ANNUAL NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 2016 ANNEX II - ACC

Transcription

1 ANNUAL NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 216 ANNEX II - ACC

2 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 216 ANNEX II: ACC CAPACITY EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION ALBANIA - TIRANA ACC ARMENIA - YEREVAN ACC AUSTRIA - VIENNA ACC AZERBAIJAN - BAKU ACC BELGIUM - BRUSSELS ACC BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA - SARAJEVO ACC BULGARIA - SOFIA ACC CROATIA - ZAGREB ACC CYPRUS - NICOSIA ACC CZECH REPUBLIC - PRAGUE ACC DENMARK - COPENHAGEN ACC ESTONIA - TALLINN ACC EUROCONTROL - MAASTRICHT ACC FINLAND - TAMPERE ACC FRANCE - BORDEAUX ACC FRANCE - BREST ACC FRANCE - MARSEILLE ACC FRANCE - PARIS ACC FRANCE - REIMS ACC FYROM - SKOPJE ACC GEORGIA - TBILISI ACC GERMANY - BREMEN ACC GERMANY - KARLSRUHE ACC GERMANY - LANGEN ACC GERMANY - MUNICH ACC GREECE - ATHENS ACC GREECE - MAKEDONIA ACC HUNGARY - BUDAPEST ACC IRELAND - DUBLIN ACC IRELAND - SHANNON ACC ITALY - BRINDISI ACC ITALY - MILAN ACC ITALY - PADOVA ACC ITALY - ROME ACC European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 1

3 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT LATVIA - RIGA ACC LITHUANIA - VILNIUS ACC MALTA - MALTA ACC MOLDOVA - CHISINAU ACC THE NETHERLANDS - AMSTERDAM ACC NORWAY - BODO ACC NORWAY - OSLO ACC NORWAY - STAVANGER ACC POLAND - WARSAW ACC PORTUGAL - LISBON ACC ROMANIA - BUCHAREST ACC SERBIA & MONTENEGRO - BELGRADE ACC SLOVAK REPUBLIC - BRATISLAVA ACC SLOVENIA - LJUBLJANA ACC SPAIN - BARCELONA ACC SPAIN - CANARIAS ACC SPAIN - MADRID ACC SPAIN - PALMA ACC SPAIN - SEVILLA ACC SWEDEN - MALMO ACC SWEDEN - STOCKHOLM ACC SWITZERLAND - GENEVA ACC SWITZERLAND - ZURICH ACC TURKEY - ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC UKRAINE - DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC UKRAINE - KYIV ACC UKRAINE - L VIV ACC UKRAINE - ODESA ACC UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON ACC UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON TC UNITED KINGDOM - PRESTWICK ACC European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 2

4 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 216 INTRODUCTION The following annex provides a detailed analysis of ATC capacity evolution in 216 for ACCs within the ECAC States for which data is available. The source of statistics is the NMOC unless otherwise indicated. The analysis covers: The chart and data table provide comprehensive information concerning the evolution of traffic and delay from 212 to 216 (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 & ly 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 & ly En-route Delay is the average En-route 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). 216 Realisation of Plan Evolution gives the percentage difference between the total traffic (number of flight entries) in 216 compared to 215, for the summer and the full year. En-route Delay gives the number of minutes per flight of En-route delay attributed to all causes and also excluding delays attributed to weather and special events. s are provided for the summer and the full year. value per ACC is the delay breakdown to achieve the European delay target of.5 min/flight for the full year, and.7 min/flight in the Summer season, as published in the NOP /2. ACC Baseline Offered: ACCESS or Reverse CASA was used to measure the capacity actually offered by the ACC during the reference periods (6-19 June 216, 4-17 July 216). 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. Plan (increase for Summer 216) is the percentage value provided by ANSPs in the Network Operations Plan /2. This figure represents the ANSP commitment to increasing ACC capacity for Summer 216, when compared to Summer 215. enhancement: planned enablers This information was taken from the local capacity plan in the Network Operations Plan /2. An indication is given as to whether each measure was implemented as planned. Summer 216 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 factors were also taken into account, such as industrial action or planned major events that resulted in a temporary reduction in capacity. 217 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 3

5 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 216 Allocation of and reasons for En-route delay The table lists the reference locations (sectors) causing most of the ACC delay, the number of minutes of En-route delay attributed to each location and the percentage of the total ACC En-route delay. The graph shows the total ATFM En-route delay generated by each ACC, broken down into the 5 most reasons given for the delay in 216 compared to 215. te: The scale on all graphs varies from ACC to ACC - graphs should not be directly compared. 217 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 4

6 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT ALBANIA - TIRANA ACC 12 LAAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Tirana LAAA ACC Evolution (216 v 215) H: 3.2% Summer B:.% L: -1.7% -19% -7.8%..9 The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 216. Plan +8% Achieved Comments ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) -5.% (%) ATS route network improvements Maximum configuration: 3/4 ENR + 1 APP sectors 3 ENR + 1 APP sectors were sufficient Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 65, the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 53 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 5

7 En-route delay (minutes per flight) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT ARMENIA - YEREVAN ACC UDDDACC - and en-route ATFM delays Summer ly Summer en-route delay (all causes)..... ly en-route delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Data Source: STATFOR Yerevan UDDD ACC Evolution (216 v 215) En-route Delay (min. per flight) ACC Reference ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: -1.% Summer B: -2.5% L: -3.5% sig. -7.8% %..1 4 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 216. Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments New ATS route P13 REBLO-ELSIV Implemented 7/1/216 Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 4. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 9 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 6

8 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT AUSTRIA - VIENNA ACC 35 3 LOVVACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Vienna LOVV ACC H: 2.4% Summer B:.8% L: -1.1% The average en-route delay per flight decreased from.15 to.12 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were due to Weather, 1% due to staffing and 6% due to ATC capacity. Plan +5% Achieved Comments DCTs H24/ in parallel ops with ATS routes Cross border DCTs FAB intern & with adjacent ACCs where possible vember 216 SAXFRA Improved ATFCM techniques, including STAM Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Stepped improved sectorisation according to on-going projects Improved operational procedures including FMP/AMC Recruitment to maintain staff level Additional sectors as required, depending on traffic demand levels Maximum configuration: 14 sectors +15% Summer 216 performance assessment Even though 14 is max, 12 sectors were sufficient to cope with demand The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 194, same value as in 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 181 and the average peak 3 hour demand was %.7.21 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +.2% (%) 216 LOVVE % 216 LOVVS % 216 LOVVWB % 216 LOVVWB % 216 LOVVN % 216 LOVVW % Vienna ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 7

9 IFR flights (Daily Averag)e NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT AZERBAIJAN - BAKU ACC UBBAACC - and en-route ATFM delays Summer ly Summer en-route delay (all causes)..... ly en-route delay (all causes) Data Source: STATFOR 216 Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Baku UBBA ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: 2.4% Summer B: 1.2% L:.5% +5.1% % (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 216. Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network optimisation - an on-going process in co-operation with neighboring States Maximum configuration: 5 + 3APP APP were sufficient Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 65. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 34 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 8

10 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT BELGIUM - BRUSSELS ACC 25 2 EBBUACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Brussels EBBU ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from.22 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.71 minutes per flight in % of the delays were due to ATC staffing, 16% due to ATC capacity and 11% due to weather. Plan +1% Achieved Comments Civ/Mil AMC Cell Improved use of the route network as a result of FUA enhancement FABEC XMAN Step 1 H: 4.6% Summer B: 3.5% L: 2.5% Enhancement of ATFCM procedures, including STAM Implementation of DCTs below FL245 Minor upgrades of CANAC2 system Maximum configuration: 6/7 sectors Summer 216 performance assessment +.2%.49.5 Ongoing ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +1.1% (-12%) FUA-L3 continued to provide benefits but FUA- L2 remains as is UFN (i.e. airspace bookings based on priority rules) Redefined as FABEC Enhanced AMAN/XMAN, foreseen benefits by 219 The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at 118 in summer 216. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 122 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 111. Unforeseen staffing issues affected performance in Quarter 2 of 216. As from Quarter 3 measures were implemented to solve such issues. At the same time the particularly high growth of traffic on the Southwest axis resulted in some capacity gaps in the West sector group. 216 EBBUNWC % 216 EBBUEEC % 216 EBBUHLC % 216 EBBUWSC % 216 EBBRTA % 216 EBBUESC 3 3.8% Brussels ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 9

11 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA - SARAJEVO ACC 2 LQSBACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes).. ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Sarajevo LQSB CTA ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: -1.9% Summer B: -3.1% L: -4.7% +5.2% % The average en-route delay per remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 216. Planned capacity increase: sufficient capacity Achieved Comments Further cross-border FRA evolutions SEA FRA implementation (FRA with neighbouring ACCs: Zagreb and Belgrade above BHACC AoR with time applicability restrictions) Enhanced ATFM techniques, including STAM Measures applied when needed in tactical phase. Minor upgrades to the system New hardware, DPS upgrade Maximum configuration: 2 sectors 1 sector was sufficient Summer 216 performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated with ACCESS at 25. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 14 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 1

12 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT BULGARIA - SOFIA ACC 35 LBSRACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Sofia LBSR ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: 3.4% Summer B: 1.9% L:.5% -4% -1.8% % (%) The en-route delay per flight remained at.1 minutes per flight during Summer 216. Planned capacity increase: +8% Achieved Comments Stepped implementation of full FRA Gradual implementation of AFUA functionalities ASMGCS at Sofia airport LNAV Procedures at Bulgarian airports Implementation on track. Night Cross-border operations within SEEN FRA starting 2 Mar 217. Improved ATFCM, including use of occupancy counts and STAM Fully implemented as of Summer 216 Implementation of Complexity Tool Project on track. Final implementation is planned 22. ATS route network development New airspace structure in the western part of Black sea Additional sector layers Cross sector training Reorganisation of interfaces between FS Sofia and Turkey, combined with new sectorisation provided additional capacity in VADEN/ADORU area. New interface between FS Varna and Ankara ACC, combined with revision of sector organisation, provided additional capacity for the Middle East traffic flows. As a result complexity is reduced ly and the delays from previous summer (generated by Turkey) are reduced to zero. The new interface organisation will ensure unimpeded traffic growth for the flows to/from Middle East for the next few years. DFL implemented. The DFL is flexibly changed throughout the day and increases adaptability of sector configurations to traffic demand. Additional ATCOs Updated training plan adopted. Training on schedule. Increase of simulator training capabilities SATCAS simulator number of position has been increased New back-up Ops system Back-up VCS 217 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 11

13 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 216 New VORs/DMEs New Ground-Air Radios Surveillance Data Distribution System, WAM and ADS-B ATM System Upgrade including CPDLC functionalities Implemented as planned. Coverage on the Black Sea airports TMAs Modernisation of en-route radar One en-route radar replaced. Project is on track and continues in 217 Gradual increase of maximum sector configurations available up to 18 sectors Maximum configuration: 12 sectors 1 sectors were sufficient Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS and was assessed to be at 186. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 162 flights and the average peak 3 hour demand was 149 flights. However, the actual peak traffic demand in Sofia ACC does not coincide with the period used for the present capacity assessment and it is shifted towards mid-august where peaks above 2 flights/hour are easily observed. 216 LBSRSWL % 216 LBSRSWU % 216 LBSRSYL % 216 LBSRVBDL % 216 LBSRVBDU % 216 LBSRSYU6 1.% Sofia ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 12

14 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT CROATIA - ZAGREB ACC 3 25 LDZOACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Zagreb LDZO ACC H: 3.1% Summer B: 1.1% L: -1.3% The average en-route delay per flight decreased from.89 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.7 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were for the reason weather, 35% for ATC and 5% for ATC Staffing. plan: +5% Achieved Comments Further cross-border FRA evolutions SEAFRA H24 Implemented on 8 December 216 LARA (end 215) Postponed to Spring 217 Integration of TMAs in the network through the implementation of the FABCE concept of seamless operations for the TMAs within Zagreb FIR Enhanced ATFM techniques (STAM Phase I) Postponed to Spring 217 Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Implementation of Central sector Further optimisation of ATS route network Long Range DCTs (FRD) CROSS BORDER evolution Optimization of manpower planning Additional ATCOs as required (~6 per year) Full dynamic DFL management consideration Re-assessment of sector capacities according to new CAPAN study Improved sector opening times Maximum configuration: 1 sectors 11 sectors were opened Summer 216 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 145. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 138, and the average peak 3 hour demand was LDZON % 216 LDZOULA % 216 LDZOHW % 216 LDZOULW 6 1.6% 216 LDZOTHW 6 1.6% 216 LDZOTHS 5 7.9% %.4.25 Zagreb ACC en-route delays in 216 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +2.% (+5%) 217 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 13

15 Avg daily delay (min) 9. CYPRUS - NICOSIA ACC NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT LCCCACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Nicosia LCCC ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 2.77 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.72 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were due to ATC staffing, 43% of delays were due to ATC capacity, 8% due to airspace management and 2% due to equipment. Plan +1 % Achieved Comments Application of FRA DCT +FL285 for specific N/X points 5 implemented new batch in Spring 217 Improved ATFCM, including STAM Continuous improvement of ATS route network Limited due to lack of agreement from Ankara ACC New SIDs and STARs LCPH September additional ATCOs OLDI with Egypt More flexibility in sector configuration openings Improve Civil-Military cooperation in the South-East part of the FIR Operation of a 6th en-route sector during peaks Revision of sector capacities H: 2.4% Summer B:.5% L: -1.3% Transition to the new ACC Decision pending and dependant extension of AT system Operation of corporatized ANSP Progress ongoing Maximum configuration: 5/6 sectors 5 sectors opened Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 59, 13% higher than in 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 61 and the average peak 3 hour demand was % ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +1.% (+13%) 216 LCCCES % 216 LCCCS % 216 LCCCS12W % 216 LCCCS % 216 LCCCW % 216 LCCCS % Nicosia ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 14

16 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT CZECH REPUBLIC - PRAGUE ACC 3 25 LKAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Prague LKAA ACC H: 4.4% Summer B: 2.6% L: 1.3% The average en-route delay per flight remained at.1 minutes per flight in Summer 216. Plan: +2% Achieved Comments Stepped implementation of FRA Improved flow and capacity management techniques, including STAM Improved ATS route network -2% Enhanced sectorisation according to the FABCE Airspace Plan Additional controllers Unplanned absence of controllers experienced Minor improvements of system functionalities Adaptation of sector opening times depending on available staff Maximum configuration: 9/1 sectors 1 sectors were opened Summer 216 performance assessment +6.2%.1.1 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS and was assessed to be at 181. The peak 1 hour demand was 174 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 161 flights. ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +5.4% (+3%) 216 LKAANSM % 216 LKAANSH % 216 LKAAL % 216 LKAAM % 216 LKAANSHT 2 9.9% 216 LKAALM 1.2% Prague ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 15

17 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT DENMARK - COPENHAGEN ACC 2 EKDKACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Copenhagen EKDK ACC Evolution (216 v 215) En-route Delay (min. per flight) ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: 4.2% Summer B: 2.9% L: 2.% +1.7% % (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 216. Plan +2 % Achieved Comments Possible alignment with FRA within NEFAB Optimizing the use of FRA when military areas are active Final completion May 217 together with full NEFRA implementation A CDM at EKCH Full A-CDM was implemented on December 19, 216 Improved ATFCM, working with occupancy counts Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Upgrade CDR2s to CDR1s OLDI extension to field 15 FPL Maintain appropriate level of staffing to open up to 8 sectors Minor updates of COOPANS Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3 (W) 3 (E) + 2 (W) were sufficient Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 127, same as in 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 12 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 16

18 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT ESTONIA - TALLINN ACC 8 7 EETTACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Tallinn EETT ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from.2 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.4 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were for the reason ATC capacity. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments NEFRA SYSCO full OLDI with Latvia, Sweden Postponed to 217/218 LARA implementation H: 2.5% Summer B:.9% L: -.4% Additional staff and controller rating Adaptation of sector opening times sig. Adding new routes crossing the boundary with Sankt-Petersburg FIR Maximum configuration: 3 (+1 FEEDER) 2 sectors opened Summer 216 performance assessment +2.7%.3.3 The capacity baseline was estimated to be 63. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 59 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 5. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.5% (%) 216 EETTEST % 216 EETTFEEDER % 216 EETTWES 2.1% Tallinn ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 17

19 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT EUROCONTROL - MAASTRICHT ACC 7 6 EDYYUAC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Maastricht EDYY UAC The average en-route delay per flight increased from.53 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.86 minutes per flight in % of the delays were for the reason Weather, 42% for ATC, 7% for the reason Other, 4% for ATC Staffing, 1% for Equipment and 1% for Airspace Management. Plan +2% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1: WE DCTs Initial FUA Implementation above FL365 Improved ATFCM including STAM Ongoing ATC2ATM Program Ongoing Step 1 has been implemented. Step 2 is envisaged for the end of 217 and Step 3 in 218 Brussels UIR DFL Change The DFL changes has been successfully introduced in Feb 216 Advanced tactical ATFCM measures Cross training of ATCOs H: 3.5% Summer B: 2.4% L: 1.4% ifmp (integrated Flow Management Position) NVCS Implementation delayed until Q1, 217 SRAT (Super Role Allocation Tool) +3% RDFS Implementation delayed: 217 Stepped implementation of XMAN (possible negative on capacity) Maximum configuration: 2 sectors BRU: 6 DECO: 6 HANN: 8 Max sectors not necessarily all opened simultaneously across sector groups Summer 216 performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 322. During the same period, the peak 3 hour demand was 325 and the peak 1 hour was % ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +4.6% (%) 216 EDYYBOLN % 216 EDYYD5WH % 216 EDYYB3EH % 216 EDYYD5WL % 216 EDYYB5KL % 216 EDYYHMNS % Maastricht UAC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 18

20 NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FINLAND - TAMPERE ACC 7 EFINCTA - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Tampere EFIN CTA ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H: 3.3% Summer B: 2.3% L: -1.3% +1.3% % (%) The average en-route delay per remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 216. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments NEFRA phase2 (ES and EK to join) Maintain number of controllers Partial move of ACC functions to new ACC at EFHK (1 ATCOs) Maximum configuration: 6 sectors 5 sectors were sufficient Summer 216 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 4 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 19

21 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FRANCE - BORDEAUX ACC 4 35 LFBBALL - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Bordeaux LFBB ACC H: 4.7% Summer B: 3.3% L: 1.8% The average en-route delay per flight increased from.34 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.79 minutes per flight during the same period in % of the delays were due to ATC, 15% due to Weather, 11% due to Industrial action and 3% due to Staffing. Plan; +1 % Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved Airspace Management / FUA Improved ATFCM Procedures and STAM CDM processes and procedures MAC (Collaborative ATFCM Measures) 5th layer in some sectors Postponed to March 217 Staff deployment / Flexible rostering Re-evaluation of sector capacities Partially Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO 21 sectors Summer 216 performance assessment +5.4%.7.12 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +7.% (%) Re-evaluation will be done in 217 following ERATO implementation The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at 21. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 213 and the average peak 3 hour demand was LFBBNH % 216 LFBBUSUD % 216 LFBBR % 216 LFBBT % 216 LFBBZX % 216 LFBBP % 1 5 Bordeaux ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 2

22 Avg daily delay (min) 16. FRANCE - BREST ACC NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT LFRRACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Brest LFRR ACC The average en-route delay increased from 1.4 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to 1.6 minutes per flight over the same period in % of the delays were due to the reason ATC, 15% due to Industrial Actions and 2% due to Staffing. Plan : +1% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA Improvement of ATFCM procedures and STAM CDM processes and procedures MAC (Collaborative ATFCM Measures) Reorganisation of airspace below FL145 (1st step) Postponed to 217 Revised NAT/Brest interface Staff redeployment / flexible rostering ERATO (stripless, MTCD) H: 6.6% Summer B: 5.2% L: 3.8% Re-evaluation of sector capacities Partially Maximum configuration: 18 UCESO 18 sectors were opened Summer 216 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 24, 3% higher than in 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 227 and the average peak 3 hour demand was LFRRMZSI % 216 LFRRN % 216 LFRRA % 216 LFRRQXSI % 216 LFRRG % 216 LFRRESTU % % Brest ACC en-route delays in 216 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +6.5% (+3%) 217 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 21

23 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FRANCE - MARSEILLE ACC 45 4 LFMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Marseille LFMM ACC The average en-route delay increased from.19 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.46 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were due to the reason ATC, 27% due to Weather, 7% due to Industrial Actions, 7% due to Airspace Management and 4% due to Staffing. Plan: +2% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA Improvement of ATFCM procedures and STAM CDM Processes and procedures MAC (Collaborative ATFCM Measures) Creation of 4th layer (East) H: 3.7% Summer B: 2.3% L:.8% Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Partially Maximum configuration: 28 UCESO Maximum configuration: sectors Summer 216 performance assessment +4.7% ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +5.7% (+2%) The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at 248, 2% higher compared to Summer 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 256 and the average peak 3 hour demand was LFMMWM % 216 LFMMFDZ % 216 LFMMMALY % 216 LFMMRAEE % 216 LFMMAB % 216 LFMMEK % Marseille ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 22

24 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FRANCE - PARIS ACC 45 4 LFFFALL - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Paris LFFF ACC The average en-route delay increased from.17 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.4 minutes per flight over the same period in % of the delays were due to the reason Industrial Action, 3% due to Weather, and 2% due to ATC. Plan : +2% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA Bilini trial (until spring 216) Improved ATFCM procedures and STAM / GF project GF project is part of istream istream H: 2.5% Summer B: 1.3% L:.1% CDM Processes and procedures MAC (Collaborative ATFCM Measures) Reorganisation of lower airspace and delegation of ATS to APP units below FL145 (for relevant airspace) Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO Summer 216 performance assessment +1.9% Postponed to 218 Partially ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +2.1% (+2%) Maximum configuration: 2 sectors (1+1) was sufficient The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at 281, 2% higher than in Summer 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 277 and the average peak 3 hour demand was LFFFUZ % 216 LFFFLMHJ % 216 LFFFUJ 88 8.% 216 LFFFTE % 216 LFFFAOML % 216 LFFFLMH % Paris ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 23

25 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FRANCE - REIMS ACC 4 35 LFEEACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Reims LFEE ACC H: 4.1% Summer B: 2.8% L: 1.3% The average en-route delay decreased from.66 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.4 minutes per flight in Summer % of the delays were due to ATC, 29% due to Weather, 7% due to Staffing and 6% due to Industrial Action. Plan : +1% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1: WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA FABEC XMAN Step 1 : Basic Improved ATFCM procedures and STAM CDM Processes and procedures +6% MAC (Collaborative ATFCM Measures) Reorganisation of lower airspace ELLX interface Staff redeployment / Flexible rostering As from end July 216 Maximum configuration: 19 UCESO Maximum configuration: 19 sectors Summer 216 performance assessment +3.7% The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 199. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 212 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 195. ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +4.2% (+5%) 216 LFEE2F % 216 LFEEHYR % 216 LFEE4E % 216 LFEE5EH 5 7.2% 216 LFEE4H % 216 LFEEKR % 1 5 Reims ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 24

26 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT FYROM - SKOPJE ACC LWSSACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Skopje LWSS ACC H: 5.8% Summer B: 2.3% L:.2% The delays decreased from.2 minutes per flight in during Summer 215 to.1 minutes per flight during Summer 216 Plan: +15% Achieved Comments Free route airspace Implementation June 216 Maximum configuration: 3 sectors +35% Summer 216 performance assessment -.1%.1.19 The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 215. During the measured period the average peak 1 hour was 45 and the average peak 3 hour was 4. ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) % (%) 216 LWSSLOW 3 1.% 3 2 Skopje ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 25

27 21. GEORGIA - TBILISI ACC NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT UGGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes).. ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Tbilisi UGGG ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) H:.1% Summer B: -1.2% L: -1.8% +3.7% %..1 5 (+25%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero during Summer 216. Plan : Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments FRAG concept approval FRAG concept is approved. Implementation date of the Step One will be 1Q-2Q of 217 Further implementation of FRAG Further implementation of FRAG Step Two is planned in 218+ Implementing a rational use of ASM CDM MIL Implementation expected in Implement ATFCM measures and improve FMP issues Implementation expected in 2Q 217 Further optimisation and implementation of ATS route network Reorganisation of lower and upper airspace Finalisation of OLDI connection with adjacent units Further optimisation and implementation of ATS Route network is ongoing process. Full reorganization of the airspace will be implemented on January the 5th 217 ly only one OLDI connection is existing with adjacent sector (ANKARA ACC). Finalisation of OLDI connections with all adjacent sectors is expected after new ATM automated system implementation in Tbilisi ACC centre (217+) ATS contingency plan approval Approved in Conversion of lower airspace to RNAV5 In accordance with PBN implementation plan expected in 217+ Optimization of manpower planning According to policy and procedures for determination number of staff required in ATS provision, approved in Optimization of manpower planning will commence in 217 Additional staff recruitment to cope with demand Planned from 217+ Technical implementation of new ATM system Planned 217+ management improvements Implementation expected 217+ Maximum configuration: 2 sectors Summer 216 performance assessment Sectors re-configuration is expected after new ATM system implementation The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be 5. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 35 and the average peak 3 hour demand was European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 26

28 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT GERMANY - BREMEN ACC 25 2 EDWWACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Bremen EDWW ACC Evolution (216 v 215) H: 5.% Summer B: 3.5% L: 2.3% Plan: % Achieved Comments Maximum configuration: sectors 16 sectors were opened Summer 216 performance assessment +3.4%.13.7 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +3.4% (%) The summer traffic increased by 3.4%. The traffic development was in line with the STATFOR Baseline scenario for the year 216. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement was increased to.2 min/flight in Summer 216. The delays were mainly due to ATC (42%), Weather (36%) and ATC Staffing (21%). The offered capacity was the same as in 215, but the strong traffic growth led to a certain capacity deficit. Therefore, the ADM Summer is above the EU reference value. The capacity deficit was only due to the unexpectedly strong traffic growth in the BERLIN area. The maximum configuration of 16+4 consisted of 13 en-route sectors, 3 en-route/app- sectors (Hamburg, Hannover) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Berlin). The offered configuration of was opened during the whole year. The sectors EIDER EAST and MÜRITZ LOW were only open for military exercises. The sectors BERLIN DEPARTURE NORTH and SOUTH were always combined. In the SF South was one sector always combined. 216 EDWWDBAS % 216 EDWWHAMC % 216 EDWWFLG % 216 EDWWHEIC 9 4.1% 216 EDWWDBAT 2.8% 216 EDWWSOUTH 2.8% Bremen ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 27

29 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT GERMANY - KARLSRUHE ACC 7 6 EDUUUAC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Karlsruhe EDUU ACC H: 3.1% Summer B: 1.8% L:.4% Plan : +2% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1: WE DCTs (216) Successfully completed on FABEC XMAN Step 1 : Basic (216) Successfully completed on Optimized Descent Profiles/ ODP (216) Successfully completed on Vertical split of NATTENHEIM into 4 sectors (4/216) Successfully completed on Testing extension ED R37 (EUFI) (216) Successfully completed on Maximum configuration: 39 sectors 36 sectors were opened. Summer 216 performance assessment The summer traffic growth reaches 3.3% and is higher than the expected high growth scenario (+3.1%). The Average ATFM Delay en-route per Movement strongly increased to.58 min/flight compared to the previous summer period (.26 min/flight). The delays were mainly due to Weather (4%), ATC Staffing (35%) and ATC (18%). There was a capacity deficit: On one hand, the traffic strongly increased in some sector families (7,8% in the Eastern SF and 4,2% in the Central SF); on the other hand, the difficult weather conditions in the summer influenced the capacity situation. The offered capacity decreased in 216 to the level of 214. NATTENHEIM, which previously consisted of 3 sectors, was split into 4 sectors for more flexibility. A maximum configuration of 43 en-route sectors was available; the CHIEM, ISAR, FULDA sectors were mostly combined. Only 3 sectors were opened simultaneously in NATTENHEIM. Of the 8 possible subsectors FRANKFURT and WÜRZBURG, a maximum of 7 were open simultaneously. The offered configuration consisted of 36 sectors. +3.6% ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +3.3% (-3%) 216 EDUUDON1D % 216 EDUUCHI1K % 216 EDUUERL % 216 EDUUWUR % 216 EDUUCHI1C % 216 EDUUALP2C 14 6.% Karlsruhe UAC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 28

30 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT GERMANY - LANGEN ACC 45 4 EDGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Langen EDGG ACC H: 2.8% Summer B: 1.7% L:.3% Plan % Achieved Comments New P2-System Langen ACC Successfully completed on 14./ FABEC XMAN Step 1 : Basic (216) Successfully completed on Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) SF7 Successfully completed on Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system PSS SF1 Successfully completed on 17./ Maximum configuration: sectors were opened. Summer 216 performance assessment The summer traffic increased in 216 compared to 215 by.3%. The Average ATFM Delay en-route per Movement ly increased to.46 min/flight in summer 216 compared to the last year (.15 min/flight), and was therefore above the reference value (.3 min/flight). The delays were mainly due to Weather (37%), ATC Staffing (28%), Special Events (19.5%) and ATC (13%). The high proportion of delay caused by special events can be explained by the introduction of PSS in SF 7. Overall, the capacity deficit was mainly caused by PSS implementation in the Summer season. The maximum configuration of consisted of 23 en-route sectors (including 3 sectors with predominantly military traffic), 2 en-route /APPsectors (Stuttgart) and 11 APP/TMA- sectors (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt and Cologne/Bonn). The offered configuration was sectors (the enroute sectors NECKAR HIGH and LOW, KITZINGEBN and HAMMELBURG were always combined; in Cologne/Bonn APP, two sectors were always combined - either DKAE and DKAW or DKAW and NOR). +.5%.3.23 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +.3% (-6%) 216 EDGG % 216 EDGGNOR % 216 EDGG % 216 EDGGDKA % 216 EDGGDLSN % 216 EDGGDLA 5 5.% Langen ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 29

31 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT GERMANY - MUNICH ACC 6 5 EDMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Munich EDMM ACC Plan: +2% Achieved Comments FABEC CC XMAN Step 1: Basic Link: EDDM - EDUU (1NM) H: 3.% Summer B: 1.9% L:.5% -1% Successfully completed on 4/216. P1-HW upgrade ATS system P2i during ongoing operation Successfully completed on 18./ Integration SF rth + South to SF West (INSEL) (End of 22) Ongoing Ongoing Maximum configuration: sectors open Summer 216 performance assessment +1.7%.4.19 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) +1.3% (%) The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement reached.8 min/flight, as in the previous summer period. The delays were exclusively due to Weather (1%). The ADM summer 216 was below the reference value. The maximum configuration, of 17+4 sectors, consisted of 14 en-route sectors, 3 en-route /APP- sectors (Nuremberg, Dresden and Leipzig) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Munich). The offered configuration consisted of 14+4 sectors three en-route sectors were mostly combined (FRANKEN Upper/High, NÖRDLINGEN/WALDA and SACHSEN Low/High). 216 EDMMCN % 216 EDMMTEG % 216 EDMMALB % 216 EDMMFRKHU % 216 EDMMZUS % 216 EDMMFUE % Munich ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 3

32 Avg daily delay (min) 26. GREECE - ATHENS ACC NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT LGGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Athens LGGG ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 1.46 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.24 minutes per flight in Summer % of delays were due to the reason ATC capacity and 13% due ATC staffing. Plan +18% Achieved Comments Night DCTs / FRA Full FRA implementation foreseen after 22 Improved civil/military coordination Stepped implementation of LARA system PBN procedures implemented at 4 airports (Kerkira, Heraklion, Santorini, Mikonos) Improved ATFCM, including STAM Improved ATS route network and airspace management Ongoing Fully implemented for Kerkira, other three airports planned to be operational in summer 217 Airspace reorganisation/resectorisation project New sectorisation foreseen for 218 Reduction in number of ATCOs FPL 212 upgrade H: 4.6% Summer B: 2.4% L:.5% Maximum configuration: 6/7 sectors 7 sectors open Summer 216 performance assessment -1.7%.16.2 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 124, 5% higher than 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 125 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 116. ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) -.3% (+5%) 216 LGGGRDSL % 216 LGGGMILL % 216 LGGGKRK % 216 LGGGMIL % 216 LGGGKFPL % 216 LGGGRDS 3 1.2% 1 5 Athens ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 31

33 Avg daily delay (min) NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT GREECE - MAKEDONIA ACC 25 2 LGMDACC - and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Summer ly Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Evolution (216 v 215) Makedonia LGMD ACC The average en-route delay decreased from.75 minutes per flight in Summer 215 to.6 minutes per flight in Summer % of delays were due to the reason ATC staffing, and 44% due ATC capacity. Plan : +11% Achieved Comments Night DCTs / FRA Full FRA implementation foreseen after 22 Improved civil/military coordination Stepped implementation of LARA system PBN procedures implemented at 4 airports (Kerkira, Heraklion, Santorini, Mikonos) Improved ATFCM, including STAM Improved ATS route network and airspace management Ongoing Fully implemented for Kerkira, other three airports planned to be operational in summer 217 Airspace reorganisation/resectorisation project New sectorisation foreseen for 218 Reduction in number of ATCOs FPL 212 upgrade H: 6.% Summer B: 3.7% L: 1.5% Maximum configuration: 4/5 sectors Summer 216 performance assessment 4 sectors were sufficient due to actual traffic distribution The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 14, 4% higher than in 215. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 11 and the average peak 3 hour demand was %.4.16 ACC Baseline (% difference v 215) -2.5% (+4%) 216 LGMDW % 216 LGMDWU 5 9.9% 216 LGMDE 2 4.4% 216 LGMDELM 2 3.6% 216 LGMDEU 1 2.5% 216 LGMDWLSK 1 1.4% Makedonia ACC en-route delays in European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 32