REVISION OF THE SPANISH NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN (PNER) FOR REFERENCE PERIOD 1 (RP1: )

Transcription

1 REVISIÓN DEL LAN NACIONAL DE EVALUACIÓN DE RENDIMIENTOS (NER) rimer eriodo de Referencia: REVISION OF THE NATIONAL ERFORMANCE LAN (NER) FOR REFERENCE ERIOD 1 (R1: ) Version th December 2011

2 age intentionally left blank

3 REVISION OF THE TARGETS OF THE FOR REFERENCE ERIOD 1 (R1: ) 1 debe ser contrastada con su versión vigente always be checked against the latest version

4

5 EDITION/REVISION NUMBER REGISTER OF EDITIONS DATE OF ISSUE AFFECTED AGES REASONS FOR CHANGE /11/2011 All Initial Drafting Template /12/2011 All First Draft including capacity /12/2011 All Includes the contribution of the accountable entities to the plan in the cost efficiency area and a thorough revision of wording and formatting /12/2011 All Includes safety aspects /12/2011 All First Issue of the Revision of the Targets of the Spanish erformance lan (NER) for R1 ( ) ANNEXS Annex Code Title age Ed./Rev. Annex I En-route Charging Reporting tables 41 Annex II SAFETY ROGRAMME FOR CIVIL AVIATION (SS) 105 TEMLATES Template Code Title age Ed./Rev. EDITION CONTROL OF HARDCOIES OF THE DOCUMENTATION RESONSIBLE FOR DATE OF RINTING RINTED AGES SIGNATURE RINTING EDITION DISTRIBUTE TO DISTRIBUTION LIST DATE OF DISTRIBUTION RESONSIBLE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION SIGNATURE 3

6 age intentionally left blank 4

7 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION REVISED CAACITY TARGET Key figures for the revised Capacity target Changes and justifications for the revised capacity target appropriate measures to reach the revised capacity target REVISED COST-EFFICIENCY TARGET Key Figures for the revised Cost-Efficiency target Changes and justifications for the revised cost-efficiency target Appropriate measures to reach the revised cost-efficiency target Information on uncontrollable costs OTHER INFORMATION Missing information highlighted in RB s assessment report Safety...25 List of Tables List of Figures

8 1. INTRODUCTION The Spanish erformance lan (NER) for the first reference period (R1: ) has been adopted and sent to the European Commission and the RB by the end of June During summer, the RB has assessed all erformance lans against the assessment criteria listed in Annex III of the performance scheme Regulation and sent its assessment report to the European Commission 2 on 20 September The aggregation of each individual national/fab cost-efficiency and capacity targets does not yet allow reaching the corresponding EU-wide targets. As a result, following the ad-hoc meeting of the Single Sky Committee on 24 October 2011 and the issue by the European Commission on 23 November 2011 of the recommendation envisaged under Article 13(3) of the erformance Regulation, Spain has been requested to revise its targets. Following Article 1(1) of the erformance Regulation, this revision entails the whole territory of Spain including the Canaries FIR/UIR (Canary Islands) which is part of the ICAO AFI region and, as recommended by the RB, seeks to review the targets proposed in the initial erformance lan submitted in June The underpinning objective of this addendum is not to redo the whole Spanish erformance lan at this stage but to clearly identify and explain the revised targets in the NER in the most focused and effective way to enable for the second review by the RB, which will take place during the first quarter of This addendum to the NER focuses on the revision of capacity and cost-efficiency targets and clarifies aspects of the NER that might require further explanation and it should be signed by the State and provided to the European Commission and the RB before 23 January The textual part of this addendum is accompanied by (a series of) spreadsheet files

9 2. REVISED CAACITY TARGET 2.1. Key figures for the revised Capacity target Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay min per flight) 2009A 2010A 2011 (Jan- Sep) ,52 0,42 0,31 En-route ATFM delay prior to R1 (en-route ATFM delay min per flight) 0,78 1,93 1,88 Initial erformance lan (June 2011) National/FAB capacity target (enroute ATFM delay min per flight) 0,80 0,75 0,50 Revised erformance Targets (December 2011) National/FAB capacity target (enroute ATFM delay min per flight) 0,80 0,75 0,50 Table 1 : Revised National/FAB capacity target 2.2. Changes and justifications for the revised capacity target appropriate measures to reach the revised capacity target A detailed justification to the conclusion that the RB assessment provided about the factual aspects of the NER in the capacity area is enclosed in order to explain the reason for the targets established as well as the measures foreseen by the NSA to ensure that the capacity will be achieved, by when the reference values will be achieved and to explain that there is still room for fine-tuning depending on the evolution of the performance and the uncertainties associated to that evolution. The Key point A on capacity in the RB assessment says: Since 2008 Spain has experienced a deteriorating performance in capacity, mainly as a result of social issues. The evolution of the level of delays per year shows a significant growing trend since At this moment in time (October 2011), delays in the different ACCs are in some cases twice the target for 2012 and close to thrice the target for

10 Capacity KI and traffic ast vs Forecast 2,5 2,0 Minutes of en route ATFM delay per IFR flight 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,82 1,07 0,78 0,60 0,78 1,93 0,80 0,75 0,50 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 IFR Flights (millions) 0,0 0, Actual historical performance Spanish Capacity Target EUROCONTROL reference values Spanish traffic (actual flights) Spanish forecast traffic Source: Aena Figure 1: Historical data compared to capacity targets and forecast traffic The Key point E on capacity in the RB assessment says: The intermediate targets for 2012 and 2013 do not meet the indicative targets suggested by the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL. In the Network Operation Report of October 2011 it is shown that Spain has the main ACCs in the top 4 en route ATFM delay and the three big ones in the top 20, and all of them over 1, 39 minutes. Figure 2: Historical data compared to capacity targets and forecast traffic 8

11 This means for Spain a great effort to achieve 0, 8 min/flight for the next year because nowadays, the delay levels of the main ACC in Spain are: Madrid 1.4 min/flight, Barcelona 1.48 min/flight and Canarias 1.8 min/flight. This means that the level of improvement of Aena to achieve the target defined in the NER is close to 100% for the next year and 200% for Taking into consideration the finalisation of the Labour agreement with ATCOs by the end of 2013 and the huge effort in the cost-efficiency area that Aena is undertaking, it is clear that the target set in the NER is more than challenging. 1,8 Figure 3: Historical data compared to capacity targets and forecast traffic The Key point B on capacity in the RB assessment says: Spain s performance plan aims for continuous improvement of en-route ATFM delay performance from a high level of 0.8 minutes per flight in 2012 to 0.5 minutes per flight in It must be noted that this assessment states that Spain s performance plans aims for continuous improvement of en-route ATFM. This is going to be achieved by the fundamental changes in the operation of the ATM system that Aena is undertaking in order to meet the targets set in a continuous improvement environment. Those changes are: 1. Airspace design/use improvement The roject CAELUS will enhance the organization of the aerodrome control towers resulting in a more efficient and competitive service. This will be achieved by the modification of the structure of the TMAs and the transfer of the approach control positions (A) -currently part of the aerodrome control towers- to the ACCs, thus optimizing the use of resources. This, in its turn, will result in an optimisation of the airspace management by providing, by mid 2012, additional tools validated for a better control of ATFM delay although 9

12 actual implementation of the project (i.e. full operational capabilities of the validated tools) is foreseen for the end 2014 due to the additional training hours that will be required for its actual deployment. 2. Human dimension in operation During R1, the liberalization planned for the air traffic service provision at the aerodromes, which is currently on-going, will entail a great workload and time investment in terms of ATCOs training processes in order to prepare the officers that are currently servicing the aerodrome control towers to work in the ACCs in a scenario of continuous increasing traffic. Action plans have been developed and are already being implemented to deal with this situation and to optimize not only the rostering arrangements but also the busy training schedule. It is Spain s belief that these plans, together with the speeding up of training processes in ACCs, will contribute to a notable decrease of the current national levels of delay. On the other hand, all the projects initiated to improve the structure and management of both the human resources and national airspace are expected to start delivering clear results by the end of 2014, when the ATCOs coming from the aerodrome control towers liberalized will be fully operative. Because of the maturity process of all those improvements, the reference value for Spain that is deemed indicative of Spain s contribution to the EU-wide capacity target is expected to be achieved once the different projects now on-going bear tangible fruit. This is expected to happen at the beginning of the second reference period (R2: ) and no later than 2016, following a clear and determined trend of increasing capacity and reducing delays within R1 as can be seen in Figure 1. The Key point G on capacity in the RB assessment says: Spain is engaged in a number of structural changes and their performance plan states that they will only be able to deliver the performance required by the reference values after The fundamental changes in the operation of the ATM system that Aena is accomplishing in order to meet the targets set are essential and will have far-reaching consequences over capacity. This kind of changes takes time not only to introduce them but also to reach the maturity required to display all their benefits, which is why the target of 0.31 min/flight will be meet at the beginning of R2, by In the pledge Spain has made to contribute adequately to the EU-wide target, it is Spain s intention to reassess some time in 2013 the capacity target for 2014 in full view of the performance of the system, the data accumulated, and the development of the essential changes and the evolution of the number of uncertainties. There are also a considerable number of significant uncertainties as: The liberalization planned for the air traffic service provision at the aerodromes, which is currently on-going, but has not yet reached the actual provision of the service. The new latform Movement System that has started in Madrid to release ATCOs from aerodrome tower to the ACC. This system/service could be introduced in more airports depending on the results achieved in Madrid, in which case Aena would count on more human resources for the ACCs. The end of the Labour agreement with ATCOs by the end of

13 The Key point C on capacity in the RB assessment says: The target in 2014 (0.5 minutes per flight) is considerably less ambitious than the reference value (0.31 minutes per flight) set by the capacity planning process of EURCONTROL. This despite the traffic forecast for 2014 being at a similar level to that of 2007 and the point of the same document stated that: The network manager forecasts an average en-route ATFM delay of 1.79 minutes per flight in 2012 reducing to 1.37 minutes in This suggests the actual situation in Spain could be worse than is indicated by the performance target for It is noteworthy that the RB assessment makes two contradictory statements. On the one hand the assessment considers the target for 2014 not ambitious enough whilst on the other hand it records the network manager forecast for ATFM en-route delay, with the expectation of 1.79 min/flight in 2012 reducing to 1.37 minutes in This suggests that Aena is making great efforts to improve this situation by increasing capacity by a 300% in order to reduce delays looking at all areas of possible improvements and keeping an eye on costs in order not only not to increase them but to drastically reduce them. The Conclusions on capacity in the RB assessment recommends that: Spain as a member of the South West FAB should consider potential new structures within the FAB, to improve performance. This should be envisaged and addressed by Spain in the national performance plan. A set of potential operational projects have been identified within the SW FAB for implementation within two different tentative timescales (2012 and 2015) and which could provide operational benefits mainly for airspace operators (AOs). The benefits of the synergy within the SW FAB have not yet been completely defined and could be taken as an input in the process of reviewing the target of 2014 foreseen for In order to evaluate the flight distance savings and/or the capacity increase, a fast time simulation has been done for most of the considered projects. The Operational lan contains eight initiatives and proposals to be implemented in the established time-frame. Once approved, this plan would then be updated with new proposals and projects on annual basis. More information is provided in the operational area of the official web of the SW FAB: 11

14 3. REVISED COST-EFFICIENCY TARGET 3.1. Key Figures for the revised Cost-Efficiency target Spain received the guidelines and feedback by the RB and RU regarding the erformance lan submitted in June After careful consideration of each one of the recommendations and issues raised, Spain embarked on the task of adjusting the measures planned in order to obtain performance figures that are compliant with RB standards. With the new measures laid out, a forecast of the key figures in cost efficiency for the 2012 to 2014 period has been calculated. As anticipated, a significant improvement is expected to have met to contribute in an adequate manner to the objectives established at European level. For the review of the targets of the Spanish lan, and regarding the costs presented in the Spanish erformance lan, the cost base of Spain has been reduced in order to contribute in an adequate manner to the targets as established in the Commission Decision of 21 February Thus, only taking into account that the Spanish Continental cost base, EUROCONTROL costs excluded, it has been reduced by almost 5 million in 2010, and around 19 million for the first reference period, surpassing 23 million euro between 2010 and Therefore, compared with the reduction in the EU cost-efficiency targets, with an annual average variation of 3.5%, this is to say 6.8% for the three years of R1, Spain Continental had already done just within two years concerned the period , for the Spain Continental determined unit rate, an effort of around 25%, whose determined costs has been reduced by more than 145 million euro, with further meaningful reduction in the determined unit rate of 29.15% and 5.38% for the periods and , period where the annual average reduction for the Spanish determined unit rate is 5.83%, compared to a reduction of 3.5% considering the objectives established at European level. It is also relevant to appreciate that EUROCONTROL costs have increase about a 5% over the last forecast for year 2014, this fact has a direct impact on the target for this year, although the Spain Continental unit rate has being reduced in accordance with the compromise of Spain with the users. 12

15 erformance lan: Spain Continental Initial erformance lan (June 2011) 2009A 2010A AAGR AAGR Total determined costs in nominal terms (in national ,4% 2,9% currency) Inflation % 2,0% 2,6% 1,5% 1,4% 1,5% Inflation index (100 in 2009) 100,0 102,0 104,7 106,3 107,8 109,4 1,8% 1,5% Determined costs in real terms (in national ,2% 1,4% currency at 2009 prices) Total en-route Service Units ,4% 2,8% Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) 94,45 75,99 71,01 71,37 70,64 68,16-6,3% -1,4% Revised erformance Targets (December 2011) 2009A 2010A Total determined costs in nominal terms (in national currency) Inflation % 2,0% 2,6% 1,5% 1,4% 1,5% Inflation index (100 in 2009) Determined costs in real terms (in national currency at 2009 prices) Total en-route Service Units Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) AAGR AAGR ,8% 2,3% 100,0 102,0 104,7 106,3 107,8 109,4 1,8% 1,5% ,5% 0,8% ,4% 2,7% 94,45 75,99 70,73 70,08 69,44 66,92-6,7% -1,8% Table 2: Revised National/FAB capacity target- Spain Continental 13

16 erformance lan: Spain Canarias Initial erformance lan (June 2011) Total determined costs in nominal terms (in national currency) 2009A 2010A AAGR AAGR ,2% 0,9% Inflation % 2,0% 2,6% 1,5% 1,4% 1,5% Inflation index (100 in 2009) Determined costs in real terms (in national currency at 2009 prices) Total en-route Service Units Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) 100,0 102,0 104,7 106,3 107,8 109,4 1,8% 1,5% ,9% -0,6% ,7% 3,2% 80,62 70,07 64,51 62,36 60,40 57,73-6,5% -3,6% Revised erformance Targets (December 2011) Total determined costs in nominal terms (in national currency) 2009A 2010A AAGR AAGR ,5% 0,4% Inflation % 2,0% 2,6% 1,5% 1,4% 1,5% Inflation index (100 in 2009) Determined costs in real terms (in national currency at 2009 prices) Total en-route Service Units Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) 100,0 102,0 104,7 106,3 107,8 109,4 1,8% 1,5% ,2% -1,1% ,7% 2,7% 80,62 70,07 63,72 61,48 59,54 56,84-6,8% -3,7% Table 3: Revised National/FAB capacity target- Spain Canarias 14

17 3.2. Changes and justifications for the revised cost-efficiency target Traffic forecast Even though Spain continental service units are below Statfor baseline scenario, the revised projection of service units remains with the same figures as in the erformance lan submitted in June for the R1. A detailed review of the forecasting method together with the input of new data, found no differences with the previous forecast for this period even though Spain Canarias is in line with the Statfor baseline scenario and Spain Continental is not. Detailed information about the review figures in case of Spain Continental is described below. Data regarding the increase for the year 2011 of total unit service, presented at the 94th meeting of the enlarged Committee of EUROCONTROL for route charges and included in the review of the Spanish erformance lan reflect an increase of 5.4% over the previous year. This analysis has been done by considering separately the evolution of the chargeable service units and the exempted service units, since the latter are experiencing a spectacular increase by punctual circumstances as it is the situation in North Africa. It is very important to note that as a result, any deviations to the forecast of traffic that takes place in this year will necessarily move to the following years of the reference period. Thus, the detailed analysis of the cumulative figure of chargeable service units shows an evolution worse in September that would lead to the end of the year to achieve a close to 4.3 % percentage. The reason for the negative evolution compared to forecast has to do with the scheduling of slots closed as of 30 September for winter The data, updated in September 15 showed a decrease of 1.4% and a later update in September 30 presented a fall of 2.4%. The figures clearly indicate a trend in the decline of slots. According to the usual trends from previous winter seasons the scheduling of slots decrease approximately 4% at the end of the season and there is a reduction in operations of up to 6% in Spain-Continental. With regard to the exempted service units, it must be highlighted its dramatic increase in 2011, which would almost double its values of 2010, as a result of exempted military flights due to the exceptional situation in North Africa. It should be noted that this increase in exempted flights in 2011 would by itself only increased slightly more than 1% of total units of service of the year. STATFOR forecasts, drawn up with the actual data until the month of August, show a higher percentage increase because they contain the data for the month of April which is influenced by the effect of the crisis of the volcanic ashes in 2010, as it is pointed out in the report of the RB, together with the positive evolution of traffic during the summer. Regarding these forecasts, some comments can be made: On one hand, it appears that this estimation has not discriminated between the different evolution of the chargeable service units and the corresponding for exempted flights, and in this sense there can be no doubt that the chargeable service units show a much more stable and regular evolution than the exempted ones. This evolution should be the base on which to assess any estimates of future traffic so that the distorting effect of the great fluctuation of the exempted service units for year 2011 can be avoided. On the other hand, and according to the existing data prior to the drop in traffic in September, with a total cumulative increase of 6.8% service units, it would require an increase of about

18 % during the last quarter of the year in order to achieve the projected increase of 7.5% for the whole year, circumstance that is unlikely considering the information already commented on the programming of the winter season. In figures 4 and 5, it has been represented the evolution planned for the year 2011, in which, it can be seen the downward trend expected for the last months of the year, as well as the difference between the evolutions of chargeable and exempted service units. Figure 4: Cumulative service units evolution for Spain continental compared between 2011 vs

19 Figure 5:Variation of the service unit for Spain Continental compared between 2011 vs Taking into account the above mentioned, and with the information of 19 December 2011 available at CRCO, it can be observed that there is no deviation between this information and the forecast for this year that was presented at the 94th meeting of the enlarged Committee for route charges, and that is reflected in the review of the Spanish NER: 2011 CRCO Latest forecast/unit Rate Basis Addendum Spanish erformance lan Table 4: Deviation between traffic forecast On the other hand, and related to the reference period, forecasts for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 experience over the previous year variations very similar and even identical to those provided for STATFOR STATFOR 2,9% 2,2% 2,4% NER 3,2% 2,4% 2,4% Table 5. Comparison between traffic forecast 17

20 It should also be taken into account that, according to the latest forecasts made by STATFOR, medium-term forecasts of traffic contained in this document would be above in any case of the minimum STATFOR scenario, coming to exceed the forecast for the years 2013 and 2014 in around 2-3 percentage points respectively. Therefore, there are sound reasons to keep the forecasts of service units reflected in the review of the Spanish erformance lan for R1, despite the fact, that the latest traffic forecast shows a more pessimistic scenario and unit service could even reach a negative growth for Continental Spain Total cost base As stated before, Spain has revised the cost containment measures involved in the erformance lan submitted in June A further effort to reduce the total cost base has been done delivering substantial reductions for the period. Spain Continental has reduced its total cost base by around 1,8% each year, providing a total reduction of 38 million over the R1. Spain Canarias has reduced its costs by 1.5% each year in R1, thus reducing the total costs by around 5 million Determined Unit Rate (DUR) Both Spain Continental and Spain Canarias show a reduction in the DUR target for R1. In Spain Continental the average reduction with respect to the figures submitted in June is 1.8% while in Spain Canarias is 1.5%. Regarding the overall trend, the effort made to achieve the current DUR can be shown when comparing the 2014 and 2009 values. This comparison shows a reduction of 29.1% in Spain Continental and 29.5% in Spain Canarias which is equivalent to an annual reduction of around 5.9% in both cases Contribution by entity AENA AENA s contribution to the revision of the targets of the Spanish erformance lan for R1 has materialized in a reduction of its cost of capital that has had an impact on its total cost base. As a result, AENA has reduced its costs from June for Spain Continental above 5 million euro each year of the reference period, which represents an effort of around 10% reduction in the cost of capital, with a total saving of 16 million euro in the mentioned period.. Regarding Spain Canary Islands, as a result of the revision in the cost of capital, the reduction is above 1% in total costs (around 10% in the cost of capital), which amounts to around 1 million euro for each year of the reference period, with a total reduction in the whole period of 3 million euro. Detailed information about Cost of capital and Return on equity it is provided in

21 EA (ANS & NSA) For the cost revision of the erformance lan submitted in June 2011, the Spanish Air Force has modified the cost of capital. In this sense, for the year 2011, the risk premium rate included in the determined costs has been of 5,26% extracted from last available government bond rate data at the time of the development of NER in the first half of Nevertheless, due to its impact in the cost of capital, the Spanish Air Force has established a lower risk premium rate of 4,50% from years 2012 to This represents for Spain Continental a reduction around 1% of total costs, this is to say around 780 thousand euro in the whole period. In case of Spain Canary Islands, the total cost base has been reduced around 0,5% in the whole period, reduction distributed proportionally more or less each year of the reference period. Detailed information about Cost of capital and Return on equity it is provided in AEMET AEMET is involved in a reform process of its National Forecasting System, consisting of a concentration and specialization of different forecast offices. From 2012 to 2014, the reform of the National Forecasting System will give rise to an improvement in the costs efficiency that will affect to all the natures of costs and especially to staff. The revised performance plan contains a first estimation of the effect that the reform might have in the short term, i.e. the first reference period, from 2012 to 2014, to be progressively introduced measures of specialization and concentration, leading to the new National Forecasting System. As a result, the costs have been reduced around from June 2% in R1 for Spain Continental: above 4 thousand euro in 2012, 6 thousand euro in 2013 and 1 million euro in 2014, which is to say more than two million euro in the whole reference period. In the case of Spain Canary Islands, the costs in the reference period have been reduced gradually each year up to around 200 thousand euro in 2014, which represents a total reduction of 2% with a saving of above 400 thousand euro in the whole period. AESA AESA s main effort has been to contain its costs even though current estimations show an increase in its cost base. Therefore, by virtue of the measures implemented, it has managed to reduce its operating costs and maintain all other costs equal to the ones reported in June

22 Cost of capital and Return On Equity Detailed information about revised Cost of Capital and Return on Equity used in the Spanish erformance lan is included in the following tables according to the RU Guidance material. AENA (Continental and Canary Islands) Risk free rate Initial erformance lan (June 2011) 10-year government bond rate over the period November 2010-April 2011 Average ,00% Risk remium 4,20% Return on Equity 9,20% Table 6: Cost of capital and Return On Equity Aena For States using CAM as the underlying methodology to establish their RoE Revised erformance Targets (December 2011) Average Risk free rate Source: 10-year government bond rate over the period November 2010-April 2011> 5,00% Risk remium 4,21% Asset Beta 0,35 Equity Beta (where used) - Equity beta (0,70) - Corporate tax (30%) - Gearing ratio. (1,40) Return on Equity 7,9% Return on Equity from en-route reporting tables (section 3.6) ,9% 7,9% 8,0% Table 7: Cost of capital and Return On Equity Aena 20

23 EA (Continental and Canary Islands) Risk free rate Initial erformance lan (June 2011) 10-year government bond rate over the period November 2010-April 2011 Average ,26% Risk remium 0% Return on Equity 5,26% Table 8: Cost of capital and Return On Equity EA Revised erformance Targets (December 2011) Average Risk free rate Source : N/A 4,5 % Risk remium 0% Return on Equity 4,5% Return on Equity from en-route reporting tables (section 3.6) ,5% 4,5 % 4,5 % Table 9: Cost of capital and Return On Equity EA 21

24 Investments No significant changes have been made with regard to the information provided in the June 2011 erformance lan. However, as required by the Recommendation of the Commission, a description of the impact in the different performance areas of the investments planned is needed. The tables below provide information of the impact and relationships of each investment project. ROJECT Implementation of the ATM automation programme Implementation of the navigation aids programme Implementation of the communication s programme Implementation of the surveillance programme Domai n Allocation Assessed impact on performance targets lanned start date lanned end date ATM Capacity lanned Capex (M ) CNS Capacity ,1 CNS Capacity ,7 - CNS Capacity ,4 ATM M OIs Contribution TS-0201 TS-0305 AO-0602 AUO-0201 AUO-0301 DCB-0206 DCB-0302 IS-0101 IS-0102 IS-0201 IS-0204 IS-0401 CM-0101 CM-0201 CM-0202 CM-0203 CM-0801 AO-0503 AO-0504 AO-0101 AO-0102 AO-0103 AO-0201 AO-0202 AO-0203 AO-0401 ATM M Implem. Obj Contribution ITY-AGDL ITY-ADQ ITY-COTR ITY-FMT FCM03 AO0401 AO04.2 SUR02 SUR04 ATC02.2 ATC02.5 ATC02.6 ATC02.7 ATC07.1 ATC12 ATC15 - ITY-AGVCS COM09 COM10 COM11 SUR02 SUR04 SUR05 AO04.1 AO04.2 Table 10: Impact in the different performance areas of the investments 22

25 With respect to the establishment of a quantitative link between investments and performance results, there is a need to jointly work on a European basis to define the required metrics, thus facilitating comparability and acceptability of the assessments. The European ATM Master lan, as the essential instrument through which the link should be established, will have to be adapted, as recognized by DG MOVE in its consultation paper presented on September, 2nd. Key erformance Area Strategic rojects CEF RO SAF ENV CA Sectors dynamic and flexible management RN Approach (BN) Civil/military coordinated management of airspace Continuous descent approach procedures (CDA) erformance based navigation implementation (BN) GBAS based approach procedures Collaborative decision processes in airports (CDM) Departure managers implementation (DMAN) Runway usage optimisation Improvement of surface movements management (A-SMGCS) Implementation of services based on data link Reduction of voice communication band width to 8.33kHz Evolution of REDAN and interconnection of networks Evolution of voice communication system with VoI Evolution of en-route and TMA surveillance system Air navigation aids rationalisation Evolution of flight plans processing system (itec) Evolution of ATM information system Evolution of ATC strategic planning aids Evolution of flight tactical management aids Safety Nets Evolution of controller working position Improvement of the information management and exchange services Significant impact Moderate impact Table 11: Impact in the different performance areas of the investments 23

26 3.3. Appropriate measures to reach the revised cost-efficiency target AESA will review any deviation between at least the actual and forecast traffic and cost in order to ensure that the revised targets will be achieved, and will held also at least on an annual basis a consultation with the representative of the users to give the appropriate explanations. In case targets are likely no to be met will coordinate with the rest of the NSAs and their relevant accountable entities to adopt a plan with the corrective measures that will contain the causes of the deviation, the possible measures to solve the situation, a planning for the deployment and implementation of the corrective measures and the expected effects with regard to the achieve of the targets. EA-NSA Monitoring is carried out by members of the Spanish Authority continuously over time, so that enables the implementation of a process of ongoing monitoring of the provision of air navigation services of the Spanish Air Force to the Civil Aviation. In this sense, there is in the Spanish Air Force, an internal plan of supervision at all organizational levels related to the navigation service provision to the Civil Aviation Information on uncontrollable costs As per COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006, article 11 (a) 8c, the following cost factors will be considered uncontrollable by all the ANSs and NSAs of the Spanish air navigation system: unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations; unforeseen changes in to national taxation law; unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan but required by law; unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international agreements; significant changes in interest rates on loans. As a particularization of the above list, some entities will also consider uncontrollable the following items: AENA Costs related to the full process of liberalization of the aerodrome ATC service, but only those with regard to the first batch currently on-going (13 control towers). The liberalization process initiated by the Spanish government is likely to have an impact on AENA s cost base, although that impact can neither be anticipated nor controlled by AENA. EA-NSA and EA-ANS Unforeseen changes in equipment, services or use affecting to civil aviation, if required by national or military security in the framework of international agreements. AEMET Creation, modification, expansion or dismantling of airport infrastructure. The privatization of airport management and the provision of ATS at aerodromes can produce unforeseen cost to MET service provider. From a situation with a single user, the change to a stage with multiple users could increase the cost of contract management and particularized attention. 24

27 4. OTHER INFORMATION 4.1. Missing information highlighted in RB s assessment report As per article 2 of COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006. Spain can exclude AENA from the 2% band in the risk sharing mechanism described in article 11a (3). This exclusion will take effect and it is currently pending the approval of a national law that addresses this point. There are no incentives relating to capacity. Contingency plans are being designed to readdress the situation if the data shows that performance is diverging from the targets set. The feedback from the consultation process with the stakeholders was taken into consideration and reflected into de lan in different ways. In the FUA-Environment KA, a detailed breakdown of an overall reduction in the length of routes of 250 NM Spain has included in the NER. In relation with Traffic forecasts and Capacity, in both Areas a formal analysis was undertaken and figures in NER have been kept for reasons explained in this document. The Cost-effectiveness Area has been revised in this document and targets improved following Stakeholders opinion and the Commission Recommendation Safety A detail justification to the conclusions that the RB assessment provided about factual aspects of NER in the safety area is enclosed in order to explain the measures foreseen by the NSAs to ensure that safety is the main goal of NER and trade-offs with other Key erformance Area have been taken into consideration. Concerning safety, there aspects of the RB draft assessment report of erformance lans for R1 that Spain considers outside of scope of the Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010 and even outside of the R1 timeframe, the points envisaged in the Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010 are stated below. The first three Key oints on safety in the RB assessment says: The NSA should provide a clear explanation on the plans to perform safety assessments on all initiatives in the ATM domain to achieve the targets during R1, including the main milestones together with an indication of the necessary resources to perform the Safety reviews. In preparation for R1, AESA should have established proper procedures for the review of safety assessments of ATM changes. Evidence should be provided that the identified gap identified in LSSI is closed._ Spain is invited to provide additional information on the safety implications of capacity enhancement projects. All civil ANSs currently providing CNS/ATM services in Spain, are fully certified within the Single European Sky framework (no derogations according to article 4 have been granted), so both of them are running a Safety Management System (SMS) in compliance with the Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 to ensure that they operate in a safe way. In this regard, both organisations have implemented the Safety Assessment Methodology (SAM) to address safety issues regarding any ATM functional change, particularly those planned to reduce costs and improve capacity before R1. The Law 9/2010, February 10th 2010, improved safety in a significant way and made possible the achievement of a new labour agreement between Aena and ATCOs where the new working conditions were accepted by both parties. 25

28 A set of regulations were published together with Law 9/2010 in order to more precisely define the provision of air traffic service provision and oversight: o o o o o Royal Decree 1001/2010, of August 5 th, laying down aviation safety rules in relation to air traffic control activity and rest requirements of the civil air traffic controllers. Royal Decree 1133/2010, of September 10 th, by which the provision of the Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) is regulated. Royal Decree 931/2010, of July 23 rd, by which it is regulated the procedure for the certification of air navigation service providers and their regulatory oversight Order FOM/1841/2010, of July 5 th, by which the requirements for the certification of air traffic controllers training providers are developed Royal Degree 1238/2011, of September 8 th, by which the service of platform management is regulated. The Key oint 4 on safety in the RB assessment says: RB appreciates the availability of data for separation minima infringements, ATM specific occurrences and runway incursion. RB would appreciate to receive the confirmation that such occurrences are and will be classified according to severity classification based on the RAT methodology in R1. Confirmation that beyond November 2011, ATS incidents endorsed by CEANITA will be classified according to severity classification RAT methodology. Milestones 27 th /28 th September 2010: RAT Training (Eurocontrol) provided to AESA s staff (CEANITA + ORS) 25 th August 2011: Meeting between Aena and AESA (CEANITA/ORS) on RAT coordination 22 nd September 2011: RAT Training to CEANITA Board Members 15 th -17 th November 2011: CEANITA Board is already applying RAT methodology The Key oint 5 on safety in the RB assessment says ATM Investigation performance, both in CEANITA and in CIAIAC, should be improved to ensure all investigations and related recommendations are issued in timely manner; hence they can be fully effective. articularly the RB would recommend publishing as soon as possible the CEANITA reports for the years 2009 and 2010 and it would appreciate receiving from CIAIAC (the AAIB) the list of ANS-related serious incidents which occurred in 2009 and A number of measures are being taken to improve CEANITA erformance. A new CEANITA regulation has been drafted in order to establish reviewed working methods and organisation by fostering coordination at both internal (AESA) and external (ANSs and airlines) level. It is expected to be issued by the 1st quarter of In addition, a new integrated working scheme for CEANITA and Occurrence Reporting System (ORS) was implemented at the beginning of CEANITA and ORS (SNS) teams were merged to make better use of available resources. While ORS is now responsible for quick assessment (expert judgment) on all the reported ANS occurrences 26

29 and takes decision on which events should be fully analysed, CEANITA keeps responsibility for performing ATM occurrences analysis. The new integrated working scheme for CEANITA and Occurrence Reporting System (ORS) is described in the next 3 figures. OTHER INUTS WEEKLY ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Dashboard SAFETY ISSUES IDENTIFICATION TREND DETECTION RISK ANALYSIS Moving RISK CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES YEAR REORTS Top riorities STE 1 STE 2 STE 3 Figure 6: ORS (SNS) working methods E RF O R M A N CE 3 RD LE VE L 2 ND LE VE L 1 SR LE VE L EARLY SAFETY WARNING: Immediate communication to AESA Executive Level Analysis of specific occurrences / safety concerns, conducted by SNS and Experts anel and documented in a technical report. ATM occurrences CEANITA ECCAIRS data entry: Statistics Trends analysis Further information request to the reporter (individual or organization) Actions follow up on open occurrences Figure 7: ORS (SNS) working methods 27

30 AVIATION COMMUNITY ADDITIONAL DATA ACKNOWLEDGEM OCCURREN CE OCCURRENCE DATA ROCESSING (INUT) WEE DAIL ANALYSIS ROCESS Expert Judgement ECCAI RS DB WEEK FOLLOW-U LOO OCCURRENCE DATA ROCESSING (OUTUT) AGGREGATE D DATA (INDICATORS AD HOC FEEDBACK INTERNAL USERS Audit Teams: Airport ATM/CNS Flight Ops Airworthiness AGGREGATED DE-IDENTIFIED DATA FEEDBAC DE- IDENTIFIED OTHER USERS EASA EUROCONTROL AIBs Rulemakin Inspection A dit SS Rulemakin Certificatio Data AVIATION COMMUNITY Figure 7: ORS (SNS) data management Concerning Annual Reports, ORS 2010 yearly report was published in November 2011 and CEANITA 2009/10 yearly report is expected to be merged into a single document to be published after the issuing of CEANITA s new Ministerial Order. For 2012, AESA will publish a report on operational safety encompassing the information analyzed by ORS, CEANITA and other safety data sources 28

31 ANNUAL REORT Summary of the occurrences registered along the year, structured into chapters containing the following topics: SNS Activity Reporting Culture Statistical and Safety Analysis of Occurrences (Trends and Risk) Evolution of Safety Indicators Top 10 Risk Areas Figure 8: ORS (SNS) annual report Regarding CIAIAC activities, the organisation has recruited personnel expert in ATS incidents investigation to complete its investigators staff and has initiated this year 2011, several serious ATS incidents investigations; status: on-going (see CIAIAC website). In addition CIAIAC has produced working methods to enable the possibility of quickly deciding whether or not to initiate an investigation on a serious ATS incident and has also developed guidance material to clarify what type of serious ATS incidents controllers and pilots must notify; to ensure that all serious incidents are notify, during 2012 CIAIAC will initiate a number of seminars to disseminate such guidance material. Furthermore, Aena has changed its procedures for ATS incidents deemed to be serious to be reported directly to CIAIAC, not via SNS or CEANITA, in order to shorten the process and turn it more direct. The Key oint 6 on Safety in the RB assessment says: Spain is invited to monitor during R1 indicators based on RAT methodology for separation minima infringements, ATM specific occurrences and runway incursion. These indicators shall be submitted to European Commission, according to the provisions of Art. 17 (3) of Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010. Spain is deeply committed to monitor such indicators during R1. Starting in 2012 ORS will prepare and publish quarterly scorecards reports to monitor those indicators. In addition, AESA has developed a software tool for the safety analysis of the provision of air navigation services which is already available and will allow periodic monitoring of such indicators. This tool, along with those developed for the areas of airports and airlines will be integrated into the so-called Strategic Observatory for Safety. The following figures show a screenshot of the air navigation services portal and the system operation of the future Observatory. 29

32 Figure 9: Air navigation services monitoring FUENTES INFORMACIÓN INTERNAS ESTRUCTURADAS NO FUENTES INFORMACIÓN EXTERNAS ESTRUCTURADAS DA AESA OBSERVATORIO Selección de informació n Interpreta ción ANÁLISIS DE rocesamie nto Elaboració n de Informes El Observatorio ofrecerá: Distintas opciones de explotación de la información: análisis por mercado, por tipo de compañía, por ámbito. Colección de indicadores e informes. Extracción de datos estadísticos NO Consolidación de la Información INDICADORES INFORMES Uno de los principales beneficios del Observatorio será la consolidación de información veraz y de valor estratégico para la AESA de las numerosas fuentes de información Figure 10: Strategic observatory for safety 30

33 CONTROL DE ACCESO CONTROL DE ACCESO NIVELES DE ACCESO ANEL DE INDICADORES Y ALARMAS Agentes Externos Directivos Analistas negocio INDICADORES E INFORMES REDEFINIDOS INDICADORES ERSONALIZADOS INFORMES ERSONALIZADOS CENTRO DE DOCUMENTACIÓN ÚLTIMA HORA Y NOTICIAS Analistas técnicos Figure 11: Strategic observatory for safety The Key oint 7 on safety in the RB assessment says Spain should finally indicate the accountable entities contributing to safety performance, including the performance of the State and its NSA with regard to Effectiveness of Safety Management and Just Culture. In the safety area the accountable entities contributing to safety performance are: AESA, EMA (Air Force) and Secretary of State for Climate Change* 3. Other public bodies bound by Spanish SS are: DGAC (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) and CIAIAC (AIB). The responsible body for coordinating Spanish SS is AESA (Spanish National Aviation Agency). The responsibility of the SS Approval lies in the Council of Ministers under a joint proposal by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry Development in their respective areas of responsibilities. The SS Executive responsible is a High Official designated by the Council of Ministers. Just-Culture accountable entities are all the above mentioned and the legislative power. Regarding the SAIN SAFETY ROGRAM and JUST CULTURE the Law 1/2011 of March 4, established the State Safety rogramme for Civil Aviation and amended the Aviation Safety Law 21/2003 of July 7. The political commitment is clear in the new law. The Spanish Minister of Transport vowed on September 23, 2009 to amend Aviation Safety Law 21/2003 and establish the State Safety rogramme and to give guarantees to encourage the flow of safety information as a means to provide more information and deepen the preventive approach to improve aviation safety. 3 Due to the new organisation of the Spanish Ministries, which is currently undergoing, the name of this Authority could change 31

34 The draft that the Government officials prepared aimed to improve current levels of air safety by providing the greatest possible protection to both safety information and to the reporter. This way the continuity in the provision of such information to improve safety is ensured without undermining respect for the constitutional powers granted to the Judges Courts, and the duty to cooperate with Justice, both enshrined in Article 118 of the Spanish Constitution. This reform was largely inspired by the principles of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, where it stipulates that no information will be released following an investigation for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the justice determines that disclosure of such information is more important than the adverse consequences it may cause. It also takes into account the legal guidance for the protection of information obtained through safety data collection and processing systems, Attachment E to Annex 13, which recognizes that the protection of safety information is essential to ensure continuous availability of it, since the use of safety information for purposes unrelated to safety can prevent future availability of such information and adversely affect it. In turn, the Spanish Air Safety Act reform was synchronized and inspired by the recent EU regulations: o Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European arliament and of The Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation, establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency; Art. 16 rotection of the source of information. o Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (SES II). o Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European arliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. The principles of data protection on which reform is based are the following. First, the SS collected information is gathered for the sole purpose of enhancing safety. This matter is considered in various articles. Thus, in the context of confidential information, paragraph 3 of art insists that the purpose of the information collected is solely to enhance safety and prevent future accidents and incidents and not to determine guilt or responsibilities. The principle is also included in Article 12.1, first paragraph, establishing that the use of the provided safety information by those obliged by the rogram or preventive actions taken under the rogram is only permitted to prevent, assess safety risks and improve safety levels. Second, it prevents inappropriate use. For SS approval it should be taken into account as a basic principle safety information protection so that it is not inappropriately used as established by article 11.2, second paragraph. Third, it protects the source of safety information against misuse by both public organisations obliged by the rogram and the employer. Accordingly, article 11.1, paragraph 3 dictates that it is necessary to ensure the continued availability of information to adopt proper and timely preventive measures, and to that end, the safety information provided within the SS framework: o o cannot be used as evidence valid for any type of administrative procedure, and cannot be disclosed to the general public. 32