International Civil Aviation Organization

World-wide CNS/ATM Systems

Implementation Conference

Rio de Janeiro, 11 – 15 May 1998

WW/IMP–WP/14

4/2/98

Item 2

Agenda Item 2:	Institutional issues

2.1	Organizational structures at the national level, including private sector participation

2.2	Co-operative and sub-regional approaches, including multinational air navigation facilities and services

BASIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES PROVISION

(Presented by the Secretariat)

Information Paper

Summary
This paper, in support of action paper WW/IMP-WP/4, addresses basic organizational characteristics of air navigation services, how they differ from airports, the classification of such services and implications of organizational aspects with regard to cost recovery. The text is based on Chapter 2 of the ICAO Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161/3).

1.	Air navigation services and airports are two of the three major components (the third being aircraft operations), which form the aviation infrastructure. The basic characteristics of air navigation services operations differ, however, fundamentally from those of airport operations in two respects. Firstly, unlike airports, air navigation facilities and services provided by a State extend over the whole territory of the State concerned or even beyond, and are frequently also dependent on facilities and services provided in other States. Secondly, in most States all or most of all or most of the air navigation services are not provided by a single entity. Instead, several entities may be involved although only a few are major service providers.

2.	Air navigation services have traditionally been classified into the following five major categories: air traffic services (ATS); telecommunications service (COM), which in turn is basically classified into aeronautical fixed service (AFS), aeronautical mobile service (AMS), and aeronautical radio navigation service (radio navigation aids); meteorological services for air navigation (MET); search and rescue services (SAR) and aeronautical information services (AIS). (With the
implementation of CNS/ATM systems the ATS and COM categories are expected to be replaced by components that are broader in scope i.e. ATM and CNS).

3.	As to the provision of services within the individual categories ATS is usually provided by the civil aviation administration, although in a growing number of States autonomous authorities also referred to as operating agencies have been assigned this function. In such instances the same authority may also be responsible for providing certain communications services, for example, some or all AFS and AMS, and even radio navigation aids. However, unlike radio navigation aids, AFS and AMS are frequently provided partially or wholly by postal and telecommunications branches of government although use is also made of privately owned communications organizations in some instances. Radio navigation aids are usually provided by the civil aviation administration, although the communications branch of government or an autonomous authority may also be involved.

4.	MET is usually provided by a separate meteorological entity which in many States reports to another branch of government than do the civil aviation administration or the telecommunication services branch. While aeronautical SAR activities are often co-ordinated by the civil aviation administration, in most States the aircraft, vehicles, vessels and personnel utilized in the actual SAR operations are provided by the military, civil defence or other similar forces. AIS on the other hand tends to be provided by the civil aviation administration. As to their relative significance in financial terms, indications are that ATS, COM and MET may on average account for over 90 percent of States' total air navigation services costs. ATS and COM each tend to account for proportionally more than MET.

5.	There are implications of these organizational aspects with regard to cost recovery since from an organizational viewpoint, it is important that where air navigation services costs are to be recovered, the State concerned should assign to one entity the responsibility for ensuring that the costs attributable to the provision of air navigation services by the different entities in the State all be included in the cost basis for any cost recovery programme or mechanism. The absence of such an approach has had the effect of, for example, MET costs not having been taken into account at all in some instances, thereby resulting in the States concerned not even partially recovering these costs. Also of importance is that the costs attributable to the provision of air navigation services must have been accurately and properly determined, and that transparency be maintained in financial presentations.

6.	As to the selection of the entity that would collate the costs of the different air navigation services providers, the entity providing the ATS services, apart from providing a major air navigation service, also possesses the information required to identify the flights to be charged. It would therefore in most circumstances be best for that entity or branch of government to be assigned the collating function. With that would go the responsibility of ensuring that the revenue from charges be shared among the different entities providing air navigation services. Such sharing of revenue among the different entities concerned would normally be in proportion to the costs incurred by each in providing air navigation services. In the large majority of States this co-ordinating function would in light of the above best be assigned to the civil aviation administration.

- END -