Summary

U-space regulatory package (EU 664, 665, 666/2021) has introduced a new task for Air Traffic Control (ATC) units, the Dynamic Reconfiguration of U-space Airspace (DAR). This procedure, developed for controlled airspaces to allow controlled air traffic to cross a portion of airspace where a U-space airspace is established, ensures segregation is maintained between Unmanned Arial Systems (UAS) in U-space and crewed aircraft. DAR requires ATC Units directly acting on the airspace configuration temporarily modifying lateral/vertical dimensions of the U-space airspace.

This paper will investigate if such procedure can be considered part of the Air Traffic Control Services provision or it falls under different domains and, in accordance, which are the requirements for Air Traffic Control Officers (ATCOs) in terms of licencing, training and competencies.

Introduction

1.1. UTM systems are evolving all around the world even if nowadays their main roles are still connected to registration and geoawareness. Information exchange between ATM and UTM is limited, predominantly on strategic approval of temporary reserved zones for UAS activities (if necessary).

1.2. Europe, with U-space package (IR (EU) 2021/664: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0664, IR (EU) 2021/665: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0665, IR (EU) 2021/666: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0666, effective date 26th January 2023), has done a step further: the U-space airspace is the first regulated and applicable form of accommodation/integration between UAS and crewed aviation. Despite the regional nature of the implementation, results from the European model would be easily replicated globally, and consequently, issues related to ATCOs’ roles and responsibilities would be replicated as well.

1.3. The aim of this paper is to rise attention and to describe the implications of a particular aspect of the European model, the dynamic reconfiguration of the U-space airspace (DAR).

1.4. The DAR is a procedure that requires ATC units to manage the airspace instead of traffic to maintain segregation between crewed and uncrewed aircraft. Several questions rise from DAR procedure: is it an ATC service? Is DAR an AMS (Airspace Management Service) task? Within the ATC Unit, who is responsible for DAR? Has an ATCO the necessary skills, training and knowledge for that?

Discussion

Definitions

2.1. IFATCA has been working on UAS and UTM since 2018. To ease the reader in understanding several (new) acronyms and terms dedicated to UTM/U-space, as well as to have a quick guide of all the concepts used in the paper, all definitions and references are grouped into a table attached to this paper (Attachment A).

U-space

2.2. To fly a drone, UAS operators shall respect all requirements and limitations posed by the airspace structure. European Member States can establish UAS “geographical zones”, or “geozones”, where there are needs to facilitate, restrict, or exclude UAS operations (European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, art.15.). These geozones may be established in controlled airspace or not and they are essential to address risks pertaining to safety, privacy, protection of personal data, security, or the environment, arising from UAS operations.

2.3. Without a UTM system, UAS Operators have no help in managing their missions in such UAS geographical zones: all work remains under the responsibility of UAS Operators, from the planning phase to execution, including deconfliction with other traffic. With the number of operations that is continuously rising and the consequent possible coexistence of drones under control by different operators in the same geozone, there is a need to establish a UTM system to manage and coordinate all UAS operations.

2.4. SESAR Joint Undertaking, in coordination with EASA, proposed U-space as “a set of services provided in an airspace volume designated by the Member State to manage a large number of UAS operations in a safe and efficient manner”. U-space services are provided within specific geographical zones that are called U-space airspaces and these zones can either be established inside or outside controlled airspaces.

2.5. Following the suggested approach, in its initial stage, the U-space has been regulated in the EU as a stand-alone system that serves only UAS traffic. Despite its isolation, U-space requires information and interactions with ANSPs, ATS units, UAS operators, and manned aircraft operators.

Manned aviation and ATS interactions with U-space airspace

2.6. Interactions mentioned above are even more important if manned traffic intends to operate in an area where the U-space airspace has been implemented (i.e. manned helicopters operated as HEMS or police). For this reason, the EC has set two different procedures to manage mixed traffic (manned and unmanned) according to whether U-space airspace is established inside or outside controlled airspace. These procedures are also important because they identify the role of all stakeholders related to safety assurance.

2.7. To cross or to operate into U-space airspace established outside controlled airspace, manned aircraft operators have to fulfil requirements of electronic conspicuity as per IR (EU) 2021/666. It means that they shall make themselves continuously electronically visible to all U-space service providers (USSP) present in the area. USSPs use these broadcasts to provide Traffic Information Service (TIS) to UAS operators that also use the other U-space services, become responsible to maintain a safe distance from both manned aircraft and other UAS. Manned aviation pilots have no information about UAS unless they subscribe to the U-space services (this option is still under evaluation).

2.8. In controlled airspace, manned aviation safety is ensured by ATC units. USSP will not be certified as an ATC Service Provider (at least in this first step of implementation). For this reason, European Commission has decided that manned aviation and UAS operations shall be segregated. Thus, U-space airspace is not permeable to controlled manned aviation. In circumstances where manned aviation has to use portions of controlled airspace identified as U-space airspace, for example, to allow HEMS activities, the ATC unit shall dynamically reconfigure the U-space airspace in order to ensure that prescribed segregation is maintained with UAS activities (EASA AMC-GM on U-space states that UAS operators have 10 (+2 buffer) minutes to vacate the U-space airspace portion subject
to DAR.). This procedure is reported in IR (EU) 2021/665 integrates 2017/373.

Dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace

2.9. IR (EU) 2021/665 adds two requirements to European ATM/ANS Provider regulation (2017/373): “ATS.OR.127 Coordination by air traffic service providers in U-space airspace” and “ATS.TR.237 Dynamic reconfiguration of the U-space airspace”.

ATS.TR.237 Dynamic reconfiguration of the U-space airspace

2.10. Even if not explicitly reported in U-space regulations, the objective of the dynamic airspace reconfiguration is the prevention of collisions between controlled manned aircraft and UAS, thus not encompassing uncontrolled manned aircraft, nor collisions between UAS. DAR, as explained in 2.8, is the procedure through which ATC units ensure that the prescribed segregation exists at any given time between manned and UAS operations. The ATC unit shall change three-dimensionally the U-space airspace’s limits, as well as completely deactivate it, to avoid proximity between UAS operating into it and manned aircraft flying in the former U-space airspace area.

2.11. It must be noted that U-space regulations don’t pose any limits on when the ATC Unit can apply the DAR. Despite that, in drafting AMC/GM for U-space (EASA NPA 2021-14 “Development of acceptable means of compliance and guidance material to support the U-space regulation”) EASA states that the DAR has to be considered an exceptional event in response to variable manned traffic patterns, which demand mid/short-term U-space airspace adaptations. This somehow certifies that UAS operations in U-space airspace have priority on ATC and generic manned aviation operations.

2.12. Practically, the concerned ATC unit:

• deactivates certain portions of the U-space airspace, thus making them available for manned aviation ensuring segregation from the UAS;
• activates the portions of the U-space airspace when the ‘segregation’ is not needed anymore;
• ensures that the activation/deactivation status of the U-space airspace is timely disseminated to the U-space service providers.

MAIN QUESTION – ATC approach

2.13. The question this paper is investigating is if the DAR, thus the action of an ATC Unit of modifying a geographical zone established by a State can be considered a provision of ATC service or not.

2.14. Here are reported definitions from ICAO Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services (Fifteenth Edition, February 2018). These definitions are also reported on European regulation SERA (IR (EU) 923/2012).

2.15. It is clear from the definitions above that the scope of an ATC Unit is to provide Air Traffic Control Service. For this reason, ATC units shall issue ATC clearances as necessary to prevent collisions and expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic. As reported in 2.10, the prevention of collisions between controlled manned aircraft and UAS is the DAR’s scope, and it is aligned with the ATC service scope. Are there any differences between these two?

2.16. Once completed, DAR brings two main pieces of information:

1. segregation between crewed and uncrewed aircraft is (re)established: all USSPs providing services in the area ensure that the area is now clear from any UAS activities and that the prescribed minimum distance of all UAS from the redefined U-space airspace border is ensured;

2. airspace is available: the area has reacquired its own ATS airspace classification and the ATC unit is again responsible to provide ATC services in accordance with the classification thereof.

2.17. These two elements must be confronted with ICAO requirements (ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services, Fifteenth Edition, February 2018):

2.18. Can DAR be seen as a coordination mechanism to comply with point 4? To answer this question, an example can be used.

2.19. In case an ATC unit wants to cross restricted airspace under the jurisdiction of a different unit, be it a civil ATS unit, military ATS unit or the authority responsible for the activities in the area (parachuting activities, gliders, firings, or others), coordination has to be activated. In issuing the permission to cross the airspace, the unit responsible for the restricted area is also implicitly accepting the responsibility to provide separation/spacing between the traffic crossing and the traffic involved in the area according to its own procedures. In fact, the restricted area can have no ATS airspace classification, or a particular type of activities can require an increased separation minima to be applied. In such cases, the ATC unit is unable to provide ATC service and it is also recommended, as a best practice, to transfer communications to the competent unit.

2.20. The transfer of the role of the separator from one unit to another, as well as the transition from one airspace to another, are key elements to compare the example above with the DAR. In the DAR, the role of the separator is always in charge of the ATC unit because the ATC unit continuously operates inside its own airspace, despite the geographical limits that can change as a consequence of DAR. The coordination has the only purpose of regaining the necessary portion of airspace.

2.21. From the analysis above, the first hypothesis is that DAR (the completion of the DAR procedure) is a pre-condition for issuing an ATC clearance and, consequently, it seems not to be part of ATC services.

MAIN QUESTION – Airspace Management (ASM) approach

2.22. In its U-space AMC/GM, EASA reports that the DAR concept has similarities with the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) concept, particularly with FUA Level 3 (tactical activation-deactivation of airspace structures) (EUROCONTROL Specification for Airspace Management (ASM) Support System Requirements supporting the ASM processes at local and FAB level, Part I – Baseline Requirements). In the case of the U-space, the dynamic reconfiguration is seen as an operational means to ‘allocate’ some portions of airspace in a rather dynamic and tactical way to allow manned aircraft to operate and continue their flight when entering the U-space airspace.

2.23. The FUA concept is one of the concepts reported in ICAO DOC 9854 Global ATM Operational Concept (GATMOC) (First Edition, 2005) where airspace management is considered the process by which airspace options are selected and applied to meet the needs of the ATM community. A similar definition is reported in EU (IR) 549/2004 (See definition table attached in Attachment 1).

2.24. Both documents consider airspace management as a strategic function and the first level of conflict management. It aims to reduce the need to apply separation provision by ATC (second layer of conflict management) enhancing the ability of the ATM service provider and airspace users to accomplish conflict management and increasing ATM system safety, capacity and efficiency (ICAO DOC 9854 Global ATM Operational Concept (GATMOC), First Edition, 2005, paragraphs 2.2.4 /2.1.7 / 2.7.10). Thus, applying concepts thereof to U-space, the safety of manned controlled aircraft and UAS operations is achieved through the segregation of the two types of traffic (strategic function).

2.25. The FUA concept has been initially developed for military-civil coordination, but it can be expanded to other airspace users as well. In particular, U-space architecture is designed in a way that information on planned UAS activities as well as current UAS operations are available also to ATM (ANSP) and a communication channel to exchange information (traffic information and airspace constraints, for example) between ATM and U-space is available.

2.26. This led to a second hypothesis that DAR is a tactical airspace management procedure through which airspace utilisation is optimised considering equitable access to the airspace to minimize any constraints on operations.

U-space airspace design

2.27. It can be envisaged that the U-space airspace can be divided vertically, horizontally or with predefined shapes (hexagons, for example) obtaining several sectors that can be activated/deactivated as necessary increasing the flexibility of the system.

2.28. Together with the size and shapes of the sectors (the larger the sector is, the higher the number of possible affected UAS operations is), other operational constraints should be considered in U-space airspace design, such as:

• prevalent manned aviation trajectories and levels: sectors’ geography should be able to map the usual manned aviation 3D trajectories to reduce to a minimum the airspace volume subject to DAR;
• typical UAS performances: the time necessary to vacate the sector or to land;
• ATS airspace configuration and adjacent airspaces;
• presence in the area of special operations basis like HEMS, police, and air force;
• minimum allowable distance from the U-space airspace border to continue with UAS operations.

2.29. A functional design of the U-space is essential to minimise the DAR impact on the ATC unit responsible for the DAR, on manned aviation and on UAS operations.

Legal framework

2.30. IR (EU) 2021/665 consider DAR as a new technical requirement for ATS Providers. Specifically, in the European ATM/ANS Provider Regulation (2017/373) DAR procedure has been located in the Air Traffic Control Section just below ATS.TR.235 “ATC clearances”. Can this positioning be considered correct?

2.31. DAR seems not to belong to Air Traffic Services. In fact, the analysis in paragraph 2.6 collocates DAR into the ASM domain, which grouped with ATS and ATFM creates ATM.

2.32. The same approach in differentiating ASM from ATS is also present in Regulation 373/2017 thereof. This Regulation requires Service Providers to be certified in order to provide any of these services: Air traffic services (ATS), Air traffic flow management (ATFM), Airspace management (ASM), Air traffic services (ATS) for flight tests, Communication, navigation and surveillance services (CNS), Aeronautical information service (AIS), Data services (DAT), Meteorological services (MET), Flight procedure design (FPD), ATM network functions.

2.33. The service provider certificate, under service provision conditions, details a list of the scope of services/functions. In this list, Air Traffic Control Service is a type of service/function under the ATS services/functions. ASM is a separate service/function.

2.34. An ATC unit is a unit that provides only Air Traffic Control Service by definition and, according to the analysis made in the section commencing in paragraph 2.13, DAR seems not to be an ATC procedure. This suggests that the positioning of DAR in SERA – Air Traffic Control Section has to be revised.

ATCO Licence, duty and contract

2.35. Once more, it has to be clear that Regulation requires the dynamic reconfiguration of the U-space airspace procedure to be applied by an ATC unit, without specifying who might be in charge of such procedure.

2.36. According to ICAO Annex 1 Personnel Licencing (Fourteenth Edition, July 2022), and EU Regulation 340/2015 “laying down
technical requirements and administrative procedures relating to air traffic”, Air Traffic Control services shall only be provided by qualified and licensed air traffic controllers. Furthermore, holders of an air traffic controller licence shall be authorised to provide air traffic control services in accordance with the ratings and rating endorsements of their licence and to exercise the privileges of the endorsements contained therein.

2.37. Considering the definition of the ATC unit and paragraph 2.30, the logical consequence is that DAR is connected to the figure of the ATCO, even if this seems to be not correct considering paragraph 2.21.

2.38. Investigating the ASM option and considering the ATCO licence, ASM is just a repetitive training item of basic, APP, ACP, APS and ACS training. There is nothing in the ATCO licence (ratings and rating endorsements) that explicitly refers to the possibility of performing ASM tasks. This is the same for Flight Information Service (FIS) or Alerting Service (ALS). Furthermore, at the international level, there isn’t a specific ASM licence yet.

2.39. Considering the information in the section commencing in paragraph 2.30, execution of the DAR is not connected to the privileges of an ATCO licence. It seems also outside the applicability of the concept of duty (Duty as defined in ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services, Fifteenth Edition, February 2018 and European Commission Implementing Regulation IR (EU) 373/2017).

2.40. In ATS, duty is any task that an air traffic controller is required by an air traffic services provider to perform. These tasks include those performed during time-in-position, administrative work, and training (ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services, Fifteenth Edition, February 2018).

2.41. The definition underlines that the concept of duty is related to the provision of ATS. This is the reason why FIS an ALS (and advisory service) can be provided by ATCOs without specific authorisation. All activities that are not connected to the provision of ATS are outside Annex 11 and similarly, outside EU Regulation 373/2017 report the same definition and considerations on the term duty.

2.42. DAR seems to be outside because, according to the sections commencing in paragraphs 2.13 and 2.22, it belongs to the ASM domain. Therefore, it is not a task that requires an ATCO licence nor personnel trained in ATS provision to be applied.

2.43. On the other side, it has to be considered that an ATCO is an employee of an ATS service provider. An ‘employee’ is a party to an employment relationship characterised as a contract of employment (or contract of service) between the employer and employee. However, this is only one of several different legal formulations of the concept of ‘worker’ (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, consulted on March 17 2023).

2.44. Every employee has a contract that specifies roles, responsibilities, and duties. Duties are tasks which have to be done because they are part of the job (Collins Dictionary, consulted on March 17 2023). Some duties may require licenced personnel to be accomplished and all specificities should be detailed in local operational instructions. Other duties may not.

2.45. As a result of the discussions, the possibility for an ATCO to perform the DAR is related to the fact that it has to be an employee of a provider that holds both ATS and ASM provision certificate and this task is reported in the local operational procedure.

Conclusions

3.1. The aim of this paper is to try to clarify the allocation of the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR) into the ATM environment. The discussion has been focused on two main aspects: is DAR an ATC service? Is DAR an AMS (Airspace Management Service) task?

3.2. Furthermore, the paper investigates also under which conditions and duties Air Traffic Controllers apply DAR.

3.3. The result of the analysis conducted shows that:

• the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR) is not configured as an Air Traffic Control Service task;
• the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR) should be considered as a tactical airspace management procedure similar to FUA Level 3, and so it belongs to the airspace management (ASM) domain;
• the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR) does not require ATCO-licenced personnel to be performed;
• ATCO can perform DAR if this is allowed by the contract and the local operational procedures, and their employer holds both an Air Traffic Services and an Airspace Management provision certificates;
• ATCO training should consider the implications of the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR); and
• airspace structure and relevant procedures should be designed to facilitate the dynamic reconfiguration of U-space airspace (DAR) applicability in accordance with recurrent manned operations.

Recommendations

4.1. It is recommended that:

a) conclusions reported on paragraph 3.3 are adopted as IFATCA provisional policy statements on Dynamic Reconfiguration of U-space Airspace; and

b) conclusions reported on paragraph 3.3 are used in the development of an IFATCA position paper on Dynamic Reconfiguration of U-space Airspace.

References

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664 of 22 April 2021 on a regulatory framework for the U-space.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/665 of 22 April 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 as regards requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions in
the U-space airspace designated in controlled airspace.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/666 of 22 April 2021 amending Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 as regards requirements for manned aviation operating in U-space airspace.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and  operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation.

EASA NPA 2021-14 Development of acceptable means of compliance and guidance material to support the U-space regulation.

ICAO Annex 1 Personnel Licencing, Fourteenth Edition, July 2022.

ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services, Fifteenth Edition, February 2018.

ICAO DOC 9854 Global ATM Operational Concept (GATMOC), First Edition, 2005.

Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky.

Attachment A