nm network operations report 2013 - annex ii - acc · nm network operations report 2013 - annex ii...

NM Network Operations Report 2013 - ANNEX II - ACC

ANNEX II: ACC CAPACITY EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC .................................................................................................................. 5

3. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC ....................................................................................................................... 6

4. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC ................................................................................................................... 7

5. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC ................................................................................................................ 8

6. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC ....................................................................................................................... 9

7. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC ....................................................................................................................10

8. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC ......................................................................................................................11

9. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC.....................................................................................................12

10. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC .......................................................................................................13

11. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC ....................................................................................................................14

12. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC ................................................................................................15

13. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC ..................................................................................................................16

14. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC ................................................................................................................17

15. FRANCE BREST ACC ........................................................................................................................18

16. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC ................................................................................................................19

17. FRANCE PARIS ACC..........................................................................................................................20

18. FRANCE REIMS ACC .........................................................................................................................21

19. FYROM SKOPJE ACC ........................................................................................................................22

20. GERMANY BREMEN ACC ..................................................................................................................23

21. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC ...........................................................................................................24

22. GERMANY LANGEN ACC ..................................................................................................................25

23. GERMANY MUNICH ACC ...................................................................................................................26 24. GREECE ATHENS ACC ......................................................................................................................27

25. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC ..............................................................................................................28

26. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC ..............................................................................................................29

27. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC ......................................................................................................................30

28. IRELAND SHANNON ACC .................................................................................................................31

29. ITALY BRINDISI ACC .........................................................................................................................32

30. ITALY MILAN ACC ..............................................................................................................................33

31. ITALY PADOVA ACC ..........................................................................................................................34

32. ITALY ROME ACC ..............................................................................................................................35

33. LATVIA RIGA ACC .............................................................................................................................36

34. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC ..................................................................................................................37

NM Network Operations Report 2013 - ANNEX II - ACC 1


35. MALTA MALTA ACC ..........................................................................................................................38

36. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC ................................................................................................................39

37. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC .........................................................................................40

38. NORWAY BODO ACC ........................................................................................................................41

39. NORWAY OSLO ACC .........................................................................................................................42

40. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC .............................................................................................................43

41. POLAND WARSAW ACC ...................................................................................................................44

42. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC ..................................................................................................................45

43. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC ............................................................................................................46

44. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC ...................................................................................47

45. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC ..........................................................................................48

46. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC ............................................................................................................49

47. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC ..................................................................................................................50

48. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC ......................................................................................................................51

49. SPAIN MADRID ACC ..........................................................................................................................52

50. SPAIN PALMA ACC ............................................................................................................................53

51. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC .........................................................................................................................54

52. SWEDEN MALMO ACC ......................................................................................................................55

53. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC .............................................................................................................56

54. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC ..........................................................................................................57

55. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC ............................................................................................................58

56. TURKEY ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC .................................................................................................59

57. UKRAINE DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC ...............................................................................................61

58. UKRAINE KYIV ACC ...........................................................................................................................62

59. UKRAINE L’VIV ACC ..........................................................................................................................63

60. UKRAINE ODESA ACC ......................................................................................................................64

61. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC ...........................................................................................................65

62. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC ....................................................................................................66

63. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC .......................................................................................................67

64. UNITED KINGDOM PRESTWICK ACC ..............................................................................................68



INTRODUCTION The following annex provides a detailed analysis of ATC capacity evolution in 2013 for ACCs within the ECAC States for which data is available. The source of statistics is the NMOC unless otherwise indicated. The analysis covers: • Traffic & Delay

The chart and data table provide comprehensive information concerning the evolution of traffic and delay from 2009 to 2013 (where data is available). It includes the following values: ─ Peak day traffic is the number of flight entries to the ACC on the peak day of each year. ─ Summer & Yearly Traffic is the daily average number of flight entries during the summer

season (May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December). ─ Summer & Yearly Enroute Delay is the average enroute delay per flight (including weather

and special events e.g. industrial action), attributed to the ACC during the summer season (May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December).

• 2013 Realisation of Capacity Plan ─ Traffic Evolution gives the percentage difference between the total traffic (number of flight

entries) in 2013 compared to 2012, for the summer and the full year. ─ Enroute Delay gives the number of minutes per flight of enroute delay attributed to all causes

and also excluding delays attributed to weather and special events. Values are provided for the summer and the full year.

─ ACC Reference Value per ACC is the delay breakdown to achieve the European delay target of 0.6 min/flight for the full year, and 0.85 min/flight in the Summer season, as published in the NOP 2013-2015.

─ ACC Capacity Baseline – Offered: ACCESS or Reverse CASA was used to measure the capacity actually offered by the ACC during the reference periods (3-16 June 2013, 8-21 July 2013). This is calculated from actual delay (Reverse CASA) or from projected delay (ACCESS). Projected delay is obtained by increasing the traffic and creating a regulation scheme for the studied ACC using traffic volume capacities and configuration data (sector opening schemes) provided by ANSPs.

─ Capacity Plan (increase for Summer 2013) is the percentage value provided by ANSPs in the Network Operations Plan 2013-2015. This figure represents the ANSP commitment to increasing ACC capacity for Summer 2013, when compared to Summer 2012.

─ Capacity enhancement: planned enablers This information was taken from the local capacity plan in the Network Operations Plan 2013-2015. An indication is given as to whether each measure was implemented as planned.

─ Summer 2013 Performance Assessment This provides an analysis of the observed performance and of the achievement of the planned capacity increase. ACC performance has been assessed by analysing traffic and delay statistics for each ACC and the evolution of the capacity baseline. Where relevant, other significant factors were also taken into account, such as industrial action or planned major events that resulted in a temporary reduction in capacity.

• Allocation of and reasons for Enroute delay

The table lists the reference locations (sectors) causing most of the ACC delay, the number of minutes of enroute delay attributed to each location and the percentage of the total ACC enroute delay. The graph shows the total ATFM enroute delay generated by each ACC, broken down into the 5 most significant reasons given for the delay in 2013 compared to 2012.

Note: The scale on all graphs varies from ACC to ACC - graphs should not be directly compared.



1. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC Traffic & Delay

LAAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 745 831 880 926 984

Summer Traff ic 559 617 671 666 704

Yearly Traff ic 442 497 541 533 550

Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0

Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2013 Realisation of Capacity Plan

The average en-route delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight during Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments ATS route network improvements Yes Capacity benefits from new ATM system Yes Net availability of 3 additional ATCOs (July) Yes STCA No In the system but not active. We are in the testing phase. Implementation of ILS CAT1 procedures Yes Reassessment of sector capacities with CAPAN Yes MET services for upper levels No In 2014 MFCR with LIBB Yes Maximum configuration: 4 sectors (3 ENR + 1 APP) Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline of 65 was calculated with ACCESS and represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 58 and the peak 3 hour demand was 52.

Tirana LAAA ACC

Traffic Evolution (2013 v 2012) Enroute Delay (min. per flight)

Capacity gap?

ACC Capacity Baseline

(% difference v 2012) Traffic Forecast Actual

Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference

Value Current Routes

Shortest Routes

Year H: 3.1% B: 0.6% L: -1.8%

No sig. impact

+3.0% 0.0 0.0 0.26 Summer +5.8% 0.0 0.0 0.38 No 65 (0%)



2. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC Traffic & Delay

UDDDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Summer Traff ic 135 150 162 156 143

Yearly Traff ic 133 145 157 153 143



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: STATFOR


Capacity Plan : Sufficient Capacity to meet demand Comments Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 12 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 9.

Yerevan UDDD ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.2% B: 2.5% L: 1.3%

+9% -6.4% 0.0 0.0 0.05

Summer -8.4% 0.0 0.0 0.07 No 25 (0%)



3. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC Traffic & Delay

LOVVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.4

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2565 2598 2782 2788 2733

Summer Traff ic 2269 2293 2347 2303 2275

Yearly Traff ic 1976 1969 2015 1961 1916



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight for all reasons remained at 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 34% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 8% for ATC Staffing, 14% for Special event, 10% for Equipment (ATC) and 33% for Weather. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Enhanced sectorization according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Yes Improved operational procedures including FMP/AMC Yes ATS route network improvements Yes Sector configuration management Yes 1 additional controller Yes COOPANS Yes Maximum configuration: 12 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 180 was calculated with ACCESS, showing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 167 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 155.

Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Delay Year Reference

LocationAvg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LOVVNSL 92 18.8%2013 LOVVNLU1 76 15.5%2013 LOVVB5A 48 9.7%2013 LOVVEAL1 47 9.7%2013 LOVVSOU 35 7.2%2013 LOVVWHT 33 6.8%

Vienna ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

CAPACITY STAFFING DISRUPTION EVENTS WEATHERAvg

dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Vienna LOVV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 3.7% B: 1.7% L: -0.4%

+12% -2.3% 0.3 0.2 0.24

Summer -1.2% 0.3 0.2 0.31 No 180 (+0%)



4. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC Traffic & Delay

UBBAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Summer Traff ic 300 337 354 367 354

Yearly Traff ic 297 329 339 356 352



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Data Source: STATFOR


Capacity Plan - Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Summer 2013 performance assessment It is assessed that the capacity offered was enough to meet demand. During the measured period, the average peak 3 was 19 and the average peak 1 hour demand was 33.

Baku UBBA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 7.2% B: 5.4% L: 4.1%

No sig. impact

-3.6% 0.0 0.0 0.13 Summer -1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.11 No 40 (0%)



5. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC Traffic & Delay

EBBUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1905 1906 1997 1926 1916

Summer Traff ic 1579 1615 1673 1644 1634

Yearly Traff ic 1470 1471 1547 1503 1483



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight increased from 0.0 minutes per flight in 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in 2013. 32% of the delays were for the reason ATC Staffing, and 68% for Weather. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Dynamic use of sector configurations Yes Improved ATFCM Procedures using occupancy counts Yes Occupancy counts to be implemented end of 2014 Extension of CDR1 opening time Yes New ATCOs to maintain level of controllers Yes

Maximum configuration: 7 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 6 sectors was sufficient for the levels of traffic

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 120 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 109.

Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Delay

Year Reference Location

Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EBBUNWC 34 28.8%2013 EBBUEEC 33 27.7%2013 EBBUHLC 23 19.4%2013 EBBUESC 12 10.3%2013 EBBUWLS 10 8.2%2013 EBBUWSC 5 4.0%

Brussels ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

20

40

60

80

100


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Brussels EBBU ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.7% B: -0.9% L: -2.0%

No sig. impact

-1.4% 0.1 0.0 0.27 Summer -0.6% 0.1 0.0 0.36 No 131 (0%)



6. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LBSRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1992 2150 2337 2253 2316

Summer Traff ic 1533 1677 1802 1807 1871

Yearly Traff ic 1230 1322 1418 1422 1460



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The en-route delay per flight remained at zero during Summer 2013. Capacity Plan - Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network development and increase of maximum sector configurations available Yes

Maximum configuration: Up to 12 sectors No Maximum configuration: 7 sectors was sufficient to cope with traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 135 and the peak 3 hour demand was 124.

Sofia LBSR ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 7.3% B: 5.5% L: 3.6%

No sig. impact

+2.7% 0.0 0.0 0.14 Summer +3.5% 0.0 0.0 0.20 No 149 (0%)



7. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC Traffic & Delay

LDZOACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1795 1974 2247 2407 2410

Summer Traff ic 1342 1500 1626 1635 1666

Yearly Traff ic 1063 1177 1287 1286 1281



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 66% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 26% for weather and 7% for ATC Staffing. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments 5 Additional ATCOs No Optimisation of manpower planning Yes Sectorisation changes – Revision of DFL Yes Improved sector opening times Yes Revision of sector capacities according to CAPAN study after change of DFL Yes

Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan No Optimisation of ATS route network and sectorisation, cross-border DCT routes as part of phased FRA implementation Yes

Maximum configuration: 9/10 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 142. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 136, and the average peak 3 hour demand was 121.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LDZON 22 18.2%2013 LDZOULW 21 17.4%2013 LDZOTHW 18 14.5%2013 LDZOULA 17 13.5%2013 LDZOTHN 14 11.4%2013 LDZOHW 8 6.7%

Zagreb ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

50

100

150

200

250


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Zagreb LDZO ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 3.3% B: 0.8% L: -1.2%

No sig. impact

-0.4% 0.1 0.1 0.28 Summer +1.9% 0.1 0.1 0.38 No 142 (+7%)



8. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1063 1085 1170 1049 1095

Summer Traff ic 794 849 855 819 844

Yearly Traff ic 729 776 770 736 760



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight increased from 1.6 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 2.7 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 46% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 28% for Special event, 12% for ATC staffing and 11% for Equipment. Capacity Plan +18% Achieved Comments ATS route network and sectorization optimisation Yes June 2013: Transition to the new ATM system EUROCAT – C No September 2013: Transition to TOPSKY as main system New Cyprus TMA implementation No New STARs implemented on a trial basis Operation of a 5th en-route sector (Subject to improvements in HRM) No 4 sectors for extended hours Yes Improve Civil-Military cooperation in the South-East part of the FIR Yes

CAPAN study – revised capacity figures No Traffic flows and complexity changed in the south sectors following the Syrian airspace closure

Mature ATFCM function Partly

New configurations and minor sector adaptations allowing more flexibility Yes New configurations designed with NMOC and implemented in June 2013

6 Additional ATCOs Yes Maximum configuration: 4/5 sectors No Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was evaluated to be 48 with ACCESS/Reverse CASA, based on the traffic and delay situation for the full Summer season. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 55 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 49.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LCCCS12 250 15.2%2013 LCCCE2S1Y 207 12.6%2013 LCCCE2S 171 10.4%2013 LCCCS 147 8.9%2013 LCCCS2 118 7.2%2013 LCCCS12W 114 7.0%

Nicosia ACC en-route delays in 2013

0200400600800

10001200


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Nicosia LCCC ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 9.2% B: 6.7% L: 4.4%

+6% +3.2% 2.2 2.2 0.59

Summer +3.1% 2.7 2.7 0.39 Yes 48 (-4%)



9. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC Traffic & Delay

LKAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2233 2306 2386 2338 2358

Summer Traff ic 1905 2032 2078 2017 2063

Yearly Traff ic 1707 1771 1841 1793 1804



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight increased from zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 75% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity and 25% for ATC Staffing. Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Improved flow and capacity management techniques Yes Adaptation of sector opening times depending on available staff Yes Improved ATS route network Yes Additional controllers Yes Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Yes Minor improvements of system functionalities Yes Night FRA to be implemented spring 2013 Yes

Maximum configuration of 10 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: CU6A + CL3A – sufficient to cover the traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 153 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 142.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LKAANET 37 52.2%2013 LKAALM 15 21.8%2013 LKAANLM 7 9.2%2013 LKAASELM 3 4.2%2013 LKAAL 3 4.0%2013 LKAAWLM 2 3.3%

Prague ACC en-route delays in 2013

0102030405060


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Prague LKAA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.4% B: 0.4% L: -1.3%

-13% +0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.16

Summer +2.3% 0.1 0.1 0.27 No 161 (0%)



10. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC Traffic & Delay

EKDKACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1638 1793 1769 1688 1781

Summer Traff ic 1411 1519 1562 1485 1580

Yearly Traff ic 1354 1403 1476 1409 1459



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Capacity Plan 1 % Achieved Comments Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Yes Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes Minor updates of COOPANS Yes

Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3 (W) Yes Maximum configuration: E3W2 was sufficient given the levels of traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 117 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 108.

Copenhagen EKDK ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.1% B: 0.8% L: -1.0%

No sig. impact

+3.5% 0.0 0.0 0.06 Summer +6.4% 0.0 0.0 0.10 No 125 (0%)



11. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC Traffic & Delay

EETTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 499 522 597 632 621

Summer Traff ic 429 449 517 544 537

Yearly Traff ic 401 410 468 493 485



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute ATFM delay decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Adaptation of sector opening times Yes Consolidation of operations with the new ATM system Yes

Maximum configuration: 2 (+1 FEEDER) Yes 2 sectors opened Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 62 was measured with ACCESS, indicating the capacity actually offered. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 52 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 45.

Tallinn EETT ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.0% B: -2.0% L: -4.0%

-8% -1.5% 0.0 0.0 0.16

Summer -1.2% 0.0 0.0 0.22 No 62 (+0%)



12. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC Traffic & Delay

EDYYUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4858 5113 5348 5244 5349

Summer Traff ic 4366 4627 4788 4793 4941

Yearly Traff ic 4070 4174 4407 4389 4474



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight slightly increased from 0.0 minutes per flight in 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in 2013. 38% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity and 51% for Weather. Capacity Plan +2 % Achieved Comments

Dutch Mil Virtual Centre No Implemented October 2013

CPDLC monitoring concept & reduction in verbal coordination Ongoing

Traffic Management System (TMS) Level 1 Yes

Maximum configuration: 19 sectors (Possible if required according to traffic levels - would be achieved by releasing available capacity in the ACC) Yes

17 sectors sufficient to handle the demand. Brussels group - 6 sectors, DECO group - 5 sectors and Hannover group - 6 sectors.

Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 337. During the same period, the peak 3 hour demand was 315 and the peak 1 hour was 332.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EDYYDELHI 77 24.1%2013 EDYYBEH 39 12.1%2013 EDYYBWH 20 6.2%2013 EDYYUCE 17 5.4%2013 EDYYDELLO 17 5.2%2013 EDYYLUX 16 4.9%

Maastricht UAC en-route delays in 2013

0

50

100

150

200


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Maastricht EDYY UAC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.1% B: -0.4% L: -1.8%

+6% +1.9% 0.1 0.1 0.24

Summer +3.1% 0.1 0.0 0.28 No 337 (+3%)



13. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC Traffic & Delay

EFINACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 596 645 711 620 592

Summer Traff ic 436 472 537 480 451

Yearly Traff ic 444 459 533 485 451



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Capacity Plan : sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments 5 additional controllers Yes

New sectorisation with 1 additional sector No

Improved flexibility in sector openings Yes

Night free route airspace (Dec 2012) Yes

Enlarge feeder sector OKLOR to Helsinki Yes

Maximum configuration: 7 + 2 Feeders No Maximum configuration: 5 sectors+3 Feeders was sufficient to cope with traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 40 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 33.

Tampere EFIN CTA


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.1% B: -4.0% L: -4.8%

+10% -6.9% 0.0 0.0 0.13

Summer -5.9% 0.0 0.0 0.08 No 58 (0%)



14. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC Traffic & Delay

LFBBALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2802 2837 2945 2978 3066

Summer Traff ic 2391 2434 2557 2575 2615

Yearly Traff ic 2122 2114 2238 2222 2238



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight increased to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2013, mainly due to the strike 11-13 June 2013. Delay per flight without industrial action is 0.1 minutes per flight, well below the reference value. 75% of the delays were for the reason Industrial action, and 16% for ATC Capacity. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved Airspace Management and ATFCM Procedures Yes Staff deployment / Flexible rostering Yes Improvement of profiles for LFPG arrivals from the south-west (IBBP)-Study for dualization of UN859 Yes ERATO training (from Autumn 2013) No Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 190 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 178.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LFBBUSUD 250 37.3%2013 LFBBRL 137 20.4%2013 LFBBNH2 56 8.3%2013 LFBOTMA 35 5.2%2013 LFBBBDX 34 5.1%2013 LFBBL4 27 4.0%

Bordeaux ACC en-route delays in 2013

0100200300400500600


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Bordeaux LFBB ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.4% B: -2.6% L: -3.8%

+5% +0.7% 0.3 0.3 0.18

Summer +1.5 0.5 0.5 0.29 No 201 (0%)



15. FRANCE BREST ACC Traffic & Delay

LFRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 3151 3165 3347 3294 3345

Summer Traff ic 2541 2560 2800 2752 2850

Yearly Traff ic 2249 2229 2440 2398 2457



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight increased to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2013, mainly due to the strike 11-13 June 2013. Delay per flight without industrial action is 0.2 minutes per flight. 58% of the delays were for the reason Industrial Action (ATC), and 35% for ATC Capacity. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Improvement of profiles for LFPG arrivals from the south-west (IBBP)-Study for dualization of UN859 Yes ERATO training (January 2013 to March 2014) No Maximum configuration: 18 UCESO Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 217 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 199.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LFRRFNORD 162 18.6%2013 LFRRMZU 92 10.5%2013 LFRRNGA 75 8.6%2013 LFRRGA 45 5.2%2013 LFRREST 43 5.0%2013 LFRRA 35 4.0%

Brest ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

100

200

300

400

500


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Brest LFRR ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.6% B: -1.5% L: -2.9%

No sig. impact

+2.5% 0.4 0.3 0.12 Summer +3.5% 0.5 0.5 0.20 No 206 (0%)



16. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC Traffic & Delay

LFMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 3792 3898 3928 3929 3999

Summer Traff ic 3092 3162 3257 3268 3271

Yearly Traff ic 2694 2732 2806 2763 2746



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight increased to 0.7 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Delay per flight without industrial action is 0.4 minutes per flight. 47% of the delays were for the reason Industrial Action, 35% for ATC Capacity, and 16% for Weather. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Improvement of LUMAS CDRs availability Yes Provence project Phase 1 Yes Enhanced sector availability during WEs Yes Reorganisation of sectors E and K Yes Stepped implementation of FRA FABEC Yes Maximum configuration: 28 UCESO Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was evaluated to be 237. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 245 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 229.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LFMMWM 165 13.7%2013 LFMMFDZ 146 12.1%2013 LFMMSBAM 104 8.6%2013 LFMMB3 87 7.2%2013 LFMMMALY 72 6.0%2013 LFMMRAEE 62 5.1%

Marseille ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

200

400

600

800


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Marseille LFMM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.5% B: -3.0% L: -4.8%

No sig. impact

-0.6% 0.4 0.4 0.15 Summer +0.1% 0.7 0.6 0.25 Yes 237 (0%)



17. FRANCE PARIS ACC Traffic & Delay

LFFFALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.2

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4032 3823 4017 4000 3863

Summer Traff ic 3423 3334 3462 3429 3309

Yearly Traff ic 3266 3122 3284 3227 3107



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight decrased from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 32% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 46% for Weather, and 14% for Industrial Action. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes Improvement of profiles for LFPG arrivals from the south-west (IBBP) IBP 2013 (TP/UK/UZ) Yes IRP 2013 (transfer) Yes Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 247 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 227.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LFFFUJ 190 35.6%2013 LFFFTE 97 18.2%2013 LFFFLMH 53 9.9%2013 ODILO 28 5.2%2013 LFFFTML 23 4.4%2013 LFFFTNTB 23 4.3%

Paris ACC en-route delays in 2013

0100200300400500600


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Paris LFFF ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.7% B: -0.6% L: -2.4%

No sig. impact

-3.7% 0.2 0.1 0.23 Summer -3.5% 0.2 0.1 0.27 No 268 (0%)



18. FRANCE REIMS ACC Traffic & Delay

LFEEACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2758 2743 2795 2903 3030

Summer Traff ic 2374 2372 2537 2587 2719

Yearly Traff ic 2175 2142 2311 2334 2430



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight slightly increased from 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Delay per flight without industrial action is 0.3 minutes per flight. 41% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 31% for Industrial Action, and 19% for Weather. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Yes Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Yes IRP 2013 (transfer) Yes Change DFL from 375 to 365 between K and H (H, E and N) Yes Stepped implementation of FRA FABEC Yes Maximum configuration: 18 UCESO Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured at 192. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 195 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 178.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LFEEHYR 143 19.2%2013 LFEE4EH 87 11.6%2013 LFEEKR 81 10.9%2013 LFEEUXR 55 7.4%2013 LFEE5R 39 5.2%2013 LFEEKN 28 3.8%

Reims ACC en-route delays in 2013

0100200300400500600


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Reims LFEE ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.1% B: -1.1% L: -2.8%

+11% +4.1% 0.3 0.3 0.17

Summer +5.1% 0.5 0.4 0.26 No 192 (+8%)



19. FYROM SKOPJE ACC Traffic & Delay

LWSSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 661 635 696 642 661

Summer Traff ic 461 467 465 418 424

Yearly Traff ic 337 340 340 306 301



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The delays remained at zero during Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments Controller ratings Yes Free route airspace No Postponed to Winter 2014/2015

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 2 sectors – 4 sectors not required during Summer 2013

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period the average peak 1 hour was 38 and the average peak 1 hour was 33.

Skopje LWSS ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 3.4% B: 1.0% L: -1.5%

+18% -1.9% 0.0 0.0 0.12

Summer +1.5% 0.0 0.0 0.16 No 59 (%)



20. GERMANY BREMEN ACC Traffic & Delay

EDWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2087 2251 2228 2239 2136

Summer Traff ic 1732 1836 1830 1826 1777

Yearly Traff ic 1623 1661 1709 1674 1628



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The yearly traffic decreased by 2.7%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement was stable at 0.1 min/flight in Summer 2013. The ADM Summer is lower than expected and nearly by the optimum. There no capacity deficit was observed.

Planned Measures Achieved Comments

The commissioning of the new Berlin airport BER (expansion of Schönefeld) and closure of Berlin Tegel including new airspace structure and implementation of AMAN

No The commissioning is postponed provisionally to 2015

Summer 2013 performance assessment

The traffic decreased by 2.6% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity was the same as 2012. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (51%), ATC Capacity (27%) and Weather (20%). A maximum configuration of 14 en-route sectors and 3 en-route/APP- sectors (Hamburg, Hannover) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Berlin) was available. Only 12 en-route sectors were opened during the whole year. The ALLER LOW sector was combined, the sectors EIDER EAST and MÜRITZ LOW only open for military exercises.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EDWWHAMC 47 45.4%2013 EDWWHEIC 18 17.5%2013 EDWWDBAN 16 15.2%2013 EDWWDBAS 13 12.2%2013 EDWWSOUT 3 3.2%2013 EDWWFRIC 3 3.2%

Bremen ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

20

40

60

80


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Bremen EDWW

ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.7% B: -3.3% L: -5.3%

No sig. impact

-2.7% 0.1 0.1 0.06 Summer -2.6% 0.1 0.1 0.05 No 151 (0%)



21. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC Traffic & Delay

EDUUUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4601 4703 4795 4748 5600

Summer Traff ic 4124 4233 4305 4345 5088

Yearly Traff ic 3747 3743 3871 3905 4501



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The yearly traffic growth is 15.3%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement increased from 0.1 during Summer 2012 to 0.3 during Summer 2013. The significant increase in traffic and the increase of the delay are due to the relocation of the upper airspace from Munich to Karlsruhe end of 2012. The ADM Summer is lower than expected and in line with the reference value. There no capacity deficit was observed.


Relocation of Munich Upper airspace to Karlsruhe (15.12.2012) Yes The realisation was completed

successfully on 16./15.12.2012

Positive effects of the new ATS system (P1/VAFORIT) implemented 2012 Yes

Reduction of staffing problems Yes


The traffic growth 17.1% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity increased continuously in 2013. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (26%), ATC Capacity (23%) and Weather (39%). A maximum configuration of 38 en-route sectors was available.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EDUUALP2C 96 12.4%2013 EDUUALP13 92 11.9%2013 EDUUCHI1K 67 8.6%2013 EDUUALP1L 50 6.4%2013 EDUUTGO22 50 6.4%2013 EDUUNTM33 48 6.2%

Karlsruhe UAC en-route delays in 2013

050

100150200250300


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Karlsruhe EDUU ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference

Value Current Routes Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.0% (+15%) B: 0.3% (+15%) L: -1.6% (+15%)

+5% +15.3% 0.2 0.1 0.23

Summer +17.1% 0.3 0.2 0.30 No 334 (+12%)



22. GERMANY LANGEN ACC Traffic & Delay

EDGGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4055 4271 4138 4190 4073

Summer Traff ic 3560 3699 3654 3688 3640

Yearly Traff ic 3364 3382 3434 3377 3319



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The yearly traffic decreased by 1.7%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement decreased from 0.9 min/flight in Summer 2012 to 0.3 min/flight in Summer 2013. The ADM Summer is lower than expected and nearly by the reference value. There no capacity deficit was observed.


ATFCM measures to reduce delay in SF01 in cooperation with NMOC and Reduction of staffing problems

Yes

Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) EBG02/08 Yes The realisation was completed successfully on 19.11.2013


The traffic decreased by 1.3% to last year's level. It is assessed that the offered capacity increased continuously in 2013. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (36%), ATC Capacity (35%) and Weather (25%). A maximum configuration of 23 en-route sectors (including 3 sectors with predominantly military traffic) and 2 en-route/APP- sectors (Stuttgart) and 10 APP/TMA- sectors (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn) were opened.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EDGG1 311 39.4%2013 EDGGDLSN 88 11.2%2013 EDGG7 75 9.6%2013 EDGGHMM 55 7.0%2013 EDGGPAD 55 6.9%2013 EDGGGEHE 42 5.3%

Langen ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

200

400

600

800

1000


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Langen EDGG ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.5% B: -2.5% L: -4.0%

No sig. impact

-1.7% 0.2 0.2 0.22 Summer -1.3% 0.3 0.2 0.25 No 254 (+4%)



23. GERMANY MUNICH ACC Traffic & Delay

EDMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4601 4912 5012 4798 3593

Summer Traff ic 4115 4468 4504 4390 3126

Yearly Traff ic 3781 3979 4080 3911 2876



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The yearly traffic decreased by 26.5%. The significant decrease in traffic is due to the relocation of the upper airspace from Munich to Karlsruhe end of 2012. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement decreased from 0.5 minutes/flight during Summer 2012 compared to 0.1 minutes/flight in the Summer 2013. The ADM Summer 2013 was below the reference value.


Relocation of Munich Upper airspace to Karlsruhe (15.12.2012) Yes The realisation was completed

successfully on 16./15.12.2012

Implementation of C-PDLC procedure (D/-Link Karlsruhe above FL285) Yes The realisation was completed

successfully on 01.02.2013

Implementation of the TEEGERNSEE sector instead of CHIM Low sector Yes The realisation was completed


Re-structure airspace – FÜSSEN, ZUGSPITZE and STARNBERG sector Yes The realisation was completed



The traffic decreased by 28.8% to last year's level. The delays were mainly due to Weather (95%), ATC Capacity (5%). A maximum configuration of 15 en-route sectors and 3 en-route /APP- sectors (Nuremberg, Dresden and Leipzig) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Munich) was available.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EDMMCN1 23 15.4%2013 EDMMALB 16 11.1%2013 EDMMKPTH 13 9.0%2013 EDMMTRGH 12 8.5%2013 EDMMTEG 12 8.2%2013 EDMMFRKHU 10 7.0%

Munich ACC en-route delays in 2013

0100200300400500600


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Munich EDMM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference

Value Current Routes Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.2% (-28%) B: -1.9% (-28%) L: -3.5% (-28%)

No sig. impact

-26.5% 0.1 0.0 0.21 Summer -28.8% 0.1 0.0 0.24 No 246 (-14%)



24. GREECE ATHENS ACC Traffic & Delay

LGGGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1997 2117 2211 2197 2306

Summer Traff ic 1460 1513 1555 1521 1561

Yearly Traff ic 1169 1212 1230 1195 1195



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 59% of the delays were for the reason ATC Staffing, 25% for ATC Capacity, and 16% for Industrial action. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments Improved ATS route network and airspace management Yes Improved civil/military coordination Yes ATFCM Actions (traffic volume monitoring, traffic management scenarios etc…) Yes OLDI with Nicosia (Athens ready) No Maximum configuration: 6/7 sectors Yes 7/8 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment

The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS, representing the delivered capacity (123). The average demand was 106 (peak 3 hour) and 116 (peak 1 hour).



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LGGGMILL 17 19.4%2013 LGGGAL1 14 16.0%2013 LGGGKRK 10 12.2%2013 LGGGRDS 9 10.9%2013 LGGGRDSL 9 10.6%2013 LGGGMLST 8 9.5%

Athens ACC en-route delays in 2013

020406080

100120


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Athens LGGG ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.7% B: -1.1% L: -3.1%

No sig. impact

0.0% 0.1 0.1 0.24 Summer +2.6% 0.1 0.1 0.35 No 123 (+2%)



25. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC Traffic & Delay

LGMDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1495 1623 1729 1708 1721

Summer Traff ic 1192 1264 1258 1268 1264

Yearly Traff ic 935 982 976 961 939



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Improved ATS route network and airspace management Yes Improved civil/military coordination Yes ATFCM actions (traffic volume monitoring, traffic management scenarios etc…) Yes Maximum configuration: 3/4 sectors Yes 4 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment

The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS, representing the delivered capacity (98). The average demand was 84 (peak 3 hour) and 93 (peak 1 hour).

Makedonia LGMD ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.9% B: 0.8% L: -1.0%

No sig. impact

-2.3% 0.0 0.0 0.26 Summer -0.3% 0.0 0.0 0.36 No 98 (+1%)



26. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC Traffic & Delay

LHCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2336 2338 2434 2316 2353

Summer Traff ic 1881 1947 1913 1847 1904

Yearly Traff ic 1572 1612 1594 1526 1566



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +6% Achieved Comments Optimization of airspace structure Yes Ongoing project

Recruitment and training of controllers Yes 5 new ACC controllers were licensed in 2013 replacing 5 retired ones, 7 trainees start OJT early 2014, and no retirement expected

New ATM software Yes Continuous upgrades New ATCC building Yes Inaugurated in early 2013

Maximum configuration: 10 for Budapest ACC Yes Maximum configuration: 7 sectors were sufficient to cope with traffic demand in Budapest ACC

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period the peak 1 hour demand was 154 and the peak 3 hour demand was 134.

Budapest LHCC ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 5.5% B: 4.2% L: 2.1%

-4% +2.6% 0.0 0.0 0.07

Summer +3.1% 0.0 0.0 0.12 No 165 (0%)



27. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC Traffic & Delay

EIDWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 621 619 623 624 634

Summer Traff ic 547 537 529 544 568

Yearly Traff ic 520 481 489 491 509



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013 as 2012.

Capacity Plan +20%* Achieved Comments TMA 2012 - Improvement of route network at Prestwick & London interface (Dec 2012) - Point merge and sector split Yes Implementation of Y124 Yes On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes Developing Queue Management programme No UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment

*Up to 20% additional capacity will be available as a result of TMA 2012 and point merge. This will be gradually realised as demand increases in the coming years. The Dublin airport runway capacity will continue to be the main constraint.

The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. The peak 1 hour demand was 46 and the peak 3 hour demand was 39.

Dublin EIDW ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.6% B: -3.6% L: -4.7%

No sig. impact

+3.7% 0.0 0.0 0.26 Summer +4.4% 0.0 0.0 0.41 No 59 (+0%)



28. IRELAND SHANNON ACC Traffic & Delay

EISNACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1401 1501 1470 1381 1467

Summer Traff ic 1175 1184 1199 1189 1199

Yearly Traff ic 1086 1072 1089 1075 1074



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012, same as 2011.

Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Extra sectors as required – Dynamic sectorisation available Yes Sector capacity re-evaluation (CAPAN) Yes Data Linking Yes On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes Developing Queue Management programme Yes

Maximum configuration: 12 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 7 sectors was sufficient to cope with traffic demand


The ACCESS measured baseline of 124 indicates the capacity available during the measured period. The peak 1 hour demand was 99 and the peak 3 hour demand was 91.

Shannon EISN ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.9% B: 0.8% L: -1.0%

No sig. impact

-0.1% 0.0 0.0 0.05 Summer +0.8% 0.0 0.0 0.09 No 124 (+2%)



29. ITALY BRINDISI ACC Traffic & Delay

LIBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1325 1434 1459 1349 1377

Summer Traff ic 967 1035 1054 978 961

Yearly Traff ic 817 863 872 808 786



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight remained at zero, the same as during Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation assessment according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes

Mode S implementation No Planned for implementation in June 2014 Free-route implementation program On-going Implementation started 12/12/2013 PBN Program No Maximum configuration: 5 sectors if needed Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment

The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 73 and the peak 3 hour demand was 68.

Brindisi LIBB ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.1% B: -2.7% L: -4.3%

+9% -2.7% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Summer -1.7% 0.0 0.0 0.02 No 117 (0%)



30. ITALY MILAN ACC Traffic & Delay

LIMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2096 2153 2198 2165 2020

Summer Traff ic 1808 1888 1893 1853 1754

Yearly Traff ic 1664 1701 1719 1659 1567



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight stayed at zero in Summer 2013. Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation assessment according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes

Mode S implementation Yes Implemented in December 2013 Free-route implementation program On-going Implementation started 12/12/2013 Activity to optimize the NW Upper Area of Milano UIR Yes Implementation of CDO in LIMC (12/2012) and LIML (12/2013) according to ENV01 Yes PBN Program Yes Maximum configuration: 17 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment

The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 129 and the peak 3 hour demand was 138.

Milan LIMM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -2.7% B: -4.0% L: -5.5%

No sig. impact

-5.6% 0.0 0.0 0.09 Summer -5.4% 0.0 0.0 0.16 No 164 (0%)



31. ITALY PADOVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LIPPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2575 2696 2755 2826 2869

Summer Traff ic 1969 2156 2210 2220 2207

Yearly Traff ic 1673 1792 1865 1844 1821



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight was zero minutes per flight during Summer 2013. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes

Sectorisation and configuration revision to optimise ATM and sectors loads according to network needs Yes Implementation of CDO in LIPZ (12/2013) according to ENV01 Yes Mode S implementation No Planned for March 2014 Free-route implementation program Yes PBN Program No Maximum configuration: 12/13 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 13 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment

The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 175 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 164.

Padova LIPP ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.8% B: -2.5% L: -4.2%

No sig. impact

-1.2% 0.0 0.0 0.10 Summer -0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.17 No 187 (0%)



32. ITALY ROME ACC Traffic & Delay

LIRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 3629 3725 3744 3798 3799

Summer Traff ic 2971 3109 3081 3068 3054

Yearly Traff ic 2589 2684 2662 2583 2565



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, the same as during Summer 2012.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Sector loads and sector optimisation according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Yes

Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users expectations, ENAV’s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation

Yes

Implementation of CDO in LIRF according to ENV01 Yes Mode S implementation Yes Free-route implementation program Yes PBN Program Yes

Maximum configuration: 21 sectors if required Yes Maximum configuration: 19 sectors was sufficient to cope with traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 222 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 210.

Rome LIRR ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -2.6% B: -4.3% L: -6.1%

No sig. impact

-0.7% 0.0 0.0 0.09 Summer -0.5% 0.0 0.0 0.15 No 244 (0%)



33. LATVIA RIGA ACC Traffic & Delay

EVRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 571 620 819 833 831

Summer Traff ic 498 516 716 704 714

Yearly Traff ic 460 477 639 634 642



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


As in 2012, Riga ACC did not generate enroute ATFM delay. Capacity Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Additional APP sector Yes Various ATM system improvements Yes Maximum configuration: 3 + 2 APP Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as in 2012. The average peak 1 hour demand was 63 and the peak 3 hour demand was 57 flights during the measured period, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the demand.

Riga EVRR ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.1% B: -1.4% L: -3.7%

-7% +1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.04

Summer +1.5% 0.0 0.0 0.03 No 85 (+0%)



34. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC Traffic & Delay

EYVCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 617 681 691 685 738

Summer Traff ic 550 555 591 602 633

Yearly Traff ic 516 513 534 545 566



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


In Summer 2013, no en route ATFM delay was generated by Vilnius ACC, as in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Maximum configuration: 3 sectors Yes Summer 2012 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 55 and the peak 3 hour demand was 49 during the measured period.

Vilnius EYVC ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.4% B: -0.8% L: -2.7%

No sig. impact

+3.9% 0.0 0.0 0.05 Summer +5.2% 0.0 0.0 0.08 No 77 (+0%)



35. MALTA MALTA ACC Traffic & Delay

LMMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 316 385 366 389 415

Summer Traff ic 256 290 231 305 331

Yearly Traff ic 233 260 222 264 298



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, as in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Maximum configuration: 2 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During June and July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 26 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 22, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system.

Malta LMMM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.9% B: 1.4% L: 0.1%

-11% +13.0% 0.0 0.0 0.03

Summer +8.6% 0.0 0.0 0.05 No 39 (+0%)



36. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC Traffic & Delay

LUUUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 186 241 256 284 330

Summer Traff ic 136 173 187 202 241

Yearly Traff ic 119 147 162 171 198



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, as in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments New ATM system MAATS Yes Implementation December 2013 Increased sector capacities Yes As a result of implementation of New ATM system Reduces longitudinal separation (from 13.12.2012) Yes In accordance with the planning dates, since 13.12.2012

Maximum configuration: 3 sectors No Maximum configuration: 2 sectors (The third sector is planned for implementing during 2014)

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 23 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 20, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system.

Chisinau LUUU ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 7.1% B: 4.2% L: 2.1%

+9% +15.3% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Summer +19.2% 0.0 0.0 0.01 No 40 (0%)



37. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC Traffic & Delay

EHAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1554 1607 1673 1645 1657

Summer Traff ic 1422 1457 1532 1509 1534

Yearly Traff ic 1331 1330 1416 1393 1408



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight slightly decreased from 0.3 minutes per flight during Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013 84% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 10% for reason weather. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments

Civil-military co-location ANS and FUA No Temporary for upper airspace (> FL195) only; on hold due to training military ATCos

Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 137, representing the delivered capacity. This was sufficient to accommodate the traffic demand, with an average peak 1 hour of 120 during the measured period and an average peak 3 hour of 108.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EHAACBAS 159 96.8%2013 EHAASECT2 4 2.3%2013 EHAASECT3 1 0.8%

Amsterdam ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

50

100

150

200

250


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Amsterdam EHAA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.4% B: 0.2% L: -1.1%

No sig. impact

+1.0% 0.1 0.1 0.14 Summer +1.6% 0.1 0.1 0.17 No 137 (0%)



38. NORWAY BODO ACC Traffic & Delay

ENBDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 693 721 719 729 753

Summer Traff ic 535 557 558 572 588

Yearly Traff ic 522 534 544 555 565



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2013.

Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Yes

Additional controllers No Revision of FUA operations No Maximum configuration: 6 sectors + 1 oceanic Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak hour demand was 46 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 42.

Bodo ENBD ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.2% B: 0.0% L: -1.2%

No sig. impact

+1.9% 0.0 0.0 0.03 Summer +2.7% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No 57 (0%)



39. NORWAY OSLO ACC Traffic & Delay

ENOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1080 1154 1135 1135 1200

Summer Traff ic 904 962 911 947 1018

Yearly Traff ic 866 891 884 898 949



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to zer minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments 4 to 5 additional controllers Yes Operations Resource Management system (rostering) No Enhanced sector configurations No Re-assessment of sector capacities following CAPAN study No Revision of FUA operations Yes Maximum configuration: 5 (Summer), 7 (Winter) Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity offered was measured with ACCESS at a level of 86, for an average peak demand of 79 (peak 1 hour) and 73 (peak 3 hour).

Oslo ENOS ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.6% B: 1.0% L: -0.7%

No sig. impact

+5.7% 0.0 0.0 0.00 Summer +7.4% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No 86 (+28%)



40. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC Traffic & Delay

ENSVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 704 806 805 831 880

Summer Traff ic 556 575 619 653 696

Yearly Traff ic 540 541 588 625 663



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight increased from zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 95% of te delays were for the reason ATC Capacity. Planned Capacity Increase: +0% Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Yes Additional controllers Yes Revision of FUA operations No Not currently a limiting factor Maximum configuration: 3 + 2 helicopter Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 58 was measured with ACCESS, indicating the capacity actually offered. During the measured period, the average peak demand was 56 (peak 1 hour) and 50 (peak 3 hour)..



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 ENSVSSX 42 87.3%2013 ENSV3 3 5.5%2013 ENSVSS 2 3.4%2013 ENSV4 1 2.5%2013 ENSVN 1 1.3%

Stavanger ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Stavanger ENSV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.6% B: 1.0% L: -0.3%

-4% +6.1% 0.1 0.1 0.07

Summer +6.7% 0.1 0.1 0.09 No 58 (+0%)



41. POLAND WARSAW ACC Traffic & Delay

EPWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1884 2089 2222 2395 2414

Summer Traff ic 1640 1801 1954 2017 2063

Yearly Traff ic 1505 1594 1748 1806 1829



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 59% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, 21% for ATC staffing, 13% for weather and 7% for Equipment. Capacity Plan + 3 % Achieved Comments Improved traffic handling through enhanced cooperation FMP/NM Yes Flexible use of configurations Yes Release of new sector’s capacity reference values Yes Maintain number of ATCOs Yes Improved sector configurations and management of configurations Yes Maximum configuration: 8 Sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS / Reverse CASA and represents the capacity actually offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak demand was 149 (peak 1 hour) and 141 (peak 3 hour).



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EPWWJ 152 16.0%2013 EPWWG 144 15.3%2013 EPWWD 133 14.1%2013 EPWWTC 90 9.6%2013 EPWWT 84 8.8%2013 EPWWBD 72 7.6%

Warsaw ACC en-route delays in 2013

0100200300400500600700


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Warsaw EPWW ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.3% B: 0.4% L: -1.5%

No sig. impact

+1.3% 0.5 0.5 0.31 Summer +2.3% 0.5 0.4 0.37 Yes 140 (+3%)



42. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC Traffic & Delay

LPPCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1391 1473 1484 1516 1448

Summer Traff ic 1061 1160 1217 1178 1213

Yearly Traff ic 1036 1097 1153 1121 1150



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Delays decreased from 0.8 min/flight in Summer 2012 to 0.2 min/flight in Summer 2013. 63% of the delays were for the reason ATC capacity, 17% for Industrial action, and 20% for ATC Staffing. Capacity Plan +2 % Achieved Comments Improved rostering and sector opening schemes Yes 4 net additional ATCOs Partially 3 net additional ATCOs Free route extension to LECM FIR No Postponed to March 2014, Lisbon ACC ready Update traffic volume definition to take new traffic pattern into account in line with the free route extension to LECM FIR No Postponed to March 2014

Maximum configuration: 8 sectors (6 ENR+2 TMA) Yes 8 to 9 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline (88) was calculated with ACCESS and represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 90 and the peak 3 hour demand was 81.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LPPCWEST 102 30.8%2013 LPPCNXUPP 94 28.4%2013 LPPCNORTH 36 10.9%2013 LPPCSOUTH 26 7.7%2013 LPPCMAD 16 4.8%2013 LPPCSULEX 14 4.1%

Lisbon ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

100

200

300

400


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Lisbon LPPC ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.0% B: -1.8% L: -3.8%

No sig. impact

+2.6% 0.3 0.3 0.21 Summer +3.0% 0.2 0.2 0.25 No 88 (+6%)



43. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC Traffic & Delay

LRBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1825 1874 1945 1982 2057

Summer Traff ic 1385 1520 1588 1566 1676

Yearly Traff ic 1186 1284 1333 1308 1383



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute ATFM delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2013, the same as in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments ATS route network and sectorisation improvements Maximum configuration: 20 sectors 13 sectors sufficient Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. It was calculated with NEVAC, giving the potential capacity of the ACC. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 123 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 115, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system.

Bucharest LRBB ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.7% B: 3.2% L: 1.2%

+5% +5.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0

Summer +7.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 183 (0%)



44. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC Traffic & Delay

LYBAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2182 2251 2464 2435 2441

Summer Traff ic 1710 1832 1870 1803 1792

Yearly Traff ic 1373 1459 1502 1435 1393



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


En-route delay remained at zero in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Route network Development Yes Improved airspace management Yes Flexible use of staff Yes Civil/military coordination improvement (FUA) No National high-level policy body not established Additional controllers Yes Radar sharing project Yes CPR Yes CCAMS No Postponed for 2014 due KFOR Sector Cross border DCTs Yes Elementary Mode S implementation Phase 1 No Postponed for 2016, with enhanced Mode S Maximum configuration: 12 sectors No Maximum opened configuration: 8 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 137 and the peak 3 hour demand was 124 during the measurement period.

Belgrade LYBA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.0% B: 2.0% L: 0.1%

-7% -2.9% 0.0 0.0 0.21

Summer -0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.31 No 164 (0%)



45. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LZBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1317 1461 1504 1553 1563

Summer Traff ic 1052 1183 1213 1217 1276

Yearly Traff ic 880 974 1006 1004 1055



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Continuous improvements of the route network and sectorisation Yes ATS Route Network v.7 has been implemented in 05/2013 Adaptation of sector opening times Yes Sector opening times are optimised on monthly basis

Improved flow and capacity management techniques Yes Improved methodology of flow and capacity evaluation has

been implemented

Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes (partly)

Staff level is temporarily decreasing. We work constantly on stabilizing and increasing of operational staff level through

intensive training

Enhanced sectorization according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan No We are currently in a process of optimizing sector

configuration within FIR borders (W-E configuration) Ops from the new building (Spring 2013) Yes Transfer was managed seamlessly Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 110 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during Summer 2013. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 109 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand. The peak 3 hour demand was 96.

Bratislava LZBB ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 6.3% B: 4.6% L: 2.5%

-14% +5.0% 0.0 0.0 0.22

Summer +4.9% 0.0 0.0 0.35 No 110 (+2%)



46. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC Traffic & Delay

LJLAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 937 1035 1189 1262 1254

Summer Traff ic 759 830 912 909 890

Yearly Traff ic 632 673 741 735 703



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


The average en-route delay per flight remained zero in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan : Up to +5% Achieved Comments Implementation of new OPS room (March 2013) Yes ATS route network and traffic organisation changes Yes Enhanced sectorization according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Yes Flexible sector configurations Yes Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS, representing the delivered capacity (87). The peak 1 hour demand was 75 and the peak 3 hour demand was 67 during the measurement period.

Ljubljana LJLA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 3.6% B: 1.2% L: -1.6%

+4% -4.3% 0.0 0.0 0.26

Summer -2.1% 0.0 0.0 0.37 No 87 (0%)



47. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 3062 3071 3204 3138 3187

Summer Traff ic 2410 2475 2599 2523 2533

Yearly Traff ic 2033 2054 2138 2013 2007



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average en-route delay per flight slightly decreased from 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.7 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 80% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity and 14% for Weather. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Partial implementation of SACTA CF2 version (March 2013) Yes Optimised sector configurations Yes Additional staff from TWR liberalization process Yes New set of night direct routes Yes Improvement in the interface with LFBB Yes Maximum configuration: 11 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured at 138 with ACCESS/Reverse CASA. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 136 and the peak 3 hour demand was 129.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LEBLT1E 146 15.3%2013 LECBP1U 127 13.3%2013 LECBMNI 110 11.6%2013 LECBLGU 89 9.4%2013 LECBP1I 60 6.3%2013 LECBCCC 57 6.0%

Barcelona ACC en-route delays in 2013

0200400600800

10001200


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Barcelona LECB ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.6% B: -3.4% L: -4.9%

No sig. impact

-0.3% 0.5 0.4 0.17 Summer +0.4% 0.7 0.6 0.27 Yes 138 (+1%)



48. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC Traffic & Delay

GCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1124 1082 1145 1141 1066

Summer Traff ic 693 739 792 715 688

Yearly Traff ic 730 753 814 749 724



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 in Summer 2013.

87% of the delays were for ATC Capacity, and 9 % for Weather. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Additional staff from TWR liberalization process Yes Minor ATC system upgrades Yes Integration of airports in ATFM operations No

Maximum configuration: 9 (5 APP/3+1ENR) Yes Maximum configuration Summer: 8 sectors Maximum configuration Winter: 9 sectors

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 65. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 57 and the peak 3 hour demand was 51.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 GCCCINB 76 24.0%2013 GCCCRE2 44 13.8%2013 GCCCAAC 43 13.4%2013 GCCCIGC 35 11.1%2013 GCCCRC2 35 11.1%2013 GCCCRWS 26 8.2%

Canarias ACC en-route delays in 2013

050

100150200250300


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Canarias GCCC ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -4.9% B: -5.5% L: -6.6%

No sig. impact

-3.3% 0.4 0.3 0.45 Summer -3.9% 0.1 0.1 0.40 No 65 (+0%)



49. SPAIN MADRID ACC Traffic & Delay

LECMALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2947 3195 3139 2877 2794

Summer Traff ic 2724 2829 2887 2677 2578

Yearly Traff ic 2611 2651 2728 2500 2395



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 67% of delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 32% for Other. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Partial implementation of SACTA CF2 version (April 2013) Yes Additional staff from TWR liberalization process Yes New set of night direct routes Yes Maximum configuration: 17 sectors No Maximum configuration: 16 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 182. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 180 and the peak 3 hour demand was 169.



Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LECMBLI 92 21.8%2013 LASNO 69 16.3%2013 LECMASI 46 10.8%2013 LECMTZI 28 6.5%2013 LECMZMU 24 5.7%2013 LECMPAU 22 5.3%

Madrid ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

100

200

300

400

500


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Madrid LECM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -3.2% B: -5.0% L: -6.3%

No sig. impact

-4.2% 0.2 0.2 0.31 Summer -3.7% 0.2 0.2 0.25 No 182 (-3%)



50. SPAIN PALMA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1478 1513 1572 1527 1573

Summer Traff ic 936 964 1035 1011 1009

Yearly Traff ic 678 685 717 682 674



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes in Summer 2012 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 82% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 5% for Weather. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Partial implementation of SACTA CF2 version (March 2013) Yes Additional staff from TWR liberalization process Yes Maximum configuration: 7 sectors (3 APP + 4 ENR) Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/REVERSE CASA at 92. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 87, the peak 3 hour demand was 77.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LECPMXX 43 49.9%2013 LECPIXX 38 43.9%2013 LECPIRX 3 3.3%2013 LECPGOX 2 1.9%2013 LECPIAX 1 1.1%

Palma ACC en-route delays in 2013

020406080

100120140


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Palma LECP ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.2% B: -2.9% L: -4.4%

No sig. impact

-1.1% 0.1 0.1 0.15 Summer -0.2% 0.2 0.2 0.20 No 92 (0%)



51. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC Traffic & Delay

LECSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1286 1291 1301 1195 1190

Summer Traff ic 1031 1056 1087 984 986

Yearly Traff ic 956 978 1002 894 879



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay remained at 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 90% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 9% for Weather. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations Yes Partial implementation of SACTA CF2 version (March 2013) Yes Maximum configuration: 7 (5 ACC + 2 APP) Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 89. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 75 and the peak 3 hour demand was 68.

Sevilla LECS ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -3.4% B: -4.2% L: -5.6%

No sig. impact

-1.7% 0.0 0.0 0.34 Summer +0.2% 0.1 0.1 0.43 No 89 (+0%)



52. SWEDEN MALMO ACC Traffic & Delay

ESMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1544 1658 1732 1698 1713

Summer Traff ic 1335 1408 1498 1451 1488

Yearly Traff ic 1271 1296 1391 1359 1377



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan: +1% Achieved Comments Minor updates of COOPANS Yes Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Yes

Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3/4 (W) + 2 (L) Yes Maximum configuration: 3/4E + 2L + 3W was sufficient given the levels of traffic demand


The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 113 and the peak 3 hour demand was 104.

Malmo ESMM ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.6% B: 1.0% L: -1.4%

No sig. impact

+1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.04 Summer +2.6% 0.0 0.0 0.05 No 124 (0%)



53. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC Traffic & Delay

ESOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1392 1444 1485 1428 1451

Summer Traff ic 1040 1069 1133 1090 1113

Yearly Traff ic 1028 1021 1094 1062 1069



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight was at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan: +1% Achieved Comments COOPANS implementation Yes

Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Yes

Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Yes

Maximum configuration: 3 (M) + 4 (N) + 4 (S) Yes Maximum configuration: 3M + 2N + 3S was sufficient given the levels of traffic demand

Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the measured period, the average traffic demand was 79 for the peak 1 hour and 74 for the peak 3 hour.

Stockholm ESOS ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.4% B: -0.7% L: -2.4%

+6% +0.7% 0.0 0.0 0.00

Summer +2.1% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No 112 (0%)



54. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC Traffic & Delay

LSAGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 1992 2086 2104 2072 2050

Summer Traff ic 1788 1832 1873 1848 1837

Yearly Traff ic 1645 1648 1704 1654 1627



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight increased from zero minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Reasons for delays were 17% ATC Capacity, 14% ATC Staffing, 15% Equipment and 53% Weather. Capacity Plan : 0% Achieved Comments Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes Further benefits from EFD implementation Yes Cross qualification of ATCOs (Upper/Lower) Yes Datalink CPDLC Yes Mode S enhanced surveillance Yes Maximum configuration: 8/9 sectors (5/6 + 3) Yes 9 sectors (6 + 3) Summer 2013 performance assessment

The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 148, which represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 142, and the peak 3 hour demand was 131.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LSAGSE 39 23.5%2013 LSAGL34 36 22.0%2013 LSAGN 19 11.2%2013 LSAGL5 14 8.6%2013 LSAGL56 14 8.2%2013 LSAGL12 13 8.1%

Geveva ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

20

40

60

80


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Geneva LSAG ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -1.4% B: -3.1% L: -4.5%

+3% -1.7% 0.1 0.1 0.18

Summer -0.6% 0.1 0.1 0.28 No 148 (-1%)



55. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC Traffic & Delay

LSAZACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2430 2543 2502 2504 2485

Summer Traff ic 2193 2262 2273 2249 2211

Yearly Traff ic 2014 2031 2078 2031 1975



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2012 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. 84% of the delays were for the reason ATC Capacity, and 8% for Weather. Capacity Plan : 0% Achieved Comments Continuous recruitment to maintain staff levels Yes Datalink CPDLC Yes Mode S enhanced surveillance Yes Further benefits from EFD implementation Yes

Maximum configuration: 10 sectors Yes Maximum configuration: 9 sectors – 10 sectors not

required for traffic levels of 2013 Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 170. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 165, and the peak 3 hour demand was 153.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LSAZM4 160 56.4%2013 LSZBAOR 32 11.4%2013 LSAZM5 22 7.8%2013 LSZBTMA 17 5.9%2013 LSAZM23 15 5.3%2013 LSAZFTMA 10 3.4%

Zurich ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

100

200

300

400


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Zurich LSAZ ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.1% B: -2.0% L: -3.5%

No sig. impact

-2.7% 0.1 0.1 0.13 Summer -1.7% 0.2 0.2 0.21 No 170 (+0%)



56. TURKEY ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC Traffic & Delay

LTAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2163 2336 2685 2445 2587

Summer Traff ic 1803 1981 2186 2193 2312

Yearly Traff ic 1600 1760 1914 1928 2037



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

LTBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 2341 2623 2865 2821 3000

Summer Traff ic 1943 2169 2375 2418 2613

Yearly Traff ic 1655 1842 2003 2050 2216



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013




Average enroute delay per flight in Ankara ACC remained at 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013. Reason for the delay was 9% ATC Capacity and 90% Other, due to capacity reductions at the Iraki interface. Capacity Plan : Achieved Comments Improved civil/military coordination Yes ATS route structure development Yes Additional controllers (45 per year for en-route) Yes Enhanced management of restricted and danger areas (activation by NOTAM) Yes Transition to SMART and new Ankara ACC planned for November 2013, including transition of all Turkish airspace above FL 235 to Ankara ACC No Transition to SMART will start in 2014

Maximum configuration: 18 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment Ankara: The capacity baseline of 150 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 146 and the peak 3 hour demand was 134. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was opened. Istanbul: The capacity baseline of 138 was calculated with ACCESS, representing the capacity offered during the measured period. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 136 and the peak 3 hour demand was 125. A maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened. Izmir: The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 57 and the peak 3 hour demand was 51. A maximum configuration of 5 sectors was opened, including APP sectors. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Delay


Avg Daily ER Delays

% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 LTAASET 277 98.5%2013 LTAASOP 4 1.5%

Ankara ACC en-route delays in 2013

050

100150200250300


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

Ankara LTAA ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year

H: 12.7% B: 11.1% L: 9.2%

No sig. impact

Ankara: +5.7%

Istanbul: +8.1%

0.1 0.1 0.15

Summer Ankara: +5.4%

Istanbul: +8.1%

0.1 0.1 0.23 No Ankara: 150 (+7%) Istanbul: 138 (+3%)

Izmir: 68 (0%)



57. UKRAINE DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC Traffic & Delay

UKDVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 533 527 577 703 645

Summer Traff ic 382 443 488 522 540

Yearly Traff ic 337 382 422 446 467



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2012. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments ATM system upgrades due to implementation of ESSIP FCM01 and FCM03 objectives Yes

Modernization and installation of ATM systems in UKDV ACC (July 2013) and UKHH APP (training and transition periods – from March to May 2013) correspondently

Yes

Revised opening schemes, implementation of ATFCM measures according to traffic demand (pre tactical and tactical ATFCM) No

Revised sector configurations, ATFCM measures development (strategic ATFCM) Yes

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 39 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 34.

Dnipro-petrovsk

UKDV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.8% B: 3.4% L: 1.5%

No sig. impact

+4.7% 0.0 0.0 0.12 Summer +3.5% 0.0 0.0 0.19 No 49 (+0%)



58. UKRAINE KYIV ACC Traffic & Delay

UKBVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 721 789 876 1099 1004

Summer Traff ic 549 630 713 754 783

Yearly Traff ic 498 549 626 650 666



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2012.

Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised opening schemes, implementation of ATFCM measures according to traffic demand (pre tactical and tactical ATFCM)

Yes


ATM system upgrades due to implementation of ESSIP FCM01, FCM03 and AOP05 objectives Yes

Maximum configuration: 7 sectors No Maximum configuration: 6 sectors Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 59 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 51 flights.

Kyiv UKBV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 1.5% B: -0.2% L: -1.9%

No sig. impact

+2.4% 0.0 0.0 0.00 Summer +3.9% 0.0 0.0 0.12 No 72 (0%)



59. UKRAINE L’VIV ACC Traffic & Delay

UKLVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 616 644 721 757 796

Summer Traff ic 461 514 546 554 574

Yearly Traff ic 419 451 486 488 503



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised opening schemes, implementation of ATFCM measures according to traffic demand (pre tactical and tactical ATFCM) Yes


Installation of new ATM system (training and transition periods – from August to October 2013 Yes

ATM system upgrades due to implementation of ESSIP FCM01 and FCM03 objectives Yes

Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 47 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 43 flights.

L’viv UKLV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 2.7% B: 0.4% L: -1.3%

-7% +3.2% 0.0 0.0 0.00

Summer +3.6% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No 72 (0%)



60. UKRAINE ODESA ACC Traffic & Delay

UKOVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 329 416 450 480 543

Summer Traff ic 247 307 324 332 387

Yearly Traff ic 208 250 266 272 302



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised opening schemes, implementation of ATFCM measures according to traffic demand (pre tactical and tactical ATFCM) Yes



Implementation of P-RNAV in TMA Yes Maximum configuration: 3 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 33 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 29 flights.

Odesa UKOV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.8% B: 2.8% L: 1.1%

No sig. impact

+11.0% 0.0 0.0 0.00 Summer +16.7% 0.0 0.0 0.00 No 59 (0%)



61. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC Traffic & Delay

UKFVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 668 804 758 760 858

Summer Traff ic 526 648 616 618 688

Yearly Traff ic 463 559 544 541 594



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Revised opening schemes, implementation of ATFCM measures according to traffic demand (pre tactical and tactical ATFCM)

No



Implementation of P-RNAV in TMA Yes Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. The peak 1 hour demand was 51 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. The peak 3 hour demand was 45 flights.

Simferopol UKFV ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 4.8% B: 3.5% L: 1.2%

-18% +9.8% 0.0 0.0 0.01

Summer +11.2% 0.0 0.0 0.01 No 75 (0%)



62. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC Traffic & Delay

EGTTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 6046 6014 6180 6028 6040

Summer Traff ic 5457 5408 5499 5426 5534

Yearly Traff ic 4982 4800 4971 4894 4927



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2013 (May to October inclusive). 42% of delays were due to ATC Capacity, 9% to ATC Staffing and 41% to Weather. NATS attributable average en-route delay per flight in Summer 2013 was 3 seconds. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff (including cross-sector training) more closely related to sector demand Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes Further benefits from the implementation of iFACTS (Nov 2011) Yes Improvement of route network at Dublin interface (Dec 2012) Yes UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes Developing Queue Management programme Yes On-going recruitment to maintain agreed business service levels Yes Optimal Operational Configuration Achieved: Yes NB: 22 Sectors max opened in Summer 2013 Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity of 398 was calculated with ACCESS. During the period June/July, the peak hour demand was 402, the peak 3 hour demand was 362.



% of Total ACC ER

Delay2013 EGTTCTY 82 11.8%2013 EGTT17LYD 75 10.7%2013 EGTTHRN 61 8.8%2013 EGTT02LUE 48 6.9%2013 EGTTDTS 44 6.3%2013 EGTTDVR 40 5.7%

London ACC en-route delays in 2013

0

100

200

300

400


dai

ly d

elay

(min

)

London EGTT ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.2% B: -1.2% L: -2.4%

No sig. impact

+0.7% 0.1 0.1 0.16 Summer +2.0% 0.1 0.1 0.29 No 398 (+2%)



63. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC Traffic & Delay

EGTTTC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enr

oute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 4151 4015 4133 4059 4071

Summer Traff ic 3716 3635 3680 3663 3714

Yearly Traff ic 3480 3318 3420 3386 3408



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 2013. NATS attributable average enroute delay per flight was unchanged at less than 1 second in Summer 2013

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes Developing Queue Management programme Yes

Collaborative TMA developments Yes Collaborative TMA Developments relate to on-going

development programme with airports including HOEC, Service Plans and A-CDM

On-going recruitment to maintain agreed business service levels Yes Maximum configuration required: 22 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2012. During the period June/July, the peak hour demand was 272, the peak 3 hour demand was 249.

London EGTT

TC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: 0.2% B: -1.3% L: -2.5%

No sig. impact

+0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.10 Summer +1.4% 0.0 0.0 0.14 No 276 (0%)



64. UNITED KINGDOM PRESTWICK ACC Traffic & Delay

EGPXALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IFR

flig

hts

(Dai

ly A

vera

ge)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Enro

ute

Del

ay (m

inut

es p

er fl

ight

)

Peak Day Traff ic 3267 3190 3080 3205

Summer Traff ic 2694 2704 2621 2682

Yearly Traff ic 2410 2452 2381 2398

Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

2010 2011 2012 2013


The delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2013. NATS attributable average delay per flight was unchanged at less than 1 second in Summer 2013.

Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Yes Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Yes Flexible use of existing staff Yes Improved ATFCM Yes Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Yes Improvement of route network at Dublin interface Yes UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Yes

Developing Queue Management programme No Not Prestwick Programme but xMAN data provision will be utilised by unit in 2014.

On-going recruitment to maintain agreed business service levels Yes Maximum configuration: 26 sectors Yes Summer 2013 performance assessment The capacity baseline of 224 was measured with ACCESS. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 209, the peak 3 hour demand was 189.

Prestwick EGPX ACC


Capacity gap?



Traffic All

reasons Delay

without weather

ACC Reference


Shortest Routes

Year H: -0.8% B: -1.8% L: -3.1%

No sig. impact

+0.7% 0.0 0.0 0.21 Summer +2.3% 0.0 0.0 0.29 No 224 (0%)



INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


nm network operations report 2013 - annex ii - acc · nm network operations report 2013 - annex ii...

Documents