Update on Military dimension of the plan
For obvious flight safety reasons, military activities must be segregated from civil flows which has an impact on both horizontal (HFE) and vertical flight efficiency (VFE). Because ASM manageable areas form an integral part of the nominal system, military airspace reservations shall be considered as part of the performance baseline rather than a key factor degrading environmental KPIs.
As a result of implementation of the FUA concept the impact of military activities using Restricted Airspace -RSA on civil performance is highly minored when associated with an efficient ASM process:
- At strategic level (HLAPB) by designing areas in accordance with A-FUA concept (MVPA/VGA structures), especially for congested airspaces.
- At pre-tactical level (AMC), by managing these areas in a dynamic way, with an associated level 2 CDM process, validated by HLAPB.
- At tactical level (ACC/Regional Military Control Centre) by activating/deactivating areas as close as possible to actual use and allowing crossing or direct routes when possible (in accordance with TRA status), with an associated level 3 CDM process validated by HLAPB.
At each level, HLAPB, AMC or ACC/Regional Military Control Centre, a key factor of efficiency is a trust-driven civil-military cooperation. As a counterpart, AOs and CFSPs must be reactive and take efficiently into account available or released airspaces. At last, ANSP have also to adapt the route network to create more DCTs within military areas.
Finally, local circumstances (e.g. constrained airspace, proximity of international hubs, etc….) as well as a large number of military missions that differ from one State to another must be taken into account. Therefore, airspace needs (e.g. airspace requirements for the 5th generation fighters) and related ASM procedures of the States differ and standardized objectives cannot be defined.
Information related to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine
No general answer possible here as it depends a lot of the geographical position of the different States and their related political-military status (e.g. within or outside an alliance), decisions and military means. To mitigate the impact of the Ukraine crisis related operations, Military were actively involved within the EACCC (European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell) and NM processes at tactical level.
Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity
FABEC States are working on mid-term improvements regarding implementation of ASM level 1, 2, and 3 procedures. Some local initiatives regarding ASM/ATFCM convergence, like the traffic Light Scheme concept in France are promoted at FABEC level, as well as at ECAC level in the EUROCONTROL OEP framework. Another major improvement is the interconnection of the existing ASM tools (e.g. LARA, STANLY_ACOS) at FABEC Level, to enhance regional coordination among FABEC AMCs as well as with the NM.
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6
Since January 2022, Belgium implemented the R-UUP process, while in March 2022 a trial started to adapt the AUP booking principles coordinated between civ and Mil, resulting in a more stable network for the airline users and ANSPs without impacting too much the flexibility of the military.
ATM-Portal will be used to propose improved routings to aircraft operators in pre-tract. The tool takes into account the expected airspace availability.
The BB-AUP was introduced in the Belgian Airspace
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7
Please refer to the report of the BEL FUA WG on the results of the BB-AUP trial.
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8
Please refer to the report of the BEL FUA WG on the results of the BB-AUP trial.