Global guidance
Enabling dynamic cross-border ATS in even small sectors still takes extensive dialogue and a set of agreements that can act as the basis for much more.
“Making global guidance available, to allow States and ATSPs to efficiently work through bilateral and multilateral agreements, would minimise the complexities, risk and cost of change, and enable effective implementation,” notes the CANSO paper.
But the increasing complexity of – and demand for – air traffic services mean seamless cross-border operations are no longer a “nice-to-have”, they are a necessity.
Airspace management performance needs to meet increasing capacity and sustainability requirements while the publication reports that “advanced concepts such as trajectory-based operations require a higher level of seamless operations than have existed in the past”.
The case studies examined in Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services show that cross-border service arrangements are complex undertakings involving such factors as airspace design, radar and communications coverage, resourcing, training and even language.
Agreeing on an appropriate collaborative model necessitates legal involvement, liability mechanisms and appropriate safety and economic oversight. Moreover, sovereignty rights and civil military coordination must be carefully considered.
But the case studies show that these challenges can be overcome. ATS is ripe to benefit from cross-border seamless operations.
Download Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services
"Advanced concepts such as trajectory-based operations require a higher level of seamless operations than have existed in the past”.
CANSO publication
Categories of ATS
In the case studies examined by the CANSO paper, three categories of cross-border air traffic services (ATS) were identified in the case studies.
The first category contains simple examples of airspace adjustments to optimise traffic flows. Sometimes, it is simply logical that a neighbouring ANSP should provide services in a particular portion of airspace, enhancing safety and enabling more efficient traffic flow management. The arrangements can be dynamic or static, meaning that responsibility for managing a piece of airspace might shift between two ATSPs depending on such operational conditions as wind direction or the runway in use.
In the second category, the entire flight information region is delegated to a third party. Bermuda, for example, sits within the airspace governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and so delegates both the approach and enroute airspace to the FAA.
The third category goes one step beyond this. There is a true seamless operation of cross-border flights, which involves the creation of an entirely new entity. A single organisation ensures governance and operational services are always fully aligned.
The publication notes: “The obvious extension of this logic suggests a single global ATS service provider. But this doesn’t take account of national factors, such as liability, military/defence considerations, trust of third parties and oversight considerations.”
Maastricht Upper Airspace Control (MUAC), Roberts FIR in West Africa and ASECNA are all examples of the third category – where the advantages are obvious given the otherwise extremely complex handovers and flight routes.
Aspirations for category three-style organisations need to be carefully handled, however. The Nordic Unified ATC Company (NUAC) provided enroute services for Denmark and Sweden but there wasn’t sufficient operational change beneath the layered corporate structure and many aspects remained within national interfaces. Ultimately, the initiative was dissolved after less than a decade.
A tale of two worlds
CANSO’s latest publication, Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services, notes that optimisation will only be achieved if the perspectives of aircraft and air navigation service provider (ANSP) are considered. That means “identifying the valid needs and trade-offs, and rigorously removing dividing lines that are present for historical and not operational reasons”.
Getting it right will bring significant benefits:
Safety: Safety can be enhanced by avoiding multiple transfers between ANSPs and thereby reducing workload for both pilots and air traffic controllers. Danube FAB (Bulgaria/Romania) and FINEST (Finland/Estonia) are examples of good ATS cross-border cooperation.
Bulgaria and Romania have set up two cross-border sectors. In one, Romania controls the airspace over Bulgarian territory. Previously, westbound traffic crossing the border had to re-enter Bulgarian airspace multiple times due to the complex contours of the national border. The cooperation reduces controller workload and increases the ability to tactically control aircraft. Potential confusion from erroneous messages is avoided and aircraft can fly more direct routes that have driven real savings in terms of distance flown.
Sustainability and efficiency: Increased direct routings, including the use of Free Route Airspace (FRA) across territorial boundaries, leads to savings on distance flown and fuel, creating environmental benefits from minimised emissions. On the UK / Ireland airspace boundary, the ATS delegation from NATS to AirNav Ireland is a key enabler supporting the capacity and efficiency of Dublin Airport approach.
AirNav is able to take control of inbound flights at an earlier point relative to the FIR boundary to position and sequence the traffic efficiently. This has been a key enabler for handling the rapid growth of traffic at Dublin in recent times.
Cost efficiency: Combining resources in procurement, training and oversight allows economies of scale. ANSPs can even optimise controller rostering, as is happening at FINEST, and improve resilience.
There are various reasons why this has happened, with sovereignty often cited. But Annex 11 of the Chicago Convention is quite clear. Should a state decide to employ a third party for air traffic services, there is no relinquishing of national sovereignty, no loss of control over the setting of requirements, and no automatic transfer of oversight for the safety and performance of the service.
ICAO Assembly Resolution A41-10 goes as far as to suggest “a single air traffic services (ATS) provider to be responsible for the provision of air traffic services within ATS airspace extending over the territories of two or more States or over the high seas.”
It adds that air traffic should be related to the nature of the route structure and the need for efficient service rather than to national boundaries.
Examples of this remain rare, however, and each has unique circumstances. Nevertheless, there are some important clues about the way forward.
Although cross-border traffic corridors are well established, different jurisdictions enroute essentially mirror national boundaries and priorities. The net effect is that overall airspace is not as efficiently managed as it could be.
“Advanced concepts such as trajectory-based operations require a higher level of seamless operations than have existed in the past.”
CANSO publication
Advertisement
There are various reasons why this has happened, with sovereignty often cited. But Annex 11 of the Chicago Convention is quite clear. Should a state decide to employ a third party for air traffic services, there is no relinquishing of national sovereignty, no loss of control over the setting of requirements, and no automatic transfer of oversight for the safety and performance of the service.
ICAO Assembly Resolution A41-10 goes as far as to suggest “a single air traffic services (ATS) provider to be responsible for the provision of air traffic services within ATS airspace extending over the territories of two or more States or over the high seas.”
It adds that air traffic should be related to the nature of the route structure and the need for efficient service rather than to national boundaries.
Examples of this remain rare, however, and each has unique circumstances. Nevertheless, there are some important clues about the way forward.
Although cross-border traffic corridors are well established, different jurisdictions enroute essentially mirror national boundaries and priorities. The net effect is that overall airspace is not as efficiently managed as it could be.
Enabling dynamic cross-border ATS in even small sectors still takes extensive dialogue and a set of agreements that can act as the basis for much more.
“Making global guidance available, to allow States and ATSPs to efficiently work through bilateral and multilateral agreements, would minimise the complexities, risk and cost of change, and enable effective implementation,” notes the CANSO paper.
But the increasing complexity of – and demand for – air traffic services mean seamless cross-border operations are no longer a “nice-to-have”, they are a necessity.
Airspace management performance needs to meet increasing capacity and sustainability requirements while the publication reports that “advanced concepts such as trajectory-based operations require a higher level of seamless operations than have existed in the past”.
The case studies examined in Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services show that cross-border service arrangements are complex undertakings involving such factors as airspace design, radar and communications coverage, resourcing, training and even language.
Agreeing on an appropriate collaborative model necessitates legal involvement, liability mechanisms and appropriate safety and economic oversight. Moreover, sovereignty rights and civil military coordination must be carefully considered.
But the case studies show that these challenges can be overcome. ATS is ripe to benefit from cross-border seamless operations.
Download Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services
Global guidance
In the case studies examined by the CANSO paper, three categories of cross-border air traffic services (ATS) were identified in the case studies.
The first category contains simple examples of airspace adjustments to optimise traffic flows. Sometimes, it is simply logical that a neighbouring ANSP should provide services in a particular portion of airspace, enhancing safety and enabling more efficient traffic flow management. The arrangements can be dynamic or static, meaning that responsibility for managing a piece of airspace might shift between two ATSPs depending on such operational conditions as wind direction or the runway in use.
In the second category, the entire flight information region is delegated to a third party. Bermuda, for example, sits within the airspace governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and so delegates both the approach and enroute airspace to the FAA.
The third category goes one step beyond this. There is a true seamless operation of cross-border flights, which involves the creation of an entirely new entity. A single organisation ensures governance and operational services are always fully aligned.
The publication notes: “The obvious extension of this logic suggests a single global ATS service provider. But this doesn’t take account of national factors, such as liability, military/defence considerations, trust of third parties and oversight considerations.”
Maastricht Upper Airspace Control (MUAC), Roberts FIR in West Africa and ASECNA are all examples of the third category – where the advantages are obvious given the otherwise extremely complex handovers and flight routes.
Aspirations for category three-style organisations need to be carefully handled, however. The Nordic Unified ATC Company (NUAC) provided enroute services for Denmark and Sweden but there wasn’t sufficient operational change beneath the layered corporate structure and many aspects remained within national interfaces. Ultimately, the initiative was dissolved after less than a decade.
Categories of ATS
CANSO’s latest publication, Lines in the Sky: Cross-border Seamless Air Traffic Services, notes that optimisation will only be achieved if the perspectives of aircraft and air navigation service provider (ANSP) are considered. That means “identifying the valid needs and trade-offs, and rigorously removing dividing lines that are present for historical and not operational reasons”.
Getting it right will bring significant benefits:
Safety: Safety can be enhanced by avoiding multiple transfers between ANSPs and thereby reducing workload for both pilots and air traffic controllers. Danube FAB (Bulgaria/Romania) and FINEST (Finland/Estonia) are examples of good ATS cross-border cooperation.
Bulgaria and Romania have set up two cross-border sectors. In one, Romania controls the airspace over Bulgarian territory. Previously, westbound traffic crossing the border had to re-enter Bulgarian airspace multiple times due to the complex contours of the national border. The cooperation reduces controller workload and increases the ability to tactically control aircraft. Potential confusion from erroneous messages is avoided and aircraft can fly more direct routes that have driven real savings in terms of distance flown.
Sustainability and efficiency: Increased direct routings, including the use of Free Route Airspace (FRA) across territorial boundaries, leads to savings on distance flown and fuel, creating environmental benefits from minimised emissions. On the UK / Ireland airspace boundary, the ATS delegation from NATS to AirNav Ireland is a key enabler supporting the capacity and efficiency of Dublin Airport approach.
AirNav is able to take control of inbound flights at an earlier point relative to the FIR boundary to position and sequence the traffic efficiently. This has been a key enabler for handling the rapid growth of traffic at Dublin in recent times.
Cost efficiency: Combining resources in procurement, training and oversight allows economies of scale. ANSPs can even optimise controller rostering, as is happening at FINEST, and improve resilience.
A tale of two worlds