Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on the draft Implementing Rule on Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) 3rd June 2010 Brussels, EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Agenda Item 1: Welcome and Introduction, Workshop Objectives Jean-Luc GARNIER - CND Deputy Director for SESI Olivier MROWICKI - SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
SERA: welcome and introduction SERA: a SES II mandate for a long standing project to transpose ICAO material into the European environment An innovative approach in a new context: Dual legal basis (SES + EASA) Joint drafting Extremely short time for development SERA Phase 1 has explored the way for its next phases and other activities SERA Consultation workshop 3
Workshop Objectives Discussion on the MAIN OUTCOMES of the Formal Consultation Reach a COMMON UNDERSTANDING on the way forward SERA Consultation workshop 4
Agenda - Morning Item Time Subject Presented by 1. 10h00 Welcome and Introduction Presentation of the Workshop Objectives Jean-Luc GARNIER (SESI) Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) 2. 10h15 The SES II and the objectives of the IR Jyrki PAAJANEN (EC-DG MOVE) 3. 10h35 The SERA Mandate Context & Requirements Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) 11h00 Coffee Break 4a. 4b. 4c. 11h15 Overview of the draft implementing rule Justification Material: general Justification Material: safety assessment Anders HALLGREN (ND) Bruno RABILLER (CoE) 5. 12h00 Main Outcome of the Formal Consultation Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) 12h30 Lunch SERA Consultation workshop 5
Agenda - Afternoon Item Time Subject Presented by 6. 13h30 Discussion of Main Outcome of the Consultation Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) All 15h00 Coffee Break 6. 15h15 Discussion of Main Outcome of the Consultation (Cont d) Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) All 7. 16h15 The Way Forward Next Steps Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) Jyrki PAAYANEN (EC) Maria ALGAR RUIZ (EASA) 8. 16h45 Conclusions Olivier MROWICKI (DCMAC/SESI) 17h00 End of Workshop SERA Consultation workshop 6
Agenda Item 2: The SES II and the objectives of SERA Jyrki PAAJANEN DG MOVE European Commission The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Single European Sky (SES) First SES package approved in 2004 Introduced Community competence Capacity Cost Interoperability Harmonisation of airspace to improve services European UIR Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB s) Airspace classifications Route and Sector design Flexible Use of Airspace SERA Consultation workshop 8
Single European Sky second package Second SES package published 10/2009 Built on lessons learned Focus on performance & continuing SES1 Four pillars Performance main issue in SES rules (targets, network management, etc) Safety extend EASA to ATM & Aerodromes Technology SESAR Master Plan endorsed Airport capacity Airport observatory, linking AD s to airborne issues SERA Consultation workshop 9
Rules of Air SERA objectives Rules of the Air the most basic cornerstone of aviation regulation Objectives link to several SES initiatives Safety avoid misunderstandings, ensure it is possible to know the rules Functional Airspace Blocks not possible to have integrated air navigation services without harmonised rules Free movement across borders same rules, same concepts means less hassle & easier planning Support ICAO reduce national differences SERA Consultation workshop 10
SERA scope Work started with a study of national differences 2007 Annexes 2, 6, 10, 11 & Docs 4444, 7030 & 8168 Over 1700 official differences found (363 for Annex 2) Up to 760 in one country + untold unofficial differences Rules of Air material spread over many ICAO annexes / Docs SERA regulatory scope Annex 2 + appropriate parts of other annexes Annex 6 / Doc 8168 since covered by EASA Division of work into 2-3 parts to make it manageable & to facilitate implementation by stakeholders Major overlap with EASA work dual legal basis SERA Consultation workshop 11
Agenda Item 3: The SERA Mandate - Context & Requirements Olivier MROWICKI SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
STATE 1 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES STATE 2 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES STATE 3 STATE 4 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES NATIONAL DIFFERENCES
STATE 1 STATE 2 STATE 3 STATE 4 AGREED EUROPEAN DIFFERENCES
SERA IR Mandate Mandate by EUROPEAN COMMISSION (August 2009) EUROCONTROL to support the European Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in the development of Standardised European Rules of the Air SERA Consultation workshop 15
Mandate Requirements Deliver a draft IR which «should prioritise ICAO compliant solutions» Envisage that: «in cases, where the ICAO solution is deemed to be insufficient, or leading to non-optimal results in particular in cases where a large number of Member States have filed similar differences consideration should be given to solutions, that allow for common EU differences to be developed.» «in cases, where full harmonisation is not required» complement the draft IR with non-binding regulatory material SERA Consultation workshop 16
Mandate Development Take account of the obligation to apply ICAO Annex 2 «Rules of the Air» without any national differences over the High Seas For these reasons, the first SERA deliverable which is the subject of the workshop today has been developed in the form of a binding Implementing Rule only Nevertheless, several levels of flexibility have been maintained/integrated in the current draft, which will be further explained later today SERA Consultation workshop 17
Mandate Specificities Dual legal basis (SES and EASA BR) EUROCONTROL not drafting alone but with active participation of EC, EASA and ICAO Not a new regulation but a «transposition» of already existing obligations for standardisation Very short time available (legislator+ssc) Regulatory approach indicated by the mandate (IR ensuring ICAO compliant solutions, complemented, if justified or if deemed more efficient, by common European differences, and by additional non-binding regulatory material) Building on the results of the Joint EC-EUROCONTROL SERA activity Deliverables in sequence Phase 1 now and Phase 2 started SERA Consultation workshop 18
Development Process SERA Draft IR SERA Consultation workshop 19
Agenda Item 4a-4b: Overview of the draft implementing rule Anders HALLGREN EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
SERA Draft Rule Principle applied To standardize as much as required by the objectives of the mandate, but without creating unnecessary constraints where it is not needed To use the existing ICAO material as a common basis for the draft To propose reasonable and sufficiently evaluated changes SERA Consultation workshop 21
SERA Draft Rule Structure of the IR SERA IR: Title and preamble The enacting terms: Subject matter and scope Definitions Compliance (flexibility) Differences Monitoring of differences Amendments to the annex (maintenance mechanism) Additional provisions (of different nature than the provisions) Safety requirements Amendments to regulations Entry into force Annex: SERA Part A and Supplement (ICAO layout) SERA Consultation workshop 22
SERA Justification Material Approach taken by the SERA TF Justification of the options EUROCONTROL/European Commission/ICAO In consultation with EASA SERA Consultation workshop 23
SERA Justification Material Two main considerations ICAO Annex 2 applies over High Seas without exception Ensure alignment between EU Regulatory Framework and ICAO Annex 2 SERA Consultation workshop 24
SERA Justification Material High Seas Several Member States provides services over significant portions of high seas airspace Align ourselves to avoid two different sets of rules SERA Consultation workshop 25
SERA Justification Material High Seas Significant improvement Force all the other States to adopt Differ from ICAO Two sets of rules SERA Consultation workshop 26
SERA Justification Material EU Regulatory Framework EASA Basic Regulation Need to differ Stay with ICAO For the purpose of. SERA Consultation workshop 27
SERA Justification Material Modernising Annex 2 in parts out-of-date Communication failure procedures Not mature enough Pursue amendment to Annex 2 SERA Consultation workshop 28
SERA Justification Material Main items High Seas EU regulatory framework Airspace Classification Toolbox Detailed discussions later SERA Consultation workshop 29
Agenda Item 4c: Justification Material Bruno RABILLER EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Context of the impact assessment No formal request for justification material because: very tight deadline adopt and standardise under EC law existing international provisions However, some justification material have been developed to support, explain and justify the rule to provide sufficient visibility on the potential impact of the rules. JM for safety developed within this context
Safety Impact Assessment Introduction A generic safety impact assessment Not possible to address all «local» aspects Baseline Situation Is safety maintained/ increased? SERA Part A LRoASTATE A EU LRoASTATE B LRoASTATE x EU SERA Applicable to all EU states (A,B,C, X) LRoASTATE C LRoASTATE D X X
Safety impact assessment process (1/2) ICAO Annex 2 Baseline Notified States difference Air operation i.a.w SERA Part A will be acceptably safe SERA Part A Specified Designed Implementation Transition On going to be safe to be safe will be safe will be safe operation will be safe
Safety impact assessment process (2/2) Specified Designed Implementation Transition On going to be safe to be safe will be safe will be safe operation will be safe SERA Spec Safety Req. Safety Req. Safety Req. Safety Req. Safety Assumpt. Safety Issues SERA IR Development lifecycle
Focus on the Design Phase Designed to be safe Definition Functional Logical Pre-IR Post-IR E.U LRoASTATE A E.U LRoASTATE B LRoASTATE C. SERA Applicable to all EU states (A,B,C, X) SERA is specified to be acceptably safe LRoASTATE x SES operational environment (e.g. FAB implementation) LRoA= Local Rules of the Air Transition from LRoA to SERA Safety and efficiency benefits RoA Users: Pilots (VFR and IFR flights) Aerodrome operators (including signalman/marshaller) ATM/ANS operator Unmanned free balloons operators Flight Plan Signal Time SERA part A Protection of persons & property Avoidance of Collision Flight Plan Signals Time Unlawful interference Interception VMC weather conditions VFR Rules IFR Rules SERA part A Uncontrolled aerodrome AFIS Flight information Flight Control Non-controlled Aircraft (VFR or IFR) Rescue and Fire fighting service SERA part A Signal Apron Management service SERA part A Flight Plan Signal Time Air Traffic Control service Controlled aerodrome Air Traffic Control Service Tactical instruction Flight Control Flight information Controlled Aircraft (VFR or IFR) Flight Plan Signal Time SERA part A AFIS Protection of persons & property Avoidance of Collision Flight Plan Signals Time Air Traffic Control service Unlawful interference Interception VMC weather conditions VFR Rules IFR Rules SERA part A FPS Intercepting A/C IFCRW PROJ-O R/P/D Area TimeG Obstacle, terrain, cities, Flight Plan (for IFR and certain VFR flights) Interception Signals Signals (A)FISO Protection of persons and property Signals VFR Proc ATC service Specific VFR rules ATCO FCRW Fight conducted i.a.w SERA Flight Plan A/F Signals Specific IFR Rules VFR condition Signals Signals Avoidance of collisions Weather conditions Marshaller Firefighter Unlawful interference IFR Proc Signals Hijacker TimeA Other A/C SERA Part A Other IR or regulations Closed SERA Part B,C Safety Reqt Safety Assumpt. Safety Issues Safety Reqt
Focus on the Transition phase Transition will be safe ICAO Annex 2 Air operation i.a.w SERA Part A will be acceptably safe Baseline Notified States difference Local RoA Local differences SERA Part A Local Safety Assessment
Conclusion Process carried out during the different lifecycle phase of the transposition of ICAO Annex 2 into SERA Part A All identified Safety Requirements fully applicable to SERA Part A are properly addressed by the draft IR All identified Safety Requirements applicable to elements outside of the SERA Part A scope have been carefully reviewed: Addressed by Other EU regulations (e.g. EU OPS) or, To be addressed by SERA Part B and C
Agenda Item 5: Main Outcome of the Formal Consultation Olivier MROWICKI SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Responses received by Stakeholders Acceptable without amendment Acceptable but would be improved with amendments Not acceptable but would be acceptable with amendments Not acceptable under any circumstances Total by Stakeholder % Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 2 6 3 1 12 1,5% National Supervisory Authority 0 0 1 0 1 0,1% Military Authority (MoD) 1 1 1 1 4 0,5% Service Provider (ANSP) 2 7 3 1 13 1,6% Airspace User (AU) 0 0 2 0 2 0,2% Airport Operator (AO) 0 0 0 1 1 0,1% International Organisation / Association (INT) 0 3 3 0 6 0,7% Industry (IND) 0 1 5 0 6 0,7% General Aviation (GA) 1 33 643 91 768 94,5% Total Received Responses by Category 6 51 661 95 813 100% Percentage (%) 0,7% 6,3% 81,3% 11,7% 100%
Categories of Responses received Not acceptable but would be acceptable with amendments 81% Not acceptable under any circumstances 12% Acceptable but would be improved with amendments 6% Acceptable without amendment 1%
Main Outcome of the Formal Consultation IR Points which were widely accepted List of main issues raised by formal consultation
Points widely accepted The need for a European standardisation is recognized The usage of ICAO material as a common basis is accepted Necessity of a maintenance mechanism is emphasized SERA Consultation workshop 43
Main Issues Arising Dates, deadlines and consultation process The time available was very often considered too short and the consultation process not optimal. SERA and the general aviation community The relevance of having a rule applicable also to general aviation has often been questioned. This extends to subjects like marshallers, dropping, spraying or aerobatics which should not be so regulated. General legal approach and maintenance mechanism The obligations of States towards ICAO and the relation with this new SES Regulation have raised a number of questions, including on the issue of the maintenance of the rule. SERA Consultation workshop 44
Main Issues Arising Safety assessment, additional provisions The draft IR requires a safety assessment to be conducted locally. This has raised questions about the risk of identifying reduced level of safety compared to the current situation and possible local mitigation. Flexibility Deriving from the previous point, the question of the flexibility authorised by the rule has been raised. This applies with regard to safety but also to operational requirements. ICAO Notes The status of ICAO notes and why they were not more often included in the draft IR has been often mentioned. SERA Consultation workshop 45
Main Issues Arising Definitions A number of definitions have been challenged as well as the general principles applied with regard to article 2. Items such as glider, night, flight plan, competent authority or aerobatic flights may be mentioned among others. Flight plan The subject of the flight plan has led to a significant number of comments, ranging from the need to file a flight plan for general aviation to the content of the flight plan or the relevance of a flight plan for VFR flights at night. SERA Consultation workshop 46
Main Issues Arising Pre flight information The requirement to obtain all the available information before a flight has been widely rejected due to the abundance of information available nowadays Minimum flight altitude/height The limitation of flights at 500ft above ground or water was not deemed acceptable. This was emphasized with regard to hill soaring, training flights or ballooning. The need for protection of structures was also raised. Collision avoidance The requirements are often considered excessive or not appropriate, especially with regards to gliders. SERA Consultation workshop 47
Main Issues Arising Lights to be displayed The requirements on lights to be displayed have been widely addressed and considered inappropriate, especially with regard to gliders, or aircraft not equipped with electrical system. They have also been challenged as reducing the ICAO level of safety. VMC conditions The VMC conditions have been the subject of many comments, with a very wide range of different approaches, on issues like the reduced visibility, the applicability, or the relevance for some users. Special VFR With some relation to the previous point, the definition or the relevance of special VFR has been challenged. SERA Consultation workshop 48
Main Issues Arising VFR at night The conditions for VFR at night have been often addressed on issues such as the VMC criteria at night, the requirement for a flight plan, the role of the competent authority or the obstacle clearance. The availability of ATS and separation minima have also been challenged. Airspace classification toolbox The airspace classification toolbox has been developed by EUROCONTROL/ANT with the involvement of the stakeholders and many of them regret that this toolbox is not fully reflected in the draft IR. Communication failure The procedures in case of communication failure are currently subject to ongoing discussions and consideration. This was well reflected in the comments on this issue. Some were also expressed on the usage of transponder codes 7500 7600 7700. SERA Consultation workshop 49
Other Issues Arising The IR is mentioning aerodromes only No reference made to other places where aircraft may operate. UAVs No provision addressing UAVs in the draft IR. Left turn in the circuit This provision should not be systematic and other options be possible. Signals Some editorial errors were detected and comments made on the relevance or nature of signals. Unlawful interference This subject led to proposals for amendments on the procedures and comments on the structure of the section. Cruising levels Suggestions were made on the usage of cruising levels, the relevant table and the semi-circular system. SERA Consultation workshop 50
Agenda Item 6: Discussion of Main Outcome of the Consultation Olivier MROWICKI SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Main issues for Discussion / Scope of the rule Comment The scope of the rule covering all aviation and the proportionality of the rule was challenged. This was particularly the case on issues like general aviation and uncontrolled airspace, requirements on marshallers, collision avoidance or pre-flight information. Dropping, spraying and aerobatic flights were also the subject of many comments. Response The transposition of Annex 2 and the intention of the mandate to establish a common set of regulation for Europe required to follow a consistent approach and not to leave uncovered pieces of airspace. However, the activities of all airspace users have been considered and sufficient flexibility has been maintained to ensure that the rule would provide the necessary provisions without unnecessary impact on air activities. It is assumed that the current text of the draft IR on the subject of marshallers, collision avoidance or pre-flight information is appropriate to the activities of all airspace users. As far as dropping, spraying, aerobatic or formation flights are concerned, it is believed that the draft IR provides the necessary flexibility to accommodate properly the various needs. SERA Consultation workshop 52
Comment Main issues for Discussion / Flexibility and additional provisions Some comments requested more explanations on the flexibility offered by the rule, or requested more flexibility in the rule. Questions were raised on the objective of article 7 and whether it would provide for flexibility in the present and in the future. Response Article 3 on compliance will be modified to better reflect the flexibility provided by the rule and its legal basis. The purpose of article 7 is not to provide for additional flexibility, but to cater for transitional provisions not to be systematically removed if already existing and necessary. It will be reworded to reflect that fact. SERA Consultation workshop 53
Main issues for Discussion / Minimum Flight Altitude/height Comment Flying should not be limited to 500ft above ground or water. Hill soaring gliders and balloons need to fly lower. They also need it for landing purpose. Concerns were expressed also for training flights. A number should be defined for an open air assembly of persons. The obstacle clearance criteria is missing in the draft rule. Response There is sufficient latitude for the competent authority to permit these activities. The provisions read Except when necessary for take off and landing, or except by permission from the competent authority It is impossible for a pilot to estimate the number of persons in an open-air assembly and it is therefore seen as necessary to keep the provision general. It is agreed that pilots should avoid flying close to e.g. obstructions. SERA Consultation workshop 54
Main issues for Discussion / Lights to be displayed Comment Requirements for lights during day are not acceptable (navigation lights, battery power) and requirements at night are inferior to ICAO. Applicability to small airfields was questioned as well as requirements for the movement area of an aerodrome. Section considered unclear and difficult to understand. Response This comments are valid and deserve further consideration. This requires additional work. Small airfields should not be excluded from the rule and the requirements related to the movement area of an aerodrome are considered necessary. Further work will be conducted to look for a better and clearer presentation of these provisions in the future. SERA Consultation workshop 55
Main issues for Discussion / VMC for aerodrome in a control zone Comment On paragraph 4.2 of the IR, the question is raised whether the conditions also apply to aerodrome situated outside a control zone. Response This item is complex and further discussion is required before a decision is made on the final drafting. SERA Consultation workshop 56
Main issues for Discussion / VFR at night Comment VMC criteria at night shows a wide range of opinions. The requirement for a flight plan in some cases is challenged, as well as the possible role of the competent authority and the scope of the paragraph regarding borders crossing. Separation minima were requested, and also some obstacle clearance criteria. The availability of ATS for radio contact and the impact on military flights were also raised. Response The VMC criteria and the obstacle clearance will be subject to a final decision after the workshop inputs. The flight plan is considered necessary in the conditions described in the draft IR, but the subject may be discussed. Separation and military flights are not considered to be relevant for this part of SERA. SERA Consultation workshop 57
Main issues for Discussion / Flight Plan Comment The requirement to submit a flight plan in the conditions prescribed by the draft IR are not accepted (mainly when crossing controlled airspace), mainly by general aviation, but also by ANS providers with regard to the workload created. The requirement to submit a flight plan for border crossing was challenged. The requirement to submit a flight plan for all IFR flights is challenged by some comments. Comments on the requirement for an arrival report Response The requirements to submit a flight plan are not different from those existing under current Annex 2 provisions. It may be done in flight, with only the necessary items. Abbreviated flight plans formats may be designed at national or European level for specific purposes. The EU conditions may allow the requirement for borders to be withdrawn inside Europe. The requirement for all IFR flights is considered beneficial for safety, and with acceptable additional burden. The text related to the arrival report obligation will be amended. SERA Consultation workshop 58
Main issues for Discussion / Airspace classification toolbox / VMC table Comment Many comments were raised on the usage (or not) of the airspace classification toolbox and on its status. A number of different ideas were expressed with regard to the VMC table and the reduced VMC conditions. The criteria speed v/s flight time was often raised. The issue of separation between IFR and VFR flights in uncontrolled airspace below 3000ft AMSL has been raised. Response The toolbox has been used to the extent possible in part A. Some tools will be considered for part B and C. For safety purposes, it is intended to retain the values indicated in table 3-2. The issue of separation between IFR and VFR flights in uncontrolled airspace below 3000ft AMSL should be standardized throughout Europe. SERA Consultation workshop 59
Main issues for Discussion / General approach - maintenance mechanism Comment Further explanations were requested about the relationship between the States and their legal obligations towards ICAO and the obligations imposed by the SERA implementing rule. The evolution of the rule to follow the evolution of ICAO material in the future was also questioned. Response The principle supported by the Single Sky Committee and retained for SERA is to standardize the European rules and to agree on a common set of differences which would subsequently be notified to ICAO by the Member States. Some provisions have been included in the rule and a proposal is attached for a possible maintenance mechanism to cover the future evolutions. SERA Consultation workshop 60
Draft maintenance mechanism for the European Rules of the Air (SERA) APDSG EUROCONTROL: Review and preparation 1 STAKEHOLDERS..GA, users others... 2 SERA REVIEW GROUP EUROCONTROL EC EASA ICAO EUR 3 EC 4 SSC Proactive flow Reactive flow
Comment Main issues for Discussion / Definitions The issue of consistency or duplication between SERA definitions and other existing definitions was raised. Some suggestions proposed to change definitions. A number of comments focused on the definitions of night, glider flight plan aerobatic flight aerodrome competent authority. Response The approach retained has been to keep the definitions used in the draft IR to keep the reading easy, especially with regard to the fact that rules of the air should be read by all. Some differences with other definitions are justified by the specificity of SERA. The definitions have been kept as much as possible similar to Annex 2 definitions, in line with the ICAO principles on differences. Future developments will improve the overall consistency of the various sets of definitions. SERA Consultation workshop 62
Main issues for Discussion / Communication failure Comment The current Annex 2-Annex 10 communication failure procedure is not considered optimal by all stakeholders and it is believed that SERA should implement different procedures. Some requested transponder code 7600 to be mentioned. Some comments consider that the communication failure procedure should not be placed in SERA but in other documents. Response It is considered vital that pilots follow the same procedure globally. This procedure is currently being reviewed by the appropriate bodies and will be updated accordingly. The reference to 7600 is accepted. Considering the task to transpose Annex 2 and its applicability over the high seas, it is believed that the communication failure procedure must be described in SERA. SERA Consultation workshop 63
Agenda Item 7: The Way Forward Next Steps (short term) Olivier MROWICKI SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
The way forward Amendments of IR articles to address received comments; Art 2 Art 3 Art 7 Art 9 Annex (3.1.4.1 3.2.3.3.3 3.2.3.4.2 3.2.4 3.3.5.1 3.6.5.2 3.7.1 3.8.2 4.3 4.6 4.10 5.3.2.1 App 1 App 2 - Supplement) Additional changes following today s workshop Update of relevant parts of the Justification Document Finalisation of the Final Report Delivery of the Final Report to the Commission by the end of June SERA Consultation workshop 65
Agenda Item 7: The Way Forward Next Steps (medium term) Jyrki PAAJANEN DG MOVE European Commission Maria Algar Ruiz EASA The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Next Steps First phase laid the foundation for harmonised rules of air However much is still missing: Annex 11 Doc 4444, Bits of Annex 3, 10, etc. All the acceptable means of compliance and guidance material Some issues interlinked with Annex 2 Work to continue without interruption Same 2012 deadline applies for implementation SERA Consultation workshop 67
Next Steps changing regulatory landscape EASA: competence extended to ATM safety First EASA Rulemaking groups started Requirements for services, authorities and licensing Safety/Technical initiatives, such as TCAS 7.1 update EASA ATM.001 rulemaking group Requirements for ANS/ATM/Network Management Includes implementation of all relevant ICAO texts on services into Community law Ad hoc group to address ANS Annex 11 & Doc 4444 Scope covers also planned SERA Phase 2 work SERA Consultation workshop 68
Next Steps joint group Need to integrate SES and EASA work Joint rule drafting group Core of current SERA group and core of EASA ATM.001 Concise group to stay manageable Single drafting for ANS and SERA deliverables Timetable First meeting June 2010 Target delivery to Commission 3Q/2011 Entry into force also for 12/2012 SERA Consultation workshop 69
High level regulatory structure - Option 1 IR SERA B.R.s ATM.001 ATM.003 ATM.004 SERA & ATM.001 IR Person. IR Org. Req Annex I: Part OR IR A. Req Annex I: Part AR IR IR Air Operations Navigation Annex X: Part ATCO Subpart GEN Subpart GEN Annex I: Part-AUR Annex I: Part-OPS Part FCL Part MED Subpart ATO Subpart ANSP Subpart ATO Subpart NSA Annex II: Part-ANS IR system SERA Consultation workshop 70
High level regulatory structure Option 2 B.R. s (SES & EASA) EC Mandate to ECTL IR Person. IR Org. Req Annex I: Part OR IR A. Req Annex I: Part AR IR IR Air Operations Navigation Annex X: Part ATCO Subpart GEN Subpart GEN Annex I: Part-SERA Annex I: Part-OPS Part FCL Part MED 08 April 2010 Maria algar Ruiz Subpart ATO Subpart ANSP Subpart ATO Subpart NSA Annex II: Part-AUR Annex II: Part-ANS IR system
Agenda Item 8: First workshop conclusions Olivier MROWICKI SES Mandate Manager for SERA EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Conclusions Concern about feasibility of this ambitious standardisation in a very short time and possible safety impact Concern about communication failure issue Airspace classification toolbox Minimum flight altitude Time for local safety assessment Maintenance mechanism SERA Consultation workshop 73