ACHIEVEMENTS IN REPORTING PERIOD:

The numbers for 2009 as a whole include observations on the block schedule for the upcoming Oct/Nov session, plus known e-VLBI observations coming up 29-30 Sep. There are a further 4 e-VLBI days >= Oct, but there are no specific schedules for those yet. Of course, some of the scheduled Oct/Nov observations may not take place (weather, etc.), and there may also be some not-yet-proposed target of opportunity observation.

For the following 12 months, one would expect similar numbers of eligible hours. The ~580 expected for 2009 is actually a record going back to the beginning of FP6 EVN TNA (those 5 years had numbers of eligble hours of [338, 253.5, 368, 492, 489.5] from 2004-8).
The contracted value per year in FP7 is 115, so there's no problem meeting that (happened already in the Feb/Mar session).

There have been 5 data-reduction visits so far (total of 34 days), made under 4 proposals. The project summary for each of these is on file here.
There has been an additional data-reduction visit, but we're still waiting on the project summary, so no reimbursement has been made for that one yet. In terms of the questionnaires, I haven't started nagging a lot yet. The web forms weren't available yet when I was sending around the post-block-schedule e-mails to PIs for the Feb/Mar & May/Jun sessions. A revised TNA blurb about the new forms has been sent out to the Oct/Nov session PIs (but of course those observations most likely won't be completely analyzed by the PIs before the end of the year) – I need to send that to the previous session PIs also, now that the new forms are available. Some of the earlier project summaries that we do have in were also completed before the new FP7 form was ready, so they use the FP6 one.B

PROBLEMS/ISSUES: Making a machine-completable project summary form was a step forward from the situation in FP6, where a number of PIs complained about having to print out a blank form and fill it in by hand. I take it for granted now that some PIs, as in FP6, will comlain about the multiplicity of reporting required: a project summary to “enable” travel reimbursements plus an EC questionnaire plus a virtually equivalent RadioNet questionnaire.
At the most immediate level, only PIs wanting to get reimbursement for data-reduction trips explicitly benefit from completing those feedback forms, and then it's only the project summary that's significant – whereas it's the receipt (or not) of the EC questionnaire that keeps Brussels happy/angry at the program as a whole.
I'd think the number of questionnaires getting returned to Brussels would increase if the motivations of the program and the PIs could be aligned better – is we could somehow intercept the Brussels questionnaire to use it's completion as the authorization for reimbursement.
This apparently wasn't possible in FP6 via Jodrell.

FORWARD LOOK: The EVN TNA should easily make its contracted hours each year, thus the payments going to the stations should be constant over individual years (unless the board decides to adjust hours claimed per year, as happened in FP6). So far, there's no sign of too rapid spending in the travel – but this comprises just 2 PC meetings, 1 CBD meeting, and the data-reduction visits mentioned above (all from just the Feb/Mar session so far – the data reduction visits natrually lag the observations by 3-6 months or so.