Opsbod.
I appreciate your concerns, but I disagree about your conclusions.
I think that Europe would support an FAA style system.
1. Remember that the dispatch system presently in use in the US was created in 1938, after several accidents demonstrated the need for it. There was no ASD back then. That is a recent development within the last ten years. Previously, flight dispatchers used other methods to track their flights. They could use position reports from the flights. Or follow the flight plan route and estimate a flight’s position according to its enroute time. Or directly speak to the crew. These methods still allowed weather and other operational information to be relayed to the flights, such as severe weather messages/Sigmets, ATC delays and airport facility status changes. Also, when flights got into a problem, the ground to air communication system, whether through phone patches or remote stations or whatever, were used to discuss the situation and work on a solution with the crew, as with a diversion or system failure.
The point is though, that flights were monitored and communicated with for more than 50 years before ASD was available.
2. New technologies allow alternatives to ATC based ASD. Satellite communications and GPS positioning provide the ability for a flight to be tracked anywhere. Systems can report the position of a flight literally every few moments.
3. Regarding the weather radar sites, is the delay in information due to the weather service of the country involved or is it because the airline may have to pay for the service in real time? Either way, there is no justifiable reason that this could not be provided in a timely manner to those who have a real need for it for aviation safety.
Even with this problem, flight dispatchers should have access to satellite images and all other weather products, reports and forecasts. This would still allow them to flight plan and monitor almost as safely as with the current radar. But I agree that the radar should be there.
4. Modern technology provides high productivity for flight dispatchers. Although workload can be an issue, with the more automated systems that are used now, it is not unusual for each flight dispatcher to be responsible for 50-70 flights per shift (For intra-European, like domestic US flights. Long haul have a higher workload, so the number is significantly less). It needs to be noted, however, that when difficult situations occur, such as bad weather, then additional staffing would be required. This still allows for effective monitoring and joint responsibility, both of which have been shown to reduce accidents and incidents.
5. Even with the problem of the lack of ASD and the radar sites, the main thing that is the obstacle to an effective operational control/flight dispatch system in Europe is the lack of legal/regulatory requirements for it. Without a requirement, there is no perceived need to track the flights and have qualified personnel with appropriate technology tools to support them. The technology and tools for the flight dispatchers will quickly follow if that requirement becomes reality.
It is simply not acceptable to have thousands of flights operating every day and not have them supported properly, in many cases not even knowing where they are. How do you feel when that flight disappears off of your screen when it goes to France? I really sympathise with that problem. Imagine if Europe experienced a 9/11 type emergency tomorrow. US flight dispatchers were key in getting their flights on the ground safely in that emergency. And we all know that the security threat to the industry continues on a world wide basis. It is not just a safety problem, but a security problem as well. I am afraid that this vulnerability will continue and that there will be additional incidents and accidents until this problem is addressed.
That is why we should do everything possible to bring about these necessary changes.