headquarters and Regional Offices. Through innovative
methods, it will facilitate planning and implementation of
important operational developments that have taken place in
recent years, particularly with regards to aircraft capabilities. It
will also ensure that opportunities that have emerged as
FOREWORD
technologies have matured, as research and trials have been
successfully concluded, and as procedures and specifications
have been finalised, are fully exploited.
Associated guidance and interactive planning tools for
States, regional planning groups and Air Navigation Services
Providers (ANSPs) will be used to establish performance
objectives and implementation time lines. The Global Plan
will thus become the baseline for measurable achievements
as the global ATM system continues to evolve from systems-
based to performance-based. States and regions will be able
to select initiatives tailored to their particular needs in order
to meet agreed-upon performance objectives.
Ultimately, a deliberate and co-ordinated approach to
implementation of an air navigation services infrastructure
will depend upon co-operation and transparency among all
stakeholders. It will also require interaction between ICAO
regions for greater harmonisation and alignment of regional
programmes and implementation activities. The co-operative
approach would be supported by interactive software
programmes and other common planning tools that foster
uniformity in the application of the various components of
the Plan.
The time to act is now to successfully address the
challenge posed by the anticipated annual growth in air
traffic of 3.5 per cent over the next decade, which translates
into some 30 million aircraft movements and 2.8 billion
passengers by 2015.
ICAO is committed to meeting the operational
expectations of the world aviation community.
23

ADDRESSING
CHALLENGES
Simon Michell, Editor-in-Chief,
‘Partnership for Performance and Growth’
T
his year’s EUROCONTROL yearbook expands on the
theme of last year’s publication, ‘safety’, and, with the
help of the Association of European Airlines (AEA),
addresses the challenge of partnering for enhanced
performance and growth so that all stakeholders in the
industry can accrue the benefits resulting from that growth.
Aviation’s importance to the global economy has been
noted by the G8 leaders and support for its expansion hinges
on the industry’s ability to implement sustainable growth
strategies. These strategies must not only guarantee the
customer increased freedom of movement, but also address
the challenges of climate change, noise and protection of
the environment in general.
New airports are required to support the continued growth
of the European and global economies, but existing capacity
must also be released to limit aviation’s negative impact. This
highlights the importance of the Single European Sky (SES)
initiative and the incremental steps towards its goals, which
are being developed through the SES ATM Research (SESAR)
programme. Stakeholders in the industry are engaged in a
systematic and relentless effort to develop new technologies,
working practices and support structures to achieve the
necessary advances for the required sustainable development.
Air Traffic Management (ATM) is working with its partners,
particularly in the airline, Air Navigation Service Provider
(ANSP) and airport communities to implement new
procedures to combat inefficiencies and lessen
environmental damage. Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), as
foreseen by the SES, will break through the limitations
FOREWORD
presented by the current structure based on national
borders. Techniques like the Continuous Descent Approach
(CDA) have already shown that not only do they lead to a
reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, via reduced
fuel burn, but they also reduce noise levels around the
approaches to airports. New technologies such as Advanced
Surface Movement and Guidance Control Systems (A-SMGCS)
and Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC)
systems are also proving that capacity at airports can be
enhanced through improved ‘visibility’ and more robust
communications techniques. Airports themselves are
implementing new procedures to increase efficiency with
programmes such as the Airport Collaborative Decision
Making (A-CDM) system.
Safety remains a priority for the aviation community.
Work continues unabated to develop safer procedures and
systems. With the completion of EUROCONTROL’s Strategic
Safety Action Plan (SSAP) in January of this year, the
implementation phase, known as the European Safety
Programme (ESP), was launched. As part of the ESP, work has
now started on putting in place enhancements to European
ATM regulation, improved incident reporting and data
sharing, proactive use of risk assessment and mitigation in
day-to-day operations and the enhancement of Safety
Management Systems (SMS) at ANSPs.
In conclusion, I would like to thank both EUROCONTROL and
the AEA for contributing to this publication. The insights into
the programmes and developments being pursued by both
organisations would not have been possible without their help.
27
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

BENEFITS OF AVIATION
The social and economic benefits produced by the air transport industry
are felt at local, national and international levels. Simon Michell assesses
their value and wider influence on the global community

28
T
he focus on air transport related issues at the Gleneagles through catalytic impacts.
2005 G8 summit underlined aviation’s importance to The majority of these jobs have been created in developed
the global economy. Whilst it is recognised that, to nations with 1.8 million in North America, 1.5 million in Europe
some degree, aviation’s benefits to society are countered by and 1.2 million in the Asia-Pacific region. That said, however,
some of its more negative effects in terms of climate change the industry supports employment in the less developed parts
and harmful emissions, the G8 leaders have been urged to of the world with 170,000 in Africa, 165,000 in the Middle-East
build on aviation’s important 4.5 per cent contribution to the and 210,000 in Latin America.
global GDP. The challenge facing civil aviation, therefore, is to Within Europe, more than 7.5 million jobs are reliant on the
demonstrate that considerable effort is being channelled into
activities designed to ensure that these negative impacts are
significantly reduced and that they are greatly outweighed by
European ATM
the social and economic benefits civil aviation can generate. revenues account for
Economic impact 5 per cent of the
The economic impact of aviation is produced at all levels of
the industry from the manufacture of aircraft and associated overall aviation
equipment, the knock-on effects of travel itself and revenues
accrued through taxation and the levying of charges for contribution to
service provision.
Air Traffic Management (ATM) is the essential infrastructure European GDP
of systems, people and procedures that facilitates air travel.
The European ATM system is a network with some 25,000-
30,000 commercial flights per day undertaken by 5,000
aircraft flying between 1,000 major airports through 600
sectors. World ATM revenues are in the region of $20 billion
per annum with European ATM accounting for as much as $9
billion (E7 billion) of this. As such, European ATM revenues
account for 5 per cent of the overall aviation contribution to
European GDP.
According to the Air Transport Action Group’s (ATAG’s)
report The economic and social benefits of aviation,
published in 2005, as many as 2.3 billion people may travel by
air each year by 2010. Already, over 29 billion tonnes of
freight, representing 40 per cent of manufactured goods, are
transported by air annually, and over half of all international
© Birmingham International Airport

tourists (excluding those travelling within Europe) fly to their

holiday destinations. As such, it provides an essential global
infrastructure, which not only supports, but also drives social
and economic progress.
The Group also highlights how a total of 29 million jobs are
reliant on the air transport industry worldwide. This figure
comprises 5 million direct jobs, 5.8 million indirect jobs,
2.7 million induced jobs, 15.5 million direct and indirect jobs

29

© Austro Control
Air Traffic Controller in new Austro Control Tower at Vienna Airport
Within Europe, more
than 7.5 million jobs are
reliant on the air
transport industry, either
directly or indirectly
air transport industry, either directly or indirectly, or as a result
of induced and catalytic impacts. It also provides access to
regions whose only other transport links are by sea or through
inhospitable terrain. Air transport is absolutely vital for the
tourist industry, which not only provides revenues for the
retailing, catering and hotel businesses, but also helps to boost
other industries in the host countries, such as agriculture,
fishing, construction and local crafts. Air transport is also vital
for 25 per cent of all companies’ sales worldwide.
More than 4 million of global aviation’s 5 million direct jobs,
that is, those positions within the industry, such as airlines,
airports, freight services, aircraft maintenance, Air Navigation
Service Providers (ANSPs) and retail are in the airlines or the
airports themselves. The remainder are in aircraft and aircraft
systems production and development activities. The 5.8 million
indirect jobs relate to the supply side, such as manufacturers of
electronic goods and computers, off-site suppliers, including
food, fuel supply and construction, business services (lawyers,
accountants), banks and software suppliers.
ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
All of these employees, be they engaged in either a direct or
indirect capacity, recycle their wages/salaries by putting money
back into the economy through the purchase of goods and
services required for day-to-day existence like food, clothing,
household goods and transport – to and from work. This
expenditure supports another level of employment referred to
as ‘induced’ and accounts for an additional 2.7 million jobs.
Where then, are the additional 15.5 million direct and
indirect jobs created as a result of the catalytic effect or spin-
off impact? Air transport’s catalytic effect/spin-off impact was
examined in a survey undertaken by International Air Transport
Association (IATA) in 2005, where it was found that over 70 per
cent of businesses in Chile, China, Czech Republic, France and
the US stated that in offering quick and affordable access to a
wider global market, aviation had assumed a key role in their
business strategies for growth. This, in itself, has led to
increased global competition through the ability not only for
businesses to source raw materials, components and finished
products from regions which offer these at a cheaper price,
but also to set up manufacturing businesses in these regions
as well and to sell their own goods to a larger market base.
Air transport also improves the labour market by facilitating
access to highly-skilled professionals from a global pool of
resources rather than a limited parochial domestic supply. It
has also transformed work patterns by allowing staff to
commute by air from a number of different offices around
the world. Some employees, particularly the more senior
ones, may alternate from head office to regional offices on a
weekly or monthly basis, cutting down on the need to employ
a number of expensive senior managers at each of the
outlying offices. This flexible labour movement makes airports
more important to the locations they are in, as they are, in
themselves, a magnet for inward investment. Good access to
an international airport is attractive to companies who are
looking to expand their operations, not only because it makes
it easier to transport their finished goods and raw materials,
but also because of the benefits of the more mobile labour
market. This effect has been quantified in a EUROCONTROL
and Oxford Economic Forecasting study of 25 European Union
Member States. It showed that the growth of air transport
over the last decade will contribute an additional 4 per cent
to European GDP through the wider supply-side impact on
investment and productivity.
31
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
Taxation
A lot of attention has recently been focused on aviation’s tax
exemption for aircraft fuel, which was granted under article 24
of the 1944 Chicago Convention. It has been suggested that
not only is the tax exemption unfair, it is also unwise due to
the environmental damage to which aviation contributes.
However, aviation is engaged in a wide-ranging set of
programmes and projects, aimed at reducing its impact on the
environment and is already a net tax contributor to
government exchequers around the world.
Aviation is the only form of transport that pays both user
charges and taxes. It pays for its own infrastructure through
the collection of charges at airports. According to IATA, airlines
pay up to US$42 billion per year in user charges to airports in
the form of payments to use the runway, as well as payments
to the ANSPs, which are often included in the price of an
airline ticket. The road and rail sectors may contribute to
taxation via fuel costs and in some cases through road tolls
and VAT, but in general neither rail nor road infrastructures pay
for themselves and are forced to rely on state subsidies for
their continued operations. In Europe alone, state subsidies to
the rail sector are close to US$50 billion per year.
Social impact
The impact of air transport on society goes much deeper
than just the economic benefits enjoyed by the people it
employs and the businesses it helps to trade. As far as
Europe is concerned, it is vital for the cohesion of the
enlarged Union. It helps to connect the regions – especially
the more remote ones – with each other as well as with the
32
political centres and provides the necessary infrastructure to
promote free movement of labour and goods.
Air transport also improves the quality of life of consumers
by providing a wider choice of goods and access to foreign
travel for recreation, cultural and political exchange. On top of
this, it is one of the safest modes of transport, as can be seen
by the European Environment Agency’s TERM 2003 report
which listed the number of people killed per billion passenger
kilometres as 5.9 for cars and only 0.4 for public air transport.
Images of the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia and earthquake
victims in Asia are a stark reminder that relief operations need
to be at the scene within hours of the event. These teams
require extensive support and equipment in order to carry out
their work. The only way of getting this on scene, on time, is
by air. Natural disasters, which occur over a more protracted
time-frame, also require commercial aircraft to deliver famine
relief and medical resources. Although much of the final
distribution of relief supplies is often undertaken by military
fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft or land vehicles, the initial
delivery of supplies relies heavily on chartered commercial
flights. According to Bo Redeborn, EUROCONTROL’s Director
ATM Strategies: “Such is the importance of aviation on the
global economy and society in general, that it is important
that its negative impact on the environment is minimised,
whilst at the same time, the necessary enhancements are
put into place in terms of the infrastructure and regulation to
ensure that it can continue to grow in a sustainable way.”
This article was jointly commissioned by
EUROCONTROL and AEA.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

AIRLINE PERSPECTIVE ON
ATM AND ATM FUNDING
Europe’s airlines call for a more efficient European
Air Traffic Management system. Anne Paylor explains

34
 Political commitment
is holding back some
of the more immediate
potential benefits of
the Single European
Sky initiative
F
ragmentation of the Air Traffic Management (ATM)
system in Europe remains one of the key concerns for
Europe’s airlines and it is costing them a considerable
amount of money.
The EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission (PRC)
estimates that the total cost of fragmentation could be in the
region of E880 million to E1.4 billion every year, representing
between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of en-route Air Traffic
Management/Communications, Navigation, Surveillance
(ATM/CNS) annual costs. These costs are predominantly
attributable to the fact that many Air traffic Control Centres
(ACCs) are too small to operate at optimum economic levels,
as well as to the duplication of bespoke ATM systems, many of
which suffer from a legacy of piecemeal equipment
procurement and the sub-optimal scale of their maintenance
and in-service development. In addition, further costs are due
to duplication of associated support activities, such as
training, administration and R&D. To that must be added the
cost of terminal Air Navigation Services (ANS), civil and military
ANS, Meteorological services (MET), Aeronautical Information
Services (AIS), regulation, and the impact of fragmentation.
Transition costs from a fragmented system to a de-
fragmented one, which, according to EUROCONTROL’s 2005
Performance Review report, may be substantial and in some
cases prohibitive, also need to be taken into account.
Efficiency gains within the European ATM system
“We must move towards a more efficient European ATM
system,” says Vincent de Vroey, General Manager, Technical
and Operations with the Association of European Airlines
(AEA). “The airlines are currently at the end of a value chain in
which our suppliers – Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)
and airports – are monopolies. In the context of the ATM
value chain, airlines pay some E6.7 billion a year for ATM
services. Of that, E3.8 billion – more than four times the
consolidated 2005 profit of the AEA airlines – relates to
fragmentation and other system inefficiencies. There is
enormous potential to address this problem in the long term.”
De Vroey cites, in particular, a need for less political
interference in operational ATM decisions. Cross-border
co-operation between ANSPs, for example, he thinks, should
be based on clear operational objectives without political
influence. Similarly, he explains that political commitment is
holding back some of the more immediate potential benefits
of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative.
The move towards larger and more efficient Functional
Airspace Blocks (FABs) as specified in the SES was, according
to de Vroey, “not going anywhere fast at the moment. The
only solution to getting FABs up and running to the benefit of
all airspace users is political commitment to move away from
purely national interests.”
35
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
A new operational concept
“We need a new operational concept,” says de Vroey. “We
need to know how it will happen and what technology will be
needed, but this should be driven by airline needs, not
industry or the space industry imposing on airlines systems
and technology that will support their aspirations.” He says
that the airlines are confident that the Single European Sky
ATM Research (SESAR) programme will help define this future
system that will allow air transport to continue growing in
step with market demand.
SESAR involves all stakeholders (civil and military, legislators,
industry, operators, users, ground and airborne) in defining,
committing to and ultimately implementing a more effective
and integrated ATM architecture that will facilitate the optimal
use of European airspace and airports to meet users’ needs.
SESAR’s objectives are to eliminate fragmentation, transform
the European ATM system, synchronise the plans and actions
of the different partners and federate resources. This will
require a ‘paradigm shift’ in the management of European
airspace, supported by state-of-the-art and innovative
technologies, to support the SES legislation.
The AEA is also hopeful that SESAR will help streamline and
rationalise R&D activities across Europe. De Vroey points out
that there is a lot of overlap at present and a great deal of
money “lost on some R&D efforts that are not useful for
airlines”. He wants the airlines to have a greater say in what
R&D is being done if it is being funded from airline charges. If
“The airline market has
been liberalised and we
need to see competition
introduced to a much
greater extent among
our service providers”
36
it is funded by the taxpayer, that is a different matter. But if
airlines are funding the effort, it should be relevant to them. It
is hoped that this will come out of SESAR.
There is some feeling that ANSPs could do more to cut
costs, but there need to be more incentives for them to do
so. Independent economic regulation would help keep costs
under control, the AEA believes, and suggests, that ultimately
Europe’s aviation industry may require a separate economic
regulator, just as it does a safety regulator.
“We are more than happy to pay for improvements to ATM,
but we are disinclined to pre-finance such investment,” de
Vroey says. “At present, we are expected to fund
improvements up front, before any benefits from the
investment are available. We believe the ANSPs should take on
more risk: they should fund such investments through
commercial money markets or banks, and we will pay for the
services once the additional benefits are available.”
As well as economic regulation, the airlines believe there
should be closer examination to determine which elements
of service provision, for example MET, AIS, etc, can be
opened up to competition. According to de Vroey: “The
airline market has been liberalised and somehow we need
to see competition introduced to a much greater extent
among our service providers. We cannot continue with this
fragmented system.”
This article was commissioned by AEA.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

© British Airways/Newscast

THE CENTRAL ROUTE

CHARGES OFFICE
Providing a flexible and transparent process for collecting charges within an
expanding EUROCONTROL membership requires constant innovation and change.
Julian Moxon assesses the current situation and looks at plans for the future

38
I
mproving the overall efficiency of the European Air Traffic
Management (ATM) system is key to EUROCONTROL’s
strategy of providing an enhanced and improved service to
its Member States. One of the most prominent players in
achieving this objective is the Central Route Charges Office
(CRCO), which provides secure and stable funding for ATM
operation and development in Europe. The CRCO bills and
collects route charges representing some 80 per cent of the
revenues of Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs).
The CRCO bills and collects en-route charges on behalf of
the 32 EUROCONTROL Member States according to a
Common Policy, based upon the Multilateral Agreement
relating to route charges. These charges are essentially used
to cover the costs of en-route air navigation services made
available to users of Member States’ airspace. Users include
legacy carriers and regional, low fares and charter airlines, as
well as business and general aviation.
In 2005, some 9 million flights performed in the European
airspace benefited from high safety and efficiency standards
offered by the European States and ANSPs. These services
combine ATM, communication, navigation and surveillance,
aeronautical meteorology and information services.
Charges billed and collected
From January to December 2005, the CRCO billed a total of
E5.67 billion in respect of route charges. On top of this, the
Directorate also provided additional services to States and
ANSPs covering:
• The calculation, billing and collection of terminal charges
for Member States on the basis of bi-lateral agreements.
• The calculation, billing and collection of air navigation
charges for non-Member States on the basis of bi-lateral
agreements.
• The provision of advisory services on charging policies,
operation of air navigation charges and on the
funding/financing of air navigation services.
These additional services account for a considerable
amount of extra revenue, as well as helping to streamline the
overall billing and collection process in and around Europe.
Terminal charges levied for each departing flight
remunerate Member States for the costs incurred in providing
terminal air navigation services. In 2005, the CRCO operated
six bilateral agreements and billed a total of 2 million flights,
amounting to some E320 million. The CRCO also bills and
collects the Shanwick communication charges on behalf of
the Irish Aviation Authority.
Currently, the CRCO operates seven bi-lateral agreements
with non-Member States in Europe/Eurasia and Africa for
collection of air navigation charges and, in 2005, billed a total
of 1 million flights amounting to some E245 million.
Meeting the needs of the industry
Being responsible for billing and collecting more than 80 per
cent of air navigation charge revenues, the CRCO has to
demonstrate year after year its capability to secure funds in a
reliable and stable manner. The pressure to achieve highest
performances comes from the States and the service providers,
which are themselves faced with the needs of the air transport
industry for safe and efficient operation. The resurgent growth
of air traffic since 2003, and the resultant demand for
improvement and investment in ATC service provision,
reinforces the imperative objective to collect amounts billed to
the highest extent possible and as quickly as possible.
The bottom-line for the CRCO’s overall performance is what
is ultimately collected from users. After one year, the CRCO
typically achieves a rate of recovery well in excess of 99 per
cent. In the last five years an average of 0.60 per cent of
amounts billed was written-off as irrecoverable, an indication
of what sustained action under pressure can produce. For the
2005 amount billed – E5.67 billion – 99.63 per cent has
already been collected and more is still expected.
The collection of such high percentages of route charges is
the result of decisions taken at strategic level down to the
level of daily activities and across all internal processes.
Applying principles for establishing route charges as defined
by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), as well
as maintaining on-going contacts with the air transport
industry through multilateral consultation and daily
relationship with airlines, are undoubtedly key factors of
success. Powerful enforced recovery means that the States
have put in place also play a role.
However, results would not be what they are without skilled
and highly professional staff, streamlined procedures and
dedicated commitment for performances. All processes in the
CRCO are interdependent and collection success depends
heavily on state-of-the-art billing, accounting and information
39
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
© Austrian Airlines
technology. The accuracy, reliability and cycle-speed of the
billing process has gained worldwide recognition as the best
in its class. The precision and speed of accounting procedures
give an accurate and speedy overall view of users’ accounts at
all times. CRCO computer experts oversee the developments
and operations of the many complex systems and its airline
database has no match in the aviation world.
The CRCO is constantly working to improve its services,
holds regular meetings with stakeholders and performs
regular customer satisfaction surveys. It is also undertaking
major efforts to ensure business continuity in the event of a
disaster. Greater integration with the Central Flow
Management Unit (CFMU), as the CFMU supplies high quality
flight information to the CRCO, is one of the most promising
means to support future changes in operation.
Revising the EUROCONTROL route charges system
The CRCO provides billing and collection services within the
framework of a common route charges system that is the
corner stone of the common policy for route charges adopted
by EUROCONTROL Member States and ANSPs. The
EUROCONTROL common policy builds on the Multilateral
Agreement relating to route charges and on the
EUROCONTROL Convention. It is now also inspired by European
community regulations. Further to the adoption of a service
provision regulation in March 2005, a “Regulation laying down
a common charging scheme for air navigation services”,
consistent with the EUROCONTROL route charges system,
should be adopted shortly. The CRCO actively participated in
its development. Its relevant provisions will be transposed into
the EUROCONTROL system in the course of 2007.
40
The CRCO provides
billing and collection
services within the
framework of a
common route
charges system
The revised regulatory framework will lead to a number of
changes in the operation of the CRCO. Route charges will be
defined in closer relation with ATM operation. Charging
zones, ie, geographical areas where a single tariff for route
charges is applied, could extend across national borders and
would not necessarily coincide with flight information
regions, as they do today. States may also be able to apply
incentives for users to stimulate the introduction of new
technology that increases capacity. This regulation will result
in strengthened route charge requirements in terms of cost-
relatedness, transparency and user consultation. Equity
between users will increase through the foreseen
reinforcement of recovery measures.
Beyond the operation of the route charge system, the new
regulation also addresses the operation of the ANSPs.
Performance measurement, benchmarking and the setting of
performance objectives should be facilitated. Economies of
scale generated by the implementation of large airspace
blocks, as well as the provision of incentives on air navigation
service providers, will further enhance cost-effectiveness.
Extending the EUROCONTROL route charges system
The assumption is that all ECAC States will eventually become
EUROCONTROL Member States and will be progressively
integrated into the route charges system operated under the
Multilateral Agreement. The next States to join will be Ukraine,
Poland, Serbia, Armenia and Lithuania in 2007-2008. They
could be followed by Iceland, Azerbaijan and, further ahead,
Latvia and Estonia.
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

THE CENTRAL FLOW

MANAGEMENT UNIT
Julian Moxon talks to the head of EUROCONTROL’s Central Flow Management
Unit’s Operations Division, to find out how it is making the best possible use
of available airspace capacity to reduce delays and increase efficiency

42
S
ince its foundation by the EUROCONTROL Permanent
Commission in July 1989, in response to an urgent
need to improve European air traffic flow
management, the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) has
established itself as one of the central players in the battle to
cope with air traffic growth.
In doing so, the CFMU has had to adapt to the rapidly
changing European Air Traffic Management (ATM) situation,
which, as it moves towards a more unified system, requires
ever more flexibility and innovation.
Traffic this summer has hit an all time high, with daily
movements reaching 31,000 on three occasions so far in
2006, after breaking through the 30,000 barrier in 2005.
Overall, growth to-date stands at 4.23 per cent, which is at the
top end of the predictions made at the beginning of the year.
A major development during the year has come out of the
Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network
(DMEAN) programme in the form of a twice-yearly document in
which all CFMU activities, traffic predictions and likely problem
areas are brought together in a single Network Operations Plan
that incorporates all existing information on traffic demand and
capacity plans for summer and winter seasons. The first,
covering the summer 2006 season, was made available on the
CFMU website in July. “We regard this as a very significant step
forward,” says John Byrom, Head of the CFMU’s Operations
Division. “It is a seasonal network operations plan resulting from
DMEAN that explains how we do our job.”
Items covered by the Plan include: overall traffic and
capacity forecast; network efficiency measures and scenarios;
special events; general air traffic flow and capacity
management (ATFCM) measures; tools and strategic plans; Air
traffic Control Centres (ACCs) requiring special attention; and
an annexe containing a detailed description of the other ACCs.
Byrom says the growth of traffic has meant the CFMU “is
learning to be more flexible and dynamic to minimise the
impact on operations while maximising capacity.” For
example, in addition to re-routing aircraft as a means of
capacity management, the unit is beginning to employ flight
level capping – already in use in UK airspace. “Re-routing is
only possible with tight constraints, because of flight time and
fuel cost increases,” says Byrom. Flight-level capping, while
not always popular with airlines because of the non-optimum
flight levels that can result, is becoming a useful pre-tactical
and tactical tool for adding capacity where it is needed.
“We might cap the flight level at the beginning of a flight,
and allow the pilot to fly to a higher flight level later on,” says
Byrom. The idea is to adjust capacity as a function of
complexity, so that, for example, a UK domestic flight might
be capped at 28,000ft to allow more upper airspace for
incoming and outgoing transatlantic traffic. “We do our best
to be flexible,” he adds.
The dramatic rise in fuel costs has pushed fuel to the top of
an airline’s list of direct costs, which has meant that operators
are sometimes prepared to accept a small delay if they can
be given a fuel-saving, more direct route. The CFMU’s strategy
is to offer voluntary solutions. “It’s up to the airline which
option it takes,” says Byrom. “We just give them scenarios for
each flight.” A scheduled airline places punctuality at the top
of the list, whereas a charter is likely to be more concerned
about minimising costs, while low cost airlines “come
somewhere in between”.
The job of the CFMU these days is “to balance flexibility
with rigidity, and predictability with non-predictability,” says
Byrom. Not all air navigation service providers (ANSPs) can
cope with a flexible approach. “ANSPs sometimes see
predictability as a safety issue, but operators want flexibility so
that they can optimise their fleet management. We do our
best to satisfy them all.”
Byrom sees one of the roles of the CFMU as the “migration of
best practices amongst all ATM players.” To facilitate this, the
unit has introduced two innovative developments in web-based
learning. The first was tested at the Maastricht Upper Area
Control Centre (MUAC) in summer 2005, and is an interactive
training package in which the CFMU works with Maastricht
“ANSPs sometimes see
predictability as a safety
issue, but operators
want flexibility so that
they can optimise their
fleet management”
43
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

controllers to implement best practices. “It went down very

well,” says Byrom. More recently, a web-based distance learning
strategy system has been introduced at the Prague centre,
aimed to improve the interaction between the CFMU and
Prague ACC, as well as to share best practices with other ACCs.
Another important development is ongoing with the US
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop an ATM data
exchange system for use in crises. Progress had been slow
until agreement was achieved at engineer level to hold
fortnightly e-conferences to solve the interface problems
posed by creating real-time displays generated by two
different ATM systems. “Things have really moved forward in
the last couple of months,” says Byrom. He points to the huge
challenge faced by the respective ATM managers after the 11
September terrorist attacks, when transatlantic air traffic was
banned from entering US airspace and had to be turned back
or diverted. “It would have been a lot easier if we’d had a
real-time display of FAA-controlled traffic,” he adds. “We now
have a real-time display of the whole of Europe in our
operations room, which we’ll share with the FAA, and we think
we’ll have a display of their system by the end of 2006.”
The CFMU has become “much more operationally
“We now have a
real-time display of
the whole of Europe
in our operations
room, which we’ll
share with the FAA”
oriented,” says Byrom. “We’ve learned not to be autocratic
but inclusive, so we’re establishing collaborative decision-
making techniques wherever we can.” He adds that the
challenge is “how to have a dialogue between 66 flow
management positions with varying levels of knowledge. We
have to represent not just the ATM community, but operators
as well, and the partners who might not be present at a
meeting. We’re a facilitator with a network perspective.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.

© British Midland Airways Ltd

44
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

THE EUROPEAN
AIS DATABASE
Development of the world’s largest Aeronautical Information
Service database is progressing. David Learmount looks at why
it is being developed and when it will be fully populated

46
B
efore an aeroplane takes off to go anywhere, the crew
has to know all about the route, the condition of the
destination airport and alternative landing places, and
the weather that will affect the flight. If the destination is the
other side of the world, the amount of information the pilots
need to check is considerable, and someone, somewhere, has
to provide it.
The generic term for all the data pilots need to check is
‘aeronautical information’, and this includes everything from
variations in the national regulations of the airspace through
which they will fly, to whether there is resurfacing work in
progress on the destination runway. The total system that
provides it is known as an aeronautical information service
(AIS). But that is a misnomer, because globally it is not a single
system. It is a patchwork of national reporting hubs receiving
information from airports, airfields, national aviation
authorities (NAAs) and meteorological organisations.
In 1997, EUROCONTROL decided AIS must become a fully
digital, networked data collection and distribution system,
replacing the paper-based system that still exists in most of
the world. The vision has largely been converted to reality
within Europe, according to EUROCONTROL’s European AIS
Database (EAD) programme manager Sylviane Wybo.
Aeronautical information takes various forms. There is
permanent information, like geographical co-ordinates
defining terrain; semi-permanent, like local variations to
international practices – for example the definition of
altitude in metres rather than feet; and temporary, like
equipment or infrastructure that is unserviceable or under
maintenance. It is about routes, airspace structure and who
controls it, local procedures and regulations, services (radio
communications, radio navigation beacons and radar
surveillance) and service providers. And information on all of
these regularly needs updating for both temporary and long-
term changes. Finally, pilots need weather information, both
forecast and real-time, at airports and in the upper
atmosphere. At present meteorological data is distributed
separately, but it may well use the future global digital AIS
network for dissemination of forecasts and real-time
information, according to Bo Redeborn, EUROCONTROL’s
director of Air Traffic Management strategies.
“Meanwhile the EAD has enabled many of its Member
States to go digital with their European AIS already, and by the
end of 2007, all 42 of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) countries will have changed over completely to digital
aeronautical information provision and access,” says Wybo.
“The old system,” Wybo continues, “required multiple
reprocessing (between the origin and destination) and was
error-rich. But that was where we started in 1997,” she
explains. “Then the EUROCONTROL Member States decided to
start a completely new AIS programme to launch the EAD,”
she says, “because they saw it as a solution to the error-
generating weaknesses in the old system. But it was designed,
from the start, to be a part of a global system.”
It has always been mindful for EUROCONTROL that it must
develop a solution that would be accepted globally, and also
be International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 15
compliant. Since 1997, as a result of consultation with leading
national aviation authorities worldwide, EUROCONTROL was
able to work with Frequentis Nachrichtentechnik to develop
the conceptual technology and framework for a global digital
AIS formula that would be – and has since been – accepted as
the standard. On that basis the EAD was cleared to proceed,
with EUROCONTROL confident it would not be out of step
when the rest of the world joins in.
Based on the concepts employed for EAD, EUROCONTROL
and the US FAA have since developed what is effectively a
prototype for a global system. Known as the Aeronautical
Information Conceptual Model (AICM), it embodies a
networking enabler called the aeronautical information
exchange model (AIXM), and these models have both been
welcomed by the national aviation authorities (NAAs) of the
world’s major aviation nations. Now these States are calling on
ICAO to provide the forum through which this can be agreed,
ratified and brought to reality. According to Ken Reid, the
chairman of EUROCONTROL’s AIS team, even countries that
back the digital AIS concept will hesitate to implement it until
it has ICAO approval. That is the seal of approval that is
essential to any global aeronautical system if it is to have the
credibility that will trigger the release of the investment that
must be made in any new system. Digital AIS, however, beyond
the initial, relatively low investment, will be a far cheaper
system to operate and is potentially far more accurate and
immediate than the system globally in use today.
It may have taken nine years from the launch of the EAD
project, but at the end of June 2006 in Madrid, Spain, the
47
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
EUROCONTROL-organised Global AIS Congress – the first of its
type – agreed on the need for a co-ordinated worldwide
approach. The Congress quickly identified the first areas for
action. Topping the list was the recommendation that ICAO
should adopt a standard model for collecting aeronautical
information and for exchanging it; it should develop a means
of defining and ensuring compliance, and adopt a system for
managing and developing both the model and the exchange
system. Predictably, the Congress agreed the system should
be based on digitally entered and managed information. Reid
points out that, when realised, the new global system would
more accurately be described as an AIM (Aeronautical
Information Management) system than an AIS, because a
digital system can provide the user with the ability to
48
configure precisely the information needed for a specific trip,
without having to comb through all the data that is not
relevant to the flight.
“Today, ICAO does not consider the internet to have
sufficient security or integrity,” says Wybo. “But information
can be accessed through the internet as well as via secure
systems. Commercial telecommunications company AT&T
provides much of the secure network.
“This decision was taken partly because one of the
objectives is to provide the data efficiently and at the lowest
possible cost. Cost was a major driver of digitisation because it
enables the automation of many processes that are manual at
present, maintenance costs are low, and many systems and
processes can be shared among all the clients,” explains Wybo.
But EAD itself is first and foremost a European tool,
however well it will eventually fit into a global model. “The
first objective of the EAD is, of course, to complete the
dataset from the ECAC States, and the second objective is to
be able to exchange data,” confirms Wybo. “That will mean
there is a considerable reduction in the need for manually
entered data at the EAD because the database will be
receiving information direct from source with no need for
transcription with the commensurate potential for error at
that point.” Within the ECAC States, completion, planned for
the end of 2006, will be done by the end of 2007. When that
happens, the world’s first international regional digital AIS
operational since 2003 will be fully populated, enabling its
home users and many overseas ones to become aeronautical
information managers, not just users.
“The first objective of
the EAD is to complete
the dataset from the
ECAC States, and the
second objective is to be
able to exchange data”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT
OF THE EUROPEAN
AIRSPACE NETWORK

Julian Moxon talks to EUROCONTROL’s DMEAN Framework programme

manager, Joe Sultana, to find out what progress has been achieved on providing
enhanced flexibility to the Air Traffic Control (ATC) and airline communities

50
A
fter winning approval by the Provisional Council in April
2006, EUROCONTROL’s Dynamic Management of
European Airspace Network (DMEAN) programme is
beginning to show results.
The first deliverable to come out of the programme came
in May – the release of the summer 2006 Network Operations
Plan (NOP), a document that provides a clear overview of the
forthcoming season’s Air Traffic Flow and Capacity
Management (ATFCM) situation to help airlines improve their
planning by forecasting known likely bottlenecks. This will be
followed by similar NOPs, published twice a year, with step
wise improvements towards 2010 on accuracy and
accessibility, as part of the ongoing effort to release 20 per
cent more airspace capacity by then.

© LOT Polish Airlines

According to DMEAN Framework Programme Manager, Joe
Sultana, the key to the DMEAN programme is found in the
first word of the acronym. “Our aim is to provide a dynamic
overview of the European ATM network to help stakeholders
to focus their attention on the main problem areas,” he says.
The roots of the DMEAN programme date from 2003, with
the proposal to co-ordinate all of the different activities within
European ATM to improve network performance. The aim was
to produce a clear overview of the European ATM system each
year by evaluating all of the main ATM programmes, using
DMEAN as the vehicle for finding where potential problems
lay and provide solutions to them.
According to Sultana, a large part of DMEAN is the forging
of working relationships with the various stakeholders. “Initially
we had some difficulty selling the concept because a lot was
already being done in the individual programmes. But with a
network like this you can’t just do your own thing. You need
to align the programmes dynamically, then move forward.”
A major element of DMEAN is to increase the flexibility of the
European ATM network’s daily operations. “We need more
flexibility because it is the only way to get the capacity increases
we need in the time available,” says Sultana. “We have to adapt
to the different traffic scenarios each day by aiming for a totally
flexible infrastructure.” So, as close as possible to any particular
day, the objective is to ensure that ATM data and information is
shared between civil and military airspace users, airports and
local and network ATM service providers.
A significant focus is on the need to improve co-ordination
with military airspace users. “Things have improved a lot since
the Flexible Use of Airspace concept was introduced in 1996,”
says Sultana, “but we have to go further. Today, we know
what most of the military users will be doing tomorrow. The
problem is that things change tomorrow, depending on the
day of the week, the weather, sudden changes in traffic flows
and so on.”
In January 2007, a trial will be undertaken with several
European States, including Belgium, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK, to improve the
co-ordination between each national airspace ‘cell’. The work
will be carried out mainly with the EUROCONTROL Central
Flow Management Unit (CFMU) and will seek to bring military
airspace users further into the decision-making process. “At
present they advise us what they’re doing without knowing
about our airspace situation,” says Sultana. “So, for example, if
we have a potential bottleneck we could advise them and
they might agree to change their activities for that day.”
While national airspace sovereignty remains an issue, “if the
military has the right information and we provide them with
options, they might be able to help,” he adds.
Another focus for 2007 will be to increase the flexibility of
airspace routeing to permit, for example, greater use of
certain routes in the mornings and evenings when the military

51
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

has no need of its airspace. This could permit shorter, fuel-

saving, routes to be offered to airlines. “We would like to be
“If we have a network
able to advise airlines about improved routeings as little as view of things, it follows
three hours before their aircraft take-off, so that they would
not have to upload so much fuel,” says Sultana. that the network will
The first real test for the DMEAN programme will come with
the 2007/2008 Operational Improvements Action Plan, which improve as a whole,
seeks to deliver real improvements to the changing demand
from the user community. “In 2006 we contributed to good benefiting individual
overall system performance,” says Sultana. “Next year we
hope to see the network adapting to meet the specifics of
stakeholders”
every day operations.”
Estimates of traffic growth are for an increase of 20 per
cent by 2010, bringing the average number of flights per day
to 32,000. However, on current planning, the capacity made
available by EUROCONTROL Member States Air Navigation
Service Providers (ANSPs) will deliver about 10 per cent less
capacity than required, which translates to a two-minute delay
per flight against the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council target
of one minute.
The DMEAN Framework programme will attempt to eliminate
this gap and meet the one-minute target, saving airlines around
E310 million a year in delay costs. To do so it plans to
amalgamate important EUROCONTROL initiatives in airspace
design, Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM), flexible
use of airspace and AFTCM, providing coherency between them
in the hope of finding the extra capacity required.
Initial targets include improving the ATM planning process
and the balance between demand and capacity, increasing
the amount and speed of information sharing, and activating The idea is to achieve a shared view of the pan-European
dynamic airspace structures and routes to optimise the route ATM network so that from the beginning of each season there
network on a day-to-day basis. exists a common awareness of the situation expressed
“If we have a network view of things,” says Sultana, “it through an official document. It is a major step forward for
follows that the network will improve as a whole, benefiting European ATM, which has traditionally suffered from a lack of
individual stakeholders.” proper co-ordination. It also falls in line with hopes for the
The winter 2006/07 NOP, to be published in October, will Single European Sky (SES) regulatory process. “The DMEAN
provide a consolidated view of the forthcoming season’s programme should help ANSPs meet their SES obligations,”
ATFCM picture, against which specific actions can be taken to says Sultana. “It provides a dynamic view of the network to
improve capacity. It is the final result of the process of help the players focus on where they’re going.” Through its
consolidating inputs from all stakeholders, including the short/medium operational improvements, DMEAN will provide
military, ANSPs, airports and airspace user communities as well the basis for further SESAR-driven network enhancements.
as from EUROCONTROL units in charge of traffic flow and
capacity and airspace management. This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.

52
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

RECENT PROGRESS
ON FUNCTIONAL
AIRSPACE BLOCKS
Is Europe failing to deliver on Functional Airspace Blocks? Jenny Taylor looks at
how European Air Navigation Service Providers are addressing the challenge

O
ne of the obstacles to creating a single European sky
is the failure to develop Functional Airspace Blocks
(FABs) from the myriad flight regions used today. The
Single European Sky (SES) framework regulation requires that
“airspace blocks, based on operational requirements, reflect the
need to ensure more integrated management of the airspace
regardless of existing boundaries”.
Yet there is a mismatch between the boundaries that exist
and optimum airspace management. States have had the
freedom to classify airspace in accordance with a number of
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) alternatives until
common rules were imposed in 2004 and pilots can
experience changes in airspace rules, separation criteria, as
well as multiple changes in control centres on everyday routes.

53
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
A flight between London and Budapest may first pass
through Belgian airspace, fly through French airspace for a
couple of minutes, before overflying Luxembourg into German
airspace. It may also pass in and out of Austrian airspace in
line with the geographical border. Europe relies on 68 area
control centres to manage its traffic flow, compared with only
21 in the US over a similar area. This type of fragmentation
adds 20 per cent – or E1,400 million – to costs according to
the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission (PRC)
2005 report published in April 2006.
54
Halving the number of centres would raise the average
number of sectors from under ten to 25 per centre, and
result in more efficient operations. An International Air
Transport Association (IATA) expert group also identifies cost
savings of 25 per cent if Europe reorganised its fragmented
airspace. “The real issue remains consolidation of Air
Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs). If they can co-operate,
why can’t they join up to form a single company to manage
these FABs?” asks IATA’s Gerry O’Connell, Assistant Director,
Safety, Operations and Infrastructure, Europe.
Since the 2004 Single Sky legislation came into force,
some Member States have announced notional FABs. The UK
and Ireland formally announced a partnership in 2005.
Following a consultation process between the Irish Aviation
Authority (IAA) and the United Kingdom’s NATS and airlines,
due to be completed in November 2006, a report will be
supplied to the two respective governments in late 2006 or
early 2007. This report will outline the potential benefits of
the FAB and the implications of the FAB charging regimes.
According to Philip Hughes, Director of Commercial and
Strategy at the IAA: “During this consultation period it
became apparent that rising fuel prices have meant that
network efficiencies and more direct routes will lead to
greater financial gains than originally anticipated.” Hughes
explains that it would take at least five years for full
implementation to be achieved, as time will be needed to
sort out the “enablers for the integrated network and
charging regime”.
Additional FABs have also been announced by Switzerland
and France, and Spain and Portugal. But none offer potential
cost savings that come close to 20 per cent. The UK and
“The real issue remains
consolidation of ANSPs.
If they can co-operate,
why can’t they join up to
form a single company
to manage these FABs?”
Ireland estimate E1 million will be cut from their combined
turnover of E1 billion, less than 1 per cent.
Six service providers: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland,
Finland and Estonia proclaimed a common ATM service
concept in September 2006 to overcome geographical
borders and introduce common parameters for procedures
and air routes. It is a first tentative step to accommodating
operational needs and supports earlier cross-border initiatives
including Denmark and Sweden’s single upper airspace centre
NUAC, the common Nordic training school set up in 2006,
called Entry Point North, and collective equipment
procurement of the Thales Eurocat ATM system by the
COOPANS members – Sweden’s LFV Group, Naviair of
Denmark and IAA. IAA’s Head of ATM Systems and
Technology, Peter Nolan, explains: “Deliveries of the new
system will take place in a phased manner with operations
commencing in 2009 and progressive deliveries continuing
after that to keep in line with customer requirements.”
“A FAB has to be a function of operational requirements,”
says Alex Hendriks, Deputy Director ATM Strategies at
EUROCONTROL. “Several states have declared FABs, but they
have simply used existing FIR borders. In real terms they have
not created FABs, but economic airspace blocks.” Hendriks
believes these alliances are making the task of redesigning the
airspace even harder to achieve than before.
Europe’s navigation service providers currently face several
different regulatory requirements. In addition to national
checks on safety and performance, they are subject to
European safety regulatory requirements, ICAO requirements,
and most recently the National Supervisory Authority (NSA) to
address Single European Sky regulation. In the absence of a
co-ordinated approach states and ANSPs have pursued
different interests.
“IATA is disappointed with the FAB initiatives,” says
O’Connell. “Most are business as usual initiatives. We are
looking at whether we will still have a high performance
system in five years’ time.” IATA supports a more top-down
approach that sees Brussels play a more prominent role. “We
are encouraging participants to look at this from the route
network perspective.”
The Commission is undertaking its own review of SES
legislation by the end of 2006, and plans to tackle issues of
route inefficiency at a more central level. The challenge is to
accommodate regional variations such as general aviation and
military usage without losing sight of overall network design.
EUROCONTROL itself operates the Maastricht Upper
Airspace Control Centre (MUAC), accepted by many as a
forerunner to a FAB. EUROCONTROL is also assisting with
setting up another pan-national air traffic control centre for
the upper airspace of eight central European states –
Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, northern Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia
under the Central European Air Traffic Services (CEATS)
programme.
But the race to create the first FAB, based on operational
requirements, may be won by Europe’s newest members, the
Balkan states of Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro,
Macedonia, Albania and Moldova. These south eastern states
signed up to the European Civil Aviation Agreement to gain
accession to the EU, thereby agreeing to European safety
regulations and Single European Sky legislation. They have
already formed a South East European FAB (SEEFAB) based on
a methodology proposed by EUROCONTROL.
The region is one of two used by EUROCONTROL to
demonstrate the FAB methodology, put together in response to
a Commission mandate. Simulating traffic flow over south east
Europe enabled EUROCONTROL to establish the most efficient
route structure, and map out the optimum sectorisation, for
example taking account of areas of high and low complexity.
Then issues such as military airspace, existing air traffic control
infrastructure and service provision, and practical considerations
are included to determine the optimum airspace structure.
“We first try to develop the optimum solution and then work
towards this,” explains Hendriks.
“We really make an operationally-driven approach. Obviously
there are options and the choice of which of those are
operationally-feasible and beneficial is political. But you cannot
have a situation where relocation of controllers becomes a
determining factor in the optimum set-up of the business.”
While it is difficult to influence the states, Hendriks believes
the methodology has already served to influence the
Commission. The Commission now sees that this approach is
far more structural that simply applauding states that have
declared the current airspace a FAB.
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
55
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

THE EU TRANSPORT WHITE

PAPER MID-TERM REVIEW
Jenny Taylor looks at how aviation features more prominently in the White Paper mid-term review

© Birmingham International Airport

56

T
he European Commission is revisiting its transport policy
in a mid-term review of the White Paper on European
Transport Policy published in 2001. This set out the
region’s transport needs to 2010, and in particular looked for
sustainable development. But many in aviation found it lacked
positive support for their sector and offered no solutions to
issues such as airport congestion and high levels of passenger
growth. The Commission’s main focus has been, and some
argue still is, road and maritime transport modes.
It is encouraging nevertheless, to see a communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European
The enlarged EU has
had an immediate
impact on air
transport, especially
the growth of
low-cost carriers
© Birmingham International Airport
Parliament revisiting these issues ahead of discussions that are
scheduled to take place in the last quarter of 2006.
Among the top priorities identified by the Commission, a
review of air transport liberalisation measures is called for to
address airport charges and capacity. The Commission also
anticipates a review of the Single Sky framework in 2007 and
supports the efforts of the Single European Sky ATM Research
(SESAR) initiative.
Whether this is sufficient to cope with a doubling of air
traffic in the next decade is questionable. “Air transport has
grown at a faster rate than any other form of transport,” points
out Julia Egerer of the Association of European Airlines (AEA).
“We have clearly asked for a revision of airline issues and [the
communication] acknowledges the importance of air transport,
whereas in the past it set out to put a cap on aviation.”
Egerer cites ever more convergence between the AEA and
Commission proposition, and says many of the action points
in the communication document reflect issues raised in an
AEA position paper published in early 2006. Both
acknowledge the enlarged EU has had an immediate impact
on air transport, especially the growth of low-cost carriers.
In addition, while the security threat has increased, security
requirements still receive different levels of support across the
57
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
various modes of transport. For aviation in particular, the
impact of capacity shortages and environmental constraints
serves to press home the need for a sustainable policy.
A shift in emphasis towards aviation is reflected in the
release of funds to support action in this area. The Single
European Sky is a good example where the Commission is
supporting aviation infrastructure development. A third of the
estimated E2.1 billion incremental cost of the system is
proposed to come from the Commission, alongside similar
contributions from EUROCONTROL and the user community.
The Commission’s DG TREN identifies benefits such as
enhanced transportation efficiency and skilled employment,
and gives the project consideration with the Economics Unit.
By using more efficient routes across European airspace,
SESAR expects to raise airspace capacity and reduce
environmental impact. The Performance Review Commission
report published in April 2006 identifies savings between
E880 million to E1,400 million as a result of direct routes, a
saving of 20-30 per cent on en-route costs. “The single sky is
an example of how we can save costs through improved
efficiency in route structure,” says Egerer.
Regulation has a key role to play in realising the White
Paper objectives, and at present, aviation is subject to many
unconnected, regulatory bodies. The European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) is intended to widen its remit to include
airports and air traffic management, however, funding this
change is hampered by the fact that some of these functions
are already covered by existing regulatory bodies.
Ground handling is another area where progress has been
disappointing. AEA Manager Information, David Henderson,
believes the opening up of the ground handling market has
reached the halfway point and stopped. “We really need the
process to be picked up and carried through.” There are many
instances where independent ground handlers do bid, and
win, competitive handling contracts, but there are also
Member States that have yet to fully implement this
legislation. A review of liberalisation measures is specifically
included in the Commission’s action points for 2006.
“We believe there should be an airports strategy which
looks at the big picture,” urges Henderson. “There are no easy
answers like developing regional hubs and diverting traffic
away from existing facilities. We argue that the hubs are
crucial not only to the network airlines, but to the whole
58
“We believe there
should be an airports
strategy which looks
at the big picture”
industry. It is through hubs we have the global networks,
which facilitate the process of European competitiveness.”
This is becoming more apparent as EU membership grows.
The new developing economies need an effective hub
structure and this requires a policy and investment to
promote the airports as part of a wider aviation strategy. The
EU transport policy is part of the revised Lisbon Agenda,
which focuses on growth and jobs against a backdrop of
sustainable development.
The Commission document calls for “an improved EU
framework combining regional and cohesive policies, and
adaptive framework for better and smarter charging for the
use of infrastructure and differentiated solutions to deal with
particular problems.” It recognises the need for change, but is
less specific on how it can drive this change.
The AEA maintains there are still no concrete solutions to
address airport congestion five years after the publication of
the White Paper. Even in times of reduced traffic, the system
suffers from a lack of adequate airport capacity. EUROCONTROL
forecasts that by 2010 over 20 European airports are likely to
face a capacity shortage, and even taking into account a 60
per cent capacity increase in the network by 2025, Europe’s
leading airports will be unable to accommodate 17 per cent of
the total demand for air transport.
Commission vice-president in charge of transport, Jacques
Barrot, has said he intends to step up efforts to make aviation
more efficient and greener. In September he launched an
initiative on the future of aviation regulation in Europe and is
driving several strategic reviews of energy usage in light of
high fuel prices. While transport continues to account for 30
per cent of total energy consumption in Europe, of which
aviation represents 4 per cent, improving its performance in
environmental terms remains a major challenge.
This article was commissioned by AEA.

CONTROLLING
FUEL COSTS
Recent fuel price increases have put pressure on airlines’ bottom lines. Anne Paylor looks at
the impact of these rises on the industry and what the airlines are doing to counter them
A
s fuel prices continue their inexorable climb, airlines
continue the hunt for ways to control costs, but admit
they are running out of options. That said, however,
they are learning to live with the reality that fuel is now an
increasing part of their cost base, and are taking some
comfort from the fact that high fuel costs have not sent the
world economy spiralling into recession as predicted. Airlines
are also relieved by the fact that demand for air transport
remains strong despite geopolitical tensions, increased
security in the face of terrorist threats, as well as a number of
other global economic, political or health issues.
The reality is that, in the two years 2003-2005, the share of
fuel in the cost base of the Association of European Airlines’
ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
(AEA) member airlines jumped from 12 per cent to 20 per
cent. Their total fuel bill in 2005 was US$17 billion.
There are two schools of thought as to where fuel prices will
go next: one believes fuel prices will fall again, the other is less
optimistic. If it had to take a stance on the issue, the AEA would
probably err towards the belief that there will never be a return
to the heyday years of $30 a barrel, and that prices will remain
high for some time ahead. “If that is the case, then high fuel
costs are something the airlines are going to have to live with,
and indeed are learning to live with,” says David Henderson,
Manager Information with the AEA. The Association says its
airlines continue to realise non-fuel cost savings, but stresses
these are limited in scale by a process of diminishing returns.
59
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
Three steps to improving financial performance
For airlines, there are essentially three variables to improving
their financial performance. The first is to improve yield, the
second to reduce costs and the third to increase load factor.
These three variables interact with each other and load
factors, for example, can be improved by reducing capacity or
attracting additional traffic. Reducing capacity does not
generate growth, neither does it cut costs proportionately in
the short term, and adding traffic only helps if it is not done
at the expense of yield, ie, by slashing fares. Similarly there are
severe constraints on improving yield because that involves
putting up prices in an environment that is more competitive
than it has ever been as a result of the profusion of no-frills
carriers. “So, improving yields is an option with only limited
potential, and there is general consensus among airlines that
they cannot rely on improving load factors,” says Henderson.
2005 saw a continued improvement in the load factor of
AEA member airlines, adding an estimated US$284 million to
the collective operating surplus. This led to a second
consecutive year of surplus, up from US$413 million in 2004
to US$755 million in 2005.
60
But in its 2006 Yearbook, the AEA warns this is an area
where “the scope for year-on-year improvement diminishes
each time the boundary is pushed further out. Fifteen years
ago an annual figure of 70 per cent would have been
regarded as probably the limit of attainment; the 2005 figure
was 76 per cent”.
Similarly, it warns: “In the highly-competitive markets in
which the AEA airlines operate, yield improvements will be
difficult to achieve.”
The last option, therefore, is controlling and reducing costs:
“an exercise in diminishing returns,” says Henderson, “because
once you have cut a cost, you can’t cut it a second time.”
Reducing capacity
does not generate
growth, neither does it
cut costs proportionately
in the short term
Hedging one’s bets
In a bid to minimise the impact of rising fuel prices, many
airlines use hedging to stabilise prices for as long as they can.
According to the AEA, hedging has helped airlines absorb
about 50 per cent of the fuel increase over the last year.
However, Henderson points out that, once existing contracts,
negotiated at favourable prices, expire, airlines would
probably have to face the full reality of high fuel prices.
“In one respect, hedging is an illusory gain,” says
Henderson. “If the airlines benefit significantly from hedging,
they do so at the expense of the oil companies. And while the
oil companies may tolerate this in the short term, they won’t
let it happen over a sustained period.”
The AEA Yearbook points out that: “While airlines typically
hedge against strong price increases in the form of medium-
term contracts, such a protracted increase means that expiring
contracts are having to be renewed at much higher prices.
Fuel remains very expensive, and market prices will continue to
inflate the cost of hedging contracts as they are renewed.”
On the revenue side, most major European carriers have
introduced fuel surcharges. Typically, these are in the range
E10-12 per short-haul segment and E50-55 on long-haul.
But, Henderson says, there is increasing evidence that fuel
surcharges are only really an effective strategy on long-haul
routes. While successive fuel price increases have been
mirrored in increments to the surcharges on long-haul, in
general short-haul surcharges have not been augmented for
some time. “Competitive pressures from no-frills carriers in
the short-haul sector means that the airlines are not able to
impose realistic fuel surcharges on short-haul routes, which
means they are having to absorb the increased cost
themselves,” Henderson says.
In addition to fuel surcharges and hedging, airlines are
pursuing a wide range of fuel-economy measures in their day-
to-day operations, co-ordinating best practice through
industry initiatives such as AEA’s Emissions Containment Policy.
The mixture of high fuel prices and the need to control
emissions has also given added impetus to co-operation with
airframe and engine manufacturers to intensify development
work on new generations of more fuel-efficient aircraft. And
what is good for airlines in terms of reduced fuel burn
economically is inevitably good for the environment too, so
the benefits are two-fold.
“The more the price of fuel goes up, the more important it
is to do the sums and the more expertise the airlines will have
to gather in-house for making future fleet decisions, for
example,” Henderson says. “I suspect we will see more fleet
diversification in the future, based on both fuel economy and
environmental considerations. The areas where operators can
cut costs are a vanishing resource when it comes to identifying
inefficiencies or introducing new technology. The great strides
in terms of savings have really already been made.”
This article was commissioned by AEA.
61
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

CHALLENGES AT AIRPORTS
Identifying and using latent capacity at airports is not enough to succeed in the struggle
to break the capacity barrier. It is, however, a key to the success of the overall approach
to this challenge. Simon Michell looks at the progress achieved so far

62
T
he doubling of air traffic over the next 15 years presents
huge challenges to all the stakeholders involved in the air
industry. Law makers, regulators and service providers
are duty bound to put in place the necessary framework to
ensure that society in general is able to accrue the benefits of
air travel without unacceptable impacts on safety and the
environment, and that the expected 2 billion passengers, which
are due to travel each year in Europe by 2020, are able to do
so in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion.

ATM
EUROCONTROL has a package of programmes covering Air
Traffic Management (ATM) methodology and infrastructure
as well as airport efficiency. Its Performance Enhancement
Programme for European Air Traffic Management (EATM) is
being implemented to develop a seamless ATM system
across the 42 European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)
States. This joint vision extends to the ECAC air traffic
services authorities and includes actions at both European
and national levels. It also covers European ATM
performance enhancement work for airside operations at
airports. EATM’s strategic direction is derived from the
EUROCONTROL ATM 2000+ strategy and the Single European
Sky (SES) initiative proposed by the European Commission.

Airports
EUROCONTROL is also leading the way with its stakeholders on
improving efficiency at airports. Its Airport Operations
Programme (APR), launched in 2002, provides stakeholders
with fast and reliable solutions which are cost-effective and
easy to install. The programme consists of four highly inter-
dependent projects; the Advanced Surface Movement
Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS), Airport Collaborative
Decision Making (A-CDM), Airport airside Capacity
Enhancement (ACE) and Runway Safety.
A-SMGCS uses Mode S multilateration technology to provide
accurate surveillance and identification of all aircraft and
transponder-equipped vehicles on the airport surface. This is
backed up with surface movement radar which detects all
non-transponder equipped aircraft and vehicles. The system’s

63
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
key benefits are that it gives the air traffic controllers a much
clearer view of what is actually happening at the airport. This
situational awareness is maintained through periods of
restricted or reduced visibility, especially bad weather. This
means that it is much easier to locate all of the aircraft and
vehicles on the airport surfaces, enabling controllers to give
advanced warning of potential conflicts and, by acting quickly,
maintain an unbroken flow of traffic.
EUROCONTROL’s A-SMGCS Project Manager, Paul Adamson,
stresses the need for thorough training of air traffic
controllers and clear guidelines for pilots of how to operate
the system for it to work to its optimum. Airports already
implementing the A-SMGCS system have learned that it must
be a complete implementation and that all vehicles and
aircraft need to be fitted with transponders to achieve best
results. He goes on to explain that Level 1 implementation is
quite straightforward, but that Level 2 implementation
requires a considerable amount of work, which, in his words,
should not be underestimated. For example, Charles de Gaulle
airport has completed implementing Level 2, and like
Heathrow, which is currently implementing Level 2, has had to
install additional surface movement radars to give the
required all-round situational awareness.
ACE is an enabling package, which helps to identify and
consequently release latent airside capacity. It consists of a set
of guidelines and software tools for runway, taxiway and apron
operations based on best practice developed at European
64
“What is required next is a
system which will network
airports together so that
information on a particular
aircraft is relayed to that
aircraft’s next destination”
airports. The guidelines come in the form of a set of manuals
entitled Enhancing Airside Capacity; Measurement of Pilot
Reaction Times and Runway Occupancy Times; and the
Airside Capacity Planning Method. The software tools consist
of the Commonly Agreed Methodology for Airport airside
Capacity Assessment (CAMACA) and the Performance Indicator
Analysis Tool (PIATA). CAMACA was developed using
EUROCONTROL’s own expertise whereas PIATA was outsourced
to the UK’s NATS.
Airport Collaborative Decision Making guarantees
enhancements to operational efficiency and infrastructure
usage, which in turn can lead to increased efficiency. The
system works by getting all of the partners in it – aircraft
operators, airport operators, local ATC, ground handlers,
EUROCONTROL’s Central Flow management Unit (CFMU) and
other service providers – to share information with each other
in a more transparent way. By letting everyone know when an
aircraft will arrive and when it will be ready to depart,
predictability is increased and any delays highlighted as soon
as they become apparent. This leads to a common situational
awareness and with it, greater opportunity to react to the
changing situation. Having received positive feedback from
initial users of the system, who confirm that a much better
localised picture is created, EUROCONTROL is now looking to
the future and how to leverage the system even further. David
Hogg, part of the A-CDM team at EUROCONTROL explains,
“What is required next is a system which will network airports
 THE VIEW FROM AEA
By the mid-1990s, the results of the European air transport liberalisation policy already indicated that air transport
would experience rapid and substantial growth. It then became apparent that the main constraint to this predicted
growth would be lack of airport capacity.
For airlines, this manifests itself in decreased efficiency, increased delay and additional costs. The Association of
European Airlines (AEA) calls for political support to resolve capacity bottlenecks by expediting infrastructure
enhancement projects. David Henderson, Manager Information at the AEA says: “The EU should pay due attention to
hub airports and define a policy for air/rail co-operation, so as to promote complementarity rather than arbitrary
modal shift from air to rail. Guidance is also needed on the relationship between major, secondary and regional
airports, to maintain fair competition between them and their operators. The development of a robust and efficient
regulatory framework has become a crucial prerequisite, for privatised and privatising airports and state-owned
airports alike.”
Henderson explains: “AEA’s vision of a common framework for the European airport market starts with an
independent regulator at national level, to provide economic oversight. Following ICAO’s basic principles on charges for
facilities and services, the process should also incorporate cost-relatedness, including the principle of a single till. Finally,
according to ICAO principles, current pre-financing mechanisms for capacity enhancement programmes need to be
replaced with more efficient forms of financing, using normal business practices, while agreed service standards are
essential to guarantee quality.”

together so that information on a particular aircraft is relayed
to that aircraft’s next destination.” EUROCONTROL is
examining the feasibility of developing a system capable of
allowing airports to share their information via the CFMU.
Although designed primarily as a safety tool to prevent
runway incursions, which lead to injury or loss of life, the Runway
Safety Programme has heightened the awareness of airport
operators of the best practices developed throughout Europe to
prevent these incidents. Fewer incidents mean less delay,
throughout the air traffic network, not just at the airport where
an incident may have occurred, but further afield to the other
airports and ANSPs that may have suffered a knock-on effect.
According to Yvonne Page, the Runway Safety Project
Manager, the interdependency of the projects has highlighted
how lessons learned in one area can have significant
implications on another. It has become apparent that a further
stage of development to improve the communications
between the tower, the apron and the pilot is necessary. There
is a real need to speed up the A-SMGCS alerting system by
integrating the three key stakeholders, the vehicle driver, the air
traffic controller and the pilot, into a single communications
loop. It is not yet clear whether such a system is possible, but,
as pilots require between 4 to 40 seconds to react to an alert,
anything that can be done to get an alert to the pilot in as
short a time as possible is to be encouraged.
The European Commission’s White Paper, European
Transport Policy for 2010 – A Time to Decide, acknowledges
the increase in air traffic and the need to manage this growth
carefully to prevent the predicted congestion. It supports the
need to improve the ATM system and increase capacity at
airports, but seems to say two things at the same time. On the
one hand, it promotes the development of additional
infrastructure including airports, especially for the new Member
States, which will require extensive investment to modernise
and enlarge their airports. On the other hand, it says that
environmental protection and the issues of climate change
mean that new airports are not the answer. Instead, a strategy
to create a more balanced intermodal transport network
system should be adopted and aviation needs to increase
capacity through innovation, better control of slot allocation,
efficiency gains by airports and a restructured ATM network.
This article was jointly commissioned by
EUROCONTROL and AEA.

65
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

ENHANCING CAPACITY
Europe must boost its network capacity by more than a quarter by 2011 in order
to stay ahead of traffic growth and drive delays below the limits set by
EUROCONTROL’s Provisional Council. Brendan Gallagher describes the initiatives
that will keep European air services running on time in the years to come

68
 U
ntil recently, Europe has enjoyed a good record in
the battle against air traffic delays. In the four years
between 2000 and 2003 the daily total of delays
attributable to en-route Air Traffic Management (ATM) and
airport factors in European airspace fell from 87,000 minutes
to 41,000 minutes. But then it stuck at that figure in 2004
before rising again to 48,000 minutes in 2005.
Throughout that time, the airport-related contribution
stayed more or less constant at around 20,000 minutes. It
was en-route ATM that yielded the improvement, and it is
ATM that is now under the spotlight as Europe’s air traffic
system strives to cut delays as part of a broader co-ordinated
drive to improve its service to passengers and lessen the
impact of air transport on the environment.
Just like a traffic jam on a highway, an air traffic delay is the
© Düsseldorf Airport
result of an excess of traffic over the system’s ability to handle
it, and in both domains the solution is to add capacity or do
better with what is already available. On the ground this
usually means putting more lanes on existing roads or
building new ones. But the emphasis in European air transport
is more on making better, smarter use of existing
infrastructure and procedures, as well as introducing new
technologies where they can make a difference.
Driving the effort is the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council’s
target of an average of no more than one minute of en-route
ATM-related delay per flight. To be achieved in the face of a
projected 21.7 per cent growth in European air traffic
between 2005 and 2011, this will require summer-season
European ATM network capacity to grow no less than 27 per
cent in the same period.
This demanding target could be achieved through a
co-ordinated, network-wide programme focusing on five areas
of improvement, according to Razvan Bucuroiu, Capacity
Enhancement Manager at EUROCONTROL.
“We are making more efficient use of existing infrastructure
and introducing new technologies and procedures,” he says.
“The implementation of reduced vertical separation minima
(RVSM) in 2002 made a big difference, as did improved airspace
designs to make routes shorter and sectors more efficient. We
are now making further improvements in airspace design and
implementing new technologies. The Air Navigation Service
Providers (ANSPs) are upgrading some parts of the infrastructure
and rationalising others, and civil-military co-operation continues
to advance. It’s our job in the agency to make sure that all this
work is well co-ordinated and there are no gaps.”
The most high-profile effort to get more out of the existing
infrastructure is the Dynamic Management of the European
Airspace Network (DMEAN) programme. To be implemented
between 2006 and 2010, DMEAN is intended to integrate fully all
the ATM functions – airspace management, ATC, and flow and
capacity management – and to improve information-sharing and
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) across the system. It is seen
as the basis for a truly integrated ATM network in the future.
One of the earliest steps in DMEAN was this summer’s
EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU)
Network Operations Plan (NOP), the first of its kind. “It showed
how the network was to be managed throughout the
summer – the actions to be taken, what was going to be
done centrally, and what was happening at individual area
control centres,” explains Bucuroiu. “In 2007 it will be made
even more interactive and easier to access.”
The CFMU has also recently expanded its scope to include
capacity management. “They are trying to use as much as
possible of the capacity that is available in various centres and
is currently not being properly exploited,” says Bucuroiu.
“There is now much more flexibility in the way the network is
managed, compared with five or six years ago.”
Other activities designed to maximise the potential of what is
69
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
“There is a vast
modernisation
programme going on
to bring all the centres
up to a comparable level
of technical capability”
already in place include the spread of best practice to national
ANSPs – “Certain methods of working allow control centres to
achieve much better performance” – and the introduction over
the last few years of air-to-ground communications channel
spacings reduced from 25kHz to 8.33kHz.
Capacity-boosting new technologies and procedures
include controller-pilot datalink communications (CPDLC) and
RVSM. While the latter was introduced in 2002, adding six
more cruising levels between FL290 and FL410, datalink is at
present available at only a couple of European centres.
“Datalink will not really begin to affect capacity until a
significant number of aircraft are equipped,” explains
Bucuroiu. “We expect to see benefits once around 75-80 per
cent of the flights being handled by a centre are datalink-
equipped. The ideal is 90-95 per cent, but the benefits start
at 75-80 per cent.”
Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV), yielding increased
navigational accuracy and eventually improved procedures in
terminal areas, is also being implemented and is expected to
be widespread across Europe within the next three or four
years, and there are plans ultimately to implement 8.33kHz
channel spacing in the lower airspace.
“All these technological improvements will require a massive
investment in the system, starting now and continuing for the
next five or six years,” Bucuroiu comments. “In an effort to
save money, research and development work was slowed
down for two or three years after 9/11. So now we have to
catch up – investment plans will have to be accelerated and
made more substantial to make up for that lost time.”
Significant investments are being made in new area control
centres and ATM systems across Europe – currently in Madrid,
70
Barcelona, Swanwick, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Maastricht, Rome,
Bucharest, Budapest and Zagreb, and soon in Karlsruhe,
Warsaw, Prague and Sofia. “There is a vast modernisation
programme going on to bring all the centres up to a
comparable level of technical capability,” says Bucuroiu.
This is being matched by a reduction in the number of
centres, starting with the closure five years ago of
Düsseldorf. Berlin’s lower-airspace responsibilities are
gradually passing to Bremen and Munich, while Karlsruhe will
have taken over the entire German upper-airspace task by
the end of the decade.
Other consolidation initiatives include the Central European
Air Traffic Services (CEATS), various plans in the Scandinavian
States, and the UK/Ireland upper-airspace functional block.
In a comparatively small and densely populated land area
like Europe, military demands for airspace can have a major
impact on capacity. “There have been some big
improvements in civil/military co-operation in recent years
across Europe,” says Bucuroiu. “Certain States are proving to
be very good at real-time co-operation with the military, and
this will continue to help make available pieces of airspace
that were denied to us in the past.”
Increasing European air traffic capacity by more than a
quarter in just seven years is a very tall order – can it be
achieved? “We can do it if everybody – the States, the
ANSPs and the airspace users – are fully committed,”
concludes Bucuroiu. “There are some excellent initiatives in
the pipeline – now there must be a consolidated effort to
implement them all.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

PERFORMANCE OF THE
EUROPEAN ATM SYSTEM
Performance measurement is key to generating improvements. Anne Paylor
finds out how this is being achieved in Europe and what targets are being set

72
A
s Europe endeavours to create a Single Sky environment
for Air Traffic Management (ATM), it is crucial that all
individual States and Air Navigation Service Providers
(ANSPs) are operating to the same standards and providing
the same common standard of service while ensuring the
highest level of safety.
In order to achieve that, however, it is necessary to be able
to measure the level of performance of each element of the
system. For example, the declared capacity of a sector of
airspace is determined by the ANSP responsible for that piece
of airspace, but the criteria being used to determine the
capacity of that airspace may be quite different from the
criteria being used by a neighbouring ANSP or any other
European ANSP.
Similarly, a controller in one centre supported by less
sophisticated technology will be able to handle fewer aircraft
than a controller in another centre. Controller productivity is
currently a national and often a social issue.
In order to be able to measure the performance of the
European ATM system as a whole, it has been necessary to
establish performance indicators and criteria, to determine
how well the ATM system functions and what actions are
required to reach an optimum level of performance.
Therefore, the Performance Review Commission (PRC) was
established in 1998 to offer advice in this respect.
EUROCONTROL describes the PRC as an “independent
referee” to monitor system performance and propose high
level targets.
By 1999, the PRC had developed an initial performance
measurement system, consisting of Key Performance Areas
(KPAs) and associated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Four
KPAs – safety, delays, cost-effectiveness and flight efficiency –
form the core on which the PRC places particular emphasis. Effectiveness (ACE) reports. This benchmarking exercise
It is of great concern to the PRC that there is no uniform essentially relies on ANSPs disclosing certain relevant and
indicator for measuring safety performance across Europe. specific information, as a counterpart to their statutory
The PRC has made a number of proposals to remedy this monopolies. This includes financial information for their ATM
situation and will follow developments closely. activities, including limited separation of key revenue, cost
In 2001, the PRC proposed a target for delays of a maximum and asset items into en-route, approach and airport activities;
of one-minute’s delay per flight, which has been adopted by and an overview of staff, investment, training, resources and
EUROCONTROL governing bodies. charges projections for meeting anticipated demand.
Cost-effectiveness is measured by the PRC, working closely Xavier Fron, Head of the EUROCONTROL Performance
with all ANSPs. An annual benchmarking exercise is Review Unit, explains: “The spirit of these reports is neither to
performed, and the results published annually in ATM Cost- praise nor to criticise, but to help everyone involved

73
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
effectively improve performance in the future. The value of
benchmarking increases through time, as data availability,
consistency, comparability and common understanding grow.
There is a learning process for all the stakeholders.”
According to PRC data, in 2004, the cost of en-route and
terminal airspace services amounted to more than E7 billion,
fully funded by user charges and reflected in the ticket prices
paid by the travelling public. Approximately 88 per cent of
this, equivalent to E6,153 million, related directly to the
provision of gate-to-gate Air Traffic Management/
Communications Navigation, Surveillance (ATM/CNS), and
more than 60 per cent can be attributed to manpower
resources, indicating that ATM is a labour intensive activity.
Overall, the European Air Navigation System (ANS) in 2004
employed some 54,000 staff, of which approximately 15,800
or 29 per cent were air traffic controllers on operational duty.
The PRC data shows that, on average, an additional 2.4 staff
were required for every controller in operations.
Data gathered by the PRC also suggests that ATM is capital
intensive, with capital for the provision of gate-to-gate ANS
roughly equalling revenue (E7,233 million), meaning that
approximately E1 of fixed asset capital is required to generate
E1 of revenue.
In 2004, the average direct ATM cost was E393 per flight-
hour. ATM delay costs amounted to an additional E51 per
hour, a significant improvement over 2002 (-24 per cent). The
latter reflects a genuine increase in ATC capacity throughout
the European ATM network, coupled with a lower than
expected traffic increase.
En-route charges now account for some 6 per cent of
airlines’ operating costs, and benchmarking against the US
system, for example, indicates that there is significant scope
for improvement in European cost effectiveness.
The PRC cites “at least two major” performance shortfalls
that it describes as being “in the billion euro order of
magnitude”. These are low cost-effectiveness, linked with ANS
fragmentation and low average productivity, and relatively
high flight-inefficiency, linked with civil-military airspace
design and use.
Measures identified by the PRC to address these
performance shortfalls include progressively raising
productivity in every ANSP to best practice; reducing
fragmentation, which contributes to high support costs and
74
“Complexity does not
only have a negative
impact. Higher traffic
density allows for
more effective use of
existing resources”
inefficiencies; and effectively managing employment costs.
But Fron points out that, although the ANSPs with the
highest unit costs are those providing services in airspace with
the greatest traffic complexity, this is also where the best
productivity levels are being achieved.
“So complexity does not only have a negative impact,” he
says. “Higher traffic density allows for more effective use of
existing resources and exploiting scale effects, which are likely
to be significant given the fixed infrastructure costs.” Fron
says that resources are generally better used when the traffic
is high.
The PRC suggests that productivity improvements could be
achieved “by optimising and rationalising the current
processes for ATM/CNS provision and/or by more effective
operations room management, making better use of existing
resources (adapting rosters and shift times, adapting sector
opening times to traffic demand patterns, etc.)”
It argues: “There is a need for both a pan-European
objective and national cost-effectiveness objective to drive
improvements in cost effectiveness. A medium-term pan-
European cost-effectiveness objective of -14 per cent over 5
years (-3 per cent per annum) for en-route real unit costs
would be both achievable and sufficiently challenging.”
And to address the wide variation that currently exists
between States, the PRC asks whether “stronger measures (eg,
regulatory, organisational) are needed to drive converging
improvements in cost effectiveness.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

THE SINGLE
EUROPEAN SKY
Ian Goold reports on what needs to be done to ensure that the Single European Sky
initiative continues to make good progress through its various development phases

O
nce upon a time someone had the idea of a single
‘sky’ for Europe: common airspace without
borders, but while surface frontiers were eliminated
under the 1985 single European market and financial frontiers
dismantled under the 1990 economic and monetary union,
aerial borders remain.
Air Traffic Management (ATM) in the region is inhibited by
diverse procedures and driven essentially by airline routes
largely based on national borders, rather than natural traffic
flow. Despite hard work to update European ATM
arrangements, the system is a somewhat costly – albeit safe –
one. Accordingly, the Single European Sky (SES) initiative –

75
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
launched by the European Commission (EC) – proposes a
legislative approach to resolve differences affecting air
transport and to enable ATM to meet future demand. The SES
has the support of politicians, airlines and industry and will
complement other initiatives intended to maximise growth
benefits through co-operation to improve ATM capacity while
protecting the environment and developing people. In
particular, the Association of European Airlines (AEA)
welcomes the move: “It is the most promising project to
achieve the necessary quantum leap.”
Since the mid-1990s, European air traffic has increased over
50 per cent. In 2005, there were 9.2 million flights, with up to
30,000 services on peak days, says the SES ATM Research
(SESAR) Consortium. By 2025, traffic is expected to grow
some 140 per cent to 22 million commercial flights.
Current capacity is about 80 per cent higher than in 1990,
says EUROCONTROL, which says that planned improvements
should enable the ATM system to absorb growth until the
mid-2010s. Then, more radical measures will be required to
prevent serious airspace congestion, growth being
accommodated by the unified system that the SES initiative is
confidently expected to provide. AEA says capacity must be
increased to meet demand while avoiding increases in cost
and bureaucracy.
“Improvements have
been substantial, but
there has only been
agreement in a few
areas, on convergence
and a way forward”
The SES aims to: restructure European airspace according
to traffic flows (not national constraints), create capacity, and
increase system efficiency. The EC legislative package
comprises four elements designed to achieve seamless ATM: a
framework for creation of the SES, provision of air-navigation
services (ANS), airspace organisation and use, and ATM
network interoperability.
76
In 2003, EUROCONTROL and the EC signed a memorandum
of co-operation to improve synergies in five areas: SES
implementation, research and development, global satellite-
navigation systems, air-traffic and environmental data collection
and analysis and international aviation. The legislative package
was introduced soon after being adopted by the European
Parliament and the Transport Council in March 2004.
A fundamental SES requirement is adoption of
implementing rules being developed by EUROCONTROL to EC
mandates. Through these regulations, Europe will be able to
develop more efficient ATM arrangements capable of
sustainable growth. EUROCONTROL will contribute to several
areas: flexible airspace use, airspace classification and design,
Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), a common charging
scheme, interoperability, air-traffic flow management, a
European upper flight-information region and a single
aeronautical information publication.
Despite the laudable aims, EUROCONTROL acknowledges
the inherent challenges. “Changing current arrangements is
turning out to be more complex than anticipated,” says
EUROCONTROL ATM Strategies Director, Bo Redeborn.
“Philosophically, everyone can agree to change, but once
you start, the devil is in the detail. To make it happen, we
might find it will take longer than anticipated to achieve
real progress.” AEA Technical and Operations General
Manager, Vincent de Vroey, looks forward to speedier
progress. “We feel the project has not moved fast enough,
but it is a first step.”
Redeborn says that national Air Navigation Service Providers
(ANSPs) have been improving their own performances, which
today are “quite good, moving more traffic with less delay
than for a long time”. The EUROCONTROL official says:
“Improvements have been substantial, but there has only
been agreement in a few areas, on convergence and a way
forward.” While some improvements offer, say, 40 per cent
gains, there needs to be “a quantum leap” to converge with
common solutions, says Redeborn.
Illustrating the implicit challenge, he visualises three tiers of
necessary agreement: “The top layer is at the political and
conceptual level, where there is total agreement on
requirements. Next, there is general agreement, in principle,
on what is needed to address problems.” But at the third
level, there is not yet agreement on physical equipment,

“Full involvement
of the military and
flexibility of airspace
use is a must”
actual systems, and tools: “That is the problem. We won’t
reach our target without agreement at the lowest level.”
Accordingly, he hopes the initiative will create “a common
lowest level of system capability, [but] higher than in the
past”. It should force everyone to rise to a lowest common
denominator, achieved through regulations and implementing
rules and with an agreed development path for future
interoperable solutions.
Redeborn says there are many examples of national
border restraint that have been overcome, although military
requirements (such as firing ranges) remain a consideration.
“Full involvement of the military and flexibility of airspace
use is a must, so we segregate only where and when there is
a true need.”
Nevertheless, it has not been possible to meet all growth
requirements: some areas have seen 4.5 per cent traffic
increases but only 3 per cent capacity growth, according to
the EUROCONTROL official. He says the challenge is to meet
traffic growth with new capacity “to maintain one-minute
delays – economic optimum”. Other factors needing to be
accommodated include meteorology (more-convective
weather generates delays) and local events (such as last
August’s London security incident).
Redeborn acknowledges that the early 2000s’ economic
recession restricted growth and allowed the ATM system to
catch up, with capacity increasing while traffic increases
dwindled. But now there is “more traffic than ever,” albeit
alleviated by developments, such as Reduced Vertical-
Separation Minima (RVSM), which have made a “very
significant contribution”.
By September 2006, EUROCONTROL had “delivered” nine
mandates and had 13 others in work, plus six additional tasks,
says Redeborn. For example, EUROCONTROL is required to
provide an SES factual review and report (SESFARR) for the EC,
which must report progress to the European Parliament and
Council. Meanwhile, European airlines are watching progress
closely. “A lot has to be done,” concluded AEA’s de Vroey. “We
are confident there is [political] commitment, but it needs to
be continuous commitment.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
77
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

THE SESAR PROGRAMME

A cornerstone of the Single European Sky initiative is new technology. But new
operational procedures are just as important. Ian Goold finds out how the SES
ATM Research programme is tackling the issues of the ‘No Frontiers’ approach

78
S
ingle European Sky (SES) Air Traffic Management (ATM)
arrangements have been proposed against an evolving
airline landscape, says Bernard Miaillier, who heads
EUROCONTROL’s SES ATM Research (SESAR) and ATM strategy
division. This landscape is populated by a number of
stakeholders, including airspace users, airports, Air Navigation
Service Providers (ANSPs), equipment suppliers, and – not
least – passengers.
While current European ATM performance is good, change
is needed to accommodate growing traffic, predicted to more
than double by 2025. Requirements are driven by limited air-
traffic control (ATC) capacity, fragmented airspace with
political boundaries, and ageing technology. New systems
must ensure that increased traffic is accompanied, in a cost-
effective manner, by improved safety, reduced environmental
impact and increased security, with delays kept to an
economic optimum.
Miaillier says the past 30-40 years saw no fundamental
change in the operational concept: “Fortunately there have
been a lot of improvements to make the most of the
system, but now such further improvements produce
diminishing returns.” The full benefits of previous ATM
initiatives have not always been achieved, mainly due to
insufficient commitment by some stakeholders. Now, for the
first time, the proposed SESAR programme involves air and
ground, and civil and military operators, legislators and
suppliers together in defining, committing to, and
implementing a Europe-wide programme.
This SESAR programme aims to eliminate fragmentation,
transform the system and synchronise different partners’ plans
and actions with resources. Its definition phase, a
EUROCONTROL/European Commission (EC)-funded project, is
conducted by a consortium established by 30 partners
(representing airspace users, airports, ANSPs and aircraft and
equipment manufacturers and suppliers) including the
Association of European Airlines (AEA), plus a similar number
of project associates (military, research staff, professional
associations, US industry). Its aim is to deliver the Master Plan
to transform the European ATM system and make it able to
meet the 2020 requirements.
In the meantime, short- and medium-term programmes will
exploit the current system’s maximum potential, while
planned research programmes should yield new ‘solutions’ to
address a capacity shortage that is, otherwise, expected to
grow during the next decade. Planned operational
improvements that should meet requirements up to at least
until 2010 include enhanced airspace capacity resulting from
the Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network
(DMEAN) programme, as well as increased sector productivity
through air-ground data link applications and automated
assistance tools for air traffic controllers. Related plans address
airport throughput and collaborative decision-making.
On the communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS)
side, Miaillier points to programmed improvements, including
new flight-data processing systems, additional radio channels
and the prospective pan-European network services for
telecommunications. Improved safety and security
arrangements and the sharing of good practices will
complement these moves.
The vision is for “a high-performance ATM network for
2020” says Miaillier. Originally formulated in the EC Vision
2020 for aviation, design goals include an 80 per cent lower
accident rate, doubling of traffic capacity, and a halving of
aircraft noise and emissions. Targets are for 99 per cent of
flights to be delayed by less than 15 minutes and for
passenger handling to require no more than 30 minutes.
Essential SESAR constituents include standards driven by
performance requirements (rather than new technology),
gate-to-gate system integration, borderless airspace and
enhanced satellite technology. Other characteristics are
co-operative ATM (including four-dimensional trajectory
management, new automation ‘tools’, and assisted airborne
separation), System-Wide Information Management (SWIM)
and interoperability. Miaillier says that previously there has
been a mismatch between actual and potential application of
new technology that now can be overcome.
He emphasises the paradigm shift implied if European ATM
is to meet the needs of the next two decades. While historical
practice has been essentially procedural with estimated
aircraft locations, today’s radar-based activity ‘knows’ current
situations, while estimating planned positions. In future,
trajectory-driven systems will share existing and expected
aircraft locations. “Now there is a change in the information
available, but ATM remains a human activity.”
The European ATM Master Plan recognises converging
needs, and initiatives and requirements for co-operative
79
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

solutions. Given growing traffic and events such as increased
terrorism threats, Miaillier sees unprecedented challenges:
“Industry is conscious that [stakeholders must join the]
process to help technical capacity improvements and
economic investment.” The time and conditions are right to
“provide momentum to previous ideas”.
The major needs are to remove ATM fragmentation,
accelerate evolutionary responses, synchronise and integrate
The perceived cost
of enhanced ATM is
less than the expense
of a system not
optimally developed
plans (from research to operations), and synchronise
introduction of new procedures. Miaillier says SESAR supports
the SES legislation by technical and operational initiatives.
“SESAR is a cohesive programme for stepwise, performance-
driven implementation [that] addresses European needs and
global interoperability.” The SESAR programme is being
conducted through three sequential phases. The current
2005-07 definition phase involves the planning that will feed
into the 2008-13 development phase. This will be followed by
the implementation of SESAR during the 2014-20
deployment phase.
The definition phase involves six ‘milestones and
deliverables’, the first of which – assessment of the current
situation – was presented to stakeholders in Geneva
(Switzerland) in September 2006. By March 2008 each
milestone should have been ‘delivered’.
Miaillier says that ATM represents a small fraction of the
overall economic value generated by aviation. “If it cannot

to meet requirements respond to challenges, the whole economy would be

penalised.” In the same way that safety is expensive but not
so costly as an accident, so the perceived cost of enhanced
ATM is less than the expense of a system not optimally
developed to meet requirements.
The institutional and regulatory context for ATM also needs
to evolve, according to Miaillier. “While, mainly because of
safety and the international interoperability needs, there is a
need for regulation, the current mechanisms are not fully
supportive. There needs to be a balance with, for example,
the ability to introduce innovation more quickly.” It is also
important that these aspects are addressed simultaneously
with operational and technical issues, rather than too late or
in a way that hinders progress.
On the question of efficiency and safety, Miaillier says that a
number of ideas on how improvements can be achieved
remain to be validated. Some current inefficiency relates to
organisational aspects of service provision rather than
operational concepts. “Safety gains must go in line with (or
© Cyprus Airways

even anticipate) capacity and other improvements of

performance.” As a consortium partner, AEA sees SESAR as
“one of the hopes to ‘deliver’ a technical ‘solution’. We are
doing our utmost to ensure that it delivers what we want.”

This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.

80
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

EUROPEAN AIRLINES’
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
European airlines’ relationships with the US are a vital driver for change in the industry.
Martin Todd looks at the key areas where new ways of doing business are being thrashed out

84
E
xternal relations are of increasing importance to the
Association of European Airlines (AEA), as the global
nature of the airlines industry becomes more and more
evident. This, plus the AEA’s commitment to market
liberalisation, has led to a sharper focus on external relations,
as the body supports moves to multilateral rather than bilateral
regulatory and legal frameworks. And at the heart of the AEA’s
external relations efforts is its relationship with the United
States of America and its attempts to resolve various
regulatory and structural issues facing the airline industry.

“At present, US airline

carriers have much
greater access to the
European Union market
than EU carriers have to
the US market”
According to the AEA’s Manager Information, David
Henderson: “At present, US airline carriers have much greater
access to the European Union market than EU carriers have to
the US market. This is one crucial issue we are trying to
resolve. The AEA strongly believes in extending access to the
European Union single market and is committed to seeing
much greater liberalisation in the way the world’s airline
carriers conduct business. We are seeking to expand market
liberalisation and free trade,” confirms Henderson. “Essentially,
what we are advocating is open skies with no protectionist
restrictions,” he continues.
Key to implementing such an approach is the airline
association’s promotion of an Open Aviation Area. This
concept emerged in the 1990s and essentially is in support of
free market access, liberalised airline ownership, strong market
competitiveness and consumer choice. Although the US and
European markets are seen as having much in common in
terms of encouraging consumer choice and competition, it is
where they differ that agreement has proved difficult to reach.
Airline ownership regulations and legislation continue to be an
area where much disagreement remains.
In the US, the regulatory framework states that 75 per cent
of an airline’s voting stock must be owned by US citizens and
67 per cent of management positions should also be occupied
by US citizens. In the EU, majority ownership of 51 per cent is
the limit of ownership control. European organisations such as
AEA are adamant that this imbalance in market access has to
be addressed. One seasoned European observer notes: “The
EU and the US seem to have a different understanding of what
they mean by free trade. Trying to bring those positions and
realities together has been a large part of both sides’ focus on
external relations in recent years.” The AEA’s Henderson
agrees: “When the US talks of open skies they are talking
largely about market access. In the EU we are talking about
the harmonisation of various regulatory and legislative issues,
of which market access is just one aspect.”
Many of the challenges facing the US and Europe around
airline ownership, liberalisation and market access coalesce

85
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
around discussions on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) initiative, which determines the investment and
ownership climate in the US airline industry. European
airlines believe this initiative underpins the imbalance in
investment opportunities between the two regional blocks.
After many months of detailed, and some might say
tortuous, discussions, in November 2005 the US and the EU
agreed a tentative draft air transport agreement, which many
argued addressed issues of market access and regulatory
convergence in a way that sets the prospect of a more level
playing field between the EU and the US regarding airline
ownership and control. Although the 75 per cent voting stock
requirement was not changed, the modification of the US
Department of Transport’s (DoT’s) interpretation rules on
actual control of US air carriers, suggested that foreign
investors would be allowed to manage US airlines’ commercial
decisions with a maximum 49 per cent of non-voting shares.
The November agreement was viewed as offering real progress
in significantly improved relations between the two sides.
From today’s perspective it is hard to imagine the surge of
optimism on both sides of Atlantic when the DoT published
its new Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) provisions in
November 2005. A Member State politician addressing the
Council of Europe Transport Committee in December of
2005 welcomed the draft air transport agreement, noting
the improvement in regulatory framework covering issues as
diverse as competition, arbitration procedures and security.
It was argued that the new interpretations would increase
the level of capital flow from Europe to US airlines. At the
same time EU airlines or individuals would have more power
to make commercial decisions influencing areas such as
airline marketing and route networking.
The AEA warmly welcomed what it saw as a “breakthrough
in EU-US aviation talks”. Commenting on the tentative
agreement, AEA Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus
stated: “The progress achieved so far can only be termed as
historic. Such a consensus is a prerequisite for an international
level playing field, and could therefore very well become a
template for future negotiations.” According to one industry
expert: “The November rule proposal brought the best
possibility of a meaningful open sky agreement in 20 years.”
However, when EU and US representatives met in the spring
of 2006, the US delegation announced a delay to its acceptance
86
of the NPRM. It also introduced a Supplemental NPRM which, to
many, moved the US further away from a commitment to an
open aviation area by introducing revocation clauses, which
effectively mean US owners could remove foreign influence over
commercial decisions. However, the AEA believes an EU-US
agreement is “still within reach”. Further consultations are
planned but, according to the AEA, progress can only be made
The November
agreement was viewed
as offering real
progress in significantly
improved relations
between the two sides
if “the US is serious about treating global aviation like a mature
industry and facilitating foreign investment into ownership”.
Another area of contention between the EU and the US is
the issue of the provision of passenger data transfer for
transatlantic flights. Following the terrorist attacks on the US
on 11 September 2001, the US has insisted that European
airlines provide 34 different information datasets on
passengers travelling across the Atlantic. However, in May
2006, the European Court of Justice ruled that the current
regulations have no legal basis and will be invalidated from
the first of October. An interim agreement has, however,
been achieved, which enables Passenger Name Records
(PNR) data, held in air carrier reservation systems, to be
transferred to the US authorities in the same way as under
the previous agreement.
The AEA’s external relations are underpinned by its
commitment to creating a level playing field in terms of
regulatory frameworks, market access and airline ownership.
The question that remains to be answered, in a world where
many support protectionism and nervously increase security
legislation, is – are its potential partners able to follow suit?
This article was commissioned by AEA.

INTERMODAL TRANSPORT,
COMPETITION AND
CO-OPERATION
A co-ordinated intermodal transport system throughout Europe is an attractive
proposition, but what is being done and what needs to change? Simon Michell
examines the issues and challenges for the airline industry
“E
urope is threatened by apoplexy in the centre and
paralysis at the extremities.” This stark warning was
made in the European Commission’s (EC) 1993 White
Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. Such
was the understanding of the importance of a co-ordinated
transport system for Europe that the European Union’s
founding document of March 1957, The Treaty of Rome,
provided for a common transport policy. It was not until the
Maastricht Treaty passed into law in 1993, however, that a
proactive and tangible process was put into place through the
concept of the trans-European Network.
ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
It is now universally accepted that Europe’s chronic
congestion is restricting its economic competitiveness.
External costs of road congestion, for example, amount to
0.5 per cent of the EU’s GDP and it is predicted that if
nothing is done, the costs attributable to road snarl-ups will
reach E80 billion per annum by 2010, which equates to a
massive 1 per cent of the EU GDP. Accordingly the EC’s
2001 White Paper, European Transport Policy for 2010:
‘a time to decide’, has made a series of recommendations
and proposals to try and get substantial movement in
this area.
87
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH

Freight traffic
The key aims within the European Transport policy for 2010
are to inject urgency into the 60 or so projects that have
already been started, and to gather the necessary consensus
for the adoption of a sustained and unremitting process to
realign the movement of goods and passengers away from
the roads. In short: “In the new concept of sustainable
development, community co-financing should be redirected
to give priority to rail, sea and inland waterways.” The primary
vehicle to achieve this change is the Marco Polo programme,
which started in 2003 and is due to be supplemented by
Marco Polo II on its completion at the end of 2006. Marco
Polo hopes to turn back the clock by getting the distribution
of freight between the various modes of transport back to the
levels last seen in 1998 by helping to shift the expected
growth in road freight to a combination of transport modes in
which road journeys are as short as possible.
With freight already accounting for 14 per cent of the
Association of European Airlines (AEA) member airlines
revenue – and set to rise to as high as 25 per cent – this is an
important area for the Association. That said, however,
David Henderson, Manager Information at the AEA explains:
“Intermodality is one of those concepts that is tossed around
as some kind of universal panacea. As far as we in the airlines
are concerned, the question of freight intermodality rarely Air Transport Association (IATA), European Civil Aviation
crops up. We are not yet, for example, talking about railway Conference (ECAC) and EUROCONTROL, which help to draft
marshalling yards next to the cargo terminal.” the rules and regulations necessary to allow aircraft to travel
around the world under a system that offers a set of
Fairness across the board minimum standards for safety, environmental protection and
With air traffic expanding at a steady pace of about 3-4 per aircraft and crew certification. The same is not true to the
cent per annum, EC support for sustainable growth reflected same extent for the road, rail and maritime sectors. Of course,
in the Framework Research Programmes and the Single these sectors do not operate within a vacuum and are bound
European Sky Initiative is vital. What it also needs, in relation by national and international law, but not quite in the same
to the focus on the other transports modes, is a level playing global way as air transport.
field, whereby it is not disadvantaged through economic,
regulatory or political decisions. This means road, rail, air and Passenger traffic
maritime transport should be supervised, administered and In an effort to drive forward progress on intermodal
funded on an equal footing within the limits of social, development, the European Commission inspired an IATA
geographical and cultural bounds. study on air-rail intermodality, published in February 2003.
Air travel is a highly regulated and closely managed This brought together experts from both the rail and air
transport mode, bound by international treaties both multi- transport modes to develop recommendations for
and bi-lateral. It has a number of international bodies such as encouraging operational integration of rail and air services for
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International the benefit of both operators and travellers. This led to the

88
formation of the Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum
(RAIFF) in September 2003.
RAIFF is convinced that if its recommendations put forward
in its final report were adopted, as much as 5-10 per cent of
airport capacity, currently dedicated to short-haul flights at
large airports, could be freed up. This relies, however, on
other factors, such as continued development of the pan-
European high-speed rail network – set to double in size by
2010 and triple in size by 2020. It would also need the
inclusion of high-speed rail connections at more airports, such
as Barcelona and Schiphol, and the improvement of other
existing high-speed connections at airports such as Madrid
and Milan. Furthermore, a co-ordinated and deliberate
strategy for airports to develop their feeding by long-distance
rail would need to be developed.
This is all very well, but in the words of David Henderson: “As
a general rule, airports of a significant size should have a rail
link. Such links, local and regional, can do a good job in
reducing road traffic, and they have additional benefits such as
increasing airport catchment areas. Further afield, as links are
extended to cities served by air from that airport, we enter the
realm of modal shift between air and rail, and at this point
certain parameters need to be established. This is particularly
the case on the facilitation side, as regards passenger amenity.
Our view is that we are the ones with the higher standards and
railways have to raise theirs to meet ours.”
Airlines take care of baggage in a systematic and secure
way, which, in these times of enhanced security, is an absolute
requirement. Rail passengers, on the other hand, look after
their own belongings and rarely, apart from on the Eurostar,
are they checked within the Schengen Agreement area.
“Our view is that
we are the ones with
the higher standards
and railways have
to raise theirs to
meet ours”
The airlines have also spent a great deal of time and money
developing infrastructure that gives unimpeded access to
PRMs – passengers with reduced mobility – particularly
wheelchair-bound passengers. Airlines have also clear
guidelines and support for unaccompanied minors, which are
not mirrored by rail companies. There is also a legal structure
giving rights to passengers who are delayed or who miss their
flight through no fault of their own. The rail industry needs to
take account of all this before it is able to collaborate with the
air industry on an equal footing.
Henderson goes on to say: “The intermodal shift has to be
a fair one. If it is indeed the case that it is more efficient to
carry passengers between – say – Brussels and Amsterdam by
rail, then fine. But this should not be achieved through any
distortion in the market such as state subsidies or other
economic mechanisms.”
This does not mean, however, that there is no role for
government support. The RAIFF final report itself says that a
similar programme to Marco Polo focused on the passenger
side would be welcomed. This could help create the level
playing field and to develop the infrastructure required for
rail/air baggage handling systems, reservation systems capable
of facilitating rail/air journeys, support with integrated
ticketing and product sales and, perhaps most importantly,
the co-ordination and streamlining of rail/air security systems.
This article was commissioned by AEA.
89
 ATM: THE CHALLENGE OF GROWTH
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) has been at the hub
of Air Traffic Management R&D for over 40 years. Ian Goold talks
to its Director to find out what its biggest challenges are
R
ecognising challenges facing regional Air Traffic
Management (ATM), the European Commission (EC) and
EUROCONTROL have launched the Single European Sky
(SES) ATM Research (SESAR) programme, aiming to increase
safety and capacity while reducing costs and environmental
impact. SESAR underlines capacity-limiting factors at airports,
highlights the lack of common architecture and recommends a
future system that treats airborne and ground systems as one.
“It is widely expected that by 2020, European ATM will have
evolved into a collaborative high-performance system,” says
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) Director Jan van
Doorn. “An ever-increasing number of eyes are turning to the
EEC to instigate and incubate much of the research on future
European ATM and related infrastructure.”
That research has five goals: heightened safety, increased
capacity, reduced delays, enhanced efficiency and minimised
90
environmental impact. The EEC will have a full role in maximising
growth benefits through co-ordinated efforts to innovate,
enhance capacity, protect the environment and develop people.
SESAR unites ATM ‘stakeholders’ in developing the ATM Master
Plan to support a sustainable future European Air Transport
system. The 40-year-experience of the EEC in ATM research and
development is seen as being crucial to SESAR by providing valid
input into the consortium’s overall deliberations.
SESAR will enable the implementation of the SES, which aims
to reduce fragmentation in European airspace. “R&D is geared
towards changing the system to match future technical,
environmental, operational and legislative demands,” says van
Doorn. “It will end today’s patchwork ATM and offer safe and
environmentally sustainable ‘solutions’.”
The Centre will actively contribute in the development of the
ATM Master Plan and will play a significant role in the first model
assessment of SESAR in the definition phase. Its work
programme will be re-evaluated and aligned with SESAR
definition-phase output and then performed within the
framework of the SESAR Joint Undertaking, which is expected to
be operational late 2007/early 2008.
Van Doorn sees Europe’s various research entities becoming
specialist centres of expertise with the EEC as a “natural
conductor [of the orchestra]” more involved in co-ordinating
and federating overall research. He is keen to encourage
increased investments in long-term R&D, saying that since cost-
benefit analyses “mostly” span five to ten years, they can create
a negative image leading to reduced funding if much longer
aeronautical R&D timescales are involved. For example: “Data-
link research started in the 1980s but application has only just
started on a very limited scale. Traffic-alert and Collision-
Avoidance System (TCAS) R&D also pushed ahead in the 1980s
and has now finally been introduced in Europe.”
SESAR has concluded that current 2020 ATM objectives will
not be reached without a paradigm shift in how the system is
conceived and operated. Historically, Europe addressed 1950s-
1980s capacity shortages by employing additional controllers
and introducing computers. Now, the challenge is not only to
change systems, but also to do so with a scientific approach
involving many parties (although, van Doorn acknowledges
major changes to funding procedures or methods will be
necessary to pay for research into technology that will only enter
service in 25-30 years’ time).
Van Doorn says that the advent of SESAR and various political
moves mean the landscape is changing very rapidly, with the
EEC already “very engaged” on operational concept research.
“Work includes datalink, co-operative decision-making, better
controller ‘tools’, an integrated approach to sequencing, wake
vortex research, advanced airports guidance and control of
surface movement. Longer-term activity embraces delegation of
aircraft separation, airborne-separation assurance and four-
dimensional (4D) trajectories.” Other activities cover more
technical and dynamic central-flow-control processes.
During 2005, the EEC restructured its work programme. The
main change is from investigating technologies and new
concepts to greater concern with operational validation of the
2020 ATM system. EUROCONTROL also is learning to work with
and integrate alternative research sources, says van Doorn: “The
EEC must identify and draw on expertise and knowledge from
other centres, the industry and universities.” Through this
process, the EEC will facilitate the evolution of research
performed at local/regional levels to ensure its applicability and
integration into fully interoperable European wide applications.
For example, the EEC has integrated its work with 26 other
partners in the assessment of the SESAR concept of operations
in the European Episode 3 project.
The restructured EEC covers short-, medium-, and long-term
programmes. The medium term, representing 70 per cent of EEC
business activity (which includes Episode 3) and dubbed mid-term
validation (MTV), aims to confirm the SESAR ATM target concept.
Mid-term validation’s E30 million a year budget (including
simulation-software platforms) underlines EEC commitment to
support SESAR decision-making on system performance, including
cost, capacity, predictability, safety and environment.
The remaining 30 per cent of work covers short-term support
for key implementation programmes, with long-term research
focused beyond 2020. EEC’s short-term work ensures that current
constraints are understood and borne in mind. Activity has
included support for the Dynamic Management of the European
Airspace Network (DMEAN) programme designed to release
latent ATM capacity ahead of SESAR, while the European medium-
term ATM network-capacity plan consolidates local requirements
and perceives expected 2006-09 network performance.
Current EEC research includes collaborative planning; airspace
organisation and management; traffic synchronisation; conflict
management; and information and management services. EC-
and EUROCONTROL-sponsored work, such as the co-operative
ATM (C-ATM) project, aims to contribute to improved safety,
maximum use of available capacity in all weathers, creation of
additional capacity, and increased efficiency of ATM processes. It
anticipates the inclusion of 4D trajectory concepts (involving
aircraft flying to time accurately, permitting their future
locations to be calculated).
EUROCONTROL leads the CAMES project, which investigates
procedures for dynamic traffic-flow co-ordination across
several centres. EEC has been involved in simulations of the
EC’s gate-to-gate (“G2G”) project, which aims to improve
airport, terminal, and en-route ATC through short- and
medium-term “centre-planning practices”. G2G, which
complements systems such as arrival management (AMAN)
and departure management (DMAN), can enhance terminal-
area traffic flows by, for example, increasing co-operation
between en-route and approach.
The time-based separations project aims to recover capacity
lost in high headwind conditions, replacing distance separations
to help prevent the loss of runway arrival capacity. Another EEC
activity is analytical ATM methods and operations modelling.
In the societal and environmental areas, EEC is considering
how to meet public perceptions and expectations, and safety,
environment and cost-efficiency requirements. Research into
perceived aircraft annoyance around airports has identified ‘life-
quality’ considerations such as social, economic, cultural and
phobic-nuisance factors alongside noise and emissions.
Finally, van Doorn underlines the vital role of research: “Where
would we be in ATM without human/machine research? Could
we handle today’s traffic with just the simple radar screens of
the 1960s? Everything which came later and makes up today’s
ATM system has been preceded by R&D.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
91
 SAFER SKIES

AIRLINES’ PERSPECTIVE
ON SAFETY
Safety is a paramount concern for the air transport community. Martin Todd looks at the
issues from the airline’s point of view and examines EASA’s central role in Europe

92
S
afety is highest on the list of concerns for the European
flying public. It is therefore no surprise that safety is so
high up the list of priorities of the Association of
European Airlines (AEA). According to Vincent De Vroey, AEA’s
General Manager, Technical and Operations: “Safety is at the
heart of our members’ business model. It is not something
that is bolted on as an extra.”
The general public is naturally concerned about airline
safety, and the intense media scrutiny of the safety records of
airlines, which tends to follow every commercial passenger
aircraft accident involving a fatality, has encouraged the
European Union and organisations such as the AEA to place
safety even higher up their agendas.
It was argued that the Safety Analysis of Foreign Airlines (SAFA)
programme should include a programme to name, shame and
ban unsafe airlines throughout the whole of the European
Union. EU regulators currently blacklist around 90 airlines.
The AEA takes the position that the European aviation system
remains safe. It points out that 2004 was one of the safest
years in terms of fatalities since the end of the Second World
War. Furthermore, according to European Aviation Safety
Agency’s (EASA’s) first annual safety review: “The rate of
accidents involving passenger fatalities in scheduled operations De Vroey points out that AEA members have consistently
has dropped by about half from 1986 to 2005.” Airlines invested in safety procedures and equipment over the years.
transport around 2 billion people a year, so even though any For example, before it became mandatory, AEA members
airline-associated death is tragic, the overall numbers compared invested in a flight-monitoring programme, whereby flight
to overall traffic remain low, particularly when compared to recorders are used to analyse safety trends, such as individual
other forms of mass transport. pilot performance. These systems can be used to spot safety
trends and contribute to correcting performances in terms of
the feedback it offers. According to the AEA’s De Vroey: “Most
members of the airline association have been using such
systems for at least a decade.”

AEA members
have consistently
invested in safety
procedures and
equipment over
the years
93
 SAFER SKIES

EASA’s mission is

©Lux Air
to promote the
highest common
standards in safety and
environmental protection
in civil aviation

Likewise, AEA members were early adopters of the Terrain

Awareness and Warning System (TAWS), which is now
mandatory for all airline retrofits, as well as new aircraft.
Although legislation for retrofits only became mandatory in
2003, AEA members have again used these systems for a
number of years. The same can be said of the Traffic Collision
Avoidance System (TCAS), which has been embraced by the
European airlines industry.
It is the regulatory framework that is of some concern to
airline observers. Traditionally, airlines and the European
authorities had worked together in the Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA) group, which dedicated itself to developing rules around
airline safety. Supporters of this system argued that even
though the JAA was an informal grouping with neither legal nor
statutory powers, it was organised and run by men and women
from the airlines industry, people who understood airlines.
However, even though its rule-making function was respected, EASA’s mission, in its own words, is to “promote the highest
the JAA was dependent on the individual EU Member States common standards in safety and environmental protection in
putting their rulings on the national statute books. By the civil aviation”. While national authorities continue to carry out
beginning of the 21st century, however, there was growing the majority of operational tasks, such as the certification of
pressure for a pan-European safety framework. individual aircraft, and, for the time being, the licensing of
In 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted pilots, EASA ensures common safety and environmental
regulation 1592/2002, which established the EASA as the EU’s standards at the European level.
central aviation authority. The European Union has taken the In a further expansion of its responsibilities, it has been
step of removing some of the air safety responsibilities from its proposed that by 2008 EASA should take over responsibility
Member States’ national authorities, in order to administer for rules and procedures for civil aviation operations,
them centrally. Not only does this mean that a common licensing of Member States’ crews and certification of non-
understanding and standardised implementation are EU operators. It has also been proposed that in the medium
enforceable, it also means that the EU can implement laws and longer term, EASA will add safety regulation of airports
centrally if need be. and respectively ATM to its remit, effectively making it a

94
one-stop-shop for all civil aviation safety regulation activities.
At the moment, however, its core tasks are rulemaking,
certification as well as quality and standardisation.
A set of common rules aimed at civil aviation was also
launched in 2002, through regulations passed by the European
Parliament and the Council of Europe. The idea was to ensure
a high level of aviation safety in Europe, bolster environmental
protection and facilitate the free movement of people and
goods. A new uniform regulatory and certification process was
adopted across all EU Member States, covering flight crew
licensing, aircraft maintenance, and the monitoring and
regulation of third country airlines that operated in the EU.
De Vroey notes: “We in the industry supported the creation
of EASA, but it has to be recognised that the links between
EASA and the national governments has not always been
strong.” This was not the case with the JAA, which enjoyed
respect from Member States, despite or maybe even because
of its lack of formal powers.
The funding of EASA was a contentious issue from its birth in
2002, and continues to be a cause for concern even now.
EASA’s rule-generating, standardisation inspections and safety
analysis work are funded from monies provided by the
European Commission – while its certification operations,
service provisions and appeals mechanisms are funded by fees
and charges levied on individual airlines. One of the most
serious charges against this system is that the EU does not
provide EASA with enough funds to carry out its inspections
and safety analysis role. “Clearly EASA needs a larger budget,”
claims the AEA’s safety expert. “Some of those who supported
the creation of EASA have been less than forthcoming when it
comes to supporting the agency financially,” he continues.
Significantly, on 16 March 2006, an EASA Management Board
meeting identified the need for amendments to the way EASA
is funded. These changes are to address immediate and then
longer-term problems with EASA’s budget. A temporary
increase in the fees is being proposed to meet the shortfall in
revenues for 2006 caused by a drop in revenues from
certification activities.
The AEA has a seat on the EASA Advisory Board, whose
role is to advise the EASA Management Board on the
organisation’s work programme and on its fees and charges
regime. Despite regretting the shortfall in EASA funding, the
AEA is against an increase in EASA fees for large airlines. The
association instead calls for the European Commission to
carry out an independent study on the funding and financial
needs of both EASA and the CAAs. It is argued that any
increase in fees or charges would severely undermine the
competitiveness of EU airlines in what is an increasingly
competitive global market.
Already, a Fees and Charges Task Force (FACT) comprising
representatives of the four national associations of the United
Kingdom’s Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC),
France’s Groupement des Industries Françaises Aéronautiques
et Spatiales (GIFAS), Germany’s Bundesverband der
Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie e.V. (BDLI) and Italy’s
Associazione Industrie per l’Aerospazio i Sistemi e la Difesa
(AIAD), was set up by the AeroSpace and Defence Industries
Association of Europe (ASD) to undertake close dialogue with
EASA to recommend solutions to the funding issue. The FACT
group’s main aim was to address concerns of the expected
shortfall in funding for EASA in 2006, as well as to develop
proposals for a future funding process. The group was keen
to highlight its support for EASA and explain that it agreed
with the concept of regrouping European industry under
EASA supervision and was also keen to avoid any disruption in
this process.
On a more global level, the International Air Transport
Association’s (IATA) has its IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA)
programme. This internationally recognised evaluation system
has been designed to assess the operational, management
and control systems of airlines. IATA claims that leading airlines
from around the world have incorporated IOSA Standards into
their airline operations, making IOSA a key aspect of airline
industry efforts to improve aviation safety, with its benchmark
safety audit programme. Although it has its critics, the IOSA
audit uses quality audit principles, which are accepted
worldwide, enabling its audits to be conducted in a
standardised and consistent fashion. Any measure which
contributes to the sense of wellbeing of the airline passenger
is likely to be welcome by the average EU citizen. Despite
recent tragedies, those flying on European airlines are clearly
enjoying unprecedented levels of safety due to the
commitment of the whole aviation industry, which includes
the efforts of organisations like the AEA.
This article was commissioned by AEA.
95
 SAFER SKIES

EUROPEAN ATM
SAFETY PROGRAMMES
With the completion of the Strategic Safety Action Plan, what are the next steps
to enhance ATM safety? David Learmount talks to EUROCONTROL to find out

96
F
ollowing two Air Traffic Management (ATM) tragedies in
the last five years – both collisions, one on a runway at
Milan Linate airport and the other in the sky over
Überlingen, southern Germany – EUROCONTROL accelerated
its analysis of ATM operations to determine the most urgent
areas for action. This was achieved under the Strategic Safety
Action Plan (SSAP), which ended in January 2006.
A month later, the implementation phase – the European
Safety Programme (ESP) – was launched. The priority fields
identified for action were the rapid and effective
implementation of European ATM regulation, the
improvement of incident reporting and data sharing, the
pro-active use in day-to-day operation of risk assessment and
mitigation, the supporting of air traffic controllers with system
safety defences in a more complex environment with
demanding traffic increases, and the enhancement of Safety
Management Systems (SMS) at Air Navigation Service
Providers (ANSPs).
It is a tall order, because Europe is saddled with a historically
fragmented ATM system, the main components of which are
still in place. Many of the historical legacies of the old systems and the standard period allowed to achieve full compliance is
have still to be overcome. For example, until recently, there had two years, hence the 2008 deadline.
been a significant shortage of air traffic controllers within Some States were awaiting the transposition of ESARRs into
EUROCONTROL Member States. The head of the business EC directives under the SES legislation before acting fully to
division responsible for ATM Safety, Security and Human Factors, comply, according to Licu. Now this transposition has taken
Alexander Skoniezki, says the front-line staffing shortfall place, the requirements have the force of law, which is
averaged 10-12 per cent for many years, but it is now reducing. “helping a lot” with compliance, says Licu.
Controllers are now also being trained to a common Skoniezki says there were no nations that needed to make a
European standard, according to Skoniezki, effectively giving radical change in their controller training to achieve the
them mobility to work anywhere in Europe. The standard for common core content syllabus, and he confirms there was
controller training, Skoniezki explains, is achieved by defining unanimous backing for the concept of a clarified common
a “common core content” for the training syllabus and standard due to States’ involvement in the design process,
performance levels. The basis for this standard is embodied in Underpinning all the moves to raise the ATM safety bar is
EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement 5 (ESARR 5), the regulatory framework. The ESARRs define all the elements
the European regulation covering ATM personnel. Although of a safe ATM system, and the list of the objectives and
EUROCONTROL States were expected to have implemented standards set out in each ESARR is, literally, a list of essential
ESARR 5 by November 2003, it is now felt that the new standards, which any competent ANSP would meet. The first
Directive on European ATC licence will enforce the safety ESARR sets the standards for safety oversight; ESARR 2 covers
regulatory requirements produced by EUROCONTROL, reporting and assessment of safety occurrences; ESARR 3
although with a displaced aim up to 2008, according to describes the essential components of an ANSP Safety
Skoniezki. Manager of the ESP, Tony Licu, explains that the Management System (SMS), a mandatory component in all
European Commission (EC) directive requiring compliance European ANSPs; ESARR 4 prescribes the systems for risk
with the controller licensing standards was published in 2006, assessment and mitigation; ESARR 5 covers the personnel

97
© Arne V. Petersen, Copenhagen Airports A/S
SAFER SKIES
requirements, including training, core competences, and
where necessary licensing; and finally, ESARR 6 sets out the
rules for software in terms of interoperability and integrity.
Skoniezki explains that ESARRs are the vital ICAO-compliant,
pan-European standards tailored for the Single European Sky
(SES) ATM environment. “This was what we lacked before,”
says Skoniezki, explaining that ICAO standards and
recommended practices may have provided a good
framework on which to build a regulatory system, they were
not as specific as regulations need to be.
The ANSP leaders from countries that need help meeting
the new standards are provided with help – usually in the
form of courses, training and workshops – by
EUROCONTROL. The agency also sends teams out to the
ANSPs and National Regulators to help them, for example, to
set up an SMS for their organisation and respectively in
setting up their regulatory framework. “There is a definite
general improvement in awareness of what needs to be
done,” says Skoniezki.
Incident reporting and data sharing systems are vital for
testing the health of the system and for detecting the
98
existence of potential problems before they become
accidents. Theoretically, the centralised system
EUROCONTROL has set up should work well, but, Licu says, it
needs to be simplified so that front-line operators like pilots
and controllers are able to report, no matter which country
they are in.
Another vital component of a successful reporting system is
the need to change the way countries treat reports. At
present, some national cultures seek to blame an individual
for a known error, and the judicial system immediately sets up
an investigation to establish whether the error was criminal.
This state of affairs is the biggest single deterrent to an
effective reporting system, says Licu, who is in the early stages
of seeking ways to influence changes that would bring about
what he calls a “just culture”, in which people would feel free
to report. Under a just culture system, reported incidents
would only go before a court if it became clear that wilful
behaviour or gross negligence warranted it. Denmark, so far,
is amongst the few European countries that has made the
changes in its law to protect safety reporting systems and
encourage a ‘just culture’. Meanwhile, Licu says, so far 22 out

of the 42 ECAC States provide good-quality reporting.
Risk assessment and mitigation, says Licu, is a proactive
approach, which demands that a safety case is established
before any operational change is implemented. At present
the methodologies proposed are “still a bit academic” but
they are being developed by analysing the process of
introducing real operational changes, and identifying
generic best practice for that type of operation, according
to Licu. The main focus at present is to work with ANSPs
that have “low maturity” and to assist them through the
introduction of operational changes – the process uses
many of the same components that are parts of a good
SMS, according to Skoniezki.
Meanwhile, under the ESP, EUROCONTROL is in the early
stages of trying to assess the effectiveness of specific safety
programmes it has initiated: runway safety, level-bust and
air-ground communications, for example. For all these,
EUROCONTROL had generated awareness programmes, like
widely distributed interactive toolkits on CDs for pilots,
controllers and other interested personnel. These CDs break
down the causal factors of known incident types into
Incident reporting and
data sharing systems are
vital for testing the health
of the system and for
detecting the existence
of potential problems
components the various players would recognise at a
personal level. It is early days yet, and Licu says the
imperfections in the reporting systems mean that the
effectiveness of these targeted improvement programmes
cannot yet be properly ascertained, but there is certainly no
negative feedback. A new initiative is a study of airspace
infringements – mainly by Visual Flight Rules (VFR) general
aviation aircraft entering controlled airspace unauthorised –
but Licu says it is too early in the programme to derive
mitigations, as it is still work in progress.
An intensive study of ATM incidents to identify the nature of
human error is also underway, and is coming up with some
results. The two most common categories for controller error
are decision-making and situational awareness. Often the
decision-making errors are based on a misapprehension of
details like specific aircraft performance; meanwhile,
situational awareness can be influenced by controller overload
on the one hand or under-stimulation at slack periods on the
other. Potential factors in overload are the two simultaneous
demands posed on controllers by the expectation that they
should provide efficient, schedule-driven service as well as
safe separation. That is a tall order, but one that pilots seem
increasingly to expect.
In 2007, the SESAR programme should provide an analysis
of where the system is now and what it has to do to meet the
targets set for 2020 timeframe. The required investment in
human resources should become clearer as a result; but there
will be a cost to maintain and enhance a safe and effective
ATM system.
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
99
 SAFER SKIES

AIRPORT SAFETY
David Learmount looks at how airports are
reducing incidents on and off the runway
whilst increasing the flow of traffic

100
E
UROCONTROL and the airports are developing safety But despite this, Wilson says, “In Europe we have up to two
strategies that acknowledge two apparently [runway] incursions a day.” About 30 per cent of those involve
incompatible factors. The first fact is that the risk of airport vehicles rather than aircraft. In 2005, there were 611
collision on the ground must be reduced because it is reports and in 2004, about 550. The increase in reported
unacceptably high. At the same time, the airports must events is thought to be due to an improvement in the
prepare to handle far greater numbers of aircraft movements willingness to report, which is a vital component in the
without – in most cases – being able to expand their surface process of learning about the precise problems airports have.
area. That is also the truth about the future for the skies The European Commission has formally mandated accident
above the airports, and the two components – ground and air and incident reporting and strongly supports its Just Culture
– are inextricably linked. ethos, says Page, but there is no sign at this point that this
No-one, on either side of the Atlantic, doubts that runway significant move is likely to have any influence on national
safety must be taken seriously, and EUROCONTROL has been legislature, so the prospect of improving the quality and
developing – and now operating – an action plan to improve quantity of reporting will be an issue. Runway Safety has
it since 2001. “The initial work was focused on runway safety benefited from 611 runway incursion reports in 2006. “The
because we saw that as an immediate problem,” explains reporting system is now digital, easily accessible and the
EUROCONTROL’s Head of Airport Throughput, Paul Wilson. His questions on the reporting template are appropriate.
first area of focus, together with his title, epitomise these two However, getting the quality of reported data improved is a
demands that apparently pull in different directions: the need question of following the latest guidelines which can be
to keep the aircraft safe while they are on the ground, but found in EUROCONTROL’s ESARR 2 supporting materials that
also to improve the flow of traffic through airports. are aligned with the European Commission and fully
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) compliant,”
Runway incursions she says, “the latest set of questions will help to reveal more
Yvonne Page, as Runway Safety Project Manager, heads the about causal and contributory factors than ever before.”
European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions
(EAPPRI). It started with a plan to raise personal awareness of
the issue with air traffic controllers, pilots and airport vehicle
drivers, using a widely-distributed newsletter and interactive
compact disk. Not only do these tools provide much needed
guidance and information, they also challenge experts in the
field who may not have received refresher training about
airport signs, signals and procedures.
EAPPRI has also produced a system of ordinary measures
that controllers and pilots can easily adopt in their day-to-day
work routines – like encouraging controllers to provide pilots
with ‘progressive’ taxiing instructions at large, complex
airports, rather than passing them a single, long and complex
instruction that could result in the aircraft losing its way and
crossing the active runway by mistake. It invites controllers,
pilots, regulators and airport planners to think of the
problems faced by all the other participants in this grand
game of chess, in which being in the right position at the
right time, and having all the cues necessary for full
situational awareness, is critical to both efficiency and survival.

101
 SAFER SKIES

Collision avoidance
Collisions – usually Now, the same approach that was brought to runway safety is
being expanded to all of the airport movement areas.
at relatively low Collisions – usually at relatively low speed – involving vehicles
and aircraft are frequent, expensive and avoidable, and can
speed – involving be seriously disruptive to the whole airport operation. Some

vehicles and aircraft of this is an issue of training and procedure, but in restricted
visibility it is a matter of technology. EUROCONTROL’s

are frequent, expensive Advanced Surface Movement and Guidance and Control
System (A-SMGCS) will provide a real-time display to
and avoidable controllers of all aircraft and vehicles on the manoeuvring
area, with every aircraft and vehicle identified.
A study of the requirements A-SMGCS has to meet has
established that pilots are unable to comply with air traffic

102
control instructions to maintain safe separation by see-and-
avoid while taxiing in visibility below 200m, and the limit may
be as high as 300m. Certainly, the EUROCONTROL study found,
at 300m pilots have to vary their taxiing technique. This entails
stopping more frequently if they become unsure of what they
have seen, or of their position. The risk of unintentional runway
incursion increases as the visibility decreases. This is not only
because of the pilot’s reduced visual perception, but also due
to the fact that air traffic control’s ability to monitor traffic,
without technical aids, is reduced to dependence on
procedural clearance. That, in turn, relies upon the pilot
providing correct position information when asked for it.
In advance of deployment, briefing material on the
techniques of working with A-SMGCS has been sent out to
airlines and pilots. Airports at which it is first being installed
include Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Geneva,
London Heathrow, Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate, Paris
Charles de Gaulle, Paris Orly, Prague, Rome Fiumicino, Vienna
and Zurich. Madrid and Palma de Majorca will later be
equipped, and the same technology is planned for wide
deployment within the US.
Runway excursions
While runway incursions have been in the spotlight,
EUROCONTROL has also been turning its attention to other
airport safety issues, including runway excursions, Wilson
reveals. There were 12 hull losses in 2005, resulting from
overruns or swerving sideways off the hard surface during
landing or abandoned take-off. “Previously,” says Wilson, “we
did no work on this.” Nor had anyone else, it seems. Now
EUROCONTROL is examining in detail the reports on damaging
excursions to determine the common factors and develop
preventative strategies for this frequent cause of serious – and
occasionally fatal – event. Whatever their outcome, excursions
are always disruptive to airport operations, and the existing
runway safety working group has extended its remit to cover
them. The International Federation of Airline Pilots’
Associations (IFALPA) is working with EUROCONTROL on this
but a go-around for the approaching aircraft becomes
necessary because the decision is proved wrong.
New airport design and infrastructure
An obvious way of getting more out of airports is to design
them better in the first place. There are new airports
proposed in Europe that would benefit from taking the latest
thinking on the ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual into account.
Modifying existing aerodrome design can be more of a
challenge. Most airports that can benefit from rapid-exit
taxiways either have them now or are getting them, but
another type of change that can benefit safety and traffic
flow is ensuring that the need for vehicles or aircraft to cross
active runways is minimised by re-routing taxiways.
Meanwhile, EUROCONTROL has produced a manual for
airside capacity enhancement, and it relies on two main
factors: knowing precisely what assets an airport has, what its
capacities are, what precise taxi times are from the gate for
given runways in use, and joining this all up by using Airport
Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) to get the best out of
them. Having a system that flows smoothly with all the
components in harmony and under precise control is not only
a more efficient system, but also a safer one.
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
© LOT Polish Airlines

subject, says Wilson.

The final airport safety area in which Wilson wants to see
the data analysed is controller misjudgement. This is the
situation, for example, when a controller judges that he can
fit in a departure on a single runway before the next arrival,

103
 SAFER SKIES

SECURITY IN
EUROPEAN SKIES
Edward Downs looks at recent progress on enhancing security in European skies

104
E
UROCONTROL’s commitment to achieving a safe and
secure European Air Traffic Management (ATM)
environment, despite ever increasing demands on
airspace and the threat of terrorism, is providing the
backbone for a number of complementary activities, which
will make civil aviation safer in the future. EUROCONTROL’s
ATM Security Domain heads this effort in co-operation with
their Directorate ATM Civil/Military Co-ordination and is
collaborating with its partners, most notably through the
NATO/EUROCONTROL ATM Security Co-ordinating Group
(NEASCOG), on a number of projects such as the European
Regional Renegade Information Dissemination System
(ERRIDS), the Safety of Aircraft in the Future European
Environment (SAFEE) programme, the Protection of Air
Transportation and Infrastructure (PATIN) project, as well as
providing input into the Single European Sky ATM Research
(SESAR) project.
NEASCOG
Following the presentation of strategic initiatives to the
International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO’s) Ministerial
Conference on Aviation Security in February 2002,
NEASCOG, the forum for all national and international
stakeholders involved in airspace and ATM security in
Europe, has been studying improvements to ATM security.
In 2005, NATO and EUROCONTROL decided to strengthen
NEASCOG’s role in order to make it a focal point for ATM
security in Europe for both military and civil aviation. The
group was therefore directed to develop the NEASCOG ATM
Security Strategy in order to define its strategic objectives
and to expand its membership to all types of stakeholders.
A detailed Programme of Work due to be completed by the
end of 2009 was subsequently adopted in June 2006. It
identified the main areas of activity required to improve
European ATM security as follows:
• High Level ATM security aspects
• Measures to improve ATM security
• ATM security assessment and monitoring methodology
• Human resource, awareness and regional co-operation
In order to strengthen its relationships with stakeholders,
EUROCONTROL hosted an ‘ATM Security Workshop’ at its
Brussels Headquarters on 5 December 2006. Here it
identified further stakeholders’ requirements for on-going
and future developments. This work, together with the
NEASCOG ATM Security Strategy, will feed into a first draft of
a EUROCONTROL ATM Security Roadmap, which will lay out
the strategy EUROCONTROL, along with its partners, intends
to adopt in the long term with respect to ATM security,
taking into account consideration of SESAR developments.
ERRIDS
The ERRIDS project’s aims are to create a European
regional focal point for the dissemination of ATM security
information capable of providing national decision makers
and other users with reliable, real-time information about
ATM security incidents. The system is intended to share
vital information more efficiently, thereby shortening the
inherent delays in the ‘decision loop’ associated with
European cross-border operations and, consequently,
contributing to minimising the direct and indirect
repercussions security incidents might have on the airspace
users, for instance, avoiding capacity and delay problems
for the European Network. Accordingly, ERRIDS provides:
• Decision support to State authorities – ERRIDS is
interoperable with existing national and international
systems.
• Cross-border co-ordination, ensuring proper transfer of
operational control of an incident.
• Incident information exchange between ATC, airline
Operations Control Centre (OCC) and relevant airports.
• Incident management support to national civil and
military crisis centres.
ERRIDS is designed to operate on a pan-European
network structure, which is capable of running NATO-
accredited security software facilitating caveat/security
classification and encryption in order to ensure that critical
information is transferred in a secure and timely manner,
only to the intended recipients – an important feature,
considering the potentially extremely sensitive nature of the
information. Following the validation trials in 2004 to 2006,
the development of the ‘concept’ for ERRIDS will be
completed during the first quarter of 2007. The planning of
the implementation phase is intended to be finished by the
end of 2007 in order to prepare for the development phase
and the eventual European-wide deployment, planned to
be concluded by the end of 2009.
105
 SAFER SKIES
Security Management Systems and Security Assessment
In another part of its work programme, EUROCONTROL is
developing a common security case methodology and a
framework for Security Management Systems. These activities
are currently under development, with a focus on validating
the methodology and ensuring strong stakeholder buy-in
through extensive consultation.
The Commission Regulation No 2096/2005 mandates
Security Management Systems to be implemented by the end
of 2006. A number of Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)
have requested that EUROCONTROL provide guidance on
implementation aspects of Security Management Systems.
EUROCONTROL’s ATM Security Domain is currently establishing
some high-level guidance describing best practices, a
framework and elements for a Security Management System.
This material is made available through the working
arrangements of NEASCOG. Further guidance material is
planned to be developed and delivered during 2007.
Additionally, a Security Assessment method is currently in
its final drafting stages and will be provided through
NEASCOG for stakeholder review before the end of 2006. The
aim is to have an agreed method available before the end of
2007, which will allow for a harmonised approach to Security
Assessments. Furthermore, it is intended to develop a first
edition of a generic ATM Security Risk Model with active
stakeholder participation before the end of 2007, which will
provide stakeholders with a starting point for specific ATM
Security Risk Assessments. The intention is to update this
Model on an annual basis.
SAFEE and PATIN
The Safety of Aircraft in the Future European Environment
(SAFEE) programme was started by the European Commission in
2004 and aims to build an advanced aircraft security system to
counter onboard threats. As a complementary airborne-centric
activity to its own activities, EUROCONTROL has an advisory role
in the project, assisting with definition of operational concepts
and with system evaluation. SAFEE also anticipates feeding
information into ERRIDS. SAFEE’s five key activities are:
• Onboard Threat Detection System (OTDS) – an integrated
threat detection system based on the processing of multiple
sensor information.
• Threat Assessment and Response Management System
106
EUROCONTROL is
developing a common
security case
methodology and a
framework for Security
Management Systems
(TARMS) – an integrated information management system and
decision support tool.
• Flight reconfiguration – including an Emergency Avoidance
System (EAS) and a study of an automatic guidance system to
control the aircraft for safe return to an airport.
• Data Protection System (DPS) – securing all the data
exchanges.
• Security evaluation activities, including legal and regulatory
issues threat assessment, operational concept development,
validation approach, economic analysis and training.
Finally, EUROCONTROL is a partner in the Protection of Air
Transportation and Infrastructure (PATIN) project, formally
launched in July 2006 with funding from the European
Commission (EC). PATIN is a complementary project to
EUROCONTROL’s ATM security activities with a feed into
ERRIDS and will concentrate on protecting aircraft and airport
infrastructure against terrorist attack.
EUROCONTROL’s ATM Security Domain Manager, Dr Bernd
Tiemeyer, sums up their work in the security field by saying:
“EUROCONTROL is working with its stakeholders to ensure that
the ATM contribution to the overall aviation security is
strengthened in a collaborative effort by improving the
prevention of security incidents and implementing more
efficient responses to such incidents.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 THE ENVIRONMENT
THE ENVIRONMENT
Resistance is growing to the impact aviation is having on the environment. Simon Michell
examines the issues and assesses the challenges facing the air transport industry
I
t wasn’t long ago that the ‘Green Lobby’ was treated with
the same sort of weary resignation reserved for those more
traditional protest groups engaged in the struggle for
nuclear disarmament or the protection of endangered species.
This has changed dramatically, and concern over damage to
the environment and the effects of man-made pollution on
‘Climate Change’ has seeped into the public consciousness,
brought about to some degree by the increase in the
frequency and severity of natural disasters.
Whilst the ‘experts’ argue over the causes of the ferocity
of 2005’s hurricane Katrina or the increase in the number
and intensity of forest fires that take place each year, the
public has begun to make the connection between them
and global warming.
108
Another change has also occurred. Aviation has been added
to the list of suspects who are assumed to be responsible for
raising the earth’s temperature. Only a few years ago, the
main causes for global warming were thought to be factories,
power stations, households and cars. Now, aviation has joined
that group.
Impact of aircraft on the environment
According to a UK Royal Commission Special Report The
Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft in Flight, published in
November 2002, aviation impacts on the environment in four
main ways; through climate change, stratospheric ozone
reduction, regional pollution downwind of airports and local
pollution caused by airport activity and infrastructure.

During flight, aircraft engines emit carbon dioxide (CO2),
oxides of nitrogen including (NOx), oxides of sulphur, water
vapour and particles consisting mainly of sulphate from the
sulphur oxides and soot. Since the cruise altitude of most
subsonic jets is generally between 9 and 13 km above the
earth’s surface, these emissions are predominantly released
in the transition area between the troposphere and
the stratosphere.
The impact of these emissions varies depending on whether
they are released in the upper troposphere or the lower
stratosphere. The troposphere contains more water vapour, is
more turbulent than the stratosphere and influences weather
patterns to a greater degree. The stratosphere, on the other
hand, has a higher concentration of ozone. Since the altitude
of the stratosphere and troposphere also varies according to
location, weather and time of year, aircraft often move from
one layer to the other during their flight. This is significant, as
aircraft emissions of oxides of nitrogen in the troposphere will
increase ozone levels and therefore decrease surface UV levels,
whereas the same emissions in the stratosphere act in the
opposite way. Although it is still open for debate, it is
suggested that climate change resulting from emissions may
Air travel was not
omitted from
the 1997 UN
Kyoto Protocol,
as many
people believe
be a consequence of the change in the absorption of solar
radiation and the absorption and emission of thermal radiation
and may determine levels of localised rainfall and the
frequency and intensity of heat waves.
In short, aircraft emit a number of different harmful
pollutants into the atmosphere, which have varying affects on
the atmosphere itself according to where exactly they are
released. The cruise altitude of sub-sonic aircraft puts them in
contact with both the troposphere and the stratosphere,
which, in turn, can alter the damage the emissions can create.
Challenges to revenue streams
Air travel was not omitted from the 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol, as
many people believe. CO2 emissions from domestic flights are
subject to emission targets outlined in the Kyoto Protocol.
International air travel has only been excluded from these
targets while the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) is looking for a solution that would facilitate their
introduction into the protocol. However, additional pressure is
being applied by governments, which are looking for ways to
impose measures on the air transport industry beyond the
terms of the Kyoto agreement, rather than allowing the
109
 THE ENVIRONMENT
industry to continue with its own strategy for reducing the
harmful effects of aircraft.
Taxation, a particular favourite of governments, has been
proposed in various forms, including the lifting of the tax-
free status awarded to aviation fuel under article 24 of the
1944 UN Chicago convention. This rather ignores the reason
why the tax exemption was granted in the first place, as it
was originally put in place to act as an instrument to stop
distortions in the market and promote a level playing field
for competition.
Additional forms of taxation present myriad complications
and complexities, which would most likely introduce
imbalances in the market through governments imposing their
own tax regimes domestically rather than in a wider
international context. Taxation could also be used to price
passengers out of the market. The use of this sort of blunt
110
instrument lacks credibility, as it may only serve to make air
travel more damaging in terms of passengers per flight, in
that, after the imposition of taxes, there would still probably
be a similar number of flights, but many of the aircraft could
be flying with far fewer passengers. Once introduced, the
additional tax streams may also start to tempt politicians to
find other uses for the money raised, instead of to mitigate
environmental damage. Governments may want to divert air-
related tax revenues into other worthy causes such as famine
and debt relief, as has already been proposed at 2005’s G8
meeting in Gleneagles.
During the UK’s presidency of the EU – July to December
2005 – the EU Environment Council (consisting of EU
Environment Ministers) agreed, on 2 December, that aviation
should be brought into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as
proposed by the CE Delft study Giving Wings to Emissions
Trading. It therefore called on the European Commission to
produce a legislative procedure by the end of 2006.
The EC’s response was to set up an Aviation Working Group
(AWG) under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)
to look for the best way of introducing aviation into the
Emissions Trading System. EU Vice President and Commissioner
for Transport, Jacques Barrot, has conceded: “There is a
growing consensus in the aviation sector that emissions trading
represents the best way forward to cut greenhouse emissions.”
However, International Air Transport Association (IATA)
President and CEO, Giovanni Bisignani has pointed out that,
“Air transport is a global industry and the environment a global
concern. Effective solutions must be global solutions. Member
states of the ICAO, including all EU members, are committed
to deciding a course of action on aviation emissions in 2007. A
European solution is no solution at all. Unilateral, regional
efforts will only distract from this process.”
The European Aviation Industry Joint Position Paper on the
Tax exemption was
originally put in place to
promote a level playing
field for competition
 “Air transport is a
global industry and
the environment
a global concern.
Effective solutions must
be global solutions”
Emissions Containment Policy, which represents the views of
European associations, including the Association of European
Airlines (AEA) and the AeroSpace and Defence Industries
Association of Europe (ASD), puts forward similar views to
Bisignani, and points out that any proposal to deal with the
effects of aircraft emissions should be based on a more
comprehensive approach and should include other factors,
such as technological progress, infrastructure improvements,
operational measures as well as economic measures.
The response to environmental challenges
There is already a lot of activity in these areas. Protection of
the environment is fundamental to the European
Commission’s Framework Programmes and its Single European
Sky initiative. Industry is heavily involved in R&D programmes
to produce greener quieter aircraft and aircraft systems.
International agencies such as ICAO and IATA have been
involved in environmental protection for decades.
ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) helps to produce a ‘Consolidated Statement of
continuing policies and practices related to environmental
protection’, which is updated every three years and was last
adopted in October 2004. IATA supports ICAO in these
activities through its own Environment Committee (ENCOM). It
also brokers deals to reduce the length of international air
lanes. IATA recently announced – 10 April 2006 – a deal it had
brokered with China to reduce flight times to and from
Europe, with a new route, officially known as Y-1, but
frequently referred to as IATA-1. This route will have a
significant impact on the environment. It will eliminate 2,860
hours of flight time, 27,000 tonnes of fuel, 84,800 tonnes of
carbon dioxide and 340,000 kg of nitrogen oxides every year.
Operational enhancements are being introduced via
mechanisms such as EUROCONTROL’s Dynamic Management of
the European Airspace Network (DMEAN) programme. This
seeks to offer airlines more direct, and therefore more fuel-
efficient, routes. A further step along this path will be
introduced as a consequence of the Single European Sky, which
will introduce Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) allowing aircraft
to be controlled in larger sectors than the current ones, which
are predominantly organised along national sectors. This will
result in even more efficient routes than under DMEAN.
Another EUROCONTROL activity, the Airport Operations
Programme (AOP), seeks to introduce a variety of concepts and
tools to increase the efficiency at airports. The programme is
directed primarily at increasing capacity but the by-products of
greater efficiency manifest themselves frequently in terms of
less time spent flying or taxiing, which in turn reduces not only
noise pollution, but also aircraft emissions.
ACARE, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics in Europe,
focuses European R&D efforts to produce cleaner and quieter
aircraft in line with the European Commission’s Vision 2020
programme. It co-ordinates the efforts of industry, airlines,
airports, regulators, EUROCONTROL and the European
Commission around the key goals of:
• The reduction of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 50
per cent.
• The reduction of perceived external noise by 50 per cent.
• The reduction of NOx by 80 per cent.
• Reducing the impact of the manufacture, maintenance and
disposal of aircraft.
The European Union’s forthcoming Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7), which will run from 2007 to 2013, has
Transport and Aeronautics as one of its themes. FP7 will
introduce Joint Technology Initiatives as advanced forms of
the current Technology Platforms, introduced under previous
Framework Programmes. One of the JTIs currently under
review is the Clean Sky JTI being proposed by ASD. If adopted,
the Clean Sky JTI would run for seven years and be driven by
industry with a view to helping to achieve the ACARE goals by
demonstrating and validating the technological
breakthroughs that they need.
This article was jointly commissioned by
EUROCONTROL and AEA.
111
 THE ENVIRONMENT

THE GREENING OF ATM

EUROCONTROL is convinced that improved network efficiency can make a significant
contribution to lessening the impact of aviation on the environment. Brendan Gallagher
talks to Andrew Watt, Manager of the organisation’s Environment Domain

112
 The airlines and the ATM
community have come
under growing pressure
to cut the volume
of engine greenhouse
gas emissions
T
he impact of air transport on the environment has
been a concern for many years, driven initially by
aircraft noise levels experienced by people living close
to airports. But in recent years, as climate change has
become a hot issue, aircraft manufacturers, the airlines and
the Air Traffic Management (ATM) community have come
under growing pressure to also cut the volume of engine
greenhouse gas emissions – carbon dioxide, water vapour and
nitrogen oxides.
It is clear that ATM, the airports and the airlines can make an
important contribution by working together to improve
network efficiency, optimising routes and flying times in order
to cut as far as possible fuel burn and emissions. At
EUROCONTROL, the man responsible for helping to make this
happen is Environment Domain Manager Andrew Watt.
“I expect three of our initiatives to have a significant impact
in the near future,” he says. “These are our work on
standardising continuous-descent approaches, a set of
indicators we are developing for the measurement of network
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and noise load, and the
SESAR programme for an ATM master plan for 2008-2020.”
At present, most approaches in Europe are stepped, with
aircraft coming down from the cruise in a succession of
descents followed by intervals of level flight. This is very fuel-
inefficient compared with one continuous smooth descent.
“We’re aiming to standardise procedures to eliminate the steps
as far back up the approach as possible,” Watt says. “In
European airspace it’s generally not possible to do this from
cruising level. But it’s feasible from as high as 10,000ft.”
Not only does continuous descent save fuel and thus cut
emissions, but it also reduces the noise audible on the ground
at points beyond about 10 nautical miles from the airport
because the aircraft is on average higher than it would be on a
stepped approach.
Though continuous descent approaches are already
available at many European airports, they are not standardised.
“We aim to provide harmonised, standardised guidance
material that should be applicable at almost all European
airports,” Watt says.
Underpinning the EUROCONTROL drive for reduced
environmental impact is a set of indicators designed to provide
objective measures of network efficiency, greenhouse gas
emissions and noise load. “We’re working on the indicators in
co-operation with EUROCONTROL’s Performance Review Unit,
the Central Flow Management Unit and the Airspace, Network
Planning and Navigation Division,” says Watt. “No aircraft flies a
113
 THE ENVIRONMENT
perfect trajectory, and we want to be able to identify precisely
the ATM contribution to aircraft not flying the optimum route
between two city pairs.”
In its most recent report, EUROCONTROL’s independent
Performance Review Commission reported that, on any given
day, the European ATM networks operate at around 6 per cent
inefficiency. That is, for every 100 productive miles the airlines
fly they also cover another six that, in a perfect world, would not
be strictly necessary, at an annual cost of around a billion euros
to themselves – and a corresponding toll on the environment.
“Two per cent of the total is due to the need to deconflict
arriving and departing traffic in the airspace around airports,”
Watt explains. “Another 3 or 4 per cent is mainly attributable
to structural factors in the route network, including the need
to fly around airspace set aside for military use. Then the
airlines’ own flight planning adds another 1 or 2 per cent,
since their sophisticated cost models have to take into account
many other factors that also influence the route they prefer.
More direct routes provided by tactical air traffic control on
the day trim the total by about 1 per cent, resulting in an
average inefficiency of 6 per cent.”
The network efficiency indicators are being developed with
PAGODA, a system designed to extract information from the
EUROCONTROL data warehouse and process it with a series of
environmentally related applications.
“All partners in ATM can act to reduce the inefficiencies, but
first we have to give them the facts and figures,” comments
Watt. “We hope the indicators will give all players a better
understanding of how their decisions contribute to overall ATM
system inefficiency. At the same time the ATM community will
be able to check its own performance and strive for
continuous improvement.”
Watt does not claim, however, that EUROCONTROL has the
complete picture. Indeed, this work is only the start. “For
example, we have to understand better the commercial drivers
behind airspace users’ flight plans,” he says. “Also, ANSPs may
be providing routes that, on the face of it are indeed longer
than you would expect, but since these may help the aircraft
to avoid congested airspace, they end up flying more
efficiently and burning less fuel in the end. These are the sorts
of issues we have to get a handle on soon, because the
pressure on ATM to deliver a more efficient network is not
going to decrease. We see fuel costs and, potentially,
114
“All partners in ATM
can act to reduce
the inefficiencies,
but first we have to
give them the facts
and figures”
emissions trading as strong drivers of this pressure from the
airlines’ perspective.”
Watt’s hopes for ATM being seen to support the long-term
sustainability of European air transport rest on SESAR, the
European Commission/EUROCONTROL project for an ATM
Master Plan for 2008-2020. “We have been working with the
SESAR Consortium to get them to build more environmental
thinking into what they are doing,” he says. “We want all of
their contract deliverables to take the environment realistically
into account and put in place mitigation measures for the
entire life of the plan.”
The world at large sees emissions trading as one of the key
weapons in the struggle to curb greenhouse gases. Overall
European policy is driven by the European Commission and the
Member States, who are considering the possibility of
including aviation in their existing emissions trading scheme.
The EUROCONTROL Environment Domain is supporting this
effort, using PAGODA to estimate the environmental impact of
aviation in Europe in terms of fuel burned and greenhouse gas
emitted. “We can give them the data they need to decide on
things, such as the threshold at which an operator would
come into the scheme – by weight of aircraft, by geographical
scope of operation, or some other criterion,” says Watt.
EUROCONTROL has no doubt that ATM can contribute part
of the solution to the problem of environmental protection.
“We’re doing everything possible as an organisation to try to
improve network efficiency,” Watt concludes. “That, in turn,
reduces the environmental impact per flight, as well as cutting
the cost to airlines of air traffic management.”
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 THE ENVIRONMENT

© Arne V. Petersen, Copenhagen Airports A/S

THE AIRLINES AND

THE ENVIRONMENT
The European Commission is preparing legislation that would bring aviation into its Emissions
Trading Scheme. Le Thi Mai, General Manager, Environment at the Association of European Airlines
(AEA), tells Brendan Gallagher how AEA is already working towards a cleaner sky

E
uropean airlines’ concern about how they impact the
environment is nothing new. The AEA first devoted a
section of its Yearbook to the subject in 1993 and the
topic has been on the radar screen ever since.
Naturally, the focus has shifted over time. In 1993, the
major challenges were noise and emissions of carbon
monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen.
Fuel burn was an issue, but in the context of the world’s
dwindling resources of fossil fuels. All of these concerns
were, to a greater or lesser extent, under control.
Technology would provide the solutions.
Fast-forward to the present, and some issues have all but
disappeared, some priorities have changed, and a whole new,
potentially serious challenge has emerged. It’s not poisonous
carbon monoxide that grabs the headlines, but carbon
dioxide (CO2), the gas that turns water into soda-water.

115
 THE ENVIRONMENT

It’s also a gas that is affecting the climate, because it’s

produced in quantities greater than natural ecosystems can
absorb. And that’s an issue for the airline industry because of
an inescapable fact: aeroplanes burn fossil fuel, which creates
carbon dioxide, which in turn impacts the environment. The
more fuel, the more CO2.
The air transport share of global CO2 is extremely small,
estimated to be somewhere between 2 and 3.5 per cent.
However, demand for air transport – even allowing for the
setbacks of recent years – follows a growth trend. What is a
small proportion of the total today may not remain so,
especially if other sectors are reducing their contribution. It is
clear that the industry cannot be complacent.
Historically, airline traffic in Europe has grown at about
6 per cent per year. The increase in fuel burned and CO2
produced has been somewhat lower, as the efficiency of
aircraft has improved and ATM procedures have become
more efficient. Since 1990, the gap between the two has
been, on average, about 1.25 percentage points.
However, this time period has seen the retirement of the
‘gas-guzzling’ aircraft, which made up the first and second
generation of commercial jets. The current fleet is closer to
‘state of the art’ efficiency levels than at any time in the
industry’s history.
That is not to say that further significant improvements are
not possible. Airframe and engine manufacturers are
constantly enhancing their product range, and every new
aircraft type or variant that comes onto the market is
invariably more fuel-efficient than the model it supersedes.
There are potential gains to be realised, too, in the way the
aircraft are operated. Aircraft are often impeded from flying don’t buy them,” says AEA’s Le Thi Mai. “We have it in our
the most direct and efficient routes due to the somewhat power to renew fleets, and this is something the AEA airlines
fragmented way the airspace is currently organised. have been good at – at eight-years-old on average, our fleet
The airlines and their crews, too, can make a difference; the is one of the youngest in the world.”
way aircraft are flown and maintained has an impact on fuel, She is also confident that the AEA membership is working
and hence emissions, efficiency. hard on the operational front. “Our carriers are doing
Along with other stakeholders, the AEA has developed a everything they can – improvements in maintenance,
policy on the containment of aircraft gaseous emissions. The operational control and other areas – to reduce their fuel
policy has four pillars – technological progress, air navigation consumption.” Specific AEA initiatives include full support for
infrastructure improvement, operational measures and International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) fuel-saving
economic instruments. campaign, typified by a series of workshops designed to
“When it comes to new technology it’s not enough if the promote good practice in operations and to address the
manufacturers produce greener aircraft and engines and we introduction of alternative fuels.

116

© Arne V. Petersen, Copenhagen Airports A/S
Activities like these have already borne fruit. The latest
International Air Transport Association (IATA) survey of airline
fuel efficiency shows that over the decade to 2005 average
consumption fell by nearly 18 per cent from 49.4 to 40.5 litres
per 100 revenue tonne-kilometres. Further improvements are
expected to come from things like a truly integrated European
air traffic management system and more advanced engines. As
a result, European air transport is expected to maintain or even
enhance its fuel-efficiency improvement while growing at a
forecast rate of 3-4 per cent per annum over the next 20 years.
But this may not be enough. Along with every other
greenhouse gas industry, air transport is under growing
pressure to cut its emissions significantly – and to hold them
“A well-designed ETS
could deliver measurable
improvements in aviation
emissions, while allowing
well-managed airlines to
prosper and grow”
down in the very long term. The AEA believes that economic
instruments can play a major part in achieving that objective,
but also argues that the chosen mechanism should be tied
directly to environmental objectives rather than pouring funds
into the undifferentiated taxation pool.
Various economic instruments are currently under
consideration – an environmental tax on kerosene, a charge
on airline operations, and inclusion of air transport in the
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). In the AEA’s
view only the last is likely to be of direct, undiluted benefit to
the environment.
The AEA’s support for ETS is not unconditional, however. “A
well-designed ETS could deliver measurable improvements in
aviation emissions, while allowing well-managed airlines to
prosper and grow,” says Le Thi Mai. “A badly-designed system
could strangle growth, wreck profits, and at the same time
have a devastating effect on jobs and mobility, particularly in
the regions of Europe which depend on aviation.”
For that reason, she says, all the design elements of
any proposed scheme should be subject to a rigorous
impact assessment.
Faced with urgent demands to increase their contribution
to the fight against global warming, Europe’s airlines can
point to a solid and continuing record of achievement in
reducing fuel burn by investing in new aircraft and improving
their operational practices. Now they are working with their
partners in European aviation to add another weapon to their
armoury by participating in the EU ETS in a way that is
economical to administer, consistent with free competition
and directly beneficial to the environment.
This article was commissioned by AEA.
117
 THE ENVIRONMENT

WEATHER MONITORING
Weather monitoring and forecasting not only provides Air Traffic Management
with crucial flight preparation information, it also has the potential to
enhance efficiency and reduce climate change. Martial Tardy explains

“M
eteorology, whether we like it or not,
conditions everything we do,” says Ken
Reid, Head of EUROCONTROL’s Aeronautical
Information Management (AIM) Division. Beyond picnics and
sports, meteorological conditions represent one of the most
important elements of the physical environment for the
execution of a flight. The EUROCONTROL Performance Review
Commission estimates that approximately 35 per cent of Air
Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delays are attributable to
‘bad weather’ – mainly, poor visibility or strong winds – while
the annual cost of weather disruption on the European air
transport industry adds up to about E400 million.
Historically, aviation weather information was essentially
aimed at addressing safety issues. Today, aeronautical

119

meteorology (MET) is bracing itself for a fundamental change,
as it is considered an integral element in the development of
a new, medium- and long-term strategy for Europe’s Air
Traffic Management (ATM) system. Weather services will have
a considerable bearing on air transport capacity and
efficiency, and could even improve the environmental
performance of aviation.
Bringing ATM and MET communities together
As a first step, “we must bring the meteorological and ATM
communities together, so they can better understand their
respective needs and capabilities,” explains Ken Reid.
ATM requires accurate, readily available, tailored
aeronautical meteorological information, capable of
supporting the activities of a variety of users for all phases of
flight. The scope of the requisite services ranges from long-
term forecasting – up to six months ahead – for airline
operations planning, to very short-term microclimate
‘nowcasting’ at specific airports.
In an ideal, seamless system, ATFM would draw up and
control a daily airspace utilisation plan on the basis of expected
traffic and weather, which could be subsequently fine-tuned to
accommodate concurrent events, such as significant weather
phenomena. From the airline’s perspective, accurate and real-
time weather information would allow operations centres to
© Birmingham International Airport
THE ENVIRONMENT
consider alternative routes and, whenever appropriate, re-plan
aircraft whilst in flight. On board, the timing of the service
could be adapted to meteorological circumstances, so as to
avoid turbulence, thereby improving passenger comfort as well
as cabin crew safety.
The quality of meteorological data will need to be
upgraded, in an effort to meet the air transport industry’s
operational needs more accurately. Enhanced precision and
reliability of forecasting will help planners and controllers make
better decisions. “You can improve the system efficiency by
reducing the amount of lost capacity due to uncertainty,”
notes Ken Reid. For instance, fine-tuned information at a given
airport could help reduce the size of the virtual ‘safety bubble’
created around each aircraft and consequently increase airport
ATM requires
accurate, readily
available, tailored
aeronautical
meteorological
information
throughput, efficiency and economy. In certain wind
conditions, the wake-vortex (the turbulence which trails each
departing aircraft) will be broken up earlier, allowing
controllers to reserve shorter intervals between take-offs, while
ensuring an appropriate level of safety.
A new kind of relationship
“What we need is a system capable of delivering the right
information in the right place, to the right people, at the right
time, with the right quality and reliability, in the new ATM
context,” says Reid.
Traditionally, the connection between ATM and MET was
essentially limited to ensuring a link between meteorological
services and flight crews, and the provision of basic Flight
Information Services as regulated by Annex 11 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation.
Within Europe’s future ATM environment, a new kind of
121
 THE ENVIRONMENT
relationship will have to materialise, based on the smooth flow
of harmonised information that can be exploited by all users.
At the outset, this would require substantial efforts to create a
model where digital meteorological data, specifically
formatted for ATM use, could circulate freely within an open
exchange model, between MET service providers, airlines, ATM
operators, airports and aircraft crews.
The MET community itself may have to evolve, as it is facing
challenges similar to those that ATM has had to tackle: a
fragmented operational and institutional environment, with at
least one weather information provider in each of
EUROCONTROL’s 37 Member States.
At the operational level, the key to the MET capabilities
improvement will be the intelligent use of increasingly
accurate forecasting of weather events, including terminal
area short-term forecasting. Meeting high-level ATM
requirements will necessitate a more thorough and coherent
use of available technologies and equipment – radar, satellite,
wind profilers, etc. “Present MET capacities are probably
sufficient to sustain ATM today,” reckons Reid. “But they are
certainly not capable of sustaining ATM tomorrow,” he adds.
Future requirements
The supply of complete, up-to-date and tailored MET
information to the aviation community in the future will also
require, among other things, improved instruments for local
weather observation, data processing and communication, as
well as the development of a new means to exchange
122
© Austrian Airlines
meteorological data. Locally, the performance of MET systems
could, for instance, be improved through greater use of
automatic remote observation sensors.
The smooth circulation of data between all ATM users will
require particular harmonisation and modelling efforts. An open
and interactive information exchange platform would also allow
the down-linking of meteorological data resulting from in-flight
observation, which, in turn, offers great potential to enhance the
quality of MET services. “The better the observation, the better
the forecast,” says Reid. “A greater use of digital data links from
aircraft to ground would help,” he adds.
The availability of more accurate meteorological
information could contribute to the mitigation of the
environmental impact of some aspects of air transport, for
instance, through the integration of MET data in complex
models, which would help pilots identify the most fuel-
efficient and least intrusive terminal descent procedures.
Meteorology can also be used to predict the location of
contrails and adjust flight paths to avoid their accumulation
and the creation of artificial persistent cirrus clouds, which
contribute to global warming.
“Air Traffic Management and meteorological communities
must co-operate to create and ensure the smooth operation
of tomorrow’s sustainable ATM system in Europe,” Reid
explains. EUROCONTROL is striving to act as a facilitator for the
joint efforts, which will need to be undertaken, he concludes.
This article was commissioned by EUROCONTROL.
 PROFILE

WHAT IS EUROCONTROL?
124
EUROCONTROL overview
EUROCONTROL is an intergovernmental organisation,
established in 1960, to develop a seamless, pan-European Air
Traffic Management (ATM) system for its six founding Member
States (Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom).
Today, EUROCONTROL works on behalf of its 37 Member
States* to pioneer advances in ATM technology, operational
procedures and system interoperability.
EUROCONTROL mission
EUROCONTROL’s mission is to harmonise and integrate air
navigation services in Europe, aiming at the creation of a
uniform ATM system for civil and military users, in order to
achieve the safe, orderly, expeditious and economic flow of
traffic throughout Europe.
To achieve its mission, EUROCONTROL works closely with
Member States, Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), civil
and military airspace users, airports, the aerospace industry,
professional organisations and European institutions.
EUROCONTROL’s specific goals are to:
• Raise air traffic safety levels
• Increase airspace capacity
• Reduce air traffic delays
• Enhance the air traffic management system’s
cost-effectiveness
• Minimise the impact of air traffic on the environment.
EUROCONTROL activities
With some 2,500 experts based in seven European countries,
EUROCONTROL’s core activities are:
1. Design of the European ATM network. EUROCONTROL
works together with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure
that the European ATM system develops along the lines laid
down in the ATM 2000+ Strategy and in agreement with the
aims of the Single European Sky (SES).
Design of the European ATM network covers ATM
strategies and concepts (developed in the European ATM
programmes in Brussels); research, development and
simulation (carried out at the EUROCONTROL Experimental
Centre – EEC – at Brétigny-sur-Orge in France) and
specialised training (at the Institute of Air Navigation
Services – IANS – Luxembourg).
Activities are grouped into the following areas:
• Strategic planning and monitoring
• Communications, navigation and surveillance
• Safety, human factors, security and the environment
• Network efficiency improvements
• Sector productivity
• Airport operations
• Innovative research
2. Pan-European functions. By definition, EUROCONTROL’s
work is carried out on a European level, with the aim of
maximising the safety and efficiency of the civil and military
ATM networks. Substantial economies of scale are gained by
working on a pan-European basis. EUROCONTROL brings
essential added value through its impartial, transparent and
accessible services.
The dynamic management of air traffic flows in the
short-, medium- and long-term is carried out by the
Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU), which began
operations in 1995, paving the way for a common
European Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management
(ATFCM) System within a uniform European ATM System.
Key interdependent functions include flow and capacity
management, flight planning, airspace data operations and
data provision and reporting.
Another key activity is the billing and collection of route
charges for Member States and, upon request, for non-
member countries. The system used by the Central Route
Charges Office (CRCO) is based on recommendations for air
navigation charges as set down by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The CRCO works closely with
national administrations and charging offices.
3. Provision of regional air traffic control services on behalf of
Member States requesting such services is currently done at the
Upper Area Control Centre (UAC) at Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Regional co-operation makes for considerably improved
safety, greater capacity and better efficiency.
The Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre Agreement in
1986 and the Central European Air Traffic Services Agreement
in 1997 were signed in recognition of this fact.
The Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) has
managed the upper levels of the skies over Belgium,
125
 PROFILE
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and north-western Germany –
airspace which is amongst the busiest and most complex in
Europe – for nearly three decades.
In the future, it is planned that the Central European Air
Traffic Services programme, CEATS, will bring increased
airspace capacity and greater efficiency than can be
achieved by each of the eight separate national systems
operating on their own (Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and
Slovenia). CEATS will enhance safety by eliminating the
necessity for flights to be handed over from one State to
another and will allow controllers to work together
using the same data, common technologies and
identical procedures.
Both the Maastricht UAC and CEATS programme can be
seen as precursors of the Functional Blocks of Airspace
which are now being planned and so will form part of the
overall design for the Single European Sky. The Functional
Blocks of Airspace are integrated blocks of airspace formed
according to operational requirements, regardless of
national boundaries.
4. Support to regulatory activities covers the development
of EUROCONTROL’s safety regulations, the so-called
EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESARRs)
and also the work undertaken to assist EC regulation,
through the drafting of implementing rules for the Single
European Sky.
126
EUROCONTROL structure
The EUROCONTROL organisation comprises:
• a General Assembly
• a Council of civil and military representatives
• the Agency, under the responsibility of the Director General
Key personnel
Director General: Víctor M Aguado
Director, Air Traffic Management Strategies (DAS): Bo Redeborn
Director, Air Traffic Management Programmes (DAP):
Guido Kerkhofs
Director, CFMU: Jacques Dopagne
Director, CRCO: Massimo Fusco
Director of the General Secretariat: Gerhard Stadler
Director, Finance: Francisco del Pozo
Director, Human Resources: Volker Thiem
Director, EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC):
Jan Van Doorn
Director, Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MAS UAC):
Karl-Heinz Kloos
Director, Institute Air Navigation Services (IANS): Lars Wedbäck
Director, Civil/Military ATM Coordination: General Jean-Robert
Cazarré
* Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK.

WHAT IS AEA?
AEA overview
The Association of European Airlines (AEA), a non-profit
organisation, is dedicated to representing the interests of its
31 member airlines to the institutions of the European Union
(EU), the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and
other organisations operating within the air transport
industry. Based in Brussels, the AEA seeks to promote
co-operation amongst its member airlines on issues relating
to aviation, whilst respecting its members’ ability for
independent action when required.
The Association is open to established European airlines of
a significant size; as a rule of thumb, candidate airlines
should have a fleet amounting to 3,000 seats, or equivalent
PROFILE
cargo volume. These guidelines are flexible, however,
particularly in the case of a small country having just one
important airline. After unanimous approval by AEA’s
President’s Assembly in July 2006, Italy’s Air One airline
became the 31st member of AEA.
AEA member airlines connect passengers to over 620
destinations worldwide, employ more than 375,000 people
and operate 2,400 aircraft. In 2005, AEA airlines recorded a
return to growth with over 320 million passengers boarded
throughout the year. In terms of passenger kilometres, this
represented an increase of 6.3 per cent over the previous
year and highlighted a return to ‘normal’ growth following
the downturn initiated by the 11 September terrorist attacks.
127
 PROFILE
AEA history
The origins of AEA can be traced back to 1952 with the
creation of a Joint Study Group by the Presidents of Air France,
KLM, Sabena and Swissair. This group was later joined by SAS
and by British Airways’ predecessor, BEA, and became known
as the Air Research Bureau (ARB). ARB was permanently
established in 1954 with headquarters in Brussels.
The current name was adopted in 1973, following a
previous name change to the European Airlines Research
Bureau. By 1973, AEA’s membership had grown to 19 airlines,
and three Standing Committees had been created; Research
and Planning, Airline Industry Affairs, as well as the Technical
Affairs Committee, which was formed after the Montparnasse
Committee was absorbed into the Association.
In 1983, the Commercial and Aeropolitical Committee was
split in two in recognition of the EU’s growing involvement in
air transport matters and during the mid-1980s, the AEA
formed a number of permanent groups, which did not have
the status of standing committees. These were the fiscal,
security and in-flight services groups. An infrastructure group
was added in 1991. AEA was reorganised in 1994 with research
and information and legal matters acquiring the status of
128
support functions, and Infrastructure and Environment and
Social Affairs being handled by standing committees,
alongside Public Policy, Commercial and Technical.
A significant change to the AEA’s remit was agreed at the
November 2002 President’s Assembly. This was to refocus
the organisation into an airline-driven lobbying group.
Accordingly, the statutes were amended and annual
objectives, set by the President, were adopted. The progress
of these objectives is monitored by a 12-member
President’s Committee.
AEA structure:
Each year, AEA elects a Chairman, from one of its member
airlines’ Presidents, to preside over the assemblies for a period
of 12 months. The Chairman, who in 2006 is Wolfgang
Mayrhuber, CEO of Lufthansa, is assisted by the Presidents’
Committee, which is composed of past and present Chairmen
and ten other Presidents elected by the Assembly.
A Secretary General, currently Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, is
appointed by the Presidents’ Committee to run the
organisation. A secretariat consisting of 20 personnel, based
in Brussels, assists the Secretary General with his duties.
AEA activities
The Association of European Airlines has one overriding
mission, that is, to promote the prosperity of its members by
representing their interests in all issues relating to air
transport. In support of this task it collects, analyses and
interprets information from its members and from other
data sources. AEA defends the interests of not only its
member airlines, but also of the air industry as a whole, and
organises conferences, workshops and meetings for its
members, European decision makers and national
government representatives.
The organisation promotes its members’ views relating to
key international issues and the development of regulations
for the aviation industry, especially in relation to their impact
on airline costs. AEA works closely with the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), the European Civil Aviation
Conference (ECAC) and national bodies such as the Air
Transport Association of America (ATA) to develop a common
view as well as to propose amendments to legislative
packages. It also advises European Aviation Safety Agency
 Fundamental to its Action
Plan is the achievement
of a comprehensive and
holistic response to the
dominant pressures faced
by the industry
(EASA), through its membership of the EASA Advisory Board,
on strategic issues, in particular fees and charges, work
programme and budget. Studies are also undertaken to assess
the rise in costs emanating from within the industry itself and
AEA advises on alternative solutions which will lead to reduced
cost structures throughout the value chain.
Its Action Plan 2004-2009, published in February 2005,
identifies the existing weaknesses within the regulation of the
global air transport industry and provides direction for
regulators and service providers in the context of a forward
looking European Aviation Policy, which would create
transparency and consistency.
Fundamental to its Action Plan is the achievement of a
comprehensive and holistic response to the dominant
pressures faced by the industry. As such, it seeks to influence
decision makers on infrastructure capacity, the relationship
between airlines and airports, security, external relations and
managing the environmental challenge.
AEA facilities
AEA’s headquarters are located in the centre of Brussels at
350 Avenue Louise and offer four conference rooms and a
networking area, as well as remote office facilities for
visiting executives.
AEA member airlines
Adria Airways, Aer Lingus, Air France, Air Malta, Air One,
Alitalia, Austrian, bmi, British Airways, Cargolux, Croatia
Airlines, Czech Airlines, Cyprus Airways, Finnair, Iberia,
Icelandair, Jat Airways, KLM, Lot Polish Airlines, Deutsche
Lufthansa AG, Luxair, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Olympic
Airlines, SAS, SN Brussels Airlines, Spanair, Swiss International
Airlines Ltd, TAP Portugal, TAROM – Romanian Air Transport,
Turkish Airlines, Virgin Atlantic.
129