baltic fab submission · 2016-09-22 · baltic fab submission pmo, 5 april 2012 version 1.0 page 3...

PMO, 5 April 2012 Version 1.0

BALTIC FAB Submission

F I N A L

2012

Baltic FAB Submission


Document identification sheet

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

DOCUMENT TITLE:


DELIVERABLE REFERENCE NUMBERS:

DOCUMENT IDENTIFIER: EDITION: 1.0

Baltic FAB Submission to EC Final Version v1.0.doc

EDITION DATE: 5 April 2012

Abstract

This document forms the Baltic FAB submission in accordance with Article 9a.3 of Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 [2], as amended by Art. 2.5 of Regulation (EC) No.1070/2009.

Keywords

FAB, EC Submission, CONOPS, Safety, Case, FAB agreement, NSA agreement, ANSP cooperation agreement, Civ-mil agreement

Contact person: E-mail: Organization:

Tymoteusz Gadomski (PMO) [email protected]

Baltic FAB Project Management Office

STATUS, AUDIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY

STATUS INTENDED FOR ACCESSIBLE VIA

Working draft

Final draft

Proposed Issue

Released Issue

Public

Internal

Confidential

Restricted

Internet

E-mail

Printed and electronic copies of the document can be obtained from the Baltic FAB Project Management Office:

Tel:

+48 22 574 51 00

Address:

Polish Air Navigation Services Agency, 02 - 147 Warszawa, ul. Wieżowa 8, Poland

E-mail:

[email protected]

Website: www.balticfab.eu



Document change record

The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the document.

Edition Date Reason for change Sections/pages affected



Contents

Document identification sheet ............................................................................................. 2

Document change record ..................................................................................................... 3

Contents ................................................................................................................................ 4

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 8

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11

1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Baltic FAB points of contact ....................................................................................... 12

1.3 Baltic FAB description ............................................................................................... 12

1.4 Social dialogue and consultation during the development of the FAB ........................ 13

2 Baltic FAB benefits statement ................................................................................ 14

2.1 Baltic FAB CBA ......................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 14

2.1.2 FAB opportunities ...................................................................................................... 14

2.1.3 Financial results ........................................................................................................ 15

2.2 Baltic FAB performance ............................................................................................. 16

2.3 Regional cooperation will provide even greater benefits ............................................ 16

3 FAB organisational structure ................................................................................. 19

3.1 Baltic FAB Council ..................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Baltic FAB Board ....................................................................................................... 19

3.3 FAB Management Office ........................................................................................... 20

3.4 FAB committees ........................................................................................................ 20

3.4.1 Operational and Technical Committee ....................................................................... 20

3.4.2 Safety Committee ...................................................................................................... 21

3.4.3 Airspace Committee .................................................................................................. 21

3.4.4 Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee..................................................... 21

3.4.5 Additional committees ............................................................................................... 22

3.5 Managing and implementing change after the Baltic FAB is implemented ................. 22

3.5.1 Baltic FAB Board ....................................................................................................... 22

3.5.2 Baltic FAB Management Office .................................................................................. 22

3.5.3 Role of the FAB committees ...................................................................................... 23

3.5.4 Project resources ...................................................................................................... 23

4 Baltic FAB submission and compliancy matrix .................................................... 24

4.1 Compliancy matrix ..................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Statements on the Baltic FAB agreements ................................................................ 24

4.2.1 The Baltic FAB agreement ......................................................................................... 24



4.2.2 NSA agreement ......................................................................................................... 25

4.2.3 Civil-military cooperation agreement .......................................................................... 26

4.3 Statement on conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO ......... 26

4.4 Statement on interaction with regional agreements in existence on 04 December 200926

4.5 Safety considerations ................................................................................................ 27

4.5.1 Baltic FAB safety governance .................................................................................... 27

4.5.2 Baltic FAB Safety Case ............................................................................................. 27

4.5.3 Baltic FAB Safety Policy ............................................................................................ 28

4.5.4 Baltic FAB arrangements for dealing with accident and incident investigation ........... 28

4.5.5 Baltic FAB arrangements for managing safety, in order to avoid degradation of safety performance in the FAB ........................................................................................................ 28

4.5.6 Responsibilities and interfaces with regard to the setting of safety targets, safety oversight and the accompanying enforcement measures in regard to the provision of ANS within the Baltic FAB ............................................................................................................. 29

4.6 Operational requirements .......................................................................................... 30

4.6.1 Baltic FAB Concept of Operations ............................................................................. 30

4.6.2 Optimum use of airspace in Baltic FAB ...................................................................... 30

4.6.3 Ensuring smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC between ATS Units .. 32

4.6.4 Arrangements between the concerned civil and military air traffic service providers .. 33

4.6.5 Compatibility of the airspace configurations ............................................................... 33

4.7 Statement on Baltic FAB contribution to a reduced environmental impact ................. 35

4.8 Statement on management of human resources ....................................................... 35

4.9 Statement on management of social factors and related changes ............................. 35

4.9.1 Communications channels ......................................................................................... 35

4.9.2 Airspace users ........................................................................................................... 36

4.9.3 Other stakeholders .................................................................................................... 36

4.10 Statement on the Baltic FAB performance plan ......................................................... 37

4.11 Statement on the Baltic FAB charging scheme .......................................................... 37

A Compliance with FAB requirements ...................................................................... 39

B Baltic FAB benefits statement ................................................................................ 56

B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 56

B.2 Aim of the analysis .................................................................................................... 56

B.3 Summary of main conclusions ................................................................................... 56

B.4 Methodology of the analysis ...................................................................................... 57

B.5 General assumptions ................................................................................................. 57

B.5.1 Price base ................................................................................................................. 57

B.5.2 Discount rate ............................................................................................................. 57



B.5.3 Time horizon.............................................................................................................. 57

B.5.4 Main stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 57

B.5.5 Economic flows taken into account for the purpose of CBA ....................................... 58

B.5.6 Main sources of assumptions .................................................................................... 58

B.6 Key opportunities (costs and benefits) resulting from the Baltic FAB implementation 59

B.6.1 Operational opportunities .......................................................................................... 60

B.6.2 Technical opportunities .............................................................................................. 62

B.6.3 Safety opportunities ................................................................................................... 65

B.6.4 Financial opportunities ............................................................................................... 66

B.6.5 Non-measurable opportunities ................................................................................... 67

B.7 Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 67

B.8 Methods of minimizing the uncertainty in inputs ......................................................... 69

B.9 CBA results ............................................................................................................... 69

B.10 Sensitivity analysis and qualitative risk analysis ........................................................ 71

B.10.1 Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................... 71

B.10.2 Qualitative risk analysis ............................................................................................. 73

B.11 Regional cooperation ................................................................................................. 74

B.12 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 76

C The proposed text for the Baltic FAB inter-state agreement ................................ 78

D The proposed text for the NSA Co-operation Agreement ................................... 101

E The proposed text for the Cooperation Agreement of the BALTIC FAB Air Navigation Service Providers .......................................................................................... 110

F The proposed text for the Baltic FAB civil-military agreement .......................... 122

G Statement on conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO and with regional agreements ......................................................................................... 130

G.1 General ................................................................................................................... 130

G.2 Poland ..................................................................................................................... 130

G.2.1 International agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations ................. 130

G.2.2 Regional agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations ...................... 130

G.2.3 LoA relevant to FAB establishment and operations ................................................. 130

G.3 Lithuania .................................................................................................................. 132

G.3.1 Regional agreements within the frame of ICAO relevant to FAB establishment and operations ........................................................................................................................... 132

G.3.2 Regional and international agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations132

H Baltic FAB Safety Case ......................................................................................... 133

I Baltic FAB Concept of Operations ....................................................................... 134

J Social dialogue and consultation during the development of the FAB ............. 135



J.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 135

J.2 Stakeholder-wide communication ............................................................................ 135

J.2.1 Airspace users ......................................................................................................... 135

J.2.2 Military engagement ................................................................................................ 136

J.2.3 Other external stakeholders ..................................................................................... 136

J.2.4 Management, staff and trade unions ....................................................................... 137



Abbreviations

ACA ANSP cooperation agreement

ACC Area Control Centre

ACE ATM Cost-Effectiveness

AEA Association of European Airlines

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AIS Aeronautical Information Services

ANS Air navigation Services

ANSP Air Navigation Services Provider

ASD Airspace Design

ASM Airspace Management

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCO Air Traffic Controller

ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Services

ATSP Air Traffic Services Provider

B/C Benefit to cost ratio

BF Baltic FAB

BSID Baltic FAB SMS Interface Document

CAO Civil Aviation Office of Poland

CBA Cost-benefit analysis

CBO Cross-border operations

CCD Continuous Climb Departure

CDA Continuous Descent Approach

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CMCA Civil-military cooperation agreement



CNS Communication, Navigation, Surveillance

CONOPS Concept of operations

CWP Controller Working Position

EAD European AIS database

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

EC European Commission

EDA European Defence agency

ELFAA European Low Fares Airline Association

ENPV Economic Net Present Value

ERAA European Regions Airline Association

EU European Union

FAB Functional Airspace Block

FAB CE FAB Central Europe

FIR Flight Information Region

FL Flight Level

FR Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, the framework Regulation

FTE Full-time equivalent

FUA Flexible Use of Airspace

GAT General Air Traffic

HR Human resources

IACA International Air Carrier Association

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IRR Internal Rate of Return

ISA Inter-state agreement

LoA Letter of Agreement

MA Mutual Agreement

MET Meteorological Services

MS Member State



NCA NSA cooperation agreement

NEFAB North European Functional Airspace Block

NF-IR Regulation (EC) 677/2011 on ATM Network Functions

NM Network Manager

NOP Network Operations Plan

NPV Net Present Value

NSA National Supervisory Authority

OAT Operational Air Traffic

OLDI On-Line Data Interchange

PENS Pan-European Network Service

PLL LOT LOT Polish Airlines

PRU Performance Review Unit

PV Present value

R&D Research & Development

RAT Risk Assessment Tool

RP Reporting period

SAR Search and Rescue

SES Single European Sky

SESAR SES ATM Research

SMS Safety Management System

SPR Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, the service provision

Regulation

SSC Single Sky Committee

STATFOR EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecasts Service

SUR Surveillance



1 Introduction

1.1 General

This document forms the Baltic FAB submission in accordance with Article 9a.3 of Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 [2], as amended by Art. 2.5 of Regulation (EC) No.1070/2009. The document is structured as follows:

� Section 1: Introduction, points of contact, description of FAB and consultation;

� Section 2: Summary of the Baltic FAB benefits statement;

� Section 3: Baltic FAB organisational structure;

� Section 4: FAB submission.

These sections are supported by a number of detailed annexes:

� Annex A: Compliancy matrix;

� Annex B: Full Baltic FAB benefits statement;

� Annex C: Baltic FAB inter-state agreement;

� Annex D: Baltic FAB NSA agreement;

� Annex E: Baltic FAB ANSP agreement;

� Annex F: Baltic FAB civil-military agreement;

� Annex G: Statement on conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO and with regional agreements;

� Annex H: Baltic FAB safety case;

� Annex I: Baltic FAB concept of operations;

� Annex I: Full Baltic FAB benefits statement;

� Annex J: Social dialogue and consultation during the development of the FAB.



1.2 Baltic FAB points of contact

Position Name Contact details

Director / Vice-director of Baltic FAB Program Management Office

Tymoteusz Gadomski [email protected]

Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

02 - 147 Warszawa, ul. Wieżowa 8

tel. +48 22 574 51 00

Director / Vice-director of Baltic FAB Program Management Office

Vidmantas Kairys [email protected]

Lithuanian ANSP "Oro Navigacija"

Rodunios kelias 2, LT-02188 Vilnius

tel +370 219 4776

1.3 Baltic FAB description

The Baltic FAB comprises the airspace of the entire Warsaw and Vilnius FIRs 24 hours a day.

Warsaw FIR lies within the national borders to the East, South and West, where it borders on respectively the Vilnius, Minsk, Lvi’v, Bratislava, Praha FIRs, and the German FIRs and UIRs. To the North it covers part of the Baltic Sea and has common boundaries with the Sweden and Kaliningrad FIRs. The air traffic service in two northern parts of the FIR over the Baltic Sea is delegated to Sweden.

Vilnius FIR adjoins Riga FIR to the north, Minsk FIR to the east and south, Kaliningrad FIR to the west, Warsaw FIR to the south-west and Sweden FIRs to the west.



The figure below depicts the Baltic FAB airspace.

ATS

Delegations to

Bremen ACC

ATS Delegations

from/to Praha ACC

1.4 Social dialogue and consultation during the development of the FAB

The Strategic Committee has actively promoted the sharing of information and encouraged input from airspace users and other stakeholders throughout the development of the Baltic FAB. Communications with all stakeholders are conducted in accordance with the Baltic FAB communications plan.

Full details on the social dialogue and consultation undertaken during the development of the FAB are provided in Annex J.

A similar level of consultation will continue after the establishment of the FAB. A programme of social dialogue with staff and other stakeholders and FAB-level annual airspace user consultations has been established. This will be supplemented by additional ad-hoc meetings as required by specific projects. These arrangements are summarised further in Section 4.9.



2 Baltic FAB benefits statement

2.1 Baltic FAB CBA

This section summarises the approach taken and the benefits realised following a CBA.

2.1.1 Methodology

The CBA was conducted in accordance with the recognised methodology for large investment projects in the European Union, supplemented by standard methodologies for CBAs in air navigation services produced by EUROCONTROL; methodologies required for public transport projects in Poland and modified in respect of the particular requirements of PANSA and Oro Navigacija.

The CBA provides a consolidated view of the impact of FAB. The benefits from the FAB and the associated costs were identified in five areas: technical, operational, financial, safety and human resources. The financial and economic costs and benefits were converted into monetary values (euros) and expressed in discounted cash-flow terms.

The results of the cost-benefit analysis are expressed using discounted cash flow, using the following indicators:

� Economic Net Present Value of the investment: It is assumed that the project is beneficial from the point of view of the stakeholders within the system boundary if the Economic Net Present Value indicator is positive.

� Economic Internal Rate of Return on investment: If the economic Internal Rate of Return is lower than the applied discount rate, then the project is not economically beneficial.

2.1.2 FAB opportunities

The following opportunities were identified and analysed in the CBA.

Quantified opportunities

Operational opportunities:

• Joint ATFCM/FMP

• Vilnius ACC to provide ANS in north-east Poland

• Coordinated AIS provision

• Coordinated contingency provision

• Continuous descents and climbs at Vilnius and Kaunas

• Joint provision of Search and Rescue coordination

Technical opportunities:

• Common surveillance infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

• Common navigation infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

• Common approach to communication system upgrade and data link deployment

• Convergence of ATM systems

• Ground-ground data link

• Flight calibration



Safety opportunity:

• Harmonized safety activities

Financial opportunities:

• Joint provision of MET

• Sharing best practices

Non-quantified opportunities

• Human resources

• Seamless operation between FIRs

The methodology, a full description of the opportunities and the results are described in the Baltic FAB benefits statement is provided at Annex B.

2.1.3 Financial results

The cost-benefit analysis of the opportunities and Baltic FAB as a whole shows a positive NPV of €129.4m to 2030 and a benefit to cost ratio of over 56.68. The benefits are largely cost savings to the ANSPs, through efficiencies from working together which can be passed through as unit rate reductions. There are also benefits from fuel savings and delay reduction, which accrue directly to airspace users.

CBA results

Capex and opex savings (PV) €131.7 m

Incremental costs (PV) €2.3 m

NPV €129.4 m

IRR N/A1

B/C Ratio 56.68

Benefits were identified in the following areas:

� Technical benefits include the capital and operating cost savings arising from technical opportunities;

� Operational benefits include indirect benefits such as ATCO cost savings, and other capital and operating cost savings from operational opportunities;

� Financial savings include indirect financial benefits from the MET service provision opportunity and from sharing best practices;

� Safety savings include capital and operating cost reductions arising from safety opportunities;

� Delay savings and flight efficiency benefits include direct benefits to users arising from operational opportunities.

1 There is no rate of return that would cause the NPV to be equal to zero, since benefits exceed costs

from the start of the project.



23,3 34,7 68,9 2,5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NPV in €M

Operational opportunities Technical opportunities Financial opportunities Safety opportunities

The sensitivity analyses show that even with the most pessimistic scenario of low traffic, delays to benefits, and an overall reduction of cost saving benefits, the NPV of the Baltic FAB remains positive.

2.2 Baltic FAB performance

The CBA also assessed the impact of the Baltic FAB implementation on performance. The following improvements have been concluded by the study:

� Capacity: the FAB opportunities have no impact on en-route ATFM delay, as delay is expected to reach optimum levels from 2013. Any capacity improvements from FAB opportunities translate into cost savings from better utilisation of ATCOs;

� Financial cost-effectiveness: working together in FAB cooperation can bring improvements in cost-effectiveness of around 5% up to 2030. This represents a cost saving of €19 per flight hour in 2020;

� Economic cost-effectiveness: since there are no delay benefits from the FAB, and horizontal flight efficiency benefits are negligible, the economic cost effectiveness improvement is the same as the financial cost-effectiveness improvement;

� En-route unit rate: the FAB opportunities bring improvements to the average en-route unit rate of up to 2.5% by 2015;

� Vertical flight efficiency: the FAB opportunities improve vertical flight efficiency, leading to fuel cost savings of around €0.25m in 2020 and €0.5m in 2030, direct to airspace users.

2.3 Regional cooperation will provide even greater benefits

The CBA has shown that the cooperation in the Baltic FAB will bring benefits in a number of areas, although the benefits are inherently limited by their short common border, relatively little shared traffic, and disparate sizes. There are, however, even greater longer-term and strategically important benefits.



The Baltic FAB Strategic Committee has already considered nine potential regional cooperation scenarios. The following three were selected as being the most likely and beneficial and were analysed further:

� Kaliningrad and Belarus;

� NEFAB and Danish-Swedish FAB; and

� FAB CE.

A summary of opportunities for each scenario are shown below.

Kaliningrad and

Belarus2

NEFAB Danish-Swedish

FAB

FAB CE

Route improvement during the day

� � � �

Seamless handovers � � �

Common planning of radar � �

Common planning of navaids � �

Cross-border sectorisation �

Cross-border military areas �

Continuous climbs and descents � �

Joint procurement of ATM systems

� �

The opportunities from cooperation bring three categories of benefit:

� Savings in ATM/CNS costs for the ANSPs, through a reduced requirement for staffing, through rationalisation or better planning of infrastructure, through economies of scale, and sharing of resources;

� Flight efficiency benefits through better flight profiles and direct routing, leading to savings in fuel costs for airspace users and reduced km flown, with consequent reductions in CO2 emissions;

� Reduced ATFM delay for airspace users.

2 Note that some opportunities may only involve cooperation between Baltic FAB and one of the

neighbours.



The benefits are presented as incremental benefits to the bilateral Baltic FAB cooperation. The Present Values (PV) and Economic Net Present Values (ENPVs) for each scenario are summarised below:

Belarus and Kaliningrad


FAB

NEFAB and Danish-Swedish

FAB

FAB CE

Reduction in ANSPs costs and investments (PV)

€3.6m €80.5m €2.4m €82.9m €89.2m

Route structure improvement benefit

€8.7m €5.5m €2.1m €5.8m €15.5m

CDAs/CCDs benefits €4.6m €6.8m - €6.9m -

Incremental costs €0.4m €0.2m €0.0m €0.3m €0.6m

Annual CO2 emissions reduced (2015)

2 877 tonnes

866 tonnes

1 746 tonnes

1 840 tonnes 2 335 tonnes

Delay savings - - - - €5.6m

ENPV €16.6m €92.6m €4.5m €95.4m €109.7m

The results provide only a first indication of the potential for further regional cooperation. Whilst benefits at the interfaces are limited for Danish-Swedish FAB, NEFAB would bring more benefits through the possibility of joint procurement with Baltic FAB members, from common planning of CNS infrastructure at the interfaces with Baltic FAB, and from flight efficient approaches and departures to/from Riga airport. The high-seas interface between Baltic FAB and Danish-Swedish FAB limits the latter opportunities. Opportunities with Belarus and Kaliningrad would also bring similar benefits.

The further development and exploitation of these opportunities are considered as a high priority and are key to the future of the Baltic FAB. FAB expansion will be actively considered by the Baltic FAB Council from 2013.



3 FAB organisational structure

The Baltic FAB organisational structure was approved by the Baltic FAB Strategic Committee on 7 June 20113.

3.1 Baltic FAB Council

The Baltic FAB Council, comprising high level representatives of the contracting Member States, will oversee and provide strategic direction to the Baltic FAB. As a minimum, the council will comprise representatives from the Ministries of Transport and Defence from each State. It will also include the CEOs from PANSA and Oro navigacija and representatives from the NSAs. Additional members can be co-opted to address specific issues.

The responsibilities of the Baltic FAB Council include:

� Developing and maintaining a ‘FAB mind-set’;

� Ensuring compliance with appropriate legislation;

� Providing direction for the future development of the FAB, including agreeing project mandates to support the implementation of further opportunities;

� Providing direction on the future expansion of the FAB including, where appropriate, leading negotiations with potential partner states and/or FABs;

� Overseeing the management of the FAB.

More specific responsibilities are defined in Article 24 of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

3.2 Baltic FAB Board

While the Baltic FAB Council will be responsible for strategic direction of the Baltic FAB, the Baltic FAB Board (under the direction of the Baltic FAB Council) will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the routine management and future

3 See Baltic FAB Strategic Committee Decision No. 9



development of the FAB. The FAB Board will work closely with the specialised committees and with other stakeholders including military authorities. The FAB Board will be directly supported by the FAB Management Office.

More specific responsibilities are defined in Article 24 of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

3.3 FAB Management Office

The FAB Management Office will assume responsibility on 4 December 2012 from the Baltic FAB PMO for the day-to-day management of the FAB and for coordinating FAB initiatives and projects. To ensure continuity, staff from the PMO will transfer to the FAB Management Office.

3.4 FAB committees

The FAB committees work under the direction of the FAB Board. Committees have responsibilities in the following specific areas:

� Providing support for implementation of the Baltic FAB through development of the necessary documentation;

� Providing expert advice and support to the FAB Board in managing and further developing the Baltic FAB;

� On behalf of the FAB Board, providing the necessary oversight and endorsing decisions or recommendations appropriate to their area of responsibility proposed by individual task forces and FAB projects.

In particular, the committees will support the FAB Board as follows:

3.4.1 Operational and Technical Committee

The Operational and Technical Committee will support the implementation of Articles 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Baltic FAB State agreement. Specific responsibilities include:

� Working towards common technical systems and the cost efficient deployment of infrastructure for the provision of CNS services by joint designing, purchasing, deployment, operation and maintenance of CNS infrastructure, systems and equipment;

� Implementation of a common operational concept;

� Coordination of contingency plans;

� Cooperation in ancillary service provision;

� Operational performance assessments;

� Coordination of HR issues;

� Coordination of the provision of AIS;

� Developing common agreements on SAR systems to allow cooperation to the most practical extent;



� Environmental assessments.

3.4.2 Safety Committee

The Safety Committee’s specific responsibilities include:

� Developing and implementing the Baltic FAB Safety Plan;

� Developing and maintaining Baltic FAB SMS;

� Ensuring that procedures for accident and serious incident investigation, including data collection, analysis and reporting are followed and developed as necessary;

� Support in setting safety targets for the Baltic FAB;

� Performing safety assessments;

� Harmonisation of safety assessment procedures and methodologies.

3.4.3 Airspace Committee

The Airspace Committee’s specific responsibilities include:

� Implementation of common airspace design and sectorisation;

� Implementation of uniform airspace management (ASM) principles and cooperation with the military;

� Harmonization of the airspace classification and upper limits of the Warsaw and Vilnius FIRs;

� Continuous work on the improvement of airspace structures;

� Joint planning of routes at a FAB level.

3.4.4 Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee

The Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee will assist the Baltic FAB Board in the implementation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Baltic FAB State agreement. Specific responsibilities include:

� Developing and applying common principles governing charging policy;

� Coordinating unit rates for en-route traffic;

� Deciding on the introduction of, the conditions for and the application of a single unit rate for en-route traffic and the establishment of a common charging zone;

� Jointly proposing single unit rate for en-route traffic to the relevant European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) body for approval;

� Jointly executing the necessary obligations associated with a common charging zone for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned;



� Making appropriate arrangements to ensure consistency and uniformity in the application of the rules and regulation(s) on charging;

� Ensuring, as appropriate, the joint cooperation with EUROCONTROL;

� Supporting the NSAs in the implementation of the Baltic FAB performance scheme and apply the Baltic FAB performance plan consistent with the EU-wide performance targets and military needs;

� Performing regular reviews of the implementation of the Baltic FAB performance targets, periodical assessments of the project and functioning of the Baltic FAB performance scheme and, and if necessary shall relay to the NSAs conclusions related to the corrective measures to be taken.

3.4.5 Additional committees

Additional committees can be formed and agreed by the Baltic FAB Board as required.

3.5 Managing and implementing change after the Baltic FAB is implemented

The Baltic FAB will continue to develop as new opportunities are identified and projects initiated. In accordance with their terms of reference, the FAB Board, directed by the FAB Council and supported by the FAB Management Office will be responsible for managing the development of the FAB and, specifically, will coordinate and manage individual FAB projects.

All projects will be conducted in accordance with the FAB Programme Management Plan and/or local project management procedures. The principle activities are summarised below.

3.5.1 Baltic FAB Board

The Baltic FAB Board is responsible for assessing, approving and directing changes within the FAB that will ultimately be approved by the Baltic FAB Council involving the NSAs, in accordance with the EC Regulation 1034/2011. When a decision is made to implement a change, the FAB Board will provide the FAB Management Office with a project mandate which includes a project requirement, budget and timescale. The FAB Board provides the appropriate governance for all FAB projects.

3.5.2 Baltic FAB Management Office

3.5.2.1 Project planning

The Baltic FAB Management Office is responsible for coordinating project planning activities. Planning will usually include examining the feasibility and options for a change and conducting the cost-benefits analysis. It is conducted by one or more of the FAB working groups.

3.5.2.2 Project implementation

The Baltic FAB Management Office is also responsible for taking the necessary action to implement a FAB project. The approach taken will vary depending on the size and complexity of the project; however, it will usually involve appointing a



project manager and supporting the establishment of a task force. The FAB Management Office, on behalf of the FAB Board, is responsible for monitoring progress and coordinating the project with other FAB activities.

3.5.2.3 Working groups and task forces

The project manager supported by the Baltic FAB Management Office is responsible all project management activities. The FAB Management Office will provide assistance to identify and secure the appropriate resource if required. The project manager shall manage the project in accordance with the FAB Programme Management Plan and/or local project management procedures as appropriate.

3.5.3 Role of the FAB committees

Task forces and FAB projects will necessarily comprise several disciplines. Whilst it is the responsibility of the project manager to coordinate work within the project, the FAB committees are responsible for providing the necessary oversight and endorsing decisions or recommendations proposed by the task force.

3.5.4 Project resources

The FAB Board is responsible for agreeing a budget (including for human resource) for each project. Whilst arrangements will vary between projects, the principle is that funding (including the secondment of personnel to the project) is provided by the stakeholders proportional to the balance of the forecast benefits.

The detailed responsibilities of each of the FAB organisations are described in their TORs.



4 Baltic FAB submission and compliancy matrix

4.1 Compliancy matrix

The matrix at Annex A provides direct reference to the relevant parts of this submission to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements stemming from Article 9a SPR and, as importantly, an indication of the relationship between each of the agreements, the CONOPS and safety case.

It has been developed using the revised version of the European Commission’s Guidance Material for the establishment and modification of FABs edition 2.0 of 8 December 2011.

See the full Compliance matrix in Annex A.

4.2 Statements on the Baltic FAB agreements

4.2.1 The Baltic FAB agreement

Agreement on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Poland (the Baltic FAB agreement) has been developed and will be signed before establishment of the Baltic FAB. The signed version of the agreement will be provided to the European Commission by 24 June 2012.

The aim of this agreement is to establish the Baltic FAB and to define rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties, taking into consideration need for coordination of activities and future development of the Baltic FAB.

The Baltic FAB agreement creates a sound high-level FAB legal framework enabling the lower-level agreements and other arrangements that are necessary for implementation and day-to-day operations of the Baltic FAB. It provides a framework for the following key areas:

� General principles for establishment of the Baltic FAB including definition of the commitments of the contracting parties;

� Baltic FAB airspace principles including FUA;

� Arrangements and principles for provision of ANS;

� Provisions for civil-military and military-military cooperation;

� Arrangements for charging in the Baltic FAB;

� Arrangements for supervision in the Baltic FAB;

� Arrangements for the Baltic FAB performance scheme;

� Baltic FAB governance structures;

� Liability issues;

� Arrangements for investigation of accidents and serious incidents; and

� Institutional provisions including arrangements for accession of the other states to the State agreement.



The full proposed text of the Baltic FAB Inter-State Agreement is provided at Annex C.

4.2.2 NSA agreement

The NSA Co-operation Agreement (NSA Agreement) was signed between the Civil Aviation Administration of the Republic of Lithuania and Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland has been developed and will be signed before establishment of the Baltic FAB. The signed version of the agreement will be provided to the European Commission by 24 June 2012.

The agreement provides necessary arrangements for cooperation to ensure adequate supervision in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 as amended, and the requirement to exchange appropriate information to ensure safety oversight under the Regulation (EC) No.1034/2011. The detailed conditions of the execution of the rights and obligations of the NSAs under the Baltic FAB State Agreement are provided in the agreement. This includes:

� Arrangements for harmonisation and coordination in the Baltic FAB, including national rules, technical cooperation and coordination of performance plans;

� Arrangements for supervision and safety oversight in the Baltic FAB, including applicable rules and procedures, safety oversight programmes, oversight activities and corrective actions, safety oversight of changes to functional systems and safety directives;

� Exchange of information arrangements, including safety oversight reporting, data repository and pooling of experts;

� Language arrangements; and

� Consultation and dissemination of information.

The full proposed text of the NSA Agreement is at Annex D.

4.2.2.1 ANSP agreement

The Cooperation Agreement of the Baltic FAB Air Navigation Service Providers (the ANSP Agreement) has been developed and will be signed before establishment of the Baltic FAB. The signed version of the agreement will be provided to the European Commission by 24 June 2012.

The ANSP Agreement will facilitate implementation of the Baltic FAB State agreement and execution of ANSPs’ rights and obligations under the Baltic FAB State agreement and fulfillment of decisions of the Baltic FAB governance bodies.

The ANSP agreement provides necessary arrangements ensuring that the ANSPs will coordinate, harmonise, support, develop and improve the activities of the ANSPs in the areas set out in the Annex 1 (Scope of Cooperation) with the aim to:

� Continuously improve the safe, cost-efficient, environmentally-sustainable, optimised and performance-driven provision of ANS and all other activities within the Scope of Cooperation;



� Support the Baltic FAB states in the implementation of the Baltic FAB State agreement;

� Ensure that the targets set out in the Performance Scheme are met; and

� Support the Parties to meet their individual targets set out, or derived from, the Performance Scheme.

The ANSP Agreement clearly defines the ANSPs’ duties, defines organisational arrangements and provides necessary arrangements of the financial issues.

The full proposed text of the ANSP Cooperation Agreement is at Annex E.

4.2.3 Civil-military cooperation agreement

Chapter 4 of the Baltic FAB State agreement defines the necessary arrangements for civil-military and military-military cooperation. In addition to these arrangements, the Baltic FAB is preparing even more detailed Baltic FAB civil-military cooperation agreement that will be signed before establishment of the Baltic FAB. The signed version of the agreement will be provided to the European Commission by 24 June 2012.

The purpose of the Civil-military cooperation agreement is to:

� Establish the appropriate civil–military cooperation processes in the Baltic FAB that ensures and/or facilitates civil-military and, to the extent needed, military-military partnership arrangements, in accordance with the relevant national law of the Baltic FAB States and to the extent required by the agreed Baltic FAB strategy, policies, objectives and operations in relevant areas;

� Define a framework for procedures and practical arrangements to exercise the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties under the Baltic FAB Agreement, taking into consideration the need for civil-military coordination of activities and future development of the Baltic FAB.

The full proposed text of the Civil-military cooperation agreement is at Annex F.

4.3 Statement on conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO

The Baltic FAB Regulatory and Legal Working Group performed a detailed assessment of the existing regional agreements within the ICAO and concluded that the FAB arrangements are not in conflict with any of these agreements. The full list of the agreements is provided in Annex G.

4.4 Statement on interaction with regional agreements in existence on 04 December 2009

The Baltic FAB Regulatory and Legal Working Group performed a detailed assessment of the existing regional agreements in existence on 04 December 2009 and concluded that the FAB arrangements are not in conflict with any of these agreements. The full list of the agreements is provided in Annex G.



4.5 Safety considerations

This section states how safety will be assured within the FAB by describing:

� Baltic FAB safety governance;

� Baltic FAB Safety Case;

� FAB safety policy;

� Baltic FAB arrangements for dealing with accident and incident investigation;

� Baltic FAB arrangements for managing safety, in order to avoid degradation of safety performance in the FAB;

� Responsibilities and interfaces with regard to the setting of safety targets, safety oversight and the accompanying enforcement measures in regard to the provision of ANS within the Baltic FAB; and

� Baltic FAB safety assessments.

4.5.1 Baltic FAB safety governance

The Baltic FAB safety governance structure ensures that all necessary safety requirements for the establishment and operation of the Baltic FAB are met. This is ensured through the Baltic FAB Board and Safety Committee and at the highest level through the NSAs.

The Baltic FAB Board will ensure the implementation of a common overall Safety Management System (SMS).

The Safety Committee tasks will include the implementation of the Baltic FAB Safety Plan; developing and maintaining Baltic FAB SMS; overseeing that the procedures for accident and serious incident investigation, including data collection, analysis and reporting; harmonisation of safety assessment procedures and methodologies; supporting the setting of FAB safety targets and developing safety cases for operational changes.

Additional information is provided in the Baltic FAB inter-state agreement (Annex C).

4.5.2 Baltic FAB Safety Case

The Baltic FAB Safety Case has been developed to demonstrate to the National Supervisory Authorities, European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency, other Member States and other interested parties that the Baltic FAB implementation, operation and planned modifications are acceptably safe. This is claimed through a series of arguments, supported by appropriate evidences. The Safety Case herein complies with the applicable regulatory requirements.

The safety case is divided into two parts.

� Part One describes the Baltic FAB safety policy, safety organisation, safety management processes and oversight arrangements;

� Part Two presents a series of arguments to demonstrate that the Baltic FAB is safe.



The safety case describes the process but does not address the safety-relevant operational aspects. These will continue to be addressed in a conventional manner through safety assessments, unit safety cases and/or project safety cases.

Additional information is presented in the Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H).

4.5.3 Baltic FAB Safety Policy

A multi-level Baltic FAB Safety Policy has been also developed ensuring that all levels of Stakeholders of Baltic FAB are committing to create an integrated and highly transparent safety chain across the total aviation system, cost effectively delivering a common and high level of safety across Baltic FAB, generating continuous safety improvement and leading enhancement of aviation safety throughout Europe.

The FAB Safety Policy provides detail on commitments for all three levels, i.e. state level, NSA level and ANSP level. The signed version of the document will be provided to the European Commission by 24 June 2012.

The FAB Safety Policy is provided in full in the Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H).

4.5.4 Baltic FAB arrangements for dealing with accident and incident investigation

The arrangements for the investigation of accidents and serious incidents in the Baltic FAB are defined at a high-level in Article 28 of the Baltic FAB State agreement and the Baltic FAB Safety Case.

Detailed procedures have been established for dealing with accidents and incidents reporting and investigation at the Baltic FAB level and the collection (including for cross-border service provision), analysis and exchange of safety data at State and NSA level. The procedures include documented notification requirements and arrangements for participation in the investigation of accidents and incidents.

Detailed procedures for the reporting of safety occurrence investigation (except accidents) are provided as part of SMS internal procedures addressed in the ‘Baltic FAB SMS Interface Document’ (BSID). The procedures include the common tasks related to occurrence reporting, assessment and exchange (sharing) of safety occurrences information in the FAB at ANSP level. The BSID also includes detailed procedures for ATM/CNS incidents investigation.

Additional information is provided in the Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H) and the Inter-State agreement (Annex C).

4.5.5 Baltic FAB arrangements for managing safety, in order to avoid degradation of safety performance in the FAB

The arrangements for managing safety, in order to avoid degradation of safety performance in the Baltic FAB are described in the Baltic FAB Safety Case.

Additional information is provided in the Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H).



4.5.6 Responsibilities and interfaces with regard to the setting of safety targets, safety oversight and the accompanying enforcement measures in regard to the provision of ANS within the Baltic FAB

Arrangements with regard to the setting of safety targets and safety oversight have been developed for the Baltic FAB through the NSA Co-operation Agreement and are further defined in the FAB Safety Case. Responsibilities for setting safety targets in Baltic FAB will be established for the second reference period as stated in Chapter 7, Article 23 of Baltic FAB Agreement. Both States will jointly ensure setting of safety targets.

Additional information is provided in the NSA cooperation agreement (Annex D) and Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H).

4.5.6.1 Baltic FAB Safety assessment

The Baltic FAB Safety Case provides a safety argument to demonstrate that the Baltic FAB is safe.

This document describes, but does not address, the safety-relevant operational aspects. These will continue to be addressed outside the Baltic FAB Safety Case and in a conventional manner through safety assessments, unit safety cases and/or project safety cases.

The only relevant change considered before December 2012 is the reorganisation of ATS route network. The short border between the Warsaw and Vilnius FIRs and the proximity of Kaliningrad limits opportunities to optimize airspace or the route network at a FAB level. As such, the reorganisation of ATS route network will be delivered by two closely coordinated national projects:

� The Polish Airspace Project 2010+ conducted by PANSA; and,

� The Airspace development project, conducted by SE “Oro navigacija”.

Safety assessments for these projects will be conducted at a national level.

There is no plan for other FAB-related operational changes before December 2012. The safety assessment for any FAB related changes in the future will follow the procedures and process described in the Baltic FAB Safety Case and BSID.

The procedures for the conduct of safety assessments to support operational changes are described in the Baltic FAB Safety Case (Annex H).



4.6 Operational requirements

This sub-section describes how the operational requirements will be met by the Baltic FAB and provides more detail on:

� Baltic FAB Concept of Operations;

� Optimum use of airspace in Baltic FAB;

� Ensuring smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC between ATS Units;

� Arrangements between the concerned civil and military air traffic service providers; and

� Compatibility of the airspace configurations.

4.6.1 Baltic FAB Concept of Operations

The Baltic FAB Concept of Operations (CONOPS) provides a medium level description of the target concept to support the creation of the Baltic FAB as PANSA and Oro navigacija initiatives to meet the growth forecast in air transport demand and airspace user’s expectations for more flexible, cost-effective and environmentally sensitive ANS.

The purpose of the CONOPS is to define all operational requirements in terms of safety, capacity and efficiency and to describe the Baltic FAB operational environment and associated operational improvements planned up to and after 2015. The CONOPS describe the current arrangements in Poland and Lithuania and how these will change as a result of Baltic FAB and specifically provide information on:

� The Baltic FAB airspace structure;

� The collaborative process and harmonized ATM procedures aiming to support flexible management of the airspace;

� An integrated approach to airspace organization, flow and capacity management;

� Processes supporting civil-military cooperation;

� Demand-capacity managing;

� The Baltic FAB network improvements being in line of Pan-European Network developments.

The Baltic FAB CONOPS is provided at Annex I.

4.6.2 Optimum use of airspace in Baltic FAB

4.6.2.1 Airspace configuration and design

To ensure efficiency of ATS provision and to optimize the use of the Baltic FAB airspace, different airspace configurations will be developed to meet traffic flows, enable environmental requirements to be met and allow for the application of FRA to the maximum extent from 2015.



Specific arrangements have been agreed to ensure that the Baltic FAB adheres to the airspace design and planning principles for the further development of the European route network. The Baltic FAB Airspace Committee will be responsible for analysis of recommendations for modification of the common legal and regulatory basis for the establishment and/or modification, allocation and utilisation of airspace structures across national borders within the Baltic FAB boundaries. It will also provide recommendations about the required changes to the Baltic FAB Council and Board and, together with the body nominated to perform the network management and design functions; ensure collaborative airspace and route planning and design.

4.6.2.2 Network functions

The detailed description of the relations with the relevant network functions for airspace management and air traffic flow management referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/20043, including the coordination, arrangements and procedures will be specified in a Service Level Agreement between the Baltic FAB and EUROCONTROL.

At the moment there are no aspects of airspace management within the Baltic FAB that would not be covered by the network functions referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.

4.6.2.3 Cross-border activities

There are no current cross-border areas or activities. If new areas are created resulting from the modification of the FAB, Service Level Agreements will be developed and signed providing detail on how real time coordination will be ensured within the modified functional airspace block.

More details are provided in the Baltic FAB Concept of Operations Section 3 (Annex I) and the FAB inter-state agreement (Annex C).

4.6.2.4 Consistency with the European Route Network

Route design and implementation for the FAB is consistent with, and completed within, the established process for overall coordination, development and implementation of the European route network referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004.

Existing airspace coordination and procedures for cooperation with the European Network Manager are conducted in coordination with the Route Network Development Sub-Group (RNDSG) and the ICAO Route Development Group (RDGE) and are included in ATS Route Network Version 7 and RDGE ATS route catalogue.

At the moment, any changes are coordinated internally within the Baltic FAB states and then discussed with EUROCONTROL and ICAO (through RNDSG and RDGE). Any submissions are done at the state level in accordance with ICAO rules.

In the future, consistency with the European network will be ensured through the Airspace Committee and at lower level, through network management functions of the Baltic FAB described in the Baltic FAB Concept of Operations. There is a plan



to establish a joint Baltic FAB representation at RNDSG and RDGE level and an intention to establish Service Level Agreement between the Baltic FAB and EUROCONTROL.

Execution of the Baltic FAB network functions will be performed under the authority of the Network Manager and in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 677/2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of ATM network functions. The identification and implementation of new operational requirements and the subsequent measures for implementation will follow the CDM process/procedures and the measures adopted by the Network Manager. The Baltic FAB states and the operational stakeholders in the Baltic FAB will participate in the CDM process and interfaces established with the Network Manager for the execution of the network functions.

Detailed airspace and network management arrangements, including CDM aspects, are provided in the Baltic FAB Concept of operations.

More details are provided in Section 3 of the Baltic FAB Concept of Operations (Annex I).

4.6.3 Ensuring smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC between ATS Units

4.6.3.1 Cross border provision of ATS

Arrangements for cross border provision of ATS, as well as arrangements for coordination with military ATS providers and adjacent civil ATS providers have been reviewed. The adequacy of technical infrastructure has also been considered and a number of opportunities for closer cooperation have been identified and are addressed in the CBA.

Current procedures are described in LoAs between the ATC Units concerned, including adjacent ATS providers. No changes are expected in current arrangements until the planned delegation of ATS between PANSA and Oro navigacija comes into force. When changes are implemented, all necessary arrangements will be defined through the LoAs.

4.6.3.2 Enhanced OLDI implementation

It is expected that implementation of a new ATM system in PANSA will enhance coordination on a tactical basis using OLDI/enhanced OLDI functionalities between PANSA and Oro navigacija.

PANSA and Oro navigacija participate in a regional group which considers the regional implications and plans for OLDI implementation. The group meets on a regular basis to share information between the neighbouring ANSPs and considers proposals for enhancement of coordination procedures. This will continue to be used as a mechanism for coordination at FAB level.

The implementation of enhanced OLDI between Poland and Lithuania has been assessed and the benefits are described in the CBA.



4.6.4 Arrangements between the concerned civil and military air traffic service providers

4.6.4.1 Civil-military coordination

The Polish military provides a limited ATS which is restricted to the local control of military aircraft at a small number of air bases. Polish military controllers do not control GAT or OAT outside of the confines of the military air bases. There are no Lithuanian military ATS providers. PANSA provides en-route services for GAT and OAT in Warsaw FIR. In Lithuania, ATS is provided by Oro navigacija and all traffic flying outside TSAs except air policing missions is considered as GAT.

The current limited coordination procedures between the concerned civil and military air traffic service providers have been reviewed. There are no proposed changes to the existing civil-military coordination procedures; however, the Airspace Committee will conduct a review of FUA procedures (see FAB Inter-State agreement at Annex C).

There is no requirement for PANSA to coordinate with Lithuanian military or for Oro navigacija to coordinate with the Polish military. This will not change as a result of the arrangements for Baltic FAB.

4.6.4.2 NATO air policing mission

Lithuanian airspace, along with that of its neighbours Latvia and Estonia, is used by NATO for air policing missions. The Baltic FAB has no impact on the existing NATO arrangements for military air policing missions in Lithuania.

4.6.4.3 Military-military coordination

Military-military coordination between the two states is also limited. Existing agreements have been reviewed and are unaffected by the arrangements for the Baltic FAB.

4.6.4.4 Arrangements with the concerned adjacent ATS providers

There is a special regional group for OLDI implementation through which the information is shared between the neighbouring ANSPs and proposals for enhancement of coordination procedures are discussed at regular meetings. All procedures are described in respective LoAs between ATC Units of the adjacent ATS providers. The existing LoAs have been reviewed and are unaffected by the arrangements for the Baltic FAB. The arrangements will be continuously under review and changes to the LoAs will be proposed when necessary.

More details are provided in Section 3 of the Baltic FAB Concept of Operations (Annex I).

4.6.5 Compatibility of the airspace configurations

In accordance with EC Regulation No 730/2006 all ATS routes in Vilnius FIR and Warsaw FIR comprising Baltic FAB airspace above FL 195 are class C airspace, between FL 095 and FL 195 ATS routes are class C. In the Baltic FAB class G airspace is implemented below FL 095 and above FL 660. CTR/TMA operations



are conducted for the time being in class C and D airspace. There is a plan to implement class D airspace in some CTRs in the Baltic FAB.

The programme for unification of the upper FL limit for FIRs (FL660) has been established and is at the final stage (CAO of Poland approval process). When this change is approved, the airspace categorisation in both states will be completely harmonised.

The coordination at the FAB level will be ensured through the Airspace Committee and any future changes will be compliant with the EUROCONTROL airspace strategy for the ECAC states.

More details are provided in the Baltic FAB Concept of Operations (Annex I) and the AIPs of Poland and Lithuania.



4.7 Statement on Baltic FAB contribution to a reduced environmental impact

The creation of the Baltic FAB also provides environmental benefits in terms of the reduction of noise and NOx in relation to improvements of vertical flight efficiency as a result of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) and Continuous Climb Departures (CCDs) at Vilnius and Kaunas airports.

The environmental benefit from the Baltic FAB through the introduction of CDAs and CCDs at both Vilnius and Kaunas airports will result in a reduction of around 1,300 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2015, growing to 3,250 tonnes in 2030. There are additional benefits from the Baltic FAB in reductions in NOx emissions and noise levels, although these are relatively minor.

There are no benefits from horizontal flight efficiency that can be assigned to the FAB.

4.8 Statement on management of human resources

The optimal use of human resources is key to the cost effective operation of the Baltic FAB. Each of the potential FAB opportunities considered the impact of human resources and how efficiencies could be made through closer cooperation.

There are potential gains from learning from each other by working together, as well as from economies of scale in some areas. Preliminary estimates of the scale of this benefit are that, in the long-term, around 60 non-operational staff positions by 2020. Such savings will not, for the most part, be achievable in the short term. Time will be required to build the necessary trust and achieve the confidence to adopt new practices and work together.

The scale of staff reductions is very small in any given year and is likely to be absorbed in normal staff attrition.

Further work, including a detailed bottom-up review and comparison of all overhead functions and areas of expenditure, is being performed by the Baltic FAB PMO and a detailed plan for the implementation of the staff optimisation will be developed in the first year of FAB operations.

The benefits are described in the FAB Benefits statement at Annex B.

4.9 Statement on management of social factors and related changes

All stakeholders have been involved in the development of the FAB. Stakeholders will continue to be engaged and play an active role in the further development of the FAB and, specifically, during any planned changes. Social dialogue and stakeholder engagement will be conducted in accordance with the Baltic FAB communications plan. The following sub-sections provide more detail on the communication channels that will be used with key stakeholders.

4.9.1 Communications channels

A number of communication channels have been identified including the Baltic FAB website, newsletters (internal and external), reports, seminars, electronic media and formal meetings. The FAB Board and individual FAB projects will use the most appropriate communication channels for their target audience.



4.9.2 Airspace users

The Baltic FAB will continue to hold annual formal airspace user consultations. Additional consultations will be arranged on an ad-hoc basis to address specific challenges. The location of the consultations will alternate between Poland and Lithuania and, as during the development phase, representatives from all airspace users will be encouraged to attend.

The Polish and Lithuanian military will continue to be actively engaged in the management and further development of the FAB and will be represented in the various FAB committees and task forces. Lithuanian military representatives will provide the link to NATO in respect of the NATO air policing mission.

4.9.3 Other stakeholders

European institutions

Where appropriate, communication with the European Commission, EUROCONTROL, EASA, EDA and NATO will be conducted at the FAB level. The FAB Board or relevant FAB committee will coordinate formal FAB-level submissions and attendance at meetings.

Neighbouring States and FABs

Neighbouring states (ANSPs and NSAs) and FABs will continue to be engaged, particularly in regard to the development of inter-FAB opportunities and further expansion. Engagement will be directed by the FAB Council thorough the FAB Board.

Management, staff and trade unions

Management, staff members and the 14 trade unions in Poland and four in Lithuania will continue to be engaged in the development of Baltic FAB. Stakeholder engagement will specifically include:

� Annual meetings with all unions to discuss Baltic FAB issues and proposals and specifically the impact of any change on staff;

� Individual meetings with trade unions on request and where there are specific changes which are likely to impact one part of the organisation;

� Monthly management and staff meetings where Baltic FAB will continue to be a standing agenda item (ANSP and NSA staff);

� A ‘members only’ area on the Baltic FAB website will contain internal information and the results of consultations. The site will also enable members to post comments and questions for consideration by the FAB Board. The website will be administered in accordance with the FAB communications plan by the FAB Management Office;

� A monthly internal Baltic FAB newsletter in hard copy and through internal organisation intranets.

Routine engagement will be supplemented by additional ad-hoc meetings as defined by specific projects.



4.10 Statement on the Baltic FAB performance plan

There are currently no plans to implement the Baltic FAB Performance Plan in RP1. Poland and Lithuania will continue to use their national performance plans during this period. Both national plans will be coordinated through the Baltic FAB Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee.

In the longer-term, the Baltic FAB State agreement provides the necessary arrangements for implementation of the Baltic FAB performance scheme and application of the Baltic FAB performance plan consistent with the EU-wide performance targets and military needs. The Baltic FAB performance plan will be subject to consultation with the stakeholders concerned. All necessary arrangements will be in place in order to submit the performance plan in RP2, if it is required.

See Baltic FAB Inter-State agreement (Annex C) and Baltic FAB Benefit Statement (Annex B).

4.11 Statement on the Baltic FAB charging scheme

The FAB also considered the introduction of a single unit rate. Whilst this was considered feasible, the likely benefits were considered too small. The unit rates of Poland and Lithuania do not differ by a huge margin - that of Lithuania is about 20% higher. Furthermore, the very short common border, and the short transit time for Lithuanian airspace, suggests that relatively little traffic would be tempted to divert out of Lithuanian airspace into Polish to benefit from the lower unit rate. The flight-efficiency benefits of adoption of a single unit rate would therefore be irrelevant.

It was also considered by some commercial airspace users that moving to a single unit rate without unification of the service providers would reduce transparency and would also remove one incentive for cost control.

It was therefore agreed that at this stage, adoption of a single charging zone and a single unit rate would not be a priority, and the benefits would not be evaluated in the course of the Feasibility Study.

Although there is currently no plan to introduce a single unit rate in RP1, the intra-state Baltic FAB agreement establishes that both states will aim at application of a single unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned, and strive to establish a common charging zone in the airspace concerned.

The agreement provides necessary arrangements for implementation of a common charging scheme. Implementation of the Baltic FAB charging scheme will be a responsibility of the Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee. The Committee will assist the Baltic FAB Board in the implementation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Baltic FAB inter-state agreement. Tasks will include the development and application of common principles governing charging policy, the coordination of unit rates for en-route traffic and deciding on the introduction of, and the conditions for, the application of a single unit rate for en-route traffic. The committee will also assist the NSAs in implementation of the Baltic FAB performance scheme.



In RP1, the ANSPs will continue to coordinate their unit rates for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned. It is expected that the implementation of the Baltic FAB will have a positive effect on the level of national unit rates.

See Baltic FAB Inter-State agreement (Annex C) and Baltic FAB Benefit Statement (Annex B).



A Compliance with FAB requirements

FAB Guidance Checklist KEY:

ISA – Inter-state agreement

NCA – NSA cooperation agreement

ACA – ANSP cooperation agreement

CMCA – Civil-military cooperation agreement

Requirement (only mandatory requirements included)

Compliance

1. In relation to the mutual agreement by which a FAB is established

1.1 The State-level Agreement by which a FAB is established

Depending on relevant national law and the agreed FAB strategy and objectives, MS contracting parties to a FAB must decide on the type of agreement that will create the legal/ institutional FAB frame and set-up arrangements among the competent authorities to prepare the MA;

The Agreement of the establishment of the Baltic FAB (ISA)

An MA should create an adequately sound high-level FAB legal framework enabling:

- the lower-level agreements or equivalent arrangements necessary for implementation and day-to-day operations in the FAB;

The Agreement of the establishment of the Baltic FAB (ISA). ANSP and NSA cooperation agreements have also been set up.

1.2 Definition of FAB in space and time

MS must decide which blocks of airspace under their jurisdiction are to be included in a FAB:

- MS have responsibilities to fulfill as regards portions of airspace over the high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions, where they provide ATS on the basis of ICAO regional air navigation agreements (see also item 4.8);

See ISA, Article 4, Baltic FAB geographical scope.

- Other airspace blocks within other ICAO regions may be included in a FAB; if so, MS must inform the EC and the other MS;

N/A

The definition of a FAB should specify the horizontal as well as vertical dimensions and if any variations apply as a function of time;

See ISA, Article 4, Baltic FAB geographical scope.

1.3 Legal provisions for the modification of a FAB

Where a FAB concerns two or more States, the MA must include provisions on: (1) the ways in which the FAB can be modified; and (2) how a MS can withdraw from the block, including the transitional arrangements;

See ISA:

Article 25, Baltic FAB Board, point 16;

Article 30, Accession of other state to the agreement;

Article 31, Withdrawal of the contracting party from this agreement;

Article 32, Amendment of this agreement;



Article 33, Termination and suspension of this agreement.

See NCA, Article 7, Modification of the FAB.

1.4 Enhancing cooperation among Member States

MS must establish cooperation to the fullest extent possible with each other, in particular with MS establishing neighbouring FABs;

As a minimum, cooperation “to the fullest extent possible” should be established among the State authorities, civil and military, responsible for ATM/ANS to GAT.

See ISA generally.

A political high-level agreement to meet this requirement (e.g. the MA) should be seen as a necessary (sine-qua-non) condition.

The Agreement of the establishment of the Baltic FAB (ISA).

1.5 Regulatory framework in a FAB; Harmonisation of rules and procedures

No mandatory requirements

1.6 FAB management and governance, including consultation of stakeholders

- Mechanisms for consultation of the FAB stakeholders in the frame of Article 10 FR;

- For FAB issues with social implications, stakeholder consultation must be part of the social dialogue between the social partners;

See ISA:

Article 10, BF Airspace;

Article 22, Supervision;

Article 23, Performance;

Article 25, Baltic FAB Board, point 7 (18).

See also NCA, Article 18, Consultation and dissemination of information, point 3.

1.7 Liability, including insurance aspects; Dispute resolution

MS should use the MA as a means to mitigate the legal risks related to a FAB and address issues such as:

- The applicable law and jurisdiction in the FAB See ISA:

Article 9, Commitments of the Parties.

Article 9, Commitments of the Parties, point 3(2);

Article 17, Search and Rescue;

Article 25, Baltic FAB Board, point 8.

- The liability of States (regulators/supervisors) and their liability for ANS provision

See ISA:

Pre-amble, “Recognizing that the National Supervisory Authority of each Contracting Party shall establish appropriate arrangements for a close cooperation, to ensure an adequate oversight of Air



Navigation Service Providers”;

Article 27, Liability;

Article 28, Investigation of accidents and serious incidents;

Article 29, Settlement of disputes.

1.8 Safeguard of national security and defence policy interests


1.9 Facilitation of civil/military and military/military cooperation and coordination

MS in a FAB should use the MA (or another pursuant act) to make high-level legal and, if necessary, technical provisions allowing for the fulfillment of both civil and military ATM/ANS requirements at FAB level through:

In pre-amble, “Considering that close cooperation between ANSPs and respective air defence and tactical air command and control units meets the needs of civil and military airspace users in the Baltic FAB area”;

- harmonised processes at local and FAB levels and in relation to the network as regards the execution of the network functions for both civil and military.

ISA, Article 9, Commitments of the Contracting Parties, points 3(3) and 5.

ISA, Article 10, Baltic FAB Airspace, point 2(3).

ISA, Article 20, Military activities, point 6.

- harmonised and more collaborative application of FUA (for all three Levels 1, 2 and 3);

ISA, Article 11, Flexible Use of Airspace.

The MA should enable or facilitate, inter-alia, lower level civil-military written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements in the frame of Article 11 SPR with respect to the management of specific airspace blocks in the FAB and addressing e.g.:

ISA, Article 6, Security and Defence, point 2.

ISA, Article 9, Commitments of the Contracting Parties.

- civil-military coordination & interfaces at all three FUA Levels: strategic (Level 1), pre-tactical/AMC (Level 2) and tactical (Level 3) collaborative processes;

See above

- safeguard of specific military requirements, e.g. CBOs and CBAs for military operations and training;

ISA, Article 9, point 5.

1.10 Framework for optimised management/use of scarce resources (airspace etc)

- Specific arrangements ensuring that the FAB, the States and the operational stakeholders concerned will meet their respective obligations in relation to the network and the CDM process with Network Manager and,

- where so required, that they provide their consolidated views in relation to the network functions and the NM;

Assumed compliance since Agreements refer to compliance with EU Regulations.

1.11 ANS and ATM functions provided or used in the FAB and their providers


1.12 Accident/incident reporting and investigation; Search and Rescue



MS in a FAB may use the MA (or another pursuant act) to set up or facilitate a FAB framework for, inter-alia:

- the tasks relating to occurrence reporting and assessment

- measures supporting the enhancement of an open reporting/Just Culture environment

- exchange of information concerning reported safety occurrences

- harmonised severity assessment of safety occurrences (e.g. by using the Risk Assessment Tool, RAT)

See ISA, Article 28, Investigation of accidents and serious incidents.

1.13 Framework to address performance in the FAB and in relation to the network

MS in a FAB may opt for FAB or national performance plan(s)/targets; however, all FAB MS must agree on the same option.

See ISA, Article 23, Performance.

Irrespective if MS opt not to establish a FAB performance plan/targets, MS have the obligation to encourage close cooperation between their NSAs with a view to establishing a performance plan at FAB level. This may be done through provisions in the MA or another pursuant act.

See NCA, Article 6, Coordination of performance plans.

1.14 Framework for FAB cooperation in economic/financial matters


2. In relation to designation of and arrangements of the ANSPs

2.1 Joint designation of the ATSPs in a FAB

Where a FAB extends across the airspace under the responsibility of more than one MS, all MS in the FAB must jointly designate the certified ATSPs providing services in blocks of airspace part of that FAB, at least one month before its implementation.

See ISA:

- Article 12, Air navigation services;

- Article 13, Air traffic services;

- Compliance will be ensured when the FAB includes cross-border provision.

MS must ensure that all concerned ATSPs fulfill the certification requirements in accordance with Art 7 and 8.1 SPR.

ISA, Article 13, Air traffic services.

MS have discretionary powers in choosing an ATSP, on condition that it fulfills the requirements and conditions in Art 6 & 7 SPR;

An ATSP having been granted derogations as per Art 4 CR-IR is not eligible for cross-border provision of ATS and mutual recognition of their certificate within the SES; it may be designated only within the airspace of the MS which granted certification.

MS obligations under SES legislation.

Compliance will be ensured when the FAB includes cross-border provision.

MS should define (e.g. in the joint designation act) the rights and obligations to be met by the jointly designated ATSPs.


FAB joint designation of ATSPs supersedes all previous designations of ATSPs with respect to the same




airspace made individually by MS.

MS should repeal previous designations and ensure that their national law is not in contradiction with the joint designation act; This should be the logical way of doing it, however the implications should be carefully thought through, particularly as in practice the national designation may be hedged around with numerous conditions, while the FAB one may be a simple authorization.

ISA, Article 13, Air traffic services.

For the provision of cross-border services, the FAB States must verify and, if necessary, amend their national law by repealing any legal provisions requiring that ATSPs providing services in the airspace under responsibility of that MS:

- are owned directly or through a majority holding by that MS or its nationals; or

- have their principal place of operation or registered office in the territory of that MS; or

- use only facilities in that MS.


ISA, Article 9, Commitment of the Contracting Parties, point 3.2.

Consultation of stakeholders and specifically of users, in accordance with Article 10 FR is of particular importance in this context.


The FAB MS must immediately inform the EC and other MS of any decision taken in the frame of Art 8 SPR.

ISA, Article 13, Air traffic services, point 7.

2.2 Designation of MET service provider(s) in a FAB

FAB MS must immediately inform the EC and other MS of any decision taken within the framework of Article 9 SPR regarding the designation of a provider of MET services.

ISA, Article 16, Meteorological services, point 4.

In case of designation of a MET provider, the approval of the MS concerned is required for any written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements formalising working relationships among service providers in relation to the provision of a MET service by that provider in the frame of Article 10 SPR (see also item 2.5).

ISA, Article 18, Relations between service providers.

2.3 Cross-border or FAB arrangements between ANSPs as per Article 10 SPR

All ANSPs in a FAB should verify:

- that their working arrangements with other ANSPs are based on valid Article 10 SPR written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements; and identify needs of new agreements or to renew such arrangements arising from the new FAB operational environment;

ISA, Article 18, Relations between service providers, and ISA, Article19, Relations between ANSPs and Third parties.


- that no working relationships are effectively established by which an ANSP in the Community avails itself of the services of another service provider, however without fulfilling the mandatory requirements set by Article 10.2, i.e.:




- setting out the specific duties and functions assumed by each party/ provider;

- allowing for the exchange of operational data between the concerned service providers and with other service providers in as far as GAT is concerned;

- that all existing and new written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements concluded or planned in the frame of Article 10 SPR are notified to the responsible NSA(s);


Written Article 10 agreements or equivalent legal arrangements formalising working relationships among the service providers should be based on consultation of relevant stakeholders, particularly of users, in accordance with Article 10 FR.


2.4 State approval of ATSP arrangements in the frame of Article 10 SPR

Each MS should verify that appropriate legal provisions have been made as regards which is the competent State authority for issuing the specific State approvals required in the frame of Article 10.3 SPR arrangements involving the provision of ATS.

ISA, Article 12, Air Navigation Services, point 3.

Where, by provisions in the existing national law, the nominated NSA or a different authority does not have such prerogatives/ duties on behalf of the State, that MS should take immediate action to nominate the competent State authority for issuing the specific State approvals in the frame of Article 10.3 SPR arrangements involving the provision of ATS.

ISA, Article 12, Air Navigation Services, point 3.

All designated ATSPs in a FAB should verify that all their written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements concluded or planned as per Article 10 SPR and involving the provision of ATS are notified to the competent national authorities(s) and are approved before they are made effective.

ISA, Article 13, Air traffic services, point 3.

For the provision of cross-border services, MS must verify and, if necessary, amend their national law by repealing any legal provisions requiring that ATSPs providing services in the airspace under responsibility of that MS:

- are owned directly or through a majority holding by that MS or its nationals; or

- have their principal place of operation or registered office in the territory of that MS; or

- use only facilities in that MS.


ISA, Article 9, Commitment of the Contracting Parties, point 3.2.

2.5 State approval of MET provision arrangements in the frame of Article 10 SPR

This is a requirement only in case an MS in the FAB has designated any MET service provider on an exclusive basis (see item 2.2). In this case, the MS concerned must approve any written agreements or equivalent

ISA, Article 18, Relations between service providers.



legal arrangements in the frame of Article 10 SPR in relation to the provision of MET services by that provider, before arrangements are made effective.

2.6 Written agreements between civil and military authorities

FAB MS must ensure that written agreements between the competent civil and military authorities or equivalent arrangements are established or renewed with respect to the management of specific airspace blocks.

ISA, Article 20, Military activities, points 2, 3 and 4.

The CMCA is the agreement.

2.7 Access to and protection of data

In so far as GAT is concerned, all ANSPs in the FAB should verify that their working arrangements, including those concluded with other ANSPs in the frame of Article 10, allow for real-time exchange of relevant operational data between all ANSPs, airspace users and airports, to facilitate their operational needs. The data is to be used only for operational purposes.

See ACA:

Section 3, Purpose and scope;

Section 4, Parties’ Duties, Point 5(a).

See ISA, Article 22, Supervision.

See NCA, Article 15, Data repository.

All ANSPs and NSAs in a FAB should verify that access to relevant operational data is granted to the appropriate authorities, certified ANSPs, airspace users and airports on a non-discriminatory basis.

See NCA, Article 12, Exchange of information, point 6.

The certified service providers, airspace users and airports within a FAB should establish and submit to their responsible NSAs standard conditions of access to their relevant operational data other than those referred to in paragraph 1 of Art. 13 SPR. The NSAs must approve such standard conditions before they are made effective.

See NCA, Article 12, Exchange of information, point 7.

3. In relation to supervision in a FAB

3.1 Agreement on supervision between the FAB participating states

With respect to FABs that extend across the airspace falling under the responsibility of more than one MS, the MS concerned must conclude an agreement on supervision with regard to the ANSPs providing services relating to those blocks.

ISA, Article 22, Supervision, points 1, 2 and 3.

The NSA cooperation agreement (NCA) is the agreement.

When concluding an agreement on the supervision extending across the airspace falling under the responsibility of more than one MS, the MS concerned must identify and allocate the responsibilities for safety oversight in a manner which ensures that:


- specific points of responsibility exist to implement each provision of safety oversight Regulation; and


- the MS concerned have visibility of the safety oversight mechanisms and their results.


MS and their NSAs should make an inventory of all Article 10 SPR arrangements and subsequent operational LoAs concluded between ANSPs and verify




if the necessary supervision arrangements between the concerned NSAs have been set up; this also applies for item 3.2.

MS should address this requirement both intra-FAB and in relation to the other neighbouring FABs and/or States for all situations of cross-border provision of ANS.

See NCA, Article 9, Oversight activities and corrective actions.

3.2 NSA level agreement or equivalent legal arrangements

NSAs must establish arrangements for close cooperation to ensure adequate supervision of ANSPs holding a valid certificate from one MS that also provide services relating to the airspace falling under the responsibility of another MS.

NCA, Article 7, Applicable rules and procedures.

Such cooperation must include arrangements for the handling of cases involving non-compliance with the applicable common requirements; and with the conditions set out in Annex II SPR, i.e. the conditions attached to a certificate.

See NCA:

Article 8, Safety oversight programmes.

Article 9, Oversight activities and corrective actions.

Article 10, Safety oversight of changes to functional systems.

Article 11, Safety directives.

Article 12, Exchange of information.

In case of cross-border provision of ANS, such arrangements must include an agreement on the mutual recognition of the supervisory tasks set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 SPR; and of the results of these tasks.

See NCA, Article 9, oversight activities and corrective actions.

Compliance with EU law.

Mutual recognition must also apply where arrangements for recognition between NSAs are made for the certification of ANSPs

Compliance with EU law.

3.3 Division of responsibilities amongst the NSAs regarding supervisory tasks

No mandatory requirements.

4. In relation to the requirements laid down in Article 9a SPR

4.1 Safety case supporting a FAB

Whilst the mandatory requirements laid down in §1 of Part Two of the Annex to FAB-IR are minimum requirements in regard of a FAB Safety Case, these however refer to the ‘information that must be provided’ rather than to what a FAB Safety Case should specifically contain. As a minimum, a FAB Safety Case should address and, where so required by FAB-IR, include descriptions for the following safety aspects in the information submitted:

See Annex H: Baltic FAB Safety Case.

1. The FAB common Safety Policy or plans to establish such common policy;

See Annex H: Baltic FAB Safety Case, Section 5.2 and Argument 1 in Section 6.2

2. The established arrangements for dealing with accident and incident investigation and the plans on

See ISA, Article 28

See NSA, Section IV



how to address the collection, analysis and exchange of safety data in the ATM/ANS domain, in accordance with relevant EU and national law (see also items 1.12 and 4.10);


3. The established and planned arrangements for managing safety, in order to avoid degradation of safety performance in the FAB;


4. The established arrangements clearly identifying and allocating the responsibilities and interfaces with regard to the setting of safety targets, safety oversight and the accompanying enforcement measures in regard to the provision of ANS within the FAB.

See NSA, Article 6


It is recommended that a FAB Safety Case includes brief but clear descriptions of:

- established or planned arrangements regarding the setting of safety targets, at national or FAB level;

See NSA, Article 6


- the specific responsibilities for supervision allocated in the FAB, i.e. per distinct airspace blocks and, if the case, service providers;

See NSA, Section III


- the established safety oversight arrangements in accordance with Article 3.2 SO-IR ([17]) – see also item 3.2 – and enforcement measures, if any, established in accordance with Article 9 FR ([1]) and Article 7(7) SPR ([2]);

See NSA, Section III


- any established or planned collaborative arrangements or interfaces between the NSAs for oversight of ongoing compliance of the ANSPs with the common requirements, including safety oversight of the ATM/ANS providers, as part of their supervisory legal obligations, in order to monitor the safe provision of services and related ATM functions and to verify that the applicable safety regulatory requirements and implementing arrangements are met (in particular as regards cross-border provision of ATM/ANS);

See NSA, Sections II-IV


- the established or planned arrangements for the handling of cases involving non-compliance of ANSPs with the common requirements, with the conditions attached to certificates and with other relevant SES regulatory requirements.

See NSA, Sections II-IV


5. Evidence (documentation and/or statements) that safety assessment(s) including hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation have been conducted before introducing operational changes within the FAB.


4.2 Definition of the operational requirements on which a FAB is based

The definition of FABs as per Art. 2.25 FR requires that FABs are based on operational requirements. NF-IR [25] has defined ORs as all requirements of the network

See ISA, Articles 10-11

See Section 4.6 above



in terms of safety, capacity and efficiency. Further to the adoption of NF-IR and nomination of the NM, these ORs now fall under the incidence of NF-IR and within the competences of the NM and consequently must be dealt with by FABs and the concerned stakeholders in accordance with NF-IR, within the CDM process with the NM and the measures adopted by the NM.

See Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3

The identification and implementation of new ORs within the scope of NF-IR and the subsequent measures for implementation must follow the CDM process/ procedures and the measures adopted by the NM.



The definition/ identification of ORs should rely on the CDM process iaw NF-IR and consultation of relevant stakeholders iaw Art. 10 SPR; FABs should make best use of their results, in particular of the opinions and expressed needs of airspace users and the social partners.



It is expected that all new ORs within the scope of NF-IR and within NM competences will be reflected in the NOP of the NM and further in the FABs’ operational plans, which must be aligned with the NOP.



4.3 Optimum use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows and consistency with the European route network

As a main pre-requisite for meeting this requirement, MS and the operational stakeholders in a FAB must participate in a most timely and effective manner in the CDM process and interfaces established with the NM for the execution of the network functions.

See Section 4 above

See Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4

In particular, the MS and the operational stakeholders in a FAB must ensure they fully adhere to the airspace design principles and planning principles for the design and further development of the European route network.

See Section 4 above


It is expected that the execution of the network functions under the authority of the NM and in accordance with NF-IR will fulfill the two FAB requirements addressed in this section.

See Section 4 above

See CONOPS, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4

4.5 Cost-benefit analysis

The FAB must be justified by its overall added value, including optimal use of technical and human resources, on the basis of cost benefit analyses;

See Annex B: Benefits statement

1. MS in a FAB must conduct a CBA according to industry standard practice

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.2 (Aim of the analysis)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.4 (Methodology of the analysis)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.5.4 (Main stakeholders)

2. The CBA should:

- demonstrate, inter-alia, that there is optimised use of technical and human resources in the FAB;


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section



- provide a consolidated view of the impact of FAB establishment or modification on the civil and military airspace users;

- demonstrate that the FAB contributes to a reduction of the aviation environmental impact.

B.5.5 (Economic flows taken into account for CBA purpose)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.6 (Key opportunities)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.7 (Environmental impact)

3. CBA should use the discounted cash flow analysis and:

- The CBA should demonstrate an overall positive financial result (Net Present Value and/or Internal Rate of Return) for the establishment or modification of the FAB.

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.5 (General assumptions)


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.8 (Methods of minimizing the uncertainty in inputs)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.9 (CBA results)

4. FAB partners and CBA should be transparent on their assumptions. FAB partners should include in the CBA report the following:

- All costs and benefits, the sources of these values and all assumptions made with regards to costs and benefits (these should be documented for the purpose of the CBA

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.5 (General assumptions)

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.5.5 (Economic flows taken into account for CBA purpose)


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.6.5 (Non-measurable opportunities)


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.9 (CBA results)

5. FAB partners should consult with the main stakeholders to validate data inputs to the CBA (costs/ benefits applicable to their operations).



6. To maximize the overall value added, the following points may improve the quality of the CBA:

- Suitably qualified personnel (with economic/financial educational background and/or work experience) should conduct the CBA.

- The CBA model should be reviewed by qualified personnel who were not involved in the model production.

- Build separate CBAs for main stakeholders.

- Consider alternative scenarios with regards to FAB establishment.

- Consult stakeholders through interactive workshops.

- Deal with uncertainty in the data inputs through the use of data ranges.

- Derive financial results (Net Present Value, Internal

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.1 (Introduction)


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.10 (Sensitivity and qualitative risk analysis)



Rate of Return) in form of a data range to understand the risk profile of the project (FAB establishment).

- Conduct a sensitivity analysis to see how inputs of a CBA (costs and benefits) impact the results.

4.6 Smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC


4.7 Airspace configurations/structures – compatibility and optimisation

Same as for section 4.3, as a main pre-requisite for meeting this requirement, MS and the operational stakeholders in a FAB must participate in a most timely and effective manner in the CDM process and interfaces established with the NM for the execution of the network functions.

See Section 4 above


In particular, the MS and the operational stakeholders in a FAB must ensure they fully adhere to the airspace design principles and planning principles for the design and further development of the European route network.

See Section 4 above

See Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3.3

It is expected that the execution of the network functions under the authority of the NM and in accordance with NF-IR will fulfill the two FAB requirements addressed in this section.

See Section 4 above


4.8 Conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO

The FAB must comply with the conditions stemming from regional agreements concluded within the ICAO; This covers regional air navigation agreements in accordance with ICAO Annex 11 and approved by the ICAO Council, where one ICAO Contracting State has accepted the responsibility for the provision of ATS over the High Seas or airspace of undetermined sovereignty (see also item 1.2).

Section 4.3 and Annex G

Any aeronautical agreement or arrangement and amendments thereto has to be registered with ICAO by virtue of Article 83 of the Chicago Convention and in accordance with ICAO Doc 6685, Rules for Registration with ICAO of Aeronautical Agreements and Arrangements.

See Section 4.3 and Annex G

However, should changes to the FIR boundaries or to the facilities and services provided be further required within a FAB, such changes may be subject to the ANP amendment procedure:


- FAB States have a legal obligation to amend the Air Navigation Plans accordingly; and


- the ICAO procedure for updating and amendment of ANPs also applies to a FAB State, which is also an ICAO Contracting State and has accepted the responsibility of providing ATS over the high seas or




in an airspace of undetermined sovereignty included in the FAB.

As part of the information requirements in accordance with the FAB-IR, the MS concerned in a FAB must provide to the Commission the list of existing regional agreements concluded in compliance with the framework established by Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention which are of relevance with respect to the establishment and operations of the FAB.


4.9 Interaction with regional agreements in existence on 04 Dec 2009

The FAB must respect regional agreements in existence on the date of entry into force of EC Regulation 1070/2009, in particular those involving European third countries.


MS establishing a FAB should identify the relevant regional agreements, if any, and establish or verify, on a case-by-case basis, that FAB arrangements are not in conflict with those agreements.


In principle, this refers to international agreements in existence on the date of entry into force of EC Regulation 1070/2009 (honouring of pre-existing agreements). This includes e.g. the EUROCONTROL Convention and other agreements possibly involving only two States (there may be such regional agreements that are geographically limited, if so agreed by those States for a specific purpose).


As part of the information requirements in accordance with the FAB-IR, the MS concerned in a FAB must provide to the Commission a list of existing agreements concluded by one or more of the MS concerned, including those with European third countries, which are of relevance with respect to the establishment and operations of the FAB.


4.10 Consistency with EU-wide performance targets

FABs must facilitate consistency with the adopted EU-wide performance targets.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

See ACA, Article 3

See ACA, Annex 1

Where MS in a FAB do not adopt a performance plan with targets at FAB level, they must nonetheless communicate for information to the EC aggregated performance targets for the FAB, highlighting the consistency at FAB level with the EU-wide targets.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

See ACA, Article 3

See ACA, Annex 1

Considering the previous legal obligation and the fact that the defined national targets directly determine the aggregated targets at FAB level, the following are also mandatory requirements for MS participating in a FAB

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6



irrespective if those MS opt to implement a performance plan at FAB or national level.

See ACA, Article 3

See ACA, Annex 1

Upon proposal of the NSAs, MS, at national or FAB level, must adopt and communicate to the EC, at the latest 6 months after adoption of the EU-wide targets, their performance plans containing binding performance targets.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

Where so required, MS, at national or FAB level, must revise their targets and adopt corrective measures as a result of the assessment(s) made by the Commission of their performance plan(s), in accordance with Article 13, and of the revised plan(s), in accordance with Article 14 PS-IR, as applicable.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

See ACA, Article 3

See ACA, Annex 1

The NSAs, at national or FAB level, must monitor the implementation of the performance plans. If during the RP targets are not met, NSAs must apply the appropriate measures defined in the plan, or, as requested by the Commission to the MS concerned, with a view to rectifying the situation.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

MS must report to the Commission on the monitoring performed by their NSAs at national or FAB level of the performance plans and targets at least on an annual basis and when the targets are not met.

See Section 4 above

See ISA, Article 23

See NSA, Article 6

ANSPs must facilitate inspections and surveys by the Commission and NSA(s) responsible for their oversight.

See Section 4 above

See ACA, Article 3

See ACA, Annex 1

4.11 FAB contribution to a reduced environmental impact

FABs must contribute to a reduced environmental impact; To this purpose, MS should to establish a framework under the MA or another pursuant act (see also 1.14) to address environmental matters of FAB interest or concern (i.e. those exceeding national or local interest).


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.7

Of key importance is addressing any mandatory national or EU requirements for public consultation or public/ legal approval of processes that may arise from the implementation of FAB projects. These may result in extended lead-in periods or possible rejection of operational changes required or desired by a FAB. FAB MS should therefore establish at an early stage if and how the FAB will deal with specific national or local level environmental legislation of possible interest and/or impact beyond national or local level.


See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.7

4.12 Management of human resources

Optimal use of human resources, as a mandatory requirement (Art. 9a.2(d) SPR) should be addressed as part of the cost-benefit analysis demonstrating the added-value of a FAB.

See Section 4.8

The management of human resources, in support of See Section 4.8



optimal use of human resources in a FAB, should ensure, inter-alia, that:

- ANSPs employ appropriately skilled personnel (an ANSP obligation) to ensure the provision of their services in a safe, efficient, continuous and sustainable manner, inter-alia by establishing policies for the recruitment and training of personnel;

See Section 4.8

- NSAs have the necessary capabilities (a State obligation) to ensure the safety oversight of all organisations operating under their supervision as agreed between the FAB States with regard to the responsibilities for safety oversight.

See Section 4.8

4.13 Management of social factors and changes

Depending on relevant EU and in particular national law, social partners representing staff and representing management in a FAB should agree on representation of legitimate interest groups in a FAB and on practical mechanisms for information and consultation on FAB issues.

Social partners in the FAB should:

See Section 4.9

- take stock of the existing EU and national legal frameworks for social dialogue;

See Section 4.9

- make use of existing formalised social dialogue mechanisms at national level with local and/or national employee representatives, established in all MS as part of the national social and labour legislation in line with EU law, for information and consultation in a FAB;

See Section 4.9

- consider, in particular, the guidance material and reports of the ATM Work Group, recognised as a social partner at European level under the Sectoral Dialogue Committee Civil Aviation, when establishing arrangements for social dialogue.

See Section 4.9

Social partners in the FAB should:

- Ensure social dialogue using the existing mechanisms in the respective ANSPs, NSAs etc. and, possibly, new mechanisms agreed at FAB and/or national level specifically dealing with FAB matters;

See Section 4.9

- Ensure that national/ local staff representatives are informed and involved in the decision-making process of a FAB. Social partners should be informed and consulted on all measures that have significant social implications.

See Section 4.9

4.14 ATM/ANS technical infrastructure within a FAB

Optimal use of technical resources, as a mandatory requirement (Art. 9a.2(d) SPR) must be addressed as part of the cost-benefit analysis demonstrating the added-value of a FAB.

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.6.2

See ISA, Article 14

The adequacy of technical infrastructure to ensure a See Section 4 above



smooth and flexible transfer of responsibility for ATC between ATS units is another mandatory requirement, which is addressed in relation to Art. 9a.2(d) SPR.

See Annex B: Benefits statement, Section B.6.2

See ISA, Article 14

4.15 Provision of information before establishing or modifying a FAB

MS must provide adequate information in accordance with the FAB-IR regarding the information to be provided before establishing or modifying a FAB in accordance with Article 9a.3 SPR; and give the Commission, the other Member States and other interested parties an opportunity to submit their observations.

See this submission package

MS must verify if plans of a change in the FAB qualify that change as a “FAB modification” in the sense of Article 5 of the FAB-IR.

This requirement will be ensured when necessary.

MS concerned must duly consider the observations received from the Commission, EASA, and the other Member States etc before establishing the FAB or implementing a FAB modification.

This requirement will be ensured after the comments from the mentioned parties are received.

5. One-to-one relation to implementing rules and additional options

5.1 Implementation and cooperation on FUA across national borders

In relation to FAB establishment and enhancing cross-border operations, MS have a legal obligation to establish cooperation on FUA across their national borders and should in particular consider the following FUA requirements:

See ISA, Article 11


- MS must develop cooperation for the efficient and consistent application of the concept of FUA across national borders and/or the boundaries of flight information regions, and must in particular address cross-border activities; this cooperation must cover all relevant legal, operational and technical issues.

See ISA, Article 11


MS must perform the following strategic airspace management tasks:

- develop cross-border airspace use with neighbouring Member States where needed by the traffic flows and users’ activities;

This requirement is ensured through participation in RNDSG and RDGE; and bilateral SLAs that are amended as necessary.

See also arrangements in Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3.3

- coordinate their airspace management policy with those of neighbouring Member States to jointly address use of airspace across national borders and/or the boundaries of FIRs;

This requirement is ensured through bilateral SLAs that are amended as necessary.




- establish and make available airspace structures to users in close cooperation and coordination with neighbouring Member States where the airspace structures concerned have a significant impact on the traffic across national borders and/or the boundaries of FIRs, with a view to ensuring optimum use of airspace for all users throughout the Community.

This requirement will be ensured when necessary. It is ensured through participation in RNDSG and RDGE; and bilateral SLAs that are amended as necessary.


- establish with neighbouring MS a common set of standards for separation of civil and military flights for cross-border activities;



- set up consultation mechanisms between the persons or organisations as referred to in paragraph 3 and all relevant partners and organisations to ensure that users’ requirements are properly addressed.


MS must notify the Commission as regards the persons/ organisations responsible for the execution of tasks listed in Art 4.1 FUA-IR; The FAB may agree on different arrangements for FUA and notification to the Commission than those reported previously by those States.

See ISA, Article 11

See arrangements in Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3.4

The civil and military ATS units and/or controlling military units concerned should agree on a common set of procedures to manage specific traffic situations and to enhance real time airspace management.

See ISA, Article 11

See arrangements in Annex I: CONOPS, Section 3.9

5.4 FAB collaboration/cooperation/coordination in ATM Security matters


5.5 Charging scheme in the FAB


5.6 Management of changes – planning, monitoring and reporting in a FAB




B Baltic FAB benefits statement

B.1 Introduction

The main aims of the Baltic FAB Project are to:

� Reduce of costs for stakeholders as well as for ANSPs;

� Increase efficiency of airspace management;

� Increase safety;

� Reduce the impact of ATM on the environment.

In order to justify the added value of the project, a feasibility study with a cost-benefit analysis was prepared. This document summarises the quantifiable and non-quantifiable effects of the Baltic FAB Project.

The opportunities generate benefits in a number of ways:

� Cooperative use of resources could increase airspace capacity and achieve better resource utilisation;

� Economies through the cooperation that save costs;

� More efficient ATC procedures by cooperation, improving the quality of services, reducing fuel burn and reducing airlines’ costs; and

� Improved vertical flight profiles which reduce fuel burn and provide environmental benefits (reduction of CO2 and NOx emissions, and noise reductions).

In order to maximize the quality of the CBA, meetings with working groups and consultations were conducted. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis and qualitative analysis of costs and benefits were prepared.

B.2 Aim of the analysis

The CBA aims to present the impact of the Baltic FAB project implementation on the relevant parties during its implementation phase and after its completion, as well as indicating that the investment is justified from the perspective of the society as a whole.

B.3 Summary of main conclusions

The cost-benefit analysis of the Baltic FAB Project shows a positive Net Present Value (NPV) of approximately €129.4m over the project lifetime. The benefits are largely cost savings to the ANSPs, through efficiencies from working together. There are also benefits from fuel savings, which accrue directly to airspace users.

The sensitivity analyses show that even with the most pessimistic scenario of low traffic, delays to benefits, and an overall reduction of cost saving benefits, the NPV of the project remains positive.



B.4 Methodology of the analysis

The CBA was conducted in accordance with the recognised methodology for large investment projects in the European Union, supplemented by standard methodologies for CBAs in air navigation services produced by EUROCONTROL, methodologies required for public transport projects in Poland, and modified in the light of the particular requirements of PANSA and Oro Navigacija.

� The benefits from the FAB and the associated costs were identified in five areas: technical, operational, financial, safety and human resources;

� The financial and economic costs and benefits were converted into monetary values (euros) and expressed in discounted cash-flow terms;

� The results of the cost-benefit analysis were expressed using discounted cash flow, using the following indicators:

� Economic Net Present Value of the investment: It is assumed that the project is beneficial from the point of view of the stakeholders within the system boundary if the Economic Net Present Value indicator is positive.

� Economic Internal Rate of Return on investment: If the economic Internal Rate of Return is lower than the applied discount rate, then the project is not economically beneficial.

B.5 General assumptions

B.5.1 Price base

It was agreed that the analysis should be carried out in real terms and that all monetary values should be expressed in euros in constant 2009 prices.

B.5.2 Discount rate

The applied discount rate is based on the Polish and Lithuanian government bond yields and equals to 4%. However, a sensitivity test was conducted to investigate effects of higher discount rates on the NPV of the project.

B.5.3 Time horizon

The time horizon is 2009 – 2030. The time horizon is justified by the availability of the projections of flights from the EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecasts Service (STATFOR) used for the purpose of the analysis.

B.5.4 Main stakeholders

The CBA was prepared from the perspective of the following stakeholders:

� ANSPs and providers of meteorological services;

� Commercial airspace users;

� Military users;

� National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs); and

� General Aviation users.



The analysis shows that the opportunities identified for the Baltic FAB result in a positive investment case and bring benefits to ANSPs and commercial airspace users.

In practice, costs and benefits for General Aviation and military stakeholders are thought to be negligible. It is not possible to evaluate costs and benefits for the NSAs until regulatory structures are agreed. In any case, the costs for NSAs are relatively small and there is not much scope for benefits. The usual practice in the ANS sector is only to include benefits to airspace users, i.e. commercial airlines (not, for example, passengers). However, it is reasonable to expect that any financial benefits for airspace users will be transferred to passengers.

B.5.5 Economic flows taken into account for the purpose of CBA

The CBA is based on an analysis of a reference or baseline ‘without-FAB’ case (assuming that the project does not go ahead, and that current levels of international cooperation are maintained), and one ‘with-FAB’ case. The CBA is carried out by examining the differences between the ‘with-FAB case’ and the reference case. This incremental approach is applied to all project flows of costs and benefits.

The early years of the reference case were developed from the forecasts and plans of the individual ANSPs. The benefits of the FAB are likely to continue into the long-term, and some benefits may appear beyond the current quantitative planning horizon of the ANSPs. The quantitative forecasts provided only extend to 2014, therefore, there is a need to extrapolate consistently beyond the existing forecasts up to the 2030, the time horizon of the CBA.

The specification of the reference case comprises the projections over time of the following variables:

� Traffic (source: STATFOR forecasts);

� Capacity;

� ATCOs;

� Delays;

� Flight-efficiency;

� Investments; and

� Costs (employment costs for ATCOs, non-ATCO staff costs, non-staff operating costs, depreciation and cost of capital and total ATM/CNS costs).

B.5.6 Main sources of assumptions

Assumptions for the identified opportunities and for the reference case were based on the following sources:

� EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecasts Service (STATFOR) - traffic growth forecast applied in delays estimation and in the employment cost growth;

� EUROCONTROL Standard Inputs for Cost Benefit Analysis - methodology of delay time value;



� PRU submissions 2009 for PANSA and Oro Navigacija – number of controlled flights, exchange rates, monetary values and unit employment costs;

� Local Single Sky Implementation Plan for Lithuania and Poland (2010);

� Data provided by ANSPs – number of employees, costs according to type, cost growth, operation and staff costs for different divisions (AIS, SUR etc.);

� Discussion and arrangements during working meetings with both ANSPs;

� Fuel burn model developed by Helios, 2007;

� Delay model developed by Helios, 2010.

In each opportunity a more detailed description of assumptions was indicated together with the source of inputs.

B.6 Key opportunities (costs and benefits) resulting from the Baltic FAB implementation

The following opportunities were identified as a result of the Baltic FAB Project implementation:

Quantified opportunities

Operational opportunities:

• Joint ATFCM/FMP

• Vilnius ACC to provide ANS in north-east Poland

• Coordinated AIS provision

• Coordinated contingency provision

• Continuous descents and climbs at Vilnius and Kaunas

• Joint provision of Search and Rescue coordination

Technical opportunities:

• Common surveillance infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

• Common navigation infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

• Common approach to communication system upgrade and data link deployment

• Convergence of ATM systems

• Ground-ground data link

• Flight calibration

Safety opportunity:

• Harmonized safety activities

Financial opportunities:

• Joint provision of MET

• Sharing best practices

Non-quantified opportunities

• Human resources

• Seamless operation between FIRs



B.6.1 Operational opportunities

Joint ATFCM/FMP

Each ANSP is required to provide a flow management service, through a Flow Management Position (FMP). In airspace where congestion is likely to arise (such as the western area of Poland), Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM) is also required (usually combined with the FMP) to plan flows in anticipation of potential capacity problems. This is not required at present in Lithuanian airspace. The FMP in Warsaw is currently staffed 24 hours a day, as is the FMP in Vilnius. At night, workload is light and both positions are under-utilised. It is therefore proposed that for the night-time period, the ATFCM/FMP function is provided from Vilnius for both areas of airspace.

The calculation of opportunity is based on the following assumptions:

� Number of FMP staff in PANSA and possible staff reduction;

� Employment costs in PANSA and ON;

� Training costs and number of employee trained.

The discounted net benefits account for €2.7m over the project lifetime and the benefits will start from 2014.

Continuous descents and climbs at Vilnius and Kaunas

The cooperation between Poland and Lithuania could result in implementation of CDA/CCD at Lithuanian airports (continuous descents and climbs at Vilnius and Kaunas). This would improve the vertical profiles for ascent and descent, reducing fuel burn and consequently providing lower fuel costs for airlines, and a concomitant environmental benefit.

This would involve negligible transition costs as Warsaw ATCOs already operate such procedures for descents and climbs at Warsaw.

The calculation of opportunity is based on the following assumptions:

� Number of flights at Vilnius/Kaunas airport [STATFOR Interactive Dashboard];

� Estimation from Oro Navigacija:

� Around 30% of arrivals and 30% of departures at Vilnius cross the Polish-Lithuanian border (this proportion remains constant over time);

� Around 18% of Vilnius flights and Kaunas flights were night flights;

� Fuel consumption during flight [Helios’ fuel burn model];

� Fuel burn reduction during CDA [EUROCONTROL CDM brochure];

� Fuel burn reduction during CCD [Environmentally Friendly Airport ATM System project (EFAS)];

� Percentage of flights during day/night using CDA and CCD.

The discounted net benefits account for €3.1m over the project lifetime and the benefits will start from 2012.



Vilnius ACC to provide ANS in north-east Poland

PANSA faces current shortages in capacity in Polish airspace, particularly in Warsaw ACC. By contrast, Oro navigacija has spare capacity at Vilnius ACC, both in terms of sectors with spare capacity, and in terms of the ATCOs staffing them.

There is an opportunity therefore for Poland to delegate the provision of air navigation services in the north-easternmost sectors to Vilnius ACC. This could not be achieved quickly enough to alleviate short-term capacity problems at Warsaw, which will be relieved by the improvements brought about by Pegasus, the new ATM system in Warsaw, provided there is success in increasing the number of ATCOs. However, this delegation would still be beneficial, since it would continue to use under-utilised ATCOs and sector capacity in Vilnius, rather than requiring extra ATCOs to be hired in Warsaw. Even when the time came that ATCOs had to be recruited to increase capacity, cost savings would be achieved as unit employment costs are lower in Vilnius.

The opportunity is based on the savings in employment costs in PANSA and transition costs that would include systems improvements and trainings of the Vilnius ATCOs.

The discounted net benefits account for about €7.2m over the project lifetime starting from 2014.

Coordinated AIS provision

It is planned that costs could be saved in the provision of an aeronautical information service (AIS). While provision of a joint AIS function was not seen as a practical proposition because of the need to operate in the national languages, certain economies might be obtained through providing some services jointly. These might amount to a saving of 5% of the total cost of AIS provision in the two ANSPs (staff and non-staff operating costs related to AIS).

The costs of this opportunity will be harmonization and planning costs in order to introduce the joint provision.

The discounted net benefits account for €2.3m over the project lifetime starting from 2013 onwards.

Coordinated contingency provision

Both ANSPs are required to make extended contingency arrangements following an incident rendering Warsaw or Vilnius ACC inoperable. In the case of Vilnius, the proposal is that Kaunas approach unit acts as a backup. In the case of Warsaw, existing arrangements are regarded as inadequate and a contingency centre is planned at an existing PANSA facility. This would require substantial investment from PANSA.

There is an opportunity for Vilnius ACC and the Kaunas approach unit to be expanded to provide contingency as part of the back-up arrangements for Warsaw, at a lower cost than building the new contingency centre. An additional working position at Vilnius ACC would be required to provide contingency arrangements for five sectors in Warsaw ACC. Staff would have to move from Warsaw to Vilnius for the duration of the outage.



Certain transition costs would be incurred, including initial training for Warsaw ATCOs on the Vilnius system, system upgrades, and refresher training for Warsaw ATCOs.

The discounted net benefits account for €1m over the project lifetime starting from 2012.

Joint provision of Search and Rescue coordination facilities

There is an opportunity for the ANSPs to cooperate to provide Search and Rescue (SAR) coordination facilities. Both countries provide search and rescue services in the form of military helicopters and other emergency organisations.

The cooperation would result in fewer staff being required to man the Air Rescue Coordination Centres (ARCCs) for PANSA and ON. There may also be savings in capital expenditure and operating costs.

Achievement of a joint ARCC would not be possible until 2014. The discounted net benefits account for €7m over the project lifetime.

B.6.2 Technical opportunities

Common surveillance infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

The opportunities for cost savings through the cooperation in surveillance planning, procurement and management were identified. It would be possible to benefit from:

� A strategic alignment of systems (to eventually converge on one supplier);

� Common planning of surveillance infrastructure (to allow more efficient maintenance);

� Increased sharing of coverage based on a common radar network to enable reduced number of radars (avoiding new purchases in some areas, such as in north-east Poland) and to facilitate planned maintenance;

� Common procurement of new radars (single contract with supplier) potentially facilitating more cost-effective upgrades of PANSA radars through collective negotiations; and

� Common maintenance, with rationalisation of maintenance services, a single contract with a single supplier for some or all maintenance, and joint stocks and spares holding.

Common procurement, with a single contract with a single supplier, would take some time to fully achieve the diverse systems in place. Common maintenance, probably with a single contract with an outsourced supplier, can only be applied when the ANSPs have compatible radars. The full benefits would take a long time to realise, and would not be achievable until the completion of the replacement of radars currently contracted but not yet commissioned.

The opportunity was based on the following assumptions:

� Current purchase costs of radars;



� Planned schedule of radars replacement provided by PANSA and ON;

� Current surveillance staff and non-staff costs provided by PANSA and ON;

� Planned reduction up to 15% of procurement costs;

� Planned reduction of maintenance costs ramping up to 8% at the end of prognosis period.

There were no additional costs associated with this opportunity.


Common navigation infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance

Opportunities for savings in planning, procurement and maintenance costs in navigation infrastructure were identified.

As in surveillance infrastructure, benefits can be achieved only in the medium- to long-term. More centralisation will be possible in the future when GNSS and SBAS will be used as the primary means of navigation and the requirement for short response times to navaid outages will not be so strict. The benefits of cooperation in navigation infrastructure procurement, planning and maintenance are increased system commonality, a common database of spares and improved harmonisation of planned outages. As the systems become more common, there are opportunities to reduce the operating costs by pooling the resources of the two organisations.

Efficiency opportunities might typically include:

� Operating the night time part of the 24/7 monitoring service from one centre only thereby allowing reduced operational hours in other centres;

� Using a single team to carry out all of the planned maintenance activities (and potentially the corrective maintenance activities) in the two states thereby increasing the utilisation of the engineers involved;

� Concentrating spares holding into a reduced number of centres, thereby reducing the stores overhead.

As the systems become more common, there are opportunities to reduce the operating costs by pooling the resources of the two organisations. The greatest impact will be on the operational staff and engineers charged with day to day operations of the navigation infrastructure.

The benefit is calculated based on possible reduction of staff operating and non-staff operating NAV costs (provided by PANSA and ON) up to 10% at the end of prognosis period.

There were no incremental costs associated with this opportunity.


Convergence of ATM systems



The convergence of ATM systems could be one of the possible benefits of the Baltic FAB and will be considered by ANSPs.

Cost savings could be achievable once the ATM system is due to be replaced. At present, upgrade or replacement is planned for 2015. If the two ANSPs implement the same ATM system, there will be:

� Lower procurement costs for any new systems or upgrades (since these will be an extension of an existing system);

� Reduced maintenance costs.

Convergence could be achieved through the procurement of a system that is completely compatible.

The benefit will be calculated based on the following assumptions:

� Costs of ATM system purchase;

� Costs of on-going upgrades (20% of original purchase costs);

� Costs of staff and non-staff operating costs provided by PANSA and ON.

The estimated benefits were calculated based on the following aspects:

� Reduction of initial capex - initial capex is expenditure related to implementation of new ATM system, which includes procurement, installation, set-up, tests;

� Reduction of on-going capex - on-going capex is related to continuous development, modifications and upgrades of the system in accordance with operational requirements, airspace changes;

� Reduction of staff operating costs - ATM system maintenance costs related to staff (technicians);

� Reduction of non-staff operating costs - ATM system non-staff maintenance costs (spare parts, etc).

PANSA Oro Navigacija

Initial capex benefit

On-going capex benefit

Staff opex max

benefit

Non-staff opex max

benefit

Initial capex benefit

Ongoing capex benefit

Staff opex max

benefit

Non-staff opex max

benefit

- 10% 3.3% 10% 30% 30% 10% 30%

There are no incremental costs associated with this opportunity.

The discounted net benefits account for €16.1m over the project lifetime.

Common approach to communication system upgrade and data link deployment

There is an opportunity for the ANSPs to establish a common approach to communication system. Benefits could be obtained from a common approach to



communication system upgrades and deployment of air-ground data links, including:

� A joint operational concept for 8.33kHz implementation;

� A coordinated approach to implementation of air-ground datalink;

� Common procedures for dealing with outages, and potential centralisation (or regionalisation) of maintenance services and spares;

� One common server for air-ground datalink communications, which would be linked to the ARINC or SITA network rather than one for each ANSP.

The opportunity is calculated based on savings in A/G DL implementation costs. There are no additional costs associated with this opportunity.

The discounted benefits account for €0.1m over the project lifetime starting from 2012 onwards.

Flight calibration

Benefits from PANSA acting as the provider of flight calibration services for ON were identified. Oro Navigacija currently outsources its flight calibration service. PANSA has spare capacity and the costs of Oro Navigacija’s outsourcing can therefore be saved if PANSA provides the flight calibration costs for ON.


Ground-ground data link

There is an opportunity for the ANSPs to cooperate in planning, to establish a joint approach to PENS and to implement a joint network. The benefits of cooperation in ground-ground datalink are that there would be a single network acting as a PENS node, there would be support for data sharing, and this would enable FAB cooperation in other areas.

Potential benefits are savings resulting from joint planning and management, incl. staff costs and communication operating costs savings for both ANSPs and potential costs are operating costs of data links.


B.6.3 Safety opportunities

Harmonized safety activities

A number of opportunities in the cooperation in the field of safety management were identified. The cooperation could help the ANSPs achieve essential levels of safety with more efficient use of resources, but also accelerate progress to safety maturity and compliance with regulations. These comprised in the short-term (to 2012):

� Continuous cooperation in SMS development;

� Development and implementation of a common auditing process;



� Common safety research and development and implementation of best practices.

In the medium term (2013-2015) and long term (2016 onwards) it will embrace:

� Harmonisation of regulatory arrangements;

� Progress in sharing incident data and developing common categorisation of incidents;

� A FAB safety management function.

There will be additional safety benefits in that joint systems and processes will lead to faster and more robust implementation of required safety management. A common regulatory approach needs to be agreed before these opportunities can be realised. The requirement for documents to be in the national language will also be a constraint on the cooperation.

The benefit will be calculated based on following assumptions:

� In short-term cooperation - around 0.25 FTE could be saved per year per organisation from 2012 onwards from working together;

� In medium-term cooperation - one FTE could be saved per annum per organisation from 2015 onwards from working together in the medium-term. This would be an additional benefit to the short-term opportunity.

� In long-term cooperation - 1.5 FTE could be saved per annum per organisation from 2020 onwards.

It was assumed that 0.5 FTE will be required per annum per organisation from 2011 to 2019.

The discounted net benefits account for €2.5m over the project lifetime.

B.6.4 Financial opportunities

Joint provision of MET

Benefits might be obtained through cooperation in MET services provision. At present, neither ANSP is a provider of MET services, although PANSA owns the assets required to make observations at Poland’s airports. Neither Poland nor Lithuania has a particularly high cost of MET provision, in comparison with other European countries. Nevertheless, there is a potential for saving costs by jointly looking for alternative suppliers to the national meteorological services.

Opportunity comprising a new competitive tender for MET services, this time joint between the two ANSPs can be considered. It was believed that the results of such a tender were likely to come out not much higher than the current cost of providing the service for Poland alone, however, in the costs will be lower than in total for both ANSPs.

The benefit will be calculated based on 10% of PANSA’s MET costs [source: PRU submission]. There are no additional costs associated with this opportunity.




Learning from best practices

There are potential gains to be achieved by working together and learning from each other. Workshops were conducted to receive an initial, informal review of the areas of support costs, particularly staff. The process was difficult, however, because of diverse responsibilities for different departments, and because PANSA collects financial data classified by cost category, rather than by department. The review by the workshops indicated that there were promising signs that further study and working together could reveal areas where sharing best practices could improve the performance of one or other of the ANSPs. It was agreed that without further detailed investigation, and more detailed data, no definitive estimates could be made. Further work, including a detailed bottom-up review zero-based and comparison of all overhead functions and areas of expenditure, is recommended for the future. As a starting point for this review, further analytical work on costs by department would be carried out in the course of later phases of the work, provided data could be made available.

Broad areas examined included all non-operational departments, excluding the area of technical support, which was dealt with under the technical opportunities described above. Potential areas for saving included such functions as finance and accounting, planning, procurement and human resources.

It was assumed that, in the long term, savings of up to 60 non-operational staff and a reduction of 5% of non-staff operating costs could be achieved through sharing of best practices. To evaluate the benefits from such savings, we have used a weighted average of the non-ATCO staff costs of the two ANSPs.

The benefits can be achieved gradually over the period 2013 to 2020. The discounted net benefits account for €53.8m over the project lifetime.

B.6.5 Non-measurable opportunities

During the stage of cost-benefit analysis preparation, the following non-quantified opportunities were identified:

Seamless operation between FIRs

The effectiveness of the handover of flights between Vilnius and Warsaw could be improved through the cooperation between Vilnius and Warsaw ACCs that results in reduction in workload on the affected sectors.

Human resources

The employment and disposition of ATCOs is a key area for improving resource allocation and costs and there are a number of qualitative and practical opportunities that will result in efficiencies and gradual process of closer cooperation in the selection, recruitment and training of ATCOs.

B.7 Environmental impact

It is possible to analyse environment improvements of routes, flight profiles and distances flown. Improvements in flight efficiency result in environmental benefits, since there are savings in fuel burn which result in reduction in CO2 emissions. In addition there are possible environmental benefits in terms of reduction of noise



and NOx in relation to improvements of vertical flight efficiency when applying CDA and CCD.

Based on the analysis of crossing flights, the number of flights with possible application of CDAs and CCDs at Vilnius and Kaunas airports was estimated. A fuel burn model4 was used to calculate fuel burn for every flight departing and arriving at both airports.

According to the EUROCONTROL CDA brochure5, improved vertical profiles during continuous descent can reduce total fuel burn by about 40%. Fuel burn reduction during CCD can be around 7.6% of the total fuel burn up to top of climb (EFAS final report 20086). However, in relation to this FAB initiative, it was assumed the overall benefit of CCD will be only one third of this saving, i.e. 2.53%. This saving applies to the total fuel burn from take-off up to top of climb.

The CO2 reductions are shown in the figure below.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

['000

EUR]

As identified previously, there are potential benefits in reducing NOx emissions and noise from the application of CDAs and CCDs. In order to evaluate the impact on noise and NOx levels, a detailed analysis is usually required, which is not feasible in the timescales of this study. However, we can undertake a high-level assessment on NOx and noise levels.

A CDA provides a noise benefit, compared to the conventional approach procedure, in certain regions under the approach path. Moreover, because the benefits of CDA are only experienced relatively far away from the airport, consistent use of the CDA procedure will not usually have a significant effect on the size and shape of standard airport noise contours. Overall, the noise reduction resulting from CDA consists of two elements:

� Over the area where the aircraft would traditionally fly a CDA produces reduction in source noise as lower thrust is used for descending flights;

4 Fuel burn model developed by Helios. The model uses data from the CFMU flight database in combination with BADA tables

which include fuel burn in different phases of flight (climb/horizontal flight/descent) for all the most common aircraft types.

5 Eurocontrol (2008). Continuous Descent Approach – Implementation Guidance Information. From

http://www.eurocontrol.int/environment/gallery/content/public/documents/cda_brochureA4_may08_web.pdf

6 THALES and EFAS Consortium (2008). Environmental Friendly Airport Air Traffic Management Systems (EFAS) – Final

Report (not published – restricted audience).



� Reduction of noise on the ground resulting from the increased height of an aircraft performing CDA compared to the conventional approach.

Depending on the location and aircraft type, the noise benefit from a CDA compared to a conventional approach, as reported by EUROCONTROL and Boeing, could be up to about 5 dB (a change of 3 dB is just noticeable to the human ear). Boeing reports possible noise reductions in the range of between 3.5 and 6.5 dBA7 from CDAs. Some noise benefits are expected from introduction of CDAs at Vilnius and Kaunas airports and we could estimate a reduction of noise levels of around 5dB per flight.

Although some potential savings in NOx emissions by using CDAs are reported (for example, the Boeing study (2007) reported a 30% reduction in NOx emissions produced below 3 000 ft), total benefits are very small. In addition, it is important to remember that there are often trade-offs between NOx and CO2 emissions and hence achieving significant reductions in both pollutants can be very difficult (using less thrust can cause fuel consumption reduction but inefficient burn and thus increase of NOx).

B.8 Methods of minimizing the uncertainty in inputs

The inputs, assumptions and data for identified opportunities are based on the knowledge and experience of the ANSPs and external advisors as well as on established sources of information in this field.

In the analysis, available internal historical data and forecasts from ANSPs and external official sources were applied. For the period that extends the forecast period, the data was extrapolated based on direct ANSP inputs and past identified trends. Furthermore, the conducted sensitivity analysis enabled to anticipate the impact on NPV results in case assumptions change. High level risk analysis provided the information on potential risks that can affect the identified opportunities and thus CBA outcome.

The above-described actions were aimed at minimising the uncertainty in inputs and assumptions applied in the CBA.

B.9 CBA results

The results of the cost-benefit analysis are presented as a discounted cash flow. 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.

In the table below the present values (PVs) of the elements of the project cash flows are presented:

� The PV of the capex and opex savings arising from the FAB opportunities;

� The PV of the incremental costs; and

7 Boeing (2007). Boeing Research and Technology Europe, Can Europe compete as a research location? From

http://www.locomotive-project.org/cms/Content/download/05_LOCOMOTIVE_Escarti_070605.pdf



� The sum of the above - the Net Present Value (NPV) and other indicators of the value of the project including the Economic Internal Rate of Return (ERR) and the benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C ratio) of the project as a whole.

CBA results

Capex and opex savings (PV) €131.7 m

Incremental costs (PV) €2.3 m

NPV €129.4 m

IRR N/A8

B/C Ratio 56.68

The table below provides a breakdown of the NPV divided into the following groups:

� Technical benefits include the capital and operating costs savings arising from technical opportunities;

� Operational benefits include indirect benefits such as ATCO cost savings, and other capital and operating cost savings from operational opportunities;

� Financial savings include indirect financial benefits from the MET service provision opportunity and from sharing best practices;

� Safety savings include operating cost reductions arising from safety opportunities;

� Delay savings and flight efficiency benefits include direct benefits to users arising from operational opportunities.

23,3 34,7 68,9 2,5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NPV in €M


8 There is no rate of return that would cause the NPV to be equal to zero, since benefits exceed costs

from the start of the project.



The value of the NPV depends mainly on the value of financial opportunities that account for above 50% of the NPV for the Baltic FAB. Second most important group of opportunities are technical opportunities that account for about 30% of the total value of NPV.

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Annualnet ben

efit'000 EUR


The figure above presents the benefits over the project lifetime. The first net benefits will occur in the period from 2012 to 2015. These are short and medium-term effect of delay reduction, avoidance of planned investments and savings resulting from sharing best practices. The second stage of benefits will start in 2015 as it is assumed that the change in law affects positively the implementation of opportunities mainly related to common procurement and maintenance.

B.10 Sensitivity analysis and qualitative risk analysis

B.10.1 Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis assesses the impact of modifications in key parameters on the economic and financial effectiveness indicators of the project, assuming that the remaining parameters remain unchanged.

For the purpose of sensitivity analysis, the following parameters were modified:

� Higher discount rate of 6% and 8% a year;

� Traffic growth change using STATFOR scenarios for low and high traffic growth;

� Reduction and increase in ANSPs’ cost savings by 30%; and

� Delaying all benefits by three to five years.

The figures below summarize the results of the sensitivity analysis.



€ 129 M

€ 101 M

€ 80 M

-

€ 20 M

€ 40 M

€ 60 M

€ 80 M

€ 100 M

€ 120 M

€ 140 M

4% 6% 8%

Discount rate change

€ 119 M

€ 129 M

€ 140 M

€ 105 M

€ 110 M

€ 115 M

€ 120 M

€ 125 M

€ 130 M

€ 135 M

€ 140 M

€ 145 M

low base high

Traffic growth scenario

€ 129 M

€ 94 M€ 83 M

€ 73 M

-

€ 20 M

€ 40 M

€ 60 M

€ 80 M

€ 100 M

€ 120 M

€ 140 M

Base scenario By 3 years By 4 years By 5 years

Postponing benefits

€ 91 M

€ 129 M

€ 168 M

-

€ 20 M

€ 40 M

€ 60 M

€ 80 M

€ 100 M

€ 120 M

€ 140 M

€ 160 M

€ 180 M

-30% 0% 30%

ANSPs benefits change



The detailed description of sensitivity analysis was included in the prepared version of Feasibility Study for the establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block (Baltic FAB).

In case all of parameters modifications for all pessimistic scenarios, NPV for the FAB Project is still positive.

B.10.2 Qualitative risk analysis

Additionally, the qualitative analysis of risk that could directly affect the CBA results was conducted. Many benefits are strongly linked to the legal environment and therefore the benefits require respective adoptions in law. The summary of the results together with possible mitigating actions is presented in table below.

Risk Description Probability Impact Stakeholder Mitigating actions

Human resources

Social acceptance

There is a risk that poor communication results in a lack of social acceptance leading to opportunities not being implemented or delayed

Low

Low Baltic FAB Council

ANSP

Preparing a Stakeholder Management Plan

Ensuring regular and effective communication and consultation with staff representatives

Financial

Lack of financial resource or commitment

There is a risk that financial resources will not be available to deliver the opportunities effectively

Medium High Baltic FAB Council

Effective communication of benefits

Develop and communicate a business case clearly showing the benefits for each opportunity

Legal

Legal and legislative constraints in Poland, Lithuania and partner states

There is a risk that legal or legislative constraints could prevent the implementation of some opportunities leading to reduced benefits

High High Baltic FAB Council

Analysis of most likely scenarios will have to include an assessment of the legislative impact on specific opportunities

Parallel work to make legislative changes in Poland and Lithuania if required



Risk Description Probability Impact Stakeholder Mitigating actions

Institutional

Opportunities benefit one state rather than FAB

There is a risk that opportunities benefit only one state rather than a FAB as a whole which could result in opportunities not being pursued leading to missed or reduced benefits

Medium Medium Baltic FAB Council

Baltic FAB Council to encourage implementation of opportunities at FAB level

Political, operational or technical constraints

There is a risk that actual benefits obtained are reduced because of political, operational or technical constraints

Medium Medium Baltic FAB Council

Using stakeholder management plan to engage with key decision makers throughout the process.

Assigning ‘contact owners’ and ‘FAB champions’ throughout stakeholder community to ensure that everybody works towards realising benefits

Organisational

Conflicts There is a risk that the regional cooperation is not well coordinated with existing plans of the FMO

Medium Medium FAB Management Committee

Ensuring that plans are coordinated between existing work of PTs/WGs and additional work

B.11 Regional cooperation

The CBA has shown that the cooperation in the Baltic FAB will bring benefits in a number of areas, although the benefits are inherently limited by their short common border, relatively little shared traffic, and disparate sizes. There are, however, even greater longer-term and strategically important benefits

The Baltic FAB Strategic Committee has already considered nine potential regional cooperation scenarios. The following three were selected as being the most likely and beneficial and were analysed further:

� Kaliningrad and Belarus;

� NEFAB and Danish-Swedish FAB; and

� FAB CE.



A summary of opportunities for each scenario are shown below.

Kaliningrad and

Belarus9


FAB

FAB CE

Route improvement during the day

� � � �

Seamless handovers � � �

Common planning of radar � �

Common planning of navaids � �

Cross-border sectorisation �

Cross-border military areas �

Continuous climbs and descents � �

Joint procurement ATM systems � �

The opportunities from cooperation bring three categories of benefit:

� Savings in ATM/CNS costs for the ANSPs, through a reduced requirement for staffing, through rationalisation or better planning of infrastructure, through economies of scale, and sharing of resources;

� Flight efficiency benefits through better flight profiles and direct routing, leading to savings in fuel costs for airspace users and reduced km flown, with consequent reductions in CO2 emissions;

� Reduced ATFM delay for airspace users.

The benefits are presented as incremental benefits to the bilateral Baltic FAB cooperation. The Present Values (PV) and Economic Net Present Values (ENPVs) for each scenario are summarised in the following table.

9 Note that some opportunities may only involve cooperation between Baltic FAB and one of the

neighbours.



Belarus and Kaliningrad


FAB

NEFAB and Danish-Swedish

FAB

FAB CE

Reduction in ANSPs costs and investments (PV)

€3.6m €80.5m €2.4m €82.9m €89.2m

Route structure improvement benefit

€8.7m €5.5m €2.1m €5.8m €15.5m

CDAs/CCDs benefits €4.6m €6.8m - €6.9m -

Incremental costs €0.4m €0.2m €0.0m €0.3m €0.6m

Annual CO2 emissions reduced (2015)

2 877 tonnes

866 tonnes

1 746 tonnes

1 840 tonnes 2 335 tonnes

Delay savings - - - - €5.6m

ENPV €16.6m €92.6m €4.5m €95.4m €109.7m

The results provide only a first indication of the potential for further regional cooperation. Whilst benefits at the interfaces are limited for Danish-Swedish FAB, NEFAB would bring more benefits through the possibility of joint procurement with Baltic FAB members, from common planning of CNS infrastructure at the interfaces with Baltic FAB, and from flight efficient approaches and departures to/from Riga airport. The high-seas interface between Baltic FAB and Danish-Swedish FAB limits the latter opportunities. Opportunities with Belarus and Kaliningrad would also bring similar benefits.

B.12 Conclusions

The cost-benefit analysis of the Baltic FAB Project shows a positive NPV of €129.4m over the Project lifetime and a benefit to cost ratio of 56.68. The benefits are largely cost savings to the ANSPs, through efficiencies from working together. There are also benefits from fuel savings and delay reduction, which accrue directly to airspace users.

It should be underlined that most of the opportunities related to efficiencies from working together and common procurement activities will be possible only if legal environment, including public procurement law in Poland and Lithuania will be changed (assumed before 2017).

The sensitivity analyses show that even with the most pessimistic scenario of low traffic, delays to benefits, and an overall reduction of cost saving benefits, the NPV of the Project remains positive.

The analysis shows that the opportunities identified for the Baltic FAB result in a positive business case and bring benefits.

Introduction of the FAB in the joint airspace of Poland and Lithuania can bring benefits to users, through:

� reduced fuel costs and delays; and



� cost savings at ANSPs which can be passed through as unit rate reductions.

It is also clear that there is strategic value and greater potential as a result of further regional cooperation. The further development and exploitation of the regional opportunities are considered as a high priority and are key to the future of the Baltic FAB. FAB expansion will be actively considered by the Baltic FAB Council from 2013.



C The proposed text for the Baltic FAB inter-state agreement

Draft v0.5 dated 20 January 2012

Agreement on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block

between:

The Republic of Lithuania and

The Republic of Poland,

Hereinafter called “the Contracting Parties”,

Having regard to the fact that the Single European Sky (SES) initiative was launched in order to enhance current air safety standards, to contribute to the sustainable development of the air transport system and to improve the overall performance of air traffic management and air navigation services for general air traffic in Europe, with a view to meeting the requirements of all airspace users;

Having regard to the Member States obligations stemming from the SES legislation, in particular compliance with the requirements of Article 9a of the Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) amended by the Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009; Taking into account results of the Feasibility Studies for the establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block (Baltic FAB); Considering the joint Letter of Intent on the co-operation with regard to the development of a Baltic Functional Airspace Block Initiative signed on 29th of July 2010 in Vilnius, Lithuania; Considering that close cooperation between Air Navigation Services Providers and respective air defence and tactical air command and control units meets the needs of civil and military airspace users in Baltic FAB area; Willing not to limit SES to the European Union Member States only and to support its application to the countries which are not members of the European Union; Whereas, by creating Baltic FAB regardless of existing boundaries, the Contracting Parties aim to achieve maximum capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the air traffic management network while maintaining a high level of safety;

Expressing their will to cooperate in the SES implementation so that its objectives can be achieved and airspace users may benefit from its implementation;



Recognizing that the conclusion of the Agreement regarding the establishment and implementation of the Functional Airspace Block shall not prejudice the principle that every Contracting Party has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory and the capacity of every State to exercise its prerogatives with regard to security and defence in its national airspace; Respecting the conditions stemming from regional agreements concluded with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and respecting regional agreements in existence on the date of entry into force of the Service Provision Regulation; Recognizing that the National Supervisory Authority of each Contracting Party shall establish appropriate arrangements for a close cooperation, to ensure an adequate oversight of Air Navigation Service Providers; Aiming at the creation of the legal and institutional basis for the Baltic FAB to be established by the Contracting Parties;

Respecting that the Baltic FAB establishment is without prejudice to the Flight Information Regions (FIRs) as recognized by the ICAO and that the Contracting Parties will retain the responsibilities towards the ICAO within the geographical limits of the FIRs entrusted to them by ICAO,

conclude the following Agreement.



CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1 Definitions and abbreviations

Unless otherwise stated, terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning attributed to them as in the Regulations on the SES in force in the Contracting Parties. For the purpose of this Agreement, the following definitions and abbreviations shall apply:

1) "Agreement" means this Agreement and any amendments thereto, unless otherwise

indicated;

2) “Airspace concerned” means the airspace over the territories of the Contracting Parties

and the airspace under their responsibility in accordance with the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules, as defined in Article 4 of this Agreement;

3) “AIP” means Aeronautical Information Publication;

4) "AIS" means Aeronautical Information Services;

5 ) “ANS” means Air Navigation Services;

6 ) “ANSP” means Air Navigation Service Provider;

7) “ATS” means Air Traffic Services;

8) “ASAR/SAR” means Aeronautical Search and Rescue/Search and Rescue,

9) “Baltic FAB” means the Functional Airspace Block established by the Contracting Parties under this Agreement;

10) "Chicago Convention" means the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at

Chicago on 7 December 1944, and shall include: any amendment ratified by the

Contracting Parties and applied under Article 94 a) of the Convention and any Annex

or amendment adopted under Article 90 of the Convention, insofar as any international

standards as referred to in Article 37 of the Convention and contained in such Annex or

amendment are in force for all the Contracting Parties;

11) "CNS" means communication, navigation and surveillance services;

12) “FIR” means Flight Information Region;

13) “MET services” means aeronautical meteorological services;

14) “NSA” means National Supervisory Authority;

15) “Operational air traffic” means the flights that do not comply with the provisions laid

down for general air traffic and for which rules and procedures have been specified by

the appropriate national authorities. Operational air traffic may include civil flights



such as test flights, which require some degree of deviation from ICAO rules in

order to satisfy their operational requirements;

16) “State aircraft” shall be deemed to mean the aircraft used in the military, customs,

and police services;

17) “Tactical air control service” means the military provision of support to Operational Air

Traffic in order to accomplish the assigned mission and to ensure that sufficient

spacing is maintained between aircraft at any time;

18) “Third party” means any entity or body involved in the provision of air navigation

services in the airspace of the Contracting Parties or in the Baltic FAB airspace;

19) “UIR” means Upper Flight Information Region.

Article 2 Subject of this Agreement

The aim of this Agreement is to establish the Baltic FAB and to define rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties, taking into consideration need for coordination of activities and future development of the Baltic FAB.

Article 3 Baltic FAB establishment

1. This Agreement establishes the Baltic FAB.

2. This agreement shall apply to the Baltic FAB airspace said in paragraph 1 of the

Article 4.

3. This Agreement does not create an international organization with international legal personality.

4. This Agreement defines the general conditions and the governance of the Baltic FAB

under which the Contracting Parties have to ensure air traffic management and the provision of ANS in the airspace concerned.

5. This Agreement defines the framework within which the specific agreements and/or

arrangements covering fields of the ANSPs, NSAs, Military Authorities, civil–military cooperation and other necessary arrangements required to realize this agreement and Baltic FAB development should be concluded.



Article 4 Baltic FAB scope

1. Under this Agreement Baltic FAB airspace is composed of the following FIR: 1. Vilnius FIR; 2. Warszawa FIR;

As described in respective AIP based upon appropriate ICAO documents.

2. Baltic FAB is established for an indefinite period.

Article 5

Sovereignty

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to the complete and exclusive sovereignty of the Contracting Parties over the airspace above their territory. In case a FIR or UIR extends into the airspace over the territory of the other Contracting Party, the sovereignty of the Contracting Party concerned to that portion of the airspace over its territory shall be not affected.

2. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or affect the rights and obligations of

the Contracting Parties either under the Chicago Convention or under other international agreements to which either of them is a party.

Article 6

Security and Defence

1. The provisions of this Agreement shall be without prejudice to the competencies of

the Contracting Parties relating to security and defence, and to the effective implementation of NATO decisions and/or other possible arrangements on air surveillance, control and defence.

2. If the competent authorities of one Contracting Party deem necessary, they can enter

arrangements in writing with the competent authorities of another Contracting Party for the effective civil-military or military-military cooperation within the Baltic FAB.

Article 7 State aircraft

1. Unless otherwise agreed or regulated, Article 3 c) of the Chicago Convention remains

fully applicable to State aircraft. 2. Each Contracting Party shall establish simplified procedures for issuing permissions for

the flights of the state aircrafts of the other Contracting Party to/from or over its territory and permissions to conduct military operations, participate in training and exercises without prejudice to the national security and defence interests, and the constitutional provisions of the Contracting Parties.



3. In order to implement this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall strive to ensure the compatibility of the procedures and rules for the state aircraft flights in the areas as specified in paragraph 1 of Article 9 of this Agreement with those determined in the neighbouring functional airspace blocks.

Article 8 Objective of the Baltic FAB

The Contracting Parties agree that the fundamental objective of the Baltic FAB is to achieve optimal performance in the areas relating to safety, flight efficiency, capacity, reduction of the negative impact on environment, cost-efficiency and to contribute to military mission effectiveness by the design of airspace and the organization of air traffic management in the airspace concerned regardless of the existing boundaries of the Contracting Parties.

Article 9

Commitments of the Contracting Parties

1. To achieve the objective of the Baltic FAB the Contracting Parties commit to cooperate and to take the appropriate measures, in accordance with their national laws and regulations, in particular in the following areas:

1) Airspace design and use; 2) Harmonization of rules and procedures; 3) Provision of ANS; 4) Civil-military cooperation; 5) Charging; 6) Supervision of ANSPs; 7) Performance; 8) Governance of the Baltic FAB.

2 . The Contracting Parties shall ensure the implementation of this Agreement. 3. To achieve the objective of Baltic FAB the Contracting Parties shall: 1) implement the decisions taken by the Baltic FAB Council and the Baltic FAB Board; 2) act in a good faith and make their best efforts to establish or to change all the

necessary national laws and regulations, rules and procedures taking into consideration general framework defined by this Agreement;

3) cooperate to harmonize the substantive national rules and procedures relevant to

Baltic FAB and consult one another on a regular basis with a view to identifying differences between their respective laws and regulations, rules and procedures having an impact on Baltic FAB to seek the maximum achievable compatibility.

4. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that any difference that remains or occurs shall under no circumstances compromise or have negative influence on flights safety or efficiency of the service provision within the Baltic FAB.

5. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that implementation of this Agreement would not

have any negative impact on the safe and effective conduct of military operations, training and exercises.



CHAPTER 2: AIRSPACE

Article 10 Baltic FAB Airspace

1. To achieve the objective of Baltic FAB set out in Article 8 the Contracting Parties shall jointly design a i rspace st ructures and ensure the management of a seamless airspace and a coordinated air traffic flow and capacity management, taking due account of collaborative processes of the Contracting Parties at international level.

2. Contracting Parties are obliged to cooperate in particular to: 1) design the structure of the airspace concerned to allow defragmentation and

dynamic sectorization to establish areas for cross-border operations; 2) examine airspace modifications affecting the performance at Baltic FAB level; 3) develop a common policy on the use of airspace, in close cooperation between

civil and military authorities.

3. The Contracting Parties shall coordinate their works with appropriate international authorities and bodies and consult the airspace users, if necessary.

Article 11 Flexible use of airspace

1. According to the Article 9 and Article 10 and to achieve the objective of the Baltic FAB set out in Article 8 of this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall cooperate at legal, operational and technical level for the efficient and consistent application of the Flexible Use of Airspace concerned taking into account both civil and military requirements.

2. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that common agreements and procedures are

set up between appropriate ATS providers and that civil and military authorities coordinate activities over their territory and cross border areas as necessary at the strategic level of the airspace management.

3. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that pre-tactical and tactical levels are

managed respectively at ATS provider level by coordination between the appropriate ATS units.



CHAPTER 3: PROVISION OF AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES

Article 12 Air navigation services

1. The Contracting Parties shall ensure the provision of the following ANS:

1) Air traffic services (ATS); 2) Communication, navigation and surveillance services (CNS); 3) Aeronautical information services (AIS) ; 4) Meteorological services (MET); and provision of: 5) Search and rescue (SAR) coordination.

2. The AIP of the Contracting Parties shall indicate ANSPs in Baltic FAB and define the airspace under their responsibility, appropriate competent authorities of each Contracting Party involved in the Baltic.

3. Where ANSPs wish to avail themselves of the services of other certificated service

providers their written arrangements formalizing their working relationships shall be notified to the NSAs functioning within the Baltic FAB. With respect to the provision of designated ATS or MET services, those arrangements shall be subject to the approval of the Contracting Parties.

Article 13 Air traffic services

1. The Contracting Parties ensure by a common instrument or based on the agreed procedures the designation of the ATS provider(s) of the airspace concerned. The rules set out in the previous sentence also include the aerodrome flight information service, ATS limited to a control zone of aerodromes and ATS under military supervision provided by the ATS provider(s) of the airspace concerned

2. Each Contracting Party shall be entitled to designate, and repeal or amend such

designation of, one or more ATS provider(s) to provide ATS in its applicable airspace, wholly or partially. Such designation, repeal or amendment shall be notified to the other Contracting Party in writing. Any ATS provider designated under this paragraph shall be deemed jointly designated by Contracting Parties as from the date of the receipt of notification of the designation by the other Contracting Party until any amendment or repealing as defined in this paragraph.

3. The Contracting Parties whose airspace is concerned by agreements between ATS

providers, either designated or not designated under this Agreement, on the provision of ATS shall remain solely responsible for approval of such agreements. Contracting Parties shall be free to enter into appropriate arrangements or agreements with respect to granting such approval.



4. Each Contracting Party, intending to delegate the responsibility for providing ATS in the Baltic FAB airspace to the Third party, shall ensure that it continues to comply with all provisions of this Agreement.

5. Paragraph 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to arrangements or agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Agreement related to the provision of ATS.

6. The Contracting Parties shall:

1) encourage close cooperation between their ATS providers at national level; 2) inform immediately one another of any change in the terms of certification or in

the legal status of the designated ATS providers;

3) exchange the information concerning the rights and obligations of the designated ATS providers at national level.

7. The Contracting Parties shall jointly inform the European Commission and the other

European Union Member States of any decision taken under this Article concerning the designation of ATS provider(s) of the airspace concerned.

Article 14

Communication, navigation and surveillance services

The Contracting Parties shall work towards common technical systems and the cost

efficient deployment of infrastructure for the provision of CNS services by ANSP of the Contracting Parties by joint designing, purchasing, deployment, operation and maintenance of CNS infrastructure, systems and equipment.

Article 15 Aeronautical information service

1. The Contracting Parties shall coordinate the provision of AIS.

2. AIS may be provided by the Contracting Par ty on behalf of another Contracting Party for the purpose of contingency.

3. Competent authorities and AIS providers shall make appropriate arrangements.



Article 16 Meteorological services

1. Each Contracting Party may designate the provider of the MET services on an

exclusive basis and shall notify the Baltic FAB Board or may jointly designate on the agreed procedures the provider(s) of the MET services for the Baltic FAB.

2. If the Contracting Parties designate the providers of the MET services on an exclusive

basis each of them shall ensure cooperation among providers of the MET services. 3. To provide MET services, the competent authorities and ANSPs providing MET

services shall make appropriate arrangements.

4. The Contracting Parties shall inform the European Commission and the other Member States of the European Union about any decision taken under this Article regarding designation of the MET services in the respective airspace.

Article 17 Search and Rescue

1. Each Contracting Party organizes and maintains its ASAR/SAR system according to its national laws and regulations.

2. Contracting Parties shall ensure that common agreements on ASAR/SAR systems

are concluded allowing cooperation to the most practical extent. These agreements shall take into account the Baltic FAB arrangements concerning possible ATS delegation.

Article 18 Relations between service providers

1. To execute provisions of Article 3 paragraph 4 of this Agreement the ANSPs of the Contracting Parties are authorized to formalize the relationships necessary for the Baltic FAB purposes.

2. The formalization of the relationships between the ANSPs set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be done by the written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements concerning functions, tasks and services to be provided in the airspace concerned.

3. Any of these agreements or equivalent legal arrangements between the ANSPs shall

be consulted with the Baltic FAB Board and then notified to the Baltic FAB Council and competent authorities of the Contracting Parties.

Article 19 Relations between ANSPs and Third parties

1. In case the ANSP of the Contracting Party desires to conclude the agreements or equivalent legal arrangements concerning the provision of ATS by designated ANSP



of the state, which is not the Contracting Party, such agreement or equivalent legal arrangement shall be notified to the Baltic FAB Board and the respective Contracting Parties shall ensure that such agreement or equivalent legal arrangement does not affect this Agreement.

2. Contracting Parties may conclude an agreement with Third parties jointly or

separately for the purpose of realization of its/theirs tasks.

CHAPTER 4: CIVIL–MILITARY and MILITARY–MILITARY COOPERATION

Article 20 Military activities

1. The provisions of this Agreement shall be without prejudice to the Contracting Parties’ national requirements relating to public order, security and defence interests and each Contracting Party shall be entitled to apply any measure to safeguard its interests of national security and defence.

2. With due regard to the Flexible Use of Airspace principles and in accordance with

existing national arrangements related to civil-military and military-military cooperation and applicable international agreements, the competent authorities of the Contracting Parties may conclude written arrangements to enable state aircraft to conduct military operations, training and exercises in the respective airspace regardless of the existing common boundary between the Contracting Parties.

3. The Contracting Parties shall allow the provision of cross-border ATS to state aircraft

operating as general air traffic as well as operational air traffic by the appropriate ATS provider of the other Contracting Party pursuant to appropriate written arrangements notified to the Baltic FAB Board.

4. The Contracting Parties concerned may allow the provision of tactical air control

services to operational air traffic by the air defence units and tactical air command and control service units of the other Contracting Party concerned ( including other air command and control units of the NATO Integrated Air Defence System, responsible for providing tactical air command and control over the territory of the other Contracting Party concerned) pursuant to appropriate written arrangements notified to the Baltic FAB Board.

5. For the provision of cross-border services in the airspace concerned, the Contracting

Parties shall encourage close cooperation between the appropriate ANSPs and the respective air defence and tactical air command and control service units.

6. The Contracting Parties shall strive to harmonize the relevant civil and military

arrangements to facilitate civil-military cooperation, including safety, national security and defence.



CHAPTER 5: CHARGING

Article 21 Charging

1. The Contracting Parties shall aim, at application of a single unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned and strive to establish a common charging zone in the airspace concerned.

2. For the purpose set out in paragraph 1 of this Article and prior to the introduction

and the application of a single unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned, Baltic FAB Board shall:

1) develop and apply common principles governing charging policy within the

airspace concerned, taking into account the possibility of national exemptions; 2) coordinate their unit rates for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned; 3) decide on the introduction of, the conditions for and the application of a single

unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned and the establishment of a common charging zone in the airspace concerned;

4) jointly propose single unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned to

the relevant European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) body for approval.

3. The Contracting Parties shall, in particular:

1) execute jointly the necessary obligations associated with a common charging zone for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned;

2) make appropriate arrangements to ensure consistency and uniformity in the

application of the rules and regulation(s) on charging; 3) ensure as appropriate the joint cooperation with EUROCONTROL.

CHAPTER 6: SUPERVISION

Article 22 Supervision

1. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that the NSAs closely cooperate on the

supervision of the ANSPs within the Baltic FAB and that their practices are harmonized. For that cooperation, NSAs conclude an agreement.

2. The NSA which certified the ANSP providing cross-border services in the airspace

concerned is in charge of the supervision of that ANSP in close cooperation with the NSA of the other Contracting Party.



3. In case the Contracting Party over the territory of which the ANS referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article are provided requires that its own NSA exercises supervision, the NSAs of the Contracting Parties shall agree on the terms and conditions of such supervision.

4. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that their NSAs set up a common mechanism

for exchange of information, consultation and coordination for cross border service provision to ensure that necessary corrective measures will be taken without delay and that the decisions taken in accordance with this Article will be enforced.

CHAPTER 7: PERFORMANCE Article 23

Performance

1. The Contracting Parties shall implement the Baltic FAB performance scheme and apply the Baltic FAB performance plan consistent with the EU-wide performance targets and taking into account military needs. The Baltic FAB performance plan shall be subject to consultation with the stakeholders concerned.

2. The Baltic FAB performance plan shall be jointly developed by NSAs of the

Contracting Parties, and approved by the Baltic FAB Board. This performance plan shall:

1) include Baltic FAB performance targets for at least the following key performance

areas: safety, environment, capacity, cost-efficiency, flight efficiency;

2) define a set of clear and measurable key performance indicators for the key performance areas for a defined reference period;

3) include a Baltic FAB incentive scheme.

3. The Baltic FAB Board shall:

1) set performance targets at Baltic FAB level and coordinate the national performance plans’ preparation and implementation;

2) decide on the implementation and elements of the Baltic FAB performance

plan.

4. The Baltic FAB Board, on behalf of the Contracting Parties, shall perform regular reviews of the implementation of the Baltic FAB performance targets periodical assessments of the project and functioning of the Baltic FAB performance scheme and, and if necessary shall relay to the NSAs of the Contracting Parties conclusions related to the corrective measures to be taken.



CHAPTER 8: GOVERNANCE

Article 24 Baltic FAB Council

1. The Baltic FAB Council is composed of the following representatives designated by each Contracting Party:

1) Minister responsible for civil aviation or person duly authorized by Minister

responsible for civil aviation to act on behalf of the Minister; 2) Minister responsible for national defence or person duly authorized by Minister

responsible for national defence to act on behalf of the Minister;

3) Head of NSA or person duly authorised to act on behalf of the head of NSA;

4) Chief Executive Officers of designated ANSPs of Contracting Parties providing en-route services in airspace concerned or person duly authorized by Chief Executive Officers of designated ANSP of Contracting Parties providing en-route services in airspace concerned to act on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers.

2. Other participants may also attend as observers by invitation of the Baltic FAB

Council. 3. The Baltic FAB Council shall be alternately chaired by one of the Contracting

Parties. Term of the chair shall be 12 months, first term starts on the day when this Agreement enters into force. First chairperson shall be the representative of Lithuania as per Paragraph 1 point 1) of this Article.

4. The decisions of the Baltic FAB Council shall be taken by a unanimous vote. Each

Contracting Party shall have one vote. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings of the Baltic FAB Council.

5. The rules of procedure, adopted by the Baltic FAB Council shall set out the

arrangements in particular for the convening of meetings, its financial issues, the prior dispatch of the agenda and related documents, if appropriate, the voting and meeting procedures, including the possibility of taking decisions by correspondence or other electronic means.

6. The Baltic FAB Council shall meet when required at least twice a year by the

invitation of its Chairperson. Each member to the Baltic FAB Council shall be entitled to request the convening of a meeting.

7. The Baltic FAB Council shall take decisions in order to:

1) ensure the implementation of this Agreement and the fulfillment of the objectives of the Baltic FAB in general;

2) support the harmonization of the substantive national rules and procedures;



3) facilitate the joint designation process of the ANSPs; 4) approve of the Contracting Parties positions with regard to the application of

international agreements regarding in particular the work of the ICAO, EUROCONTROL, the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency and joint undertakings in the field of air traffic management and ANS;

5) propose to the appropriate authorities of the Contracting Parties the accession of

a state to this Agreement and take the necessary actions. 6) define strategic objectives for the development of the Baltic FAB; 7) perform other duties related to the SES legislation

8. The Baltic FAB Council shall establish the Baltic FAB Management Office (further as

Baltic FAB MO).

9. The Baltic FAB MO shall support the Baltic FAB Board and FAB related activities. The proceedings of the Baltic FAB MO are financed from charges for ANS and target contributions of international organisations, financial institutions as well as other legal persons. Working arrangements for the Baltic FAB MO shall be adopted by the Baltic FAB Board. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that the Baltic FAB MO has adequate resources to fulfill allocated tasks and to provide support to the Baltic FAB Board as required.

Article 25

Baltic FAB Board

1. The Baltic FAB Board is composed of the following representatives designated by

the each Contracting Party:

1) Person duly authorized by Minister responsible for civil aviation to act on behalf of the Minister,

2) Person duly authorized by Minister responsible for national defence to act on

behalf of the Minister, 3) Person duly authorised by the head of NSA to act on behalf of NSA,

4) Person duly authorized by Chief Executive Officers of designated ANSP of Contracting Parties providing en-route services in airspace concerned to act on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer.

2. Other participants may also attend as observers by invitation of the Baltic FAB Board.

3. The Baltic FAB Board shall be alternately chaired by one of the Contracting Parties. Term of cha i rmansh ip shall be 12 months, first term starts on the day when this Agreement enters into force. First chairperson shall be the representative of Poland in accordance with paragraph 1 point 1) of this Article.



4. The decisions of the Baltic FAB Board shall be taken by a unanimous vote. Each

Contracting Party shall have one vote. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings of the Baltic FAB Board.

5. The rules of procedure, adopted by the Baltic FAB Board shall set out the arrangements in particular for the convening of meetings, its financial issues, the prior dispatch of the agenda and related documents, if appropriate, the voting and meeting procedures, including the possibility of taking decisions by correspondence or other electronic means.

6. The Baltic FAB Board shall meet when required but at least twice a year by the invitation of its Chairperson. Each member of the Contracting Party designated to the Board shall be entitled to request the convening of a meeting.

7. The Baltic FAB Board is tasked with taking decisions expressed in this Agreement and in order to realize the following objectives:

1) manage the implementation of this Agreement and the fulfillment of the objectives of the Baltic FAB in general;

2) define development of the civil and military cooperation; 3) agree on a common design and policy for the airspace concerned; 4) define the cooperation on the application of the Flexible Use of Airspace; 5) approve the arrangements for the provision of air traffic services in the airspace

concerned; 6) adopt the charging policy applicable in the airspace concerned and aim to set the

single unit rate for en-route traffic in the airspace concerned after the first reference period of the performance scheme;

7) ensure the implementation of a common overall Safety Management System; 8) approve the arrangements for the supervision of the ANSPs by the NSAs; 9) assess the results achieved and take appropriate measures if required; 10) decide and approve the performance plan and the related performance targets; 11) adopt its rules of procedure and those of the committees and working groups;

12) set up committees other than those established by this Agreement and working

groups to assist it in specific matters and approve the proposals of the committees and working groups;

13) ensure the coordination of the Baltic FAB with adjacent functional airspace

blocks and states;

14) coordinate the positions of the Contracting Parties with regard to the application



of international agreements and legislation regarding in particular the work of the ICAO, EUROCONTROL, the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency and joint undertakings in the field of air traffic management and ANS;

15) facilitate the settlement of disputes arising between the Contracting Parties; 16) take the necessary measures in the event of the withdrawal of the Contracting

Party; 17) propose amendments to this Agreement; 18) ensure the consultations involving ANSPs, airspace users and other

stakeholders where appropriate;

19) decide on other issues as tasked by the Contracting Parties, or proposed by the designated Baltic FAB Board member.

8. Decisions of the Baltic FAB Board shall become effective two months after the day of

their adoption, unless the Contracting Party informs the Baltic FAB Board within two weeks of the adoption decision that it can implement the decision only with the agreement or approval or any other decision of its government bodies in accordance with the national laws and regulations. In such case, the decision shall become effective on the next working day after informing the other Contracting Party that the above-mentioned agreement, approval or other decision had been obtained unless otherwise stated in the above mentioned decision.

Article 26 Committees and Working Groups

1. In order to meet the objective of Baltic FAB and to assist the Baltic FAB Board the

committees and working groups may be established by the Baltic FAB Board which shall be composed of civil and military experts appointed by the Contracting Parties.

2. Persons other than experts referred in paragraph 1 of this Article may attend

meetings of the committees and working groups as observers:

1) by invitation of the Baltic FAB Board;

2) by invitation of the committee or working group on prior approval for such invitation by the Baltic FAB Board or Management Office.

3. The procedure of work of the committees and working groups shall be laid down in

the rules of procedure of the committees and working groups adopted by Baltic FAB Board.

4. Under this Agreement: 4.1. Baltic FAB Board shall establish:



1) the Airspace Committee to assist the Baltic FAB Board in the implementation

of the Baltic FAB and execution of tasks entrusted to it by the Baltic FAB Board;

2) the Strategic, Economic and Performance Committee to assist the Baltic FAB Board in the implementation of Articles 21 and 23 and other and execute tasks entrusted to it by the Baltic FAB Board;

3) the Safety Committee to assist the Baltic FAB Board in the implementation

of the Baltic FAB and execution of tasks entrusted to it by the Baltic FAB Board;

4) the Operational and Technical Committee to assist the Baltic FAB Board in

implementation of Articles 13, 14, 15 and 17 and execute other tasks entrusted to it by the Baltic FAB Board;

4.2. Baltic FAB Board may establish other specialized committees if required.

CHAPTER 9: LIABILITY

Article 27 Liability

1. Within the airspace concerned, the Contracting Party shall compensate any damage as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article resulting from the event:

1) occurred in the airspace over its territory or under its responsibility according to the

ICAO rules;

2) caused due to the fault of the ATS provider referred to in Article 12 of this Agreement, or its agents or any other person acting on its behalf, due to the fault of ATS provider other than the provider(s) whose principal place of operation is located on the territory of the said Contracting Party of the event (effective ATS provider). Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of this Article, no direct action may be brought against the effective ATS provider or its agents or any other person acting on its behalf.

2. The right to compensation under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years as from the date of the definitive decisions as provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. Compensation under paragraph 1 of this Article may be claimed only for damage which has not been compensated under any final judicial decisions taken according to the specific national or international laws and regulations.

4. Claims for compensation under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be filed with the Contracting Party concerned. The claim shall be considered and ruled on by the competent authorities in accordance with the relevant national laws and regulations of



the Contracting Party concerned. If no consensus is reached on the claim, the dispute shall be ruled on by the competent court of that Contracting Party concerned in accordance with its relevant national laws and regulations.

5. The effective ATS provider shall reimburse to the Contracting Party referred to in

paragraph 1 of this Article any compensation paid or costs incurred as the result of damage caused by its own fault or that of its agents or any other person acting on its behalf. The Contracting Party of the effective ATS provider shall ensure the enforcement of this obligation and, in case of default of the effective ATS provider, shall take its place at first request as to reimburse the Contracting Party concerned.

6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Contracting Party referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the Contracting Party of the effective ATS provider from agreeing to share costs resulting from damage as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

7. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the right of recourse of a Contracting Party or an effective ATS provider against any other natural or legal person.

8. The Contracting Parties shall inform one another as soon as they receive any

information about any claim as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article and as soon as a claim has been definitively settled.

9. The designated ATS providers shall maintain adequate coverage for the liability

incurred under this Agreement so to make effective the obligation imposed to them under paragraph 5 of this Article to reimburse the Contracting Party referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

10. The present chapter is applicable without prejudice to international agreements relating to damage caused by the armed forces of one Contracting Party on the territory of the other Contracting Party.

CHAPTER 10: ACCIDENTS AND SERIOUS INCIDENTS

Article 28

Investigation of accidents and serious incidents

1. In the event of an accident or a serious incident, according to the Chicago Convention

definitions, within the Baltic FAB airspace, occurring in the airspace over the territory of a Contracting Party or under its responsibility in accordance with ICAO rules (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Party of occurrence) and controlled by an ANSP other than the provider(s) whose principal place of operations is/are located on the territory of the Contracting Party of occurrence (hereinafter referred to as the effective ANSP), the Contracting Party of the effective ANSP shall notify without delay the competent authorities of the Contracting Party of occurrence by the most suitable and quickest means. The notification shall have at least the same content as the notification in Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.



2. The Contracting Party of occurrence or the Contracting Party conducting the investigation according to the Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention shall be provided with and have access to the necessary materials by all relevant ANSPs and competent authorities of the Contracting Parties in order to enable an investigation of the accident or the serious incident to be conducted.

3. The Contracting Party of the effective ANSP shall therefore grant, in accordance with

its national laws and regulations, the Contracting Party conducting the investigation access to the premises, facilities and materials of the effective ANSPs and information held by its competent authorities. The information provided shall to be used only for the purpose for which it was given and must not be made public without the consent of the Contracting Party which provided the information.

4. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that all the institutions concerned by paragraphs

1 and 2 of this Article are familiar with the relevant communication channels 5. The Contracting Party of the effective ANSP shall be given the opportunity to appoint

an observer to be present during the investigation. 6. Any Contracting Party which at the request of the Contracting Party conducting the

investigation provided information or access to its competent authorities or an ANSP shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in the investigation.

7. Where the Party conducting the investigation specifically requests the participation of

the Contracting Party of the effective ANSP, the latter shall appoint an accredited representative.

8. The competent authorities of the Contracting Party conducting the investigation shall

provide the competent authorities of the Contracting Party of the effective ANSP with the final investigation report based on its national laws and regulations.

9. Upon request of another Contracting Party the final investigation report and the safety

recommendations arising out of the investigation shall be communicated to it. 10. If the Contracting Party conducting the investigation identifies irregularities related to

Baltic FAB functioning, it shall immediately inform the Baltic FAB Board thereof. 11. Communications, notifications and reports shall be in English. 12. In order to enhance safety and promote best practices, Contracting Parties may

appoint/establish Baltic FAB Investigation Committee composed of civil and military experts to jointly investigate aircraft accidents and serious incidents, including ATM occurrences,

13. In case of the accidents, serious incidents and ATM occurrences:

1) involving civil and state aircraft, and/or 2) involving civil and military ANSPs, and/or 3) involving ANSPs of more than one Contracting Party, and/or

4) during period of delegation of services the Contracting Parties shall ensure



that during investigation, preferably conducted jointly, the same classification of occurrences will be applied, as defined in relevant ICAO SARPs, EUROCONTROL ESSARs and European Union regulations.

CHAPTER 11: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 29 Settlement of disputes

1. All disputes arising between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or performance of this Agreement, including its existence, validity or termination, should be subject to the direct negotiations between the Contracting Parties.

2. If the dispute cannot be settled within a period of three months through direct

negotiations between the Contracting Parties the dispute shall be settled to the Baltic FAB Council which shall appoint one, or if necessary more, persons to moderate and conduct the direct negotiations between the Contracting Parties or shall use any other means to settle the dispute.

3. If a dispute cannot be settled by the Baltic FAB Council within three months of its

submission to the Baltic FAB Council, each of the Contracting Parties concerned shall have the right to submit the dispute to arbitration under the “Permanent Court of Arbitration optional rules for arbitrating disputes between two states”. The costs of the arbitration, including fees and expenses, shall be shared equally by the Contracting Parties – the parties to the arbitration dispute.

4. The decisions of the arbitration tribunal shall be binding on the Contracting Parties -

parties to the arbitration dispute.

Article 30 Accession of the other State to this Agreement

1. This Agreement is open to accession. Any State desiring to become a party to this Agreement shall submit its application to the Baltic FAB Council which in the name of the Contracting Party presents to the state desiring to become a party to this Agreement the conditions of accession and to the Contracting Parties any resulting adjustments necessary to this Agreement. After the Contracting Parties agree on any resultant adjustments necessary to this Agreement, these adjustments shall be the subject of an agreement on accession concluded between the Contracting Parties and the state desiring to become a party to this Agreement.

2. The agreement on accession shall come into force as soon as the Contracting

Parties and the state desiring to become a party to this Agreement have notified each other in writing of the completion of their respective national law requirements.

3. The Contracting Parties and the state desiring to become a party to this Agreement

shall agree upon a common budget covering the expenses for the accession.



Article 31

Withdrawal of the Contracting Party

from this Agreement

1. In the event of the withdrawal of a Contracting Party from this Agreement, the

Contracting Party concerned shall inform all other Contracting Parties and the Baltic FAB Council of its decision.

2. The withdrawal shall become effective six months after notification to the Baltic FAB

Council. 3. The Baltic FAB Council shall take all necessary measures required by such withdrawal.

4. The Contracting Party withdrawing from this Agreement shall, bear the costs

resulting from such withdrawal. In order to determine such costs the Contracting Parties shall conclude a special agreement.

5. If there are only two Contracting Parties the withdrawal of one of the Contracting

Parties shall be treated as the termination of this Agreement. Termination s h a l l become effective six months after notification to the Baltic FAB Council. In such situation the rules set out in paragraph 1 of Article 33 shall apply.

Article 32 Amendment of this Agreement

1. If a Contracting Party wishes to amend this Agreement, in particular due to Baltic FAB modification, it shall duly inform the Baltic FAB Council to consider the proposal. All changes and modifications shall be notified to appropriate authorities and organisations.

2. Any amendments agreed by the Contracting Parties shall come into force on the first

day of the second month the Contracting Parties have notified each other in writing of the completion of their respective national law requirements.

Article 33 Termination and Suspension of this Agreement

1. The Contracting Parties may unanimously decide to terminate this Agreement at any time. In such situation the termination shall be effected by on a specified date to be decided by the Contracting Parties and till that date the Contracting Parties shall jointly determine the costs resulting from termination and the manner of financial settlements between the Contracting Parties.

2. This Agreement may be terminated by either Contracting Party at any time by written

notice to the other Contracting Party (Parties). The termination shall become effective six months after the date of receipt of such notice by the other Contracting Party (Parties). The Contracting Parties shall jointly determine the costs resulting from termination and the manner of financial settlements between the Contracting Parties.



3. In the event of war or other state of emergency or in the interest of public safety, each

Contracting Party has the right to terminate the Agreement with immediate effect, and shall notify the other Contracting Party(Parties) accordingly. The termination of the Agreement due to above mentioned circumstances shall become effective at the day when other Contracting Party receives the termination notice. The Contracting Parties shall jointly determine the costs resulting from termination and the manner of financial settlements between the Contracting Parties.

4. Each Contracting Party has the right to immediately suspend the application of this

Agreement or parts thereof for national security and defence interests. It shall notify the other Contracting Party immediately.

5. The Contracting Party suspending this Agreement shall, bear the costs resulting

from such suspension. In order to determine such costs the Contracting Parties shall conclude a special agreement.

Article 34 ICAO registration

This Agreement and any subsequent amendment thereto shall be registered with the ICAO pursuant the provisions of Article 83 of the Chicago Convention.

Article 35 Other Agreements

Letters of agreement and equivalent arrangements concerning operational cooperation concluded between ANSPs being in force at the date of this Agreement signature remain in force.

Article 36

Entry into force

1. This Agreement is concluded for an indefinite period of time.

2. This Agreement is subject to approval in accordance with the national legal procedures of the Contracting Parties, which will be confirmed with the exchange of diplomatic notes.

3. This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month of the receipt of the later diplomatic note.

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Agreement on behalf of their respective governments and affixed their seals.

Done in ____________ on ______________ in two original copies, each in the Lithuanian, Polish and English language, all texts being equally authentic. In case of their different interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA



D The proposed text for the NSA Co-operation Agreement

Draft dated 19.03.2012

Civil Aviation Administration of the Republic of Lithuania and Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland, hereinafter referred to as “the NSA” or “the NSAs” or “Contracting Parties”,

the authorities nominated as National Supervisory Authority under the Regulation (EC) No. 549/2004 as amended, by the Contracting States to the Agreement on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block, hereinafter referred to as the Baltic FAB Agreement,

referring to the requirement on close cooperation to ensure adequate supervision as per the Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 as amended and requirement to exchange appropriate information to ensure safety oversight under the Regulation (EC) No. 1315/2007,

recognizing the need to complement the Baltic FAB agreement with respect to article 22 paragraph 1 and the obligation undertaken by its Contracting States to ensure conclusion of the NSA Co-operation Agreement providing for the detailed conditions of the exercise of the rights and obligations of their NSAs under the Baltic FAB Agreement,

hereby agree as follows:

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

Article 1

Definitions

1. For purpose of this Agreement the definitions established in the Baltic FAB Agreement and definitions established by Single European Sky Regulations shall bear the same meaning herein.

2. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, other terms and expressions used in this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with their use and interpretation in the relevant legislation adopted on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and on the basis of International Convention on Civil Aviation.



Article 2

Purpose of Agreement

The purpose of this Agreement is to:

(i) establish the cooperation of the NSAs with respect to harmonization of national rules including respective procedures in relevant areas;

(ii) define procedures and conditions related to exercise of rights and obligations of the NSAs under the Baltic FAB Agreement;

(iii) establish harmonized procedures for reporting, exchange and dissemination of safety-related information.

Article 3

National Supervisory Authorities Coordination Committee (NSA CC)

1. Contracting Parties agreed to establish NSA CC which will be responsible for managing the relationships between the NSAs in order to ensure harmonized supervision over the ANSPs in Baltic FAB.

2. The NSA CC consists of three members of each NSAs appointed by the Heads of NSAs.

3. The Heads of NSAs shall approve the NSA CC terms of reference and amendments to them.

SECTION II

HARMONIZATION AND COORDINATION

Article 4

Harmonization of national rules

1. The NSAs will harmonize their internal rules and procedures regulating their supervisory tasks, aiming at gradual creation of the “Common handbook of the Baltic FAB NSAs supervisory rules and procedures”.

2. The NSAs, when implementing this Agreement, in particular its Section III shall indentify the national rules and procedures eligible for harmonization.

3. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 6 herein and unless NSA CC terms of reference stipulate otherwise, the NSA CC shall discuss and submit to the Baltic FAB Council the proposals on the harmonization of rules on ANS, ATFM, ASM, reporting, training and licensing of the ATCOs and competent assessment of personnel involved in safety related tasks in ATM, certification of the training organizations and other rules related to their supervisory and safety oversight activities.



4. Concerned NSAs, acting through their representatives in the NSA CC shall agree on uniform implementation of the decisions and measures adopted by the Baltic FAB Council within the remits of the Baltic FAB Agreement and falling within the competence of the NSAs. Each concerned NSA shall provide the other NSA with appropriate information regarding the implementation of such decisions and measures in due time.

5. The NSA CC shall develop the common format of safety oversight reports.

6. The Contracting Parties endeavor to achieve a harmonized compliance with Standards and Recommended Practices drawn up and updated from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.

7. Contracting Parties shall consult each other on their obligations with respect to the elaboration of these Standards and Recommended Practices in order to reach a common position on their implementation in the national regulations of the Contracting Parties and application in the FAB established by the Contracting Parties.

Article 5

Technical cooperation

1. As confirmed in Article 9 of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the Contracting Parties are committed to cooperate in order to implement the objectives of the Baltic FAB. In addition to the areas mentioned in the aforementioned provision they undertake activities to enhance technical cooperation generally.

Article 6

Coordination of performance plans

2. The NSAs shall closely cooperate and coordinate their activities pertaining to their rights and obligations with respect to the performance scheme as laid down under the applicable EU regulations, in particular the elaboration of performance plans and Baltic FAB performance plan.

3. Up-to-date copies of performance plans shall be stored in Data repository.



SECTION III

SUPERVISION AND SAFETY OVERSIGHT IN BALTIC FAB

Article 7

Applicable rules and procedures

1. Contracting Parties are responsible for supervising certified by them ANSPs independently from part of Baltic FAB airspace they have been designated for service provision.

2. NSAs shall be entitled to request relevant information on the application of notified rules and procedures by concerned ANSP. The requested NSA shall be obliged to address the request without undue delay.

Article 8

Safety oversight programmes

1. The national safety oversight programme of each NSA shall cover all aspects required by the applicable EU regulations within one year time span.

2. Each NSA shall notify annual safety oversight programme to the NSA CC at the latest 1 month after the entry into force of this Agreement and later on annual basis. Each NSA shall keep its programme up-to-date and inform the NSA CC of its changes, if applicable, without undue delay.

3. Subject to NSA CC terms of reference, the NSA CC will develop common safety oversight programme form covering all ANSPs to the extent of services provided in Baltic FAB.

Article 9

Oversight activities and corrective actions

1. Each NSA shall inform the NSA CC of any event which affects ATM operations in a cross-border sectors.

2. Each NSA shall have a right to request a participation as an observer in any activity planned under the common safety oversight programme. The NSA carrying out the activity shall cater for the participation of requesting NSA. Requesting NSA shall bear the expenses of its participation.

3. Each NSA shall have a right to request extraordinary inspection/audit of the ANSP and/or operating organization not planned for in the common safety oversight programme, however such request shall be addressed to NSA CC for acceptance. The



requested NSA shall be obliged to carry out the inspection/audit in a manner and time agreed with the NSA CC.

Article 10

Safety oversight of changes to functional systems

All new functional systems or changes to the existing functional systems of the ANSPs which could affect cross-border operations within Baltic FAB shall be notified to the NSA CC.

Article 11

Safety directives

Each NSA shall inform the NSA CC in due time on any unsafe condition in a functional system of the respective ANSP under its supervision and the issuing of respective safety directive .

SECTION IV

INFORMATION

Article 12

Exchange of information

1. The NSAs shall exchange all information specifically provided for in this Agreement.

2. Each NSA shall immediately inform the NSA CC of any change or modification of the legal status of the ANSP(s) under its supervision, any change, amendment or revocation of the certificate(s) of such ANSP(s) and/or the rights, obligations and conditions attached thereto, any penalties or equivalent measures imposed on such ANSP(s) and safety related obligations in the designation acts.

3. The NSAs will exchange all relevant safety-related information (including but not limited to identified non-conformities) gathered within the monitoring of safety performance on the multilateral basis, particular each NSA shall exchange ATM Occurrence Reports received via the national reporting system in the format of AST report based on ESARR 2 requirements or in the format of ECCAIRS with the objective to monitor and identify adverse trends in the ANSPs safety performance.



4. The initial information on the NSAs and the scope, details and deadlines for exchange of information: NSA-related information with list of contact persons for selected areas of cooperation per each NSA and list of qualified entities contracted by each NSA and specification of delegated activities, ANSPs-related information, safety-related information.

5. Each NSA shall be obliged to keep the list of NSA-related information up-to-date and to inform the NSA CC of the changes without undue delay.

6. Contracting Parties shall grant access to operational data envisaged under applicable EU regulations and paragraph 5 of this article to ANSPs, airspace users and airports on a non-discriminatory basis.

7. The stakeholders referred to in the preceding paragraph shall lay down standard conditions of access to their relevant operational data other than those referred to in the preceding paragraph in accordance with applicable procedures established by EU regulations, and those referred to in Article 2(ii) of this Agreement.

Article 13

Safety oversight reporting

Subject to the requirement for annual safety oversight report under the applicable EU regulations and subject to the NSA CC terms of reference, the NSA CC will adopt annually a “Baltic FAB Annual safety oversight report” in format and time defined in NSA CC terms of reference.

Article 14

Data repository

1. The NSAs will establish Data repository in the electronic form.

2. Subject to the NSA CC terms of reference, the NSA CC will adopt the statute of the Data repository, including identification of the entity responsible for its operation, its duties and information obligations towards the NSAs.

Article 15

Pool of experts

1. Subject to the NSA CC terms of reference, the NSA CC will maintain the list of experts, having the expertise in different areas pertaining to supervisory activities of the NSAs, to be nominated any of by the NSAs.



2. Each NSA shall be entitled to utilize the expertise of any listed expert to support its supervisory activities in a manner consistent with its national rules regulating the execution of such activities.

SECTION V

MISCELLANEOUS

Article 16

Language arrangements

1. The working language for all matters related to this Agreement shall be English. All written communication between the NSAs shall be in English.

2. The documents to be provided in English shall be listed in NSA CC terms of reference. The costs of translation shall be borne by the NSA which has an obligation to submit the document under this Agreement.

3. Each NSA shall have the right to request the submission of the document not listed in NSA CC terms of reference, if necessary for proper execution of its rights and obligations under the Baltic FAB Agreement. The requesting NSA shall bear the costs of the translation.

4. In case of participation of the NSA as an observer in an activity of other NSA the NSA carrying out the activity shall be obliged to arrange for interpreter to English, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Interested NSA shall bear the expenses of interpretation.



Article 17

Consultation and dissemination of information

1. In case of a need of consultation in Baltic FAB matters the NSA CC will organize appropriate consultation with third parties.

2. No party to this Agreement shall disclose or divulge any information classified by any other party as confidential which it may acquire in connection with this Agreement to any third person without prior written consent of the respective party unless such information is publicly available.

3. Each Contracting Parties shall set up a Social Dialogue with the professional staff representative bodies in accordance with the provisions of this agreement, the national regulations of the Contracting Parties and applicable EU Regulations.

4. The expenses of an activity coming under this agreement shall be borne by the NSA responsible for its supervision.

Article 18

Final provision

1. Upon signature by all Contracting parties this Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Baltic FAB Agreement for both Contracting State.

2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of both Contracting parties.

3. No Contracting party shall have a right to terminate its participation in this Agreement unless:

a) the Baltic FAB Agreement has been (i) terminated, (ii) its entire application has been suspended by the Contracting State which nominated or established respective NSA, or (iii) the application of its provisions related to the supervision have been suspended by the Contracting state which nominated or established respective NSA or;

b) the Contracting party ceased to be nominated or established as an NSA.

4. This Agreement shall be open for accession by public authorities of the Contracting

States to the Baltic FAB Agreement acting as national supervisory authority under the respective national rules and/or nominated or established as national supervisory authorities in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 and/or by the authority acting on their behalf.

In witness hereof, the undersigned, having been duly authorized to sign this Agreement, have examined and agreed to execute this Agreement by signing two copies of this Agreement.



Signed at _________________ this ______ day of _____________ 2012 in two counterparts in the English language.

Civil Aviation Administration of the Republic of Lithuania,

……………………………………………

Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland,

……………………………………………



E The proposed text for the Cooperation Agreement of the BALTIC FAB Air Navigation Service Providers

Draft v0.8 dated 02.06.2011

Cooperation Agreement of the BALTIC FAB

Air Navigation Service Providers

concluded between

Valstybės Įmonė “Oro Navigacija” - State Enterprise “Oro Navigacija”

and

Polska Agencja Żeglugi Powietrznej – Polish Air Navigation Services Agency



WHEREAS

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established a comprehensive legal framework (the Single European Sky [SES] legislation) for air navigations services, air traffic management and the respective systems and training, calling for the States to, inter alia, establish functional airspace blocks;

Subsequently the SES legislation was amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system which, inter alia, (a) set the ground for the establishment of a performance scheme for air navigations services including performance targets, incentives and also re-defined the concept of the “functional airspace block” to be an “airspace block based on operational requirements and established regardless of State boundaries, where the provision of air navigation services and related functions are performance-driven and optimised with a view to introducing, in each functional airspace block, enhanced cooperation among air navigation service providers or, where appropriate, an integrated provider”;

On 29th of July 2010 the Letter of Intention between the authorised representatives of the Ministries of Transport of Poland and Lithuania on the cooperation with regard to the development of a Baltic Functional Airspace Block Initiative has been signed;

Polish and Lithuanian air navigations service providers conducted a feasibility study on the establishment of a Baltic Functional Airspace Block,

In order to meet the requirements arising under the SES legislation and Implementing Rules, the States have been negotiating a Baltic FAB Agreement at the state level;

The Parties, acting on the basis of the article 18 of the “Baltic FAB Agreement” on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Poland,

have agreed as follows:

1 Definitions and Interpretation

In this Agreement, unless otherwise required by the context, the following terms shall mean:

Agreement: this agreement including its Annexes;

ANS: air navigation services;

ANSP: air navigation service provider;

ATM: air traffic management;

ASD: air space design;

ASM: air space management;

BFAB: Baltic Functional Airspace Block

Baltic FAB Agreement: the Agreement on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional



Airspace Block as signed by Lithuania and Poland

CEOs Chief Executive Officers of the Parties

Cooperation: the cooperation agreed among the ANSPs under this Agreement;

EU Requirements: all requirements under the European Law which directly or indirectly establish rights or duties of air navigation services providers, training organisations, air traffic controllers or other organisations or staff in the ATM/ANS domain;

Parties: Parties to this Agreement: Polish Air Navigation Services Agency and the State Enterprise “Oro Navigacija”

Performance Scheme: the system of rules and target values established and amended as appropriate according to Article 11 of the Framework Regulation at European, FAB, regional and/or national level, as the case may be;

R&D: Research and Development;

States: Republic of Lithuania and Republic of Poland

(1) Unless the contrary intention appears or the context otherwise requires, words and expressions used in this Agreement, in the decisions taken on the basis of this Agreement or in any other document generated in the performance of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with their use and interpretation in the Baltic FAB Agreement, the NSA Cooperation Agreement, international and EU law.

(2) In case of a conflict between a rule established in this Agreement and any strict rule or requirement established by the national laws of the Parties the latter shall prevail.

In case of conflict between the provisions in the main body of the Agreement and the Annexes, if any, the provisions in the main body shall prevail.

2 Legal disclaimer

(1) The Cooperation hereby agreed shall be a bilateral only and shall establish rights and obligations of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall construe or be interpreted creating any entity having a legal personality separate from the Parties.

(2) No Party shall have authority to act on behalf of the other Party except for common communication activities carried out in accordance with Paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.1 herein. No Party shall have authority to legally bind any other Party and no Party shall present itself as having such authority.



3 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the Cooperation shall be to facilitate implementation of the Baltic FAB Agreement and execution of Parties’ rights and obligations under the Baltic FAB Agreement and fulfillment of decisions of the Baltic FAB governance bodies.

The Parties shall coordinate, harmonize, support, develop and improve the activities of the Parties in the areas set out in the Annex (Scope of Cooperation) with the aim to:

� Continuously improve the safe, cost-efficient, environmentally-sustainable, optimized and performance-driven provision of ANS and all other activities within the Scope of Cooperation;

� Support the States in the implementation of the Baltic FAB Agreement;

� Ensure that the targets set out in the Performance Scheme are met; and

� Support the Parties to meet their individual targets set out, or derived from, the Performance Scheme.

The means eligible for the Cooperation of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement shall include, inter alia,

� The provision of financial and in-kind contributions of the Parties for the production of project deliverables, simulations, concepts, plans, manuals, studies, R&D and other projects and/or documents and to arrange for the support for common activities of the Cooperation;

� The exchange of information between the Parties;

� The cooperation and coordination, including the monitoring and evaluation of the planning, performance and other activities of the Parties, in the areas as specified in the Annex hereto;

� The adoption of Decisions, including but not restricted to the harmonisation of policies, systems, procedures, manuals and other items and on the allocation of functions and the coordination of activities in the areas referred to in sub paragraph above;

� The development of communication interfaces of the Parties in relation to the States, the European Commission and other EC institutions, EUROCONTROL, EASA, airspace users, socials dialogue partners, supply industry, ANSPs involved in other FAB initiatives and other third parties and general public; and

� Conclusion and execution of specific agreements between Parties and between Parties and third party(-ies).

This Agreement shall not affect the rights of its Parties to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements between each other and/or with third parties in areas covered by this Agreement providing that such Agreements are not in defiance of this Agreement.



4 Parties’ duties

(1) The Parties shall act in good faith and actively contribute to attain the purpose laid down in article 0 and refrain from any action detrimental thereto.

(2) The Parties shall nominate their representatives to the Baltic FAB governance and management bodies, as required by the Baltic FAB Agreement.

(3) The Parties shall provide their financial and their in-kind contributions as determined by the Decisions of CEOs of the Parties.

(4) The Parties shall support the establishment of the Baltic FAB Management Office as defined in the Baltic FAB Agreement.

(5) To the extent necessary or appropriate for the attainment of the purpose defined in Article 0, the Parties shall:

a. Provide each other in a timely and expeditious manner with all information and data which is reasonably requested by any Party;

b. Take any steps necessary and/or appropriate to achieve maximum coordination of their planning instruments, their manuals and procedures, and their actual performance of services.

(6) The CEOs of the Parties shall have a right to take Decisions in order to establish and amend, as appropriate, rules and procedures specifying the duties set out in Paragraphs (4) and (5) of this Article.

(7) The CEOs of the Parties shall have a right to take Decisions in order to establish additional duties of the Parties to the extent such duties are necessary and/or appropriate for the attainment of the purposes defined in Article 0.

(8) Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Parties shall abide by all Decisions adopted by the CEOs of the Parties and by all other decisions made by any other body of the Cooperation to which the CEOs of the Parties entrusted decision-making powers. Each Party shall implement and/or act in accordance with any Decision, and other decisions binding on it in due time in a manner ensuring its effective implementation.

5 Organisation

(1) The Cooperation shall be organised through the participation in the work of experts groups, TFs, and other management and governance bodies including Baltic FAB Office as decided by CEOs

(2) The CEOs of the Parties shall:

a. Designate of dully authorised representatives to the bodies as in Paragraph (1) of this Article, and

b. Periodically review the SoW (Scope of Work), PoW (Program of Work), ToRs and composition of WGs, Task Forces and amend them as deemed necessary.



(3) The additional or other structures that would require financial contributions of the Parties will be established by the Decisions of CEOs.

5.1 Baltic FAB ANSPs

5.1.1 Powers and responsibilities

The CEOs of the Parties shall be the ANSP level decision making body of the Cooperation. It shall take all resolutions necessary and appropriate for the attainment of the Cooperation’s purpose as defined in Article 0. For the avoidance of doubt, the CEOs of the Parties shall be responsible for the coordination of the Cooperation with:

a. The Baltic FAB Strategic Committee with regard to law making and strategic issues, to policy, program direction and supervision;

b. Baltic FAB Management Office with regard to everyday program and FAB management.

If execution of the Baltic FAB Agreement so requires, the CEOs of the Baltic FAB ANSPs agree, in particular, to entrust to the Director of the Baltic FAB Management Office:

a. The responsibilities for the common social dialogue activities and the coordination with the state level;

b. To serve as the Baltic FAB focal point vis-à-vis the European Commission with respect to the matters under this Agreement. Such representation shall be limited to mere communication activities;

c. To cooperate with the Baltic FAB Strategic Committee;

d. To represent FAB in contacts with other FABs and non–FAB FIRs.

5.1.2 Meetings

(1) Ordinary meetings of the CEOs of the Parties shall take place at least every three months. The first meeting shall take place immediately after signature of this Agreement.

(2) Each Party shall be entitled to convene an extraordinary meeting whenever it considers it necessary and appropriate for the attainment of the purpose defined in Article 0.

(3) Each Party may deliver a written vote on any agenda item of a meeting to the chairperson either by mail or electronic means. Each CEO may give the power of attorney to another person to vote on his/her behalf.

(4) During each meeting, the chairperson shall keep a Protocol of Decisions with the precise wording of any Decisions taken by the CEOs of the Parties for the purpose of documentation. At the end of each meeting, all Parties present shall sign the Protocol of Decisions to confirm its correctness and completeness. In case of a meeting where not all the Parties are present in person, the correctness and completeness of the Protocol is confirmed at the next meeting. Reservations of the Parties with respect to



the wording of the Decisions, unless solved through the corrections, will be duly noted in the Protocol of Decisions.

(5) The CEOs of the Parties shall adopt Terms of Reference and rules of proceedings for its meetings including rules for convening and chairing such meetings, participation of invited experts and other persons, details on the Protocol of Decisions and meeting minutes, the distribution thereof to the Parties etc.

5.1.3 Decisions

(1) Decisions of the CEOs of the Baltic FAB ANSPs shall be adopted during meetings (Section 5.1.2). A Party not represented at the meeting and not having delivered a vote according to Paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 shall have the right to cast its vote in writing within 10 (ten) days after receiving the written proposal of the Decision.

(2) Decision(s) of the CEOs of the Parties may be taken by vote in accordance with Paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 outside meetings provided that each Party has explicitly agreed to such voting procedure on a specific subject matter either during a preceding meeting or in writing together with, or prior to, the casting of its vote. Failure to react on the proposal to take Decision by vote outside the meeting shall not be deemed as agreeing with the procedure. In case of agreement by all Parties on such voting procedure, a Party’s approval on the proposed Decision shall be deemed granted if it fails to cast its vote according to the agreed procedure.

(3) Each Party shall have one vote.

(4) The CEOs of the Parties shall adopt Decision(s) by unanimity.

(5) Decisions shall be amended or repealed by other Decisions only.

(6) Unless otherwise provided hereunder or in the respective Decision, Decisions shall be binding on Parties.

5.2 Program Management

Parties agree to support the work of the Baltic FAB Program through the Baltic FAB Management Office and appropriate expert groups.

The Parties shall delegate their dully authorized representatives to the Baltic FAB Management Office or any expert groups as deemed necessary.



6 Financial issues

6.1 Budgeting period

(1) The first budgeting period shall start with the entry into force of this Agreement.

(2) Each subsequent budgeting period shall be identical to the calendar year.

6.2 Budget

The CEOs of the Parties shall adopt an annual budget for commonly applied scope and the Parties’ contributions.

The CEOs shall establish rules and procedures for the preparation of the budget.

6.3 Contributions and benefits

(1) In-kind contributions and non-monetary benefits shall be allotted equally among the Parties, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by Decision of the CEOs of the Parties.

(2) Financial contributions and benefits shall be allotted amongst the Parties for any year “n” according to the number of en-route service units allocated by the EUROCONTROL Central Route Charges Office to the individual areas of responsibility of the Parties for year “n-2”, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by decision of the CEOs of the Parties.

7 Term and Termination

(1) The Cooperation Agreement is signed for an indefinite period of time.

(2) This Agreement can be terminated by the written agreement of the Parties.

(3) Each Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to other Party. A Party shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement at the end of each following calendar year with six (6) months prior notice in accordance with the national law of the Contracting Party which has designated the ANSP.

8 Miscellaneous

8.1 Confidentiality

No Party shall disclose or divulge any information classified by any other Party as confidential which it may acquire in connection with this Agreement to any third party without prior written consent of the respective Party unless such information is publicly available.

The CEOs of the Parties shall adopt rules on the rights and duties of the Parties with regard to non-disclosure of confidential information.



8.2 Exclusivity

Unless otherwise provided by decision of the CEOs of the Parties, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as to establishment of an exclusive cooperation of the Parties.

Third parties can accede to this agreement in accordance with Article 19 of the Baltic FAB Agreement, taking into account relevant EU regulations.

8.3 Intellectual Property

Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by Decision of the CEOs of the Parties, the Parties hereby grant to the each other royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable copyright licenses with respect to any material produced, or otherwise gained, within the remit of the Cooperation. Such licenses shall be deemed granted for the purpose of internal use by the Parties and use in accordance with the purpose and scope of this Agreement. Such licenses shall be issued in writing, the scope of exploitation shall be defined and if needed other provisions required by law shall be included.

8.4 Amendments

Amendments to this Agreement shall be valid only if agreed and executed in writing by the Parties.

8.5 Assignment

No Party shall have the right to assign or transfer any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written approval by the CEOs of the other Party.

8.6 Notices and Delivery

All notices and communications among the Parties as well as the Parties and the Cooperation shall be made in writing and in the English language by e-mail, facsimile transmission with confirmation of transmission, delivery in person (including courier service) or registered mail to the appropriate correspondence addresses set forth below.

Valstybės įmonė “ Oro Navigacija” - State Enterprise “Oro Navigacija”

e-mail: [email protected] fax: +370 5 219 4522 mail: Rodūnios kelias 2, LT-02188 Vilnius, Lithuania

Polska Agencja Żeglugi Powietrznej – Polish Air Navigation Services Agency:

e-mail: [email protected] fax: +48 22 574 5009 mail: Wiezowa 8, 01-147 Warszawa, Poland

Each Party shall be entitled to change its correspondence address by written notice to the other Parties.



8.7 Severability

(1) The invalidity of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement which is not related to that provision.

(2) Invalid provisions shall be deemed amended to the extent necessary to ensure their validity. In the event that such amendment is not possible invalid provisions shall be deemed replaced by valid provisions which correspond to the Parties intentions and approximate the meaning of the invalid provisions to the closest extent possible.

8.8 Settlement of disputes

The Party shall be barred from making any claim or filing any lawsuit against other Party arising under this Agreement prior to having negotiated in good faith all disputed issues with all possible parties to a lawsuit. Consequently, the Party shall provide other Party with all information the latter may reasonably request.

If the dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement cannot be settled within a period of three months through direct negotiations between the Parties the dispute shall be settled to the Baltic FAB Council. If the Baltic FAB Council has failed to settle this dispute, it shall be settled at the request of the claimant Party in the court of the State of the respondent Party.

9 Languages

All documents, notices and meetings of the Cooperation shall be drawn up or conducted in English. If and to the extent the execution of a document in another language is required by any competent authority, such document shall be executed both in English and the other language. Where appropriate, any of these versions may be replaced by a certified translation.

10 Entry into force


2. This Agreement is subject to approval in accordance with the national legal procedures of the Contracting Parties, which will be confirmed with the exchange of diplomatic notes.

3. This Agreement shall enter into force on the day of signature.

4. In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Agreement on behalf of their respective governments and affixed their seals.

5. This Agreement may be subject to amendments in written form. Such amendments shall enter into force on the day of signature unless otherwise specified.



Done in ____________ on ______________ in two original copies, each in the Lithuanian, Polish and English language, all texts being equally authentic. In case of their different interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

ON BEHALF OF ON BEHALF OF

Polish Air Navigation Services Agency State Enterprise “Oro Navigacija”



Annex – Scope of Cooperation

A. General definition of the Scope of Cooperation

The Agreement shall apply to all activities of the Parties in the areas of:

� ANS,

� ATFCM, ASM and ASD,

� Technical infrastructure services and facilities,

� Contingency services, and

� Training of staff required for purposes of ANS, ATFCM ASM, ASD, training and examination, safety and quality management to the extent of ANSPs competences and administrative functions like, e.g., air traffic controllers, technical staff, trainers, examiners, financial experts etc,

Including, without limitation, ancillary functions performed by the Parties such as, for example,

� Planning processes concerning annual plans, business plans, ANSPs’ performance plans and other planning or steering documents including the detailed information and data underlying such documents,

� Safety and quality management,

� Human resources management and conduct of social dialogues,

� Procurement of goods and services,

� Research, development and performance of analyses and simulations, and

� Stakeholder consultations.

In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Cooperation shall ensure the timely and efficient conduct of all activities:

� Defined in the various implementation projects;

� Otherwise necessary or beneficial to develop and/or implement the Baltic FAB;

� Necessary or beneficial to further assess and develop other Baltic FAB scenarios;

� Otherwise necessary or beneficial to further develop, implement and operate the Baltic FAB to the benefit of the airspace users,

If and to the extent such activities are not expressly allocated to, or legally reserved for, the State level and its public authorities.



F The proposed text for the Baltic FAB civil-military agreement

Draft v0.3 dated 3 February 2012

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

Article 1

Parties and Purpose of the Agreement

1. This Agreement is concluded by Civil Aviation Administration and Armed Forces of the Republic of Lithuania and Civil Aviation Office and Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”, “Contracting Parties”, hereinafter also referred to as the “Baltic FAB States”, or individually as the “Party”, “Contracting Party”) on the basis of Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block (hereinafter referred to as the “Baltic FAB Agreement”),.

2. Contracting Parties acknowledge that the provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the competencies of the States, parties to the Baltic FAB Agreement, relating to security and defence and to the effective implementation of NATO decisions and/or other possible arrangements on air surveillance, control and defence as confirmed in Article 6(1) of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

3. The purpose of this Agreement is to:

(i) establish civil – military cooperation processes in the Baltic FAB that ensures and/or facilitates civil-military and, to the extent needed, military-military partnership arrangements, in accordance with the relevant national law of the Baltic FAB States and to the extent required by the agreed Baltic FAB strategy, policies, objectives and operations in relevant areas;

(ii) define a framework for procedures and practical arrangements related to the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties under the Baltic FAB Agreement, taking into consideration a need for civil-military coordination of activities and future development of the Baltic FAB.

(iii) Facilitate the harmonisation of rules and procedures for civil-military cooperation in the Baltic FAB.

Article 2

Definitions and Abbreviations

For the purpose of this Agreement the definitions and abbreviations established in the Baltic FAB Agreement and definitions established by Single European Sky Regulations shall bear the same meaning herein.



Article 3

Legal/Institutional Matters

1. Contracting Parties shall ensure the cooperation and coordination between civil ANSPs and military controlling units, military units and military authorities responsible for activities that may affect General Air Traffic (GAT) and Operational Air Traffic (OAT). Such cooperation and coordination shall be developed only if and as notified to the competent Baltic FAB governance bodies as identified in Chapter 8 of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

2. Contracting Parties shall ensure that arrangements between the Baltic FAB ANSPs and the competent military units shall be described in Letters of Agreement.

3. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Baltic FAB Agreement, and takes into

account the provisions of the NSA Agreement. 4. Contracting Parties shall establish supplementary national requirements and conditions

needed for the provision of services as described in the present agreement.

5. Changes of military requirements, which may affect civil operations in the Baltic FAB, shall

be coordinated with the competent civil authorities and be considered by the Baltic FAB

Board, taking into account the European network perspective.

6. If the competent authorities of one Contracting Party deem this necessary, they can enter into other or additional arrangements in writing with the competent authorities of another Contracting Party for the effective civil-military or military-military cooperation within the Baltic FAB.

7. Arrangements for investigation of incidents and accidents, and search and rescue where

military personnel or equipment are involved shall be performed according to Article 28,

and Article 7 respectively of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

Article 4

Consistent Regulatory Approach

1. With due regard for Article 9 (3) (3) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, Contracting Parties shall

adopt a consistent regulatory approach towards civil-military cooperation and coordination

of activities coming under this agreement.

2. Certification of military units if providing service to General Air Traffic and its designation

will remain a national responsibility of each Baltic FAB State.

3. Contracting Parties shall establish appropriate measures for the continuous operations of

all State aircraft in the event of system failure or industrial action in the Baltic FAB. The

Contracting Parties may establish regulations regarding minimum level of services coming

under the scope of the present agreement and include such requirements in the

designation act and delegation of ANS arrangements.

4. Contracting Parties shall establish interoperability arrangements with respect to the

performance of the services coming under this agreement, while taking into account

national security requirements.



5. Baltic FAB States applying delegation of ANS provision in the Baltic FAB shall agree on a

minimum level for the establishment of a common exemption policy for State aircraft

concerning the carriage of specific airborne equipment in the airspace where these ANS

are provided. Baltic FAB ANSPs providing such ANS shall accept State aircraft

exemptions for specific aircraft equipage requirements as agreed by virtue of the

provisions of the Baltic FAB Agreement, and the present agreement.

SECTION II

CIVIL-MILITARY COOPERATION AREAS

Article 5

Safety

1. The civil-military cooperation in the Baltic FAB shall not compromise safety and shall

ensure at least the existing levels of safety of the operations falling under the scope of this

agreement. Whenever possible, these safety levels should be enhanced.

2. Contracting Parties shall ensure that all civil-military arrangements in the Baltic FAB

include safety measures related to military operations.

3. With due regard for Chapter 4 of the Baltic FAB Agreement, all civil-military and military-

military arrangements in the Baltic FAB shall ensure that all military activities in the Baltic

FAB airspace that could be a potential hazard to General Air Traffic shall be adequately

segregated from OAT with clear separation standards and procedures or otherwise

mitigated in accordance with the criteria which are drawn up in accordance the

procedures made by the competent bodies of the Baltic FAB governance structures.

4. Reporting of occurrences, incidents and accidents affecting aviation safety involving State

aircraft operating within the national airspace of a Contracting Party shall be provided in

accordance with the national procedures and standards of the State in which the

occurrence took place.

5. Safety standards shall include the existing safety arrangements and procedures in

national military and civil organisations where compliant with or equivalent to the relevant

ICAO SARPs, EUROCONTROL ESARRs and provisions of European Union regulations.

Article 6

Air Navigation Services

Airspace Management

1. Designated ANSPs shall provide Air Navigation Services (ANS) to GAT and OAT in the

relevant airspace of the Baltic FAB.



2. Contracting Parties shall ensure the harmonisation of priority rules for GAT and OAT

flights in the Baltic FAB.

3. Contracting Parties may establish regulations regarding the minimum level of the Air

Navigation Services which designated ANSPs have to provide. They shall include such

requirements in the designation act and arrangements concerning the delegation of ANS.

4. Contracting Parties shall conclude interoperability arrangements pertaining to the

operations and services falling under the scope of this agreement, while taking into

account security requirements.

5. In accordance with Article 9(3) (3) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the Contracting Parties

are committed to harmonise national rules and to coordinate procedures for the

performance of the operations and services coming under the scope of the present

agreement.

6. Subject to Article 10(2) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall ensure

that the reconfiguration of Baltic FAB airspace is based on operational and efficiency

requirements taking into account air traffic flows. Joint civil-military airspace design

processes at all levels should ensure a balanced and sustainable consideration of the

needs of the concerned parties.

7. Subject to Article 10(2) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall ensure

that common rules for the assignment of airspace to military and civil users are applied

within the Baltic FAB. These common rules shall respect national regulations of the

Contracting Parties concerning safety of military operations including but not limited to

restrictions of areas for supersonic flights and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations

over populated areas.

8. Subject to Article 10(2) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, Contracting Parties shall ensure that

airspace design of the Baltic FAB shall ensure the continuous and smooth performance of

civil and military operations within the national airspace of each Baltic FAB State.

9. Pursuant to Article 11 and 20(2) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the Contracting Parties

shall ensure uniform application of the Flexible Use of Airspace concept in the Baltic FAB

airspace.

10. Contracting Parties shall ensure that civil-military coordination procedures and

communication facilities in the Baltic FAB allow real-time activation, deactivation or

reallocation of airspace allocated at pre-tactical level.

11. Contracting Parties shall ensure that adequate supporting automatic systems shall be put

in place to enable the management of Baltic FAB airspace allocation and communicate

airspace availability to all affected users.

12. Contracting Parties shall develop and establish procedures and a mechanism for regular

assessment of Baltic FAB airspace use taking into account civil-military needs.



13. Contracting Parties shall ensure that the designated Baltic FAB ANSPs provide services

and related information required to make it possible to apply national ATM security

measures and to comply with international security and safety requirements.

14. Contracting Parties shall identify the various types of military operations which can be

accommodated by applying the same or similar rules and procedures as applied to GAT

and those which cannot, and require the establishment of separate rules and procedures.

15. Baltic FAB ATS providers providing service to Operational Air Traffic shall comply with

national military regulations unless harmonised in the Baltic FAB in accordance with the

provisions of the Baltic FAB Agreement.

Air Traffic Services

Aeronautical Information Services

16. Contracting Parties shall ensure that static and dynamic aeronautical information shall be

easily accessible and available in the English language.

17. Contracting Parties shall ensure that Aeronautical Information Services data is freely

shared between the concerned stakeholders of the Baltic FAB.

18. Contracting Parties shall ensure that Aeronautical Information Services data is protected

from unauthorised use in the Baltic FAB.

Air Traffic Flow Management Services

19. Contracting Parties shall ensure that exemptions from Air Traffic Flow Management

Services measures for State aircraft shall be applied in accordance with national

legislation unless harmonised in the Baltic FAB airspace.

Communication, Navigation, Surveillance Services

20. Designated ANSPs shall provide Communication, Navigation, Surveillance (CNS)

Services to General Air Traffic and Operational Air Traffic.

21. Contracting Parties shall coordinate technical changes affecting the provision of CNS

services within the Baltic FAB.

22. Contracting Parties shall organise system supported coordination and interfaces with

national and/or international military and civil systems in the Baltic FAB in accordance with

agreed operational procedures.

23. Contracting Parties shall ensure that ATM systems deployed in the Baltic FAB shall

include functionalities to deal with specific national security matters.

24. Contracting Parties, when required, shall ensure establishment of secure line

connections.

25. Baltic FAB ANSPs shall ensure that direct communications are arranged between all civil

and military controlling units handling air traffic in the same and/or adjacent airspace.



Meteorological services

26. Designated ANSPs and military units shall provide Meteorological services to General Air

Traffic and Operational Air Traffic.

Article 7

Specific Military Operational and Training Requirements

1. In accordance with Articles 6(1), 7(2), 7(3), and 9(5) of the Baltic FAB Agreement, the

Contracting parties shall allow priority and unrestricted airspace access for military aircraft

conducting air policing missions within the national airspace of each Baltic FAB State.

2. Contracting Parties shall ensure that special priority rules and handling procedures are

put in place for flights entitled to priority according to priority rules.

3. Contracting Parties shall ensure that no equipage shall be enforced upon State aircraft

operating as OAT in Baltic FAB if this endangers the operational ability of State aircraft.

4. Contracting Parties shall ensure that travelling time in the Baltic FAB, taking into account

various types of aircraft to and from areas used by military, shall be reduced to a minimum

to ensure economic and efficient training.

5. Contracting Parties shall ensure the flexibility of the Baltic FAB Air Traffic Management

system to cope with varying operational demands of the participating national and/or

international armed forces.

SECTION III

MISCELLANEOUS

Article 8

Air Traffic Management Data provision

1. Subject to Articles 6, 9(2) and Chapter 4 of the Baltic FAB Agreement, and taking into

account Section IV of the NSA Agreement, the Contracting Parties agree on the following.

2. Contracting Parties shall ensure that Baltic FAB ANSPs shall, on a timely and continuous

basis, provide the appropriate national/international military controlling units with the ATM

data necessary for the execution of their tasks.

3. Contracting Parties shall ensure Civil-military coordination in the Baltic FAB between civil

and military parties with a view to system interoperability supporting the timely sharing

and exchange of information and covering all phases of flight.

4. Contracting Parties shall ensure that when required for safety reasons, the timely

exchange of basic flight data, including at least the position and flight intention of the

aircraft, between ATS units and military controlling units shall be provided in the Baltic

FAB.



5. Contracting Parties shall ensure that for the purpose of public security, times of crisis and

war, uninterrupted data provision necessary for the execution of Air Defence tasks is

secured by the development of appropriate contingency plans..

6. Contracting Parties shall ensure Civil-military coordination in the Baltic FAB between civil

and military parties with a view to system interoperability supporting the timely sharing

and exchange of information and covering all phases of flight.

7. Contracting Parties shall ensure accuracy of information on specific air traffic situations,

and timely distribution of this information to the concerned ANSPs and military controlling

units.

8. Contracting Parties shall ensure that civil and military ANSP systems and their

constituents shall support the timely sharing of correct and consistent information covering

all phases of flight.

9. Contracting Parties shall ensure measures to guarantee the filtering of secured and/or

sensitive information and data as requested by the Baltic FAB States.

10. Contracting Parties shall ensure to use common data formats between Baltic FAB ANSPs

and shall encourage the use of common data formats between Baltic FAB ATS units and

military controlling units.

11. The arrangements and measures foreseen in this provision shall be notified to the Baltic

FAB Board.

Article 9

Final provisions

1. This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature by the Competent Authorities of the Contracting States, but not before the entry into force of the Baltic FAB Agreement.


3. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of the Contracting parties.

4. No Contracting Party shall have a right to terminate its participation in this Agreement unless:

a) the Baltic FAB Agreement has been terminated or its entire application has been suspended by the appropriate Baltic FAB State which nominated or established respective civil and military authorities;

b) the Contracting Party ceased to be nominated or established as respective civil or military authority; in such a situation Contracting Parties shall be informed of the legal successor.

c) The provisions of Article 33(4) of the Baltic FAB Agreement apply.



In witness hereof, the undersigned, having been duly authorized to sign this Agreement and agreed to execute this Agreement by signing four (4) copies of this Agreement.

Signed at _________________ this ______ day of _____________ 2012 in four (4) original copies. Each copy in the English, Lithuanian and Polish languages.

In case of their different interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

Civil Aviation Administration of the Republic of Lithuania,

……………………………………………

Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland,

……………………………………………

Lithuanian Armed Forces,

……………………………………………

Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland,

……………………………………………



G Statement on conditions stemming from regional agreements within the ICAO and with regional agreements

G.1 General

The Baltic FAB Regulatory and Legal Working Group performed a detailed assessment of the existing regional agreements within the ICAO and the existing regional agreements in existence on 4 December 2009 and concluded that the FAB arrangements are not in conflict with any of these agreements.

The full list of the agreements is provided below.

G.2 Poland

G.2.1 International agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations

� Convention of International Civil Law - 1 December 1944;

� Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces - ratified by Poland 27 May 1999;

� EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Cooperation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 6 July 1970, in turn amended by the Protocol of 21 November 1978, all amended by the Protocol of 12 February 1981 - acceded by Poland on 1 Sep 2004.

G.2.2 Regional agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations

� Umowa między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a Rządem Republiki Litewskiej o współpracy w morskim i lotniczym poszukiwaniu i ratownictwie. (podpisana w Wilnie 19 października 2009)

G.2.3 LoA relevant to FAB establishment and operations

Local LoA

1 Letter of Agreement on Performing AIR POLICING Missions between Air force Command and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

2 Letter of Agreement on Counteracting Airborne Terrorist Acts between Air Defense Command and Air Traffic Agency

International LoA:

1 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Bratislava

Entered into force:

30 June 2011

2 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Bremen

Entered into force:

4 June 2009

3 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Kaliningrad

Entered into force:

25 September 2008



4 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Lviv

Entered into force:

24 January 2002

5 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Minsk

Entered into force:

24 January 2002

6 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Munich

Entered into force:

19 November 2009

7 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Prague

Entered into force:

08 April 2010

8 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Vilnius

Entered into force:

24 January 2002

9 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and ACC Malmoe

Entered into force:

5 May 2011

10 Letter of Agreement between ACC Warszawa and UAC Karlsruhe

Entered into force:

29 July 2009

11 Letter of Agreement between DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH AMC Germany and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency AMC Poland

Entered into force:

1 September 2007

12 ASM Co-ordination Letter of Agreement between Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency in regard to pre-tactical and tactical level of ASM

Entered into force:

23 October 2008

13 ASM Co-ordination Letter of Agreement between The LFV – Air Navigation Services and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency In regard to pre-tactical and tactical level of ASM

Entered into force:

23 October 2008:

14 ASM Co-ordination Letter of Agreement between Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

Entered into force:

15 September 2008

15 CFMU Letter of Agreement between the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) and Polish Air Navigation Services Agency.

Entered into force:

9 November 1995



G.3 Lithuania

G.3.1 Regional agreements within the frame of ICAO relevant to FAB establishment and operations

� Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on Co-operation in Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue done in Stockholm, 13 June 2002. Entered into force 31 May 2003;

� Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue in the Baltic Sea done in Moscow, 14 November 2006. Entered into force 29 April 2007;

� Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue done in Palanga (Lithuania) 8 September 2000. Entered into force 22 December 2000;

� Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Co-operation in Aeronautical and Maritime and Search and Rescue done in Vilnius, 19 October 2009. Entered into force [not applicable]. (Not ratified by Poland but has been by Lithuania);

� Agreement on Establishment of Flight Information Region between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Latvia done in Vilnius, 15 April 1998. Entered into force 10 April 2001.

G.3.2 Regional and international agreements relevant to FAB establishment and operations

� Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia, the Government of the Republic of Latvia and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the development of the Baltic Air Surveillance Network and Control System done in Wiesbaden, 2 March 2007. Entered into force 3 February 2008;

� Protocol between the Government of the Republic of Estonia, the Government of the Republic of Latvia and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the Status of Combined Control and Reporting Centre Karmelava and its Personnel done in Wiesbaden, 2 March 2007. Entered into force 3 February 2008;

� EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Cooperation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 6 July 1970, in turn amended by the Protocol of 21 November 1978, all amended by the Protocol of 12 February 1981, and as amended and consolidated by the Protocol of 27 June 1997;

� Accession to ICAO Convention, 1991.



H Baltic FAB Safety Case

Baltic FAB Safety Case is attached as a stand-alone Annex H to this submission document.



I Baltic FAB Concept of Operations

Baltic FAB Concept of Operations is attached as a stand-alone Annex I to this submission document.



J Social dialogue and consultation during the development of the FAB

J.1 Introduction

The Strategic Committee has promoted the sharing of information and encouraged input from airspace users and other stakeholders throughout the development of the Baltic FAB. Communications with all stakeholders are conducted in accordance with the Baltic FAB communications plan.

A similar level of consultation will continue after the establishment of the FAB. A programme of social dialogue with staff and other stakeholders and FAB-level annual airspace user consultations has been established. These will be supplemented by additional ad-hoc meetings as required by specific projects. These arrangements are summarised further in Section 4.9.

J.2 Stakeholder-wide communication

The Baltic FAB has organized or participated in a number of conferences, seminars and meetings aimed at engaging with and seeking input from the wider-stakeholder community. These have included:

� A reception and presentation for European institutions and ANSPs in Amsterdam in March 2011;

� A stakeholder conference involving participants from the airspace user community as well as neighbouring ANSPs in Warsaw in May 2011;

� A high-level conference held in Warsaw in November 2011.

The Baltic FAB also provides information and seeks input from the wider-stakeholder community through the Baltic FAB website [http://www.balticfab.eu/] and newsletters.

In addition to the stakeholder-wide communications, structured engagement with specific stakeholder groups was also conducted.

J.2.1 Airspace users

Two formal airspace user consultations were conducted during the FAB development:

� First airspace user consultation - September 2010;

� Second airspace user consultation - June 2011.

On each occasion, feedback from stakeholders was captured and considered in the development of the FAB.

In addition to the formal FAB consultations, Oro navigacija has continued to hold an annual meeting with all Lithuanian airspace users. The most recent being in October 2011.

First airspace user consultation

The first airspace user consultation engaged individual airspace users followed by a workshop in Warsaw on 15 and 16 September 2010. The following airspace



users were engaged and those highlighted in bold were represented at the workshops.

Commercial General aviation Military

IATA

ELFAA

AEA

ERAA

IACA

Lufthansa

PLL LOT

Finnair

Aeroflot

Belavia

Aerosvit

Air Baltic

Small Planet Airlines

AOPA Poland

AOPA Lithuania

Military Air Traffic Operations, Poland

Lithuanian Ministry of Defence

Polish Ministry of Defence

Second airspace user consultation

As a result of the views expressed during the first round of engagement, the same airspace users were contacted again in June 2011 to update them on the development of the FAB and to seek their input on options to expand the FAB in the future. This process was conducted primarily through a questionnaire and telephone interviews. Responses were received from Air Baltic and all the participants of the first airspace user consultation.

J.2.2 Military engagement

In addition to engaging in the airspace use consultations, military authorities including the Ministry of Defence in Poland, the Ministry of National Defence in Lithuania and the Polish and Lithuanian air forces have also been actively engaged in the committees and working groups supporting the development of the FAB.

J.2.3 Other external stakeholders

The Strategic Committee identified a number of key external stakeholders:

European institutions

An initial presentation was made to the European Commission in March 2008. This was followed by a presentation to the SSC in November 2011. Routine communication and reporting to the European Commission, EUROCONTROL and EASA has continued throughout the project.



Neighbouring States and FABs

All neighbouring states (ANSPs and NSAs) and FABs were engaged during 2011. The focus was on identifying and further developing options for cooperation. Face-to-face meetings were held with each FAB or ANSP with the exception of Ukraine.

Engagement with Kaliningrad was conducted through annual meetings between all Baltic ANSPs which include Belarus, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia.

J.2.4 Management, staff and trade unions

Management, staff (from the ANSPs and NSAs) and trade unions have been actively engaged and have contributed to the development of the FAB.

Poland

In Poland there are 14 affected trade unions. Routine meetings have been held with local representatives from all of the trade unions. The trade unions have also engaged in and received output from each phase of the Baltic FAB feasibility study.

In addition to the trade unions involvement, all PANSA employees have been engaged directly through monthly staff meetings (in which the FAB is a standing agenda item) and ad-hoc staff meetings to address specific issues. Routine meetings are also held with management and an internal Baltic FAB newsletter is published and distributed to staff on a regular basis.

Lithuania

In Lithuania there are 4 affected trade unions:

� Association of Air Traffic Controllers of Lithuania;

� Trade Union of Air Navigation Workers;

� Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers of Kaunas;

� Trade Union of Air Traffic Control Centre of Palanga.

The trade unions meet formally on an annual basis - the meeting includes agenda items specific to the Baltic FAB. In addition, a number of additional meetings have been held with the trade unions to address specific issues. The most recent meeting was held on 17 January 2012.

Management and staff have also been engaged both through routine meetings with heads of departments and directly in routine staff meetings.

baltic fab submission · 2016-09-22 · baltic fab submission pmo, 5 april 2012 version 1.0 page 3...

Documents