Sorry to drift slightly from topic - but I thought some background on the 'generic rating' debate might be useful.
I recall being shown an [Airservices] executive paper prepared in about 1998 or 1999, in which the concept of developing a system whereby controllers could work across a range of sectors with a common rating/endorsement was discussed.
It was recognised that this could add a lot of efficiency in the system, better utilising staff.
However, the paper contained three VERY CRITICAL CAVEATS.
The paper correctly recognised that ATCs are tied to particular sectors by [at least] three factors:
- Geography [i.e., the need to know the general geography and topograhy of the sector, including airports, towns, etc]
- Navigation Infrastructure and Surveillance [i.e., the navigation aids (frequency, range, etc), airways and routes and SIDS and STARS, radar coverage, etc]; and
- Communications [i.e., the frequencies available, range, coverage, etc].
There are, of course, other factors, like the general distribution of traffic, conflict points, holding arrangements and so on.
The paper proposed that if it were possible to disassociate a sector from the three major contraints [Geography, Navigation, Communications] it may be possible to construct universal endorsements.
The proposed solution to the issue of geography was to ensure that sectors were not linked to the ground - i.e., that the sectors would have a notional base of 20,000 feet or higher.
The proposed solution to navigation/surveillance was to wait until ALL aircraft operating across Australia's upper airspace were equipped for RNAV and with ADS/ADS-B.
The harder one to resolve was communications. There were several proposals - the most radical of which was 'addressable voice' communications [viable in other applications - certainly not tested in aviation].
There was, of course, the other critical issue of HMI - but it was envisaged that TAAATS consoles could be brought back to original design uniformity.
All in all, a theoretically viable concept - but one that was meant to be used as a developmental concept to allow the designers to look at TAAATS 2 and beyond.
From my reading of the paper, it was never envisaged that universal endorsements be implemented before ALL of the caveats were resolved.
As I said - just background information - I have no idea who decided to override the caveats and 'just go for it' [actually, I think I do - a certain 'gentleman from a land not too far east of Australia' - recently departed).