Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

civil air navigation services organisation

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2016 2011 – 2015 ANSP Performance Results The ANSP View

2

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2016 is the collective effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSP), which participate in this benchmarking effort on a voluntary basis, and covers data from the ANSPs’ 2015 fiscal years and trend data from 2011 - 2015.

Editorial Team Paul Cripwell - NAV CANADA, Chair Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG) Helios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team

Contributors Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI) Kunthinee Karunratanakul, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI) Krishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI) Kanhaya Lal, Airports Authority of India (AAI) Nigel Fitzhardinge, Airways New Zealand Sibusiso Nkabinde, Air Traffic & Navigation Services (ATNS) Rick Smith, Dubai Air Navigation Services (dans) Aleksandra Damsz, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Dina Dolan, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Christopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Kristin Stadum, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Yousef Bagis, General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) Diana Galgoczi, HungaroControl Livia Cseh, HungaroControl Sigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIA Susumu Hoshino, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS) Ana Pinto, NAV Portugal Mindaugas Gustys, SE Oro Navigacija Jeff Perchard, NAV CANADA Andrea Ivasivka, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)

Disclaimer This report has been compiled using data provided by the participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any number, cost, time period or other metric relating to any ANSP’s process.

December 2016

Published December 2016

Contents

3

THE ANSP VIEW Introduction to The ANSP View

List of Key Performance Indicators

Participants Methodology Cost Efficiency and Productivity Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2015 Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2015 Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency: 2015 Price and Revenues Revenues and Price Indicators: 2015

References Acronyms and abbreviations

page 4 page 5 page 6 page 8 page 9 page 11 page 20 page 25 page 28 page 29 page 32 page 33

ANNEXES Annex 1: Data Definitions

Annex 2: Contextual Data

page 34 page 4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – List of participating ANSPs

page 6 Figure 2 – Participating ANSPs Flight Hours

page 7 Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework

page 9 Figure 4 – Cost per IFR Flight Hour (USD)

page 11 Figure 5 – ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOS in OPS hour (USD) page12 Figure 6 – ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD) page 13 Figure 7 – ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

page 14 Figure 8 – Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) page 15 Figure 9 – Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)

page 16 Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted page 17 Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

page 18 Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS page 19 Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

page 20 Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) page 21 Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted page 22 Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

page 23 Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) page 24 Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

page 25 Figure 19 - Cost of capital and depreciation as a percentage of total costs page 26 Figure 20 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs(USD) page 27 Figure 21 - ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD) ______________________________________ page 29 Figure 22 - ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD) ______________________________________ page 30 Figure 23 - Example consolidated price for 1,000km flight for an A320 (USD)_______________ page 31

© CANSO 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form, without the prior permission of CANSO. www.canso.org

4

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Introduction to The ANSP View This is the second part of the CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2016.

It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSP) for the year 2015, along with ANSP performance trend data from 2011-2015.

ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs. For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary.

Key Performance Indicators The following section presents 2015 and 2011-2015 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3. Air navigation services (ANS) revenues and an example price indicator are also included.

5

List of Key Performance Indicators

Indicator

KPI

Numerator

Denominator

Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance Indicators IFR Flight Hours

Continental

Oceanic

2015/Trend

20151

Figure 4

Figure 13

1

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

2A

ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour

Employment ATCOs in OPS costs for hours ATCOs in OPS

Figure 5,6

Figure 14,15

2B

ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

IFR flight hours

Figure 7

Figure 16

2C

Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour

Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS IFR flight hours employment costs

Figure 8

Figure 17

3A

Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS ATCOs in OPS

Figure 9,10

3B

Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

ATCOs in OPS ATCOs in OPS hours

3C

IFR hours per ATCOs in OPS

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency Performance Indicators

Figure 11 Figure 12

Continental and Oceanic 2015/Trend

CO1

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

IFR Flight Hours

Figure 18

CO2

Cost of capital and depreciation as a percentage of total costs

Cost of capital and depreciation

Total Cost

Figure 19

CO3

Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

Employment cost for Total Cost ATCOs in OPS

Figure 20

Revenues and Price Indicators

1

Figure References

P1

ANS revenues per IFR flight hour

ANS revenues

IFR flight hours

P2

Example consolidated price for 1000km flight for an A320

N/A

N/A

Continental

Oceanic

2015/Trend

2015/Trend

Figure 21

Figure 22

2015 - Figure 23

At this time there are not enough ANSPs with sufficient years of data in oceanic operations for any trend charts in this

area. Graphics will be produced when there is sufficient data.

6

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Participants The following ANSPs opted into this report:

Region Africa

Americas

Asia Pacific

Europe

Middle East

Member

Label for Graphics

Air Traffic Navigation Services

ATNS

Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda

CAUU

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority

KCAA

Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization

FAA-ATO

NAV CANADA

NAV CANADA

SENEAM

SENEAM

AEROTHAI

AEROTHAI

Airports Authority of India

AAI

Airways New Zealand

Airways

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

CAAS

Japan Air Navigation Services

JANS

Papua New Guinea Air Service Ltd

PNGASL

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic

ANS-CR

Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü

DHMI

Estonian Air Navigation Services

EANS

Finavia Corporation

Finavia

HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co.

HungaroControl

Isavia Ltd

Isavia

Luftfartsverket

LFV

Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme

LGS

NAV Portugal

NAV Portugal

SE Oro navigacija

Oro navigacija

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration

ROMATSA

Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd

Sakaeronavigatsia

Slovenia Control

Slovenia Control

Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc

SMATSA

Dubai Air Navigation Services

dans

Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of the ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participating ANSPs list in the Executive Summary.

7

ANSP

Total IFR Flight Hours 2015 (Continental)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)

Total IFR Growth IFR Flight Flight Hours Hours 2015 (Oceanic) (Oceanic)

FAA-ATO

23,414,483

2.2%

1,882,506

4.9%

NAV CANADA

2,874,210

2.3%

577,199

2.9%

AAI

2,224,744

8.5%

N/A

N/A

JANS

2,172,495

5.1%

N/A

N/A

SENEAM

1,335,224

-2.8%

N/A

N/A

DHMI

1,268,412

6.1%

N/A

N/A

AEROTHAI

673,274

20.5%

N/A

N/A

LFV

432,904

0.3%

N/A

N/A

CAAS

409,430

0.2%

N/A

N/A

NAV Portugal

357,322

3.7%

250,839

10.8%

ROMATSA

347,095

4.4%

N/A

N/A

ATNS

271,394

3.6%

9852

-5.1%

ANS CR

240,092

3.8%

N/A

N/A

HungaroControl

232,313

7.1%

N/A

N/A

SMATSA

225,831

7.6%

N/A

N/A

Airways

207,182

-3.0%

120,539

1.1%

Finavia

107,829

-0.2%

N/A

N/A

PNGASL

82,590

N/A

N/A

N/A

LGS

76,628

0.6%

N/A

N/A

KCAA

72,846

N/A

N/A

N/A

EANS

67,511

3.2%

N/A

N/A

Oro navigacija

54,809

-0.3%

N/A

N/A

Slovenia Control

54,328

0.5%

N/A

N/A

Sakaeronavigatsia

51,105

2.0%

N/A

N/A

Isavia

24,156

9.4%

234,925

11.9%

dans

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CAAU

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs’ Flight Hours

8

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Methodology Data collection: CANSO Members provided data for this analysis. The format of the data submission remains the same as in previous years with the addition of a general information sheet.

Data on capital expenditures and Net Book Value (NBV) of fixed assets have also been added. While asset and investment data have limited use in a one-year context, CANSO is looking to further develop related indicators after several years’ worth of data have been collected. ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years.

The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.

Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. It was subject to a one-step validation check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.

Data presentation: ANSPs are presented in the graphs in order of decreasing IFR flight hour volume, be it continental, oceanic or combined.

This makes it possible to perceive relationships based on ANSP size, as expressed in IFR hours.

This also places similar sized ANSPs in proximity to allow for easier comparison.

Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable.

Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over vast oceans.

Performance indicators are first presented for continental and oceanic services separately due to the different nature of providing oceanic compared

to continental ANS. Only a few indicators are used each year, selected based on the potential utility of the KPI to the participating ANSPs. Growth rates: Data is presented from 2015 and then for the one and five-year trends. The fiveyear trend2 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)3. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2011 and 2015.

However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends.

The trend analysis is presented above the 2015 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) data, presenting all information on the given indicator in the one figure.

Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2015 KPI data is converted using the OANDA 2015 exchange rates (average rate during the year). The trend data is converted at the 2011 exchange rate in line with previous years’ methodology.

PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

Employment costs for ATCOs in Operations (OPS) are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. For countries that submit data in non-national currencies, their submission is converted to the national currency before the PPP conversion4, for example European countries that submit in Euros. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located.

2

The five-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms.

3

The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered.

4

The IMP PPP rates can be used only where data are in national currency.

9

Cost Efficiency and Productivity This section presents the cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework: Cost efficiency Cost efficiency provides an indication of the balance between operational effectiveness (ATCO productivity) and the cost of providing the service.

For example, an operationally effective ANSP with relatively high costs can be as cost effective as a less operationally effective ANSP with lower costs, and vice-versa.

The simplest indicator of cost efficiency is the cost of providing ANS services per IFR flight hour. However, there are many factors that also influence this indicator and a lower cost per flight hour is not necessarily indicative of improved overall performance.

Much of the observed cost difference is due to economic differences which the ANSP may not be able to control. This includes labour contracts, both salary scales and working conditions (such as hours), as well as governmental regulations on pension management and mandatory financial controls. ANSPs also have no control over the volume of traffic which is a function of economic activity and other air passenger demands.

As noted in the introductory discussion on ANS performance in the Executive Summary, the comparison of cost indicators should be considered in the context of external factors and other performance areas. The absolute cost indicator also does not account for the quality of service provided by the ANSP. There are costs associated with providing a safer and more punctual service but this report provides only part of the overall picture of the air navigation service.

Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework

10

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Costs are broken down to consider the employment cost of ATCOs in OPS per hour and all other costs. The majority of staff cost is the cost of ATCOs in OPS, as safety-critical and highly-skilled staff members.

Productivity The key indicator of ANS productivity is IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hour. This KPI for productivity can provide useful insights into ANS performance. However, there are also occasions when factors beyond the control of the ANSP can cause low levels of productivity. ATCOs in OPS productivity is driven by the complexity of the airspace served and on an ANSP’s ability to utilise its ATCOs in OPS resources. Flexible rostering and the adaptation of the airspace configuration to open and close sectors according to evolving traffic patterns are both key elements of this resource utilisation. Furthermore, advances in technology are now focusing more than ever on reducing the workload of the ATCOs in OPS to enable them to control more aircraft in a given period in a given volume of airspace.

Complexity of airspace is a key driver of ATCOs in OPS hour productivity. Lower airspace, with lots of climbing, descending and crossing traffic represents higher ATCOs in OPS workload than upper airspace where aircraft are flying at more consistent altitudes and on non-crossing routes.

Therefore, an ANSP operating a high proportion of sectors in lower airspace or with numerous busy airports with complex approach sectors is likely to have lower ATCOs in OPS hour productivity than an ANSP focussing more on overflights at higher altitude. It should be noted that seasonal variability and low utilisation of available resources can also lead to low productivity.

11

Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2015 2015 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total Cost / IFR flight hours

Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2015 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 360.

Though total cost increased marginally, AAI’s cost per IFR flight hour has decreased due to a significant increase in the number of aircraft movements, which led to a 7.88 percent increase in IFR flight hours.

It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the costs of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this effects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1, CO2 and CO3.

12

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) Formula: Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS / ATCOs in OPS Hours

Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) The 2015 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 66.

As per AAI policy, there is annual increase in salary of AAI employees, including ATCOs, of approximately six percent. As ATCO operation hours have remained at a similar level, this has driven an increase in this indicator, and also contributed to the increase in ATCO productivity seen in the following indicator.

13

Sakeronavigatsia has seen a significant increase in ATCO employment cost. This is because in 2015 12 ATCOs have been recruited and some ATCOs became instructors in Sakeronavigatsia’s newly created training unit, their salaries increasing respectively. This increase has driven up both this indicator and indicator 3A (figures 9 & 10).

Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD) The 2015 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 109.

One point of note to emerge from this year’s data is that employment costs per ATCO hour when converted using PPP were within a single standard deviation of the mean for all but seven ANSPs and within 1.5 standard deviations for all but three. This demonstrates that, despite the fact the raw data seems to imply different levels of costs being faced, in fact ATCO employment costs are an issue of a similar size and scale for almost all the participating ANSPs. Despite the fact NAV Portugal’s ‘ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour’ is one of the highest among the service providers in the sample (Figures 5 & 6), the fact that for the overall costefficiency indicator – “Cost per IFR flight hour” (Figure 4) – the company’s cost is very close to the average, shows high-level productivity and lower cost per IFR flight hour, excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs. The trend shown by this indicator over the last five years is also heading in a positive direction.

14

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Continental – Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity The 2015 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.67 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours.

Note: Isavia had an ATCO in OPS hour productivity of 5.5. However, the Continental/Oceanic (South) sectors are operated combined by Isavia and therefore their figure for ATCO working hours is calculated by apportioning the total ATCO working hours as 94 percent oceanic and 6 percent continental. As this is such an outlier that it reduces the legibility of the graph, we have chosen not to include it.

In 2015, CAAS saw a 10 increase in ATCOs in ops. This was part of CAAS’ manpower plan to grow the ATCO workforce progressively over the next few years to ensure sufficient ATCOs to take on the anticipated increase in air traffic and ATC workload.

15

2015 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2015 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 258.

This year, AAI had significantly fewer new ANS projects than previous years. This coupled with growth in traffic led to a significant reduction in this metric.

16

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 3A: Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) Formula: Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS / ATCOs in OPS

Figure 9 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) The 2015 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 102,035.

17

Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted The 2015 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 167,410.

18

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Continental – Productivity Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / ATCOs in OPS

Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS The 2015 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,583 hours.

19

2015 Continental – Productivity Indicator 3C: IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS

Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS The 2015 average IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,057 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. Note: Isavia had IFR hours per ATCO in OPS hour of 8,052. However, the Continental/Oceanic (South) sectors are operated combined by Isavia and therefore their figure for ATCO working hours is calculated by apportioning the total ATCO working hours as 94 percent oceanic and 6 percent continental. As this is such an outlier that it reduces the legibility of the graph, we have chosen not to include it.

20

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2015 2015 Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total Cost /IFR flight hours

Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2015 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 100. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 360.

21

2015 Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) Formula: Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS / ATCOs in OPS Hours

Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) Note: The fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic.

The 2015 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 108. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 66. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report who service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the six ANSPs above is USD 96.

22

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted

The 2015 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 109.

23

2015 Oceanic – Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity The 2015 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 3.9 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.67.

As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times.

24

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2015 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 71.

ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what their costs – excluding ATCO costs – are for oceanic flights.

25

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency: 2015 2015 Continental and Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total Cost /IFR flight hours

Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2015 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 350. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 360, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.

26

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Continental and Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator CO2: Cost of capital and depreciation as a percentage of total costs Formula: Cost of capital and depreciation / Total Cost

Figure 19 - Cost of capital and depreciation as a percentage of total costs The 2015 average cost of capital and depreciation as a percentage of total costs is 19 percent.

27

2015 Continental and Oceanic – Cost efficiency Indicator CO3: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Formula: Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS / Total Cost

Figure 20 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs The 2015 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 27 percent.

28

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Price and Revenues

The two key performance indicators analysed for this key performance area are: —— ANS revenue per IFR fight hour —— The example consolidated price for 1000km flight for an Airbus A320 The charging mechanism for ANSPs is generally designed to generate sufficient revenue over a given period of time, usually a year, to cover the forecasted costs. This is known as full cost recovery. Charging mechanisms generally follow ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services, Doc 9082, which outlines the principle of ‘user pays’. ANSPs generally allocate costs such that a user only pays for the services they consume.

The costs for the year are generally forecast based on the actual costs of the previous complete financial year and updated according to the latest information available. However, the number of flights and service units over which that cost will be recovered is not known and is based on traffic forecasts. Differences between actual and forecast traffic lead to the ANSP generating more revenue (over-recovery) or less revenue (under-recovery) than planned.

Not all ANSPs are subject to the same formulae for cost recovery either in terms of full cost recovery or whether using previous or future costs and revenues in the process. NAV CANADA, for example, uses full cost recovery based on a future year. The process uses a forecast of costs and revenues, whereby both are adjusted, as necessary, to achieve the required balance.

Many ANSPs are subject to economic regulation related to ANS charging. Such regulations place restrictions on the charges passed on to airspace users, by either capping the revenue that an ANSP may generate or the charge that an ANSP may

levy on a flight. Economic regulation can also involve risk sharing, where the ANSP and airspace users share the risks associated with traffic fluctuations. For example, an ANSP over-recovering its costs would be expected to share this revenue, or a percentage of it, with the users in the following year, whereas an ANSP would only be able to pass on a proportion of an under-recovery of costs to the users. Upper and lower limits are usually placed on risk sharing to limit the exposure of ANSPs to the risks of drastically lower traffic than forecast.

29

Revenues and Price Indicators: 2015 2015 Continental – Revenues Indicator P1: ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: ANS revenues / IFR flight hours

Figure 21 - ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2015 continental average ANS revenue per IFR flight hour is USD 415.

For DHMI, last year, there was an increase of 29 percent in ANS revenue. The main reason for this is that the number of service units was significantly higher than estimated, which has led to an over-recovery of nearly TRY175,000.

30

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

2015 Oceanic – Revenues Indicator P1: ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: ANS revenues / IFR flight hours

Figure 22 - ANS revenues per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2015 oceanic average ANS revenue per IFR flight hour is USD 138.

31

2015 Continental – Price Indicator P2: Example consolidated price for 1,000km flight for an A320 (USD)

Figure 23 - Example consolidated price for 1,000km flight for an A320 (USD) The 2015 average example consolidated price for 1,000km flight for an A320 is USD 524.

While this statistic is a useful tool for comparing charges, several participating ANSPs have stated that it is rare or even impossible for there to be 1,000km flights in their airspace. As a result, they have had to extrapolate or provide the figure based on limited data and their results are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of their price. On the other hand, some ANSPs have average flight distances

greater than 1,000km which could also skew the data. However, this year steps have been taken to account for these problems. Specifically, this has included the introduction of a new statistic; ‘Example consolidated price per 250km flight for an ATR72’. This aims to allow ANSPs which could not provide a realistic example consolidated price for 1,000km for an A320 a metric for comparison. As this is the first year this information was collected it is not included in this year’s report, however, it is envisioned that it will be included in future years.

32

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

References Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 Oanda exchange rate data: oanda.com/currency/historical-rates IMF World Economic Outlook database: imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/index.aspx MTOW of A320: airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a320/specifications MTOW of ATR72: atraircraft.com/products_app/media/pdf/FAMILY_septembre2014.pdf

33

Acronyms and abbreviations

A320 ACC AG ANS ANSP APP ASG ATC ATCO ATSO BN CAA CAGR CANSO FTE GBWG IATA IFR IMF KPI M MTOW NBV OPS PPP PRU Q1, Q2

Airbus A320 aircraft Area control centre Annual growth Air navigation services Air navigation service provider Approach control Aeronautical Standards Group Air traffic control Air traffic control officer Air traffic service officer Billion Civil Aviation Authority Compound annual growth rate Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation Full time equivalent Global Benchmarking Workgroup International Air Transport Association Instrument flight rules International Monetary Fund Key performance indicator Million Maximum take-off weight Net book value Operations Purchasing power parity Performance Review Unit First quartile, second quartile

TRY

Turkish Lira

TWR VAT VFR

Tower control Value added tax Visual flight rules

USD

United States Dollar

34

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Annex 1: Data Definitions Activity

Total IFR flight hours

Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.

The sum of IFR flight hours (non-oceanic) controlled by an ANSP’s en-route centres (ACC) and approach control centres (APP).

IFR flight hours (continental)

For any given flight, the flight hours controlled are derived from the difference between the entry time and the exit time (as derived from the last flight plan received) in the controlled airspace. Where measurement entry time and exit time differ from wheels-up and wheels-down, the ANSP may apply a factor of one minute per continental arrival and departure. (Revised from two minutes to one minute May 2007 based on clarification from EUROCONTROL and the Aeronautical Standards Group.)

The sum of oceanic IFR flight hours controlled by an ANSP’s enroute centres.

IFR flight hours (oceanic)

IFR airport movements controlled

by ANSP (continental)

For any given flight, the flight hours controlled are derived from the difference between the entry time and the exit time (as derived from the last flight plan received) in the oceanic controlled airspace.

The number of movements, arrivals and departures at all controlled facilities for the ANSP. This number will be used to add one minute to the IFR hours for ANSPs that do not record IFR hours from take-off to touch-down.

35

Cost (Local Currency)

Total costs (continental)

Operating costs (continental)

The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation and cost of capital related to providing continental ATC/ATFM services.

This includes direct and indirect employment costs, non-staff operating expenses, and other costs incurred through the purchase of goods and services directly used to provide continental ANS services. This should include outsourced services such as communications, IT and external staff with short term assignments.

Other items that are usually included are materials, energy, rent, and facilities and maintenance. This excludes the cost of providing MET services, which should be counted under ‘Other unique costs’.

The ‘Cost of capital (continental)’ falls into two categories. The first is the interest paid to the providers of debt capital. The second is the appropriate cost of capital applied to equity capital.

For ANSPs with both categories the cost of capital is the interest expense on debt capital plus the cost of capital on equity built into the ANSP charges.

Cost of capital (continental) For ANSPs with only debt capital, the cost of capital is the interest expense.

For ANSPs with only debt capital, where the interest expense is born by the government and not reflected in the accounts of the ANSP, the cost of capital can be imputed by applying the interest rate on overall government borrowing to the ANSP capital.

Depreciation and capital lease amortisation expenses related to the total fixed assets in operation associated with providing continental services.

Depreciation/amortisation (continental)

Depreciation is the decrease of an asset in value due to wear and tear through use, action of the elements, inadequacy or obsolescence, normally over a predetermined period of time (depreciation period/book life of the asset).

Amortisation is the gradual extinguishment of the cost of an asset by periodic (annual) charges to expenses, usually applicable to intangible asset (e.g. development costs). Excludes depreciation/ amortisation costs associated with MET services, which should be counted under ‘Other unique costs’.

Total employment costs

Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ‘ATCOs in operations’.

This should exclude: pension contributions paid by the employer and mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees (as these should be considered operating costs).

Equivalent definitions apply to oceanic costs.

36

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Staffing and Hours Total employment number

Total staff.

The number of full time equivalent (FTE) ATCOs who are participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.

Total ATCOs in operations

Such activities include manning a position, refresher training and supervising on the job trainee controllers, but do not include participating in special projects, teaching at a training academy, or providing instruction in a simulator. See EUROCONTROL’s Specification for Economic Information Disclosure, item C, for further clarification. Includes first-line supervisors. Does not include on-the-job training.

Average number of annual working hours ATCOs in operations spend on duty, including breaks and overtime.

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations

This figure could be available from a time recording system (using for example first clock-in and last clock-out times); computed from the roster plan; or calculated by adding the average overtime worked in operations to the contractual working hours and subtracting the average time an ATCO is not on duty in operations.

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations (continental)

As above, specifically for ATCOs in operations covering continental airspace.

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations (oceanic)

As above, but for oceanic ATCOs.

Total ATCO in operations hours

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations multiplied by the total number of ATCOs in operations.

Total ATCO in operations hours (continental)

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations multiplied by the total number of ATCOs in operations (continental).

Total ATCO in operations hours (oceanic)

Average annual working hours for ATCOs in operations multiplied by the total number of ATCOs in operations (oceanic).

37

Price and Income Total ANS revenue (continental) is ANS revenue (before adjustments from previous years) from the provision of en-route and terminal ANS services.

Total ANS revenue (continental) Revenue is exclusive of oceanic ANS services and non-ANS revenue sources. See EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure, items A1 – A9, for further clarification.

Total ANS revenue (oceanic) is ANS revenue (before adjustments from previous years) from the provision of oceanic ANS services.

Total ANS revenue (oceanic) Revenue is exclusive of continental ANS services, and non-ANS revenue sources.

The sum of en-route, approach and terminal navigation charges for a theoretical continental flight of 1000km (i.e. distance between two airports is 1000km).

Example consolidated price for 1000km flight for an A320

ANSPs with location-specific pricing will apply pricing related to the highest IFR traffic (high demand) city-pair; ANSPs with national pricing regime will apply these charges to a theoretical continental flight. Amount excludes taxes, such as VAT. The sum of en-route, approach and terminal navigation charges for a theoretical continental flight of 250km (i.e. distance between two airports is 250km).

Example consolidated price for 250km flight for an ATR72

ANSPs with location-specific pricing will apply pricing related to a city-pair which does not have the highest IFR traffic – preferably that which could be said to represent a national average. Both arrival and departure airports should be within the boundaries of the ANSP. ANSPs with a national pricing regime will apply these charges to a theoretical continental flight. Amount excludes taxes, such as VAT.

Assets and Capital Expenditure

Capex in the year

Capex in the year is capital expenditure in the year, including capitalised labour, for assets relating to the provision of ANS services. It is the sum of capital expenditures for land and buildings, systems and equipment and intangible assets.

NBV of fixed assets

NBV of fixed assets is the net book value at the end of year of assets related to the provision of ANS services. It corresponds to the gross book value of assets, minus the cumulative depreciation at the end of year.

38

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Operational Data Calculated average flight hours for all activities (flights) included in flight hour computation.

Average flight hours per flight (decimal hours, continental)

This value provides an indication of the average time a flight is in the ANSP-controlled airspace. The total flight hours controlled by an ANSP in a year is the sum of the flight hours over the year by flights controlled by a given ATC operational unit (ACC, approach, or tower). For any given flight, the number of flight hours is the difference between the entry time and the exit time in the controlled airspace (of the relevant operational unit) of the flight trajectory. This is divided by the number of movements in a year.

The number of movements in a year is defined as the number of IFR flights that have been controlled over the year by the ANSP; wherein a flight may cross several ACCs. (Source: Performance Review Unit (PRU) Annex D).

One movement each for arrivals and departures.

IFR tower movements (take-offs and landings only)

Touch and Go or Go Around equals one movement. Include helicopters (if they are IFR).

VFR (Visual Flight Rules) counts at towers.

Total VFR tower movements

VFR counts should be one for each take-off, for each landing and for each Touch and Go. Overflights should be excluded unless this is not possible in which case a comment should be provided.

Number of hours of flight undertaken in visual flight rules.

Total VFR hours (en-route)

While the methodology for counting VFR flights is expected to be different across ANSPs, this figure should be consistent with the figures reported in ‘Total VFR tower movements’.

Workforce Data The value from the current year of data.

Total ATCOs in operations

ATCOs in ACCs

This value must be the sum of the ATCOs in ACCs, co-located ACCs and approach facilities, stand-alone approach facilities, co-located approach and tower facilities and stand-alone tower facilities. An ATCO in operations is an employee participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for an ATCO to be able to control traffic. Such activities include manning a position, refresher training and supervising on-the-job trainee controllers, but do not include participating in special projects, teaching at a training academy, or providing instruction in a simulator. (Source: PRU Annex D).

Number of ATCOs deployed to these ACCs.

39

ATCOs in approach/ACCs

Number of ATCOs deployed in co-located ACC and approach facilities.

Approximate en-route ATCOs

The approximate number of co-located ATCOs in ACC and approach facilities that provide en-route services.

Approximate approach ATCOs

The approximate number of co-located ATCOs in ACC and approach facilities that provide approach services.

ATCOs in approach

Number of ATCOs deployed to stand-alone approach facilities.

ATCOs in combined approach/ tower

Number of ATCOs deployed in co-located approach and tower facilities.

ATCOs in towers

Number of ATCOs deployed to stand-alone towers.

ATCOs in combined ACC/tower/ Number of ATCOs deployed in co-located ACC, approach and approach tower facilities.

Other frontline support staff

Sum of ATC assistants, operations support, technical support staff for operational maintenance monitoring and control and technical support staff for planning and development.

ATC assistants are employees assigned to perform non-traffic control functions in an ATC unit.

ATC assistants This includes flight data assistants but excludes technical support staff. (Source: PRU C8) Non-ATCO staff who fulfil the requirements of the operational ATM without being either administrative or technical support.

OPS support (non-ATCOS)

These functions might include, inter alia, development of ATC procedures, airspace design, incident investigation and development of operational requirements, as well as staff working on FIS positions who do not hold a valid ATCO licence. (Source: PRU C9)

Technical support staff for operational maintenance, monitoring and control

The number of FTE technical support staff undertaking maintenance, monitoring and control for on-going operational activity. (Source: PRU C10)

Technical support staff for planning and development

The number of FTE technical support staff undertaking work intended to improve safety, capacity, efficiency or quality of service in the future. Such work would include planning, research and development and the implementation of new systems. (Source: PRU C11)

ATCOs on other duties

‘ATCOs on other duties’ are ATCOs who are participating in an activity outside OPS such as special projects, teaching at a training academy, providing instruction in a simulator, or working in a full time management position. Staff working on FIS positions who do hold a valid ATCO licence should be reported here. (Source: PRU C5)

40

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

Annex 2: Contextual Data Contextual Data Element Definitions

Data Element IFR hours per sq. km

Definitions This is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the current year of data by surface area (square kilometre).

The size (surface area) of the airspace for which ANSPs are responsible.

Sq. km – oceanic This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by and continental another provider and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here is consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. % surveillance coverage @ 30,000Ft radar and ADS-B only

Proportion of airspace under surveillance coverage by radar and automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B).

% surveillance coverage @ 30,000Ft radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

As above, including automatic dependent surveillance – contract (ADS-C).

Number of FIRs

Flight information region is an airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.

Number of ACC facilities

ATC units providing ATC services to en-route traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.

Number of colocated ACC and approach facilities

The definitions of the units are as above and below respectively.

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

An approach control unit is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport.

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

The definitions of the units are as above and below respectively.

Number of co-located approach, tower and ACC facilities

The definition of each unit is as above.

Number of stand-alone towers

A tower control unit is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s).

41

ANSP: AEROTHAI In your opinion, what are the main Traffic growth and limitations in airspace infrastructure are the drivers or issues for performance main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, within your region? air traffic flow management and increased safety measures.

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project, which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

In June 2015, Thailand was officially notified with a Significant Safety Concern (SSC) from ICAO, resulting in new regulations from other countries toward Thai airlines. However, there was no impact to the number of flights over Thailand airspace. The traffic growth has been growing at the steady rate throughout the year.

Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.8657

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

777,760

0

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

0%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

0%

4

Number of FIRs

1

0

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

6

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

14

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

The number of co-located approach/tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers maybe represented.

42

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Airports Authority of India Traffic growth, availability of technology, government initiatives In your opinion, what are the main for structural reform in civil aviation in order to make aviation an drivers or issues for performance affordable, available and realistic option, for the population in within your region? general, compared to other means of transport.

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Technological upgrades, augmentation and development of the necessary human resources and professional competency, optimisation of resources.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Contingency due to flooding at Chennai airport (VOMM).

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

N/A

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3.57 Million

6.4. Million

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

0%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

3

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

49

9

Number of stand-alone towers

7

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

12

3 partially continental and partially oceanic

43

ANSP: Airways New Zealand In your opinion, what are the main Larger aircraft, increased passenger growth and decline in IFR drivers or issues for performance hours and movements. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Increased capital spending to reinvest. Focused effort towards customer satisfaction. Reduction in delays and SMART approach introductions. Review operations strategy to right size service offerings, particularly in regional ports.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

No exceptional events.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2400

0.0042

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

863,100

28,790,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

100%

Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft

4

Number of FIRs

1

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

10

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

44

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Internal performance monitoring system with predefined objectives to be met.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2015.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

3.1467

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

76,300

N/A

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

N/A

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

N/A

N/A

4

Number of FIRs

1

N/A

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

N/A

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

N/A

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

nil

N/A

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

N/A

9

Number of stand-alone towers

nil

N/A

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

nil

N/A

Comments

45

ANSP: Air Traffic Navigation Services In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Economic conditions and political issues. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Collaboration with other service providers.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

2015 saw the introduction of a few new airlines. In addition, several older airlines went out of business which affected us negatively.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.0292

0.0008

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

9,279,080

12,720,920

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

0%

0%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

95%

0%

4

Number of FIRs

2

1

100% expected at end of 2016 The figures provided depict radar coverage.

ADS-B not yet operational. ADS-C coverage 100% for both continental and oceanic

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

9

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

10

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

2

0

Oceanic is provided in one of the centres.

46

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.4872

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

840,326

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

69%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

2

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Facilities

N/A

Comments

47

ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Agricultural exports, tourism and UN missions. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Improving air navigation services facilities.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Pressure on parking space due to instability in Eastern Congo and Southern Sudan

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

N/A

N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

Entire FIR is covered by Mode S SSR and we are planning to procure ADS-B

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

Entire FIR is covered by Mode S SSR and we are planning to procure ADS-B

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

Entebbe

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

Entebbe

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

Soroti

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Gulu

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

Entebbe

48

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Dubai Air Navigation Services In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance ATFM between FIRs is an issue being studied extensively. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

RECAT (optimised wake turbulence categories), Arrival Peak Offload during high volume hours, Emirates 3NM trial and UAE airspace restructure (ongoing).

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

None.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

N/A

N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

9

Number of stand-alone towers

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

2

Comments

49

ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.2917

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

982,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

4

Number of FIRs

2

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

2

6

Number of co-located ACC and 3 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

33

9

Number of stand-alone towers

7

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

3

The en-route sectors from Istanbul ACC transferred to Ankara ACC on 18 November 2015. Therefore, this information reflects the activity between 1 January 2015 and 18 November 2015.

50

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Estonia Air Navigation Services Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

51

ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.5786

0.0310

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

14,832,411

60,628,411

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

4

Number of FIRs

5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and 3 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

27

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

132

9

Number of stand-alone towers

131

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

21

5

Facilities 21

Excludes federal contract towers

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

52

ANSP: Finavia Corporation In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Single European Sky (SES) regulation/performance requirements. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

1. FAB co-operation projects 2. Rostering principles review 3. Investment / procurement programmes 4. Staff reductions

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Less traffic than expected resulting in less income.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2624

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

411,000

0

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

0%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

0%

4

Number of FIRs

1

0

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

5

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

18

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

0

Note. ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) can be operated from either site.

53

ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co The main driver of European performance is the performance In your opinion, what are the main scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk but they drivers or issues for performance do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing legal within your region? framework.

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Effective resource allocation (due to extra traffic) and flexible sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian situation.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.2338

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

104,000

Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

0%

0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft.

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft.

4

Number of FIRs

2

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

54

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Isavia Ltd In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Safety. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Increased surveillance coverage with the implementation of ADS-B.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

N/A

0.0435

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

30%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

If considering ADS-S coverage over Irridium or HF. Otherwise less the area north of 82N.

4

Number of FIRs

1

2

BIRD and BGGL FIR´s together BIRD CTA.

1

Combined oceanic and continental ACC with APP unit within it.

5,400,000

Oceanic figure includes Continental.

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

9

Number of stand-alone towers

2

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

55

ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Services Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand, particularly in the Tokyo metropolitan region.

In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise within your region? abatement.

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Implementation of integrated air traffic control data processing system and airspace reformation.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 5% compared to the previous year. In particular, the international flights and over flights have grown 11% and 6% respectively.

These trends are expected to continue.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2586

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

8,400,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

14

9

Number of stand-alone towers

19

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Facilities 4

Radar: Except oceanic sectors.

ADS-B: Installation ongoing ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.

56

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

55

ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Safety. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Implementation of safety management systems (SMS) and upgrading communication, navigation and surveillance/ATM management (CNS) systems.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Temporary closure of the main international airport (JKIA) for runway maintenance.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.0914

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

796,844

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100% Radar

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

4

Number of FIRs

5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

3

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

9

Number of stand-alone towers

5

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

1

Facilities 1

FIR is considered as one: both continental and oceanic.

57

ANSP: Luftfartsverket Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.6904

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

627,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

6

Number of co-located ACC and 2 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

22

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

Comments

58

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.8049

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

95,200

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

Comments

59

ANSP: NAV CANADA In your opinion, what are the main 1) Safety; 2) Cost effectiveness; 3) Operational efficiency; drivers or issues for performance 4) Value-adding technology; 5) Employee engagement; 6) within your region?

Environmental footprint reduction.

Legal status: A private sector company that is owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.1842

0.1880

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

15,601,538

3,070,462

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

20%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

4

Number of FIRs

7

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

7

6

Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

41

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Comments

60

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: NAV Portugal In your opinion, what are the main SES regulations time frame and associated requirements and drivers or issues for performance targets. within your region?

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

Portuguese FIRs have suffered throughout 2015 due to a significant and unexpected traffic increase and political instability in the classical tourist destinations. On the other hand, and for the first time in five years, following the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) that Portugal has been subject to since 2011, NAV Portugal has updated employee salaries according to inflation, as well as professional careers.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.5325

0.048

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

671,000

5,180,000

Area controlled: Lisboa FIR and Santa Maria FIR

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

90.8%

26.3%

Continental - only radar.

Oceanic - radar + ADS-B

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

-

-

4

Number of FIRs

1

1

5

Number of ACC facilities

1

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

3

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

Facilities FIR is considered as one: both continental and oceanic.

61

ANSP: SE Oro navigacija In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Performance scheme within your region?

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.7347

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

74,600

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Comments

62

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: PAPUA NEW GUINEA AIR SERVICES Ltd In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Safety and efficiency within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

CNS/ATM upgrade

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

PNG hosting South Pacific Games and slight increase in traffic.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3.6 million

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

9

Number of stand-alone towers

6

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Radar coverage at 200NM

63

ANSP: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration In your opinion, what are the main Main issues: variability of traffic, EU/national regulatory drivers or issues for performance constraints, significant deviation of inflation (actual versus within your region? forecast).

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Performance Scheme Regulation and associated KPAs/KPIs.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.3665

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

254,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

N/A

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

2

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

16

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Comments

64

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Sakaeronavigatsia In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Geopolitical situation. within your region?

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.5761

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

88,700

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

300

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

300

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Only radar coverage

65

ANSP: Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano In your opinion, what are the main Traffic growth, New Mexico City International Airport, new drivers or issues for performance aircraft technologies. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Airspace redesign with performance based navigation (PBN), acquiring new ATM and CNS equipment and hiring more personnel.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

No.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.3305

0.0000

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

4,039,820

2,915,843

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

95%

0%

Approximate values.

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

95%

0%

Approximate values.

4

Number of FIRs

1

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

2

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and 2 approach facilities

0

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

12

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

22

0

9

Number of stand-alone towers

37

0

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

66

Global ANS Performance Report 2016 The ANSP View

ANSP: Slovenia Control In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance Changes of traffic flows. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Providing capacity and cost control.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic?

No.

Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.7164

N/A

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

20,000

0

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

0%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

0%

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

0

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

2

9

Number of stand-alone towers

2

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Comments

67

ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance SES requirements. within your region?

Legal status: Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro).

Integrated civil/military ANSP.

Contextual Data Element

Continental

Oceanic N/A

Operational data 1

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.7643

2

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

128,000

3

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

3.1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

4

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities 5

Number of ACC facilities

1

6

Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities

7

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

8

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

9

Number of stand-alone towers

1

10

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

Comments

CANSO Members CANSO – the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation – is the global voice of air traffic management (ATM) worldwide. CANSO Members support over 85% of world air traffic. Members share information and develop new policies, with the ultimate aim of improving air navigation services (ANS) on the ground and in the air.

CANSO represents its Members’ views to a wide range of aviation stakeholders, including the International Civil Aviation Organization, where it has official Observer status. CANSO has an extensive network of Associate Members drawn from across the aviation industry. For more information on joining CANSO, visit canso.org/join-canso

Full Members - 89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI) Aeroportos de Moçambique Air Navigation and Weather Services, CAA (ANWS) Air Navigation Services Agency of Kosovo Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic (ANS Czech Republic) AirNav Indonesia Air Traffic & Navigation Services (ATNS) Airports and Aviation Services Limited (AASL) Airports Authority of India (AAI) Airports Fiji Limited Airservices Australia Airways New Zealand Albcontrol Austro Control Avinor AS AZANS Azerbaijan Belgocontrol Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority (BULATSA) CAA Uganda Cambodia Air Traffic Services Co., Ltd. (CATS) Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) Civil Aviation Authority of Botswana Civil Aviation Authority of Mongolia Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines Civil Aviation Department (CAD Hong Kong) Civil Aviation Regulatory Commission (CARC) COCESNA Croatia Control Ltd DCA Myanmar Department of Airspace Control (DECEA) Department of Civil Aviation, Republic of Cyprus DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS) Dirección General de Control de Tránsito Aéreo (DGCTA) DSNA France Dubai Air Navigation Services (DANS) Dutch Caribbean Air Navigation Service Provider (DC-ANSP) ENAV S.p.A: Società Nazionale per l’Assistenza al Volo Empresa Argentina de Navegación (EANA) ENAIRE Estonian Air Navigation Services (EANS) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Finavia Corporation General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. Instituto Dominicano de Aviacion Civil (IDAC) Israel Airports Authority (IAA) Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) ISAVIA Ltd Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS) Kazaeronavigatsia

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority (KCAA) Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS) Letové prevádzkové Služby Slovenskej Republiky, Štátny Podnik Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (LVNL) Luxembourg ANA Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) Malta Air Traffic Services (MATS) National Airports Corporation Ltd. National Air Navigation Services Company (NANSC) NATS UK NAV CANADA NAV Portugal Naviair Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) Office National de LÁviation Civile (OFNAC) Office National Des Aéroports (ONDA) ORO NAVIGACIJA, Lithuania PNG Air Services Limited (PNGASL) Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA) Public Authority for Civil Aviation - Oman (PACA) ROMATSA Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd SENEAM Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency (SMATSA) Serco skyguide Slovenia Control State Airports Authority & ANSP (DHMI) Sudan Air Navigation Services Department Swaziland Civil Aviation Authority Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority Trinidad and Tobago CAA The LFV Group Ukrainian Air Traffic Service Enterprise (UkSATSE) U.S. DoD Policy Board on Federal Aviation Viet Nam Air Traffic Management Corporation (VATM)

Gold Associate Members - 11 — — — — — — — — — — —

Anhui Sun Create Electronics Co., Ltd. Boeing FREQUENTIS AG GroupEAD Europe S.L. Harris Corporation Inmarsat Plc Leidos Leonardo S.p.a.

NAVBLUE Raytheon Thales

Silver Associate Members - 68 — — — —

42 Solutions B.V. Adacel Inc. Aeronav Inc. Aireon

civil air navigation services organisation

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA) Airbus Defence and Space ALES a.s.

Association Group of Industrial Companies “TIRA” Corporation ATAC ATCA – Japan ATECH Negócios em Tecnologia S/A Aveillant Aviation Advocacy Sarl Aviation Data Communication Corp (ADCC) ADB SAFEGATE Avitech GmbH Bayanat Engineering Group Brüel & Kjaer EMS CGH Technologies, Inc. Comsoft GmbH CSSI, Inc. EIZO Technologies GmbH European Satellite Services Provider (ESSP SAS) Emirates ENAC Entry Point North Era Corporation Esterline Etihad Airways EvBase Technologies Inc. Guntermann & Drunck GmbH Helios Honeywell International Inc. / Aerospace IDS – Ingegneria Dei Sistemi S.p.A. Indra Navia AS Indra Sistemas INECO Integra A/S Intelcan Technosystems Inc. International Aero Navigation Systems Concern, JSC Jeppesen JMA Solutions Jotron AS Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS LAIC Aktiengesellschaft LEMZ R&P Corporation Lufthansa Systems FlightNav AG MDA Systems Ltd. Metron Aviation Micro Nav Ltd The MITRE Corporation – CAASD MovingDot NEC Corporation NLR Northrop Grumman NTT Data Corporation Project Loon Rockwell Collins, Inc. Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG Saab AB Saab Sensis Corporation Saudi Arabian Airlines SENASA SITA Snowflake Software Ltd STR-SpeechTech Ltd. Tetra Tech AMT Think Research Limited

Membership list correct as of 19 December 2016. For the most up-to-date list and organisation profiles go to canso.org/canso-members