Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 – Data Link Services Exemptions

the related issues raised in this report (section 3.3 in particular) are addressed and the DLS will perform as intended. Page 5 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6 1.1. Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Assumptions and considerations: ........................................................................... 10 3. Automatic exemptions ............................................................................................ 17 3.1. FANS-1/A equipped aircraft (including the dual stack avionics solution)................. 17 3.2. First CofA date ....................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Non-AOC traffic...................................................................................................... 23 3.4. Regulatory text proposal for automatic exemptions: ............................................... 27 3.5. Re-assessment of the automatic exemption criteria ............................................... 27 4. Aircraft specific exemptions (by type/model/series) ................................................ 29 4.1. Assessment of the "exemption criteria" .................................................................. 29 4.2. Defining the production life / limited numbers ......................................................... 29 4.3. Defining disproportionate costs .............................................................................. 31 4.3.1. Approach 1 - Proportionality: Cost of retrofit as percentage of the average current market value (CMV) ................................................................................... 31 4.3.2. Approach 2 – Proportionality: Cost of retrofit in relation to the aircraft specific benefit from DLS .................................................................................................... 33 4.3.3. Approach 3 – Proportionality: Cost of retrofit in relation to the cost of forward fit .... 35 4.4. Regulatory text proposal - Article 14 ...................................................................... 35 4.5. Aircraft specific Proposed Exemptions (by type/model/series) ............................... 36 4.5.1. Re-assessment of exempted types/models ............................................................ 66 5. Options - Exemptions options and DLS aircraft equipage ratio ............................... 66 6. ICAO Amendment analysis .................................................................................... 77 6.1. Document review ................................................................................................... 77 6.2. Regulatory text proposal as regards ICAO references ........................................... 98 7. Other proposed corrections .................................................................................... 99 8. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 99 9. Annexes ............................................................................................................... 101 Page 6 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 1. Introduction DLS regulation publication and subsequent revision On January 16th 2009, COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 29/20092, laying down requirements on Data Link services for the Single European Sky, was published. It required Data Link services to be implemented throughout the European Union, in a phased manner, by 2015: the airspace users needed to ensure that new aircraft delivered after 1 January 2011 are equipped and capable of operating CPDLC and that the remaining aircraft are retrofitted by 5 February 2015. This requirement was not applicable to aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 1 January 2014 and fitted with data link equipment specified in point 10 of Annex III, or for aircraft which have an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 1998 and which will cease operation in the European airspace by 31 December 2017. These additional criteria constitute in fact ‘automatic exemption’, as defined in the Commission letter to EASA on data link, dated 12 January 2017. Furthermore, in addition to the ‘automatic exemptions’, the regulation foresees the possibility for the European Commission to grant exemptions for aircraft of specific types. Any exemption requested is to be based on the criteria defined in regulation and communicated by Member States to the European Commission before 31 December 2012 at the latest. The navigation service providers and operators reported technical issues when implementing Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, particularly disconnections, known as Provider Aborts (‘PAs’), of existing air-ground data communications enabling the operations of data link services (‘DLS’) and which are beyond acceptable performance levels. EASA concluded in its investigation report3 that acceptable data link performance levels can only be established by deploying a multi-frequency infrastructure, which is also optimised for radio frequency interference prevention. It recommended establishing and implementing a plan of actions to further investigate the identified technical issues and to validate the necessary technical solutions. However, since these measures required time, EASA recommended to reconsider the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 and the other timeframes within the regulation. Based on the above the DLS regulation was subsequently amended by the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/310 February 2015. The date of application of the requirements relating to the ground equipage for the airspace defined in Parts A and B of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 was set to 5 2 OJ L 13, 17.1.2009, p. 3 3 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/single_european_sky/doc/implementi ng_rules/2014-04-23-easa-datalink-report.pdf Page 7 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran February 2018. In addition, the date by which the operators are required to ensure that the aircraft concerned have the capacity to operate the DLS in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, was adjusted to 2 February 2020. With respect to the automatic exemption relating to aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 2014 and fitted with data link equipment compliant with one of the relevant Eurocae documents, the date remained unchanged, in the absence of clear and convincing data justifying their adjustment. Aircraft type exemptions 2 Commission Decisions4 were adopted by the European Commission providing a list of aircraft types and variants for which permanent and temporary exemptions have been granted. The EUROCONTROL DLS Exemption Cell has issued a 3rd consolidated report listing the existing granted exemptions and the new requests received prior to the 31 December 2012 deadline. At the request of the European Commission, EASA reviewed this 3rd Consolidated Report from the EUROCONTROL DLS Exemption Cell in order to validate the recommendations made by EUROCONTROL with respect to the proposed exemptions. A reassessment of the permanent (aircraft type) exemptions granted in the Commission Decisions, was undertaken in accordance with the approaches defined in this paper, to ensure consistency. A draft report providing a consolidated proposal for the permanent (aircraft type) exemptions to be included in a Commission Decision on Exemptions under Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, was submitted to the Commission’s attention in 2014. The current report version, reflects pragmatically various stakeholders’ concerns, while proposing minimum changes to the aircraft type exemption criteria defined in Article 14. European Commission request Following the ELSA5 study results and the SDM DLS recovery plan6 finalised in Q4 of 2016, the Commission requested various stakeholders i.e. EASA, SDM, EUROCAE, EUROCONTROL-NM, to launch relevant actions, leading to the resolution of the DLS issues. In January 2017 a letter from the Commission has requested EASA to provide specific actions on a short-term review of the DLS regulation (EC) No 29/2009 and the launch of the RMT.0524 on DLS. The purpose of the short-term review of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 was to assess, clarify and adapt the conditions for exemptions, as well as to clarify the provisions regarding ‘non-AOC’ traffic operators. This action should lead to a proposed amendment to Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 and a potential review of existing Decisions on exemptions. This report is the result of the analysis performed by EASA in support of Commission’s request with regards to the short-term review. 4 C(2011) 2611 final and C(2011) 9074 final 5 https://www.sesarju.eu/newsroom/brochures-publications/vdlm2-%E2%80%93-measurements- analysis-and-simulation-campaign-elsa-study 6 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-10-18-dls-recovery-plan-final.pdf Page 8 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 1.1. Acronyms The following list of acronyms are used throughout the report ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast ADS-C Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Contract AOC Aeronautical Operational Communication, however in the EASA’s Air Operations regulatory material, AOC may represent also ‘Air Operator Certificate’ ATC Air Traffic Control ATN Aeronautical Telecommunication Network CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organization CAT Commercial Air Transport CMU Communications Management Unit CNS Communication Navigation Surveillance CofA Certificate of Airworthiness CPDLC Controller/Pilot Data Link Communications CRO Central Reporting Office CSC Common Signalling Channel CSP Communications Service Provider DLS Datalink Services EASA European Aviation Safety Agency EATMN European Air Traffic Management Network EBAA European Business Aviation Association EC European Commission ELSA Enhanced Large Scale ATN deployment EUROCAE European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment Page 9 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran FANS Future Air Navigation Systems FMS Flight Management System GA General Aviation GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association IATA International Air Transport Association MF Multi-Frequency JURG Joint User Requirement Group MTOM Maximum Take-off Mass MUAC Maastricht Upper Area Control NM Network Manager OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PA Provider Aborts RF Radio Frequency RMT Rulemaking Task SB Service Bulletin SDM SESAR Deployment Manager SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking S/W Software TCDS Type Certificate Data Sheet TCH Type Certificate Holder TCO Third Country Operator VDL VHF Digital Link VDLM2 VDL Mode 2 VDR VHF Data Radios Page 10 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran VHF Very High Frequency VGS VDL Ground Station 2. Assumptions and considerations: The following assumptions and considerations need to be taken into account in support of the proposed regulatory changes, options or Decisions.  Cost: The analysis to support the types/models exemptions is based primarily on the cost values quoted in the annexes as reported by the applicant. Where data reported was missing, engineering judgement was applied. The intent for the list of permanent exempted aircraft types is to capture primarily the out of production aircraft types/models, and in some few cases types and models where production life cycle was getting closer to end. As potentially the retrofit cost estimate is an important factor in deciding those aircraft types to be exempted. A better estimation of these costs, would require a re-validation of all the data received, and comprehensive surveys. A detailed cost benefit analysis process would require in depth data collection and subsequent analysis. Since the re- assessment of the reported cost was not possible within the allocated time, the existing data reported by the applicants was used (as already captured in the previous version of this draft report). As such, the cost analysis provided in this report for the types/model exemptions does not take not take into account that there may now be various low cost retrofit engineering solutions available (e.g. from Spectralux) for some types/models. EASA was made aware recently of these low cost solutions, however the analysis has been already completed for types/models exempted and was based on previous submitted data and the stakeholders’ applications. As part of the RMT.0524, a cost benefit analysis will be performed, however the analysis should be focusing on compliance costs related to the future ED-92C standard and will take into account the current status of the fleet. Note 1: The lease contracts may require the operator to return the aircraft leased to the original configuration, unless the design changes had been implemented by the OEM. As such, some operators may need to consider the Service Bulletins (SBs) from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) rather than a low cost solution. Note 2: Cost related data may be sensitive and sometimes confidential, therefore the reported values should not be further distributed. Page 11 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran  DLS exemption application timeline: Based on Article 14.1, EASA did not have access to the original requests it is assumed that the requests for the exemption of the aircraft captured in the list proposed were submitted prior to 31 December 2012. Any new aircraft types/models /variants, type certified after 31 December 2012, are not eligible for exemptions in accordance with Article 14.  Applicants for DLS exemptions: It should be noted that most of the requests have been submitted by the operators (or associations), for which the DLS regulation applies. However the exemptions currently granted are for types/models or marketing names. The list proposed reflects the applications received, as such it may not always be consistent with the detailed aircraft specifications in their Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS).  Data available: Although the equipage requirement applies to all operators flying in the European airspace above FL285, it should be noted that the data used to substantiate the options in this report is based on the information from ASCEND7 Fleets database from Flight Global. The number of flight hours analysed, represent the EASA Member State operators flight hours, and does not include the number of hours flown by the third country operators in the European airspace, nor the overflights. It is estimated that the TCO flights are approx. 12.8% of the total flights, while the overflights are estimated at 9.7%. As a note, the number of flight/hours flown by state aircraft is less than 0.1%. However, regardless if they are aircraft operated by TCOs or they are just overflying aircraft, the airspace requirement needs to be complied with. Specific assumptions were made when calculating the flight hours within European airspace exemptions (i.e. long haul aircraft are generally FANS- equipped, and the time spent (number of hours) in the European airspace is assumed to be 30% of the total number of hours flown).  DLS regulation stability: The stakeholders consulted recommended to not change the ‘type’ exemption criteria and to maintain stability in the regulatory provisions. Considering such request, EASA reviewed the list of exempted aircraft types (starting from the ones proposed by the EASA draft report version 1.1), with the goal to provide minor changes and only when justified. However, the stakeholders recommended updating the automatic exemptions.  DLS performance: 7 http://www.ascendworldwide.com/what-we-do/ascend-data/aircraft-airline-data/ascend-online-fleets.html Page 12 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran There are concerns that in certain areas (particularly in the vicinity of high traffic aerodromes) the frequency is becoming congested even with the additional frequencies, as reported by the Network Manager (NM)(fig.1) Figure 1: Channel Occupancy Peaks According to the NM, the number of Provider Aborts (PAs) has increased again in May 2017(fig. 2) Figure 2: Percentage CPDLC sessions with PA This increase is recorded even if the overall number of aircraft reporting CPDLC capability and using CPDLC is relative low. Page 13 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Figure 3: Percentage flights filing J1 Note: provider aborts (PA) is the technical term used to characterise ATN disconnections generated at the communication network and link level. Detailed explanations on their potential causes are explained in EASA DLS report and the ELSA report ‘VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis and Simulation Campaign’. Even if the current observations for the month of June 2017 indicate that the number of PAs has been reduced, the PA number is considered high (15/100 hours) compared with the level which was agreed as a target (1/100 hours). The latest trend is presented in the graph (provided by the NM). There are still questions however, on what is considered as an acceptable number for the PA. Figure 4: PAs per 100 hours Nonetheless, requesting more aircraft to be DL(data link) equipped (and use the DLS service), may potentially lead to an increased frequency congestion in Page 14 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran certain areas, which may contribute to an increased number of PAs above expected levels, and therefore contribute to a further loss of confidence in datalink services by the pilots and controllers. Focus should rather be on the implementation of ELSA model D with multi- frequency followed later on by a gradual re-introduction of provisions to request additional aircraft (currently proposed for exemptions) to be data link equipped.  75% flights DL equipage The preambles of the DLS regulation states: ‘…A significant % of flights not less than 75% should be equipped with such capability in order to allow sufficient capacity increase…’. The intent of the text could be interpreted as flight cycles or as flight hours. Some would believe that the overall number of flight hours would be more representative when calculating the benefits, when compared with the number of flight cycles, the word ‘flights’ referring to the overall number of hours. Others, would disagree. While the number in this report refer to the flight hours, an assessment was also done considering the flight cycles. The difference between these two ways to calculate the percentage of flights DL equipped are less than 2% and is also presented. The minimum 75% of flights DL equipped within EU airspace was not explicitly requested in the regulation, however it is stated in point 8 of the DLS regulation preamble. While the regulation aim should be ‘no exemptions’ in order to maximise the operational benefits, until the implementation issues are addressed, 75 % could be seen as an acceptable ratio. The rationale for proposing additional automatic exemptions, was to ensure that in the first phase the DLS is stable and properly working, while the requirements would be applied pragmatically where it makes the biggest impact, factoring-in the financial effort of the operators for the benefits they receive. A study may be needed to assess the risks of mixed data and voice communications for controllers’/pilots’ performance and the link with the sectorial capacity increase and the 75% equipage value. Equipage value may be further re-assessed with the introduction of additional services or link technologies. However, the certainty that the DLS system is working as intended is needed first, before attempting to ensure that majority of the flights are DL capable. Monitoring the DLS performance will provide the necessary operational feedback for a subsequent assessment of the aircraft exempted, in case the validity of the assumptions and considerations within this document, changes with time. To support that, DLS performance targets would need to be established.  ATN B1 and ATN B2: Some stakeholders recommended that (in particular for business aircraft), the DL equipage requirement should meet at a later stage the ATN B2 requirements directly without going through the ATN B1 phase. However, it should be noted that the future implementation of EPP (Extended Projected Profile) as part of ATN B2 in accordance with the current PCP regulation, is not necessarily binding. Pilot Common Project (PCP) regulation states that SDM (SESAR Page 15 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran deployment Manager) shall develop a strategy which shall include incentives, to ensure that at least 20 % of the aircraft operating within the airspace of European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) countries in the ICAO EUR region corresponding to at least 45 % of flights operating in those countries, are equipped with the capability to downlink EPP aircraft trajectory as from 1 January 2026. If 20% of the aircraft would be targeted to correspond to 45% of the flights, it is likely that the same aircraft types compliant to ATN B1 by 2020, may be subject to another design change to ATN B2 before 2025, in order to support the future revised DLS regulation. A change from ATN B1 standard (required by the current DLS regulation) to ATN B2 may not be a simple S/W change and it may require a new FMS in some cases. The change to ATN B2 is not currently mandated but rather incentivised and the upgrade to ATN B2 avionics should be timed and integrated so it supports an operational concept. It is not foreseen that exemptions from the current DLS regulation equipage requirements, will prevent SDM to promote (and incentivise) equipage in accordance with the PCP regulation (to achieve EPP) since: a. The aircraft performing most of the flights in EU airspace are not proposed to be exempted, and they could be among the aircraft subject to further upgrade, due to their impact at the airspace level. b. To support the PCP requirements (EPP), a design change will be needed for some types, and it could be more cost efficient to go directly to ATN B2, rather than to upgrade to ATN B1 then change the design again ATN B2. c. Consideration for this approach (direct ATN B2 upgrade) has already been requested by some stakeholders Any upgrade in the avionics should be linked with the airspace benefits resulting from the implementations of a consistent CNS strategy. Consultations/workshops To further understand the stakeholders’ specific concerns, EASA organised a focused consultation and has participated to various other events (e.g. workshop organised by EBAA) where the DL exemptions were discussed. a. DLS regulation short term review - focused consultation 22 May 2017 EASA organised a focused consultation hosted in Brussels 22 May 2017, which provided the participants with the chance to present their feedback with regards to the DLS exemption criteria, ‘non-AOC’ traffic, compliance dates, CPDLC, FANS and dual stack equipped aircraft. Page 16 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran The stakeholders included airspace users, aircraft manufacturers, associations representing airspace users, General Aviation manufacturers, CANSO and NM. The feedback received can be summarised as follows:  DLS exemption criteria should only be subject to minor modifications, potentially just clarifying the application to aircraft type/model/series.  Final decision on DLS exemption should be based on Decision 1 and Decision 2 (permanent exemptions are included in Annex 4 of this report) and the subsequent exemption applications received.  DLS Regulation application dates for airspace users should not be postponed again, thus creating certainty with the DLS mandate.  While the ‘non-AOC’ traffic operators’ lack of access to CPDLC is not technical in nature, the exemption criteria should pragmatically take into account the reality that the ‘non-AOC’ traffic operators cannot access DLS .  Although a DLS exemption option based on first CofA date was also discussed, stakeholders believe that exemption criteria should remain as the type/model/series exemption criteria and not be replaced with other or additional criteria. The additional feedback resulting from the focused consultation, is provided in this report when describing specific topics. (e.g. Section 3.1) The completed set of notes from the meeting and the presentations are included in Annex 5 of this report. b. JURG feedback on DLS exemptions The summary of the EASA activity on DLS has been provided to the JURG. This was followed by the feedback from the short-term DLS review focused consultation held on 22 May 2017 in Brussels. Some stakeholders specified that the dual-stack option for some types is either cost prohibitive, or the engineering solution has not been developed yet. The provision in the current DLS regulation for the aircraft with a first CofA date of 1 January 2014 after which aircraft equipped with FANS will no longer be exempted from equipage with ATN B1 solution, has been challenged. With this regards, stakeholders proposed a later compliance date for such equipped aircraft to shift to 2018 or 2019 to fit better with their business needs, and to align with other compliance dates (NAT DLS requirements). The stakeholders also requested that aircraft types like B737 classic, B747-400, B757, B767, B777 and A330 to be exempted. Page 17 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Additional feedback received by EASA on FANS-1/A equipped aircraft and the dual stack avionics DL solution is presented in the ‘automatic exemptions’ section and in Annex 5 at the end of the report. c. EBAA DLS workshop Minutes from the meeting were not available at the time the report was drafted. Some stake holders (e.g. EBAA) expressed their views that solutions for airspace users not having an agreement with the communication service providers needs to be found. Furthermore, some stakeholders proposed that operators’ aircraft 19 passengers or less should be DLS exempted, until a full air-ground CNS vision is defined. More details are provided throughout this report. Presentations were made available to the participants. 3. Automatic exemptions Various options for automatic exemptions have been considered. They include: (a) First CofA date, prior to which aircraft equipped with FANS-1/A are exempted, to be moved from 2014 to 2018 or 2019. (EASA’s interpretation of the requirement is in section 3.1). (b) First CofA date, prior to which an aircraft could be exempted, could be introduced for older aircraft (e.g. over 25 years old) (c) Aircraft used in accordance with the non-commercial air operational rules could be exempted (in fact the non-commercial complex motor powered aircraft capable of flying above FL285 would be exempted) (d) Aircraft with a certified seating configuration of 19 passenger or less, with a MTOM of 45359 Kg/100000 lbs or less, could be exempted (it was subsequently considered that this exemption provision should apply for retrofit) Some of the measures proposed could be temporary (e.g. non- commercial operated aircraft exemption or exemption of aircraft 19 passengers or less) until a viable solution of connecting the ‘non-AOC’ traffic and the proper enforcement of the DLS regulation is achieved. 3.1. FANS-1/A equipped aircraft (including the dual stack avionics solution) DLS focused consultation feedback During the DLS focused consultation on May 22 at EASA in Brussels, some stakeholders express their concern with the availability of a solution for DL dual stack avionics for some types (built after 2014). Stakeholders were concerned that for certain types produced after 2014 no dual stack avionics solution may be found in time (by Page 18 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 2020). As such, stakeholders proposed to postpone this date in the DLS regulation to 2018 or 2019. Some stakeholders advised that a forward fit solution would be more cost effective than a retrofit one, and ideally should be developed first. Retrofit compliance date should ideally be 2 years after the forward fit compliance date. Other stakeholders argued that the FANS-1/A compliance date should not really change, as may be seen as unfair for some operators which decided to comply early with the DLS regulation. Another issue was raised by some stakeholders with regards to the interpretation of the DLS regulation. For some aircraft built prior to 2014, the FANS option was not activated (although the installation existed). Question was raised if these aircraft should be exempted. Another question was raised with regards to DLS design changes completed post 2014 on aircraft with the first CofA prior to 2014. EASA’s interpretation is that the CofA date of 1 January 2014 for aircraft equipped with FANS is linked with the DLS operational capability at that time. If a design change enabling DLS service was introduced after 2014 for an aircraft with a first CofA prior to 2014, the operator would not necessarily be in compliance with the intent of the DLS regulation. JURG and IATA feedback on DLS. During the JURG meeting, IATA has requested to include their feedback on DLS regulation exemptions (see Annex 5). EASA proposal: Based on the feedback received from the airspace users, with regards to the FANS-1A equipped aircraft, it is proposed to move the first CofA date of 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2018 is considered, the forward-fit requirement for all aircraft with a first CofA after 5 February 2020 to be also equipped with ATN B1 is proposed to remain unchanged. Taking into account the following:  Long range aircraft to be equipped with FANS 1/A which may not have ATNB1 implemented (built between 2014 and April 2017), in the worst-case scenario they would not fly more than 1.4% of the total flight hours (0.8% in number of flight cycles).  Long range aircraft equipped with FANS 1/A will fly in other regions (e.g. ICAO-NAT), where FANS-1/A equipage is required.  High cost is claimed for dual stack avionics or unavailability of technical solutions for some types/models. Page 19 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran  By moving this date to 2018, it is expected that the stakeholders request regarding certain older types/models still manufactured after 2014 (e.g. B767 and A330 - CEO) would be fulfilled and they would not have to provide the additional investment for the DLS for minimum operational benefit in the European airspace.  Stable and acceptable DLS operations needs to be proven, and the focus on ground domain upgrade to ELSA Model D with multi-frequency should be considered as a higher priority.  ‘Best in class’ avionics is not defined sufficiently for formal certification. Any design change proposed for the avionics parts and appliances based on the future ED-92 C standard, cannot be implemented before 2020.  Implementation of the DLS regulation has to be proportionate (not following the ‘one size fits all principles) Based on the above, and considering the relative reduced impact, EASA proposed to amend the first CofA date for FANS-1/A aircraft to 1 January 2018. Regulation text proposal: […] 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: (xx) aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 20148 and fitted with data link equipment certified against compliant with the requirements of one of the Eurocae documents specified in point (10) of Annex III; […] 3.2. First CofA date One of the options proposed for discussion by EASA during the focused consultation held in Brussels on 22nd May was to exempt all the aircraft with the first CofA prior to 1st January 2000. While it was recognised by some stakeholders that the tracking and managing the implementation of the DLS based on the first CofA date appears simple, most of the stakeholders would prefer the type/model based exemptions. However some stakeholders appeared to be open to the idea especially if coupled with other automatic exemptions. The analysis of the number of flight hours versus the aircraft age shows that the average annual flights are between approximately 400 and 500 hours for aircraft within the 5 to 20 year-old age group (see blue shading in the figure below) and then starts to decline sharply after the 25 year threshold. While aircraft older than 25 years are still operating Page 20 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran in Europe, their number of flight hours is reduced and the aircraft retirement rate is high. In 2020, for an aircraft to be at least 25 years old, it must have a first CofA prior to 1995. The data represents the number of flights8 operated in NM controlled airspace in Europe (ECAC) in 2014, broken down by aircraft age to estimate the correlation between the annual number of flights per aircraft and aircraft age. The source is a Eurocontrol9 publication (pp 78–79). The following table groups the aircraft flights based on their age bracket. The last but one column demonstrates the decrease in average annual flights as the aircraft age increases. Aircraft in the 6–10 year old group fly 91% of the annual flight hours of the 1–5 year old group, while aircraft older than 35 do not fly more than 10% of the annual flight hours of the aircraft younger than 6 years. The last column takes the average annual flights of the whole fleet as 100% (i.e. 405 movements per year), and compares the various age groups to this. Aircraft that are older than 20 fly less than the average of the whole fleet while aircraft younger than 21 tends to be on average more heavily utilised (see Fig. 6) 8 Number of civil aircraft operating in Eurocontrol Network Manager controlled airspace in Europe (ECAC) 9 Standard Inputs for EUROCONTROL Cost-Benefit Analyses. Edition Number: 7.0. Edition Date: November 2015. Available online at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/standard-input-for-eurocontrol-cost-benefit- analyses-2015.pdf Figure 5: Average annual flights per aircraft age Page 21 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Figure 6: Age group and share of total flights Currently, in the DLS regulation there is already a similar provision referring to the first CofA date (see 3 b below) 2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, operators shall ensure that aircraft operating flights referred to in Article 1(3) have the capability to operate the data link services defined in Annex II as from 5 February 2020. 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: (a) … (b) aircraft which have an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 31 December 2003 and which will cease operation in the airspace referred to in Article 1(3) before 31 December 2022; (c)… According to this provision, all the aircraft with a first CofA prior to 31 December 2003 are exempted as long as they retire by 31 December 2022. To continue to operate, this provision would in fact force equipage of the aircraft 19 years or older in 2023. Removing this provision and replacing it with the provision to exempt all aircraft with a CofA before 2 February 2000, has encountered some resistance from the stakeholders, since it would affect their aircraft in the fleet which are manufactured between 2000 and 2003, which in this case will be no longer be exempted. However, this provision may not be actually seen as proportionate with the aircraft usage, as aircraft older than 20 years would operate less and less, in particular when they reach 25 years of age. Taking into account the following: Page 22 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran  Aircraft older than 20 years do not fly more than approximately 11 % of the total flight hours, and aircraft older than 25 years only fly approximately 3% of the total flight hours.  Many of the older aircraft are business jets, which would be also proposed to be exempted under the ‘19 passenger or less’ criteria and some types/models proposed to be exempted under the Article 14 types/models specific exemptions. Note: Business jets have generally a longer expected life.  DLS implementation needs to be proven first, and the focus should be on the ground domain upgrade to ELSA Model D with multi-frequency.  Best in class avionics concept is not yet defined. Any design change for the avionics parts based on the future ED-92 C standard cannot be implemented before 2020 and in practice will take considerably longer.  older aircraft are flying less and less in the airspace and would only make a minor DLS contribution in overall airspace, although the retrofit cost for the individual operators may be significant higher when compared with the aircraft residual value. EASA proposal Based on the above, EASA proposes to introduce an age applicability threshold for aircraft, older than 25 years. These older aircraft are flying in general less, therefore contributing less to the potential frequency congestion, and in addition they are likely to have excessive retrofit costs in comparison to the operational benefits they receive. Additionally, EASA would not propose at this time to remove the 31 December 2022 retirement age. Regulatory text proposal: …2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, operators shall ensure that aircraft operating flights referred to in Article 1(3) have the capability to operate the data link services defined in Annex II as from 5 February 2020. 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: […] (-) aircraft which have an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 1995; […] For transparency and completeness, it should be pointed that one stakeholders requested an additional ‘or’ between the various points in paragraph 3, to clarify that if in Page 23 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran any of the 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), etc., conditions are fulfilled, the aircraft is exempted. This EASA believes however, that the additional ‘or’ is not necessarily needed. 3.3. Non-AOC traffic Clarification of the AOC/Non-AOC terminology ‘AOC’ within the data link context is understood as ‘Aeronautical Operational Control’ (AOC) services. (this refers to the data and voice services which serves to support the airline such as transmitting for example information on engine performance) ‘AOC’ in the EASA’s Air operations regulatory framework is understood as an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) (approval granted by a competent authority to an aircraft operator – generally for aircraft flying – Commercial Air Transport (CAT)) A non-AOC operator is to be understood as an operator which does not subscribe to any data link AOC services but is still mandated to use data link for the purposes of ATS. General aviation and business operators are more likely to be part of this category. However some airlines do not use AOC data either. Feedback on non-AOC traffic topic, received during the EASA DLS exemptions focused consultation An aircraft DL equipped according to the regulation has the right to access the DLS. CSPs must therefore provide proper connection and access to the DL network. The focused consultation revealed the opinion of the group that the ‘AOC’ or ‘Non-AOC’ traffic should be treated similarly. The opinion of the stakeholders was that the issues is not technical in nature, rather a contractual one. Additionally, it was recommended that aircraft of 19 passengers or less, should be provided with a temporary exemption until the CSPs would be able to ensure the correct DL connection. The number of GA/Business aircraft is comparable with the number of aircraft flying commercial operations, however GA/Business aircraft fly significantly less. Therefore from an airspace operational perspective it would not make a major impact in terms of flights/flight hours, if the GA/Business aircraft are exempted. On the other hand, avionics manufacturers are working with EASA to find solutions for ATN B1, therefore it would be unfair to have a blanket permanent exemption. Conclusions of the focused consultation stated that the Commission/regulators must find ways to enforce the current regulation which obliges the ANSPs to ensure ATS communication to all the aircraft capable of DLS. ANSP should enforce CSP to provide the service. Feedback on non-AOC traffic topic, provided during the EBAA DLS workshop (as per the presentation). Page 24 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran (GARMIN): Although there were technical preventions previously in place which restricted non-AOC operators, Garmin has determined through test and log analysis that non-AOC avionics can now be used in DLS-IR airspace. Garmin is not aware of the CSPs setting up a program to allow for contractual arrangements with non-AOC operators. While non-AOC operators are technically able to use the DLS service, they may not be protected under a contractual arrangement. The other issue raised by GAMA/EBAA refers to the benefits of DLS. Many of their members are required to install equipment without really benefiting from the DLS. A possible option coming from EBAA was to exempt for retrofit all the aircraft with 19 passengers or less until a long term solution is found. All the presentations from various other stakeholders have been provided to the workshop participants. EASA proposal Taking into account the following:  Solutions for the users not having an agreement with the CSPs are still not clear. As such there is still no guarantee of service availability.  GA/Business aircraft all together do not fly more than approximately 8.7% of the total flight hours with a fleet size comparable to the commercial airline, and only approximately 7% when taking into account only the aircraft operating above FL285.  The CBA for the business aircraft operators is less favourable than for the scheduled service airline due to their type of operations.  Some of the business aircraft fly at the high altitude, less crowded, where the use of the DLS may be therefore needed less frequent.  Best in class avionics concept is not defined.  Implementation of the DLS regulation has to be proportionate (no following the ‘one size fits all principles)  Some avionics manufacturers which have already developed retrofit packages would be impacted. Additionally some operators who decided to comply earlier with the DLS regulation may feel that their investment was not justified and may be reluctant to comply earlier in the future. EASA proposes an automatic exemption for aircraft with 19 passengers and less for retrofit only, until the non-AOC traffic connection issue is addressed. This would alleviate the pressure for the retrofit packages (generally more expensive), while maintaining the focus for forward fit avionics. The weight limit of 45359 Kg /100000 lbs was added with the intention to differentiate between the typical GA/Business aircraft, Page 25 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran and aircraft converted from a regular airliner into a business aircraft and to separate the typical GA/business aircraft from freighters. Regulatory text proposal: […] 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: […] (xx) aircraft which have a certified maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a MTOM of 45359 Kg (100000 lbs) or less, with a first individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 5 February 2020; […] Additional proposal to address non-AOC traffic topic During the DLS focused consultation, as an alleviation measure to the ‘non-AOC’ traffic issue, it was proposed to exempt the non-commercial (CAT) operated aircraft. DLS regulation is an airspace requirement and is applicable to all airspace users within the EATMN, regardless if the operator has or does not have an AOC traffic contract with a CSP. In practice and as stated above, many operators are concerned that they are forced to carry equipment on board (i.e. DL equipment) which they cannot use. Therefore, until CSP’s can and will be actually providing a service to all aircraft requiring the service, as per the DLS regulation, the non-CAT operated aircraft which do not benefit from an AOC contract, may not be provided with DLS, therefore, these operations are proposed to be exempted. While such measure should be a temporary measure until the right mechanism to enforce ATN/ATS service provision to all airspace users, as foreseen in the DLS regulation, is found, the hurdles in the implementation of the regulation may not offer the non-CAT operators a positive CBA for a useful and effective DLS. The Commission supported by other stakeholders should ensure that the DLS regulation is enforced. The question to be asked is what would be impact on the 75% minimum equipage target when exempting the non-CAT aircraft, or when exempting aircraft with a 19 passengers or less seating configuration? It should be noted that the values shown below are calculated when the criteria are used as standalone ones. The values below are approximate, and what should be noted here is the order of magnitude. Statistics showing the separation between non-commercial and commercial operated aircraft, certified to carry 19 passengers or less and being able to fly above FL 285, but not including freighters is provided below. (MTOM division of 45359 Kg /100000 lbs was provided to reflect in general the higher threshold for the largest business jets, which are not conversions from regular airliners). The ratio between non-commercially versus commercially operated aircraft, expressed in flight hours, for aircraft capable flying above FL 285 is between 2-3%. The table Page 26 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran represents the percentages for Non-commercially /State /Commercially operated aircraft. The number of flights/flight hours performed by State aircraft proportion is actually less than 0.05%, therefore is shown in the table as 0.0%. A related table with the estimated number of flight hours in European airspace: A related table provides the number of aircraft 19 passengers or below and the relationship with non-commercial/state/commercial operation. From the above tables it can be seen that almost half of the aircraft 19 passengers or below operate commercial. Their number of flight hours, hence potential DLS contribution is 20-30 % more than the number of flight hours flown by non-commercial fleet. However, the overall impact of the typical business aircraft and non-commercial aircraft, on the total number of flight hours in the European airspace is rather low. Note: When assessed together with the other criteria (aircraft age, FANS -1/A, proposed/draft Decision no 3), the overall impact on the number of flights is not a direct addition, due to various aircraft which could be exempted at the same time by multiple criteria. Regulatory text proposal: […] 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: […] (xx) aircraft engaged in non-commercial operations; […] Page 27 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 3.4. Regulatory text proposal for automatic exemptions: Considering all the proposals regarding the automatic exemptions the resulting regulatory text proposal is: […] 2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, operators shall ensure that aircraft operating flights referred to in Article 1(3) have the capability to operate the data link services defined in Annex II as from 5 February 2020. 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to: (a) aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 20148 and fitted prior to this date, with data link equipment certified against compliant with the requirements of one of the Eurocae documents specified in point (10) of Annex III; (b) aircraft engaged in non-commercial operations; (c) aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 1995; (bd) aircraft which have an individual certificate of airworthiness first issued before 31 December 2003 and which will cease operation in the airspace referred to in Article 1(3) before 31 December 2022; (e) aircraft which have a certified maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a MTOM of 45359 Kg (100000 lbs) or less, with a first individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 5 February 2020; (cf) State aircraft; (dg) aircraft flying in the airspace referred to in Article 1(3) for testing, delivery or for maintenance purposes or with data link constituents temporarily inoperative under conditions specified in the applicable minimum equipment list required by point (1) of Annex III and Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules. 4. Member States which decide to equip new transport type State aircraft entering into service after 1 January 2019 with data link capability relying upon standards which are not specific to military operational requirements, shall ensure that those aircraft have the capability to operate the data link services defined in Annex II. […] 3.5. Re-assessment of the automatic exemption criteria Pending a successful implementation of DLS and the resolution of the non-AOC traffic not being able to connect, the automatic exemption criteria should reviewed and amended accordingly. While the 75% is currently viewed as a minimum for DLS equipped flights, the target should be 100% to maximise the operational benefits. The overall number of exempted flights should be monitored for example by NM, and Page 28 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran corrective actions should be taken by EASA in case some of the assumptions or the automatic exemption criteria will not lead towards the 25% target of maximum exempted flights by 2022 in the operational airspace volumes. Some possible reasons for not meeting the 75% minimum may include the increase usage of older aircraft benefitting from the type/model exemption, delaying the replacement of the fleet with new aircraft in compliance with the DLS regulation. Note: the requirement referring to datalink constituents temporarily inoperative under the conditions specified in the applicable minimum equipment list, would need to be reviewed during the RMT.0524, and a DLS rectification interval to be introduced as appropriate In the DLS rule. Other related documents may need to be aligned. Page 29 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 4. Aircraft specific exemptions (by type/model/series) 4.1. Assessment of the "exemption criteria" Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 Article 14 paragraph (3) defines the criteria based on which aircraft of specific types might be granted exemption to the requirements of DLS. The criteria are currently the following: (a) aircraft types reaching the end of their production life and being produced in limited numbers; and (b) aircraft types for which re-engineering costs required would be disproportionate due to old design. During the focused consultation the criteria was proposed to be revised to add ‘models’. The addition of the wording models would not necessarily change the current list of aircraft types/models proposed for exemption, however may be needed if another exemption exercise would be required. As the Regulation offers no definition of the elements specified in a) and b) above the objective of the following sections is to provide quantifiable and transparent definitions which can be used for assessing the applications for exemptions. The following sections will look at how to define ‘types reaching the end of their production life and being produced in limited numbers’ and offer alternative approaches on how to measure the criteria ‘disproportionate due to old design’. The analysis done was based on the intention to meet both criteria a) and b). These approaches are then applied to the aircraft types for which exemption have been granted and requested. 4.2. Defining the production life / limited numbers The impact assessment of the Justification Material for the Draft Implementing Rule on Data Link Services by EUROCONTROL assumes that ‘exemptions will represent a very small proportion of the total number of IFR/GAT flights in the applicable airspace’ (page A-16). Article 14 (3) (a) of the Commission Regulation grants exemption to aircraft types: • reaching the end of their production life and • being produced in limited numbers. A product life cycle usually have four distinct stages after development: • introduction • growth • maturity Page 30 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran • decline. These four stages can be well illustrated with the bell-shaped curve of a normal distribution. The time is on the horizontal axis and the number of units delivered on the vertical axis (see Fig. 7). Figure 7: Stages of product life cycle Real life delivery figures do not resemble the normal distribution perfectly, e.g. they are often screwed to the right or aircraft series and variants might have their own production life (see Fig. 8). Despite this, assessing historical delivery figures based on the bell- shaped curve of normal distribution can help identify the end of production life. Figure 8: Boeing 777 deliveries10 10 Source: Ascend online Page 31 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Approximating the product life cycle with a normal distribution allows several type of prediction about future deliveries. If it is assumed that the aircraft type is reaching the end of their production life when 95% of the production has been delivered this can be represented by: • the production has reached its peak, and • the annual production is in ‘decline phase’ and is no more than roughly 1/4 of the peak value.11 The criteria, being produced in limited numbers, is a difficult condition to define as this can be interpreted in many ways, for example a fixed number, a fixed number per annum, a percentage of existing fleet depending on the type of aircraft. Additionally, the concept of being ‘produced in limited numbers’ is highly dependent upon the market segment that is being targeted. For some aircraft types production rates of 10 aircraft a year are significant and this rate cannot be compared to the production rates of aircraft such as the A320/B737. However, they all operate in the airspace and are subject to the same operating conditions. Therefore as a condition on its own, cannot be used. The requirement in Art 14 is ‘(a) aircraft types reaching the end of their production life and being produced in limited numbers; and (b) aircraft types for which re-engineering costs required would be disproportionate due to old design’. The key word here is ‘and’. Therefore, to be legible for an exemption the aircraft type must first be reaching the end of it production, (i.e. no more or limited orders) and compared to the peak production rates, the numbers of aircraft produced are significantly reduced. 4.3. Defining disproportionate costs 4.3.1. Approach 1 - Proportionality: Cost of retrofit as percentage of the average current market value (CMV) In regulatory impact assessments low, medium and high economic impacts may be defined based on either percentage thresholds or absolute euro figures. A negative impact is defined in table 1 as a cost as a percentage of the annual turnover for any single firm. However, in this case linking a possible exemption to an individual company’s turnover is not practical as aircraft are moveable asset and during their life are operated by more than one company that have different annual turnovers. An exemption based exactly on these criteria is therefore not practical and may have a negative impact on the transfer of aircraft between companies. If we are to assume the intent of such a definition is to link the cost related to implementing the regulation to the economic status of the company, we could in this case link such and cost to the value of the asset. Therefore, a one-off retrofit cost that is less than 1% of the asset could be considered a low impact, or in other words an impact that can be considered proportionate. The 1% value is a standard assessment cost benefit applied as part of the regulatory impact assessment criteria. The value of the asset can be considered to be the residual value or current market value. 11 25.85% in case of the standard normal distribution Page 32 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Table 1: Assessment of economic costs and benefits12 Assessment Description Highly positive impact Savings of more than 5% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual saving of more than 100 million euros. Medium positive impact Savings of 1-5% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual savings of 10-1000 million euros. Low positive impact Savings of less than 1% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual savings of less than 10 million euros. No impact Highly negative impact Costs of more than 5% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual costs of more than 100 million euros. Medium negative impact Costs of 1-5% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual costs of 10-100 million euros. Low negative impact Costs of less than 1% of annual turnover for any single firm. Total annual costs of less than 100 million euros. The Information contained in the ASCEND database13 on the average residual value or current market value (CMV) of most aircraft types in the European fleet is available. Based on the CMV as well as the estimated costs for retro fitting an aircraft with a DL compliant system, the cost/value ratio can be calculated and based on the above consideration all aircraft with a ratio higher than 1% should be exempted.14 This approach provides a straightforward way of assessing the proposals and can be implemented with the available data. However, it does not take into account initial rationale of the exemption, which was based on the number of flights and the idea that old aircraft should be exempted as their potential benefit generated by their number of flights with DL would not be proportionate to the costs for retrofitting the aircraft. 12 EASA impact assessment guidelines. Original source: Government of Canada: FRAMEWORK FOR THE TRIAGE OF REGULATORY SUBMISSIONS 13 http://www.ascendworldwide.com/what-we-do/ascend-data/aircraft-airline-data/ascend-online-fleets.html 14For a number of aircraft no current market value is available in the data base but can be estimated based on new price and depreciation rates. Page 33 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran 4.3.2. Approach 2 – Proportionality: Cost of retrofit in relation to the aircraft specific benefit from DLS Although the regulation does not provide any indication that the proportionality of cost should be linked to the anticipated benefits, from an economic perspective such an approach may be more appropriate. Such an approach could take into account the aircraft age, number of flights and potential benefits expected over the life of the aircraft. The following approach is an attempt to review the potential benefits with the available data. In order to make an economically sound judgement on the proportionality of costs it would be necessary to look into the costs and benefits by type. As far as the costs are concerned, the aircraft equipage costs for retro fitting DL on the European fleet was originally estimated by EUROCONTROL in the Economic Appraisal of Eurocontrol’s Justification Material15, to be ranging from EUR 5000 up to EUR 100.000 depending on the type. The average was considered to be around EUR 40.000. By contrast, for the aircraft types were an exemption has been requested, the costs are estimated to be on average EUR 318.000, ranging from 70.000 to 450.000. Based on this information the costs and benefits can be compared on a by-type-level if an estimate for the benefits by type can be found. In order to estimate the benefits by type, the starting point is the Economic Appraisal of Eurocontrol’s Justification Material, which contains aggregate level data on the following key variables of the forecast model: • Annual aircraft and traffic projections up to 2025: o number of flights of all aircraft and thereof number of flights of eligible aircraft and aircraft equipped with DL o number of all aircraft, eligible aircraft and aircraft equipped with DL • Correlation between aircraft age and flights per aircraft EUROCONTROL also estimated the benefits in the operating period of just over 10 years16 after mandatory equipage to be EUR 875 million, assuming baseline traffic growth and compliance with the deadline for equipage. If we assume the overall benefit of EUR 875 million to be accurate, the benefit per flight can be calculated by dividing the total benefits with the number of flights equipped with DL. A 3.4% average annual traffic increase was assumed at that time, therefore the number of eligible flights increases from 3.5 million in 2006 to 4.8 million in 2015 and 6.7 million in 2025. Taking into account the share of flights equipped with DL, the baseline traffic growth and equipage scenario assuming 56 million flights with DL in the 2015– 2025 period. The average benefit per flight is EUR 875 million divided by 56 million 15 Annex C of EUROCONTROL (2007) SES Regulation justification material SES/IOP/DLS/JMA/2.0 16 February 2015–2025 Page 34 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran flights, which is EUR 15.65 (or USD 20.7717). It should be noted that current exchange rate is (1 euro=1.17 dollars). The following table (Table 2) represents the prediction done in 2014 over the DLS equipage of the fleet: Table 2 Number of flights equipped with DLS Year Eligible flights Share of flights equipped Number of flights equipped 2006 3 539 208 0% 0 2007 3 659 541 0% 0 2008 3 783 965 0% 0 2009 3 912 620 2% 78 252 2010 4 045 649 4% 161 826 2011 4 183 201 11% 460 152 2012 4 325 430 24% 1 038 103 2013 4 472 495 47% 2 102 073 2014 4 624 560 71% 3 283 437 2015 4 781 795 83% 3 968 890 2016 4 944 376 87% 4 301 607 2017 5 112 485 89% 4 550 111 2018 5 286 309 90% 4 757 678 2019 5 466 044 91% 4 974 100 2020 5 651 889 91% 5 143 219 2021 5 844 053 91% 5 318 089 2022 6 042 751 91% 5 498 904 2023 6 248 205 90% 5 623 384 2024 6 460 644 90% 5 814 579 2025 6 680 305 90% 6 012 275 55 962 835 Total (2015–2025) Based on this figure, the benefit of a given type may be estimated using the remaining number of flights of a given type, which is based on: A. Average annual number of flights of the aircraft type 17 European Central Bank 2013 annual average reference exchange rate (1 euro = 1.3281 dollar) Page 35 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran B. Average service life of the aircraft class18 C. Average age of the fleet of the type operated in Europe D. Benefit per flight Benefit of DLS per aircraft type = A × (B – C) x D This approach provides a more robust assessment of proportionality based on initial estimates of the total number of flights as this is considered the basic driver for the proportionality of costs to benefits and the assumed overall benefit. Note: A recent value for average annual traffic increase changes the value to 2.9%. 4.3.3. Approach 3 – Proportionality: Cost of retrofit in relation to the cost of forward fit An additional simplistic method to access the proportionality is to compare the relative costs of retro fitting an aircraft with a DLS system compared to the cost of equipping an aircraft on the production line (i.e. forward fit). Although it is very difficult assess or to estimate the cost to install a DLS system to an aircraft in production as this data is not readily available. However, as the majority of the costs are related to the equipment, LRU’s, MCDU’s, cables connects etc., the overall production installation costs can conservatively be assumed to be to the same as the retrofit costs. As a result of these conservative assumption the cost ratio in this case, is basically the ratio the cost of a new aircraft to the residual cost. If the aircraft has depreciated to 1/10 of the value, any retrofit cost would be difficult to be justified from a cost-benefit perspective. Thus, all aircraft types with a cost ratio higher than 10 should be exempted. The value of this approach is rather limited, since many of the values are not available. 4.4. Regulatory text proposal - Article 14 Considering the feedback received that the exemption criteria should only be subject to minor modifications, potentially just clarifying aircraft type/model/series, and taking into account that the table provided on DLS exemption does not reflect consistently just the aircraft type, the word ‘models’ is proposed to be added. […] 3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 1 shall be the following: (a) aircraft types/models reaching the end of their production life and being produced in limited numbers; and 18 Average service life of aircraft operated by EASA operators: Average age at permanent retirement from service of six aircraft classes (business jets, turboprops, regional jets, narrow-bodies and wide-bodies). Page 36 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran (b) aircraft types/models for which re-engineering costs required would be disproportionate due to old design. […] 4.5. Aircraft specific Proposed Exemptions (by type/model/series) The intent for the list is to capture exemptions for the types and models out of production, or for one-off case where the production cycle is ending by 2020. The list of types and models proposed for exemption is not envisioned to contain any new model/variant, type certified after 1 January 2014. As the primary driver for the exemptions as requested by the applicants is related to the cost of the retro-fit a review of the results of the analysis as described in paragraphs 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 has been undertaken to assess those aircraft types that should be subject to a permanent exception. In a number of cases all 3 approaches indicated that an aircraft type should be exempted. Where this is not the case, if 2 out of the 3 indicated that the type should be exempted this was applied. When the analysis only returning 2 valued results, an aircraft type was considered to be suitable for exemption if at least it met the criteria of approach 1, i.e. the analysis is weighted to the approach 1 methodology. Aircraft types for which a permanent exemption has already previously granted in accordance with Decisions 1 and 2, have been reassessed in accordance with approached described in paragraphs 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 in order to determine a consistent approach. This analysis has confirmed the majority of the permanent exemptions already granted are consistent with the approach applied in this report with the exceptions noted in the comments section of the exemptions table. Note: the detailed results for approach 1 to 3 can be found in Annex 1 to 3 The proposed exempted type/models are in the following ‘Exemptions’ table, which is proposed to be the base for the ‘Draft Decision 3’. Page 37 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Table ‘Exemptions’ (Base for Draft Decision 3) Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments AN-12 all Antonov AN12 Exempted under Decision 1 Exemption recommended Out of production since 1973 Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs AN-124 100 Antonov A124 Exemption recommended Production stopped 2014. Limited numbers produced 55. Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs Operator reported impossibility to comply with the latest avionics requirements. IL-76 all Ilyushin IL76 Exemption recommended Out of production Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs A300 all Airbus A30B Exemption Out of production since 2007 Page 38 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments A306 recommended Remaining operations are cargo avionics design is old Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs A310 all Airbus A310 Exemption recommended Out of production since 1998 Remaining operations are cargo Avionics design is old Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs A330 Series 200/300 Airbus A332 / A333 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended for retrofit. See Transition 1. Recommendation only applicable for 200 and 300 Series. In production. Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped Costs of retrofit are not high enough to justify exemption, for the remaining production aircraft forward fit. Dual stack solution will be available by 2019. Note: Future model A330 NEO (A330- Page 39 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments 800/900) is not exempted A340 all Airbus A342 A343 A345 A346 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Out of production since 2011 Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs A318-112 Airbus A318 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Out of production since 2013 Decision 2 exempted model -112. ACJ318 Airbus A318 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less passengers (pax) but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. ACJ319 Airbus A319 Exempted under Exemption NOT In production (*) Page 40 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Decision 2 recommended See Transition 2 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. ACJ320 Airbus A320 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. ACJ-321 Airbus A321 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. Page 41 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments AVROLINER (RJ-100) AVRO RJ1H Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs AVROLINER (RJ-85) AVRO RJ85 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs BA146-301 British Aerospace B463 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B717 Series 200 Boeing B712 Exemption recommended 24 in service in 2014 Production ended 2006 Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B737-700IGW (BBJ) Boeing B737 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Page 42 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B737-800 (BBJ2) Boeing B738 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B737-900ER (BBJ3) Boeing B739 Exemption NOT recommended See Transition 2 In production (*) 19 or less pax but heavier than threshold Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B737-300 Boeing B733 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs Page 43 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments B737-400 Boeing B734 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B737-500 Boeing B735 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B747-Series 400 (except freighter) Boeing B744 Exemption recommended Production of -400 passenger version ended in 2005 Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B747-400F Boeing B744 Exemption recommended Production of -400F freighter version ended in 2008 Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption. However benefit for operators from retrofitting is minimal. Page 44 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B757 Series200 Boeing B752 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B757-Series 300 Boeing B753 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B767-Series 200 Boeing B762 Exemption recommended Production ended Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs B767-Series 300 Boeing B763 Exemption recommended Production of passenger models is ended, however production of freighter is not. In case passenger models are produced after 2020, exemption may not be justified Costs of retrofit are high to justify exemption. Long range aircraft potentially FANS Page 45 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments equipped B767-300F Boeing B763 No exemption recommended See Transition 2 Still production planned for 2018-2023. Costs of retrofit are not high to justify exemption. Long range aircraft potentially FANS equipped. B767-400 Boeing B764 Exemption recommended Production ended 2014 Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs MD-82 Boeing MD82 Exemption recommended Production ended 1997 Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs MD-83 Boeing MD83 Exemption recommended Production ended 1999 Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs MD-11 Boeing MD11 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Production ended 2000 Exemption recommended due to high Page 46 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments retrofit costs Global Express/5000 Bombardier GLEX/GL5T Exemption recommended only for retrofit See Transition 1 In production since 1996 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs Ultra long range business jet (potentially FANS equipped) CL-600-2B19 (CRJ100/200/440) Bombardier CRJ1/ CRJ2 Exempted under Decision 1 Exemption recommended Production ended 2006. Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs. Note: If still in production, variant 850 is not exempted. CL-600-1A11 (600) Bombardier CL60 Exemption recommended Production ended 1982 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs CL-600-2A12 (601 Bombardier CL60 Exemption Production ended Page 47 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Variant) recommended 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs CL-600-2B16 (601-3A variant) Bombardier CL60 Exemption recommended Production ended 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs CL-600-2B16 (601-3R variant) Bombardier CL60 Exemption recommended Production ended 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs CL-600-2B16 (604 variant) Bombardier CL60 . Exemption recommended Production ended 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs. Note Model 650 is not exempted (still in production). Page 48 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments CL-600-2C10 (CRJ-700) Bombardier CRJ7 Exemption recommended only for retrofit See Transition 1 In production (*) Exemption recommended only for retrofit due to high retrofit costs In production, started in 1999 Learjet 23 Bombardier LJ23 Exemption recommended End production 1964 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 24, series Bombardier LJ24 Exemption recommended End production 1977 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 25, all Bombardier LJ25 Exemption recommended End production 1982 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Page 49 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Learjet 28 Bombardier LJ28 Exemption recommended End production 1982 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 29 Bombardier LJ28 Exemption recommended End production 1982 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 31, 31A Bombardier LJ31 Exemption recommended End production 2003 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 35, 35A Bombardier LJ35 Exemption recommended End production 1994 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Page 50 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Learjet 36, 36A Bombardier LJ35 Exemption recommended End production 1994 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 40/45 Bombardier LJ45 Exemption recommended Ended production 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs Learjet 55, 55B, 55C Bombardier LJ55 Exemption recommended End production 1987 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Learjet 60 Bombardier LJ60 Exemption recommended End production 2012 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs Page 51 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Learjet 60XR Bombardier LJ60 Exemption recommended End production 2012 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate retrofit costs C208 Cessna C208 Exemption recommended, however not needed. Aircraft max ceiling is below FL 250. Automatically exempted due to max ceiling below FL285 19 or less pax C414 Cessna C414 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C414A Cessna C414 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Page 52 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments C421 Cessna C421 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C421A Cessna C421 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C421B Cessna C421 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C421C Cessna C421 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Page 53 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments C425 Cessna C425 Exemption recommended End production 1986 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C441 Cessna C441 Exemption recommended End production 1987 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C500 (Citation I) Cessna C500 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C501 (Citation I) Cessna C501 Exemption recommended End production 1985 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Page 54 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments C525 (CJ/CJ1/CJ1+) variants Cessna C525 Exempted under Decision 1 Exemption recommended CJ1 out of production 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C525A, CJ2 variant Cessna C25A Exemption recommended CJ2 is out of production 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C525A, CJ2+ variant Cessna C25A Exemption recommended CJ2+ is out of production 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Note: Exemption is not recommended for Citation M2 model which is in production with G3000 avionics C525B, CJ3 Cessna C25B Exemption recommended CJ3 is out of production 19 or less pax Page 55 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Note: Exemption is not recommended for Citation CJ3+ model which is in production with G3000 avionics C525C, CJ4 Cessna C25C Exemption recommended only for retrofit. See Transition 1 In production since 2010. 19 or less pax Exemption recommended for retrofit due to high retrofit costs C550/C551 (Citation II, Bravo)) Cessna C550 C551 Exemption recommended Production ended 2006 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C551 (Citation II) Cessna C551 Exemption recommended Production ended 2006 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Page 56 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments C560 (Citation V, Ultra, Encore, Encore +) Cessna C560 Exempted under Decision 1 Exemption recommended Production ended 2011 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C560XL (Citation Excel) Cessna C56X Exemption recommended 19 or less pax Excel and XLS models are not produced since XLS+ began deliveries (2008) Exemption recommended due to high retrofit costs C560XL (Citation XLS+) Cessna C56X Exemption recommended for retrofit See Transition 1 19 or less pax In production (*) Exemption recommended for retrofit due to high retrofit costs C650 (Citation III) Cessna C650 Exemption recommended End production 1992 19 or less pax Page 57 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments C680 - Honeywell Primus EPIC (Citation Sovereign) Cessna C680 Exemption recommended for Sovereign model Not recommended for Sovereign+ (C680+) Note: EASA certified 2014. Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs to model with Honeywell avionics. Model Sovereign+ in production (*) and equipped with G5000 CS550 Cessna C550 Exemption recommended Production ended 2006 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs C750 (Citation X) Cessna C750 Exempted under Decision 1 Exemption recommended (only for Citation X) Model X certified in 1999 by JAA Model X+ in production (*) 19 or less pax Exemption for model X recommended due to disproportionate costs Exemption not applicable for model X+ (in production and equipped with G5000) Page 58 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments Falcon 10 Dassault FA10 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Production ended 1989 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Falcon 20 Dassault FA20 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Production ended 1988 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Falcon 50 Dassault FA50 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended Production ended 2008 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs F2000 Dassault F2TH Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended (only for retrofit) See transition 1 Models 2000LXS and 2000S still in production (*) 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high costs Page 59 of 140 TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intran Aircraft Type/Series/Model Manufacturer ICAO Type Previous exemption Exemption recommendation Comments F900 Dassault F900 Exempted under Decision 2 Exemption recommended (only for retrofit) See transition 1 Model 900LX in production (*) 19 or less pax Exemption recommended due to high costs DO328-100 Dornier D328 Exemption recommended Production ended 2000 Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs Dornier DO328-300 Dornier Exemption recommended Production ended 2000 Exemption recommended due to disproportionate costs ERJ 190-100ECJ Embraer E190 Exemption N