FABCE PMO 0.2 001 FAB 20CE 20master 20plan 2001 02

FAB CENTRAL EUROPE FEASIBILITY STUDY
FAB Central Europe

MASTER PLAN
FAB Central Europe
Feasibility Study
MASTER PLAN
Reference No.: FABCE/PMO/0.2/001

Edition Number: 01.02
Edition Date: 26/03/2008
Status: Released issue
Classification: Restricted
Author: FAB CE Project Management Office
Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN i

ii FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02
Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN iii
Document Identification Sheet
Objective To provide the basis for a decision that will allow proceeding towards
the target of creating the FAB Central Europe with sufficient decision
elements to decide upon the further steps of implementation
Author FAB CE Project Management Office with the support of: Massimo Ber-
nacconi, Bernard Kinchin [ICON]; Catriona Richmond [ICON]
Audience PMO, FAB SG, CCG
Document status Released issue
Document reference FABCE/PMO/0.2/001
Edition 01.02
Edition date 26/03/2008
Version history
Version Date of Issue Reason for update Author of changes
00.00 30/11/2007 Document formatting template Erik HENDRICKX
00.10 17.12.2007 Working Draft Massimo BERNACCONI
00.30 18.01.2008 Working Draft for PMO 09 Massimo BERNACCONI
00.40 29/01/2008 Working Draft for FAB SG 05 Nicolas GAUTIER
00.50 19/02/2008 Final Draft for PMO 10 Erik HENDRICKX
00.90 29/02/2008 Proposed issue for FAB SG 06 Erik HENDRICKX
01.00 07/03/2008 Released issue, signed by FAB SG Erik HENDRICKX
01.01 19/03/2008 Reformatted version, distributed to CCG Erik HENDRICKX
01.02 26/03/2008 Editorial corrections for printed version at Erik HENDRICKX
CCG 20
Distribution List
✓
❏ FAB CE SG ✓
❏ FAB CE OPS WGL
✓
❏ FAB CE PMO ✓
❏ FAB CE TEC WGL
❏ ✓
❏ FAB CE HR WGL
❏ ✓
❏ FAB CE SAF WGL
❏ ✓
❏ FAB CE LIR WGL
❏ ✓
❏ FAB CE FIN WGL
iv FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

Status, Audience and Accessibility
Status Intended for Accessible via
Working Draft ❏ Restricted ✓
❏ Intranet ❏
Draft ❏ Classified ❏ OneSky Teams ✓
❏
Proposed Issue ❏ Public ❏
Released Issue ✓
❏
Document Approval
Position/Job Title Name Date & Signature & Signature
FAB CE SG Approval
Austria Mr. Johann ZEMSKY 26/03/08

26
6/03/08
8
Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Marinko SIMUNOVIC 26/03/08

26/0
26/
/03/08
Croatia for Mr. Mladen STEPANIC 26/03/08

26/
/03//08
8
Czech Republic Mr. Ivan HUBERT 26/03/08

26/
/03
3/08
Hungary Mr. Gyula HANGYAL 26/03/08

26/03/
3/08
Slovak Republic Mr. Roman BIRO 26/03/08

2
26/
6 03/
30 08
8
Slovenia Mr. Alojz KRAPEZ 26/03/08

2 6/03/08
FAB CE DPM Mr. Alex HENDRIKS 26/03/08

2
26/ 03/08
Contact Points
Contact Person(s) Telephone Unit Email address
FAB CE CPMO Secretariat +420 22210 1379 CPD/CSPDU/Prague cpmosecr@eurocontrol.int
Massimo BERNACCONI +420 22210 1330 CPD/CSPDU/Prague Massimo.bernacconi@eurocontrol.int
Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN v

FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
FAB CE Master Plan - Table of contents

Abstract 5
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction 23
1.1 Context and mandate from CCG 23
1.2 Structure and purpose of the document 24
1.3 Intended Audience 25
1.4 FAB Feasibility Study Development Process 26
2. Scope 28
2.1 Objectives of FAB CE 28
2.2 Expectations of FAB CE Stakeholders 29
2.3 Scope of FAB CE 29
2.4 Main principles for FAB CE 31
2.5 Assumptions 32
2.6 Performance Framework 33
3. Establishment of a FAB 36
3.1 Legal Definition of a FAB 36
3.2 Phases of Implementation of the FAB CE 38
3.2.1 Consultation 39
3.2.2 The FAB Agreement 40
3.2.3 FAB Implementation 40
3.2.4 Provisional Application of Agreement between States 41
3.2.5 FAB Operation 41
3.2.6 FAB Optimisation 42
4. ATM Scenarios 43
4.1 Initial Scenario 44
4.2 Key elements of the Static AoR Scenario 45
4.3 Key elements of the Dynamic AoR Scenario 46
5. ATM Components of FAB Scenarios 49

5.1 Operations 49
5.1.1 Airspace 49
5.1.2 Operational Concept 49
5.1.3 Contingency 50
5.1.4 Military Advanced Concept of Operations 53
FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 1

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2 Technical 56
5.2.1 Drivers for Change 56
5.2.2 Stages of Development 57
5.2.3 Technical Changes 57
5.2.4 Technical Opportunities 60
5.3 Human Resources Concept 60
6. Horizontal Domains 62
6.1 Institutional, Legal And Regulatory 62
6.1.1 Institutional Framework 62
6.1.2 The legal form of ANSP cooperation 65
6.1.3 Sovereignty and Security 66
6.1.4 Framework for Regulation and Supervision 67
6.2 Financial 70
6.2.1 FAB CE Charging 70
6.2.2 FAB CE Economic Co-operation. 70
6.3 Safety Management and Oversight 73
7. Business Case 75
7.1 Cost – benefit assessment 75
Reference Case 75
FAB Options 75
Net Present Value 76
7.1.1 Cost Effectiveness 77
7.1.2 Impact of Airspace Optimisation 78
7.1.3 Flight Efficiency and the Environment 78
7.2 Other benefits 79
7.2.1 Platform for responding to DMEAN 79
7.2.2 Interoperability and Long-Term Cost Effectiveness 80
7.2.3 Safety 81
7.2.4 Size and Influence in the European Theatre 81
7.2.5 Social Impact 82
8. Safety Case 83
9. Roadmap towards FAB CE 85

9.1 General overview 85
9.2 Short Term Work Plan 86
9.3 Main Phases 87
9.3.1 Initial Operations 88
9.3.2 Static AoR Cross Border Operations 90
9.3.3 Dynamic AoR Cross Border Operations 92
9.4 Feasibility and Risk Assessment 94
2 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
10. Recommendations on the Way Forward 96

10.1 Baseline for decision making 96
10.1.1 Decisions regarding CEATS Agreement 96
10.1.2 Decisions regarding FAB Establishment 96
10.2 Anticipated Steps in Decision Making towards FAB CE 97
10.2.1 Step 1: FAB SG decision 97
10.2.2 Step 2: CCG decision 97
10.2.3 Step 3 State Decision in principle 98
10.2.4 Step 4 Consultation Process 98
10.2.5 Step 5 Signature of the FAB Agreement 98
10.3 Action Plan 99
11. Conclusions 100

11.1 Elements of FAB CE 100
11.2 Feasibility 100
11.3 Business Case 101
11.4 Feasibility Study response To Stakeholders’ expectations 102
11.4.1 States’ Interest 102
11.4.2 ANSP Interest 102
11.4.3 ANSP Staff Interest 103
11.4.4 Airlines Interest 103
11.4.5 Military Interest 104
Annex I Glossary, Abreviations and Definition of Terminology 107
Annex II Principles of FAB CE development 118
Annex III Common Understanding 120
Annex IV Executive Summary of CBA 122
Annex V Hazards Identified by Safety Case 124
Annex VI FAB CE Airspace Plan airspace structures 126
Annex VII Schedule of Working Groups and Deliverables 135
Annex VIII List of Pending Issues 137
Annex IX Examples for ANSP cooperation 138
Annex X Document References 146

FAB CE MASTER PLAN

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Abstract
The FAB CE Feasibility Study Master Plan summarizes the findings of the feasibility study of a Functional Airspace Block for the
participating States of Central Europe.
The Project Charter for the study was given by the CEATS Coordination Group and defines the operational, technical, financial,
HR, institutional/regulatory and safety principles supporting the regional concept of ANS provision based on the so called
Common Understanding as agreed by AdHoc CCG meeting on 08.11.2006 (Distributed model). On that basis three opera-
tional scenarios have been identified reflecting the achievable level of harmonization/integration of different ATM elements and
its timing. Those are:
■ An Initial Scenario – based on the implementation of the SES elements

necessary to qualify as a FAB;
■ A Static AoR Scenario – consisting of defined scope for FAB able to

deliver the expected benefits required from the ATM system by the
aviation community targeted at 2015;
■ A Dynamic AoR Scenario - that is advanced and will be implemented

where there is a supporting business case.
The report identifies the technical, human resource and safety management enablers required as well as an associated institu-
tional framework. It describes potential financial arrangements that are largely independent of specific scenarios.
Military considerations have been included through a FAB CE Military Advanced CONOPS [REF 04] and by integrating the
military into the governance structure of FAB CE.
A legal investigation has defined the requirements for establishing the FAB and for bringing it into operation. A model of the
FAB CE Agreement is proposed and its content identified.
Governance of the FAB has been considered and a structure including the arrangements for Regulation and Supervision is
proposed.
The Cost-Benefit analysis presents a positive result. Additional potential benefits are identified to provide a positive Business
Case.
No blockers have been identified to the implementation of the FAB CE in the timescales proposed. It is not anticipated that
any will be found in subsequent development phases.
The time frame for FAB implementation is identified. It is noted that the FAB represents a significant change for many people
and that sensitive management and good, open communications are required.
Recommended steps to be taken to initiate the FAB CE implementation are described, including the further proceedings
regarding the CEATS Agreement.
Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 5

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
Introduction
The CEATS Coordination Group (CCG/18) approved in March 2007 the FAB CE Feasibility Study Project Charter [REF 01]
and approved in April 2007 the FAB CE Steering Group ToR with the mandate to monitor the development of the Feasibility
Study, in line with the relevant CCG Decisions and in compliance with SES Regulations.
The FAB CE Feasibility Study Master Plan is the final report of the study to investigate the feasibility of creating a FAB for
the States of Central Europe. It summarises the conclusions of six working groups representing the States of Austria, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic and Slovenia and their ANSPs. Italy did not participate
in this study. Its purpose is to provide the participating States with sufficient information to decide upon the further steps for
implementation of FAB CE.
The Project Charter assumes that Air Navigation Services are provided on a distributed model, i.e. by each State’s facilities,
infrastructure and ANSPs. The FAB CE is to include both upper and lower en route controlled airspace. The scope of services
is ATM, CNS and the associated AIS, MET and SAR interfaces. It is intended to provide a flexible approach to allow for different
speeds of implementation according to need within the timeframe to 2015 for which the FAB CE Operational Concept for 2015
has been developed (see section 2 Scope).
At its second meeting the FAB Steering Group provided guidance as to the levels of ambition for FAB Operations:
■ a visionary approach is necessary for developing future scenarios;
■ the airspace to be considered is the upper and lower en route controlled airspace of the CEATS States
excluding that of Italy;
■ as a working assumption, the airspace design shall be based on the draft RNDSG route network for
2010+;
■ once the long-term scenarios have been developed, migration steps should be identified.
The Operational Working Group defined OPS scenarios, for which other working groups provided enablers. The outcome of
this work is integrated in three FAB CE Scenarios that are described hereafter and in detail in section 4. ATM Scenarios:
■ Initial Scenario;
■ Static Area Of Responsibility (AoR) Scenario;
■ Dynamic Area Of Responsibility (AoR) Scenario.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
FAB SCENARIOS
INITIAL SCENARIO establishes the FAB and satisfies the requirements of the SES regulations by:
■ Interim ANSPs and State level cooperation arrangements progressively implemented for the effective
implementation of the FAB CE and a closer cooperation in all domains, especially in Operations, Human
Resources and Technical;
■ Small scale cross border operations resolving critical areas;
■ FAB Contingency Plan for safety critical situations;
■ FAB Competence Scheme.
STATIC AOR SCENARIO provides a common solution for 2015 by:
■ Regional cooperation to provide ATS;

■ The FAB Network Operating Plan (NOP) coordinated with European NOP defines sector configurations
for a minimum validity period of six months;
■ Centralised planning and functional integration of ASM and ATFCM measures;
■ Optimum and extensive cross-border use of airspace ensuring a fluent and flexible transfer of responsi-
bility for air traffic control between air traffic service units;
■ Airspace design based on pan European and Regional traffic flows and common European design criteria;
■ Strategic airspace planning carried out by a regional Joint Civil-Military Airspace Co-ordination Body
(JC-MACB);
■ Joint civil/military airspace management cells (AMCs) or FAB AMC combined with Flow Management
Positions (FMPs) enabling functional integration of ASM&ATFCM pre-tactical measures fully compliant
with Flexible Use of Airspace and DMEAN;
■ FAB contingency plan for business continuity.
DYNAMIC AOR SCENARIO provides an additional and challenging step for FAB operations by:
■ Area of Responsibility for Air Traffic Services Units changing dynamically with strict rules for transfer.
■ Network Operating Plan (NOP) defining sector configurations for a minimum validity period of about six
months, with planned modification in the allocation of Sector Groups to Air Traffic Services Units.
Conclusion 1- Scenarios
The implementation of the Initial scenario should start as soon as possible.
The Initial scenario is intended to be a transition step and not a FAB objective.
Implementation of the Static AoR Scenario starting in 2012 and completed by no later than 2015 for all participating
ANSPs is feasible whereas a faster pace of implementation for some ANSPs may be possible.
Implementation of the Dynamic AoR scenario is possible once the Static scenario is in operation and only where and
when a business need can be demonstrated.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Enablers
TECHNICAL
1. Initial Scenario
The initial scenario does not require any significant changes to the technical systems and infrastructures. However, the esta-
blishment of a Regional Technical Planning Board will ensure the proper coordination of the technical activities enabling the
further development of the FAB.
2. Static AOR Scenario
Technical enablers for the static scenario are primarily concerned with modifying data and equipment configuration to match
changed Areas of Responsibility. A new tool to support CDM processes and coordination between AMC and FMP functions
will also be required. Gradual and coordinated improvement and harmonisation of systems will support the harmonised operations.
3. Dynamic AOR Scenario
New system functionality will be required to support the dynamically changing Areas of Responsibility. In particular, enhanced
flight data interoperability, harmonised implementation of decision support tools and Safety Nets and the convergence of HMI
will be required. It is likely that a new generation SESAR technical platform will be required in order to make the implementation
of the dynamic scenario more cost effective. Dynamicity is expected to provide significant technical enablers for contingency
arrangements.
Conclusion 2 – Technical enablers
The study indicates that no significant changes are required to implement initial scenario.
Implementation of the technical enablers for the Static AoR scenario is feasible and will require modification of the
systems and infrastructure.
Implementation of the technical enablers for the Dynamic AoR scenario are also feasible, but will require more signifi-
cant changes in systems and infrastructure, including new functionalities, leading to additional costs.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
HUMAN RESOURCES
1. Initial Scenario
No significant changes are required to implement initial scenario, but cooperation toward a common competency scheme will
be initiated.
2. Static AOR Scenario
Human Resources anticipate for Static AoR scenario a single FAB competence scheme, mutual recognition of licenses with
common regulations within Sector Groups, common minimum training standards and the co-ordination of rostering. The
rationalisation of some operational or technical services will take the pressure off skill shortages in those areas. There will be
a requirement for adapted ATCO training.
The Dynamic Scenario will require common manpower planning and rostering. It will also add critical requirements regarding
maintenance of competencies on multiple configurations.
Conclusion 3 –Human Resources
No significant changes are required to implement initial scenario.
Number of feasible changes is required to implement Static AoR scenario.
Changes required to implement Dynamic AoR scenario will require higher level of ANSP integration in manpower plan-
ning, rostering and maintenance of competencies.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
MILITARY OPERATIONS
Military requirements have been built into the design of the FAB through the Military Advanced Concept of Operations [REF 04].
The Military are an integral part of the FAB structure. Representation at the highest FAB governance level has responsibility for
the strategic management of airspace and overall capacity planning. The pre-tactical management of airspace will be underta-
ken by national civil/military AMCs possibly developing into a FAB AMC and incorporating some FMP functions.
1. Initial Scenario
The Initial scenario will be compliant with the FUA concept and SES regulations. The ASM&ATFCM Integration will start by
establishment of a Joint Civil-Military Airspace Co-ordination Body.
2. Static AOR scenario
The cross-border Area of Responsibility and sectors are feasible.
ASM&ATFCM Integration can be achieved by pre-tactical management of airspace undertaken by national civil/military
Airspace Management Cells possibly developing into a FAB AMC and integrating some Flow Management Position functions
for the Static AoR scenario.
Ideally one ATC centre will be responsible for the provision of ATS to both OAT and GAT for each portion of airspace, including
where a sector includes cross-border airspace.
No specific military requirements have been defined so far for Dynamic AoR scenario.
Conclusion 4 – Military Operations
The implementation of cross-border Area of Responsibility and sectors respects the Military requirements.
ASM&ATFCM Integration will be achieved by:
■ Establishment of a Joint Civil-Military Airspace Co-ordination Body for implementing the fully FUA compliant
Initial scenario.
■ Pre-tactical management of airspace undertaken by national civil/military Airspace Management Cells possibly
developing into a FAB AMC and integrating some Flow Management Position functions for the Static AoR
scenario.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
SAFETY
The Feasibility Study FAB CE Safety Case did not identify any blocking factors concerning the feasibility of FAB CE considering
that:
■ Fourteen hazard areas were identified as well as feasible mitigation measures;
■ These proposed mitigation measures (or their equivalents/alternatives) have to be applied during the
next stages of the FAB CE project;
■ Although the hazard list is likely to be extended at later stages of the project, it is not foreseen that any
possible additional hazard will raise a blocking factor.
The completion of the FAB CE Safety Case will require safety assessments to be done in every stage of FAB CE project.
Therefore, the FAB CE Feasibility Study Safety Case must not be considered as a complete Safety Case of the FAB CE
project.
However, application of the dynamic scenario would need to ensure the unambiguous allocation of sector or sector group to
ATSUs at all times, which is a safety critical issue.
The implementation of a FAB CE Safety Management System is feasible through progressive steps, going from the sharing
of information to a common system. Five initial safety targets of the FAB can be applied once the FAB project goes into initial
implementation phase.
Conclusion 5 - Safety
The Feasibility Study Safety Case did not identify any blocking factor.
Safety Assessments have to develop in line with the implementation of FAB CE.
Steps towards a common FAB CE Safety Management System are identified.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
The financial arrangements are not linked to specific FAB scenarios. However, a multilateral agreement between the ANSPs on
financial matters needs to be formalised during the initial scenario. The elements are:
Single Unit Rate
The staged implementation of a single unit rate before 2015 shall be subject to further investigation (see 6.2.1 FAB CE Char-
ging). Benefits are expected in terms of flight efficiency. A Single Unit rate would also be a signal to the community identifying
the FAB as one entity.
However there are issues associated with the establishment of a single charging zone, in particular before the level of economic
cooperation between the States has brought some degree of common en-route service cost control. These issues need to
be further investigated.
A Single Unit rate could be implemented initially by some states and others could progressively join.
Economic Cooperation
A progressive approach to economic cooperation (see 6.2.2) proposes the following steps:
■ Co-operative cost planning should be fully implemented by 2015, based on a common agreement. It
may apply initially to a limited number of states, and others may decide to join eventually.
■ Central budgeting should be implemented in 2015. This model requires an agreement on joint budge-
ting and planning and on common reporting. It should apply to all FAB participants. It should particularly
address the coordination in the following areas:
a. Investment and procurement;

b. Staff planning and wage policy;
c. Depreciation policy;
d. Handling of support services (e.g. MET).
■ Integrated cost management identified as a potential model for further integration. It is based on the es-
tablishment of a legal entity, owned by those ANSPs who choose to participate and which will manage the
provision of services and take over many of the current ANSP responsibilities.
Conclusion 6 – Financial Arrangements
The financial arrangements are not linked to any specific FAB scenarios.
Implementation of a Single Unit rate is considered as a principal FAB CE element, which application needs to be further
studied in the consultation phase with the States.
Development of economic cooperation can be initiated immediately with a co-operative cost planning, followed by
central budgeting which should be implemented by 2015.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Defined steps stemming from the SES regulations are required to establish the FAB and to declare it operational.
Consultation with third parties, the meeting of certain Fundamental Requirements such as a Safety Case and a positive CBA,
and the signing of a FAB Agreement have to take place before the FAB can be established.
The FAB can then be brought into operation following the entering into force of the FAB agreement and the meeting of further
Compliance Requirements including an agreement between NSAs on supervision and the Joint Designation of ANSPs.
It is anticipated that the FAB Agreement will identify all the conditions to be met and the relevant implementation procedures
(rather than present a complete and final solution). This approach permits early establishment of the FAB and the provisional
application of a FAB Agreement. Section 6.1 Institutional, Legal and Regulatory identifies the structure of the FAB agreement
and its required content.
After the Agreement has been signed, the procedure is for it to be ratified, for State law to be adapted (if applicable) and FAB
governance structures to be put in place. During the interim period between signature and bringing the FAB into operation,
it will be possible to apply certain elements of the agreement provisionally, on the basis of agreements between ANSPs and
/ or Memoranda of Cooperation between States. Most elements identified for the Initial Scenario can be implemented prior
to ratification of the FAB agreement. Joint designation of ANSPs can only take place once the FAB agreement has come into
force.
Conclusion 7 – Legal Arrangements
The legal requirements can be met through the following steps:
■ Definition of the FAB Agreement with consultation of third parties.
■ Signature of the FAB Agreement, allowing FAB CE to be established.
■ Entering into force of the FAB Agreement, allowing FAB CE to become operational.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
GOVERNANCE
The institutional framework governing the FAB is established through two sets of instruments:
■ Under public (international) law, by the FAB Agreement dealing with the responsibilities of States,
■ Under private law, by the agreement(s) between ANSP(s), giving an institutional framework to their
cooperation.
The highest level of governance of the FAB will be the FAB CE Council, responsible for the matter relevant to the mandate
given by the FAB Agreement. In particular, it will formulate and ensure implementation of the FAB development and strategy
and define the applicable rules and procedures within the FAB.
The Joint Civil-Military Coordination Body (JC-MACB) is a part of the Council, responsible at the strategic decision-ma-
king level, for airspace design, airspace management and flow and capacity management.
An NSA Coordination Committee, constituted under the FAB agreement, supplemented by an NSA coordination Agree-
ment between States and an agreement on cooperation concluded between the NSAs directly, will address the supervision /
oversight arrangements in the FAB, as well as matters related to harmonisation of rules and regulations in the FAB.
The Council may delegate matters of decision-making to an ANSP Committee, constituted under the FAB Agreement. In
these matters, the ANSP Committee will act as a decision-making body.
Since the implementation and management of the FAB and the services to be provided therein include a wide range of com-
prehensive ANSP tasks and activities ANSP cooperation in these areas will be of crucial importance during each phase of the
FAB lifecycle. Different degrees/levels of cooperation have been identified, ranging from mere exchange of information up to
common management of specific parts of the ANSPs’ own businesses and/or the establishment of common service functions
in particular fields. The way forward will be to agree on a gradual increase of the cooperation degree along the timeline (and
according to the FAB project phases) in those areas where such increase is necessary or beneficial.
Various working structures (sub-committees) within this cooperation will cover the different professional areas (like ATS ope-
rations, technical systems, HR and cost management, Regional Technical Planning Board, NSA licensed Training Facilities,
etc).
The ANSP committee/cooperation will be responsible for harmonisation, coordination and other means of cooperation among
ANSPs and for creation and dissolution of its sub-committees or other working structures.
The details of a proper cooperation models will be developed within the implementation phase of the FAB CE Project.
Conclusion 8 – FAB Governance
A comprehensive FAB Governance structure is proposed, recognising the roles and responsibilities of States and of
the ANSP.
The necessary arrangements for effective cooperation will be further developed in the consultation and implemen-
tation phase of the FAB CE Project.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
REGULATION AND SUPERVISION
The FAB agreement will establish the cooperation between the Regulatory Authorities concerning the regulatory areas and
issues relevant for the operations of the FAB CE and the relevant rules and procedures, address the transfer of regulatory
powers (and in particular delegation of supervisory functions, e.g. between NSAs or to NSA Coordination committee etc)
where appropriate and feasible.
In the later stages of the development of the FAB, it can be expected that more unified rules and procedures will be developed,
especially to support extensive cross-border operations.
Supervision in respect of EC requirements is mainly the task of national NSAs. In the first phases of FAB operation, it is most
likely that currently established NSAs will continue to carry out supervision. However, coordination and cooperation between
NSAs will be necessary in the FAB. This will be carried out through the NSA coordination committee, not only in terms of
harmonised rules, but also in harmonised supervision procedures, application of compliance criteria, etc.
Conclusion 9 – Regulation and Supervision
The study proposes a comprehensive Regulatory and Supervision regime supporting the FAB CE requirements.
BUSINESS CASE
A Cost/Benefit and performance analysis has been performed to evaluate the benefits of implementing the FAB compared to
a reference case.
The reference case describes what would happen over the same period of time if the FAB CE had not been implemented.
The analysis shows:
■ The Cost/Benefits of doing the FAB compared to the reference case, including also additional benefits
for which qualitative evaluation can be provided;
■ The expected target performance to be achieved with the FAB implementation.
Cost/Benefits
The CBA identifies the financial benefits leading to a positive Business Case.
The cost benefit assessment shows a positive net present value (NPV) for the Static AoR Scenario, in comparison with the
reference case (no FAB implemented). In all cases, static and dynamic, the CBA includes the benefits of a number of other
initiatives that are not specifically linked to the operational scenarios.
Two options for the implementation of the dynamic scenario were considered: the first assumed that all ANSPs implemented
the dynamic scenario simultaneously (the ‘Big Bang’ option); the second assumed a gradual implementation. The results
showed that the dynamic scenario has a positive NPV only if it is assumed that it is implemented only once SESAR compliant
systems are available. This implies that full implementation cannot be achieved until 2021.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Static NPV= €308.5m
Direct benefits (PV) Indirect benefits (PV) Costs (PV) NPV

2015 €24.1m €24.2m €24.7m €23.6m
2020 €85.9m €70.6m €32.5m €124.0m
2025 €237.7m €109.9m €39.0m €308.5m
Dynamic “Big Bang”
NPV = €342.3m
(Incremental values over Static are shown below)
2020 €0m €0m +€16.7m -€16.7m
2025 +€48.2m +€3.3m +€17.8m €33.8m
Dynamic “gradual”
NPV = €333.4m
2020 +€5.1m +€3.4m +€18.8m -€10.3m
2025 +€35.2m +€9.3m +€19.7m +€24.9m
Table 1 - Static and Dynamic AOR Scenarios - Net Present Value
In the table, “direct benefits” to the user, in terms of reduced delay or improved cost-effectiveness, are added to the “indirect
benefits” which result from ANSPs’ cost savings, and are later passed through to users through changes in unit rates.
The NPV can be viewed in the context of the total discounted value of ATM/CNS costs for the region, as shown in the table
below:
Present value of regional ATM/CNS costs (2007-2025) = €7,242m
Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b

PV of ANSP cost savings €70.9m 1.0% €56.4m 0.8% €60.5m 0.8%
(2007-2025)
NPV (2007-2025) €308.5m 4.3% €342.3m 4.7% €333.4m 4.6%
Table 2 - Present value of regional ATM/CNS costs
The cost benefit analysis has also looked at the impact of the FAB CE on the (en route) financial and economic cost effecti-
veness of the region. The economic cost-effectiveness, shown below, includes some costs incurred by the user directly: the
costs of delay, and the costs of inefficient horizontal routing.
€ per flight-hour
560
540 Without FAB

With FAB (Static)
520 With FAB (Dynamic "Big Bang")
With FAB (Dynamic gradual)
500
480
460
440
420
400
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Figure 1 – Economic cost effectiveness in FAB CE for the Users

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
All options for FAB implementation improve the economic cost-effectiveness from 2011. The Static case achieves a 4% impro-
vement in 2017 and 10% around 2025 compare with the reference case. The benefits of the Dynamic case become apparent
in performance terms after 2021. The Dynamic case improves economic cost-effectiveness by around 14% from the reference
case in 2025.
In addition to the benefits assessed in monetary terms in the cost benefit analysis, and subject to Performance monitoring
other benefits may arise from the implementation of the FAB CE.
■ Provide a regional platform to fully exploit the benefits of DMEAN;
■ Ease the implementation of high level of interoperability in the region;
■ Open opportunities for achieving long-term cost effectiveness, notably regarding a common approach
to SESAR deployment;
■ Increase the size and influence of the FAB CE ANSPs in the European ATM industry;
■ Promote the establishment of shared ATM working and social cultures in the region.
Conclusion 10 – Cost-Benefit Analysis
The study indicates a net present value of 24 M€ in 2015 and 308 M€ in 2025 for the Static AoR Operations. This
corresponds to 4.3% of the discounted total cost up to 2025. The Dynamic AoR Operations bring additional benefits
on top from 2021 onwards, provided the implementation is started when SESAR compliant systems are available,
i.e. after 2017.
The study indicates significantly improved economic cost effectiveness by around 10% for the Static AoR Operations
by 2025 compared to the reference case (around 4% by 2017). The Dynamic AoR Operations would bring additional
improvements (around 14% compared to reference case by 2025).
The study indicates that additional opportunities to improve the already positive business case would arise as a
consequence of the FAB CE development.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
FAB CE Performance
FAB CE will improve performance in the following key areas:
Capacity
Increase capacity to cope with the increase of around 140% in traffic in 2025 (increase of 60% in 2017) with a
maximum delay of 0.6 minutes per flight (0.3 in 2017) and satisfying the military needs.
Minutes per flight € per year

1.2 120M
Delay per flight (Reference case)
1.0 Delay per flight (Static) 100M
Delay per flight (Dynamic)
Delay Saving from Dynamic
0.8 80M
Delay Saving from Static
0.6 60M
0.4 40M
0.2 20M
0.0 0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Figure 2 – Projected delay evolution in FAB CE
Safety
The Implementation of FAB CE will maintain and wherever possible improve the current level of safety notwithstanding
the increased traffic through the establishment of a common safety management system.
Cost-effectiveness
Improve en-route financial cost-effectiveness by 5% in 2017 and by 10% in 2025 compared with 2006, despite
convergence in salaries between Central European economies and Western Europe.
Decrease in ATM induced cost for Military operations.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The following figure shows the evolution of financial cost effectiveness with and without the FAB.
370
360 Without FAB

With FAB (Static)
With FAB (Dynamic "Big Bang")
350
340
330
320
310
300
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Figure 3 – Financial cost effectiveness in FAB CE - provision of the CNS/ATM
Flight Efficiency
Save 2 million km annually by 2017 onwards.
Environment
Save 22 thousand tons of CO2 annually by 2017 onwards.
Mission effectiveness
Avoid cancellation of missions due to ATFCM.
In the FAB CE implementation phase the performance will be monitored through the PRU/PRC or when applicable subsequent
EC methodologies and be improved. Meanwhile the FAB functioning is optimised over a period of time.
Conclusion 11 – Performance
The study indicates that the implementation of the FAB CE results in improved performances in the following obser-
ved areas: capacity, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, flight efficiency.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
ROADMAP FAB CE IMPLEMENTATION
Based on the analysis of the scenarios, the enablers and the legal requirements, the study concludes that the FAB CE imple-
mentation is feasible in a phased approach, allowing progressive and flexible development of FAB operations. Each scenario
is associated to a specific FAB operation, as are shown in the figure below.
2008-2009 2009-2012 2012-2015 2015+
FAB CE FAB CE FAB CE Advanced

Preparation Implementation Operations FAB CE
■ FAB agreement signed ■ FAB agreement ratified ■ FAB Static Cross Border
Success
criteria
■ Definition phase completed ■ Joint designation of SP fully deployed

■ FAB structures defined ■ development "Static" ■ Performance target of static
completed achieved
■ FAB structures in force
Cross Border Operations
Initial
Definition IO Progressive
Development IO Initial Operations
Operations Operations
Static AoR
Definition "Static" Deployment "Static"

airspace, procedure, Development "Static" (progressive) Static Operations
people, systems
Dynamic
AoR CB
Deployment
Development
Definition "Dynamic" "Dynamic"
"Dynamic" (where applicable)
Figure 4 Timeframe for FAB CE
The diagram shows four main phases for the FAB CE:
■ FAB CE Preparation, which ends when the FAB agreement is signed;
■ FAB CE Implementation, which ends when the FAB agreement enters into force;
■ FAB CE Operations, which ends when the Static AoR Cross Border operations are deployed in the
whole airspace of FAB CE;
■ Advanced FAB CE , where further improvements would be achieved.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Transitional Arrangements
For the timely implementation of the FAB CE, work should continue after the Feasibility Study and before FAB structures are in
place. Working arrangements should be established by the relevant authority, having two responsibilities:
■ To support states in the organisation of all relevant activities related to the consultation process for FAB
establishment.
■ To set up a proper project structure allowing ANSPs to start necessary activities to develop the FAB CE
Implementation Plan.
CCG States FAB Agreement Agreement

decision decision Signed in force
FAB
FAB ISB
Council
Consult with relevant parties
Draft FAB Agreement
Develop NSA Cooperation
Transitional
States
FAB WA
ANSPs ANSPs
Steering Group Committee
Project Management
FAB Communication
FAB Definition and Implementation Planning
Support States in preparing decision
Coordinate ANSPs Business Objectives
Initiate Short Term Activities (IO)
ANSPs
Figure 5 Decisions and transitional arrangements
Conclusion 12 – FAB Roadmap
The definition of implementation steps for the FAB shows that the implementation of FAB CE and of the intermediate
steps is feasible.
However, the achievement of the date is conditioned by a series of steps, which would require timely organisation of
the related working arrangement to support the continuity of the work started during the Feasibility Study.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
FEASIBILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Risks have been identified and assessed. The conclusions of the separate Working Groups are:
■ No blockers have been identified to the implementation of the FAB CE in the timescales proposed
(2009-2015), assuming that the status of the CEATS Agreement is being addressed;
■ A flexible approach to FAB implementation is possible in time and scope and;
■ Whilst further work is required to define the FAB CE, it is not foreseen that any factors will be found
during the next phase that would block its implementation.
It is noted that the FAB implementation represents a significant change for a wide group of people. Sensitive management of
the change with an open and informative communications programme is key to success.
Conclusions
General Conclusions
1. FAB CE is a solution for the region in line with SES.
2. The implementation of FAB CE is feasible. The implementation of Initial Scenario by 2009, Static AoR
scenario starting in 2012 and completed by no later than 2015 for all participating ANSPs and Dyna-
mic AoR scenario by 2021 provide a flexible and progressive approach, allowing a different pace for
different countries.
3. No blockers have been identified.
4. CBA is positive from 2015 onwards. Additional benefits will be introduced as a result of the FAB im-
plementation.
5. Implementation of FAB CE improves the performance from 2012 onwards, while additional improve-
ments in the long term.
6. A FAB Governance structure is proposed involving all relevant stakeholders.
7. A roadmap identifies the activities to be conducted for the continuation after the Feasibility study, such
as the Implementation Planning.
8. The following steps need to be undertaken to achieve the benefits related to the FAB CE establish-
ment within the defined timeframe:
■ Declaration of the States authorities regarding their intention to proceed with FAB
implementation.
■ Establishment of the relevant transitional working arrangements to support the

preparation for the FAB Implementation.
■ Establishment of consultation processes with staff and users.
22 - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
1. Introduction
1.1 Context and mandate from CCG
In November 2006, CEATS Co-ordination Group launched a Feasibility Study to be conducted jointly by ANSPs of the CEATS
States, their military experts and EUROCONTROL as a Project Manager and facilitator, on the basis of the Project Charter
[REF 01].
The FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study is aimed at identifying and analysing one or several FAB implementation scenarios
supported by the respective cost-benefit studies and safety cases in the upper and lower en route controlled airspace of the
CEATS States, excluding that of Italy.
The stakeholder group for FAB Feasibility Study are: the participating States and their ANSPs, ANSP staff, the airspace users
and EUROCONTROL (as a facilitator and programme manager).
The project has produced a Master Plan (the FAB CE Master Plan), together with the supporting documents, with a view to
providing the participating States with sufficient information to decide upon the further steps of implementation.
The decision to implement, solutions adopted from those suggested as options and the actual implementation of the FAB(s)
are outside the scope of the present project.
The project has focused on the following areas:
■ Design and management of en-route upper and lower airspace;
■ Enhancement of airspace and ATM capacities;
■ Civil/military co-operation, including flexible use of airspace;
■ Coordinated planning of technical systems and infrastructures (CNS / ATM) and interfaces with ancillary
services [including SAR, MET and AIS];
■ Contingency arrangements;
■ Financing and economic issues related to the ANSPs;
■ Human resources and social impact assessment;
■ Safety Case;
■ Cost Benefit Analysis;
■ Institutional / Legal / Regulatory requirements;
■ Transition strategy;
■ Proposals for the future FAB management structure.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
1.2 Structure and purpose of the document
This document is structured in three parts.
Following the Introduction, the first part describes the conditions necessary for the establishment of a FAB, and what is re-
quired for the FAB to become fully operational. It then describes potential scenarios for FAB operation.
■ Section 2 describes the scope and objectives of the FAB CE, and the main principles and assumptions
underlying its development.
■ Section 3 gives the legal definition of a FAB and describes the preconditions for its establishment.
■ Section 4 describes three scenarios: an initial scenario for Start of Operations and two alternative sce-
narios targeted for the year 2015, characterised by different level of ambition.
The second part describes in more detail the contribution of different domains to the FAB scenarios.
■ Section 5 describes the ATM components of the two scenarios (Civil and Military Operational, Technical
and Human Resources).
■ Section 6 describes contribution to the FAB of the so-called ‘horizontal’ domains (that is, Institutional,
Legal and Regulatory; Financial; and Safety Management) which enable the aforementioned scenarios
but are not necessarily linked to a specific one.
The third part describes the assessment that has been carried out as to whether the establishment of such a FAB is feasible
and whether it can meet the requirements of the SES regulation.
■ Section 7 summarises the business case for FAB CE.
■ Section 8 summarises the safety case.
■ Section 9 provides an overview of feasibility and risk and roadmap for implementation.
■ Section 10 provides the framework for future decision making regarding FAB Implementation.
■ Section 11 undertakes to derive conclusions to be drawn from the Feasibility Study.
The report also includes a number of Annexes:
Annex I Glossary, Abreviations and Definition of Terminology
Annex II Principles of FAB CE Development
Annex III Common understanding
Annex IV Executive Summary of CBA

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex V Hazards Identified by Safety Case
Annex VI FAB CE Airspace Plan airspace structures
Annex VII Schedule of Working Groups and Deliverables
Annex VIII List of Pending Issues
Annex IX Examples for ANSP Cooperation
Annex X Document References
1.3 Intended Audience
The present FAB CE Master Plan summarises the results of the FAB CE Feasibility Study that was commissioned by the CEATS
Coordination Group. It encompasses the main deliverables from the FAB CE Feasibility Study.
The FAB CE Master Plan aims at providing the basis for a decision that will allow proceeding towards the target of creating the
FAB Central Europe with sufficient decision elements to decide upon the further steps of implementation.
The decision-makers
As such, the intended audience are firstly those stakeholders who will be responsible for taking the decision to co-operate in
creating a Functional Airspace Block and those stakeholders who will be responsible for its implementation.
■ The Ministers of the seven States who have among their responsibilities civil and military air traffic and air
traffic management in their respective State;
■ The civil and military aviation authorities and the air traffic regulatory bodies of the seven States;
■ The civil and military Air Navigation Service Providers in the seven States;
The endorsing and validating bodies
The CCG having commissioned the FAB CE Feasibility Study is responsible for endorsing the FAB CE Master Plan upon its
approval by the FAB CE Steering Group.
■ The CCG representatives of the seven States;
■ The parties to the CEATS Agreement (eight States and EUROCONTROL) who need to advise their
national authorities on the further proceeding of this Agreement in the light of the pending FAB
initiative(s);
■ The FAB CE Steering Group (including the representatives of the stakeholders community) responsible
for validating the document.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The concerned parties
The FAB CE Feasibility Study will also be the basis of the consultation and / or communication process with parties not directly
involved in the FAB CE feasibility study:
■ The Single Sky Committee as part of the FAB establishment process;
■ The international trade unions or professional associations related to ATM;
■ The other FAB initiatives, in particular those involving the neighbouring States;
■ The airspace users.
Ultimately, the FAB CE Master Plan may also serve as a reference framework for those who will be involved in the implemen-
tation of the decision(s) made with regard to creating one or more Functional Blocks of Airspace in the airspace of the seven
States.
1.4 FAB Feasibility Study Development Process
The FAB CE Feasibility Study development process is fully in line with the Single Sky bottom-up approach: the options
proposed for the FAB implementation are the results of the work of the six working groups involving experts from
ANSPs and military, supervised by an ANSPs/States steering group appointed by the States.
The FAB CE Feasibility Study Project Charter [REF 01] and the FAB CE Feasibility Study Project Management Plan [REF 06]
explain the framework in which the FAB CE Feasibility Study has been elaborated.
Six Working Groups (1 Operational, 2 Technical, 3 Financial, 4 Human Resources, 5 Legal/Institutional/Regulatory and 6 Sa-
fety) composed of representatives nominated by their respective State and / or ANSP have produced a set of deliverables1
described in the PMP. Each Working Group was led by a Working Group Leader (WGL) member of the Project Management
Office (PMO).
The deliverables were presented and discussed at the PMO meetings and reviewed by correspondence by all Working Groups.
The FAB Steering Group (FAB SG) reviewed and validated the main deliverables.
Two Operational Scenarios
An important starting point for the FAB CE Feasibility Study was provided by the guidance from the FAB SG second meeting
as to the levels of ambition that were to be translated into the so called Operational Scenarios. The OPS WG set out and
developed two operational scenarios (Static and Dynamic) in response to the requirements stemming from the SES regula-
tions. In their original development, these operational scenarios were intentionally unconstrained by requirements other than
operational.
1- See Annex VII Schedule of Working Groups and Deliverables

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Three FAB Scenarios
The PMO assembled the inputs of all Working Groups into a matrix that allowed formulating sets of conditions and parameters
across the six domains (Operational, Technical, Financial, Human Resources, Legal/Institutional and Safety) for the scenarios.
Considering also the time constraints imposed by the SES for establishing a Functional Airspace Block, three FAB scenarios
were defined.
FAB CE Cost Benefit Analysis
Under a working arrangement managed by the Financial Working Group and overlooked by the PMO additional clarification
was provided by the Working Groups and data were gathered from States and ANSPs to allow performing a cost benefit
analysis (CBA).
FAB CE Safety Case
The Safety Working Group looked at the Safety Case for the FAB CE establishment and identified no “show stoppers” provided
all of the mitigations or their equivalent will have been put into place.
FAB CE Master Plan
The present FAB CE Master Plan brings together and references the main deliverables from the FAB CE Feasibility Study, in
order to provide a basis for decision with regard to establishing a Functional Airspace Block in the airspace of the seven States
involved.
Assumptions: OPS WG Area of Responsibility

1. Airspace 7 States
OPS Concept / Contingency / Civ/Mil
2. Route Network OPS
(RNDSG 2010+) Scenarios
3. Common Airspace Design > Sector Families > Sector Groups

understanding
WG 2 TEC WG
WG 3 FIN WG CBA
WG 4 HR WG
WG 5 ILR WG
WG 6 SAF WG SAF Case
Master FAB Master Plan

Plan Scenarios
Time
Figure 6 - FAB CE Feasibility Study Development

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
2. Scope
2.1 Objectives of FAB CE
The main objectives of FAB CE are defined by the Project Charter [REF 01]
■ Compliance with SES regulations including:
❍ Safety Case that demonstrates equal or improved levels of safety
❍ Cost benefit analysis that demonstrates overall added value, including optimal use of technical and
human resources
❍ Optimum use of the airspace for civil and military users based on operational requirements, irrespec-
tive of national borders, through implementation of FUA concept
■ Increased capacity;
■ Increased cost efficiency.
Furthermore, “added value” is expected in the following areas:
■ Capacity meeting demands;
■ Optimisation of the airspace design and sectorisation based on civil and military needs;
■ Common operational concept;
■ Improved compatibility between lower and upper airspace and interfaces to TMAs;
■ Rationalization of the use of existing technical infrastructure and co-ordinated planning of future
investments;
■ Rationalization of the existing human resources;
■ Improved use of common technical systems and co-ordinated planning of future evolutions;
■ Improved civil military cooperation;
■ Improved contingency provisions.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
2.2 Expectations of FAB CE Stakeholders
FAB CE must allow the participating States to fulfil the requirements of the Single European Sky legislation. States will endea-
vour to harmonise the regulatory environment as well as strengthen the co-operation between ANSPs. They will also preserve
their national security interests and meet military airspace requirements.
The national ANSPs want to develop closer co-operation and to further improve their performance.
ANSP staff expect to ensure job security and to be involved in the FAB Development from an early stage. They expect no
migration (relocation) of personnel2.
The airspace users expect a pragmatic, feasible solution for establishment of the FAB that will bring more capacity, higher
flexibility and improved cost efficiency. They want better utilization of optimum ATS structures together with appropriate secto-
risation, high level quality and safety of services at lower prices within shortest possible time frame.
2.3 Scope of FAB CE
The participating States in FAB CE Feasibility Study are: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
It is assumed that the Lower limit of FAB CE will be identical to the limit of en route Controlled Airspace3 (excluding the TMAs).
The Upper limit of FAB CE Airspace will be FL 660.
CZ
SK
AT
HU
SL
HR
BiH
2- Unless in case of application of Contingency Measures

3- The harmonisation of this limit will be addressed during the development phase

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The following services are assumed to be in the scope of the FAB CE Operational Concept 2015:
■ Air Traffic Management
❍ Air Traffic Services
■ Air Traffic Control
■ Alerting Service
■ Flight Information Service [for FAB CE airspace]
❍ Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management
❍ Airspace Management
■ AIS – MET [as required for the provision of the above ATM services]
■ Search and Rescue [limited to the interfaces needed for Alerting service]
The technical scope of the FAB CE covers:
■ Data Processing System;
■ Communication Navigation Surveillance infrastructures;
■ Technical Services including logistics and maintenance.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
2.4 Main Principles for FAB CE
FAB CE Mission
“The FAB CE mission is to respond to the airspace users’ demand by providing safe, efficient and environmental friendly En
Route ATM services compliant with the Single European Sky regulations”
The following principles have been established for the development of the FAB CE:
■ The solutions proposed for FAB CE took into account the common understanding of the CEATS states,
namely “the full use of existing and planned infrastructure (distributed model), while responsibilities for
service provision shall be entrusted to the national ANSPs”;
■ The FAB CE Master Plan provides a framework for effective cooperation in the FAB CE area in the dif-
ferent domains. It provides a flexible approach allowing various ANSPs and states to achieve different
levels of ambition at different speeds, according to their needs and capabilities. Additionally, concrete
implementation will also consider further stakeholders’ requirements;
■ The FAB options focus on the FAB establishment and the medium term planning (2015 timeframe). The
longer term planning is not being addressed explicitly in the Feasibility Study. However, it is anticipated
that further cooperation could be developed once these medium-term steps are achieved. In particular,
additional benefits will be achieved in the common deployment of SESAR concepts. These additional
benefits are not being accounted in the FAB CE Feasibility Study, but are considered “Additional Bene-
fits”;
■ Current commitments and development in progress shall be taken into account in order to guarantee the
return on investment.
The Master Plan describes realistic, pragmatic and flexible options for establishing FAB CE.
Various partners can implement specific concept elements at different moments in time on the base of a coordinated
schedule.
In addition to the initiatives that provide the core elements of the FAB CE, additional options may be applied only by
some participants; these will provide additional benefits within the umbrella of the FAB cooperation.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
2.5 Assumptions
With regard to setting up FAB CE it has been assumed that:
■ For all States, the FAB would be formed by an international agreement, along the lines of the EURO-
CONTROL FAB State-Level Model Agreement;
■ In order to ensure seamless gradual development (from initial scenario, to static and/or dynamic), the
crucial institutional/regulatory/legal framework cannot be substantially different for each scenario;
■ Only one common performance-oriented Operational Concept will be developed to satisfy the needs of
the whole FAB CE. The Common FAB CE Operational Concept will be based on a distributed model for
Service Provision;
■ The Common FAB CE Operational Concept will focus mainly on those elements necessary to fulfil the
requirements stemming from SES regulations. Starting from these requirements, a simple stepped
evolutionary path will be developed. The concept will allow for different speeds in implementing the
Operational Concept Elements for the various participants to the FAB CE;
■ The target airspace will include several sector groups whose lateral limits may differ from national borders.
From the point of view of developing a technical infrastructure proposal, it has been assumed that:
■ Existing national lateral sector boundaries, as further adapted by the sharing of some Cross-Border sec-
tors, can be used as a reasonable starting point to evaluate solutions for general support infrastructure;
■ The transition will be achieved by a step by step evolutionary process through the development of
existing support infrastructure, wherever possible. The provision of new infrastructure, although not the
preferred implementation path, will also be possible;
■ Seamless operations between the seven national ATC facilities are a general operational objective for
the FAB CE. They require the availability of harmonised and consistent facilities, management, procedu-
res, tools, infrastructure (ATM), maintenance support (SLA), etc. between the various national facilities.
However, agreement on this approach does not necessarily require these technical support infrastructu-
res to be exactly the same.
From a financial point of view, it has been assumed that:
■ Each ANSP stays in business;
■ CRCO charging regime and cost recovery principles apply;
■ The data for the en route cost base are consistent among ANSPs;
■ ANSPs initially retain the responsibility for their costs, but may delegate it in later stages;
■ Performance indicators values initially may vary significantly among ANSPs, but these will be harmonised
at the later stages.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
2.6 Performance Framework
The FAB CE aims at satisfying the objectives set forward by the Single Sky Regulation. It also aims at bringing substantial
benefits to the airspace users, to the general public and at allowing ANSPs to develop their business through the optimisation
of their resources.
These objectives can be translated into key performance targets that provide quantifiable, challenging, but feasible ambitions
for the FAB.
Performance Targets for the FAB CE need to be seen in the context of the SES Performance Targets.
Capacity
Increase capacity to cope with the increase of around 140% in traffic in 2025 (increase of 60% in 2017) with a
maximum delay of 0.6 minutes per flight (0.3 in 2017) and satisfying the military needs.
The traffic growth forecast vary from 3.5% to 4.4% annually until 2025 for individual ANSPs, resulting in a steady 4% increase
on average for the FAB CE region in this period and resulting in an estimated 113% increase in 2025 compared with 2006. The
max delay of 0.4 minutes is contributing to reach the target set in April 2001 by, the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council (PC)
endorsing an ATM network delay target of 1 minute per flight as the maximum en route ATFM delay acceptable at ECAC level
to be maintained beyond summer 2006.
The FAB CE, together with any additional operational and technical improvements which will be in place by 2015 and by sub-
sequent improvement, will provide sufficient capacity to manage the traffic foreseen for the region by 2015 and beyond, while
at the same time meeting the targets for Safety, Efficiency, Flexibility, and Predictability.
Safety
The Implementation of FAB CE will maintain and wherever possible improve the current level of safety notwithstanding
the increased traffic through the establishment of a common safety management system.
The European target is to improve safety levels by ensuring that the annual numbers of ATM induced accidents and serious
or risk bearing incidents (including those with both direct and indirect ATM contribution) do not increase and, where possible,
decrease. This means that, given the rate of increase of traffic in the region, the risk of an ATM induced accident or risk bearing
incident per flight must be reduced4.
4- It is a common assumption that the risk increases with the square of the traffic growth

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Cost-effectiveness
Improve en-route financial cost-effectiveness by 5% in 2017 and by 10% in 2025 compared with 2006, despite
convergence in salaries between Central European economies and Western Europe.
Decrease in ATM induced cost for Military operations.
These targets might appear not ambitious enough but they should be seen in the general context of the sustained economic
growth in Central Europe, where the growth in salaries of the ATM staff may exceed the corresponding increase in productivity.
The European target for cost effectiveness is that the total direct European gate-to-gate ATM costs should reduce from €800/
flight (EUROCONTROL Performance Review Report 2005) to €400/flight in 2020 (in 2005€)5. This is expected to be achieved
through an annual ~3%/year reduction until 2010 (as indicated in PRR 8 Report 2004), followed by a cumulated ~5%/year
reduction until 2020. Notwithstanding this 2020 target, continuing cost improvement should be sought after 2020.
Flight efficiency
Save 2 million km annually by 2017 onwards.
Other elements can be considered beside the horizontal flight efficiency, such as:
■ Efficiency, based on measures of on-time departure, flight duration and fuel efficiency;
■ Predictability, based on measures of arrival punctuality, variability of flight duration, cancellation rates and
reactionary delay, and;
■ Flexibility, based on delay penalty suffered by those requesting changes.
Environment
Save 22 thousand tons of CO2 annually by 2017 onwards.
The overall objective for the area of environmental sustainability is to enable a 10% reduction in the effects flights have on the
environment.
5- Note this is not in the same units as the PRC targets for cost effectiveness, which is defined in terms en route ANS costs per kilometre, nor the ACE measure of financial cost effectiveness,
which is defined as gate-to-gate ATM costs per composite flight hour

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Mission effectiveness
Avoid cancellation of missions due to ATFCM.
Other targets lacking objective measurement tools, such as Interoperability, are not considered at this stage, although they are
addressed as part of the benefits of cooperation.
During the development phase of the FAB CE, the performance under the FAB CE scenarios against at least a selection of key
targets in these three areas should be measured through simulation.
Arrangements should also be made, post implementation, for on-going monitoring of regional performance in each of these
performance areas.
A summary of the Performance Targets derived from the CBA for 2017 and 2025 is presented in the table below:
Performance Area Target for 2017 Target for 2025

Cost effectiveness Average ATM CNS costs reduced Average ATM CNS costs reduced
from 343€ per flight (reference case) from 343€ per flight (reference case)
to 327€ per flight to 315€ per flight
Delays N/A Delay per flight reduced from 1.0 min
(reference case) to 0.6 minute
Horizontal Flight Efficiency 2 % excess distance flown on 2 % excess distance flown on
average reduced from the reference average reduced from the reference
case case
Table 3 - Performance Targets derived from CBA

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
3. Establishment of a FAB
This section defines options for the possible legal steps to the Implementation of FAB and the legal criteria
upon fulfilment of which a FAB may be declared operational. Section 9 integrates them in a single road map
together with operational, technical, human resources, safety and financial activities. Section 10 defines the
relevant recommendations.
3.1 Legal Definition of a FAB
Two levels of requirements can be identified for the definition of a FAB. Fundamental requirements are those legally necessary
in order to for the FAB to be established. Compliance requirements are those additional requirements imposed in order for
the established FAB to fully comply with the regulatory requirements.
A FAB can only be established once the Fundamental Requirements are met.
By their very nature, not all conditions imposed by the SES Regulations can be achieved at the very beginning. A FAB can
be conceived as a continuous defragmentation process of the airspace and may tackle different aspects of fragmentation in
differing timeframes. Thus, a FAB can be established before all the compliance requirements are met.
FAB DEFINITION
An airspace of defined dimensions in space and time, within which air navigation services are provided, is considered to be an
airspace block. A functional airspace block means an airspace block based on operational requirements, reflecting the need
to ensure more integrated management of the airspace, regardless of existing boundaries.
Thus, the following minimum requirements define the FAB:
(a) spatially delineated airspace;
(b) delineation in time;
(c) airspace where ANS are provided; and
(d) airspace designed on the basis of operational requirements, regardless of existing boundaries.
These requirements are prerequisites for the establishment of a FAB within the meaning of the SES Regulations. Unless these
conditions are met, no airspace block can be established as a FAB.
These conditions are the fundamental requirements.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
SES REGULATIONS
However, added to these must be the target objectives for a FAB to be compliant with the SES framework, as set out in Article
5 of the Airspace Regulation. They are to:
■ achieve maximum capacity and efficiency (delay reduction);
■ maintain a high level of safety (enhancing current safety standards).
Specifically, in order to demonstrate that these objectives have been met, the FAB must:
a. be supported by a safety case;
b. enable optimum use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows;
c. be justified by their overall added value, including optimal use of technical and human resources on the
basis of cost/benefit analyses;
d. ensure a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic service units;
e. ensure compatibility between the configuration of upper and lower airspace;
f. comply with conditions stemming from regional agreements concluded within the ICAO, and;
g. respect regional agreements in existence on the date of entry into force of the Airspace Regulation, in
particular those involving European third countries
Furthermore:
■ Articles 8.1 and 8.4 of the Service Provision Regulation make it clear that, in order for cross border
operations to be carried out, joint designation of Air Navigation Service Providers is necessary.
■ Article 2.3 of the Service Provision Regulation requires that an agreement on supervision is concluded
between the States
■ Article 2.4 of the Service Provision Regulation requires that appropriate arrangements on close
cooperation between NSAs are put in place in order to ensure adequate supervision
It is the conclusion of the ILR WG that requirements (f) and (g) above MUST be considered fundamental requirements.
They also advise that compliance with requirements (a) and (c) should be demonstrated before FAB establishment through the
provision of a Safety Case and a positive Cost Benefit Assessment.
Other Airspace Requirements ((b), (d) and (e)) refer to the operational characteristics of the FAB and do not necessarily have to
be achieved at the time of FAB establishment. They are therefore compliance requirements. However, all those requirements
should be met not later than with the joint designation performed in line with Article 8.4 of the Service Provision Regulation.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Conclusion of an agreement between the States concerning supervision, arrangements in place between NSAs and the
achievement of joint designation must also be considered as Compliance Requirements, to be achieved after the FAB is
established but before it is declared operational.
3.2 Phases of Implementation of the FAB CE
According to the SES Regulations, the process of FAB implementation is clearly divided into three phases separated by two
milestones:
PHASE MILESTONE
Consultation
FAB establishment
FAB Implementation
FAB becoming operational
FAB operation
Thus it is necessary to determine what conditions must be met, first for a FAB to be established and secondly for the FAB to be
declared operational. In the absence of specific guidelines from the European Commission as to the process for establishing
and implementing a FAB, two interpretations can be put forward6:
Option 1 Only the Fundamental Requirements need be met for the FAB to be established; a preparation phase
then ensures that the Compliance Requirements are met before the FAB is declared operational;
Option 2 Both the Fundamental and the Compliance requirements specified in section 3.1 must be met for the
FAB to be established; the FAB can then be declared operational almost immediately.
For Option 1, two processes are required for the establishment of a FAB.
■ Consultation with interested parties(discussed further in section 3.2.1 below);
■ Conclusion of an Agreement between the States concerned.
This agreement may be in the form of memoranda of agreement between the participating states. However, the
most likely form this agreement will take is a signed but not ratified FAB agreement.
At this point, it may be possible for the (elements of) the FAB Agreement to be provisionally applied (subject to
limitations in each State’s legislation). The limits that will typically apply are discussed in section 3.2.3 below.
Subsequent to the establishment of the FAB, further work must be done to meet the Compliance Requirements,
before the FAB can be declared operational.
6- These options are at two ends of a spectrum – in reality the practical solution is likely to be somewhere in between.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
For Option 2, in addition, all the work to ensure that the Compliance Requirements are met must be done prior
to FAB establishment. Because of the nature of some of these requirements, and in particular because of the
necessity for joint designation of ANSPs, this can only be completed when the FAB agreement has been come into
force.
The only subsequent requirement (stemming from the Service Provision Regulation) is for a one-month period to
elapse from the time of joint designation before the FAB can be declared operational.
In either case, the FAB agreement7 must come into force before the FAB can be declared operational.
It is assumed in the rest of this document that the FAB can be established once the Fundamental Requirements
have been met and the FAB agreement8 has been signed (i.e. Option 1).
A pragmatic approach to FAB implementation will allow gradually establishing the legal framework compliant with the
SES Regulations, while allowing at the same time effective cooperation being implemented. This would allow benefits
to be already achieved before regulatory requirements are formally met.
3.2.1 CONSULTATION
The Airspace Regulation requires that the States wishing to conclude a FAB Agreement can do so only after “having consulted
interested parties, including the Commission and the other Member States”.
Due to the existence of the CEATS Agreement, any negotiations on conclusion of a FAB Agreement among the Contracting
Parties and the Signatories to the CEATS Agreement are also subject to the rules laid down by international law.
Consultation partners in this phase will include:
■ European Commission;
■ EU Member States and Single Sky Committee;
■ EUROCONTROL;
■ Industry Consultation Body;
■ Any CEATS States not wishing to be party to the FAB CE;
■ ANSP / ATSUs of non FAB States having LoAs with FAB CE;
■ Other neighbouring European States;
■ Social partners.
7- The FAB CE agreement should be based on the ‘EUROCONTROL Model State Level FAB Agreement’, adjusted where appropriate. It should, among other things, clearly identify the criteria
to be met before the FAB can be declared operational. See Section 6.1.1.
8- defining the fundamental requirements and incorporating a roadmap to show how the additional requirements will be met.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
As part of this consultation phase, a consensus must be reached as to the transition path from the CEATS agreement to a
FAB CE agreement. Appropriate means to deal with the position of EUROCONTROL under the CEATS Agreement will have
to be developed.
3.2.2 THE FAB AGREEMENT
Several options are available for the type of agreement ranging from a simple Agreement to establish a FAB to an Agreement
evidencing that all Compliance Requirements have been met. In any cases, it seems that ratification will be required by States
for the FAB Agreement to come into force.
A key decision is the extent to which the Parties agree and meet all relevant conditions before the FAB Agreement is signed.
This will define the nature of the FAB Agreement. There are essentially two options:
a. All relevant conditions are agreed and met before the FAB Agreement is concluded and the FAB Agreement
in fact codifies the status quo. This option:
■ entails almost immediate establishment of a FAB once the FAB Agreement is concluded and
possibly also commencement of its operation (depending on the scope of the conditions met and
subject to time-limitations set forth in the Service Provision Regulation);
■ is more time consuming in the negotiation phase.
b. The FAB Agreement identifies all conditions to be met and sets forth relevant implementation procedures.
This option:
■ enables conclusion of the FAB Agreement in a relatively short period of time and provides sufficient
legal certainty for the implementation process;
■ enables the establishment of a FAB;
■ supports a gradual development towards the FAB operation;
■ might lead to a situation where no consensus is reached and the implementation process would
then be blocked.
3.2.3 FAB IMPLEMENTATION
Once the consultation phase is completed and an agreement has been concluded between the participating States, two
strands of action will be initiated.
Firstly, individual States participating in the FAB CE must begin the process of ratifying the FAB agreement and of amending as
required any relevant State law. They must also put in place the relevant State-level governance structure.
Secondly, the Member States and ANSPs must begin the process of collaboration to establish the agreed FAB-level gover-
nance structures (see section 6.1.1).
In parallel with this, preparation, development and deployment of technical, operational, financial, safety management and HR
changes will proceed (as specified in Sections 4 and 5 below).

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
3.2.4 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATES
Prior to the ratification of the FAB agreement and the FAB being declared operational, States may choose to apply certain
elements of the agreement provisionally, subject to limitations according to State legislation (normally only elements of the
agreement which do not require ratification). Provisional application would have to be implemented through e.g. agreements
between ANSPs and / or arrangements between the States on a ministerial level.
In particular, it should be noted that prior to ratification of the FAB agreement:
■ ANSP level governance structures can be set up on the basis of agreements between ANSPs and /
or arrangements between the States on a ministerial level;
■ Small-scale cross border operations can take place on the basis of bilateral agreements between ANSPs
(Article 10 Service Provision Regulation).
Thus, most elements identified for the initial scenario (see Section 4.1) can be implemented (with some limitations) prior to
ratification of the FAB agreement.
3.2.5 FAB OPERATION
The FAB may be declared operational once:
■ the remaining conditions (b, d and e) of Article 5 of the Airspace Regulation have been met;
■ the FAB agreement has come into force;
■ an agreement on supervision has been concluded between States;
■ arrangements on cooperation has been put in place between NSAs;
■ the governance structures are in place (and have been given decision making powers);
■ the operational structures are in place (including joint designation of ANSPs as required);
■ the legal structures are in place.
This may (but does not necessarily) coincide with the implementation of the Static AoR Scenario9.
Note that this does not preclude the FAB being declared operational in part of the FAB CE airspace provided the FAB Agree-
ment has entered into force (for example in an area involving two or three States only which airspace creates a coherent
airspace block).
The FAB is declared fully operational once it is operational in all participating States.
9- The Static AoR Scenario may not be implemented prior to ratification of the FAB agreement, but could, in some States be delayed until some time after ratification, depending on the
readiness of those States to proceed.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
3.2.6 FAB OPTIMISATION
Some of the conditions in Article 5 are dynamic in nature and thus their compliance will have to be monitored on a permanent
basis.
It is unlikely that all the performance targets set for the FAB CE will be met on Day 1 of FAB operation. The performance of the
FAB will be continually monitored. If further development of the FAB is needed in specific areas in order to meet performance
targets, then a business decision will be made at the appropriate level to initiate that development. This may include deve-
loping from the Static FAB towards a Dynamic FAB in some or all States.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
4. ATM Scenarios
The FAB Scenarios have been developed on the basis of the Operational Scenarios proposed by the OPS WG.
FAB SG 02 provided guidance to the OPS Working Group for defining the operational FAB scenarios:
■ a visionary approach is necessary for developing future scenarios;
■ the airspace to be considered is the upper and lower en route controlled airspace of the CEATS
States excluding that of Italy;
■ as a working assumption, the airspace design shall be based on the draft RNDSG route network
for 2010+;
■ Once the long-term scenarios have been developed, migration steps should be identified.
For the purpose of the Feasibility Study, the Sector Groups identified for the Static AoR Scenario by the OPS WG have been
assigned to the FAB CE ATS Units, mainly based on the criteria of minimizing the changes to existing situation. This assignment
provided the basis for the analysis by the other working groups and the Cost Benefit Analysis (see Annex IV). Since the discus-
sions on the Dynamic AoR Scenario were less advanced, no such assignment has been done for the dynamic scenario.
The table below gives an overview and rationale for the major constituents of the FAB CE Scenario. These scenarios are not
alternatives, but evolutionary steps to be implemented sequentially.
INITIAL SCENARIO
Interim ANSPs and State level cooperation arrangements will be progressively implemented for the effective imple-
mentation of the FAB CE and initiate a closer cooperation in all domains, especially Operations, Human Resources
and Technical.
STATIC AOR SCENARIO DYNAMIC AOR SCENARIO
Regional cooperation in provision of ATS, centralised Optimisation of the use of technical and human
planning and functional integration of ASM and ATFCM resources using dynamic changes in the Area of
measures with extensive cross border sectors Responsibility

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
4.1 Initial Scenario
The main objective of the Initial Scenario is to establish the FAB and initiate concrete cooperation and implementation actions
towards the further steps of the FAB. In this respect, it is a pre-condition for any further FAB CE development and it focused on
satisfying the requirements of the SES regulations and on establishing the legal and institutional framework enabling the FAB.
The Initial Scenario represents, in terms of execution of daily operations and in terms of airspace structure, an evolution from
the current situation. In particular, the application of the relevant operational improvements would lead to small modifications
of airspace structure and/or procedures to resolve critical areas [See Annex VI].
The table below shows the key elements of the initial FAB Scenario and how they contribute to satisfying the SES requirements
for a FAB listed in section 3.1.
DESCRIPTION SES
Small scale cross border operations b, d, e, (c)
Airspace use and route network coordination through the establishment of a b, e, (c, f)
Joint Civil-Military Airspace Co-ordination Body [JCMACB] enabling functional
integration of ASM&ATFCM
Contingency Plan for safety critical situations (a, c) + CR 2096/2005
Regional Technical Planning Board c, (f, g)
Multilateral agreement of the ANSPs on financial matters c, g
FAB Competence Scheme a, d
NSA licensed training facilities a, (c)
FAB agreement outlining a relevant (operationally based) design, including timing all
for its putting into operation.
Table 4 - Initial FAB Scenario contribution to the SES requirements

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
4.2 Key elements of the Static AoR Scenario
The Static AoR Scenario provides a common and ambitious objective for FAB CE participants, ensuring optimum use
of the airspace taking into account air traffic flows, ensuring a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic
control between air traffic service units without the constraint of national borders;
The Static AoR Scenario represents a common objective for all FAB CE to deliver the expected benefits at the time horizon of
2015. The Annex VI provides the definition of sector groups associated with the Static AoR Scenario.
The airspace planning is carried out by a Joint Civil-Military Airspace Co-ordination Body (JC-MACB) taking into account the
allocation of Sector Groups to ATSUs.
There is extensive cross border sectorisation, with Air Traffic Management provision for General Air Traffic [and potentially OAT]
wherever required.
Sector Configuration Management is done within an ATS Unit having an Area of Responsibility covering one or several Sector
Groups. Configuration is determined as part of a shared regional Network Operating Plan (NOP) coordinated with European
NOP, for a minimum period of validity of about six months. Updates associated with the changes in traffic patterns may result
in changes in the airspace structure and Air Traffic Service Unit Area of Responsibility compared to airspace structure and
ATSU AoR defined in Annex section 5.
Each Sector Group is allocated to one ATSU that provides the relevant services for the duration of that period of validity.
ASM/ATFCM integrated processes will involve the different actors and the collaborative decision making process will apply
from the strategic phase to the executing phase (see section 5.1.4.2 ASM / ATFCM process).
From an ATM point of view, the key elements that are required in order to achieve this scenario are:
■ Coordinated procedures structured around major traffic flows;
■ Common airspace design criteria;
■ Common contingency procedures and a contingency plan at FAB level.
From a technical point of view, the key elements include:
■ The modifications of existing Data Processing Systems to cope with the new area of responsibility. This
includes the provision of environmental, flight and surveillance data. A/G Communication infrastructure
needs also to be modified and new interfaces might be required. The sharing of technical control and
monitoring data will be required;
■ Changes take place at planned, seasonal intervals and can be done at times of low traffic, similarly to
what is done today in the AIRAC cycle.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
■ Consistency of ASM/ATFCM information for the region is achieved and a new tool to support CDM
processes and coordination between AMC and FMP functions is available.
From a Human Resources point of view, the key elements that are required in order to achieve the static scenario are:
■ Common minimum requirements on staff competence achieved and maintained through a single FAB
Competence Scheme according to the ESARR5 Regulations;
■ Common regulations and procedures to apply within affected Sector Groups (preferred);
■ NSA licensed training facilities;
■ NSAs supervising the common regulations;
■ Common training standards and preferably coordinated training plans;
■ Mutual recognition of licenses.
HR planning, analysis of sector opening hours (SOH) and related needs for unit training/OJT, rostering schemes should also be
coordinated. There will be a limited HR impact from possible centralisation or rationalisation of some operational or technical
services and/or maintenance units for a FAB.
There is a high priority to train or re-train a significant number of ATCOs to obtain or keep competence in the new AoR and
sectors.
Note: the implementation of all the key elements of the Initial Scenario is a prerequisite for the implementation of the Static
AoR Scenario.
4.3 Key elements of the Dynamic AoR Scenario
The Dynamic AoR Scenario provides a challenging and futuristic approach to further optimise the use of resources
across the different ATSU. This concept provides an option for ANSPs who decide to further develop the benefits of the
FAB by putting in place a flexible ATM system.
The implementation of the Dynamic AoR Scenario needs to be further studied in particular with respect to the following
aspects:
■ Safety since there is a need to maintain a clear and unambiguous identification of who is responsible for
ATS provision in each Sector Group;
■ Human resources since competencies will need to be maintained in a larger part of the airspace and in a
multiplied number of configuration;
■ Technical, since the ATM system will need to manage changing Area of Responsibility.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The Dynamic AoR Scenario represents an additional level of ambition towards more flexible FAB CE Operations at the time
horizon of 2015, given the available Operational Improvements.
It incorporates all the elements described for the Static AoR Scenario.
Sector Configuration Management is done within a Sector Group, even for Sector Groups involving several ATSUs. As with the
Static AoR Scenario, configuration is determined as part of a shared regional Network Operating Plan (NOP) coordinated with
European NOP with every six month updates.
In the case of the dynamic scenario, pre-determined sector configurations potentially involving more than one adjacent ATS
Unit within a sector group are defined in the NOP. These may be applied:
■ On a weekly basis (driven by days of the week)
■ On a daily basis (driven by hourly traffic patterns)
Thus, more than one Air Traffic Service Unit may be responsible for the provision of ATM within a sector group.
Revision to the Sector Configuration Plan throughout the NOP rolling process is possible (including at the pre-tactical level) but
not applicable in the flight execution phase unless it is necessary for safety reasons.
ATSU B
Sector 3 ATSU B provides ATS in

Sector 3 (static situation)
Sector 2 ATSU A and ATSU B

provide ATS in Sector 2
dependently on traffic
conditions
Sector 1 ATSU A provides ATS in

Sector 1 (static situation)
ATSU A
Figure 7 - Example of Dynamic Area of Responsibility

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The schemes of the sector configuration plans are determined in advance, together with their period of validity and the cyclic
patterns. The time necessary to switch from one configuration to another, especially during peak hours is a matter of safety
concern and should ensure a smooth transfer of operations from one ATSU to another.
There must be a clear allocation of responsibility for releasing control of the sectors and an unequivocal identification of the
sector “owner”. The actors involved in the decision making process through the different phases are those described under
the Static AoR Scenario, but the application of the sector configuration is no longer the responsibility of the single unit but a
common task.
In addition to the ATM enablers required for the static scenario, the dynamic scenario requires:
■ Concept of operations and procedures for Dynamic cross border frequency allocation / utilisation
■ General and coordinated application of Automated Decision Support tools within FAB
From a technical point of view, the key difference from the static scenario is that changes in sector configuration will happen,
not once a season at a pre-determined time of low traffic but with increasing frequency at pre-planned times that may coincide
with times of high traffic. Therefore, it will not be acceptable to experience any break in service to allow (for example) new
system data to be uploaded.
This requires new functionality to be available in systems and communication infrastructure. ATM systems will need to be
capable of dynamically changing their Area of Responsibility, which affects the management of data, interfaces and system
configuration.
Additionally, convergence in terms of functionality will be required, and notably the new flight data interoperability, harmonised
implementation of decision support tools (i.e. MTCD) and Safety Nets and convergence of HMI.
From a Human Resources point of view, the more dynamic the potential changes of sector configuration are, the greater the
issues that arise in terms of Manpower Planning, Rostering, maintaining Competency: joint analysis of SOH, of HR planning
and personnel allocation, plus common rostering schemes will be required.
In particular, in addition to the HR requirements for the static scenario, the dynamicity will require common regulations and
procedures throughout the affected Sector Group for the concerned ANSPS, common training standards for operations in the
dynamic cross-border sectors.
From an Institutional point of view, the cooperation between ANSPs will need to be framed to support the dynamicity, in
particular in the area of financial planning and revenue distribution.
More effort is expected to be required for ensuring the required level of safety, for competency assurance and for “cross centre
management of safety approach” in the case of a dynamic scenario due to possible additional operational hazards.
The application of dynamicity in the Area of Responsibility shall be linked to specific requests of the FAB CE participating states
and implemented only where it is operationally and economically justified to:
■ Overcome identified capacity shortcoming in a specific Sector Group with the adjacent partners
without opening additional sectors
■ Provide a more cost effective shared use of the resources between partners within a Sector Group
during off-peak traffic situations
Note: the implementation of all the key elements of the Static AoR Scenario is a precondition for the implementation of the
Dynamic AoR Scenario.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5. ATM Components of FAB Scenarios

5.1 Operations
5.1.1 AIRSPACE
The ATM services to be provided within the FAB CE should be performed in an environment characterised by cross border
airspace design and extensive cross-border sectorisation. Therefore the Airspace Design process is not constrained by bor-
ders between states but based on the operational needs to accommodate GAT and OAT traffic taking into account air traffic
flows, ensuring a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic service units. Constraints
to optimum sectorisation relate only to the need of accommodate civil and military operations, to political / states decisions
and to the technical capabilities of the ANSPs as they will exist from time to time (see Annex VI FAB CE Airspace Plan airspace
structures).
5.1.2 OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
The FAB CE Operational Concept for 2015 represents the vision requested by the FAB SG and includes the implementation of
those “mid term” objectives which are considered essential in order to meet the level of service [in term of performances] ex-
pected by the various stakeholders and which will fit within their business model. The time horizon considered is close enough
to have concrete elements and far enough to limit the achievement of the foreseen benefits.
The deployment of the scenarios will be linked to the agreed Operational Improvements and all shall be completed by 2015.
The Operational Concept Elements should be periodically revised and updated.
At the same, an Initial Operational Scenario has been developed, highlighting those operational elements that could be imple-
mented during the transition in order to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the FAB ongoing building process.
The Operational Concept Elements and the associated Operational Improvements enabling the full deployment of the 2015
scenario have been mainly based on:
■ ECIP/LCIP
■ DMEAN
■ SESAR Mid Term Concept
■ Derived from the expectations of the FAB CE Stakeholders
Concept elements for the provision of the ATM in a distributed model
■ Common ATM manual
■ Common procedures

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
■ Common working methods
■ Communality in CWP and HMI
■ General and coordinated application of Automated Decision Support tools within FAB
■ Sectorisation with extensive cross border taking into account air traffic flows, ensuring a fluent and
flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control between air traffic service units
■ Common airspace design criteria
Concept elements for enhancing the ATCO productivity
■ Common procedures for maximisation of SYSCO level 3 potential
■ Integrated Controller Task-load Reduction
■ Integrated DCB (Demand Capacity Balancing)
Concept elements enabling the achievement of the SES common requirements in a cost-effective way
■ Common contingency procedures
Concept elements related to integration of ASM/ATFCM
For further details on ASM/ATFCM process, see Military CONOPS in Section 5.1.4.
5.1.3 CONTINGENCY
Contingency is a situation where, following a major service disruption, a failing ATS unit may require support from an aiding
ATS unit in order to fulfil its missions.
The Single European Sky (SES) Framework and Service provision regulations [REF 08] paved the way for the Common
Requirements (CR) regulation [REF 09]. As a result, Contingency Plans should have been completed and ready for possible
implementation at the latest by end of 2007 (or by mid- 2008 in cases where an extension of 6 months has been granted by
the State to certify the ANSP).
Therefore, the FAB CE member States, through their Civil and Military authorities, shall put in place a process to set Common
Requirements to develop and implement contingency plans and measures at within the FAB Area in case of service disrup-
tions.
According to the CR Regulation, the tasks to develop and to implement contingency plans and measures shall rest with the
ANSP.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The FAB CE Contingency Planning process can be summarised in the following diagram:
Establish the FAB CE States Authorities,
1 Requirements of
Contingency Measures
Military Authorities
Airspace Users,
Airports
2 Assemble the FAB CE

Contingency TF/Team
3 Liaise with Key Actors

in the FAB Area
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

External Critical Other National
Key actors Military Services Infrastructure Local & International
in ATM Authorities Suppliers Suppliers Authorities Agencies
Consultation with Actors

4 & Users (airspace,airports)
during Contingency Planning
Update
Approval and oversight
5 of the Plan by Oversight

Authority
Contingency
Plan
6 Prepare FAB CE ANSP's

for executing contingency
7 Implement change
management process
Figure 8 - Contingency Process, Organisational Aspects
The following High Level Contingency Principles have been set:
■ In case of a total surveillance failure at one of the FAB CE ATSU, ATC service will not be provided,
except for the completion of actions in direction of traffic already under service when the failure
occurred.
■ Procedures to reduce the failed ATSU airspace workload when in contingency mode will be esta-
blished. These procedures will be agreed with all civil and military FAB CE ATC units concerned
ensuring that the transfer of basic flight plan data for air defence purposes will continue.
■ A FAB CE contingency plan will be developed in co-operation by all ANSPs involved in the FAB area
to ensure the safety of aircraft in the airspace controlled by the FAB CE should a failure occur which
results in the closure of one of the centres of the FAB area.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The contingency measures will cover situations of Emergency, Planned or Non-Planned service outages. An Emergency
Outage is due to an unforeseen or sudden occurrence, whilst a Non-Planned Outage is foreseen in advance but without notice
required to deploy a detailed contingency scheme. A Planned Outage is foreseen sufficiently far in advance to permit the de-
ployment of a detailed contingency scheme. In terms of duration, an Emergency Outage is defined as lasting up to 30 minutes,
a Short-Term Outage as lasting not more than 48 hours and a Long-Term Outage as lasting more than 48 hours.
The concept of contingency can be organised along a “Contingency Life-Cycle” composed of the two following states:
■ ‘Normal’ Operations: composed of Full mode and Reduced mode of operations until a certain thres-
hold (tbd)
■ Contingency Operations: composed of 3 phases
❍ ALARM, where the primary concern is safety
❍ SERVICE CONTINUITY, where attention will also be paid to satisfying business objectives
❍ RECOVERY, where both safety and business objectives are being met and the situation is being
returned to normal operations
During the ALARM phase, the strategy will be either to close airspace or to transfer provision of services to an aiding ATS
Unit in order to secure the traffic situation or to assure continuous traffic flow, either until the failure is fixed or until the Service
continuity phase is activated.
During the SERVICE CONTINUITY PHASE, the strategy will be to transfer provision of services to an aiding ATS Unit.
During the RECOVERY phase the strategy will for the originally failing ATS unit to shadow services of the aiding ATS unit until
full service can be resumed.
These contingency measures will require that:
■ Aiding ATS Units to be technically capable to provide service in the failed airspace
■ Personnel to be trained to extract traffic from affected airspace in the event of airspace closure
■ Personnel to be trained and licensed to provide service in failed airspace
■ Additional personnel to manage contingency
■ Aircraft procedures to be developed for airspace sterilisation, service continuation and service recovery
and air crews to be trained
■ A contingency route network to be developed (optional)
■ ANSP agreements (e.g. LoAs) to define ATC co-ordination procedures
■ A pre-agreed staff relocation plan in order to relocate failing ATS Unit staff at aiding units in the event of
a Planned or Long-Term Outage.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
During all contingency operations, OAT activity will be reduced to the minimum required to conduct operations required to
safeguard national territory, maintain public order and internal security and comply with UN resolutions. For GAT, the available
capacity in the FAB CE area during contingency operations must permit, at an absolute minimum, the uninterrupted provision
of ATS to:
■ Flights in a state of urgency/emergency, including flights subject to unlawful interference;

■ Flights conducting search and rescue or fire fighting operations;
■ Flights carrying Head of State or equivalent status;
■ Flights for humanitarian or medical reasons.
The FAB CE Contingency Plan is expected to develop further during the FAB CE Definition Phase.
5.1.4 MILITARY ADVANCED CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
5.1.4.1 Objectives
As described in the FAB feasibility study Project Charter, one of the expected added values of the implementation of a FAB
in this area is the improvement of civil military coordination. The development of a military advanced concept of operations is
intended to improve not only civil/military co-ordination but also military-military co-operation, in order to deliver efficient use of
the airspace at FAB level, able to satisfy civil and military requirements.
In specific the objectives of the FAB CE Military Advanced Concept of Operations (FAB CE MA CONOPS) are:
FAB CE MA CONOPS is based on:
■ A more efficient use of the airspace through an enhanced application of FUA concept in order to better satisfy
civil and military needs;
■ An efficient provision of ATS to GAT and OAT not constrained by national borders;
■ A safeguard of national security and national and multinational defence requirements in respect of national sove-
reignty for each State.
■ A cross-border ATS provision for both GAT and OAT;

■ A cross-border management of the airspace;
■ Harmonised ATM procedures for GAT and OAT;
■ ASM/ATFCM functions integrated at FAB level;
■ A Layered Planning System;
■ A Regional System Wide Information Management;
■ The usage of a common Network Operational Plan;
■ Regional CDM process at FAB level

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
It focuses on:
■ the description of a regional CDM process for ASM / ATFCM (not fully in place until 2015, but with an
enhanced level of civil/military co-operation potentially being achieved by 2009)
■ an ATS provision to GAT and OAT operating in a full harmonised and cross border ATM organisation.
5.1.4.2 ASM / ATFCM process
The management of airspace10 will be organised at FAB level. This will include:
■ A widespread co-operation at strategic level;
A “Joint Civil/Military Airspace Coordination Body” responsible for co-ordinating airspace design and
ASM policies to be applied across all FAB CE Member States will be established. A joint civil and mili-
tary process will be established to carry out the necessary strategic ASM planning work. National Civil
Aviation Authorities, Military Aviation Authorities and national ANS providers of the FAB CE States shall
be represented on an equal basis.
Joint Civil-Military Airspace Coordination Body will take responsibility or:
❍ FAB CE contribution to the definition of the NOP,

❍ Strategic Demand/Capacity balancing, Seasonal and daily,
❍ AoR modification
❍ Route improvement/CDR definition.
A Support Bureau will be established to facilitate the work of the FAB CE JCMAC Body.
Military Airspace Requirements Civil Airspace Requirements
FAB CE Member States FAB CE ANSPs
National Regional European
National European
JCMACB
Bodies Bodies
Supporting
FAB CE Bureau
Airspace
Plan
Figure 9 - ASM / ATFCM Process Strategic Level
10- In this context the terminology is used to describe functions not only limited to airspace management but also to the management of resources to ensure as much as possible the optimum
balance between demand and capacity in order to integrate ASM/ATFCM functions.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
■ A regional pre-tactical management of airspace.
Co-operation and co-ordination between National AMCs and FMPs will be enhanced through dedicated bila-
teral or multilateral agreements and the identification of Lead AMCs will be considered to support the manage-
ment of cross border airspace structures and/or operations.
Ideally, a FAB AMC will be created to cover both major AMC functions, currently covered by National AMCs,
and those FMP functions which focus on sector configuration adjustments in order to best cope with traffic
demand at FAB level.
ACCs will, meanwhile, focus on those FMP functions which deal with configuration adjustments that can best
be identified at sector level.
■ A tactical management of airspace.
AMCs (either National or FAB) will continue to be involved in the process during the Reacting Phase into the day
of operations, until the production of the UUP. Tactical ASM/ATFCM functions in the Executing phase will be
redistributed between existing ACCs, military ATC units and remote AD units.
5.1.4.3 Provision of ATS to OAT
To avoid the proliferation of coordination between cross border sectors and national MIL units, there will be a distributed ATS
organisation for the provision of ATS to OAT11, based on a cross-border principle.
One ATC centre will be responsible for the provision of ATS to both OAT and GAT for each portion of airspace, including where
a sector includes cross-border airspace. This will be achieved through appropriate bilateral and multilateral agreements and
decisions. Mutual recognition of ATCO licences, common training and licensing schemes are required. A consequence of this
is that responsibility for OAT could transfer from civil to military ATCOs and vice versa, according to the type of ATS organisation
adopted in each Member State.
The option to retain existing ATS provision to OAT may be required by some Member States.
11- In this context the ATS provision is referred to OAT flying outside restricted/reserved areas and not requiring special handling (e.g. air policing mission).

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2 Technical
The FAB CE Technical Roadmap covers three domains:
■ Data Processing Systems (DPS)

■ Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Systems and Infrastructure (CNS)
■ Technical Services, supporting operation and maintenance of DPS and CNS systems
The Feasibility Study provides a high level view on the required changes. Detailed specifications and transition plans need to
be developed by the Regional Technical Planning Board12.
The analysis of existing infrastructure and systems, and the foreseen technical changes required to support 2015 scenarios,
highlights that from technical point of view there is no blocking factor to the implementation of FAB CE.
5.2.1 DRIVERS FOR CHANGE
Two main drivers guide the evolution of the FAB CE technical framework:
■ Technical Enablers to support the FAB CE Scenarios (Initial and 2015 Static and/or Dynamic);
■ Additional technical opportunities identified by the Technical WG which would bring indirect benefit to
the FAB CE providing a more harmonised, effective and efficient technical environment in the region by
reduction of investment costs, effort and risks for the ANSPs.
2009 2011 2013 2015
TEC ENABLERS: changes required by FAB operations (airspace/concept)
Initial Scenario STATIC Scenario DYNAMIC Scenario

FAB CE Establishment Airspace and OPS Concept Airspace and OPS Concept
Main driver for TEC environment evolution
TEC OPPORTUNITIES in the use and planning of the CNS/ATM
■ FAB CE Technical Planning Board

■ Technical Cooperation and Harmonisation Activities
Contribute to improve TEC coordination, achieve cost and risk reduction
Figure 10 - Two main technical drivers for change
Seamless operations between the seven national ATC facilities is a general operational objective for the FAB CE which requires
the availability of harmonised and consistent systems, management, procedures, tools, infrastructure (CNS/ATM), mainte-
nance support (SLA).
12- It should be noted that the term “Regional Technical Planning Board” (RTPB) is to denote a bundle of functions/tasks/competences related to coordination, harmonization and/or integration
of technical system elements. The term is not intended to describe a separate organisational entity or body. Instead, the regional technical planning will most probably be a sub-function of
the ANSP Committee/Cooperation where the preparatory work will be done at the appropriate working level and relevant decisions are made at the top management board level. For a brief
description of the ANSP Committee/Cooperation see section 6.1.1.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2.2 STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
The FAB CE Operational Concept is based on distributed model for Service Provision. In line with this concept, systems within
the FAB CE will evolve towards architecture of “a coherent system of systems” and in compliance with the medium and long
term SESAR concepts. This evolution will be made in gradual steps starting from improvements of the existing technical envi-
ronment (for Initial scenario) to further harmonisation and where possible integration of systems. New functions will be required
to support Static and Dynamic FAB CE scenarios.
During the Preparation Phase, the Regional Technical Planning Board, like the other domains of ANSP cooperation, will start to
operate under appropriate arrangements which may be subject to further development in a later phase. A coordinated vision
of the evolution of ATM systems and infrastructure will be further developed and transition plan defined.
The first operational step consists of small scale cross-border operations where limited number of technical changes will be
required. At this point in time, coordination of on going technical activities (e.g. MTCD and safety net implementation) will start,
leading to initial harmonisation of functionalities, data consistency and system performance together, ensuring synchronisation
of national plans.
The second steps, aiming at supporting the Static Cross Border Operations will lead to a higher level of system harmonisation,
enhanced data sharing and functional convergence. Some functions will/may need to be implemented in an integrated way.
Some new functions will be required to support the FAB CE operations, such as the integration of ASM/ATFCM.
The third steps will require new functionality to be developed to support dynamic cross border operations.
Beyond 2015, the FAB CE regional systems will commonly evolved in line with SESAR developments. Major changes are
expected in the systems, and the synchronisation of the procurements provides additional opportunities for the further conver-
gence of the systems.
The harmonisation and convergence of ATM systems and infrastructure will pave the way for a synchronised deploy-
ment of the SESAR mid term concepts.
5.2.3 TECHNICAL CHANGES
The Contingency Planning principles have an impact on the required technical changes. Detailed impacts of the contingency
planning on technical changes will be analysed in detail at a later stage when specific decisions will be made on the contin-
gency, e.g. regarding aiding units for each ATSU. The application of dynamicity would provide significant enablers for the
contingency, in the area of dynamicity.
5.2.3.1 For the Initial Scenario:
From a technical point of view, it is essential that a Regional Technical Planning Board is established.
The main objective of the Initial scenario is the initiation of concrete cooperation and the definition of implementation steps
towards the further evolution of the technical environment.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2.3.2 For the Static AoR Scenario:
From a technical view point, the key elements that are required in order to achieve this scenario include modifications of sys-
tems to support the Airspace Design and the introduction of new concept elements:
■ Modifications of environmental data in support of cross border operations and new AoR and AoI. Environmental
data have to be consistent between the FAB CE systems. This can either be done by modifying and updating
the existing systems individually or by defining the FAB CE environmental data centrally and distributing it to the
FAB CE Systems. The later is an opportunity to consistently migrate systems towards AICM/AIXM compliant
architecture and interfaces;
■ Modification of FDP systems in line with the new AoR. Modified FDP system interoperability will be required to
cope with the new FAB CE cross border areas and airspace balconies. This will require modification of interfaces
for flight data exchange. Synchronised implementation of a common set of OLDI messages will also provide the
improved interoperability supporting Operational Improvements;
■ Implementation of ATC support tools in the systems needs to be done in a coordinated way in support of the
FAB CE Operational concept elements (SADR, Controller Decision Support Tools, and Controller Task-Load
Reduction). This will ensure the same situational awareness in the areas of cross border operations and the
extended Areas of Common Interest;
■ Modification of interfaces to AIS and METEO data providers, which for cross border operations may require
some ATSUs to incorporate new inputs from different providers;
■ Modification of surveillance coverage and data distribution: A common surveillance picture and associated
functionality within the AoR of each ATSU should be established by integrating sensors, configuring trackers
and common performance validation. SLAs will be required between cooperating parties supporting both the
provision and distribution of surveillance data;
■ A/G Infrastructure: It is anticipated that Sector and Cross-Border Sector Radio coverage will be achieved using
available radio site infrastructure, supported by additional interfaces and communication links between centres
across national borders. Where radio services are required to be provided across national borders, they should
be covered by appropriate SLA. However, it may be necessary to establish some new A/G radio sites and mo-
dify communications systems (A/G and G/G) to support the proposed SGs;
■ Voice Communications Systems: VCS equipment at each ATSU will also have to change its internal configu-
ration in order to adapt to the changed airspace. VCS systems will have to be adapted to accommodate new
external interfaces including: new A/G Voice, Signalling, and Radio Status Monitoring interfaces;
■ COM Infrastructure: Improved Availability and QoS requirements will be necessary for both data and voice ex-
change between ATSUs that cooperatively provide support to a SG. Additionally to existing national networks,
new international communications will support interconnections of system allocated to particular SGs. This can
be done either by improving connectivity between appropriate partners or by establishment of a regional com-
munication network;
■ TMCS: Status information for relevant systems to all ATSUs in the Sector Group will have to be exchanged
which will introduce modifications of TMCS systems and interfaces;
■ For the technical support of the integrated ASM/ATFCM process, an appropriate automated tool will be develo-
ped ensuring consistent information and coordination between AMC, local/regional FMP functions and CFMU.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2.3.3 For the Dynamic AoR Scenario:
The FAB CE Implementation will provide a seamless and interoperable ATM system, contributing to the reduction of the
Pan European System Fragmentation. A FAB regional System Wide Information Management will provide consistency
of information to support integration of ASM and ATFCM.
Additional functionalities are required to support the dynamicity.
From a technical point of view, the key difference from the static scenario is that changes in sector configuration are likely to
occur more frequently, at pre-planned times; this requires new functionality to be available in systems and communication in-
frastructure. ATM systems will need to be capable of dynamically changing their AoR, which affects the management of data,
interfaces and system configuration:
CNS Infrastructure:
■ Support to dynamic allocation of frequencies to ATSU;

■ Dynamic configuration of FAB CE and neighbouring VCS;
■ New A/G interfaces for Voice, Signalling, and Radio Status Monitoring;
■ Additional configuration and interfacing of TMCS to support dynamic operations;
Data Processing Systems:
■ Functionality to ensure environmental data consistency for extended system area of interest, particularly for
area of dynamicity;
■ New functionality in FDP to adapt the system capabilities to dynamic change of Areas of Responsibility (flight
data management, coordination and transfer, possibly new architecture);
■ New functionality to dynamically manage flight data interfaces;
■ Automated support to single sector configuration management;
■ New functionality to share common situation awareness.
Option for Data processing System:
A significant enabler for the application Dynamic AoR would be the implementation of common distributed system
architecture for the systems that need to support dynamicity in a common area, allowing one of the system to take
over from the other. Such an approach would ensure a further integration of the systems supporting dynamicity.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
5.2.4 TECHNICAL OPPORTUNITIES
Common definition and synchronized procurement of future developments contributes to technical coordination of ANSPs
reducing the cost and risks at the same time. The following candidate projects are envisaged:
■ Harmonized implementation of Flight Message Transfer Protocol (FMTP)

■ Harmonized usage of Down-Linked Airborne Parameters
■ Harmonized implementation of AGDL services
■ Common Approach to New Surveillance Technologies and Surveillance Data Processing
■ Technical Services Optimisation
■ Common approach to Voice Communications Protocol (Migration to VoIP)
■ Common approach to SESAR deployment phase
5.3 Human Resources Concept
The FAB CE Human Resources concepts provide a harmonised framework for staff development, providing more
opportunities for mobility within the FAB as well as an ambitious, challenging and modernised working environment.
Specific HR requirements related to the different scenarios have been dealt with in section 4 above. This section deals with
the overall HR concept for the FAB CE.
According to the EU regulation, as well as SESAR Programme, ATM systems are expected to remain human-centred for the
foreseeable future, and people will play a key role in achieving system safety and capacity enhancements. People are therefore
an essential element in the ability to deliver ATM services. There is, therefore, a prime objective to ensure human involvement
and commitment to support the change to future ATM so that operational, technical and support staff can operate effectively,
efficiently and safely within their capabilities and obtain challenge and job satisfaction.
The overall HR assumption is that the future use of Human Resources will be highly influenced by the following principles:
■ Full integration of Human Factors expertise and professional associations in the Programme will reduce the risks
with respect to operational acceptability and trust;
■ Manpower planning and recruitment will be co-ordinated;
■ Training and Licensing will be harmonised. Enabled by the creation of a “Common ATCO EU License”, it shall
be based on the requirements of ESARR 5;
■ As a result of the above, working conditions may be harmonised, to an extent to be defined depending on
specific needs.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The ultimate goal is optimum use of Human Resources with related benefits. A FAB approach includes a mutual recognition
of Licences, common minimum Training requirements and the potential integrated use of operational staff among concerned
ANSPs. Coordinated or shared use of training facilities and staff would result in additional benefits.
It is essential that people are adequately trained, motivated and competent to perform their safety-related activities and to be
aware of the impact of their activities on safety. The FAB CE will encourage human resources feedback on safety issues and
is committed to the creation of a “FAB CE Safety Culture”.
The following general concepts will apply to the FAB CE:
■ Common principles on staffing deployment and development, conditions of work and employment, transfer and
mobility (where required), staffing deployment and development, inter alia, should be progressively established
based on best practices available in the area.
■ A structured and efficient social dialogue should be established between all parties.
■ The categorisation of staff and their associated roles and responsibilities shall be aligned so as to ensure a stan-
dardised and measurable level of performance. Additional or supplemental training and assessment is likely to
be required in line with a “single FAB Competence Scheme”.
■ Training and licensing will be harmonised based on ESARR5
■ Manpower planning using common tools and methods is recommended to develop harmonised plans
for the FAB CE and national ANSP ATM Units. Rostering schemes and Collective Agreements should be
harmonised. Staffing targets for the FAB should be established using common staffing principles, requirements
and policies.
■ Different cultures will need to be managed if ATSUs are to be merged or interoperated.
The impact on Human Resources from the Initial FAB Scenario is expected to be significant, but it should be managed
without difficulties.
For the Static AoR Scenario, there is a high priority to train or re-train a significant number of ATCOs to obtain or keep com-
petence in the new AoR and sectors.
In the Dynamic AoR Scenario, the dynamic nature of changes to sector configuration creates issues in terms of manpower
planning, rostering and maintaining competency. A greater degree of cooperation will be required between ANSPs (see sec-
tion 4.3). There may be increasing pressure for harmonised – ideally similar - working conditions as well.
By 2015, specific policies outlined in ANSPs contractual arrangements should also be harmonised. It is also recognised that
harmonised selection, recruitment training and ultimately licensing are interdependent activities aimed at safety in the FAB CE
ATM.
Transition, from a Human Factors point of view, involves changing the mind-set to be ready for the point in time when a
controller gives an instruction for the first time in the FAB CE scenario. During transition, control-room staff could have expert
support to assist and answer questions in areas including procedures, communications, system, surveillance etc. Protective
measures in terms of reduced sector capacities during a short period of time in the beginning of each transition could be
required.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6. Horizontal Domains
The three domains:
■ Institutional, Legal and Regulatory
■ Financial
■ Safety (as regards safety management and oversight)
enable the Scenarios described above but are not necessarily specific to any one of them.
6.1 Institutional, Legal and Regulatory
6.1.1 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Strategic
level
COUNCIL High Level JC-

MACB
Coordination
level
NSA ANSP's
Coordination Committee /
Committee Cooperation
Executive
level
Support Bureau to
■ Council
■ JC-MACB
■ ANSP’s Committee
Financial
Sub-Committee
Safety Steering
Sub-Committee
Regional Technical Planning

Board (Sub-Committee)
ATS Operations
FAB AMC
Sub-Committee
Figure 11 - Governance Structures of FAB CE

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The institutional framework is established under respectively:
■ A public (international) law instrument – the FAB Agreement, dealing with the responsibilities of States. Under
this institutional frame are the FAB CE Council, the NSA Committee and ANSP Committee
■ Private law instrument(s) – the ANSP cooperation and the corresponding sub-committees.
The term “coordination level” shall be understood in a very generic sense and without prejudice to the scope of tasks and
decision making powers. The NSA Committee as well as the ANSPs’ Committee/Cooperation will, within the remits of their
tasks and responsibilities and to a certain degree, have to be vested with decision making powers and will have to discuss and
agree on, e.g., strategies (and therefore also act on a “strategic level”).
At the “working level”, mainly exchange of information and preparatory work will be performed to submit proposals to the de-
cision making level the ANSPs’ Committee/Cooperation (i.e. the top management board level). The various “sub-committees”
are working structures under/of the ANSP Committee/Cooperation.
The tasks and powers of the FAB governance structure bodies (FAB CE Council / JC-MACB, NSA Coordination Committee,
ANSP’s Committee/Cooperation) will be defined and allocated in strict accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and
of Better Regulation.
6.1.1.1 The FAB CE Council
The highest level of governance of the FAB will be the FAB CE Council, of which the JC-MACB will form an integral part. This will
be constituted at State Level by the FAB agreement. Ministers of Transport of all implementing States (or DGCAs as their repre-
sentatives) will have voting rights on the Council. ANSPs will also have representation on the council, but will not have voting rights.
The Council will be responsible for:
■ Formulation and endorsement of the development and strategy for inner and outer matters of FAB;
■ Communication with NSA Coordination committee;
■ Modification of the FAB;
■ Applicable rules and procedures within FAB;
■ Amendments to Annexes of the FAB Agreement;
■ Supervision and monitoring of implementation by the Committees of the tasks assigned by the Council;
A defined part of the Council will be the Joint Civil-Military Coordination Body (JC-MACB). The members of this body will be
DGCAs and / or high level military representatives, nominated by the States. ANSPs will also have representation in the JC-
MACB, but will not have voting rights.
JC-MACB will be, at the strategic level, responsible for:
■ Airspace design13;
■ Airspace management and ATFCM14;
■ Targets for KPI for performance of the ATM system, performance assessment;
■ Operations planning (with participation of the CFMU) and facilitation;
The Council and JC-MACB will be supported by a permanent support bureau. This will provide administrative and support
activities, manage third party contracts and overall project management activities, as well as carrying out specific support
activities for the JC-MACB.
13- to the extent defined in Article 11.7

14- to the extent defined in Article 11.10

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6.1.1.2 The NSA Coordination Committee
Subordinate to the Council, but independent of it in terms of budget15, appointment of its members and the carrying out of its
tasks will be the NSA Coordination Committee. This is constituted under the FAB agreement, supplemented by an NSA
coordination Agreement between States. The Committee may also fulfil the tasks imposed by the agreement on cooperation
concluded between the NSAs directly. Its membership will be NSA representatives nominated by the States. (See section 6.1.3
for further discussion of the NSA coordination committee.)
6.1.1.3 The ANSP Committee / Cooperation
Since the implementation and management of the FAB and the services to be provided therein include a wide range of
comprehensive ANSP tasks and activities in numerous areas (like, e.g., ATS operational issues, technical infrastructure and
services, staff training, other human HR management tasks, financial issues) which have been identified and elaborated on by
the working groups. ANSP cooperation in these areas will be of crucial importance during each phase of the FAB lifecycle.
Examples for cooperation in different domains are described in Annex IX.
Different degrees/levels of cooperation have been identified, ranging from mere exchange of information up to common ma-
nagement of specific parts of the ANSPs’ own businesses (e.g. common cost management) and/or the establishment of
common service functions in particular fields. The way forward will be to agree on a gradual increase of the cooperation degree
along the timeline (and according to the FAB project phases) in those areas where such increase is necessary or beneficial.
The ANSP Committee/Cooperation may be constituted under the FAB Agreement and/or by agreement among the ANSPs
under civil law.16 The most appropriate option to accommodate the needs for legal/institutional solutions17 in the different areas
and degrees of cooperation will be to apply both means of public and private law. The preferred solution (even though subject
to further assessment) is to establish an ANSP cooperation under private law and have the FAB Agreement assign to the ANSP
cooperation, or to its top management board (CEO level), tasks of the FAB governance.18 A civil law structure may be fully
constituted before the FAB agreement is ratified.
Since the different cooperation areas closely interrelate19 and each of the ANSP itself manages and provides the full range of
ANS in an integrated manner, a splitting of the ANSP cooperation into a number of different legal structures (for different coo-
peration areas) would cause problems. Instead, the ANSP cooperation will be, in principle, a single legal vehicle to ensure the
consistency of all activities and decisions and their direction towards the overall goals of the FAB CE project. Various working
structures within this cooperation will cover the different professional areas (like ATS operations, technical systems, HR and
cost management etc). This legal vehicle will most probably be complemented by some specific additional agreements.20
The (CEOs of) the ANSPs in the implementing States will form the top management board of the ANSP Cooperation and hence
act as the ANSP committee.
The ANSP committee/cooperation will be responsible for harmonisation, coordination and other means of cooperation21 among
ANSPs and for creation and dissolution of its sub-committees or other working structures.
15- It is anticipated that each NSA will fund its own participation in the Coordination Committee.
16- E.g. articles of association, statutes etc.
17- I.e. to establish the ANSP cooperation and vest it with appropriate and reliable means to agree on, and actually perform, the necessary measures.
18- A more detailed description of “hybrid forms” of establishing ANSP cooperation and incorporating it into the FAB governance structure is provided in the ILR WG deliverables on Principles
of the FAB Agreement and on Principles of ANSP Cooperation.
19- E.g., financial planning can not be unlinked from technical planning, ATS operational measures will require measures in the technical as well as the HR domain.
20- Like, e.g., ANSP agreements under Art. 10 (3) Service Provision Regulation or agreements between the legal vehicle and the ANSPs.
21- Like, e.g., sharing of infrastructure or services; see above.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6.1.1.4 The working level sub-committees
Forming an integrated part of the ANSP cooperation structure, there will be a number of sub-bodies at mainly preparatory
working level (working structures or “sub-committees”) for various domains of ANSP business. These include:
■ ATS Operations Sub-Committee; responsible for operational matters and sectorisation, and proposals for
operational design
■ Regional Technical Planning Board: responsible for tasks related to integration, and/or common procure-
ment of technical infrastructure; synchronisation of the use of technology and equipment; technical planning
for mandatory implementation.
■ Financial Sub-Committee: responsible for tasks related to: financial coordination, assessment of financial
impact of proposals by other sub-committees, issues of single unit rate, VAT on route charges, financial incen-
tives, common cost control.
■ Safety Steering Sub-Committee: responsible for tasks related to the harmonisation of safety manage-
ment systems according to the define levels of harmonisation. In particular it will be responsible for adjusting
measurement methodology and establishing a reporting scheme.
Other sub-committees (such as human resources and surveillance of service quality) may be set up as required.
Establishing a single vehicle in the forthcoming phase of the project will prevent neither the ANSPs nor the cooperation entity
itself from setting up additional cooperation vehicles for particular tasks later on (like, e.g., a subsidiary for a specific service
function), if this is deemed appropriate. Appropriate definition of the scope of the cooperation and decision making rules may
even allow for limiting some particular cooperation activities to be limited to particular ANSPs in cases where such activities do
not concern, or are not deemed suitable for, all members.
6.1.1.5 Stakeholder consultation
The consultation process with various stakeholders (most importantly the airspace users and staff) will be important in all pha-
ses: development, implementation and operation. The precise vehicle will need to be further considered with due urgency.
6.1.2 THE LEGAL FORM OF ANSP COOPERATION
As to the legal form of the (civil law) cooperation, the concept of the cooperative society seems to fit best to accommodate
best the different areas, levels and requirements of cooperation which have been identified in this document. Due to the long
standing legal practice and culture and the existence of a number of supporting organisations in Austria (and the respective
expertise hence available for the assessment in this document), the Austrian model of a cooperative society with limited lia-
bility22 has been more detailed assessed in the relevant document by ILR WG. This model provides for a corporate form of
cooperation between its members to maintain and improve their economic interests and market position while allowing them
essentially to remain legally and financially independent of each other. It combines elements of the limited company23 with
elements of other legal vehicles.24
22- „Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung.“

23- E.g. full legal capacity, limited liability of the members, similar governance structures.
24- E.g. development of the members’ activities; strong link between members’ businesses and the cooperative’s tasks; minor importance of capital contributions.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
A cooperative society may be utilized at different degrees of cooperation; for example to foster harmonization, provide support
and other services to the members (internal functions), procure for the members and/or render services to third parties (exter-
nal functions) and/or exercise certain management functions with regard to the members’ own businesses.
Provided that (a) the Austrian cooperative would establish and maintain at least for two years an establishment or subsidiary
governed by the law of another EC Member State and (b) a specific negotiation procedure on the involvement of employees
is conducted, the cooperative could be converted into a European Cooperative Society (Societas Cooperativa Europaea –
SCE).
The preliminary recommendation therefore is to establish a cooperative society under Austrian law to satisfy the need for
an ANSP cooperation vehicle for the forthcoming as well as the later phases of the FAB project. However, provided the relevant
conditions are met the cooperative could later on be converted into an SCE.
6.1.3 SOVEREIGNTY AND SECURITY
The FAB CE Agreement must not affect:
■ the Contracting States’ complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory
(Article 1 Chicago Convention)
■ the Contracting States’ national requirements relating to public order, public security and defence
matters and
■ the Contracting States’ rights and obligations under the Chicago Convention (e.g. Article 3),
EUROCONTROL International Convention and other instruments of international law.
If a State delegates its responsibility for the provision of ATS and its responsibility for performing regulatory functions, the de-
legation is without any impact to the national sovereignty of the delegating State.
Security and Defence
To ensure effective civil-military cooperation within the FAB, a single agreement between civil and military authorities of
the Contracting States should be concluded for the whole FAB rather than individual agreements corresponding to respective
sector groups. Appropriate subsidiary arrangements will be required between:
■ the individual ANSP and the military authorities concerned in order to
❍ ensure the safe conduct of military operations and training

❍ define the modalities applicable to flights operated by State aircraft under GAT rules
■ the ANSPs involved.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6.1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATION AND SUPERVISION
Scope of Regulation
Regulatory functions for the purpose of this document means rule making in the widest sense25.
The regulation will apply to the following areas:
■ certification, including inspection, supervision and handling of non-compliance

■ designation
■ charging
■ safety
■ annual reporting
■ harmonisation of civil-military procedures
■ rules of the air
■ common staff training and licensing
■ economic regulation
Within the participating States of the FAB CE, different bodies act as the Regulatory Authority. These include Governments,
Parliament and/or Ministries of Transport and possibly NSAs. Furthermore, a number of international bodies may have regu-
latory powers with regard to ATM.
It will therefore be necessary to establish coordination between the different Regulatory Authorities.
Regulation in the FAB Agreement
The FAB agreement will need to:
■ identify the regulatory areas and issues which are relevant for the operations of the FAB CE
■ identify regulatory rules and procedures applicable to the relevant regulatory areas and issues
■ establish cooperation between the Regulatory Authorities;
■ address transfer of regulatory powers (and in particular joint designation or delegation of supervisory
functions, e.g. to NSAs, NSA Coordination committee etc) where appropriate and feasible;
■ address harmonisation of applicable rules and procedures, if possible;
In the later stages of the development of the FAB, it can be expected that more unified rules and procedures will be developed.
This gradual process should be started as early as possible and is not linked specifically to the “initial” or “static” scenario.
However, extensive cross-border operations, as foreseen by the static and even more, by the dynamic scenario, would justify
a single set of rules and procedures that apply within one Sector Group that is subject to dynamicity, and a single supervising
body to enforce those rules.
25- Existing legislation considered includes ICAO Convention and Annexes, EU Regulations and Directives, Rules of the air, existing national legislation, Common ATC Operational Manual,
ESARRs etc

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Supervision
The framework for supervision in a FAB is governed inter alia by the Service Provision Regulation and the EC Regulation on
Safety Oversight in Air Traffic Management [REF 10]. Principle 13 of the “FAB Agreement Basic Principles” (deliverable of the
FAB CE Feasibility Study) makes a proposal on such a framework.
Supervision functions include inter alia certification, licensing mechanisms for inspections, surveys and audits of foreign
providers operating in another State’s airspace. They also include approval of the safety case and compliance monitoring
(including sanctions), with rules of certification and duties imposed in designation instruments, training and qualification of
ATCOs, accident investigation and incidents reporting.
Supervision in respect of EC requirements is mainly task of national NSAs. This implies that coordination and cooperation
between NSAs is required not only in terms of harmonised rules, but also in harmonised supervision procedures, compliance
criteria, etc.
Supervision Models
A number of cooperation models for the NSAs have been considered by the LIR WG, viz:
Model 1. National NSA supervising national territory
Model 2. National NSA supervising a delimited airspace (e.g. one or more Sector Groups)
Model 3. National NSAs supervising all ANSPs with the same principal place of operations26
Model 4. Lead national NSA nominated to supervise all ANSPs in the FAB
Model 5. Supranational NSA supervising the FAB
Models 1, 2 and 3 are essentially continuation of the current situation with some variation in the way the scope of responsibi-
lities of each NSA is defined. Model 1 is the easiest to implement on the FAB level. Model 3 is also easy to apply in relatively
short term, but both models require the conclusion of an agreement between States regarding the supervision in cross border
areas. Model 2 anticipates a close relationship between airspace structure and oversight and may be a good solution for the
supervision under the dynamic scenario. However, it does imply that one ANSP may be supervised by two or more different
NSAs, depending on the airspace in which it is operating.
Model 4 appears ill-suited to a distributed service provision environment, taking into account the diversity (rules, regulations,
language, etc.) in the FAB CE States.
In Model 5, a single supranational FAB supervisory authority would be established as an International Organisation, governed
by public international law. However, the relatively complex establishment process means that this model could not be deve-
loped in the short term.
26- As defined in the Service Provision Regulation

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
NSA Coordination Committee
In the first phases of FAB operation, it is most likely that NSAs will continue to carry out supervision (i.e. Model 1, Model 2 or
Model 3 will apply). Thus, coordination between NSAs will be necessary. This will be carried out through the NSA coordination
committee. (See 6.1.1 for the institutional arrangement for the NSA coordination committee).
The NSA Coordination Committee will be responsible for (inter alia):
■ Coordination on rules and procedures regarding:
❍ certification of ANSPs
❍ licensing of ATCO
❍ incident reporting
❍ operational procedures
❍ training
■ Monitoring of performance of FAB AMC;
■ Collection of safety occurrence reports from all the ATSPs designated in the FAB;
■ Approval of changes to Common ATC Operational Manual and its application.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6.2 Financial
6.2.1 FAB CE CHARGING
The implementation of a single unit rate is a key element of the FAB CE, although the Feasibility Study did not consider it as a
mandatory element of the FAB. The impact of the application of the Single Unit Rate needs to be further investigated during
the consultation phase and states will decide on its application.
Technically, CRCO can handle the technical aspects of the Single Unit Rate calculation, including issues related to different VAT
regimes and exemptions directly.
The implementation of a single unit rate could be achieved either through the FAB agreement or by a Special Administrative
Agreement between the States concerned. It is the conclusion of the FIN WG that this could, in theory, be achieved any time
between 2010 and 2015.
However there are potential risks associated with the establishment of a single charging zone, in particular before the level of
economic cooperation between the States has brought about at least some degree of common en-route service cost control.
These risks and their mitigation need to be further investigated. The requirement to mitigate these risks may constrain the
timescale for the implementation of the single unit rate until after 2010.
Not all States will be ready to accede to a single charging zone at the same time. It is possible that the single charging zone
could initially be composed of two or more adjacent states and the others will join later on.
Although not mandatory, the progressive harmonisation of the VAT regimes and the structure of exemptions between 2010 and
2015 would make the charging more smooth and transparent.
The single unit rate would be calculated as the total en route costs for the implementing States divided by the total service units
(i.e. it would be a weighted average of the current unit rate). Revenue distribution would be on the basis of the proportion of
total costs sustained i.e. the principle of full cost recovery for each participating ANSP/state would be maintained.
Costs would be justified to the Enlarged Commission on a State by State basis, as at present. Further work needs to be done
to determine the precise mechanism for handling over- and under-recovery. Incentive schemes should be considered and
introduced to encourage ANSP’s to lower their en-route costs within their area of responsibility.
Note that terminal charges are in no way affected by the FAB CE, and will continue to be defined and collected as at present.
6.2.2 FAB CE ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
Three models of economic cooperation have been foreseen, which would be established consecutively.
FAB CE Economic Cooperation Evolution Phases
1st Phase 2nd Phase 3rd Phase

Integrated
Cost
Cooperative Central Management
No FAB
Cost Budgeting
Planning
Figure 12 - FAB CE Economic Cooperation Evolution

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The co-operative costs planning model can be established immediately following the State-level decision to proceed. This
model of economic co-operation requires no legal document to be signed; it can be based on a common agreement. Similarly,
to the unified charging zone, it may apply initially to a limited number of states, before the others join, if necessary. The model
of co-operation should be fully functional for all the participants no later in 2015.
This requires a clear understanding of the over-/under-recovery procedures to be applied and a clear definition of the decision
making bodies to be involved. Close cooperation between CEOs must be established. It is proposed that the governance
structures of the FAB should include a financial sub-committee of the ANSP committee (see Section 6.1.4).
Cost bases
Means of Cooperation Incentives responsibilities and
reporting
Cooperative costs Coordinating the plans, The same as they are now Individual responsibility
planning transparency, acting as (i.e. States are individually for the ANSP cost bases,
FAB to outside accountable to the Enlar- individual reporting
ged Commission)
Note that not all States are convinced that this model of cooperation provides enough guarantees to enable the fair application
of the Single Unit Rate. (See section 6.2.1)
The central budgeting model will be established in 2015, ideally in parallel with the FAB CE becoming operational and the
implementation of the static scenario. This model requires an agreement on joint budgeting and planning and on common
reporting, which will most probably form part of future FAB Agreement. All states participating in FAB are part of this model.
Cooperation remains at the level of the CEOs/CFOs of the ANSPs. In particular there will be coordination in the area of:
■ Investment and procurement

■ Staff planning and wage policy
■ Depreciation policy
■ Handling of support services (e.g. MET)
This would require a form of business agreement between the ANSPs.
Cost bases
reporting
Central budgeting Working together on Peer pressure between The responsibility for
plans. Joint budgeting the members cost bases stays with the
and planning. ANSPs.
Unified charging zone Reporting is done collec-

established. tively.
Responsibility for control

of the costs and budgets
is individual.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
This model appears to provide sufficient guarantees for States to accept it as the platform on which a unified charging zone
can be based.
This stage may be an intermediate step to the third, final phase.
The integrated cost management model assumes establishment of a legal entity, commonly owned by those ANSPs who
choose to participate. The legal entity manages the provision of services and takes over many of the responsibilities. It is
controlled by participating ANSPs. This third phase is not necessarily conditioned by dynamic scenario. More likely, it will occur
at specific point of time when the roles of participating ANSPs are clear, after they are ready to enter into the ownership of
company and when they are ready to transfer part of their responsibility into it.
All financial planning and revenue distribution would be done by this body, which would have to be given this authority by the
States.
This final, optional stage would provide:
■ Ability to react to changes in the business environment;

■ Harmonisation of cost base development;
■ Investment harmonisation;
■ Support services harmonisation and optimisation.
Cost bases
reporting
Integrated costs Planning through Through the Responsibility for cost

management. common management. management of a single base is with the new
body, incentives are body.
integrated (effectively it
becomes a single unified Submission is common,
business) and the needs done by this new body.
of users are respected.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
6.3 Safety Management and Oversight
The Safety Management Roadmap aims to provide a clear picture of the FAB CE safety management arrangements as pro-
posed for the implemented FAB CE.
The following applicable rules which will apply to the FAB CE have been identified:
■ All ICAO Annexes and SARPs will apply. Deviations in implementation, which are notified to ICAO, shall
be assessed on the impact on the FAB CE during implementation phase.
■ All ANS-related EU-Legislation will directly apply to those states which are members of the EU. Croatia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina shall apply the applicable regulations through ECAA.
■ EUROCONTROL ESARRS are applicable to the States. In accordance with the SPR Regulation, most
ESARRs provisions have been transposed into EC law.
■ International standards apply where they are referred to in regulations. The use of other standards will
be agreed on a case by case basis.
■ Internal SMS documents (e.g. handbooks, procedures) and all changes thereto shall be provided to
partner ANSPs and national NSAs where “mutual recognition” is stated in elements of the SMS.
Each element of safety management, as defined in ESARR3, has been considered, dealt with and assigned a level of harmo-
nisation to be applied:
Level 1: Sharing of information. ANSPs will work individually but share information on their approaches. Mu-
tual acceptance of results is not guaranteed.
This level of harmonisation will be applied to all safety documentation and to lessons dissemination;
these will therefore need to be in a common language with common definitions.
Level 2: Recognise each other. Each ANSP will work on their implemented approach, the results of which are
mutually accepted by the other ANSPs and acknowledged by the regulators.
This approach will be taken regarding the structure of SMS management, the sharing of competency
training, and risk assessments, external supplier evaluations, and evaluation of external services.
Level 3: Implement common approach. Participating ANSPs agree and implement a common approach
which is acknowledged by the regulators.
The FAB CE will have a single approach to establishing a high level Safety Steering Group, setting com-
mon safety priorities, objectives and target safety levels, a single definition of safety responsibility and
common safety surveys and monitoring. A “Just Culture” will be promoted across the FAB.
The proposed harmonization of safety management systems at the FAB CE will bring benefits by sharing additional safety
information between the participating ANSPs (e.g.: the lessons learnt and best practices). This will increase the level of safety
and optimize the use of resources.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The development of the FAB CE Safety Management System is expected to be initiated immediately following the decision in
principle to proceed and to be fully established within 2 years (i.e. it will be completed within the timeframe of the Initial Scena-
rio.) No aspect of the SMS requires the ratification of the FAB agreement.
The elements of safety management, their level of harmonisation and the timeframe to implement is provided by the Safety
Management System Roadmap.
Establishment of the FAB CE will not change the functions of the existing safety management systems of the participating
ANSPs.
During the definition phase, effort will be required to establish the initial safety targets of the FAB CE, applicable once the
project enters the initial implementation phase:
■ Establish a “safety-planning-taskforce” for defining the safety objectives of the FAB;

■ Collect present safety performance data from ANSPs;
■ Develop a safety objective and goal development methodology;
■ Analyse the data, derive a common level;
■ Establish a generic safety goal and specific initial safety objectives for each sub-element –and not by state.
The FAB CE Council and the SAF Steering Group27 are both expected to be involved in maintaining, developing and monitoring
the safety goals once the FAB CE has been implemented.
27- The Safety Steering Group will be a sub-committee of the ANSP committee

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
7. Business Case
7.1 Cost – benefit assessment
The Cost-Benefit Analysis is based on a large number of inherently uncertain assumptions, both about the future without the
FAB (the reference case) and about the characteristics of the FAB itself. It is inevitable that over time, understanding of the
future, and of the technological and operational possibilities, will develop and change.
REFERENCE CASE
The cost-benefit is based on the comparison of difference between the effects of the FAB and a ‘reference case’ – i.e. what
would have happened over the same time period if the FAB CE had not been implemented.
The key elements of the reference case used in the CBA are:
■ a 4.8% annual increase on average for the FAB CE region in this period and resulting in traffic in 2025
nearly two and a half times that in 2006;
■ capacity plans from LCIPs up to 2011. Beyond that point, projections have been obtained from ANSPs
regarding likely capacity gains from sector subdivisions and from major new infrastructure;
■ Growth in ATCO productivity of 2% per annum between 2012 and 2016 (as a result of DMEAN and
controller tools such as FASTI) and 1% per annum thereafter;
■ projections of ATCO numbers, taking into account any constraints or difficulties in recruiting and training
to full qualification the required number of ATCOs;
■ average horizontal flight inefficiency of 2%;
■ average unit employment costs (for both ATCOs and non-ATCOs) in the five other States converge with
those in Austria;
■ non-staff operating costs rise from €64m in 2007 to €119m in 2025.
FAB OPTIONS
The following options for FAB implementation were evaluated in this cost benefit analysis:
■ FAB Option 1: All ANSPs attain the Initial scenario by 2009 and the Static position by 2015;
■ FAB Option 2: All ANSPs attain the Initial scenario by 2009 and the Static scenario by 2015.
Two alternatives were examined concerning the speed of attainment of the Dynamic position:
Option 2a - Implement dynamicity in a “big bang” approach: Different implementation dates (the earliest
in 2018) were assessed in order to determine when the NPV becomes positive. All ANSPs would achieve dy-
namicity at the same time.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Option 2b - Implement dynamicity gradually: ANSPs only implement dynamicity when both in a pair have
SESAR-compliant systems. The first pair of ANSPs will achieve dynamicity in 2018 and then others will follow.
Dynamicity will be fully achieved by 2021.
The cost benefit analysis included an assessment of the year in which a ‘big bang’ implementation of the dynamic scenario
would result in an incremental net benefit as compared with the static scenario. The table below shows that this will occur
in 2019. The SESAR-compliant systems will all be in operation by this date and therefore the costs are much reduced.
The analysis indicates that it is not worth implementing the changes to permit dynamicity in advance of SESAR-compliant
systems.
Year of implementation of
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
dynamicity
Incremental NPV over Static -€54.5m -€0.6m +€18.0m +€25.6m +€33.8m +€29.0m
Table 5 - Incremental NPV for Dynamic “Big Bang” option
It is therefore assumed in the rest of this assessment that the Dynamic ‘Big Bang’ option will take place in 2021.
NET PRESENT VALUE
The results of a cost-benefit analysis are usually presented as a discounted cash flow. This takes into account the relative value
of present and future costs and benefits by using a «discount rate»; the value of equivalent benefits one year later are reduced
by the discount rate. For the purposes of this cost-benefit analysis, a discount rate of 4% per annum in real terms is used.
The discounted cash flow calculation sums the net benefits of the project over its history, with costs and benefits in each
successive year appropriately discounted. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the FAB CE implementation is the sum of these
discounted cash flows for the life of the project.
Static NPV= €308.5m
Direct benefits (PV) Indirect benefits (PV) Costs (PV) NPV

2015 €24.1m €24.2m €24.7m €23.6m
2020 €85.9m €70.6m €32.5m €124.0m
2025 €237.7m €109.9m €39.0m €308.5m
Dynamic “Big Bang”
NPV = €342.3m
2020 €0m €0m +€16.7m -€16.7m
2025 +€48.2m +€3.3m +€17.8m €33.8m
Dynamic “gradual”
NPV = €333.4m
2020 +€5.1m +€3.4m +€18.8m -€10.3m
2025 +€35.2m +€9.3m +€19.7m +€24.9m
Table 6 - Cumulated present values of benefits and costs and NPV

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
7.1.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The cost benefit analysis has also looked at the impact on of the FAB CE on the financial and economic cost effectiveness of
the region. Financial cost effectiveness is measured by ATM/CNS costs per flight hour. Economic cost effectiveness takes into
account in addition the cost to airlines of ATM induced delays (estimated to be €57 per minute).
370
360 Without FAB

With FAB (Static)
With FAB (Dynamic "Big Bang")
350
340
330
320
310
300
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Figure 13 – Financial cost effectiveness in FAB CE - provision of the CNS/ATM 2025
Compared with a no-FAB situation [reference case], the implementation of the FAB CE, no matter with option is chosen, will
decrease the cost of provision of ATM services decreasing. The implementation of the Dynamic would not bring significant
additional benefits in terms of financial cost effectiveness.
560
540 Without FAB

With FAB (Static)
520 With FAB (Dynamic "Big Bang")
500
480
460
440
420
400
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Figure 14 – Economic cost effectiveness in FAB CE for the Users
Compared with a no-FAB situation [reference case], the implementation of the FAB CE, no matter with option is chosen, will
bring net savings in terms of economic cost effectiveness (more than 40€ in 2025).

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
These figures show that in the reference case, the economic cost-effectiveness improves from 2010 but then deteriorates
after 2019. The FAB initiatives improve the economic cost-effectiveness from 2011. The benefits of the Dynamic case become
apparent in performance terms after 2021. The Dynamic case improves economic cost-effectiveness by around 14% from the
reference case in 2025.
7.1.2 IMPACT OF AIRSPACE OPTIMISATION
The creation of a functional airspace block has the potential to improve the combined network by enabling participating Member
States to:
■ strategically design airspace structures and route networks based on operational requirements regardless of
existing boundaries
❍ straighten routes within a FAB to create an efficient FAB network and improve horizontal and vertical
flight efficiency;
❍ optimise design of Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) and Temporary Segregated Areas (TSAs) for
military training based on the combined requirements of participating Member States, enhancing the
capacity available to General Air Traffic (GAT).
Member States within the FAB CE are expected to see higher than average growth during the medium term and capacity
enhancements are likely to be required [REF 11]. This regional growth is likely to continue in the longer term. Given the
comparatively small size of the Areas of Responsibility of the individual ANSPs, once demand has reached the new capacity
provided by the actions taken in the LCIPs, further capacity increases are likely to be possible only through joint action taken
at a regional level. The establishment of the FAB CE thus provides the most effective platform for the longer term provision of
adequate capacity for the region.
Optimised design of airspace can also be used to reduce structural traffic complexity potentially enabling controllers to become
more productive. A report on Complexity metrics [REF 12] shows that Austro Control and ANS CR both have higher than
the average number of horizontal interactions per flight hour. All of the ANSPs involved in the FAB CE are in the top 50% of
European ANSPs when considering the number of horizontal flight interactions per hour, indicating that there is merit in using
route optimisation to reduce traffic complexity.
Finally, the introduction of larger TRAs will potentially improve the options for military training on modern aircraft.
7.1.3 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Improving flight efficiency has benefits other than the primary benefit of reducing the cost of fuel to aircraft operators:
■ reducing CO2 and other gaseous emissions through reduced fuel burn;
■ shorter flight times, potentially enabling aircraft operators to adjust schedules to improve aircraft utilisa-
tion or to add buffers into schedules to mitigate the impact of delays.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The picture below shows the quantification of the benefits in term of horizontal flight efficiency.
Benefit (€) per year

12M
10M
8M
6M
4M
2M
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Figure 15 – Horizontal flight efficiency benefits
7.2 Other benefits
Some benefits are not immediately quantifiable and therefore were not considered in the CBA. Nevertheless, they can provide
justifications for the introduction of a Functional Airspace Block for Central Europe (FAB CE) as it supports movement towards
the Single European Sky and provides benefits in line with DMEAN. They are the means by which the steadily growing capacity
requirements of all airspace users can be met while enhancing current safety standards, improving efficiency and minimising
delays by managing the traffic more dynamically. A summary of qualitative benefits (over and above the financial benefits de-
tailed in the Cost Benefit Assessment, Section 7.1) is given below.
7.2.1 PLATFORM FOR RESPONDING TO DMEAN
DMEAN will be fully implemented by 2010, i.e. in the same timeframe as the initial scenario of the FAB CE.
The initial scenario will provide the basis of meeting regional requirements under DMEAN, including:
■ The provision of a rolling network plan;
■ The integration of ASM and ATFCM.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
7.2.2 INTEROPERABILITY AND LONG-TERM COST EFFECTIVENESS
In line with the directive of the Single European Sky initiative [REF 13], FAB CE provides a platform for enhancing intero-
perability. A Regional Technical Planning Board, established to provide the technical cooperation required to enable the
implementation and running of the FAB CE, would provide a suitable platform development of new concepts, systems
and procedures. In particular, a FAB enables:
■ Consolidation of specifications and procurement for new systems
❍ enabling providers to concentrate on the development and implementation of new technologies

(such as Automated Decision Support Tools) and operational concepts rather than adapting pro-
ducts to meet differing national needs
❍ reducing procurement and maintenance costs for the participating Member States while impro-
ving the pace of introduction of new concepts, potentially resulting in flight or cost efficiencies and
operational coordination
❍ enabling the design, implementation and maintenance of safety measures to be harmonised across
Member States
■ the sharing of knowledge and introduction of common rules, best practice procedures and working
methods across civil and military bodies of all Member States
❍ reducing the number of formal handbooks and procedural documents that need maintaining
❍ simplifying collaborative decision making between Member States and between civil and military
bodies, who follow the same working guidelines
❍ introducing common ASM procedures and common contingency procedures
❍ harmonising safety procedures and reporting of incidents
This consolidated approach would facilitate the implementation of further technical developments in the context of SESAR
deployment. These are costly developments and a regional approach would reduce costs and facilitate implementation by:
■ ensuring there is a common requirement for the region, thus reducing the need for individual bespoke
modifications;
■ introducing economies of scale and improving buying power through common procurement;
■ sharing maintenance and support costs across the region.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
7.2.3 SAFETY
Airspace that is designed and managed according to rules set at a FAB, rather than State, level improves safety by:
■ setting safety performance objectives for the FAB as a whole, which each Member State will need to
meet;
■ harmonising safety procedures and reporting of incidents, ensuring a consistent approach across the
FAB;
■ introducing common principles for certification and regulation of ANSPs, military ATSUs and ASM
bodies, necessary to underpin consistent standards of airspace management across the FAB;
■ introducing common requirements for staff competencies with common training standards, ensuring
that safety procedures are applied in a consistent way across the FAB and also enabling staff to work
anywhere within the FAB without compromising safety;
■ raising awareness and ensure safety is built into the FAB system, through the development of a safety
case for the FAB;
■ introducing further safety assessments and audits in compliance with the FUA principle, which is a
core feature of airspace management within a FAB;
■ reducing the chance of incidents occurring at International boundaries through managing the opening
and closing of sectors in a coordinated manner;
■ applying essential safety requirements to all new systems common across the FAB.
7.2.4 SIZE AND INFLUENCE IN THE EUROPEAN THEATRE
The Member States of FAB CE individually are comparatively small in terms of staff employed, gate to gate costs and IFR Flight
Hours controlled. For example, Austrocontrol, the largest of the seven member States, has annual ANS en route costs28 less
than a quarter of those of ENAV, the smallest of the ‘big five29’, and less than 15% that of DSNA.
The FAB CE would, in terms of staff employed, gate to gate costs and IFR Flight Hours controlled of the seven member States,
still be smaller than any of the largest five ANSPs, but would be larger than any other existing ANSP. Of the six FABs currently
under investigation, it would be the smallest.
Given the anticipated trend in Europe towards regional cooperation through FABs, it is likely to become increasingly difficult for
individual, small ANSPs to retain any significant influence at a European level. Thus, the implementation of the FAB CE may be
essential for the needs of the region to continue to be adequately represented.
Similarly, regional cooperation through the FAB will strengthen links between participating States and will also provide a basis
on which cooperation can be enhanced in other fields to complement the FAB.
28- Based on figures from ACE 2005.

29- DSNA, DFS, NATS, AENA and ENAV.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
7.2.5 SOCIAL IMPACT
It is likely that the implementation of the FAB CE will have a long term social impact on the employees of the member States’
ANSPs.
As employees of the various ANSPs increasingly carry out functions that overlap with those of their neighbours (providing Air
Traffic Management in cross border areas; providing maintenance and support for common or parallel systems, etc) there will
be social pressure for the terms and conditions in neighbouring States to be brought into line. This, combined with European
benchmarking for cost effectiveness will have a two-fold effect:
■ standards of living across the FAB will tend to converge to that of the highest, or at least that of the upper
quartile, while at the same time,
■ standards of productivity will also tend to converge to that of the best, both for operational and for sup-
port staff. This could, inter alia:
❍ enable the standards of service required to meet future demand to be met without increase to cur-
rent level of operational staffing;
❍ reduce the cost of providing support services in spite of rising costs of employment.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
8. Safety Case
In general, a Safety Case gives the evidence that, in the context of the operational environment and the known limitations and
shortcomings, the system meets its Safety Requirements. However, a Safety Case may be developed in a phased approach
commensurate with the major development milestones of the system, e.g.: Feasibility; Project Definition; Procurement; Instal-
lation and commissioning; Transition; etc.
The overall safety objective is:
“FAB CE, as implemented, shall maintain and where possible improve the current level of safety in the FAB CE airspace”.
The FAB CE Feasibility Study Safety Case provides the report on safety considerations, based on FAB CE documents that
have been available at the FAB CE “feasibility study” project stage. In addition to available documents, experience and exper-
tise of participating ANSPs has been used. At this feasibility study stage the Safety case can only highlight hazards related
to the FAB CE operations as defined today, and propose possible related mitigation measures. These hazards and mitigation
measures are not considered to be the final ones.
The FAB CE Safety case considers the claim “Operating the FAB CE is acceptably safe” by considering whether four sub-
arguments are fulfilled:
■ Arg1 – FAB CE concept is acceptably safe, in principle;

■ Arg2 – FAB CE implementation is acceptably safe;
■ Arg3 – The transition to operational service of FAB CE is acceptably safe;
■ Arg4 – The safety of FAB CE will continue to be demonstrated in operational service.
At the FAB CE Feasibility study stage only Arg 1 is supported by FAB CE Feasibility Study Safety Case. For Arg 2 and Arg 3
evidence has to be shown during implementation and transitions phase. Arg 4 will be supported by the implementation of the
FAB CE Safety Management System.
A four step process has been used to identify means of mitigating potential hazards.
1. Analyse initial safety issues

2. Identify changes
3. Identify hazards
4. Propose mitigation
As a result of this process, fourteen hazard areas have been identified along with feasible mitigation measures (see Annex IV).
Six hazard areas are related to the people element of the ATM system, six related to the equipment element and two related
to the procedure element. The proposed mitigation measures (or their alternatives) have to be applied during the next stages
of the FAB CE project.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The conclusion of the Safety WG is that, from the safety point of view, no blocking factors have been identified which would
prevent the implementation of the FAB CE.
Concerning the OPS concept, the dynamicity was considered as more demanding in terms of time for the safety
assessments being performed as well as for the mitigation means to be applied in the FAB CE operations phase.
No specific hazards directly related only to Dynamic AoR Scenario have been identified, but Dynamic AoR Scena-
rio will influence the likelihood of some hazards.
The completion of the FAB CE Safety case will require safety assessments to be done in every stage of the FAB CE project.
Additional hazards may be identified later, but it is not foreseen that any of these are likely to block implementation of the FAB
CE.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9. Roadmap towards FAB CE

This chapter describes the possible transition from the FAB SCENARIOS developed in the scope of the
FAB CE FS to the implementation of the concept elements and of the enabling institutional and working
structures.
9.1 General overview
There are constraints on the speed of implementation of the FAB CE, in terms of human and financial resources available. Too
many developments in parallel will not be sustainable. The proposed approach to FAB CE implementation, therefore, staggers
the implementation of the three scenarios, and assumes that one scenario will only be deployed once the previous one is fully
in place. To allow efficient coordination the many aspects of the implementation, each of the scenarios is treated as a separate
project, with phases.
Moreover, it assumes that the baseline for operation of the FAB CE will be that all participants will fully deploy the static scena-
rio. Thereafter, the decision to further develop the FAB through the deployment of the dynamic scenario will be made only the
basis of identified business needs (and may not apply to the whole of the FAB CE area).
A distinction is made between initial operations and formal FAB CE Operations, derived from the FAB scenarios that have been
defined:
■ Initial Operations, related to the application of the FAB CE concept elements coming from the Initial
Scenario that can be implemented before the full legal and institutional framework is in place, and on the
basis of current systems and technology, and which provide early benefits.
■ FAB CE Operations, related to the application of the FAB CE concept elements coming from the Static
[and possibly dynamic] scenario that can be implemented only when the full legal and institutional fra-
mework is in place and technical enablers have been implemented. These will provide full compliance
to the SES requirements.
The following diagram shows how the different type of FAB operations relates in time with the legal and institutional
framework:
States FAB agreement FAB agreement

decision signed in Force
States FAB Legal Structures in Force

ANSPs ANSPs Cooperation Entity ANSPs Committee
Initial Progressive
Operations Deployment
Static Cross Progressive

Border AoR Deployment
DYN Cross Business

Border AoR Decision
2008 2010 2012 2015 2015+
Figure 16 – Progressive Implementation of FAB CE

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.2 Short Term Work Plan
For the timely implementation of the FAB CE, work should continue after the Feasibility Study and before FAB structures are in
place. Working arrangements should be established by the relevant authority, having two responsibilities:
■ To support states in the organisation of activities related to the decision in principle of the states and the
consultation process.
■ To organise the ANSP cooperation activities during the Preparation Phase, related to the implementation
planning.
The main objective is to prepare the planning related to FAB implementation so that implementation can start when criteria for
FAB establishment are met and related structures are in place.
The work to be developed and delivered during the preparation phase should include:
■ A Charter for the FAB Implementation;
■ A Project Management Plan for the Preparation Phase;
■ An Implementation Plan, providing a detailed view on the following matters;
❍ Operational requirements related to the Initial and Static AoR Cross border operations.
❍ Airspace planning covering the coordination of the short term changes and the Static AoR Cross
Border
❍ Civil Military arrangements
❍ Detailed Technical Regional Transition Plan, as well as corresponding national Transition Plans.
❍ Common Plan for charging regime and economical cooperation
❍ Common Human Resources and change management Plan
❍ Common safety implementation plan, covering common generic objectives.
■ Support states in the drafting of FAB agreement.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.3 Main Phases
To progressively implement each of the three scenarios (Initial, Static and Dynamic), a certain number of activities need to be
conducted and properly sequenced.
The following sections describe the activities and deliverables required for their definition, development and deployment
phases, together with the entry and success criteria for each phase.
2008-2009 2009-2012 2012-2015 2015+

■ FAB agreement signed ■ FAB agreement ratified ■ FAB Static Cross Border
Success
criteria
■ Definition phase completed ■ Joint designation of SP fully deployed

■ FAB structures defined ■ development "Static" ■ Performance target of static
completed achieved
■ FAB structures in force
Cross Border Operations
Initial
Definition IO Progressive
Development IO Initial Operations
Operations Operations
Static AoR
Definition "Static" Deployment "Static"

airspace, procedure, Development "Static" (progressive) Static Operations
people, systems
Dynamic
AoR CB
Deployment
Development
Definition "Dynamic" "Dynamic"
"Dynamic" (where applicable)
Figure 17 - Timeframe for the FAB

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.3.1 INITIAL OPERATIONS
Table 7 Implementation of Initial Scenario summarises the activities and deliverables necessary for the definition and develo-
pment of the Initial Scenario. It is colour coded to show how the implementation of the Initial Scenario fits within the overall
process of establishing, implementing and operating the FAB CE.
The following text is not a comprehensive description of the implementation process, but highlights specific items from the
table:
■ The definition phase for the Initial Scenario is triggered by the decision in principle to proceed with the
FAB by the states (although it should be noted that some initial activity may take place under transitio-
nal working arrangement authorised). This state decision in principle will also make a commitment of
resources.
■ The first actions will be to implement the State-level Implementation Steering Body (ISB) and the ANSP
cooperation/steering committee, and to establish a project management structure.
■ There are no technical prerequisites for the Initial Scenario other than the establishment of the Regional
Technical Planning Board (i.e. a sub function ans structure of the ANSPs cooperation/committee), as the
initial scenario is based on existing systems and technology.
■ The Safety Management System will be fully established, and initial safety targets will have been
agreed.
■ A specific Safety Case will be required for initial operations, as well as procedures and a contingency
plan.
■ Note that deployment of the initial scenario may take place during the implementation phase of the ove-
rall FAB CE, before the FAB agreement has been ratified and the FAB is declared operational, using ATS
delegation if required to support any cross border operation.
■ At this stage, structures at State level will be progressively put in place (e.g. JC-MACB) but will have an
advisory role only.
■ Before the Initial Scenario can be deployed, the ANSP Cooperation/Committee is required to be in place,
as well as its sub-functions and structures (i.e Regional Technical Planning Board, Safety Steering Com-
mittee etc.) are.
■ Note that it is not assumed that a single charging zone is a prerequisite for the establishment of the Initial
scenario The structure supporting cooperative cost planning should be implemented soon to enable
cooperative cost planning to be effective as part of the Static AoR operations.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
DEFINITION DEVELOPMENT DEPLOYMENT
Entry Ministerial decision and guidance. Definition phase deliverables Development phase deliverables
Criteria accepted. accepted.
Resources committed.
GO decision. GO decision.
Resources committed Resources committed.
Activities Implement ISB and ANSP coope- Establish governance structures Establish NSA cooperation struc-
ration (Council, JC-MACB, ANSP Com- tures
mittee and sub committees)
Establish Project Management and Establish NSA licensed training
Working Structures Establish regulatory arrangements facilities
Perform R&D Initiate Harmonisation and Integra- Establish cooperative cost planning
tion actions
Define governance structures Certification
(Council, JC-MACB, ANSP Coope- Validate concepts
ration/Committee and its sub-func- Operational Readiness
tions) Develop financial arrangements
Start of local operations
Define regulatory arrangements Establish initial safety targets
OJT
Implement JC-MACB nucleus Produce deliverables:
Perform validation of ATM readiness
Coordinate with impacted subjects
(ICAO EUR, EC, Neighbouring
States)
Deliverables PMP and Charter R&D reports AIS modifications

Project Financing Plan Resource Plan for deployment ATM system adaptation
phase
Implementation Plan IO ANSPs agreements
Governance Structures
ORD IO NOP
Regulatory Structures
Airspace Plan IO Contingency for emergency situa-
Training Plan tion agreements (e.g / SLA) in place
Technical Transition Plan IO
Regional Competence Scheme
Training Requirements
Coordination of individual Business
Business Objectives / Models Plans on CEO level
Quality Plan Procedures for IO
FAB Agreement Contingency Plan for IO
Infrastructure Plan
Safety Case For Initial Operations
Safety Management System
Contingency for emergency situa-
tion LoAs / SLA
Success Accept deliverables Accept Deliverables Accept Deliverables

Criteria
Governance Structures in place Training completed
Cooperative cost planning envisa-
ged
ANSPs Agreements and ANSP-MIL
agreements (e.g LoAs/SLA) in place
NOP agreed and accepted at ECAC
wide level
Governance Structures in place
LoAs / SLA in place
NOP
Governance Structures in place
Table 7 - Implementation of Initial Scenario

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.3.2 STATIC AOR CROSS BORDER OPERATIONS
Table 8 Implementation of Static AoR Scenario summarises the activities and deliverables necessary for the definition and
development of the Static AoR Scenario, colour coded to show how this fits within the overall process of establishing, imple-
menting and operating the FAB CE.
table:
■ The definition phase of the Static AoR Scenario will not begin until the ISB and ANSP Cooperation/
Committee are in place.
■ Development of the Static AoR Scenario will take place during the implementation phase of the FAB
CE, after the FAB agreement has been signed.
■ Deployment of the Static AoR Scenario will be triggered by the ratification of the FAB agreement.
■ Part of the transition to the Static AoR Scenario will be that the full governance structures are in place,
with the State-level structures given decision making powers.
■ Once the conditions to start the deployment of the Static AoR Scenario are met, the FAB CE will be
declared operational.
■ A key part of the definition phase for the Static AoR Scenario will be the definition of the technical
requirements.
Entry Implementation resources commit- FAB Agreement Signed FAB Agreement ratified
ted by States
Definition phase deliverables Initial Operations implemented in all
accepted of FAB CE region
GO decision Definition phase deliverables
accepted
Resources committed
GO decision
Resources committed

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Activities Perform R&D Enhance / update existing Initial Transition to full FAB CE institutions
Operations plans and documenta- (State level bodies given decision
Define procurement strategy tion [all domains] making powers)
Define recruitment strategy Prepare Safety Case Joint Designation
Define FAB social policy Validate of concepts and delivera- Technical:
bles
Validate Technical Changes
Approve procurement
Initiate procurement
HR:
Deliver technical enablers
Common minimum standards for
Define resources for deployment staff competence
phase
Mutual recognition of licenses
Define requirements for financial
and economic cooperation Static AoR Training
Definition and development of tech- Operational Readiness

nical enablers Start transition from Initial Opera-
Perform R&D tions
Develop contingency procedures Harmonisation of regulation in

Cross-border areas
Validated/Tested Contingency
Procedures
Deliverables Updated PMP and financing plan Call For Tenders, contracts, FAT(s) SAT(s) report
report
Static AoR ORD Static AoR ANSPs agreements
Static AoR Training Plan
Static AoR Airspace Plan Static AoR ANSPs agreements in
FAB CE Business Plan (updated) place
Static AoR FTS
Static AoR Procedures Static AoR NOP
Static AoR Training Requirements
Contingency Plan in Static AoR Contingency for business continuity
Static AoR Business Objectives agreements in place
Infrastructure Plan supporting Static
Common Single ATM Manual AoR Cooperation agreements between
NSAs
Safety Case For Static Operations
LoAs between civil and military
Safety Management System authorithies
(updated)
Resource plan for deployment
phase Contingency for business
continuity LoAs / SLA
Success Deliverables accepted Deliverables accepted Static AoR System Certified and
Criteria operational
HR requirements met
Static AoR Training completed
ATCOs at the interface are compe-
tent to apply Static AoR NOP
EUR network is ready to apply FAB
CE Static AoR NOP
Joint Designation completed
Contingency measures validated
Table 8 - Implementation of Static AoR Scenario

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.3.3 DYNAMIC AOR CROSS BORDER OPERATIONS
Table 9 Implementation of Dynamic AoR Scenario summarises the activities and deliverables necessary for the definition and
development of the Dynamic AoR Scenario, colour coded to show how this fits within the overall process of establishing, im-
plementing and operating the FAB CE.
table:
■ The Dynamic AoR Scenario will only be deployed once the static scenario is in operation. A business
decision is made if the additional net benefit can be gained in specific areas by the additional deployment
of dynamic AoR cross border operations.
■ Thus only preliminary work on defining the Dynamic AoR Scenario will take place before FAB CE is ope-
rational. This can include the preparation of a specific business case.
■ No changes in the governance or regulatory structures are required in order to implement the Dynamic
AoR Scenario.
■ Following the preparation of a successful business case and the expression of interest from two or more
implementing States, the development phase of the Dynamic AoR Scenario can be initiated.
■ The coming into force of the FAB agreement, and the full deployment of the static scenario, are prere-
quisites for the deployment of the Dynamic AoR Scenario.
■ There are significant technical requirements to enable the deployment of the Dynamic AoR Scenario.
■ A more fully harmonised approach to HR will be required, including joint analysis of Sector opening
hours, joint HR planning and personnel allocation plus common rostering schemes.
■ It may be that a positive business case can only be achieved once the SESAR platform has been esta-
blished. This next generation of systems would significantly reduce the technical changes required to
implement the Dynamic AoR Scenario,
Optional further development of the FAB CE post 2015 could also include the progression from central budgeting to the tas-
king of a single legal entity, co-owned by the ANSPs, to provide integrated cost management.
92 - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Entry FAB Agreement Signed Expression of interest from some FAB Agreement ratified
FAB participant following a positive
Proposal from FAB CE structure business case Transition to Static AoR Operations
completed
Resources committed Definition phase deliverables
accepted Final decision on implementation
[whether and who] of Dynamic
GO decision taken
Resources committed Development phase deliverables
accepted
GO decision business - motivated
Resources committed
Actions Perform R&D Enhance / update existing Static Issue procurement

Operations plans and documenta-
Prepare Business Case for decision tion [all domains] Technical:
on implementation
Validation of concepts and delive- Validate Technical Changes
rables Joint Designation of Dynamic CB
Prepare Safety Case AoR
Perform additional R&D Operational Readiness
Deliver technical enablers Start transition from Static Opera-

tions [for those who wish]
Further harmonisation of HR
Dynamic AoR OJT
Update of Contingency LoAs/SLAs
Deliverables Dynamic AoR Business Case Static AoR Training Plan DYN AOR Systems certified and
Operational
Dynamic AoR docs: FAB CE Business Plan (updated)
Static AoR ANSP agreements in
ORD Dynamic AoR Procedures place
DYN AOR Airspace Plan Contingency Plan in Dynamic AoR Dynamic AoR NOP with agreed
Dyn AOR FTSs Infrastructure (including Frequency Single SCM issue
Utilisation) Plan supporting Dynamic Joint HR plans, rosters etc
Training Requirements AoR
Business Objectives Updated Contingency agreements
Safety Case For Dynamic AoR
Safety Management System
(updated)
Resource Plan for deployment
Procurement Strategy
Success Deliverables accepted Deliverables accepted Dynamic AoR deliverables accepted

Dynamic AoR System [inc. SCM]
Certified
Dynamic AoR Training completed
Table 9 - Implementation of Dynamic AoR Scenario

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
9.4 Feasibility and Risk Assessment
Each of the Working Groups30 in the Feasibility Study has separately considered the feasibility of the FAB CE and in particular of
the proposed scenarios for FAB CE implementation, from the point of view of their own specialist expertise. Each has conclu-
ded, on the basis of the information available to date, and subject to the final solution on the CEATS agreement that:
(2009-2015), and
Nevertheless, certain risks can be identified for which mitigation action is required. These risks may arise in respect of aspects
of the FAB CE that are already well defined (in which case mitigation action may already be identified). Or they may arise as a
result of uncertainty regarding aspects of the FAB CE that require further definition. In this case, typically, the mitigation action
that can be identified at this stage is to complete the relevant definition work.
These risks are identified in the tables below.
Risk Probability Impact Mitigation
General
Pace of the institutional and organisational Monitor risk evolution. Define and anticipate Ins-
adaptations may not be sufficient to cope with M L titutional and Organisation adaptations required.
the changes of the external environment
High degree of diversity in the States mem- Identify and anticipate possible obstacles to
bership of relevant institutions (e.g. NATO, EU), agreement. Adapt planning.
different interpretations of concepts and defini- L H
tions, lack of agreement on acceptable solution Each State shall consider such risks prior and
for civ. and mil. airspace users during FAB Agreement negociations.
Differences in the development process Identify and anticipate possible obstacles and
between the FAB and adjacent areas leading to sources of disagreement. Resolution will form a
M L
mismatches across national borders, especially part of the formal consultation activity.
regarding the airspace
Tradeoffs between local and regional priorities Make a clear distinction between those deci-
and interests. sions that can be made by consensus, those
M M
that have to be unanimous and those that can
be mixed.
Financial
Implementation of a Single Unit Rate may have Further investigate in depth the impact of a
unforeseen impacts on States, ANSPs or Users Single Charging Zone
The safeguards for cost control in a cooperative Define safe guards

cost planning system have not yet been elabora-
ted and could lead to a lack of discipline.
30- Operational, Technical, Human Resources, Financial, Safety, and Legal, Institutional and Regulatory

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Risk Probability Impact Mitigation
Human Resources
The prospect of change will cause considerable Provide clarity. A change management pro-
uncertainty for all staff with possible negative gramme for staff should be initiated as soon as
results. possible; staff should be given clear messages
regarding the impact on their lives
The harmonisation of working conditions may Harmonisation of working conditions should

drive up the cost base be considered on the basis of specific need
only; the decision should be driven by business
requirements
Legal
The delayed ratification may prevent meeting States will agree on a deadline date until which
some obligations and delegation of powers the FAB agreement must be ratified by the FAB
States, otherwise the FAB Agreement will be
automatically terminated. Gradual membership
ratification may also help preventing complete
blockage of the FAB implementation.
Safety
Full safety case may find a show-stopping

hazard or hazard that has significant extra cost L H
implications
The safety case may fail if the option to retain Identify the specific provision of OAT services
existing ATS provision to OAT is exercised (resul- and resolve the safety issues arising.
ting in ATS to civil and military traffic being provi-
ded from different ATSUs in the same sector).
Operational Performance
Performance improvement estimates included Carry out early R&D to establish better estimates
in the CBA and (based to date on expert judge- of performance improvements
ment only) fail to be delivered
There is no consensus on the realistic expecta- Provide better information on performance

tion for performance. possibilities and the means to achieve them;
increase understanding of the role of FAB in
Performance improvement in the short term falls enabling longer term change (which has not
short of (sometimes unrealistic) user expectation been valued in the CBA).
Implementation
States / ANSPs cannot provide enough (or Prepare more detailed and resourced implemen-
the right) resources to meet implementation tation plans
timescales
Too few States choose to implement FAB CE to Consider the reasons given by States for not
provide the critical mass to deliver longer term progressing with implementation and specific
benefits. means of mitigation
Too many parallel implementation activities will Define priorities of functions to be implemented
be needed requiring lots of resources H M (and sequence if they are interrelated) during the
definition phase

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
10. Recommendations on the Way Forward

This section presents recommendations regarding the key elements for decision making, based on the
options identified in this document.
10.1 Baseline for decision making
The first element of decision relates to be the approval of the FAB CE Feasibility Study results as a response to the mandate
given by the CCG through the project Charter.
Second, it is the conclusion of the ILR working group that the FAB Agreement and the CEATS agreement cannot exist together.
Thus, two courses of action are expected to happen in parallel:
■ CEATS States need to take appropriate steps to terminate the existing CEATS agreement.
■ States willing to implement the FAB need initiate the process of establishment of FAB CE.
10.1.1 DECISIONS REGARDING CEATS AGREEMENT
It is currently assumed that one Signatory Party (Italy) and one Contracting Party (EUROCONTROL) will not be contracting
parties to the FAB Agreement. In this case, any Signatory standing aside will have to be at least consulted, and appropriate
means to deal with the position of EUROCONTROL under the CEATS Agreement will have to be developed.
A decision must therefore be made at Ministerial level, involving all signatories to the CEATS agreement, to terminate the
CEATS agreement. The preliminary conclusions of the ILR group lead towards a comprehensive FAB Agreement following the
termination of the CEATS agreement.
The following sections focus on the actions required for the FAB implementation. They assume that in parallel CEATS States
are conducting the required activities regarding CEATS Agreement, which are presented in a separate document (see REF 14).
10.1.2 DECISIONS REGARDING FAB ESTABLISHMENT
The States and/or ANSPs willing to implement the FAB CE will need to agree on the following elements:
■ Working arrangements and structures;

■ Decision making mechanism;
■ Financing of the working arrangements and structures;
■ The services required from third parties (e.g. from EUROCONTROL on appropriate legal basis).
It is expected that the above decisions/actions should be embodied in a written document to be adopted at the appropriate
level (e.g. MoU).

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
10.2 Anticipated Steps in Decision Making towards FAB CE
Based on the recommendations described in the previous sections, the decision making bodies, namely FAB SG members,
CCG members and then States will need to take appropriate decisions to reflect their intentions. These steps involved are set
out below.
10.2.1 STEP 1: FAB SG DECISION
The FAB SG will take a position on the outcome of the Feasibility Study. The FAB SG will also express the position of each
participant to the FAB CE FS with respect to the Feasibility Study solutions regarding the future regional cooperation. Their
recommendation will be on made on the basis that:
■ The recommended option(s) for 2015 have been demonstrated to be feasible.
■ Each interim step to the recommended option(s) for 2015 has also been shown to be feasible.
■ The recommended option(s) for 2015 have been shown to be likely to meet the all the requirements for
the establishment of a FAB (as set out in Section 3.1).
10.2.2 STEP 2: CCG DECISION
On the basis of a recommendation from the FAB CE Steering Group, the CCG will be invited to decide on the conclusions and
recommendations of the Feasibility Study.
The CCG would then initiate the process leading to a State decision in principle to proceed (e.g. Ministerial Conference of those
States willing to implement the FAB CE -implementing States). This decision in principle should lead to the termination of the
CEATS Agreement, as well as establishing the working arrangements at State and ANSP level to prepare for the FAB CE.
At this stage, transitional working arrangements would have to be established to support preparation for the State decision and
to carry on the preparation for the FAB Implementation (see section 9.2).
CCG States FAB Agreement Agreement

decision decision Signed in force
FAB
FAB ISB
Council
Consult with relevant parties
Draft FAB Agreement
Develop NSA Cooperation
Transitional
States
FAB WA
ANSPs ANSPs
Steering Group Committee
Project Management
FAB Communication
FAB Definition and Implementation Planning
Support States in preparing decision
Coordinate ANSPs Business Objectives
Initiate Short Term Activities (IO)
ANSPs
Figure 18 - Decisions and transitional arrangements

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
10.2.3 STEP 3: STATE DECISION IN PRINCIPLE
States may issue a common declaration stating their intention to proceed with FAB implementation.
They may also need to agree a budget for implementation that may ensure that the necessary resources for the establishment
of the working arrangements are available, and that there is a fair basis for costs to be shared.
States may then establish State and ANSPs level Steering Body to progress implementation of the FAB CE. This Implemen-
tation Steering Body (ISB) may drive the work required to prepare for the establishment of the FAB. It may be responsible for
drafting the FAB agreement, for authorising the preparation and development phases for each stage of implementation, and
for ensuring the entry and exit criteria for each phase have been met.
States may need to progress cooperation and regulation aspects, negotiate the FAB agreement and to set up the necessary
State level governance structures.
ANSPs may, in parallel, be mandated to implement structures to support implementation.
10.2.4 STEP 4: CONSULTATION PROCESS
States, together with the ISB, may initiate the Consultation process with neighbouring States and stakeholders (as described
in section 3.2.1).
The FAB agreement may be negotiated by the Ministers of the States, who may elect to delegate to the Directors General of
Civil Aviation (as was the case for the CEATS agreement), together with their military counterparts.
The ANSP Committee/Cooperation may drive the planning and implementation processes.
10.2.5 STEP 5: SIGNATURE OF THE FAB AGREEMENT
Once the FAB agreement has been negotiated and agreed, States may sign the FAB agreement (e.g. through a Ministerial
Conference).
At this point, it may be possible to declare that the FAB CE has been established (see Section 3). A further final step relates
to the ratification of the Agreement.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
10.3 Action Plan
The following table provides an overview of the main actions to be initiated in the coming year for the timely establishment of
the FAB CE.
Action Responsible Date Action Phase
1 CCG March 2008 Approve the Feasibility Study, and initiate steps
towards decisions in principle toward FAB Imple-
mentation (e.g. Ministerial Conference)31
2 CCG March 2008 Consider the need for transitional working arran-
gements, allowing the continuation of the work, for
the development of Project Charter and PMP for
FAB implementation
3 State Q3 2008 Issue a joint declaration on the decision in princi-

ple regarding to proceed with FAB implementation
4 State Q3 2008 Establish working arrangements (i.e. Implementa-

tion Steering Body), allowing the execution of the
preparation phase
5 State / ISB Q3 2008 Start Consultations with relevant parties
6 ISB Q3 2008 Draft FAB Agreement
8 ISB Q3 2008 Develop Implementation Plan for FAB
7 State Q2/3 2009 Signature of the FAB agreement
Table 10 - FAB CE proposed Action Plan for 2008/2009
31- CCG should also be invited to decide on the CEATS agreement, as a parallel course of action.

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
11. Conclusions
The FAB Feasibility Study has identified and analysed a number of FAB implementation scenarios in the upper and lower en
route controlled airspace of the FAB CE States. This has been supported by a cost-benefit assessment and a safety case. A
road map for implementation has also been provided.
11.1 Elements of FAB CE
The following table identifies possible options to be implemented within the FAB. The left column identifies the options com-
monly perceived as key elements of the FAB by the participants in the Feasibility Study. The right column identifies those which
have been identified as elements that require further investigation at a later stage.
FAB CE Commonly accepted Elements FAB CE Elements to be further investigated

(for implementation by 2015 at the latest) (may be applied by willing states/ANSPs)
Common Institutional Structures complying with the SES Common Distributed System Architecture
Regulations
Dynamic Cross Border AoR
Common design of the airspace, by a Joint Civil Military
Integrated Cost Management
Authority to establish the Static Cross Border AoR in the
context of Pan European Airspace Design Shared Training Facilities
Establishment of cooperation in operations, technical, Single Unit Rate
financial, human resources, safety and regulatory domain.
Integration of ASM/ ATFCM
FAB Contingency Plan
Table 11 - Elements of FAB CE
In particular, it should be noted that the dynamic scenario will be implemented, only once the static scenario has been fully
deployed and only where a business need can be demonstrated.
11.2 Feasibility
Each of the Working Groups32 in the Feasibility Study has separately considered the feasibility of the FAB CE and in particular of
the proposed scenarios for FAB CE implementation, from the point of view of their own specialist expertise. Each has conclu-
ded, on the basis of the information available to date that, except for the resolution regarding the CEATS Agreement:
(2009-2015),
■ A flexible approach to FAB implementation is possible in time and scope, and
32- Operational, Technical, Human Resources, Financial, Safety, and Legal, Institutional and Regulatory
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex VIII contains the description of the most important issues that need to be tackled during the next phase of FAB CE
Development.
11.3 Business Case
The cost benefit assessment shows a positive net present value (NPV) for the static scenario, in comparison with the reference
case.
Two options for the implementation of the dynamic scenario were considered: the first assumed that all ANSPs implemented
the dynamic scenario simultaneously (the ‘Big Bang’ option); the second assumed that a gradual implementation. The results
showed that the dynamic scenario implementation shows a positive NPV only when it is assumed that SESAR compliant
systems are already in place. This implies that a full implementation of the dynamic scenario could not be achieved until 2021
- however it can already proved benefits where applied in the FAB.
The introduction of a Functional Airspace Block for Central Europe (FAB CE) supports movement towards the Single European
Sky and to provide benefits in line with DMEAN. They are the means by which the steadily growing capacity requirements of all
airspace users can be met while enhancing current safety standards, improving efficiency and minimising delays by managing
the traffic more dynamically.
Non-financial benefits of the implementation of the FAB CE include:
■ Optimising the design of Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) and Temporary Segregated Areas (TSAs)
for military training;
■ Provision of an effective platform for the longer term provision of adequate capacity for the region;
■ Enabling the reduction of the structural complexity of airspace;
■ Reduction in CO2 and other gaseous emissions through reduced fuel burn;
■ shorter flight times, potentially enabling aircraft operators to adjust schedules to improve aircraft utilisa-
tion or to add buffers into schedules to mitigate the impact of delays;
■ Provision of effective platform to implementation of DMEAN;
■ Consolidation of specifications, procurement and maintenance of (SESAR compliant) systems;
■ introduction of common rules, best practice procedures and working methods across civil and military
bodies of all Member States.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
11.4 Feasibility Study response to Stakeholders’

expectations
The following sections show the conclusions of the Feasibility Study as they relate to each main Stakeholder group.
11.4.1 STATES’ INTEREST
The States will be concerned with the broad question of whether they can provide ATC in conjunction with their neighbours
and what the solution looks like.
Three potential scenarios have been described in Section 4: a target scenario for 2015, an initial scenario that will provide a
transition path and a scenario for optional further development. More details are given in sections 5 and 6.
FAB CE covers upper and lower en route airspace, but excludes TMAs. It is a fundamental condition of FAB establishment
that it ensures compatibility with TMA airspace.
The legal framework required for the establishment of a FAB has been described. A necessary condition of FAB becoming
operational is that the FAB Agreement comes into force. Some specific issues with individual State Laws have been noted
and must be addressed prior to signing the FAB Agreement. A specific proposal has been made with regard to the CEATS
Agreement.
The feasibility of the proposed solution has been broadly confirmed by this study.
A positive cost benefit case has been made for the implementation of the static scenario. The dynamic scenario only provides
a net benefit if it is implemented following the deployment of SESAR compliant systems.
A transition path has been defined (section 3), together with a Road Map to implementation (section 9).
ANSPs will continue to function as independent organisations, providing air traffic services in delimited airspace. Regulatory
and supervisory authorities will continue to operate as now. Collaboration between them will be set up in the FAB Agreement.
In particular, an NSA coordination committee, with membership from the States’ NSAs, will be responsible for the coordination
of rules and procedures.
The prerogative of the State to ensure sufficient airspace over its territory for adequate education and training of its Armed
Forces is safeguarded under the SES regulations (section 6.1.3).and will be respected within the FAB CE.
11.4.2 ANSP INTEREST
The FAB CE is based on a distributed model of ANS provision. Individual ANSPs will continue to operate, but with modified
AoRs and with a greater degree of cooperation with neighbouring ANSPs.
All staff will experience significant change over time. However, the transition path will permit this to happen fairly gradually,
rather than in a ‘big bang’ approach. The policy is to avoid any requirement for staff to move between ANSPs.
The HR concept is based upon advice from the States about recruitment, training and attrition rates among ATCOs in par-
ticular. Manpower plans, as built into the CBA, are based on what are believed to be realistic models of the rate that new
controllers can be brought into the job.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
There will be initial investment required (see CBA). However, the opportunities that the FAB CE offers will permit reductions in
costs through increases in ATCO productivity (resulting in reduced ATCO hours, to be achieved through natural attrition) and a
shared approach to contingency, common training, benefits of the single unit rate and technical opportunities. This will result
in overall improvements in financial cost effectiveness.
The initial Safety Case has identified 14 potential hazards, together with their mitigations. The conclusion of the Safety WG is
that the proposed scenarios are safe. More detailed Safety Cases will be required at each stage of implementation, and these
have been built into the implementation road map.
11.4.3 ANSP STAFF INTEREST
ANSP Staff are likely to be concerned with the social impact of the FAB CE deployment.
Employees of the various ANSPs will carry out functions that increasingly overlap with those of their neighbours (providing Air
Traffic Management in cross border areas; providing maintenance and support for common or parallel systems, etc). They may
see justification in seeking alignment of the terms and conditions of employment in neighbouring States and may have:
■ Expectations or concerns about convergence of the standards of living and salaries across the FAB;
■ Concerns about standards of productivity and work pressure converging to a higher level, both for
operational and for support staff;
■ Concerns about job security;
■ Concerns about license requirements and (re)training;
■ Concerns about potential staff mobility across ATC centres in the FAB area.
11.4.4 AIRLINES INTEREST
Airlines are concerned primarily with the impact of the FAB CE on performance and on cost.
It is likely that initial performance improvements that can be directly attributed to the FAB CE are modest. This is in part be-
cause significant performance improvement has been achieved in the region in recent years through the implementation of new
ACCs etc. The major benefits will come through the period of implementation of SES, where both the costs of implementation
and the benefits that can be derived from it will benefit from the fact that the region is operating collaboratively.
FAB initiatives will reduce the levels of delay. This reduction is greater towards the end of the period, when delays become
significant. The delay savings are greater if the dynamic scenario is implemented, and this increased saving is achieved more
rapidly if dynamicity is introduced gradually rather than in a ‘Big Bang’ approach. Flight efficiency improvements will also be
achieved.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
11.4.5 MILITARY INTEREST
The FAB CE Military Advanced CONOPS is based on:
■ A more efficient use of the airspace through an enhanced application of FUA concept in order to bet-
ter satisfy civil and military needs;
■ An efficient provision of ATS to GAT and OAT not constrained by national borders;
■ A safeguard of national security and national and multinational defence requirements in respect of each
national sovereignty (including the safeguarding of the prerogative of the State to ensure sufficient
airspace over its territory for adequate education and training of its Armed Forces ).
The main changes for the military will be:
■ Increased cooperation is required with parallel organisations in other Sta-

tes. (Cooperation between civil and military authorities within and between Sta-
tes is carried out via JC-MACB (strategic level) and the FAB AMC (pre-tactical)).
Annexes
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex I
Glossary, Abreviations and Definition of Terminology
AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION (AIP)
A publication issued by or with the authority of a State containing aeronautical information of a lasting character essential to
air navigation.
AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES
Air traffic services; communication, navigation and surveillance services; meteorological services for air navigation; and aero-
nautical information services; [EU framework regulation]
AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
Any public or private entity providing air navigation services for general air traffic [EU framework regulation]
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT (ASM)
In the context of the FUA Concept, airspace management is a generic term covering any management activity at the three
Strategic, Pre-tactical and Tactical Levels, provided for the purpose of achieving the most efficient use of airspace based on
actual needs and, where possible, avoiding permanent airspace segregation.
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT CELL (AMC)
A joint civil/military cell responsible for the day-to-day management and temporary allocation of national or sub-regional airs-
pace under the responsibility of one or more ECAC state(s).
AIRSPACE ORGANISATION
Airspace classification, Routes, Co-ordination Points to from the CEATS Airspace, ATS delegation, TSAs, CBAs, Prohibited,
Restricted and Danger areas’ delineation, Radar boundary definition, Airspace Management principles.
AIRSPACE RESERVATION
Is a defined volume of airspace normally under the responsibility of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by common
agreement, for exclusive use by another aviation authority.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT (ATFM)
Is a service established with the objective of contributing to a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic by ensuring that
ATC capacity is utilised to the maximum extent possible, and that the traffic volume is compatible with the capacities declared
by the appropriate ATS authority.
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM)
The aggregation of the airborne functions and ground-based functions (air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic
flow management) required to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operations.
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (ATS)
A generic term meaning variously, Flight Information Service, Alerting Service, Air Traffic Advisory Service, Air Traffic Control
Service (Area Control Service, Approach Control Service or Aerodrome Control Service).
ANS SYSTEMS
For the purpose of the Interoperability Regulation, the EATMN is subdivided into eight systems.
1. Systems and procedures for airspace management.
2. Systems and procedures for air traffic flow management.
3. Systems and procedures for air traffic services, in particular flight data processing systems, surveillance data
processing systems and human-machine interface systems.
4. Communications systems and procedures for ground-to-ground, air-to-ground and air-to-air communications.
5. Navigation systems and procedures.
6. Surveillance systems and procedures.
7. Systems and procedures for aeronautical information services.
8. Systems and procedures for the use of meteorological information.
APPROVED AGENCIES (AAS)
Units, which are authorised by the State to deal with an Airspace Management Cell for airspace allocation and utilisation mat-
ters.
AREA OF COMMON INTEREST
The ACI is that part of neighbouring ATC units’ airspace which is of coordination interest. The ACI represents the geographical
reference containing all traffic that may have an immediate effect on or is immediately affected by transfers. Where required,
ACIs will overlap to solve the current lack of provision for co-ordinations involving multiple partners.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
Airspace of defined dimensions within which an ATSU provides air traffic services.
ATM
Aggregation of the airborne and ground-based functions (air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic flow manage-
ment) required to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operations; [EU framework regulation]
ATM SERVICES
Air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic flow management
ATM SYSTEM
Consists of those elements of ANS systems supporting airborne and ground-based functions (air traffic services, airspace manage-
ment and air traffic flow management) required to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operations
1. Systems and procedures for airspace management.
2. Systems and procedures for air traffic flow management.
3. Systems and procedures for air traffic services, in particular flight data processing systems, surveillance data
processing systems and human-machine interface systems.
4. Communications systems and procedures for ground-to-ground, air-to-ground and air-to-air communications.
5. Navigation systems and procedures.
6. Surveillance systems and procedures.
CIVIL/MILITARY CO-ORDINATION
The communication between civil and military elements (human and/or technical) necessary to ensure safe, efficient and har-
monious use of the airspace.
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
A process which allows concerned partners to resolve specified problems in a collaborative and transparent manner.
CONDITIONAL ROUTE (CDR)
An ATS route or a portion thereof that can be planned and used under certain specified conditions.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic Control services are provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accor-
dance with the airspace classification.
CROSS-BORDER AREA
A Temporary Segregated Area established over international boundaries for specific operational requirements.
CROSS-BORDER OPERATION
“The Cross-border Operation (CBO) encompasses activities conducted within an area shared between users from more than
one State, established over international boundaries or entirely over national territory of other States and allocated according
to the Temporary Airspace Allocation (TAA) Process.”
Note: Cross-border Operations involve TSAs, TRAs and CBAs, the existing definitions of which remain unaltered. CBAs have
the characteristics of a TSA or TRA. The publication of these areas will see the link to their status, reservation and transit
possibilities, which are identical to that of TSAs and TRAs.
CROSS BORDER SERVICES
Provision of ATS disregarding State and/or FIR borders
DANGER AREA (D)
Is an airspace of defined dimensions within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at specified times.
DEFINITION PHASE
Is the timeframe within which the agreement on the scope of work for the implementation is formalised, the resources are
committed, and the implementation plan is agreed. Operational requirements and technical specifications are defined and
additional R&D is conducted, if needed.
DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Focuses on the development and validation of operational requirements, procedures, staff and equipments. Necessary
procurement actions are done.
DEPLOYMENT PHASE
Focuses on the concrete implementation of changes in the national ATM environment.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
ELEMENTARY SECTOR (ES)
Smallest airspace volume in which aircraft are under control of a single executive Controller
FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE (FUA) CONCEPT
Is based on the fundamental principle that airspace should not be designated as either pure civil or military airspace, but rather
be considered as one continuum in which all user requirements have to be accommodated to the extent possible.
FAMILY GROUP (FG)
Group of Sector Families made along the major traffic flows
GENERAL AIR TRAFFIC (GAT)
All flights, which are conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of ICAO and/or the national civil aviation regula-
tions and legislation.
LAYERED PLANNING PROCESS
It is the glue for the ATM process Model. Fro the start of the strategic phase of planning through the tactical phase and the
phase of flight it is essential to the delivery of the ATM 2000+ Strategy objectives, anticipating ATN network demand, identifying
the availability of resources and achieving predictable and stable capacity throughout each day of operation.
MANAGEMENT OF AIRSPACE
The Communication of the Commission on the creation of the single European sky of 30 November 2001 calls for structural
reform to permit the creation of the single European sky by way of a progressively more integrated management of airspace
and the development of new concepts and procedures of air traffic management.
Note: Management of airspace must not be confused with Airspace Management service
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
NATIONAL PROVIDERS
Companies and/or administrations mandated by a State to provide ATM services and operate CNS in the national airspace
or in the airspace delegated by Regional Navigation Agreement (high sees) and mandated to provide ATS as delegated in the
relevant Letters of Agreement
NETWORK OPERATIONAL PLAN
Provides an essential data repository needed of all partners to make the ATM system working in a collaborative decision way
OPERATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC (OAT)
All flights, which do not comply with the provisions stated for GAT and for which rules and procedures have been specified by
appropriate national Authorities.
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Detailed description of the procedures conducted by the operational staff, letters of agreements with the external agencies.
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
A stipulated demand placed on staff, procedures, systems or equipment to fulfil an operational Air Traffic Control / Manage-
ment need.
RESTRICTED AREA (R)
Airspace of defined dimensions, above the land areas or territorial waters of a State, within which the flight of aircraft is restric-
ted in accordance with specific conditions.
NOTE: In the context of the FUA Concept, some Restricted Areas are subject to management and allocation at Level 2
are established at Level 1 as “AMC-manageable areas” and identified as such in AIP.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
SECTOR CONFIGURATION (SC)
Combination of elementary sectors to satisfy operational requirements
SECTOR
An airspace volume in which aircraft are under control of a single executive Controller
SECTOR FAMILY SF
Areas containing specific air traffic flows and conflict areas which will consist of strongly interdependent elementary sectors
SECTOR GROUP SG
Includes one Sector Family or more Sector Families (or their parts) to satisfy single sector configuration management
SINGLE SERVICE PROVIDER
Provides Air Traffic Services in the CEATS upper airspace as derived from the CEATS Agreement and from the
EUROCONTROL Convention, complemented by appropriate legal/contractual arrangements
Provides ATS in the lower airspace as defined by legal/contractual arrangements
Provides ASM as defined by legal/contractual arrangements
Provides ATFCM as defined by legal/contractual arrangements
SYSTEM WIDE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Provides the technical capability for managing the information on which concerned actors will make available and can colla-
boratively interact.
TEMPORARY RESERVED AREA (TRA)
Is a defined volume of airspace normally under the responsibility of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by common
agreement, for the specific use by other aviation authority and through which other traffic may be allowed to transit, under ATC
clearance.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
TEMPORARY SEGREGATED AREA (TSA)
Is a defined volume of airspace normally under the responsibility of one aviation authority and temporarily segregated, by
common agreement, for the exclusive use by another aviation authority and through which other traffic will not be allowed to
transit.
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Description of cognitive and behaviour tasks, determination of the skills and performances with the technical equipment, re-
quirements on composition of team and its management, principles of operational procedures, definition of the performances’
criteria for the successfully trained personnel.
VALIDATE/VALIDATION
Confirmation by examination of evidence that a product, process or service fulfils specified requirements.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Acronyms
ACRONYM TERMINOLOGY
AA Authorised Agencies
ACC Area Control Centre
ACI Area of Common Interest
AD Air Defence
ADR Airspace Data Repository
AFN Airspace/Flow Management & Navigation
AGDL Air Ground Data Link
AIP Aeronautical Information Publication
AIS Aeronautical Information Service
AMC Airspace Management Cell
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
AO Aircraft Operator
AOI Area of Interest
AoR Area of Responsibility
ARN ATS Route Network
ARTAS ATC Surveillance Tracker and Server
ASM Airspace Management
ASMC Airspace Management Coordinator
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer
ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATO Air Task Order
ATS Air Traffic Services
ATSU Air Traffic Service Unit
AUP Airspace Use Plan
CBA Cross Border Area
CBO Cross Border Operations
CCG CEATS Coordination Group
CCGTF CEATS Co-ordination Group Task Force
CDM Collaborative Decision Making
CDR Conditional Route
CE Central Europe
CEATS Central Europe Air Traffic Services
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
CIP Convergence and Implementation Plan
CNS Communication/Navigation/Surveillance
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CRAM Conditional Routes Available Message
CS Centre Supervisor
CWP Controlling Working Position
DMEAN Dynamic Management of European Airspace Network
EAD European Aeronautical Information Database
EATMP European Air Traffic Management Programme
EC Executive Controller
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
ECIP European Convergence Implementation Plan
EEC EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
ESARR EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements

FAB Functional Airspace Block
FDP Flight Data Processing
FDPS Flight Data Processing System
FIR Flight Information Region
FL Flight Level
FMP Flow Management Position
FPLs Filed Flight Plans
FS Feasibility Study
FTS Fast Time Simulation
FUA Flexible Use of Airspace (Concept)
GAT General Air Traffic
HL High Level
HMI Human Machine Interface
HR Human Resources
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
IFPS Initial Integrated Flight plan Processing System
JC-MACB Joint Civil-Military Airspace Coordination Body
L/I/R Legal/Institutional/Regulatory
LCIP Local Convergence and Implementation Plan
LoA Letter of Agreement
MIL Military
MTCD Medium Term Conflict Detection
N/A Not applicable
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NOP Network Operations Plan
OAT Operational Air Traffic
OCD Operational Concept Document
OI Operational Improvements
OLDI On-Line Data Interchange
OPS Operations or Operational
OPS Operations
ORD Operational Requirements Document
ORP military counterpart to ORS
ORS OPS Room Supervisors
PMO Project Management Office
PMP Programme/Project Management Plan
PRU Performance Review Unit
RAD Route Availability Document
RCA Reduced Co-ordination Airspace
RNDSG Route Network Development Sub-Group
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima
SADR Systematic Application of Direct Routing
SAF Safety
SC Sector Configuration
SCP Sector Configuration Plan
SES Single European Sky
SG Sector Group
SWIM System Wide Information Management
SYSCO System Coordination
TAA Temporary Airspace Allocation
TBD To be developed
TEC Technical
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
TMA Terminal Area

TRA Temporary Reserved Airspace
TSA Temporary Segregated Area
UUP Updated Airspace Use Plan
VCS Voice Communication System
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WG Working Group

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex II
Principles of FAB CE Development
To describe the goals for the different areas and to give guidance for the definition of activities in different Working Groups
with the aim to establish the FAB step–by-step approach the following principles shall be applied. These principles are derived
from the project charter, and are not necessarily also the result of the Master Plan. These principles will be subject to regular
strategic reviews and be adapted in accordance with the progress of the FAB implementation
1. OPERATIONAL
Airspace
■ must be designed as one unified entity
■ optimum use of available capacity
■ MIL training airspace of States will be designed as modular TRAs as far as practical outside the main
GAT flows
Concept and procedures
■ One performance orientated operational ATM concept for the airspace of States involved
■ Common single ATM manual valid for the whole airspace
■ Common contingency concept
FUA
■ multinational cooperation on all FUA levels will take place in addition to internal C/M cooperation
■ Integration of the functions related to airspace, flow and capacity management at the FAB level
Operational Support Service
■ harmonization of the AIS, MET services
2. TECHNICAL
Harmonized technical system

■ coordinated technical development planning leading to a necessary harmonization of the systems for
the FAB operations
3. FINANCIAL
Cost Benefit Analyses

■ costs and benefits of the establishment FAB for the whole airspace will be calculated as well as effects
on individual national service providers
Charging mechanism
■ user’s charging model to be developed
Co-operation
■ financial principles and agreements on cost sharing and revenue distribution will be realized
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
4. HUMAN RESOURCES
Consultation
■ process of FAB establishment in close cooperation with relevant staff representatives
Communication
■ one efficient internal and external communication strategy to support creation and implementation of
FAB
Conditions
■ making the best use of qualification, experience and expertise of the staff
■ changes of conditions to be kept to a minimum without jeopardizing flexibility and the efficient alloca-
tion of staff
5. INSTITUTIONAL/REGULATORY
ANSPs Cooperation
■ appropriate organisational structures will support services and functions in the FAB
Regulatory Regime
■ One regulatory regime will be established and maintained (one set of rules and common supervisory
mechanism, incl. ANSPs certification)
6. SAFETY
Harmonization
■ existing high levels of safety will be maintained or increased
■ harmonized safety requirements and methodologies will be consistently applied to the FAB
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex III
Common Understanding
Decisions of the 1st AD HOC meeting of the CEATS Coordination Group and CEATS Group Of Senior Officials
(8.11.06, also known as “Common Understanding”)
The CCG:
a. noted the contents of CCG/CGSO/06/AH1/2 and CCG/CGSO/06/AH1/3 and decided to take com-
mon decisions in regard to those two action papers;
b. agreed on the interpretation of the distributed model and related arrangements as follows:
i. CEATS will start by full use of the existing national infrastructures and facilities (in operation or plan-
ned) – distributed model;
ii. Distributed model does not rule out progressive consolidation towards common centralised
facilities on a reduced number of locations or on a single site, but the transition process must be
evolutionary;
iii. CEATS States/ANSPs are jointly committed to coordinate the update, renewal, addition or conso-
lidation of infrastructures and facilities, when the existing national infrastructures and facilities, or
subcomponents thereof, will be deemed to be at the end of their economical / operational / tech-
nical life, but all developments in regard to reducing number of locations above must be subject to
specific future agreements between those Parties/States/ANSPs, wishing to consolidate their own
infrastructures and facilities, when and if necessary and/or desirable on the basis of operational,
economic (CBA), political, national security and other arguments (see also criteria laid down in the
SES FAB Report).
c. recognised the current and future role of existing ANS Providers and agreed that:
i. Responsibilities for service provision shall be entrusted to the national ANS Providers of the partici-
pating States;
ii. EUROCONTROL shall withdraw from service provision activities in CEATS, unless otherwise speci-
fically requested by individual States or a grouping of States;
iii. Some States may wish their ANSPs to create, join or consolidate into a new entity (e.g. GmbH),
whereas others may wish to remain as they are. This should be accepted and recognized, this
should not degrade the commitment to work together under the revisited CEATS concept, based
on common understanding of the four measures of the CCGTF report.
d. agreed on a role for EUROCONTROL:
i. A main role for EUROCONTROL shall be to act as the facilitator and the Project Manager;
ii. In that role EUROCONTROL will provide the expertise and assistance needed by States and
ANSPs to implement the revisited CEATS concept, as required.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
e. agreed that the CEATS project:
i. Shall be addressed as a Functional Airspace Block initiative, under the Single European Sky Regu-
lations, where all developments must be in line with current and future European Regulations;
ii. Its implementation shall follow the principles agreed as common practices for the creation of FABs;
iii. It shall encompass both the Upper and Lower airspace of participating States.
iv. Recognition must be given to the military requirements and the military ATC facilities on a State by
State basis.
f. supported the assessment of the existing framework to be performed by the Legal Service of
EUROCONTROL and the legal experts of the States with a view to defining and agreeing the ne-
cessary arrangements to support the possible formal integration of the Common Understanding as
defined in b. to e. above into the CEATS Agreement or to proposing suitable legal procedures for the
implementation of the Common Understanding as defined in b. to e. above before the end of 2006;
g. invited the Agency to elaborate the detailed definition and high-level description of the content of the
CEATS FAB Feasibility Study to be presented at an ad hoc meeting of the CEATS DGCAs and CEOs
of the Air Navigation Service Providers that will be organised by the Agency in the second half of
January 2007.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex IV
Executive Summary of CBA
This report presents an assessment of the costs and benefits expected from the FAB Central Europe project. It has been
prepared using information from published reports and statistics relating to the seven ANSPs, the reports documenting the
project, and discussions with the project’s Working Groups and other experts. Not all the information needed to carry out this
analysis has been fully available from these sources, and we have had to supplement the information with our own best judge-
ment. In addition, judgements have been required about future developments that are inherently uncertain. In these cases we
have tried to obtain a consensus view of the likely future from all those in the project with an authoritative view.
The cost-benefit analysis compares financial projections for a project in which the FAB is implemented with those for a
“reference case” in which cooperation between ANSPs continues at current levels. In both cases we examine projections
from 2006 until 2025.
In the reference case, capacity in the region expands to meet growing demand. The expansion of capacity is however,
constrained in later years by the inability to recruit and train sufficient ATCOs. Delays, having fallen from current values, start
to rise again. The ANSPs’ costs per flight-hour rise in the short term (principally through rises in ATCO wages), but then fall as
ATCO productivity increases, and improvements in support costs, outweigh the large increases in wages caused by conver-
gence of wage levels between Austria and the rest of the region. The full economic cost of air navigation to the user, however,
rises per unit, because of the increasing delays towards the end of the period.
The FAB project, as designed by the Working Groups, is centred on progress through a series of levels of operational coope-
ration, through:
■ initial cooperation, designed to initiate the process of cooperation, but without substantial benefits of
its own; leading to
■ static cooperation, in which there is a major resectorisation of the whole region, regardless of national
boundaries, together with improved operational functions, but in which each area of airspace is always
the responsibility of the same operational unit; with optional extension to
■ dynamic cooperation, in which responsibility for areas of airspace can be transferred, on a planned but
flexible basis, between operating units, enabling the more efficient use of resources.
Both static and dynamic levels of cooperation require substantial investments in systems and training to support them, but will
bring benefits in terms of capacity, productivity, and flight efficiency.
In addition, a number of independent FAB initiatives have been considered, which are independent of the levels of operational
cooperation, but bring benefits of their own.
The cost-benefit analysis shows that there are substantial benefits in moving towards the static level of cooperation in 2015 (the
earliest practicable year). The central estimate for the net present value of the benefit (including the additional independent initia-
tives) is €309m. Moving to dynamic cooperation is unlikely to be beneficial, however, until most ANSPs have the next generation
of systems, including many of the expected features of SESAR, that will support the necessary functionality without prohibitive
extra capital expenditure. The analysis suggests that the most advantageous course of action is to implement the dynamic level
of cooperation as quickly as possible after all ANSPs have such systems. Implementation in 2021 (the earliest year that this is
likely to be true) yields a net present value of €34m, over and above that of achieving the static level of cooperation.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
In addition, a number of additional benefits could be achieved through cooperation in a FAB. The study examined some of
these, although others were judged by the ANSPs to be outside the scope of the study. The additional areas of benefit exa-
mined would arise principally through cooperation in the technical area, through joint planning and joint procurement of ATM
and CNS infrastructure, and adopting a cooperative approach to maintenance. Other benefits would be obtainable through
coordination of training, and through the flight-efficiency gains that would be encouraged by charging a single unit rate in the
FAB. The net present value of these additional benefits is calculated to be around €104m.
The overall net benefit from the project was expected to reach €32.7m annually by 2020 and €139.9m by 2025. Especially in
later years, much of this arises from delay savings, as the enhanced productivity from operational cooperation allows for more
traffic to be handled without delays, given an overall shortage of ATCOs. However, a substantial part of the benefit also arises
from cost savings by the ANSPs.
There are very substantial uncertainties associated with many of the assumptions used to produce these results, and the
overall results must therefore be viewed in the light of this uncertainty. Many of the assumptions could be refined with further
analysis, particularly those concerning the benefits of dynamic cooperation. A particular risk is that the FAB itself will promote
and accelerate the convergence of salaries in the rest of the region with the much higher salaries in Austro Control. Examina-
tion of the sensitivity of the results to many of the uncertain factors, including this one, suggest that while the overall value of
the project is uncertain, it seems robustly beneficial against a wide range of risks.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex V
Hazards Identified by Safety Case
Hazard areas are used for the identification of unintended consequences of certain presumed operational arrangements that
are required for FAB.CE The causes were considered and some foreseeable mitigation actions were proposed, in order to
highlight the possible tasks for establishing and maintaining the safety of the FAB CE target scenarios.
The hazards identified will NOT cover all the hazard areas to be considered in FAB CE operation. Also hazards related to tran-
sition phases of FAB CE implementation are not considered.
The hazards which may occur in scenarios without FAB CE implementation are not listed and shall be covered by the SMS of
the individual ANSPs.
The hazards are clustered into 3 groups:
■ People;
■ Equipment
■ Procedure (including airspace design).
Hazards Related to People Element
Six hazard areas were identified as related to the “people element” of the ATM system. The following table summarises them
together with proposed mitigation means.
ID Hazard Mitigation Means
H-PE-1 Rarely used configuration MIT-H-PE-1-1

Competency monitoring system
MIT-H-PE-1-2
Regular use of all sector configuration
MIT-H-PE-1-3
Reduce number of configurations
H-PE-2 Noise disturbance MIT-H-PE-2-1

Reduced verbal communication in room
MIT-H-PE-2-2
Noise reduction infrastructure
H-PE-3 HF fatigue (over/under load) MIT-H-PE-3-1

Optimise sector utilisation
H-PE-4 Tactical staffing of the sectors MIT-H-PE-4-1

Proper rostering scheme
H-PE-5 LoA confusion of staff with MIT-H-PE-5-1

complex configuration Tools to handle procedures from LoAs
MIT-H-PE-5-2
Translation process from LoA → OPS Proc create simple process
H-PE-6.1 COM (language) problem: MIT-H-PE-6.0-1

Maintenance English as common language
H-PE-6.2 COM (language) problem: MIT-H-PE-6.0-1 OPS → foreign TEC

English as common language
FAB CE MASTER PLAN

MIL of VFR → ATCO
NATO/MIL standards

MIL/MIL communication, ATCO may not be aware
NATO/MIL standards
Hazards Related to Equipment Element
Six hazard areas were identified as related to the “equipment element” of the ATM system. The following table summarises
them together with proposed mitigation means.
H-PE-1 Equipment may not fulfil OPS needs MIT-H-EQ-1-1

(e.g.: interface in dynamic scenario) Safety assessment of LoA
H-PE-2 Loss of network capacity or of MIT-H-EQ-2-1

information Application of PENS (PAN-EUR-NTW-ST)
H-PE-3 Unavailability of equipment which is MIT-H-EQ-3-1

not under managerial control SLAs with neighbouring ANSPs/CNS providers
MIT-H-EQ-3-2 Common SMC
MIT-H-EQ-3-3 Coordinate maintenance activities (relating SUR
availability with other units)
MIT-H-EQ-3-4 Degraded mode operations procedure
H-PE-4 Loss of FDP data or of correlation MIT-H-EQ-4-1

Well defined transition procedure (collapse – de-collapse)
MIT-H-EQ-4-2
Shared environment
H-PE-5 Different safety nets implementation MIT-H-EQ-5-1

Functionality and the behaviour consistent
MIT-H-EQ-5-2
Define usage of safety NETS
H-PE-6 Different technology influenced MIT-H-EQ-6-1

services Assess impact on other ANSPs
MIT-H-EQ-6-2
(e.g. use of ADS-B) Common ADS-B policy
Hazards
H d RRelated
l t d tto P
Procedure
d El
Elementt
Two hazard areas were identified as related to the “procedure element” of the ATM system. The following table summarises
them together with proposed mitigation means.
H-PE-1 Wrong application of roster (1 ACC) MIT-H-PR-1-1

Coordination of rostering schemes between ANSPs
H-PE-2 Different application (interpretation) of MIT-H-PR-2-1

the procedure English language training
MIT-H-PR-2-2
Common training sessions
MIT-H-PR-2-3
English as common language
See Safety Case [REF ø2] for further detail.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex VI
FAB CE Airspace Plan airspace structures
Scope
■ Design and management of en-route upper and lower airspace including sector design and interface
with TMAs, according to SES Regulations in a “design to cost” approach (based on the priority of
safety)
■ Enhancement of airspace and ATM capacities, including regional flow management
■ Civil/military co-operation, including flexible use of airspace
Principles
■ Airspace must be designed as one unified entity

■ Optimum use of available capacity
■ MIL training airspace of States will be designed as modular TRAs as far as practical outside the main
GAT flows
■ Multinational cooperation on all FUA levels will take place in addition to internal C/M cooperation
■ Integration of the functions related to airspace, flow and capacity management at the FAB level
Process and criteria for establishing Sector Families
The OPS Working Group agreed following process and criteria for establishing Sector Families:
Involve ANSPs in ad hoc airspace planning working group under the OPS WG to
■ optimise AAS07 July 2007 route network

■ take current & planned restricted and reserved areas in to account
■ consider the traffic complexity
■ consider traffic interaction, mainly in lower airspace
■ identify and solve critical areas
■ design sector families (consider upper and lower airspace, balcony and cross border delineation
allowed)
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Principles from the FAB CE Operational Concept 33
Assumptions
The Lower limit of FAB shall be identical to the limit of the Controlled Airspace.
Its harmonisation will be addressed during the development phase
The Upper FAB CE Airspace limit is FL 660
The airspace design shall be based on the Advance Airspace Scheme version 07
from July 2007.
Airspace proposed under Feasibility Study will be crosschecked with other FAB initiatives through RNDSG during the
FAB
Performance Assumptions
Traffic allocation on the route network

9083 IFR flights were counted on the peak day 01/09/2012.
Traffic in upper airspace above FL285
7101 IFR flights were counted on the peak day 01/09/2012 above FL 285.
Traffic in lower airspace below FL 285
4948 IFR flights were counted on the peak day 01/09/2012 below FL 285.
Traffic in Sector Groups
Sector Groups Sector Families Number of flights Average distance (nm) Average time (min)
SG1 KSL, QU 1119 119 16.7
SG2 KNL, PU 986 85.2 12.1
SG3 JL, NU, OU 1515 104.5 14.8
SG4 IL, MU 1425 111.6 16.1
SG5 HL, LU 1617 81.8 12.3
SG6 GL, IU 1932 78.7 11.1
SG7 CL, EU 1556 76.7 11.4
SG8 DL, FU, JU 2996 74.1 12.5
SG9 EL, KU 1746 90.1 13.1
SG10 FL, HU, GU 2261 96.6 14.4
SG11 BL, DU, CU 1646 94.6 13.6
SG12 AL 1496 77.9 15.4
SG13 AU, BU 2381 138.2 18.3
33- Target FAB CE HL OPS Concept Elements FABCE/OPS/1.2/001
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Optimised Route network
The “AAS route network” includes all proposals for possible optimisation of the route network in the European region as regis-
tered in July 2007 without any direct link to implementation.
Route network AAS07 version July 2007 was optimised at the airspace planning meeting on 24 July 2007 as follows:
Parity:
■ blue – even
■ green – odd
■ pink - arrival
Critical areas to be solved in the FAB CE Initial Operations

The OPS workshop in Budapest on 4-5 June 2007 identified critical areas. The FAB Scenarios assume that these shall be
solved in the FAB CE Initial Operations.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Sectorisation
The sectors were not designed under the feasibility study.
The following table provides an estimate of sector number per sector groups. The estimates are based on an approximate su-
perimposition of current sectorisation in lower airspace, current and FTS7 derived sectorisation in upper airspace over the SF.
Finally proposals of national experts are taken into account. The maximum number of elementary sectors is calculated as an
addition of maximum sector configuration sector numbers in lower airspace and sector numbers in upper airspace whichever
number is higher.
SF current proposed SF current FTS7 proposed Grouping Max NR of remark

Lower lower lower Upper upper upper upper sectors
A 3 (4) 5 A 3 3 5 SG13 = AU/BU 10 AL/AU and AL/BU N/A
B 3 4 5 SG12 = AL 5 RQ AL/AU and AL/BU
B 2 3 C 2 3 3 SG11 = BL/ 10
CU/DU
D 1 4 4 DU/HU possible
C 2 (3) 2 (3) E 3 3 3 SG7 = CL/EU 5 (6)
D 2 3 (4) F 1 2 3 SG8 = DL/FU/ 9 (10) DL proposed due to

JU
J 2 2 3 lowering TMA Vienna
F 1 1 H 1 1 1 SG10 = FL/HU/ 4 RQ dynamic DLs

GU DU/HU possible
G 2 4 2
E 1 (2) 1 K 3 2 3 SG9 = EL/KU 4 RQ dynamic DLs
G 1 (2) 2 (3) I 2 5 >3 SG6 = GL/IU 5 (6) - 7 (8) RQ a staggering sector

with EDDM
H 1 (2) 1 L 3 2 3 SG5 = HL/LU 4 RQ dynamic DLs in U
I 1 1 M 1 3 3 SG4 = IL/MU 4 match SFL with SFU

border
J 1 1 N 2 2 3 SG3 = JL/NU/ 6 match SFL with SFU

OU border
O 1 2 2
KN 1 2 P 1 2 2 SG2 = KNL/PU 3 (4) match SFL with SFU

border
KS 1 Q 1 1 2 SG1 = KSL/QU 3 QUT/PUT in TOP possible

- 2 KS/KN/QU/PU without
TOP possible - 4
Note: Number of sectors proposed by AT in the SF IU is smaller than FTS result, which is why it spans from 5 to 8 sectors
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Sector Families in the upper airspace above FL285
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Sector Families in the lower airspace below FL285
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Sector Groups in the lower airspace below FL285
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Sector Groups in the upper airspace above FL285
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Family Groups in the upper airspace

Family groups are proposed in the upper airspace only to serve the ASM and ATFCM processes.
The FAB CE Operational Concept considers that if implementation can take different speeds from one Family Group to another
implementation should be performed at the same speed within each of the Family Groups.
The detailed delineation between FG North and Mid avoiding cutting of one traffic flow shall be resolved during development
phase.
Assignment of Sector Group to ATS Unit
Assignment of sector groups to ATS units has been done for the purpose of the Feasibility Study, and the evaluation of the
associated benefits.
Sector Groups ATS Unit

SG1, SG3, SG4 Zagreb
SG2, (SG434) Sarajevo
SG5 Ljubljana
SG6, SG7, SG8 Vienna
SG9, SG10 Budapest
SG11 Bratislava
SG12, SG13 Prague
34- In the dynamic scenario, allocation of SG4 is subject to bilateral agreement between BHDCA and Croatia Control, depending on ACC Sarajevo capabilities.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex VII
Schedule Of Working Groups And Deliverables
Situation as per 06/03/2008
LIST OF FAB CE DELIVERABLES
■ Project Charter
FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study Project Charter v 1_0
The key deliverables of the PMO are:
■ Project Management Plan
FABCE_PMO_PMP_001_FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study Project Management Plan v 2.0.pdf
■ Statement of Works.
FABCE_OPS_SOW_001_WG1 - Operational SOW v 2_0;
FABCE_TEC_SOW_001_WG2 - Technical SOW v 2_0;
FABCE_FIN_SOW_001_WG3 - Financial SOW v 2_0;
FABCE_HR_SOW_001_WG4 - Human resources SOW v 2_0;
FABCE_ILR_SOW_001_WG5 - Institutional Leg Reg SOW v 2_0;
FABCE_SAF_SOW_001_WG6 - Safety SOW v 2_0;
■ FAB Scenarios;
FABCE_PMO_0 2_005_FAB CE FAB Scenarios 1_0.doc
■ FAB Master Plan WP 0.2;
FABCE_PMO_0 2_001_FAB CE Master Plan 01_00
The key deliverables of the Operational Working Group are:
■ Common Operational Concept for FAB CE WP 1.2;
FABCE_OPS_1.2_002_FAB CE Common Operational Concept 01_00.doc
■ Validated FAB CE Military Advanced CONOPS WP 1.3;
FABCE_OPS_1.3_001_FAB CE Military Advanced Concept of Operations Document 02_00.doc
■ FAB Airspace Plan WP 1.4;
FABCE_OPS_1.4_002_FAB CE Airspace Plan 01_00.doc
■ FAB CE Regional Contingency Plan WP 1.5;
FABCE_OPS_1.5_001_FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study Regional Contingency Plan Volume 2 v 02_00.doc
■ OPS Scenario 2015
FABCE_OPS_2015 Scenarios 01_00.doc
The key deliverables of the Technical Working Group are:
■ Report on the analysis of existing technical systems, infrastructures and services WP 2.1;
FABCE_TEC_2_1_001_ Analysis of Technical Environment_1_1.pdf
■ Analysis of OPS input WP 2.2;
FABCE_TEC_2_2_001_ Analysis of high level OPS concept_02_00.doc
■ Technical Solution for FAB CE 2.3;
FABCE_TEC_2_3_001_Technical_Solutions_02_00.doc
■ FAB Technical Roadmap WP 2.4.
FABCE_TEC_2_4_002_Technical_Roadmap_02_00.doc
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
The key deliverables of the Financial Working Group are:

■ FAB CBA WP 3.5;
FABCE_FIN_3_5_001_FAB CE Cost Benefit Analysis v 01_00.doc
■ FAB CE Charging and Cooperation WP 3.6 & 3.7;
FABCE_FIN_3 67_001_FAB CE Charging and Cooperation 01_00.doc
The key deliverables of the Human Resources Working Group are:
■ FAB CE Human Resources Concept (High level document) WP 4.1;
FABCE_HR_4 1_001_ FAB CE Human Resources Concept 01_00.doc
■ FAB CE Regional Competency Scheme (eventually merged in the HR Concept) WP 4.2;
FABCE_HR_4 2_001_ FAB CE Regional Competence Scheme 01_00.doc
■ FAB CE Communication Plan WP 4.3/Internal & 4.4/External.
FABCE_HR_4 3_003_ FAB CE INTERNAL COMMUNICATION Policy 1_11.pdf / FABCE_HR_4 4_001_ FAB CE EX-
TERNAL COMMUNICATION Policy 1_1.pdf
The key deliverables of the Institutional / Legal / Regulatory Working Group are:
■ Legal and institutional framework of FAB (FAB Agreement draft) WP 5.4;
FABCE_ILR_5_4_001_Basic Principles of FAB Agreement 01_00.doc
■ CEATS Agreement Modalities WP 5.3.1;
FABCE_ILR_5_3_001_CEATS Agreement Modalities - relevant procedures in terms of international law 01_00.doc
■ Summary of National Contribution WP 5.3.2;
FABCE_ILR_5_3_002_CEATS Agreement Modalities - Summary of National Contributions 01_00.doc
■ Assess legal impact of the CEATS agreement WP 5.3.3;
FABCE_ILR_5_3_003_CEATS Agreement Modalities - assess legal impact of the CEATS agreement 01_00.doc
■ Legal Basis for the FAB CE Implementation Process WP 5.3.4;
FABCE_ILR_5_3_004_Legal Basis for the FAB CE Implementation Process 01_00.doc
■ Principles of ANSPs cooperation WP 5.5;
FABCE_ILR_5_5_001_FAB CE Principles of ANSPs cooperation 01_00.doc
■ Requirements for regulatory and oversight regime in the FAB WP 5.6;
FABCE_ILR_5_6_001_FAB CE Requirements for regulatory and oversight regime in the FAB 01_00.doc
■ The process of FAB Establishment (additional ILR WG Working Paper) WP 5.4.2;
FABCE_ILR_5_4_002_FAB Establishment Process 01_00. doc
■ Legal and institutional assessment of a regional ASM structure WP 5.7.
FABCE_ILR_5_7_001_FAB CE ILF Assesment 02_00.doc
The key deliverables of the Safety Working Group are:
■ FAB Safety Management Roadmap WP 6.1.
FABCE_SAF_6_1_001_FAB CE Safety Management Roadmap 01_00.doc
■ FAB Safety Case WP 6.2;
FABCE_SAF_6.2_001_FAB CE Safety Case 01_00.doc
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex VIII
List of Pending Issues
Dynamicity Concept
The concept of dynamicity has been studied by the various WG during the Feasibility Study. However, it has been recognised
that further investigation is required. In particular, it would be necessary to look into the more detailed description of the
concept and its specific application to a given part of the airspace. This would allow in particular:
The evaluation of the benefits associated through an objective evaluation (simulation)
A detailed analysis of the implications at the various levels
■ human resources, to see the impact on the staff competence requirements

■ technical, to analyse whether different technical solution could be applied, such as procedurally
supported dynamicity, single system supported dynamicity. In any case a detailed analysis and initial
specification would allow a better evaluation of the related costs.
These further studies should be started upon business decision of two or several partners.
Single Unit Rate
The application of Single Unit Rate has been studied by the FIN WG.
■ It is feasible from an Administrative point of view

■ It would provide a benefit in terms of flight efficiency, since there would not be incentive for airspace
users to use longer routes
■ It is seen by some as a strong signal for the FAB to behave as one entity
At the same time, some issues remains to clarified, and in particular with regards to cost control mechanisms and arrange-
ments between ANSPs that would rule all parties concerned to commonly manage and control all related aspects of ANSP
cost set-up, especially staff costs.
Therefore, the issue needs to be further discussed during the consultation phase, in order to see which participants would like
to proceed with single unit rate. It is recommended to set up a specific task force to discuss the issue.
Military and civil/military issues

The following outstanding issue remains to be resolved at the State’s level, in respect to the neutrality status of Austria:
■ would its ATSP follow the instruction to provide requested ATC services to OAT on the territory of
another Contracting State, and/or would it be acceptable for Austria that a foreign ATSP would provide
ATC services to OAT in its territory?
■ can NATO member states exchange information with the Austria as a neutral state?
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex IX
Examples for ANSP cooperation
This Annex provides some examples for potential cooperation initiatives in different areas of ANSPs’
tasks and responsibilities. Most of the examples are selected from the list of elements specifying the
Initial, the Static and/or the Dynamic Scenario in the FAB Master Planning Documentation, a few others
are added. Please note that especially examples associated with a high degree of cooperation in the
technical infrastructure area (like, e.g., common system operation) are provided here regardless of
whether they are addressed by the Common Understanding or the current status of discussion in the
FAB project. They are provided to illustrate the potential range of options and to give a first glance on
the issue for those participants who might wish to consider such options in the future.
ATS OPS domain
No Issue Description/remark
Ensure a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility

Establishment of harmonised rules & procedures on
1 for air traffic control between air traffic service units;
transfer of responsibility
modification of procedures to resolve critical areas
achieve interoperability and convergence of proce-

2 LoA harmonization
dures
ATSP 1 tasks ATSP 2 with ATS provision in a portion

Cross border ATS operations
3 of the airspace ATSP 1 has been designated for
Option 135
(“Art 10 SPR model”).
Cross border ATS operations ATSP37 exercise the powers of the “last step in the
4
Option 236 designation process”
ATSP agree (and cater for) that each centre shall

Contingency Plan for safety critical situations
5 keep sufficient capacity to allow for accommodating
Option 1 - Closure of airspace38
the extra traffic within their airspace.
Contingency Plan for safety critical situations Same approach(es) for ATSP cooperation as for 2
6
Option 2 - Continuation39 and 340 above
Systematic application of direct routing within the ATSP agreements to establish and/or harmonize
7 FAB (as far as ATC clearances for direct routings are procedures/manuals to issue clearances for direct
addressed)41 flights to the largest extent possible
35- Option 1: No delegation of ATS between states, no “cross border designation” by State A of the ATSP of the neighbouring state for State A’s portion of the cross border sector. Due to
the fact that in some states designation requires parliamentary action (law making or ratification of an international treaty), option 1 will most probably apply in the Initial Scenario if it is to be
implemented independent from any parliamentary approval.
approval
36- Option 2: No delegation of ATS between states, but “cross border designation” by State A of the ATSP of the neighbouring state for State A’s portion of the cross border sector.
37- Either just ATSP 1 and ATSP 2 together or all FAB ATSP’s together.
38- No neighbouring unit is used to support the contingency situation.
39- Neighbouring units are used to support the contingency situation keeping the airspace open, whether using own resources to serve the sectors or with eventual transfer of staff and other
resources.
40- For additional approaches see sec. (rather focussed on TEC/infrastructure aid).
41- It seems that the respective item in the FAB Master Planning Documentation concerns only the strategic level (ATS routes design); for this issue see subsection below. It seems clear that
in a “perfect world” of direct ATS routes ATC clearances for (tactical) direct routing will become more or less unnecessary.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
ATS TEC Domain
To be established as one of the general principles

of a comprehensive ATSP agreement (e.g. in the
1 optimum use of technical resources articles of an ANSP association etc), serving as a
guideline/criterion for commonly decided measures
as well as for any individual ATSP’s measures
Coordination/synchronisation of technical planning;

identification of opportunities for cooperation. Range
2 Regional Technical Planning Board of legal qualification from mere information exchan-
ge to common planning instruments/decisions with
mandatory & enforceable prescriptions
3 Sharing of technical control and monitoring data. ---
Convergence and/or common development &

specification regarding flight data interoperability
4 ---
(harmonised implementation of standards), support
tools for CDM, Safety Nets and HMI
Cooperation in the area of specification, tendering

5 Common procurement of ATS systems etc, striving for saving internal cost (TEC staff, pro-
curement staff etc) and for price reductions
Common maintenance and/or development of a

6 Similar to No. 5
number of similar ATS systems
Common operation of a single ATS system by two/ “Single system” to be understood as the entirety of
more/all ANSPs a number of physically (and geographically) separa-
7 ted system instances which, however, are identical
Option 1: each ATSP owns its own physical ins- in technical & functional terms and are normally ope-
tance of the system rated as one single system (“clustered nodes”)
System architecture like in option 1, but the sys-

tem (in its entirety) is owned either by a separate
legal entity set up by the ATSP (ATSP’s indirect
ownership) or directly co-owned by the ATSP.
Common operation of a single ATS system by two/ A sub-option would be to co-own and operate
more/all ANSPs a system with only one single physical instance.
8 However, in the distributed ACC model underlying
Option 2: direct/indirect co-ownership of the system
the FAB CE project42 at least some ATS system
by all participating ANSPs
elements would necessarily be located at each ACC
(e.g. HMI). But even for processing systems (e.g.
FDP, SDP) the sub-option would, due to the impor-
tance of the ATS system for air traffic services, face
legal obstacles as well as acceptance problems.
42- As part of the “Common Understanding”, the participating states described the “distributed model” as a model “to start by full use of the existing national infrastructures and facilities
(in operation or planned)” which, however, would “not rule out progressive consolidation towards common centralised facilities on a reduced number of locations or on a single site, but the
transition process must be evolutionary”.;

FAB CE MASTER PLAN
CNS domain
Coordination/synchronisation of technical planning;

identification of opportunities for cooperation. Range
1 Regional Technical Planning Board of legal qualification from mere information exchan-
ge to common planning instruments/decisions with
mandatory & enforceable prescriptions
By ANSP agreements under Art. 10 SPR, either bi-

lateral (“one-way” data provision43 or “two-way” data
2 Provision/Exchange of SUR data
exchange) or multilateral (data pooling, information
sharing)44
Various options possible for cross border sectors

and similar situation. One option could be: For each
sector of a given sector configuration one ANSP is
appointed as the single responsible COM-Provider.
3 Provision of COM services The COM-Provider makes use of its own transmit-
ters & /receivers as well as of those of other COM-
Providers, if necessary. The COM-Provider furnishes
the ANSP responsible for the provision of ATS in this
sector with COM services
Might be one of the major tasks of the overall tasks

Optimisation of communication, navigation and
4 “Regional Technical Planning” (see No 1) and closely
surveillance facilities
linked to other issues like, e.g, No 2 and 3
Cooperation in the area of specification, tendering

5 Common procurement of CNS systems etc, striving for saving internal cost (TEC staff, pro-
curement staff etc) and for price reductions
Common maintenance and/or development of a

6 Similar to No. 4
number of similar CNS systems
Common operation of a single CNS system (or just “Single system” to be understood as the entirety of
a single COM-System or a single SUR-System etc) a number of physically (and geographically) separa-
by two/more/all ANSPs ted system parts which, however, might be identical
7
Option 1: each ANSP (CNSP) owns some physical or similar in technical & functional terms and are
parts of the system (e.g. sensors, radio transmitters normally operated as one single system, commonly
and receivers) upgraded and developed etc
Common operation of a single CNS system by two/ System like in option 1, but the system (in its
more/all ANSPs entirety; e.g. all SUR-sensors) is owned either by a
8
Option 2: direct/indirect co-ownership of the system separate legal entity set up by the ANSPs (indirect
by all participating ANSPs ownership) or directly co-owned by the ANSPs.45
43- The various options on cost aspect (no costs [“for free”]; bilateral pricing; bilateral cost recovery; cost recovery under the Charging Regulation) are not dealt with in this table.
44- Under system governance (management control) consideration, even such mere information sharing might come close to (or even qualify as) the establishment of a common CNSP.
45- While for some ATS systems it might be at least technically feasible to physically centralise them even in a distributed center model, COM-, SUR- and NAV-facilities have to be established
and maintained at various locations. Optimisation of the number and location of these facilities may be dealt with at various degrees of cooperation, ranging from a mere common planning of
the infrastructure/coverage up to establishing one single common CNSP.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
ATFM domain
FMP co-ordination ---
Integration of national FMP into one regional FMP ---
Technical solutions for ATFCM are often (technically)

part of ATS systems; however, the functional inte-
Cooperation in the technical area (e.g. solutions to
gration might require new and stand-alone systems.
ensure consistency of ASM and ATFCM information
Cooperation regarding ATFCM systems may be
for the region; tools to support CDM processes and
integrated in cooperation initiatives for ATS systems
functional integration between ASM and ATFCM
(or the TEC domain in general) or at least follow the
functions)
same or similar principles. For details therefore refer
to Error! Reference source not found.
ASM & ASD domain
ANSP cooperation to either run the bureau or make

available infrastructure (office etc), experts, tools etc
1 JC-MACB Support Bureau46 in order to support and prepare (for the JC-MACB
and under its lead) airspace use and route network
coordination
ANSP cooperate to furnish the JC-MACB with infor-

mation, planning, other data and proposals (similar
2 Preparatory work for JC-MACB
to No 1 [“run the bureau”], but no JC-MACB Bureau
installed)
Neither lead AMC nor regional AMC47installed;

ANSPs use their cooperation framework to coordi-
3 Cooperation of national AMCs
nate activities & decisions of the national AMC (at
least of the “civil part” thereof)
ANSP cooperation fulfils the tasks of the “civil part”

4 Lead AMC, (sub-)regional AMC
of such international AMC
Enhanced coordination during tactical and flight

5 ---
execution phase
Cooperation in the technical area to (e.g. solutions

to ensure consistency of ASM/ATFCM information
Such technical solutions may cover all areas mentio-
6 for the region; tools to support CDM processes and
ned in No 1 to 5
functional integration between ASM and ATFCM
functions)
46- In case it is determined to establish such bureau. For details see ICON, FAB CE Assessment of Institutional, Legal and Financial Aspects of Regional Airspace Management Structures (Doc
FABCE/ILR/5.7/001,
FABCE/ILR/5 7/001 edition 01
01.01
01 of 25 Jan 2008) p
p. 34 ffff.
47- For the meaning of these terms see ICON, ILF-Study (footnote 49)
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Safety management domain
Safety surveys/audits of ANSP X carried out by

experts of other ANSPs or experts of ANSP X and
1 Common/mutual safety surveys
other ANSPs (international audit teams) according to
harmonized/common procedures
Exchange of evidence and other information about e.g. about supplier validation, occurrences & occur-
2
safety relevant issues rence evaluations
Mutual recognition of safety relevant methodologies e.g. risk assessment and mitigation of new ATM
3
and procedures procedures; procedures for supplier evaluation;
e.g. Translation and exchange of high level docu-

4 Sharing of (parts of) the SMS documentation
ments
e.g. safety responsibility for procedures in cross bor-

Decisions/agreements on allocation of safety res- der service provision, safety responsibility for COM/
5 ponsibility regarding activities in other cooperation SUR-services provided by ANSP 1 to ANSP 2; res-
areas ponsibility for occurrence reporting and assessment
in cross border service cases
e.g. common lobbying; harmonization of handling

6 Promotion of “just culture” features of labour law issues, rights of recourse etc against
ATCO (or TEC staff)
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Organisational manangement domain (esp FIN)
Establishment of a governance structure to de-

termine performance indicator and performance
Promotion/determination of common performance
1 standards48 as goals/guidelines/criteria for (1) each
standards
ANSP’s own activities and/or (2) common activities
(guidelines for common decisions)
Especially in case of a FAB wide single unit rate, in

case of cross border service provision based on
Art. 10 SPR with cost recovery between the ATSP
Multilateral agreement on how to control and reco- concerned, or in other cases of inter-ANSP exchan-
2 ge of services etc;
ver costs
partly depending on how the principles of the Char-
ging Regulation will be applied on the regulatory
level
3 Regional Technical Planning Board (see above)
Mere coordination and information exchange

Co-operative cost planning (“transparency”) between the ANSP, no common
4
(model 1 as outlined by FIN WG)49 decisions, no enforcement mechanism; ANSP stay
individually responsible for cost bases & reporting
Joint budgeting and planning; peer pressure

between members; ANSP stay individually respon-
Strong central budgeting
5 sible for cost bases, control of costs and budgets;
(model 2 as outlined by FIN WG)
joint reporting; legal nature of “joint budgeting and
planning” still to be defined
Establishment by the ANSP of a common organisa-

Integrated cost management tional vehicle (might be a legal entity) which mana-
6
(model 3 as outlined by FIN WG) ges the provision of ANS and takes over a number
of responsibilities of/from the ANSPs.
48- Typical areas of performance target setting and measurement in the ANS domain might be, e.g., safety, capacity, flight efficiency, cost effectiveness and environmental impacts.
49- See FAB Central Europe – FAB Options, Charging and Economic Cooperation (Doc No. FABCE/FIN/3.6&7/001, Edition No. 00.01 of 9 Jan. 2008) p. 7.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Contingency planning
(other than ATS OPS measures mentioned above)
Exchange of information and know how on/in

1 Contingency planning – information exchange contingency planning and contingency measures in
all ANS domains
Harmonization of contingency plans and measures

2 Contingency plans/measures – harmonization to establish a common quality level on how to deal
with contingency situations
ANSP 1 (and maybe others) sets certain measures

in case of contingency of ANSP 2 including, without
Contingency measures in case of contingency of
3 limitation, the provision of certain operational and/
another ANSP
or technical services for, or on behalf, of the ANSP
in distress
Training domain
Various degrees of cooperation (ranging from ex-

change of information up to binding harmonization)
1 FAB competence schemes
on competence schemes, training syllabus etc.
unless laid down at the regulatory level
Coordination of the establishment, maintenance and

close down of training facilities and of the various
2 Training facilities training services provided therein (by coordination
between the different Training Organisations or by
establishment of a common Training Organisation)50
Making available of training resources by a Training Assignment of trainers, lease of simulation facilities
3
Organisation to another one etc
Between Training Organisations (to foster specializa-

4 Provision of training services
tion and/or bridge a temporary shortage)
50- Currently the ANSPs.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
(Other) HR management domain
Long/mid term planning of human resources de- Various options of coordinated planning for optimal
1
mand and recruitment use of human resources
Various options (degrees of cooperation) like mere

information on rostering schemes up to common
2 Rostering schemes
decisions making on rostering (for optimal use of
human resources)
Allocation
All ti and
d coverage off li
liability
bilit
Based on the statutory liability rules,51 cooperation

1 Establishment of liability rules for ANSP interactions rules in all (or most of the) cooperation area will have
to include liability issues
Unless insurance requirements are harmonized on

2 Harmonization of insurance requirements the regulatory level, ANSP could agree on a com-
mon level of insurance (risk management)
3 Common procurement of insurance ---
51- Rules on how and when an ANSP could be held liable, e.g. direct liability, rights of recourse of state against ANSP etc.
FAB CE MASTER PLAN
Annex X
Document References
REF 01 FABCE_PMO_CCG_001_FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study Project Charter v 1_0.doc
REF 02 FABCE_SAF_6.2_001_FAB CE Safety Case 01_00.doc
REF 03 FABCE_SAF_6_1_001_FAB CE Safety Management Roadmap 01_00.doc
REF 04 FABCE_OPS_1.3_001_FAB CE Military Advanced Concept of Operations Document 02_00.doc
REF 05 FABCE_FIN_3_5_001_FAB CE Cost Benefit Analysis v 01_00.doc
REF 06 FABCE_PMO_PMP_001_FAB Central Europe Feasibility Study Project Management Plan 2_0.doc
REF 07 FABCE_ILR_5_4_001_Basic Principles of FAB Agreement 01_00.doc
REF 08 Regulation (EC) No 449/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2004 laying
down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the «Framework regulation»), OJ L
96, 31.03.2004, p.1; Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of
10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the creation of the single European sky
(the «Service provision regulation»), OJ L 96, 31.03.2004, p.10.
REF 09 Commission regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common require-
ments for the provision of air navigation services (the “Common requirements regulation”), OJ L 335,
21.12.2005, p. 13.
REF 10 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007
REF 11 PRR 2006 Performance Review Report, Performance Review Commission EUROCONTROL, May
2007
REF 12 Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis, prepared by the ACE working group on
Complexity for the PRC, April 2006
REF 13 Regulation 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 (the Intero-
perability regulation)
REF 14 FABCE_ILR_5_3_004_Legal Basis for the FAB CE Implementation Process 01_00.doc
Document Ownership
The term Document Owner and Ownership denotes the person or persons who produced the Document. i.e. the Author(s). In the FAB CE Feasibility Study, Project
Document Ownership belongs to the participating states and their ANSPs and EUROCONTROL, who agreed through the CCG/18 decision to jointly participate,
finance and benefit from the FAB CE Feasibility Study Project.
Copyright
The participating States, the participating ANSPs and EUROCONTROL and any other party having access to the documents shall treat all documents produced
through the common effort for the purpose of the Feasibility Study and the subsequent FAB implementation in accordance with their national or internal rules
and restrictions imposed thereby. Subject to the applicable national or internal rules, the participating States, the participating ANSPs and EUROCONTROL shall
consult any use of the commonly produced deliverables by non participating States or third parties. In the event of commercial use of these documents, a financial
return to the other parties may be sought.
As concerns the documentation offered by the participating parties as an input to the FAB CE Feasibility Study and identified as subject to national or internal
restrictions on disclosure, such documentation shall be used solely in the context of the FAB CE Feasibility Study and in line with the applicable restrictions on
disclosure.
Reference No.: FABCE/PMO/0.2/001

Edition Number: 01.02
Edition Date: 26/03/2008

FABCE PMO 0.2 001 FAB 20CE 20master 20plan 2001 02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FABCE PMO 0.2 001 FAB 20CE 20master 20plan 2001 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAB CENTRAL EUROPE FEASIBILITY STUDY

FAB Central Europe

Reference No.: FABCE/PMO/0.2/001

Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN i

iv FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

Position/Job Title Name Date & Signature & Signature

Austria Mr. Johann ZEMSKY 26/03/08

Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Marinko SIMUNOVIC 26/03/08

Croatia for Mr. Mladen STEPANIC 26/03/08

Czech Republic Mr. Ivan HUBERT 26/03/08

Hungary Mr. Gyula HANGYAL 26/03/08

Slovak Republic Mr. Roman BIRO 26/03/08

Slovenia Mr. Alojz KRAPEZ 26/03/08

FAB CE DPM Mr. Alex HENDRIKS 26/03/08

Contact Person(s) Telephone Unit Email address

FAB CE CPMO Secretariat +420 22210 1379 CPD/CSPDU/Prague cpmosecr@eurocontrol.int

Massimo BERNACCONI +420 22210 1330 CPD/CSPDU/Prague Massimo.bernacconi@eurocontrol.int

Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN v

FAB CE Master Plan - Table of contents

5. ATM Components of FAB Scenarios 49

FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 1

9. Roadmap towards FAB CE 85

2 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

10. Recommendations on the Way Forward 96

11. Conclusions 100

Annex I Glossary, Abreviations and Definition of Terminology 107

Annex II Principles of FAB CE development 118

Annex III Common Understanding 120

Annex IV Executive Summary of CBA 122

Annex V Hazards Identified by Safety Case 124

Annex VI FAB CE Airspace Plan airspace structures 126

Annex VII Schedule of Working Groups and Deliverables 135

Annex VIII List of Pending Issues 137

Annex IX Examples for ANSP cooperation 138

Annex X Document References 146

FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 3

4 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

■ An Initial Scenario – based on the implementation of the SES elements

■ A Static AoR Scenario – consisting of deﬁned scope for FAB able to

■ A Dynamic AoR Scenario - that is advanced and will be implemented

Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 5

■ a visionary approach is necessary for developing future scenarios;

■ Static Area Of Responsibility (AoR) Scenario;

■ Dynamic Area Of Responsibility (AoR) Scenario.

6 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

STATIC AOR SCENARIO provides a common solution for 2015 by:

■ Regional cooperation to provide ATS;

The implementation of the Initial scenario should start as soon as possible.

Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 7

2. Static AOR Scenario

3. Dynamic AOR Scenario

Conclusion 2 – Technical enablers

8 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN Edition 1.02

2. Static AOR Scenario

3. Dynamic AOR Scenario

Conclusion 3 –Human Resources

No signiﬁcant changes are required to implement initial scenario.

Number of feasible changes is required to implement Static AoR scenario.

Edition 1.02 FAB Central Europe - Feasibility Study MASTER PLAN 9

2. Static AOR scenario

The cross-border Area of Responsibility and sectors are feasible.

3. Dynamic AOR Scenario

Conclusion 4 – Military Operations