airspace 7

AIRSPACE QUARTER 4 2009 1

journal of the civil air navigation services organisation ISSUE 07 QUARTER 4 2009

Approaching The FutureGBAS in Germany, Spain and AustraliaUAS developments at ICAO

PLUS: All change in Europe, environmental management in Australia, the CANSO strategic review, and the best news and comment from the world of ATM.

The complete view of ANS: CANSO benchmarks ANS performance

LEADING INDUSTRY VIEWS:Alexander ter KuileHank KrakowskiSaif Mohammed Al Suwaidi

Airspace Management

Ensuring the safety of our skies starts with integrated solutions, and the right partner to deliver them. At Raytheon, we understand the broad range of challenges that are impacting the airspace management industry. We’re delivering advanced solutions to meet these challenges head on, from start to fi nish, from takeoff to touchdown. So those who monitor the skies can act with assurance to increase airspace capacity over our skies, and keep those skies safe.

Safety. Security. Solutions.

www.raytheon.com

© 2009 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. “Customer Success Is Our Mission” is a registered trademark of Raytheon Company.

09NCS164_AM_AirspcJ_Mar09.indd 1 2/12/09 11:20:18 AM


CONTENTS

civil air navigation services organisation

Airspace No. 7ISSN number 1877 2196Published by CANSO, the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation

Transpolis Schiphol AirportPolaris Avenue 85e2132 JH HoofddorpThe Netherlands

Telephone: +31 (0)23 568 5380Fax: +31 (0)23 568 5389

Editor: Chris Goater [email protected]

Advertisement Manager: Gill Thompson [email protected]: +44 (0)1273 771020

Design: i-KOSTelephone: +44 (0)1322 277255Web: www.i-kos.com

The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright, full details of which are available from the publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publishers. The views and opinions in this publication are expressed by the authors in their personal capacity and are their sole responsibility. Their publication does not imply that they represent the views or opinions of CANSO and must not be interpreted as such. The reproduction of advertisements in this publication does not in any way imply endorsement by CANSO of the products and services referred to herein.

© Copyright CANSO 2009

ATM NEWS

FEATURES

COMMENT

5 DIRECTOR GENERAL’S NOTE CANSO’s new Director General gives his impressions on his first week in charge.

8 THE BEST PRACTICE COLUMN Airservices Australia’s Ken Owen on environmental management systems.

9 THE CEO COLUMN H.E. Saif Mohammed Al Suwaidi, Director General of the General Civil Aviation

Authority of the UAE, on important developments for GCAA at the end of 2009.

10-11 LETTER FROM AMERICA Hank Krakowski describes the change of emphasis with the FAA ATO to focus on

metrics of prevention rather than reaction to safety incidents.

12 THE CANSO COLUMN Luis Ramirez, Co-Vice Chair of CANSO’s new Operations Standing Committee, explains

the priorities for the group, and how it will raise global ATM operational performance.

6-7 THE LATEST INFORMATION ON Director General Graham Lake’s first days, aviation’s contribution to the Copenhagen

climate talks, CANSO’s response to criticism of European navigation charges, joint venture moves in Europe.

13-15 CANSO GLOBAL BENCHMARKING: THE COMPLETE VIEW OF ANS With its fifth iteration, the CANSO Global Benchmarking Report has come of age.

22 CANSO STRATEGIC REVIEW GATHERS PACE The CANSO Strategic Review, which will set the direction of the Association after the

Imagine 2010 programme concludes at the June AGM, is entering a crucial phase.

AIRSPACE PEOPLE

16-18 ALEXANDER TER KUILE CANSO’s first full-time Secretary General, who has left the Organisation after nine

hugely successful years, reflects on his time in charge, and the future for the Association.

25-26 HOLGER MATTHIESEN EUROCONTROL’s UAS/ATM integration manager answers some key questions on UAS

developments in Europe and at ICAO.

TECHNOLOGY & OPERATIONS

20-21 APPROACHING THE FUTURE: GBAS IN GERMANY, SPAIN AND AUSTRALIA With the US FAA granting system design approval for Ground Based Augmentation

Systems, a number of ANSPs are pushing ahead with trials of this new precision approach technology.

23-24 ACCOMMODATING UAS: ADAPTING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The pressure to speed up the regulatory process for Unmanned Aerial Systems is

building. Here we explore the key developments taking place at ICAO.

29 FOCUS ON….CANSO EUROPEAN REGIONAL OFFICE CANSO’s European Office has undergone considerable change in recent months, and faces a vital period of work as European regulatory activity and industry transformation accelerates.

INSIDE CANSO

Perhaps it’s Time to Look at the Skies in a Different Way.Air traffi c demand will more than double in the near future, which makes the need for a new Air Traffi c Management system more critical than ever. The time to act is now. At Boeing, we’re already working with aviation leaders around the world to create a network enabled system that is higher capacity, safer, more secure and far more effi cient.

Pilots, controllers, airlines and security personnel will exploit precise information made available through an integrated network to make rapid decisions with high-performance results. It’s the kind of solution you expect from a leader in network-centric operations. It’s the kind of solution you expect from Boeing.

151735_BoeingAd_for CANSO.indd 1 2/17/09 5:53:48 PM


DIRECTOR GENERAL’S NOTE

This is my first message to you all as CANSO Director General. I’m writing this in my

first week in the job so I hope you’ll forgive me if I am somewhat light on specifics!

But I do want to take this opportunity to explain what an enticing opportunity I believe

I have before me. A quick glance through the contents of this magazine confirms this:

CANSO’s output of policy, best practice, statistics and guidance is considerable. In this

issue alone, there is a review of the latest Benchmarking report, a look at the next CANSO

Strategic Plan, the work on UAS at ICAO, and a focus on the issues being tackled by the

CANSO European Regional Office.

You’ll also notice that we’ve got a milestone interview with Alexander ter Kuile, giving us

his take on the state CANSO and the industry. I’d just like to pay tribute here to Alexander’s

achievements over the last 9 years: this Association owes its sense of mission, its vitality,

and its strong reputation, to his leadership. I am honoured to be following in his footsteps

and I wish him every success in whatever ventures he takes on next.

My arrival coincides with a period of strategic review for CANSO. I’m going to be taking this

opportunity to listen to the views of the membership, and understand what they are looking

for from their Association. The strength and achievements of the organisation that I’ve

witnessed from afar show me that CANSO was already on a strong trajectory, but as this

industry continues to evolve rapidly, CANSO must evolve too. It’s going to be a fascinating

few months, and by the time of the next issue of ‘Airspace’, in March 2010, I expect to be

able to say far more about the future plans of the Organisation.

Until then, I wish you all the best greetings of the season, and a prosperous New Year.

Graham Lake

civil air navigation services organisation

6 QUARTER 4 2009 AIRSPACE

ATM NEWS CANSO news

CANSO WELCOMES ITS NEW DIRECTOR GENERAL GRAHAM LAKE...CANSO’s new Director General Graham Lake took up his post on December 3rd and wasted no time in getting straight down to business. Key one-on-one meetings with the CANSO Secretariat will culminate in a two-day strategy discussion at CANSO HQ in mid-December.

Graham has also begun the vital task of reaching out to industry partners, lining up a strong programme of visits to key regions and stakeholders. Trips to Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and ICAO have already been arranged for his first months in charge, where he expects to meet many CANSO Members. In a statement released on his first day in charge, Graham said “I am looking forward to getting the opportunity to meet all the members over the coming months. I want to listen to the views of the membership as we move the strategic review forward, and I also want to build stakeholder relationships with our partners, customers and regulators. My first 100 days takes me neatly right up to the week of the CANSO CEO Conference and ATC Global, and by then I hope to have had the chance to listen, reflect, and also propose some of our key priorities for the year ahead.”

Graham Lake: “CANSO has a terrific team and a tremendous brand.”

CANSO Deputy Chairman Eamonn Brennan (centre) accompanied Graham Lake to represent the Executive Committee during the handover with Alexander ter Kuile.

...AND BIDS FOND FAREWELL TO ALEXANDER TER KUILE

As Graham Lake began to get to know his new team, Secretary General Alexander ter Kuile prepared to say farewell to the Association, after nine years in charge. Alexander maintained a busy schedule right to the end, with a programme of visits of which the highlight was a typically visionary keynote address to the ACI World Conference in Kuala Lumpur in November.

Alexander has not revealed his future plans, other than to say that he will be taking a well-deserved break until the New Year. In his final Secretary General’s message to the Membership, he said “It has been an incredible journey and I want to thank every one of you for making this possible, for believing in CANSO’s success. I hope you will join me in wishing the new DG Graham Lake every success in this fantastic position.” During his time at the helm CANSO more than doubled the number of its Full (ANSP) Members, more than tripled the number of Associate Members, achieved Observer status at ICAO, and launched Regional work programmes in Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East, among many other achievements.

Alexander truly revolutionised CANSO and indelibly affected the industry and aviation as a whole. CANSO Chairman Ashley Smout summed it up when he wrote; “Alexander ter Kuile has had more influence on the success of our Organisation than any other individual.”


Environment

COPENHAGEN TALKS AIM FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT

Navigation chargesCANSO HITS BACK AT CRITICISM OF EUROPEAN NAVIGATION CHARGES

Single European SkyEUROPEAN ANSPs CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEW JOINT CONTROL CENTRE

As ‘Airspace’ went to press, the world’s nations were gathering in Copenhagen for the start of COP15, a conference to establish an agreement on reducing climate change emissions. As a carbon-emitting industry beyond the scope of the present Kyoto agreement, aviation is facing criticism from environmentalists, and is expected to be included in any new agreement. The industry has been extremely proactive in the months leading up to COP15, presenting a comprehensive plan to reduce its net emissions to 50% of 2005 levels by 2050. The plan, to which CANSO was a key contributor, was presented to ICAO and also to the United Nations, in September. The industry has several key objectives for the Copenhagen talks (see box). The full range of the industry’s commitments can be viewed at www.enviro.aero.

CANSO has responded strongly to criticism by airlines of the proposed rise in European air navigation charges. While sympathising with airlines during a period of financial difficulty, CANSO defended the record of ANSPs in cutting their costs as fast as reasonably possible, and explaining that the setting of charges is a State responsibility. With both IATA and AEA expressing dismay at a proposed increase of 2.7% in 2010, Alexander ter Kuile and Guenter Martis explained that the real issue was that the full cost recovery system needed fundamental change and that the European Union should invest in the technological changes required to make the SES a success. Alexander said; “Although IATA is wrong to criticise ANSPs for not responding to the crisis, I welcome their comments, as they confirm CANSO’s belief that the cost recovery system, which is not designed to cope in times of crisis, needs urgent reform.” Both men called on IATA and AEA to support CANSO in its efforts to reform the charges system.

The national aviation authorities of France, Germany and Switzerland have commissioned their respective air navigation service providers – skyguide, DFS and DSNA – to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a joint control centre in the French/German/Swiss border region. Its findings should be available this time next year.

The new feasibility study is closely connected with the drive by the European Union to create a “Single European Sky” (SES). The SES initiative is intended to harmonise the continent’s air traffic management system to raise its efficiency. This can only be done, however, by amalgamating the present airspace areas into larger interlinked blocks. Under these endeavours, Swiss, French, German and a number of other nations’ airspace should become part of “Functional Airspace Block Europe Central” (FABEC).

Aviation industry recommendations to delegates at COP15:1 Aircraft CO2 emissions should be addressed in any post-Kyoto global

framework, through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

2 Emissions from aviation should be addressed through ICAO adopting a global sectoral approach that does not distort competition amongst airlines, treats aviation as one indivisible sector rather than by country and takes a global approach to emissions reduction.

3 Aviation emissions should only be accounted for (and paid for) once.

4 The aviation industry can achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and work towards reducing aviation net carbon emissions by 50% in 2050, compared to 2005 levels. These ambitious targets require assistance from governments through:

•thenecessaryinvestmentstomoderniseairtrafficmanagement •investmentinaerodynamicandoperationstechnologyresearch

anddevelopment through academic and industry partners •investmentinthedevelopmentandcommercialisationofsustainable,

second-generation biofuels for use in aviation.

The first foundations were laid in November 2008, when representatives of the civil and military aviation authorities of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland signed a joint declaration of intent.

UK-IR

SW Portugal-Spain

FAB EC

NUAC

Baltic

FABCE

Danube

Blue MED

NEFAB

FAB EC is building momentum with the announcement of a feasibility study for a joint control centre.


COMMENT

The ‘Best Practice’ ColumnKen Owen, Airservices Australia

Environmental Management Systems In this new series of columns, ATM experts from around the world will give an example of leading ANSP best practice. This issue, Ken Owen, Environment Initiatives and Services Manager at Airservices Australia, talks about the Airservices Environmental Management System.

Environmental awareness across the entire organisation is critical to Airservices Australia’s success in business and as an environmentally responsible air navigation service provider.

It is our individual responsibility to ensure that for our whole business our environmental performance is second to none. This is not just an environmental objective, but it is also an important business objective.

We began implementing an ISO 14001-aligned EMS in April 1998, after about nine months of development. The EMS is simply a management process that identifies our environmental issues and generates management programmes to deal with those problems. It also ensures that any non-compliance is reported and that we can continuously improve our environmental performance.

The development and implementation of the EMS was based on a risk management approach, whereby the organisation identified the highest environmental and environmental business risks. As a result the EMS was first implemented to manage changes to ATC practices and procedures including airspace and flight path changes where aircraft noise was the major concern. Existing on-ground activities such as ARFF training facilities, fuel storage, hazardous material management, etc. were then addressed. The third stage was the development of the EMS to address changes to on-ground facilities and activities which addresses activities such as new surveillance and navigation facilities, fire stations etc.

Airservices’ EMS is centrally managed and applies to the organisation’s operations nationally (some 1,000 sites at 600 different locations) but is implemented locally. This has required extensive training of staff during the implementation of the EMS. Ongoing training is essential to ensure the system continues to be used effectively. This has been a challenge both due to the number of staff that require training and the geographically dispersed nature of Airservices operations. A priority for effective EMS is to develop an environmentally sustainable culture (like ANSPs have on safety for many years). An EMS does not work without visible top management commitment supporting business culture that is led from the top.

To facilitate the effective implementation of the EMS, Airservices developed a bespoke computer application, called Airservices Risk Management System (ARMS). The ARMS risk management tool provides risk identification and assessment; current risk controls; proposed risk treatment including objectives & targets; emergency plans and incidents reporting functions; and non-conformance reporting.

The EMS has allowed Airservices to identify the environmental aspects of its activities to determine those that have significant impacts and potential liabilities as well as identifying all legislative and regulatory requirements. The requirements for continuous improvement allowed Airservices Australia to ensure that the EMS remains relevant to the organisation, review the effectiveness of the system, determine the extent to which environmental objectives and targets have been met and identify required change to reflect concerns of interested parties such as regulators, government, customers and communities.

CANSO’s Environment Workgroup will publish its ‘Introduction to Environmental Management Systems’ in December. www.canso.org/environment


COMMENT

As 2009 draws to a close it is clear that this has been a momentous year for GCAA. November was a particularly significant month, as we saw the official opening of the Sheikh Zayed Centre, and we also made the decision to join CANSO. I would like to reflect on the importance of these two developments and the significance they hold for the aviation industry in the UAE and the wider Middle East region.

The vision of the GCAA is for the UAE to take a leading position in the arena of the international civil aviation sector. We are achieving this by establishing and developing strategies and plans that ensure implementation of the best international standards and practices for safety and security in line with civil aviation approved regulations. Our state-of-the-art new Centre, and the access to CANSO’s international network of ATM experts, are essential parts of that process.

The Middle East is the world’s fastest-growing aviation region, and the GCAA is making important advances to help cope with the challenges of this growth. Some of our most recent activities include the opening of a new airway “A419” which connects UAE airports with KITAP in Saudi Arabia in close cooperation and liaison with air forces and defence. The new airway reduces the duration of flights, with consequent fuel and cost savings, as well as reduction in engine emissions.

The GCAA also developed a plan to implement the newest international air navigation system known as PBN – RNAV 1 on all arriving and departing flights, eventually facilitating air traffic flow and increasing the capacity of air routes. Abu Dhabi International Airport was the first airport to implement this system in the Middle East, in addition to the hosting of the PBN Implementation Design Course, which is integral to the control of capacity and regularity within the region’s airspace.

We have also implemented surface-to-surface communications applications and upgraded our communications network to a world-class Aeronautical Message Handling System. The GCAA also recently deployed a new radar system (ADSB), the first of its kind in the Middle East to communicate directly with air navigation control more accurately than traditional aircraft radar images. We continue to recruit the best in the industry and spend significant sums on ongoing training and development of our people.

Looking forward to 2010, we see that the United Arab Emirates is seeking re-nomination for membership of the ICAO Council for the period 2010-2013 in the elections to be held in the eve of its 37th General Assembly session in Montreal, in September 2010. In seeking re-nomination, the UAE is continuing its efforts to maintain the gains achieved during the last term and to ensure an effective and constructive Arab presence in one of the most important specialised world organisations. In short, we will continue to endeavour to create a framework for the UAE aviation industry that enables it to flourish and compete on the international stage. I am delighted that the GCAA has joined the CANSO Community, and I am sure that our partnership will strengthen aviation in Middle East to the mutual benefit of all.

The CEO ColumnH.E. Saif Mohammed Al SuwaidiDirector General, General Civil Aviation Authority, U.A.E.


COMMENT

To succeed, organisations need accurate, timely and, above all, relevant information. This is especially true at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization, where we are improving how we collect and analyse data about safety performance. We now emphasise prevention rather than reaction, and in so doing are aligning our safety metrics more closely with the risk standards used by our international partners.

This fiscal year the FAA will implement a new metric, the System Loss Index (SLI), to track and evaluate the risk when aircraft fly closer together than permitted by radar separation standards. Some nations already use a comparable approach. The data we collect with SLI will allow us to go beyond merely counting errors and instead seek root causes.

In a world where airlines and passengers frequently cross borders, air traffic control safety efforts must also cross borders. The SLI is similar to the risk analysis tool that EUROCONTROL uses, which will permit the United States and Europe to work together more effectively to maintain and enhance airspace safety.

To be sure, the overwhelming majority of the 26 million flights using American airspace each year – more than 99.997 percent – do comply with existing separation rules. But the remaining 0.003 percent represents several thousand flights a year, and these could have serious safety implications.

As the United States moves toward full implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, we must have a complete understanding of the risks that exist in our current system. Satellite-based NextGen will allow us to use more precise separation standards than are possible with the traditional radar-based system. But to safely implement such efficiency improvements, we must have detailed data about how we are performing today.

The metric SLI replaces tracked only operational errors by controllers, classifying them according to how near planes got to each other, regardless of the actual risk involved. But grading only operational errors does not provide a meaningful measure of system-wide risks. Indeed, under internationally accepted safety management definitions, operational errors are regarded as indicators of non-compliance, not of risk.

SLI will capture all airborne separation incidents, no matter how they happened or who was responsible for the loss of separation. With the information, we will rank incidents by severity and how often they occur. The ranking will each year allow us to identify and mitigate the top five safety risks.

Using SLI, we will establish a baseline to measure yearly progress. In fiscal year 2009, the FAA analyzed more than 1,900 losses of separation: operational errors, pilot deviations, proximity events and miscellaneous problems. The analysis determined that during the average loss of separation incident, the aircraft were approximately 75 percent in compliance with vertical and lateral distance rules. We will hold the air traffic system to fiscal year 2009 levels of safety, maintaining an average of at least 75 percent compliance when there is a loss of standard separation.

Letter from AmericaHank Krakowski – Chief Operating Officer, FAA ATO


If separation during an incident falls below 66 percent, we will conduct a risk analysis of the event, a practice used by air navigation service providers around the world. As we harmonise FAA and EUROCONTROL safety databases, the international air traffic community will benefit from access to richer information that can be used to identify hazards and develop corrective measures.

In addition to measuring our performance, we are also improving our safety culture. Administrator Randy Babbitt has repeatedly stated that we want to focus on identifying and resolving problems, rather than on assigning blame for mistakes. We started the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) to encourage controllers to voluntarily report mistakes so problems can be acknowledged and corrected.

The airline industry achieved dramatic results using a similar non-punitive approach to increase safety data reporting. We expect ATSAP to further reduce the accident rate.

With emphasis on global harmonisation and an improved safety culture, our goal is to increase the safety of every flight.

Hank Krakowski

5 miles 5 miles

1000feet

1000feet

Flight Plan Target for FY2010-2014: Hold the Air traffic system toFY2009 levels of safety – maintaining an average of 75 percent separation when we have a LoSS

26 Million flights occur here every year

Flight Plan Target for FY2010-2014: Hold the air traffic system to FY 2009 levels of safety – Maintaining an average of 75 percent

separation when we have a LoSS


COMMENT

It is an honour to be nominated by my CANSO peers to work on the Operations Standing Committee. This is a great opportunity for me both personally and professionally to see states and other providers coming together to become more efficient. I have worked operational issues my entire career – including 15 years as an air traffic controller – and I feel this is the right time and CANSO is the right forum for us to collaborate on programmess that will provide tangible benefits for the international aviation community.

Both the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation program, or NextGen, and Europe’s Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research initiative, or SESAR, will affect how aviation stakeholders equip aircraft and train pilots. Some of CANSO’s other members are also in various stages of reshaping their respective aviation systems. If we are to fulfill the vision of airplanes transiting different ANSP service areas as seamlessly as possible, this is the time for engagement. This is the time to harmonise our efforts.

One of our first initiatives is to strengthen the relationship with our airline-industry counterpart, IATA. In October, then-Secretary General Alexander ter Kuile and I attended the IATA Operations Committee Meeting in Moscow to start the conversation, and we received a very positive response. IATA is excited about the possibilities and opportunities offered by a strong cooperation between our organisations at both a global and regional level. The areas where we could collaborate include operations training, runway safety and basic principles for Performance-Based Navigation implementation – issues of importance for both airlines and ANSPs.

More recently, we met in Amsterdam to finalise our work programme and set priorities for 2010. The area of civil-military cooperation will be a key topic for the committee in the coming year. We will develop education materials on civil-military issues as a first important step in improving our understanding of different user needs. We will also work to improve ANSP service delivery worldwide. We will produce a response to the IATA User Requirements to 2020 document and provide an ANSP view on the key improvements and reforms that will affect our members in the next decade.

Also, I am excited about the first-ever Global ATM Operations Summit, which is scheduled for March 2010 in Amsterdam. We plan to put on a good show, and the forum will provide us with an opportunity to boost CANSO’s international credibility and add value to our engagement with aviation stakeholders.

As co-vice chairman of the committee that is chartered to lead CANSO’s work on improving performance in international air traffic management, my job is to provide leadership, ensure consistency with the CANSO strategy and support the planning and delivery of key activities. I look forward to working with Alex Bristol of NATS during our two-year terms as co-vice chairmen of the committee.

In Moscow, IATA acknowledged that some ANSPs were for the first time succeeding in their efforts to reduce costs during this severe economic downturn. This is very welcome news. I’m confident that we’ll hear more of this positive feedback as the Operations Standing Committee gets established and our work groups begin earnestly working on our priorities.

OSC Takes Off CANSO’s traditional role has focused on government policy and ANSP best practice through the development of strong policy positions. While acknowledging the success of the organisation’s performance to date, many aviation stakeholders (such as IATA and ICAO) have pressed CANSO to take a greater role in operational and technical areas that reflect much of their work programmes. The new Operations Standing Committee, formed at CANSO’s Annual General Meeting in June, aims to be the first and foremost global platform for raising the operational performance of air navigation services.

The CANSO ColumnLuis Ramirez – Director, En-route & Oceanic Safety & Operations, FAA ATO


The CANSO Global Benchmarking Report is the only truly multi-regional ATM statistical analysis produced by the industry, and as such is a crucial output of the Association each year. As it prepares to publish its fifth Benchmarking Report during a period of intense economic crisis in the industry, the report will be under more scrutiny than ever – but the changes introduced for this year mean the report’s authors are confident that the 2009 document is the best yet.

“The CANSO Global Benchmarking Report has come of age” says Wayne Blythe, Chairman of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG). “The collective efforts of a large number of CANSO Members have resulted in the best report the Working Group has produced. The definitions are now mature and understood, members have had enough experience that it is easier and less costly for members to produce it and the resulting benchmarks are more useful than ever before.”

The work of the GBWG has resulted in a number of ‘firsts’ for this year’s report. Thirty ANSPs have submitted information, the largest number of participants so far; the addition of SENEAM means the report has its first Central American contributor; the use of ‘data buddies’ has brought more clarity to the report; a ‘stand alone’ executive summary and aviation industry context has added value; and appendices on IFR flight hours and acronyms have been included to aid comprehension.

“Producing the Global Benchmarking report is a major piece of project management” says CANSO Director of Industry Affairs Samantha Sharif. “Fortunately we are able to build on four years of similar reports now, and

we can apply lessons learned on data definition, collection and analysis, as well as of course feedback from the users of previous reports.”

For the 2009 Report the GBWG focused on developing standard definitions, refining data elements and providing ‘like’ comparisons. To that end, much of the data is presented within groupings, such as by region and by ANSP size (as determined by flight hours).

The report includes data submitted by participating ANSPs and reviewed by their peers. Due to differences in both operations and the availability of data, not all ANSPs provided data for each metric. However a considerable effort was made to include as many ANSPs as possible and the report team will continue to refine the data elements and KPIs with the aim of providing as complete a view of air navigation as possible.

“ Producing the Global Benchmarking report is a major piece of project management”

Quality of Service

“In Benchmarking ANSP performance, we felt we had to consider the quality of service provided to customers” argues Blythe. “Participating ANSPs believe benchmarking quality of service will help identify best practices, support investment decisions, and

improve credibility in discussions with customers. ANSPs are currently tracking their service quality using a variety of measures primarily focused on ATM delay.”

While the intent of the various measures of delay around the world is similar, the actual calculation methods vary. In the report the GBWG have established consistent definitions of delay by phase of flight. These delays are compared against optimal taxi and flight times as a baseline. A US-Europe comparison of ATM Performance was recently completed using definitions consistent with the CANSO team’s recommendations. Excerpts from this study as well as inputs from several other ANSPs are included in the main report.

Way Forward: Future Improvements“Over the last few years CANSO’s global benchmarking work has developed key performance indicators on air navigation service productivity, cost-effectiveness, pricing, profitability and most recently

FEATURE

CANSO fifth Global Benchmarking Report: The complete view of ANS

Wayne Blythe: ANSPs need to consider quality of service provided to customers.

FEATUREinitiated quality of service” explains Blythe. “Looking forward, operational experts from CANSO Member ANSPs are now focused on the development of performance metrics in all areas of ANSP activities.”

Examples of future indicators include Safety, Environment and Human Resources. CANSO’s Safety Standing Committee is developing safety performance metrics for IFR losses of separation, runway safety, safety maturity and safety culture. The Environment Workgroup is looking at global metrics

for climate change emissions, noise, local air quality, tranquility and visual intrusion, route and design performance. And in the area of Human Resources, metrics are under development for ATCO remuneration, overtime use, absenteeism, turnover, and retention.The Operational Data Sub Group of the GBWG has examined various traffic complexity and density metrics. The EUROCONTROL Performance Review Unit (PRU) measure of complexity is based on a combination of density (adjusted for spatial concentration of traffic), vertical interactions between

ANSP Key Performance AreasThe Benchmarking Report focuses on a wide range of metrics, but two in particular are important: Productivity and Cost Effectiveness. The productivity of ANSPs is measured by Continental flight hours per ATCO. Figure 1.1 below shows the relative productivity of the ANSPs who contributed to the report (a fully-identified version is available to participating CANSO Members.)

Figure 1.2 shows how the productivity by region has changed over the past four years. Based on these figures, two of the three regions – Americas and Europe – have increased productivity. However, caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions on trends, because the number of participating ANSPs has varied slightly year-on-year. For example, removing the ANSPs without at least three years of data shows a productivity decrease (1.2%) within Asia-Pacific. The drop in 2007 seems to be more of a function of participation than a change in operations.

Continental IFR Flight Hours per Continental ATCO in Operations by Region (fig 1.2)

600

950

1,300

1,650

2,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YEAR

Hou

rs

AMERICAS

2008

ASIA-PACIFIC

2008

EUROPE

2008

A study of the figures reveals that there seems to be an economy of scale, with larger ANSPs delivering more flight hours per continental ATCO in operations. Underlying factors of ATCO productivity may include labour laws, holiday schedules, seniority within the workforce, and working hours per ATCO in Operations, as well as economies of scale. Smaller ANSPs productivity will be affected by the need to maintain at least a minimum number of ATCOs in Operations on staff, despite the volume of traffic.

0

750

1,500

2,250

3,000

500

548

873

1,10

3

796

523

1,87

588

1

1,64

7

1,24

0

1,73

3

1,52

9

1,21

132

6

1,15

8

1,11

6

2,03

4

927

826

510

790

715

1,04

9

1,41

872

0

1,05

2

1,13

9

950

842

Continental IFR Flight Hours per Continental ATCO in Operations by ANSP 2008

Ho

urs

ANSP

2008 Average 1,036 1st Quartile 790 3nd Quartile 1,211

Hou

rs

Continental IFR Flight Hours per Continental ATCO in Operations by ANSP 2008 (fig 1.1)

ANSP


In the report the GBWG have established consistent definitions of delay by phase of flight.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1,732 1,796 1,785 1,934 1,973

1,572 1,485 1,463 1,222 1,210

816 810 824 851 881

200820082008

Continental Cost (USD) per Continental IFR Flight Hour by ANSP 2008 (fig 1.3)

Continental IFR Flight Hours per Continental ATCO in Operations by ANSP 2008

Ho

urs

ANSP$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$518

$1,7

63

$711

$569

$452

$765

$530

$259

$763

$335

$108

$598

$724

$778

$370

$511

$1,5

92

$800

$472

$796

$108

$779

$1,1

97

$437

$572

$635

$299

Continental Cost (USD) per Continental IFR Flight Hour by ANSP 2008

2008 Average $646 1st Quartile $444 3rd Quartile $771

On Cost Effectiveness, the metric used is Continental Cost per Continental IFR Flight Hour by ANSP (in USD). Figure 1.3 shows that the average cost is $646 with the first quartile averaging $444 and the third quartile falling at $771. Again, economy of scale is a major factor behind the range of cost effectiveness.

Continental Cost (USD) per Continental IFR Flight Hour by Region (fig 1.4)

$125.00

$268.75

$412.50

$556.25

$700.00

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

AMERICAS

2008

ASIA-PACIFIC

2008

EUROPE

2008

ANSP

YEAR


An analysis of these figures by region (figure 1.4) reveals that average ATCO continental employment costs are higher in Europe than in Asia-Pacific and the Americas. As employment costs usually comprise 25-50% of total ANSP costs, these figures are best evaluated in conjunction with changes in employment costs. More detail on employment costs by ANSP can be found in the full Global Benchmarking Report which is available from CANSO, to participating ANSPs.

aircraft, horizontal interactions and interactions arising from different aircraft speeds. The PRUs complexity values are available for 2004 to 2008 for all the ANSPs in EUROCONTROL member States.

In subsequent reports the GBWG will be examining trends in traffic complexity as a factor that may affect ANSP performance. A closer examination of traffic complexity provides a useful measure of examining ATCO workload, which is affected by factors like “potential conflicts, number of hand-

offs, heading and speed differences, aircraft proximity to each other and sector boundary, presence of weather, and number of aircraft.” The GBWG has discussed various ways of presenting and using this type of data and is interested in developing this in future reports.

Economic Crisis impacts

In a period when aviation has been under intense pressure due to the global economic crisis, the figures from this 2009 report, reflecting

2008 data, already show an impact. “The performance results reflected in this report highlight rising costs and reductions in revenue per IFR flight hour which confirm a downward trend in business conditions” explains Samantha Sharif. “These results foreshadowed the impact of the global economic recession but do not fully reflect the impact of this crisis on ANSPs due to the timing of financial year reporting. The next Global Performance report will provide a clearer view of the impact of the current economic crisis.”

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

$277 $285 $308 $323 $347

$266 $273 $281 $272 $288

$591 $599 $624 $673 $684

200820082008


Interview Alexander ter Kuile

Q: You’ve always been keen to emphasise that CANSO is first and foremost about the members. What is it about an Association that makes it special?

We must remember that an Association of ANSPs is a totally new concept and it requires a certain ‘leap of faith’ from ANSPs to even consider membership of such an association. 15 years ago ANSPs didn’t even exist as independent entities: they were arms of government, not seen as independent units. So the establishment of CANSO was in itself a revolution and is still seen as revolutionary in some quarters. The founding fathers of the Association were truly visionary when they had this dream of a global network of ANSPs because nobody had seen the benefit or need before.

When I started, the then Secretary General Derek McLaughlan made it clear to me that an Association is not a company, and that no-one in an association can behave as an emperor. In view of CANSO’s young age, a ‘consensus’ approach has been important for all members to accept the association and to build confidence and trust in this new “instrument”. I have always been very conscious of the fact that the Secretariat has to maintain

a high level of neutrality, which in my view is only possible with complete transparency. So in my work, I have always underlined the ‘secretary’ rather than the ‘general’.

At the same time, I also found it important and necessary for the secretariat to point out what it observes and provide some thought leadership on current and future challenges for the industry. Any industry association that is to continue to be relevant to its membership and the wider society must play this dual role of providing a service and challenging the status quo.

We have an incredibly diverse group of ANSPs as members, and at times, they don’t seem to have very much in common. Therein lies the difficulty of CANSO trying to be all things to all people. Our product range must appeal to a wide variety of ANSPs, and we must understand the needs of various types of ANSP and try to serve their needs. But at the same time, the Secretariat must always be of service to all, giving equal attention and equal importance to Members as far as possible. This can be very time consuming as the organisation grows. And then we also have our Associate Members who have expectations of their own.

Q: CANSO is considering its priorities for its next three years. What work programmes do you think CANSO should be focusing on?

Over the last nine years CANSO’s programmes have developed from “dipping our toes in the water” to “fully immersing” in the delivery of significant industry change. With CANSO now fully accepted by all industry partners, ANSPs find themselves challenged to engage in many different industry programmes and projects around the world. We seem to have moved from “untouchables” to popular partners. With the growth of the association to 105 members and the economy in crisis, much of the work and contribution is carried by a very small percentage of members. CANSO must reverse this trend, as this degree of non-engagement is increasing, which is not satisfactory to me.

However, let’s focus on what has been accomplished. The real excitement for me has been the launch of the Operations Standing Committee. This will be the “make or break” of CANSO. I see this Committee as the opportunity for ANSPs to take collective responsibility for the operational performance of the global ATM network, for them to act as a one unified force. Failure is not an option here. I believe

AIRSPACE PEOPLE

Alexander ter Kuile started his aviation career with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in their Flight Operations department. In 1985 he joined the Marketing & Sales department of aircraft manufacturer Fokker Aircraft, and in 1996 he joined the RAND Corporation. He then worked as a Director at Simat Helliessen & Eichner, an air transport consultancy, where he conducted airline privatisations and airline alliance partner selections in Asia, Africa and Europe. He also assisted CAAs and airport operators with a variety of strategic air transport issues, performed market research for regional aircraft manufacturers, aircraft leasing companies and several financial institutions. He joined CANSO in 2001, as its first full-time Secretary General.


that attendance at the Operations Committee should be compulsory for ANSP members, a clear expression of the leadership role that CANSO seeks. The Operations Committee must show that we mean business. If the ANSPs don’t commit to an effective Ops Committee, then their credibility within the industry will be badly damaged.

Our track record with the Safety Standing Committee is that CANSO can deliver products that are of value, such as global safety metrics and a SMS Standard of Excellence. We have achieved this even though it was a painful process as many members still see their own ATC operations as “the world’s best”. But I have found that these views contribute to the quality of our debate, as people who believe they are the best, strive for a higher outcome.

The initial founding fathers believed Benchmarking to be a core CANSO product, and I am very pleased that we now deliver an annual ANSP performance report that has real content. This benchmarking report must continue to evolve into an all-encompassing public report on ANSP performance, as such a report will significantly contribute to the credibility of the ANSPs and it serves as an important management tool for ANSPs to improve their performance.

Q: You have always seen industry engagement as a vital part of your role. Why is that?

If there is one area where my nine years in CANSO have changed the industry for the better, it is in the realm of industry collaboration. When I arrived ANSPs were the pariahs of the aviation industry, I even had to defend my decision to represent them. What we have achieved is a complete shift in how ANSPs are perceived by the aviation community. Today, ANSPs are seen as credible and reliable – possibly even visionary – partners in the industry. We often find ourselves as brokers between fellow stakeholders and though we have not yet engaged the industry colleagues everywhere or at all levels, at least we have agreement on the needs and requirements.

Though the ANSPs are on the right path with their national engagement, as CANSO we are still not at the right level of collective ANSP engagement of the industry. What I am particularly proud of is CANSO’s industry-leading position on the promotion of a new governance structure for the aviation industry: a united platform to set the strategic direction of the industry and to coordinate among the various industry sectors. The fact that CANSO promotes this idea gives the ANSPs a leadership position in the industry. Our recent work on aviation and the environment has shown the strength that the industry gains from a fully collaborative approach. CANSO’s contribution to the environment debate has broken down barriers and created a whole new understanding of the role of ATM in reducing emissions.

Q: Resourcing is always difficult for trade associations. The rise in fees in 2008 was the first rise in CANSO’s history and makes it difficult to raise them again soon. Is this sustainable, and if not, should the organisation respond by becoming more commercial, cutting back its programmes, or changing the way it works?

Well it’s important to remember the founding philosophy of CANSO: “We keep a small Secretariat and the members do the work themselves.” This philosophy has served us well during the development phase of the association, but its clear that in times of crisis when

members have to allocate resources to their own priorities, this philosophy endangers CANSO’s ability to meet its obligations. As the association matures, it is clear that greater continuity in programme resourcing is a necessity. I see full-time CANSO Directors for Safety, Operations and Transformation as a must and possibly a need for others too.

I think many members realise that we have been able to deliver a very effective CANSO on an absolute minimum of funding. Our operating budget remains tiny and CANSO’s fees are small in comparison to those of other associations. I am not advocating huge increases in fees, but a more realistic allocation of resources to agreed goals and objectives that are aligned with our mission. As the saying goes, “you get what you pay for” and the Secretariat can only do so much within a given budget.

Q: What is the most important element CANSO needs to move forward into a new era?

One word only: leadership. Leadership is essential in a period of change and from its very outset CANSO benefitted from the leadership of its founding fathers. Leadership can only result from empowered Managers and this is one essential element we need to see more of in ANSPs. It are the Governments that influence this through the arrangements they put in place. Less political interference in day-to-day management

Alexander was proud to be able to sign the aviation industry environmental declaration on behalf of the CANSO Members, as the Organisation took its place among the industry leaders in Geneva, 2008.


AIRSPACE PEOPLEwill go a long way to empowering ANSPs to shape their future and be more efficient and effective in service delivery. Without visionary leadership at all levels, the status quo will prevail in global ATM. And as the ANSP landscape changes, the role of CANSO will change accordingly. ANSP leadership is still very focused on the national environment and the performance of individual ANSPs. What is harder to achieve is ANSPs fully accepting their collective leadership for the global ATM system. At present this is mostly built on the personal dedication and commitment of individual CEOs. Very few leaders have CANSO written into their job description and so they commit themselves and their organisations on the basis of a personal vision, that investing in CANSO is worth it in the end.

When CANSO started such commitment was easier to attain for that generation of CEOs, because as leaders of newly corporatised ANSPs, they faced tremendous challenges and change programmes. CANSO was a very useful partner in that process. Now, those same ANSPs are facing different challenges, where CANSO’s role may be less pronounced, thus leading to a new relationship. Today, a new group of ANSPs is going through separation and internal change, so the challenge for CANSO is to keep itself relevant to both the initial and new groups of Members.

But I am optimistic: I must commend the CANSO Members for their unanimous support for leadership programmes such as ‘Imagine 2010’, which have given a clear edge to CANSO’s operations. It shows that the leadership is definitely there: it’s just that the job is going to get harder as the easy projects are completed, the hurdles get bigger and the size of the membership increases.

Q: CANSO has also engaged the States and ICAO. What are the key areas for progress in the short term?

As yet, I see too little recognition by States that ATM performance is the product of state policy-making and that states have direct responsibility here. States are too focused on enforcing regulations on ATM operations and technology, rather than on creating the right environment for performance-based organisations to operate, innovate and excel. States achieve this through institutional arrangements, appropriate governance, incentives, empowered

management and the right funding model for the ANSP. Today’s best practice in ATM clearly indicates that the strength of state arrangements for ANS dictate the efficiency, performance, and customer focus of the ANSP. Therefore if States take issue with the performance of their national service provider, they must first take a look at themselves, whether or not they have the right institutional framework and regulatory environment, rather than enforcing behaviour out of an ANSP locked in a sub-optimal straight jacket. It is much better to optimise performance through appropriate oversight mechanisms and incentives than through strict enforcement of behaviour. It makes me really sad when I still see bad government practices implemented around the world today.

At ICAO, CANSO has been successful in drawing state attention to the need for institutional and regulatory reform. It is, however, disappointing to see that States do not act on what is clearly seen to be best practice in policy-making

Q: In recent years CANSO has launched regional work programmes. Do you foresee that CANSO will go down the ACI route of having entirely separate regions, united under a single umbrella?

Well most of the CANSO regions are still in their infancy. The big exception is Europe, and this is primarily because the European States have devolved some of their sovereignty to the European Commission when it comes to aviation regulations. The European ANSPs have therefore a clear cause in which to band together to cooperate, namely in the creation of a Single European Sky and reform of Eurocontrol

Over the past nine years I have learned that ANSPs cooperate most effectively if they have a common cause or challenge, and in Europe, this is clearly the SES

regulations which have led to intense cooperation among ANSPs at all levels. These intensive dialogues have resulted in a shared feeling of responsibility for the European ATM system. It is not surprising that CANSO’s European operations serve as an example for other global regions. Today, we have an Asia-Pacific region focused on cooperation and the introduction of ADS-B. However, the region still lacks that one essential common project that benefits all ANSPs in the Asia-Pacific. I fear that the looming Asian capacity crisis may be that one unifying subject that focuses everybody’s mind on closer collaboration among ANSPs in the region. I just hope that APAC States will recognise the need for institutional reform in time to avoid gridlock. Let’s hope CANSO’s wake-up call is heard before it is too late.

What is unique to CANSO is that we bring global best-practice to work in our regions. If we look at the Middle East the capacity crisis is already clearly visible, and the situation was so urgent that CANSO was able to launch four work programmes in record time. I am immensely impressed by the ANSPs’ desire to cooperate, the speed of decision-making, and the willingness to involve CANSO expertise in Middle East ATM. It is now up to the ANSPs in the region to take control of these projects, and work with their global CANSO partners to deliver solutions before the negative effects of the capacity crunch become too severe.

I believe CANSO needs to consolidate and strengthen its current regional activities before it launches into further regional expansion. And it must do so through a strong, clear direction at global level. Personally, I do not believe that the world’s ATM system would benefit from CANSO becoming a federation. The whole point of CANSO is to reduce fragmentation and raise the performance of the global ATM system as a whole. Our strength lies in our ability to bring people together from around the world to learn from and cooperate with each other. Regions often suffer narrow minded “Group Think” and it is very refreshing to get views from outside. So, it is vitally important to maintain global objectives for the Association, such as those embodied in our Global Vision, supported by global and regional work programmes. Only then will we be able to make progress, and achieve the necessary influence, to reach the goal of seamless global air navigation services.

During Alexander’s time CANSO’s ICAO engagement has focused on drawing states’ attention to the need for institutional and regulatory reform.



The recent decision by the United States Federal Aviation Administration to grant System Design Approval to the Honeywell SmartPath Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) system is welcome news for a number of CANSO Members who have made commitments to the introduction of the new-generation precision approach and landing system based on augmented GPS – GBAS. DFS, Aena and Airservices Australia have engaged and supported Honeywell International in the development of its GBAS project for years and will finally install and operationally implement the SmarthPath GBAS ground system at their respective facilities in Bremen, Malaga and Sydney. The implementation of GBAS is consistent with the ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan 1 that acknowledges that “GNSS-centred Performance-Based Navigation enables a seamless, harmonised and cost-effective navigational service from departure to final approach that will provide benefits in safety, efficiency and capacity.” All three providers have acknowledged the intent in the ICAO plan and that replacing ILS with GBAS technology is identified in the FAA’s NextGen system plan and the Single European Sky ATM Research Program and have been working under EUROCONTROL and FAA International GBAS Working Group umbrella to assure a common strategy for the operational validation of the new GBAS CAT I systems.

In spite of the fact that there is no GBAS service in full operation yet, there are a number of air operators equipped and flying GBAS approaches including Qantas, Air Berlin, FedEx, Continental and Delta. The majority of aviation customers are not equipped yet, but in each case they have responded to a request from customers who are lead adopters of GBAS who wish to use the service.

In the longer term GBAS offers a replacement solution for the traditional instrument landing system for precision approaches. The following potential benefits have been identified for users of GBAS:

• A single GBAS ground facility provides up to 26 approaches enabling service for all runway at an airport to improve airport access, safety and land utilisation.

• GBAS does not need to be installed at the end of runways and can provide precision approach capability where an ILS cannot be sited.

• GBAS can support multiple approach paths with different glide slopes and touch down locations for the same runway end to improve airport capacity and environmental performance with the support of complementary ATC procedures and decision support tools.

• By overcoming ILS limitations such as beam bends and interference, GBAS-equipped aircraft operators can achieve safety and operational benefits and maximise the use of satellite navigation and automated systems.

• GBAS does not have ILS critical and sensitive area protection requirement and has the potential to increase runway throughput compared to the equivalent category of ILS.

• GBAS has lower support and maintenance costs including less frequent flight inspections, compared to ILS.

GPS-based RNAV and RNP systems introduce the first stage of space-based navigation, enabling efficient and repeatable flight paths. However, these systems by themselves are insufficient to meet the vertical accuracy and integrity performance requirements for precision approach. GPS augmented with GBAS (GPS/GBAS) closes this gap in satellite navigation now by initially enabling CAT-I1 and ultimately CAT-III2

operations. Further, GBAS may be used for guided missed approach, take-offs, curved approaches in terminal airspace and surface operations in the future.

DFS Approach

DFS has had the SmartPath ground station installed in Bremen since November 2008 after having performed flight trials successfully down to the non- precision minimum using the former GBAS prototype ground station. The next step is to obtain the German type approval and the required regulatory approval. Parallel further testing including flight trials will be conducted. The system in Bremen should be ready for unrestricted use down to Cat I Minimum in the second half of 2010.

The next step will be the installation of a GBAS System at Munich airport. Further installations will be analysed taking into consideration aircraft equipage rate and airport operating environment.

Furthermore DFS contributes to the development of GBAS CAT III requirements and validation.

In the long run GBAS is considered to be able to replace ILS.

Aena Approach

Coherently with ECAC and Eurocontrol Navigation Strategies Aena plans to progressively introduce GBAS CAT I procedures where applicable, Aena is integrating GBAS in the Spanish air navigation system. As a starting point to this process Aena is facing the great challenge of managing the operational approval of a new air navigation system within the SES (Single European Sky) Regulation framework. To fulfill such requirements a group of activities affecting every aspect of the service provision (maintenance, safety, security, AIS, etc.) will be carried out as well as in-depth system testing, performance

Approaching the future: GBAS in Germany, Spain and Australia



validation, and the concluding System Verification.

Once the GBAS CAT I system is successfully implemented at Malaga Airport, the proper operational experience is gained and according with the operator’s interests Aena will analyse the feasibility and benefits of new implementations.

On the other hand Aena intends to keep collaborating through the ICAO NSP panel and the European SESAR programme for the development and standardisation of GBAS CAT II/III concept.

Airservices Australia Approach

Australia intends to progressively implement the GBAS service initially to Category-I (CAT-I) minima. The ultimate goal is for GBAS to be an integral component of Australia’s next-generation satellite-based air navigation system. The first step is to replace the trial system in Sydney with the US FAA certified Honeywell SmartPath system.

The current implementation plan in Australia will focus on using the Sydney GBAS system to validate operational concepts to define safety, efficiency, capacity and environmental performance. A phased GBAS Program has commenced and the next milestone is to replace

the current trial GBAS system with SmartPath. An operational test and evaluation program will be conducted to confirm SmartPath system performance and detailed technical, operational and safety activities will be undertaken to integrate GBAS into Airservices’ operating environment and meet regulatory approval requirements in Australia.

Airservices plans on validating the GBAS benefits for operations different from ILS overlays through the research, development and trial of advanced GBAS-enabled procedures. The changes to ATC procedures, requirement for decision support tools and resultant impact on safe operations will be analysed to assess the feasibility of enhanced GBAS operations. The decision to expand GBAS across Australia will be based on the development of proven GBAS operational benefits, aircraft GLS equipage rate, airport operating environment and cross-industry cost/benefit analyses.

GBAS Service Subsystems (Source: FAA)

Sharing the airspace is an art

www.neaproviders.com, North European ANS Providers – Avinor: Norway, www.avinor.no · Finavia: Finland, www.finavia.fi · Irish Aviation Authority: Ireland, ww.iaa.ie Isavia: Iceland, www.isavia.is · Estonian Air Navigation Services: Estonia, www.eans.ee · LFV: Sweden, www.lfv.se · LGS: Lattvia, www.lgs.lv · Naviair: Denmark, www.naviair.dk

Unified & efficient ATM Services.We are world leading in the creation of greener, safer and more cost-efficient flights. North European ANS Providers remain dedicated to making airspace a growth market. Our mission is to promote border-free collaboration in the air, based on stringent standards of

efficiency, environmental sustainability and quality.

North European ANS Providers

Between limited capacity and unlimited potential,

there is one important word: how.

Air traffic congestion. Current systems stretched to capacity. Transformation begins with NextGen’s foundational En Route Automation Modernization system. Now a reality. Building a next generation air transportation system is all a question of how. And it is the how that makes all the difference.

314-55631_NextGen_Air.indd 1 20/10/08 17:13:06


FEATURE

CANSO’s Strategic Review, which will lead to a replacement for the ‘Imagine 2010’ programme, has started to gather pace, following the October Executive Committee meeting in Washington.

At the meeting, the CANSO Secretariat presented an in-depth analysis of the state of the ATM industry, looking at the different characteristics of ANSPs around the world, and their receptiveness to CANSO’s mission and priorities. The presentation identified three levels of ANSP: ‘Fully Capable’ ‘Self Improving’ and ‘Paradigm Shift’.

Fully Capable ANSPs are able to create and implement CANSO policies and guidance with no external help. In many cases they will already have put in place procedures and policies which go beyond the CANSO recommendations. ‘Self Improving’ ANSPs are ready and willing to use CANSO guidance.

They may also be contributing to the development of CANSO positions, and in some areas be class-leading, but in other areas, they require some assistance to implement CANSO tools and policies. It is these ANSPs whom CANSO targets with guidance and best practice, and they are able through exposure to CANSO Workgroups and material to self improve and raise their own performance. The third category, ‘Paradigm Shift’ refers to those ANSPs who are at the beginning of their maturity pathway and who require considerable support to implement fundamental tools for performance. The ability of CANSO to help these ANSPs is at present extremely limited, and substantial and sustained assistance is needed to enable these ANSPs to paradigm shift into the ‘self improving’ category.

Following this analysis, the ExCom held discussions on the kinds of material and resources CANSO would need if it wanted to widen its membership base particularly within the Self Improving category, and to genuinely help the paradigm shift category of ANSP. Those discussions are ongoing, with the Secretariat intending to present further proposals at the next ExCom meeting in Dubai, January.

As part of that process, the Secretariat has sent a survey to the Membership, asking them their views on the current CANSO work programmes, as they relate to the CANSO Global Vision. The Members have been asked to rate the importance of each of the ten elements of the global vision, and the current

work programmes under them. See box bottom left.

Importantly, the survey asks Members to rate the importance of these work areas not just to their own organisations, but also to the wider industry. This is consistent with CANSO’s desire to raise the performance of the entire ANS system, which requires Members to consider wider industry perspectives, even if these differ from their own immediate priorities.

CANSO strategic review gathers pace

There has already been a very positive response to the questionnaire, and the Secretariat will be reviewing the Members’ views prior to presenting the results at the January ExCom.

This is a crucial opportunity for the Membership to ensure that their priorities and needs are reflected in the ExCom discussions, and the Secretariat is anxious that all Members have a chance to input into this process. Members who have not yet responded to the questionnaire are invited to do so: the form is available to download at www.canso.org/memberquestionnaire. Please email the response back to the Secretariat at [email protected]

0 No value: CANSO should NOT be active in this area

1 Very low value: CANSO should monitor but inform interested members only when necessary

2 Minor value: CANSO should monitor and regularly inform a formal CANSO network of developments in this area

3 Quite valuable: CANSO should help facilitate members to actively pursue work in this area

4 Very valuable: A CANSO Workgroup should develop best practice and report to the Membership on their work in this area

5 Extremely valuable: CANSO should make this one of its top three priority work areas and develop policies, metrics and best practice guidance as a matter of urgency

Rating scale for importance

of CANSO work programmes

to Members

CANSO Members are being asked to rate the importance of the work programmes as they relate to CANSO’s Global Vision on the Future of Air Navigation Services.



As reported in a previous issue of Airspace magazine, the pressure is on to accept new types of aircraft as governments and commercial interests are looking for ways to increase the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). While the number of UAS movements remains small in comparison to total movements, the number of operations has increased rapidly over the past few years.

Emerging UAS applications are requiring access to all classes of airspace, including non-segregated airspace, with increasing frequency. The integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace is complex and dependent on many factors, and it has become necessary to understand the minimum performance requirements a UAS must achieve in order to operate seamlessly and predictably in non-segregated airspace, without adversely impacting on safety, security or efficiency.

Quite early on the point was made that the introduction of UASs in non-segregated airspace can place additional demands on various elements of the ATM system, particularly surveillance and communications, if not properly prepared for. This will have an adverse impact on efforts to increase efficiency, and overall capacity.

It has therefore been the position of ANSPs that the presence of UAS in non-segregated airspace must not impede the ATC function or place a burden on it greater than would an increase in conventional (manned) aircraft. Nor must UAS impede the flow of air traffic within the en route airspace structure and place additional demands on airspace management.

The introduction of UAS in non-segregated airspace is a safety issue. Currently, there are no internationally harmonised airworthiness standards for UASs. Only through an understanding of the airworthiness capabilities of UASs can access to non-segregated airspace be facilitated in a safe, secure and efficient manner.

A delay in addressing these issues may result in ANSPs having to accommodate ad hoc, inefficient and potentially disruptive UAS operations. And, as UAS technology progresses rapidly; can regulators keep pace with these developments? Currently, it can take up to two years to file a flight plan for a UAS. This is unacceptable both for the users of the UAS and the ANSPs who need to spend a considerable amount of time coordinating with one another. Serious concerns exist regarding the formulation of air navigation services regulations in respect of UAS.

ICAO recognised this several years ago and two exploratory meetings were subsequently held to which CANSO was invited. It was concluded that work on technical specifications for UAS operations was well underway both within RTCA and EUROCAE, and that ICAO should serve as a focal point to ensure global interoperability and harmonization. ICAO was to develop the regulatory concept, coordinate the development of UAS SARPs, and contribute to the development of technical specifications by other bodies.

Thus, the ICAO UAS Study Group was established in 2007 and CANSO has participated in this activity through the support of Mr. Jeff MacDonald of NAV CANADA and Mr. Göran Lindqvist of LFV-Sweden.

“UAS operations range from micro UAS with minor equipage, to very sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles able to climb and operate up to FL600 and anywhere in between, impacting all types of airspace. CANSO’s participation in the rule-making process on behalf of the ANSP community is therefore of major interest to us all” says Lindqvist. “The ICAO UASSG has already identified that the introduction of UAS will introduce changes to a majority of the Annexes to the Convention and many ICAO guidance documents, some to a large extent. Since there are still many unknown factors concerning UAS certification and subsequent operational requirements that will impact ATM, these issues have so far not been addressed in depth. I foresee a step-wise approach during the upcoming years to capture, analyse and propose amendments to the rules governing the core areas of interest to ATM.”

During its first meeting, the UASSG identified a number of issues that needed to be addressed: the definition and characteristics of a UAS; the complexities involved in the development of airworthiness and operational approval programs; and accommodating UAS operations at aerodromes. In addition, terms and definitions, taxonomy for classification of aircraft, and UAS operations crossing international borders were found to be important issues.

Accommodating UAS: adapting the regulatory framework

The ICAO UAS Study Group: Jeff MacDonald (top of left escalator) and Göran Lindqvist (middle right on stairs, black shirt) lead the CANSO input. Leslie Cary (middle, front row) represents ICAO (see Q&A p.24).


To begin the work, task groups were formed to review the broad subjects identified and to begin the process of reviewing the ICAO Annexes for possible amendment. The outcome of the work will be used as content for an ICAO Circular, which would provide high level information on UAS. The goal was to identify the requirements which must be met for the safe and efficient integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace and aerodromes. This document is but the first step in reaching that goal.

While a Guidance Manual on UAS is a longer-term project, the Circular will provide the basis of the regulatory framework for UAS. It will be subject to final review by the UASSG during its fourth meeting in February and a final draft version is expected to be available

on the ICAO website by mid-2010.Interest in the work of the UASSG has continued to grow, and by its third meeting twenty one members, thirteen advisers and two observers from thirteen States and nine international organizations were in attendance – quite a large number for an ICAO study group. It continues to be important that CANSO participate in the UASSG in order to ensure that ATS concerns are addressed and that ANSP expertise is offered in the development of new standards and recommended practices.

From the start, CANSO has favoured a coordinated and global approach to addressing the challenges of integrating UAS operations in non-segregated airspace. Its support of the ICAO process is seen as an opportunity to avoid a

Q&A Leslie Cary, Technical Officer, ATM Section, ICAO

Q. Is the work progressing at a pace and along a timeline that was originally anticipated by ICAO? Will it meet the needs/expectations of States and the regulatory community?

ICAO recognised from the outset that development of a full regulatory framework for UAS would take time. Developing performance-based Standards before the technologies are developed could take us in the wrong direction, yet waiting until those technologies are in place before agreeing on Standards would be equally inappropriate. The UASSG is, I believe, in a good position to keep pace with the needs of the States and industry.

Q. As Secretary of the ICAO UASSG, which has turned out to be a rather large study group, what have been your biggest challenges?

The real challenge for the UASSG and myself as Secretary has been determining how to approach the issue of integrating UAS into the existing ICAO framework. Virtually all aspects of aviation are affected one way or another. Finding a way to narrow the focus into a manageable work programme has meant making difficult choices on priorities. Much debate was involved in this process, with a wide range of perspectives represented within the UASSG. I am satisfied we have reached consensus on a constructive way forward. We are now in a position to begin working with the many technical panels of the Air Navigation Commission to ensure the right group of experts can address the pertinent SARPs in a coordinated manner.

Q. The ICAO Circular will be issued mid-2010 – what will be the next steps, deliverables and timelines?

The UASSG is currently working on a proposal for satisfying the mandate of Article 8 of the Chicago Convention that all UAS obtain special authorisation prior to entering airspace above territory of Contracting States. We are working closely with the ICAO Legal Bureau on this proposal which is expected to become an appendix to Annex 2 – Rules of the Air. The UASSG is also developing a list of terms necessary for advancing the UAS work, considering those already in common use and the existing ICAO lexicon. Establishing a single lexicon that correctly captures the intended meaning of each term is fundamental to developing the regulatory framework that will support global harmonisation.

Q. Has the input from CANSO (supported by Jeff MacDonald, NAV CANADA and Göran Lindqvist, LFV-Sweden), as well as a number of other individual ANSPs, been useful in focusing the UASSG on the pertinent issues?

The CANSO participants have been instrumental in leading many of the ATM-related discussions in the UASSG and coordinating task development between meetings. I believe that all ANSPs will benefit from the contributions made by Jeff and Göran.

fragmented approach to regulation. We also believe that harmonisation of the UAS environment could help progress global harmonisation of ANS provision for traditional aircraft.

As Jeff MacDonald puts it, “The work of the UASSG is essential to the harmonised, seamless and safe integration of UAS operations into the current aviation environment. At the same time, the UASSG, through the wide cross section of expertise represented in the group, is both forward-looking and innovative in its approach to developing guidance material and the eventual SARPs for UASs. CANSO is playing an essential role, ensuring the issues of ANSPs worldwide are properly addressed by and reflected in the deliberations of the UASSG.”



The UAS market is growing tremendously, with all kind of new systems being developed for all kind of different purposes – is the regulatory community keeping pace with these developments?

Well in a sense I think I can turn the question around and say “is industry keeping pace with the regulators?” We already have regulations in place, and the key challenge is to get type certification agreed. This process is not achieved overnight, but yes, the regulators have taken the challenge on board and we are building the certification standards to ensure the safety of the airspace. Could it be a bit faster? Maybe; but has anyone been hurt yet? No. We are going down the road, in the short term, of non-certified aircraft being allowed under carefully controlled conditions, by putting in place mitigation procedures such as segregated airspace. And this is nothing new; ANSPs have been using such techniques for experimental aircraft or aerobatic displays for years. So we have a way forward.

The safe integration of UASs in non-segregated airspace is the primary concern of ANSPs – can this be achieved in a timeframe that is both suitable for industry and the regulatory community?

We have a target for defining certification specifications for various types of unmanned aircraft within five years. We have a lot of dynamic discussions at the moment and I can say that the specifications will be demanding, because we have to remember that these aircraft are going to be operating over cities and in congested airspace and so on. The real question will be, once the specifications are published, will industry be able to build to that standard and make it cost-effective? It’s too early to be sure, but we have to assume that with the

tremendous variety of applications for these aircraft, that there will be a market.

But in the meantime, we are already involved in helping with existing – predominantly military – unmanned systems in use. The German military is about to start operating the Euro Hawk, as is the American Military with Global Hawk in Italy. The Flemish government in Belgium is examining operations too, and a multi-national team from the Arctic Survey is planning an environmental project using UASs. So we are dealing with these issues on a case-by-case basis.

aim for, which is to publish a global unified regulatory framework for all civil aviation which includes unmanned aircraft. And I think that ICAO is getting up to speed with this and coming to understand the magnitude of that task.

Importantly, everyone recognises the need to regard UAS as simply another evolution in the history of aviation, much as 50 years ago when the jet engine revolutionised the industry. And who knows, in 50 years time we could be dealing with completely autonomous aircraft. So unmanned vehicles are a clear step along an evolutionary path.

Holger Matthiesen Eurocontrol UAS/ATM integration manager

Holger Matthiesen believes that the real question is whether the industry will be able to build to satisfy the expected standards and still be cost-effective.

As chairman of the ICAO UASSG, which has turned out to be a rather large study group, what have been your biggest challenges?

Well the normal size of a study group is about 5 people, and the UASSG is now about 35 strong, so it is large. But I see this as a positive sign of the importance of this issue, both to ICAO and the rest of the aviation world. We have received our terms of reference from the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau and we’ve been given a clear mandate to, as a first step, help ICAO understand what it must

An ICAO Circular is about to be issued that will provide some guidance on the regulatory framework – what will be the next steps, deliverables and timelines?

The ICAO circular is the first of five deliverables which the group must deliver to the ANB. The aim of the circular is to give a high-level ICAO perspective on UAS regulations, or in other words, to tell the world what ICAO is thinking on where regulation is most needed i.e. sense and avoid. The aim is to be able to produce this relatively

AIRSPACE PEOPLE


quickly; the draft is going through final changes this month and will be presented to the UASSG/4 meeting in February, with the objective of putting it on the ICAO website and generally promoting it to the aviation world in 2010.

You’ve mentioned the UASSG/4 meeting which will be held in Johannesburg in February – what other issues are on the table there?

We are working on a Gap analysis of all 18 Annexes to give our professional assessment of where additional rules and regulations will be necessary, for example in licencing. This exercise will be extremely valuable for coordinating with other ICAO departments: for instance Annex 8 Airworthiness. Our gap analysis may expose the need for new regulation in this area, but the regulations themselves will be drawn up by the relevant ICAO panels with direct support from UASSG. So it is really all about communication.

We’ll also be presenting the first draft of the group’s ICAO UAS Work Programme. The aim is to set realistic, challenging goals that meet short-term and long-term

needs. Again, it is about communicating to ICAO the priorities which the UAS community feel needs to be tackled most urgently, such as Spectrum, Sense and Avoid and Security. These issues may fall across one or more of the ICAO Annexes and we will prepare short and long term Gantt charts for each.

How has the input from CANSO (supported by Jeff MacDonald, NAV CANADA and Göran Lindqvist, LFV-Sweden), as well as a number of other individual ANSPs, been perceived?

The involvement of CANSO has been extremely valuable. Göran for example has huge amounts of experience on UAS matters and EUROCONTROL has worked with him and his team at LFV on various ATM projects (including UAS) going back many years. Eugene Hoeven’s commitment as, if you like, ‘corporate’ CANSO, shoes the importance the Association attaches to the issue, which give a solidity to CANSO’s presence. Having the ANSP viewpoint is essential, particularly with regard to the feasibility of specific risk mitigation strategies at

the level of direct service provision. Leadership is also vital and Jeff for example played a prominent role in providing leadership on key work items at our last meeting. So it’s great to have CANSO there and we can only hope their commitment is long term.

Given the difficult economic times, this activity may become a bit de-prioritised although it still remains important – how can we keep the momentum going and address the resourcing issue?

Actually I haven’t noticed a noticeable slackening in UASSG momentum this year, despite the obvious financial pressures. This clearly reinforces the importance of the issue and the interest in being part of the study group is an example that organisations are prepared to put resources in if they see the value of the work. Having said that of course, there are pressures, both at ICAO, and at EUROCONTROL. There we have seen some resources diverted to SESAR, but we are still very much committed to the UAS work programmes and the international cooperation projects underway.

• Hard-copy subscription • ATM News

AIRSPACE QUARTER ONE 2008 �

journal of the civil air navigation services organisation

ISSUE 0� QUARTER ONE 2008

AIRSPACE PEOPLE

Scott CarsonCEO Boeing Commercial Aircraft

ENVIRONMENT

The next steps

for ANSPs

SES 2

Progress

in 2008?

CUSTOMERS AND MARKETS

How new aircraft and new

economies are changing ATM forever

PLUS

News, Comment and Information from ANSPs worldwide

AIRSPACE QUARTER 2/3 2008 1

journal of the civil air navigation services organisation ISSUE 02 QUARTER 2/3 2008

Brave New World:How CANSO is going to transform the business of air navigation

ASIA-PACIFIC SPOTLIGHT:CANSO’s New Regional OfficeCustomer perspective – Cathay Pacific’s Owen Dell

ADS-B in the South China Sea

PLUS

Dieter Kaden, Philippe Rochat, Letter from Americaand much more from the world of ATM

SUBSCRIBETO AIRSPACETODAY

www.canso.org/subscribe

AIRSPACE PEOPLE


INSIDE CANSO

Focus on… CANSO European Regional Office

“It has certainly been a challenging time for the office” explains Guenter Martis, “but I feel that it is all part of the inevitable changes that come as an organisation grows and develops. Marie did a remarkable job in establishing the CANSO European Region, and now it is my task to take that further. I am very excited by the developments we are planning for 2010, and I am certain that CANSO’s European work programme will be even stronger next year.”

There are a number of key developments planned which will be extremely important for the European office. An announcement on a new Director of ATM Operations will be made by January, and there are also plans to increase the level of available communications resources. With key decisions being made on the Single European Sky II, SESAR, EASA, and the FAB’s across Europe, CANSO will need every tool at its disposal to stay on top of the debates.

CANSO’s European policies are directed by the European CANSO CEO Committee (EC3). The current chairman, Knut Skaar (CEO of Avinor) feels that CANSO is now a respected voice in European ATM affairs: “In recent years CANSO has really developed its positions to a level where we are regarded very seriously indeed by our industry partners and political stakeholders,” he says. “To achieve this in just seven years, and then to attract someone of Guenter Martis’ experience to take the Office forward, is a testament not only to the management in place, but also to the European ANSPs who have come together and reached unified positions.”

Not only have CANSO’s European Members succeeded in harmonising

their own views, they have also cooperated effectively with other industry associations. The Industry Consultation Body, created to direct reforms to Eurocontrol, has been a strong advert for the advantages that come from industry speaking with one voice. There was considerable doubt on the part of some regulators that the various aviation sectors would succeed in reaching common positions, but they have been pleasantly surprised by the level of consensus, and much of this has been down to CANSO’s efforts. Similar challenges now await on issues such as a the social dialogue, a roadmap for EASA on ATM safety regulation, and discussions on the future institutional development of European ATM.

Meeting) works under the guidance and instructions of the EC3 to develop policies and actions on questions of strategic interest. The CECM deals with issues including EUROCONTROL, the Single European Sky (SES) and the discussions with the European branches of the other industry associations.

A number of groups such as Operations, Charging, Aeronautical Information and Interoperability exist to further European policies and spread best practice. They operate in the context of CANSO’s global strategic and policy framework and meet on an ad hoc basis to tackle specific issues as they emerge.

There are 28 Members of the European Office, ranging from small providers like

The CANSO European Regional Office has undergone some significant changes in the last few months. New Director of European Affairs Guenter Martis has succeeded Marie Desseaux, while Director of ATM Operations Jaan Tamm returned to Estonia to lead their aviation academy, and will be replaced in the New Year. Vanessa Rullier has been promoted to Manager Regulatory and Social Affairs, a reflection of the increased role she has been performing, especially in the areas of the performance scheme, safety (primarily EASA issues) and social dialogue activities.

The European CANSO CEO Committee (EC3) engages in detailed strategy work on European ATM regulation.

CANSO’s European members contribute to the association’s activities via a number of groups and committees. The CECM (CANSO European Coordination

Luxembourg to the largest European ANSPs. Each member has an equal voice and is invited to contribute to the EC3 and other committees. Guenter


Martis is clear that the value of CANSO rests on the fact that it is able to draw on such a wide basis of support. “Because we are seen as the genuine voice of all the ANSPs in Europe, we have a unique ability to speak with industry stakeholders and regulators. The changes facing European ATM are such that it needs every single ANSP to be part of the change process, and therefore CANSO is an essential platform for all parties to come together and work towards improving ANS in the region.”

As Director of European Affairs, Guenter’s role is principally to coordinate and align CANSO European policies, and then ensure that they are relayed to the appropriate individual or influential body. Typically this involves a heavy schedule of meetings, teleconferences and one-on-one discussions with key stakeholders, as well as essential policy formulation, technical and legal appraisal, and the writing of papers, formal letters

Guenter Martis explains the key issues facing European ATM in 2010Guenter Martis explains the key issues facing European ATM in 2010

“We’ve got some vital decisions due this year, and some key messages we want to put across. Firstly, we have a major

conference on Single European Sky in Madrid in February. The Spanish Presidency of the EU begins in January, and with the long-standing Spanish interest in SES, they will undoubtedly be looking to make significant progress. So we have an opportunity to explain that we need greater leadership from the States if the building blocks of SES are to be in place on time. We have seen in recent months, through the announcements by FAB UK/IRE and FAB EC, that ANSPs are ready to implement incredible change, but now it is time for States to take the political steps that will be necessary to take the process forward.

We will also be asking for funding to help implement the new technologies needed to make the most of SES. The investment needed to realise the potential aviation capacity and environmental efficiency gains from ATC modernisation is very modest when set against the amounts being invested by Europe on rail and road infrastructure. All the European aviation partners need to be more outspoken on the case for this.

We’ve also got some vital decisions to make on EASA. We recently prepared our ‘Roadmap’ which contains several vital requests. EASA is asking for considerable investment in time and human resources from the ANSPs, and while we welcome the opportunity to work with EASA to develop their work plans, we must be confident that the effort the industry puts in to this process is not in vain. EASA needs to understand the correct limits of its authority and competence, just as the industry needs to embrace the new arrangements for aviation safety that this new organisation will bring. It is our belief that EASA must first focus on getting its initial rulemaking activity correct, before it tries to focus on more ambitious plans.

And finally, a key priority has got to be to support the changes taking place in Eurocontrol. Director-General David McMillan understands the need for change and is working to implement ambitious reforms. We must help him by ensuring that the industry – through the Air Navigation Services Board – has a united position and a clear, common voice. Our aims are clear: the fundamental separation of regulatory support from service provision and support to service provision within Eurocontrol, and the governance system in place to reflect that, is our overriding requirement.”

and position statements. Guenter acknowledges that this has him shuttling regularly between Central Brussels and the CANSO Office at Steenokkerzeel, but he is quick to praise Belgocontrol for their hospitality.

“The generous gift of office space from Belgocontrol is much appreciated by all us in the European Office,” he says. “We all recognise that in a time of economic crisis, we must all justify our resources to ensure that they offer value-for-money. The fact that the European Office was able to offer a reduction in fees last year shows that we recognised the need to be flexible. With an improving economic outlook in 2010 however, I am looking forward to being able to maximise our available resources, and deliver our vital and ambitious programme in 2010.”

Go to www.canso.org/europe for more information on CANSO’s European office, work programmes, and Members.

Knut Skaar: “European ANSPs have come together and reached unified positions.”


INSIDE CANSO

CANSO – The Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation – is the global voice of the companies that provide air traffic control, and represents the interests of Air Navigation Services Providers worldwide. CANSO members are responsible for supporting over 85% of world air traffic, and through our Workgroups, members share information and develop new policies, with the ultimate aim of improving air navigation services on the ground and in the air. CANSO also represents its members’ views in major regulatory and industry forums, including at ICAO, where we have official Observer status.

JOINING CANSOThe membership of CANSO is drawn from a wide range of ANSPs and companies involved with the delivery of air traffic services. Membership offers them the chance to network formally and informally, exchange best practice, and

Who We Are and What We Do

Aena – SpainAEROTHAI – ThailandAirports Authority of IndiaAirservices AustraliaAirways New ZealandANS of the Czech Republic ATNS – South AfricaBULATSA – BulgariaAustro Control – AustriaAvinor – NorwayAZANS – Azerbaijan Belgocontrol – BelgiumCAA – UgandaCAAS – SingaporeDFS – GermanyDHMI – TurkeyDSNA – FranceEANS – EstoniaENAV SpA – ItalyFAA – USAFinavia – FinlandGACA – Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaGCAA – United Arab EmiratesHellenic Civil Aviation Authority HungaroControlIrish Aviation AuthorityISAVIA – IcelandKazaeronavigatsia – Kazakhstan

LFV – SwedenLGS – LatviaLPS Slovak RepublicLuxembourg ANALVNL – the NetherlandsMATS – MaltaNAATC – Netherlands Antilles NAMA – NigeriaNANSC – EgyptNATA – AlbaniaNATS – UKNAV CANADANAV PortugalNaviair – DenmarkOACA – TunisiaOro Navigacija – LithuaniaPANSA – PolandPristina International Airport J.S.C.ROMATSA – RomaniaSakaeronavigatsia Ltd – GeorgiaSENEAM – MexicoSercoskyguide – SwitzerlandSlovenia ControlSMATSA – SerbiaState ATM Corporation – Russia UkSATSE – Ukraine

contribute to CANSO Workgroups, delivering the standards and policies that will drive the future development of Air Navigation Services.

Full (ANSP) Membership is open to all ANSPs, regardless of whether or not they are autonomous of their government. Associate members can apply for either Gold or Silver status, which brings differing levels of access to CANSO Workgroups and event and advertising discounts. All members get a free listing in the CANSO Yearbook, and have access to the Global ATM Net, an extranet that is the hub of CANSO’s activities, and home to an extensive member database.

For further information on joining CANSO, please contact Marc-Peter Pijper on +31 (0)23 568 5380 or email [email protected]

Full Members Associate MembersGold MembersBoeingEra CorporationFREQUENTIS AGGroupEAD Europe S.L.ITT CorporationLockheed MartinMetron AviationRaytheonSELEX Sistemi Integrati S.p.A.Sensis CorporationThales

Silver MembersAdacel Inc.AirbusARINCATC Global (UBM Information Ltd)ATCA – JapanAviation Advocacy SarlAvitech AGBarco Orthogon GmbH Booz Allen HamiltonComsoft GmbHEADS Defence & SecurityEntry Point North

Fokker Services B.V.Globecomm Systems Inc.GM Merc A/SHarris CorporationHeliosHITT TrafficIDS – Ingegneria Dei Sistemi S.p.A.Indra SistemasIntegra A/SIntelcan Technosystems Inc.JeppesenL-3 Communications ESSCO Lochard EMSThe MITRE Corporation – CAASDM.L.S. International CollegeNaverus, Inc.Northrop Grumman – Park Air SystemsPA Consulting Group A/SQinetiQQuintiqSaab ABSITASwedavia ABTerma A/SUbitech Systems, Inc.U.S. DoD Policy Board on Federal AviationWIDE

Light area illustrates airspace controlled by CANSO members

Next-Generation Surveillance. Delivered. Today.

Next-Generation Surveillance. Delivered. Today.

Proven Multilateration and ADS-B Surveillance Solutions

With customers in over 40 countries around the world, Era a.s. is the world’s most proven

provider of operational ADS-B and multilateration surveillance solutions. An SRA International. Inc.

subsidiary, Era possesses the strength and resources to be the trusted partner of the world’s leading

ANSPs today and in the future. www.sra.com/era

The World Depends on Era

airspace 7

Documents

copyright canso

opinions of canso

canso column luis ramirez

canso strategic review

airspace management

cansos new director

airspace capacity

skies safe