EU seeks to overhaul air traffic control
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU seeks to overhaul air traffic control
Don't know if this has been discussed here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/business/air.php?page=1
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/business/air.php?page=1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Haven't seen it discussed here very much but it's not really new.
The EC introduced regulations in 2004, usually referred to as the Single European Sky regs or SES. These set out a framework for the individual states to work in a common fashion and, importantly - it is generally considered - to gain economic benefits, to establish functional airspace blocks(FABs) that are designed around traffic flows rather than national boundaries.
Although almost all of the member states have now set up the administrative and regulatory structures that the regulations require it is debatable whether things are being done in a common way across the region.
And there has been very little take up of the FAB concept - presumably because the political boundaries still take precedence over extensive cross-border activities. I suspect that the legal fall-out of the Ueberlingen accident does little to encourage states to get involved in FABs.
The regulations due to be published this week are the second tranche of SES - often referred to as SES 2. The rumours are that they will focus on environmental stuff as noted by IHT and perhaps also on making FABs happen and harmonising the processes used by each state, particularly for regulation.
As for Eurocontrol....yes, I agree with HD, that's the sort of thing that the organisaton was set up for. But the reality is that it is made up from member states who have to agree on things (to one extent or another) and politics gets in the way as each state seeks to get something for itself or stop someone else getting something! Whether it is a good thing or bad, the EC is less bound by these constraints.
The EC introduced regulations in 2004, usually referred to as the Single European Sky regs or SES. These set out a framework for the individual states to work in a common fashion and, importantly - it is generally considered - to gain economic benefits, to establish functional airspace blocks(FABs) that are designed around traffic flows rather than national boundaries.
Although almost all of the member states have now set up the administrative and regulatory structures that the regulations require it is debatable whether things are being done in a common way across the region.
And there has been very little take up of the FAB concept - presumably because the political boundaries still take precedence over extensive cross-border activities. I suspect that the legal fall-out of the Ueberlingen accident does little to encourage states to get involved in FABs.
The regulations due to be published this week are the second tranche of SES - often referred to as SES 2. The rumours are that they will focus on environmental stuff as noted by IHT and perhaps also on making FABs happen and harmonising the processes used by each state, particularly for regulation.
As for Eurocontrol....yes, I agree with HD, that's the sort of thing that the organisaton was set up for. But the reality is that it is made up from member states who have to agree on things (to one extent or another) and politics gets in the way as each state seeks to get something for itself or stop someone else getting something! Whether it is a good thing or bad, the EC is less bound by these constraints.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: on safari
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nostalgic picture
Ah - so much grass to be seen where there is now so much concrete. Dublin Ground in the "rare oul times".
Speaking of ground though, I always wonder when US ATC is quoted as being so much more efficient than Europe. Maybe somewhat more efficient in terms of cost, but in terms of delays? On my travels in the US I have waited in some spectacular departure queues (no. 46 once in one busy field, and that was just the aeroplanes I could see from my position over the hour we were holding).
Ok I've experienced delays in Europe too, in Heathrow and other busy places, but never as bad as in the States. That's just my experience, maybe it doesn't reflect the true picture.
But it gets a bit tiring listening to the same old story about how "inefficient" we are in Europe. There are historical reasons for the situation as it exists today and there are sovereignty issues concerning airspace (which are not a factor in the US).
The ratio of population density (ie more complex and labour intensive airspace) to average sector length is much higher in Europe which leads to an underlying higher ATC cost per mile.
Also, it is generally accepted that ATC in the US is understaffed and that they work tougher rosters. This contributes, no doubt, to their lower costs.
The situation in Europe is improving all the time. While the traffic has increased over the past couple of decades, the average CTOT delays have dropped dramatically, and co-operation between neighbouring providers does take place, all the time improving capacity and efficiency (not least between IAA and NATS)
Lastly, I hope none of this offends my US colleagues for whom I have great respect!
Speaking of ground though, I always wonder when US ATC is quoted as being so much more efficient than Europe. Maybe somewhat more efficient in terms of cost, but in terms of delays? On my travels in the US I have waited in some spectacular departure queues (no. 46 once in one busy field, and that was just the aeroplanes I could see from my position over the hour we were holding).
Ok I've experienced delays in Europe too, in Heathrow and other busy places, but never as bad as in the States. That's just my experience, maybe it doesn't reflect the true picture.
But it gets a bit tiring listening to the same old story about how "inefficient" we are in Europe. There are historical reasons for the situation as it exists today and there are sovereignty issues concerning airspace (which are not a factor in the US).
The ratio of population density (ie more complex and labour intensive airspace) to average sector length is much higher in Europe which leads to an underlying higher ATC cost per mile.
Also, it is generally accepted that ATC in the US is understaffed and that they work tougher rosters. This contributes, no doubt, to their lower costs.
The situation in Europe is improving all the time. While the traffic has increased over the past couple of decades, the average CTOT delays have dropped dramatically, and co-operation between neighbouring providers does take place, all the time improving capacity and efficiency (not least between IAA and NATS)
Lastly, I hope none of this offends my US colleagues for whom I have great respect!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The package of measures to be put forward by the European transport commissioner, Antonio Tajani, will lay down binding performance targets for air navigation service providers.
No doubt the UK will go for it, "hook line and sinker"; the Germans will devise an alternative that's far more efficient and domestically better-suited; the French will ignore it completely; and the Italians and Spanish will claim they "know nothing"...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Globe
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it any different if one of the service providers would go
on to buy some other service providers?
One airspace.
on to buy some other service providers?
One airspace.
Last edited by Slo Moe; 23rd Jun 2008 at 20:56. Reason: " " added, sky - > airspace
