FABs, ACCs, future ATCO prerequisites/treatment
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside an RMZ!
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FABs, ACCs, future ATCO prerequisites/treatment
Hi there,
I've had a look at the Eurocontrol's corner regarding this, and have searched this forum, but to no avail for the most part.
Assuming such info has been set in stone, can someone verify how exactly the whole FAB idea is meant to work, in terms of WHO controls what, and what new, if any, procedures take effect in terms of training future controllers.
There are one or two threads here that note that each ACC will still remain, but will only get whatever sectors within the FAB are assigned. That seems somewhat reasonable, but is it truly gonna happen this way? Also another thread notes that Vienna is gonna be one of the new 'centers', for SE Europe. In conjunction with this, and any actual info on who will control what, how are people gonna become controllers? Since Eurocontrol is 'taking over', it would be reasonable to assume that the actual countries would sign some agreements so that people are equally treated across. If the 'current' system remains, 'getting in', in some countries is not all that simple, especially at enroute level, due to politics/bureaucracy/etc.
Thanks.
I've had a look at the Eurocontrol's corner regarding this, and have searched this forum, but to no avail for the most part.
Assuming such info has been set in stone, can someone verify how exactly the whole FAB idea is meant to work, in terms of WHO controls what, and what new, if any, procedures take effect in terms of training future controllers.
There are one or two threads here that note that each ACC will still remain, but will only get whatever sectors within the FAB are assigned. That seems somewhat reasonable, but is it truly gonna happen this way? Also another thread notes that Vienna is gonna be one of the new 'centers', for SE Europe. In conjunction with this, and any actual info on who will control what, how are people gonna become controllers? Since Eurocontrol is 'taking over', it would be reasonable to assume that the actual countries would sign some agreements so that people are equally treated across. If the 'current' system remains, 'getting in', in some countries is not all that simple, especially at enroute level, due to politics/bureaucracy/etc.
Thanks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe some misunderstanding or misinformation here.
Not much is set in stone. One or two fairly basic facts...FABs are a political initiative being pursued by the European Commission...and they will happen (by the end of next year. What it means and what might change is still being discussed.
The Commission sees FABs as a way to harmonise the ATM system and to reduce costs.
In theory all of the airspace in a FAB should be operated in the same way. Equally in theory it already is because of ICAO SARPs and so on - how much more same is wanted isn't clear.
In the short-term not much is likely to change, sector boundaries might change a bit and procedures might be aligned in some way but it seems, mainly, to be a paperwork exercise. In the medium-term things may get more interesting depending on a) how much political will there is to make big changes and b) whether any ANSPs, particularly the big players, see a way of making money from a FAB.
Not much is set in stone. One or two fairly basic facts...FABs are a political initiative being pursued by the European Commission...and they will happen (by the end of next year. What it means and what might change is still being discussed.
The Commission sees FABs as a way to harmonise the ATM system and to reduce costs.
In theory all of the airspace in a FAB should be operated in the same way. Equally in theory it already is because of ICAO SARPs and so on - how much more same is wanted isn't clear.
In the short-term not much is likely to change, sector boundaries might change a bit and procedures might be aligned in some way but it seems, mainly, to be a paperwork exercise. In the medium-term things may get more interesting depending on a) how much political will there is to make big changes and b) whether any ANSPs, particularly the big players, see a way of making money from a FAB.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently noticed so words from Irelands fearless leader that FABs were dead as was SES... 30B to save how much? When?
Things being attributed to 'because of FABS' are just BS... The Night Time Fuel Saving Routes (NTFSRs) - (Transition from the Atlantic tracks to Central Europe) Basically a direct route of 800NM or so... Absolutely no more to do with FABs than a few 'experts' sitting in a meeting room; which didn't need FABs to bring in... etc. Arguments being made by airlines that they save nothing as they can't plan effectively for level changes thus have to waste (carry) fuel for non-optimum levels etc. even if the pilots actually achieve the optimum levels in reality the fuel is carried anyway...
Common transition altitudes are on the table as the next FAB win; please, again nothing more than a meeting of organisations and regulators... If it ever gets sorted etc...
The only true worth of FABs will be when a few regulators, individual state AIPs, and CEOs are gone as a result of only needing one for a FAB... not likely IMHO.
Things being attributed to 'because of FABS' are just BS... The Night Time Fuel Saving Routes (NTFSRs) - (Transition from the Atlantic tracks to Central Europe) Basically a direct route of 800NM or so... Absolutely no more to do with FABs than a few 'experts' sitting in a meeting room; which didn't need FABs to bring in... etc. Arguments being made by airlines that they save nothing as they can't plan effectively for level changes thus have to waste (carry) fuel for non-optimum levels etc. even if the pilots actually achieve the optimum levels in reality the fuel is carried anyway...
Common transition altitudes are on the table as the next FAB win; please, again nothing more than a meeting of organisations and regulators... If it ever gets sorted etc...
The only true worth of FABs will be when a few regulators, individual state AIPs, and CEOs are gone as a result of only needing one for a FAB... not likely IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blockla has hit the nail on the head. Am I the only one (OK include Blockla!) who thinks the Emperor has no clothes on?
FABS are something in the mind of politicians and people in, and associated with Eurocontrol. I believe The SES to be of in the same category and both fall squarely in the 'Emperor's new clothes' category. Politicians as usual have been sold an idea in a subject of which they have no knowledge, interest or understanding and have jumped on the bandwagon.
Does anyone actually know what these concepts actually are or how they are supposed to function? Noone I know can explain to me what The Single European Sky means. Many people are full of 'what a great idea it is' but once one probes a little WHAT it actually is, there is nothing of substance forthcoming. The English-Irish FAB has been in place for, what two maybe three years? What has changed? As far as I know, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Cost savings to the airlines? Nil! There is no reason to think the SES will be any different. Where are the cost savings? The only ones possible are closure of some centres and even that would be limited as probably almost the same total number of controllers would be employed. Is anyone seriously suggesting that for example all French airspace could be controlled from Swanwick? Or German airspace controlled from Reims? I think that sort of thing is unlikely to put it mildly.
All these ideas are great for the 'Committee Men' and Brussels bureaucrats for whom we are paying but precious little practical value.
FABS are something in the mind of politicians and people in, and associated with Eurocontrol. I believe The SES to be of in the same category and both fall squarely in the 'Emperor's new clothes' category. Politicians as usual have been sold an idea in a subject of which they have no knowledge, interest or understanding and have jumped on the bandwagon.
Does anyone actually know what these concepts actually are or how they are supposed to function? Noone I know can explain to me what The Single European Sky means. Many people are full of 'what a great idea it is' but once one probes a little WHAT it actually is, there is nothing of substance forthcoming. The English-Irish FAB has been in place for, what two maybe three years? What has changed? As far as I know, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Cost savings to the airlines? Nil! There is no reason to think the SES will be any different. Where are the cost savings? The only ones possible are closure of some centres and even that would be limited as probably almost the same total number of controllers would be employed. Is anyone seriously suggesting that for example all French airspace could be controlled from Swanwick? Or German airspace controlled from Reims? I think that sort of thing is unlikely to put it mildly.
All these ideas are great for the 'Committee Men' and Brussels bureaucrats for whom we are paying but precious little practical value.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one (OK include Blockla!) who thinks the Emperor has no clothes on?
I have been involved since 1980 in FEATS, FANS, ATLAS ATM2000, then 2000+ ( I always liked the + )
and other free route airspace plans , they all never came to much (*) , just being replaced by new plans. Just like in the US . AERA 3 was replaced by Free Flight , which died and is now replaced by NextGen. The beauties of FABs is to keep people talking .
(*) Ok, some tools have been devised and improvements made each time . But a complete new concept ? , never.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside an RMZ!
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting responses. If you gents who are 'in the business' are used to it, then I guess to us mere mortal observers it should matter even less(at all).
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not bet against Swanwick airspace being controlled from France. 
Staffing:
We already feel a beginning of under staffing. Not sure we could deal with any more sector before 5 or 6 years, as every other controller leaving on retirement is not replaced and we don't see many newbies coming...
FAB:
Since France signed the FABEC agreements, UK is not in the same FAB. Agreements should be changed first (before they fade away).
Communications:
Safe data links are dealt with by numerous private telecommunication companies. These companies have no aviation culture at all.
Some failures I've witnessed in latest years, on so-called "safe" lines, spring to my mind.
We've got recurrent problems with our radio antennas in Spain (which should be solved soon), there has been a major disruption with Shanwick, some with UK...
As long as these incidents imply only a loss of time in co-ordinations, so be it...
It would be quite another problem if that means a total loss of radar informations, or frequency/CPDLC.
To save more money and avoid new investments, I've heard radar data will soon transit via the internet, instead of our own (really) safe intranet !
I hope I'll be far-far away before we control Swanwick from France !
PS : Anyway, who would train us on these sectors ?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aero Politics
Aero Politics
By asking this FAB question you have perhaps inadvertently wandered into the realm of Aero Politics!
To understand the rationale for FABs, its best to start at the beginning, with apologies for stating the obvious to those that know all this.
- Air Traffic Control exists in a political world. This starts at ICAO which sets for states the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) by which aviation operates on a global basis. ICAO comprises about 190 member states – governments, who usually have as their ICAO representation a member from the Department of Transport. This is the DfT in the UK. Each government is by ICAO convention obliged to provide a legal framework for the provision of Air Traffic Control in its airspace, which in turn is normally established by the aviation regulator in the specific country. This is the CAA in the UK. In the European environment there are 39 such national regulators. These set rules as to which organization can provide service where and on what basis for each country.
- Notice that NATS does not have a place at ICAO. This is also the case for DFS, ENAV and others. This is normal where the service provider is separate from the regulator – which according to ICAO it should be. The ATC providers are well down the political ladder. Mere service providers!
- In most countries responsibility for provision of en route service is delegated by government on a monopoly basis to a national ATC provider – NATS in the UK, and in most cases these providers are required to recover all their operating costs from their customers, no matter how much they spend. This has often led to a cost plus culture and from the user perspective is seen as inefficient, especially in Europe. But this is also true elsewhere. Here in Europe service costs are roughly twice the equivalent level in North America.
- Now step forward the European Union, political masters who set political objectives for ATC in Europe way back in about 2004. The EU, which is also an organization of Governments, said that ATC in Europe should by 2020 be able to: Provide three times the ATM capacity, at half the unit cost, while improving environmental performance by 10% and improving safety performance by a factor of ten.
- The EU recognized that this was a tough call and set about providing the frameworks and tools to allow this to happen. This included setting up SESAR for the ATM technical research and concept development (2.1bn Euro over 8 years). EASA was also established to be the one European regulator – not to replace the 39, but at least the 27 or so in the EU.
- Eurocontrol, also an organization of states – not ATC providers – and which has also had a regulatory role, is also being reformed into a network manager, a kind of Flow Management unit on steroids, which also (for now) manages the charging recovery. Eurocontrol will lose control of Maastricht Center, which is expected to be subsumed into the FABEC, which in turn comprises Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Switzerland. This means that Eurocontrol as of next year is unlikely to be an ATC provider in the operating sense.
- The EU has also set up a performance scheme for ATC services, which comes into effect at the end of this year and which requires that ATC providers progressively reduce their unit costs, while delivering capacity and safety and so on per the political objectives. This performance scheme disconnects costs and charges. This is very important.
- What does this mean? In a cost recovery system, if it costs 100 units to provide an ATC service and there are 100 flights, each flight pays one unit. If traffic goes down as per 2008/9 to say 90 flights, but cost of service provision stays at 100, then each flight pays 1.11 units. An 11% increase. Result angry customers! This is what happened during the recession. The performance scheme very simplistically means that ATC providers will have to be able to reduce cost even faster if traffic declines. This is EU Law.
- As you might expect ATC providers were not happy, so the EU defined another “tool” to help to deliver cost efficiency… the Functional Airspace Block - FAB. There are 9 FABs in Europe including FABEC, the biggest. Unfortunately these are politically designed and do not generally reflect operational considerations. They are likely to fail for this and other reasons – hence the emperor having no clothes view so often heard.
- Now what does all this mean for the operating ATCO? Probably not much in the near term. Those at Maastricht will find themselves with a new employer before long. The most likely impact elsewhere is a greater political interest and a greater public visibility in their cost (pay and benefits). Many ATC providers will be unable to deliver the charging reductions that are required and are expected to get “help” from politicians, which will inevitably include customer transparency. Expect a more liberal labour market with much better possibility to move around Europe, and a more balanced set of salaries and benefits, rather than the vast variations that exist across Europe today. Also expect much more outsourcing of things like training.
Hope that helps!!
Katie
By asking this FAB question you have perhaps inadvertently wandered into the realm of Aero Politics!
To understand the rationale for FABs, its best to start at the beginning, with apologies for stating the obvious to those that know all this.
- Air Traffic Control exists in a political world. This starts at ICAO which sets for states the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) by which aviation operates on a global basis. ICAO comprises about 190 member states – governments, who usually have as their ICAO representation a member from the Department of Transport. This is the DfT in the UK. Each government is by ICAO convention obliged to provide a legal framework for the provision of Air Traffic Control in its airspace, which in turn is normally established by the aviation regulator in the specific country. This is the CAA in the UK. In the European environment there are 39 such national regulators. These set rules as to which organization can provide service where and on what basis for each country.
- Notice that NATS does not have a place at ICAO. This is also the case for DFS, ENAV and others. This is normal where the service provider is separate from the regulator – which according to ICAO it should be. The ATC providers are well down the political ladder. Mere service providers!
- In most countries responsibility for provision of en route service is delegated by government on a monopoly basis to a national ATC provider – NATS in the UK, and in most cases these providers are required to recover all their operating costs from their customers, no matter how much they spend. This has often led to a cost plus culture and from the user perspective is seen as inefficient, especially in Europe. But this is also true elsewhere. Here in Europe service costs are roughly twice the equivalent level in North America.
- Now step forward the European Union, political masters who set political objectives for ATC in Europe way back in about 2004. The EU, which is also an organization of Governments, said that ATC in Europe should by 2020 be able to: Provide three times the ATM capacity, at half the unit cost, while improving environmental performance by 10% and improving safety performance by a factor of ten.
- The EU recognized that this was a tough call and set about providing the frameworks and tools to allow this to happen. This included setting up SESAR for the ATM technical research and concept development (2.1bn Euro over 8 years). EASA was also established to be the one European regulator – not to replace the 39, but at least the 27 or so in the EU.
- Eurocontrol, also an organization of states – not ATC providers – and which has also had a regulatory role, is also being reformed into a network manager, a kind of Flow Management unit on steroids, which also (for now) manages the charging recovery. Eurocontrol will lose control of Maastricht Center, which is expected to be subsumed into the FABEC, which in turn comprises Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Switzerland. This means that Eurocontrol as of next year is unlikely to be an ATC provider in the operating sense.
- The EU has also set up a performance scheme for ATC services, which comes into effect at the end of this year and which requires that ATC providers progressively reduce their unit costs, while delivering capacity and safety and so on per the political objectives. This performance scheme disconnects costs and charges. This is very important.
- What does this mean? In a cost recovery system, if it costs 100 units to provide an ATC service and there are 100 flights, each flight pays one unit. If traffic goes down as per 2008/9 to say 90 flights, but cost of service provision stays at 100, then each flight pays 1.11 units. An 11% increase. Result angry customers! This is what happened during the recession. The performance scheme very simplistically means that ATC providers will have to be able to reduce cost even faster if traffic declines. This is EU Law.
- As you might expect ATC providers were not happy, so the EU defined another “tool” to help to deliver cost efficiency… the Functional Airspace Block - FAB. There are 9 FABs in Europe including FABEC, the biggest. Unfortunately these are politically designed and do not generally reflect operational considerations. They are likely to fail for this and other reasons – hence the emperor having no clothes view so often heard.
- Now what does all this mean for the operating ATCO? Probably not much in the near term. Those at Maastricht will find themselves with a new employer before long. The most likely impact elsewhere is a greater political interest and a greater public visibility in their cost (pay and benefits). Many ATC providers will be unable to deliver the charging reductions that are required and are expected to get “help” from politicians, which will inevitably include customer transparency. Expect a more liberal labour market with much better possibility to move around Europe, and a more balanced set of salaries and benefits, rather than the vast variations that exist across Europe today. Also expect much more outsourcing of things like training.
Hope that helps!!
Katie
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woow ! good post and good resume Katie. I will just disagree with very minor points. For instance , most FABs and FABEC in particular will not be a juridical entity that can become a service provider replacing the States. Will a group of States create a ANSP to control airspace, a bit like " The Tower Company" does for small airports ? In that case who will lead ? In FABEC Germany and France have totally oposite management visons are are unlikely to change in the next year, Germany because it is a ideological matter,(privatisation ) and France because it is the Unions that decide.(remaining inside the public service) The "smaller" states may also loose control of their destiny , and some egos ( read Dutch for instance ) will not allow that to happen. Same for deciding the future institutional arrangements for Maastricht .
I would not be surprised if Maastricht remains under Eurocontrol for some more years....
I would not be surprised if Maastricht remains under Eurocontrol for some more years....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCWatcher,
and there in a nutshell, is Europe. A great ideal, but vested financial, ideological and nationalistic interests seem to keep the whole from ever actually merging. Good or bad, up to you.
and there in a nutshell, is Europe. A great ideal, but vested financial, ideological and nationalistic interests seem to keep the whole from ever actually merging. Good or bad, up to you.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aero politics
Precisely, this is all a moving feast and subject to the vagaries and egos of the political landscape.
We will see some kind of political fudge with bigger stakes in play for sure.
Maastricht is but a pawn in the game, but it will leave Eurocontrol - the question is who will own and control the new entity.
Now thats where the fun starts!
rien ne vas plus!
Katie
We will see some kind of political fudge with bigger stakes in play for sure.
Maastricht is but a pawn in the game, but it will leave Eurocontrol - the question is who will own and control the new entity.
Now thats where the fun starts!
rien ne vas plus!
Katie
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Katie :
Oh I do not disagree with that, what I was after is the "when ". You said next year.
I believe , for the reasons that I said, that it will take far longer than that. But who am I ?
Maastricht is but a pawn in the game, but it will leave Eurocontrol - the question is who will own and control the new entity.
This means that Eurocontrol as of next year is unlikely to be an ATC provider in the operating sense.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AeroPolitics
ATC Watcher
I can only guess at timing for Maaastricht changes. My view though is that you will certainly see a new organisation - a holding company - set up to own and manage Maastricht next year. I think the wheels are already in motion.
This will include (I believe) changing the employer for the staff at Maastricht to the holding company. Key is getting them out of Eurocontrol, which will continue to shrink for the forseeable future. Thats the easy part and should be a good thing for the Maastricht staff. Then the question is how to transfer ownership and governance of the new holding company to the new owners... DFS, LVNL or some other kind of FABEC Joint venture or operating entity. This is far from decided.
As to the point of all these posts, the FABs. FABEC has an ops meeting in Brussells next week to try and work out how to optimize the airspace and operating structures. If previous FABEC meetings are a guide, don't expect much outcome.
But the EU will be looking for progress that it can shout from the rooftops at the end of this year, so the pressure is on.
By the way BlueMed is quite an intersting FAB too, brings in some Mid East ATC providers. Take a look: Blue Med - Home Page
Katie
I can only guess at timing for Maaastricht changes. My view though is that you will certainly see a new organisation - a holding company - set up to own and manage Maastricht next year. I think the wheels are already in motion.
This will include (I believe) changing the employer for the staff at Maastricht to the holding company. Key is getting them out of Eurocontrol, which will continue to shrink for the forseeable future. Thats the easy part and should be a good thing for the Maastricht staff. Then the question is how to transfer ownership and governance of the new holding company to the new owners... DFS, LVNL or some other kind of FABEC Joint venture or operating entity. This is far from decided.
As to the point of all these posts, the FABs. FABEC has an ops meeting in Brussells next week to try and work out how to optimize the airspace and operating structures. If previous FABEC meetings are a guide, don't expect much outcome.
But the EU will be looking for progress that it can shout from the rooftops at the end of this year, so the pressure is on.
By the way BlueMed is quite an intersting FAB too, brings in some Mid East ATC providers. Take a look: Blue Med - Home Page
Katie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GWYN
South western corner of UK airspace [South west of Lands End] already delegated to the French for several years....but UK still gets Nav Charges. Similarly a portion of UK airspace South west of Strumble delegated to Shannon. Sometimes elastic/variable boundaries are an expedient method of applying the best control techniques for the overall benefit of traffic handling.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from Aero-news.com
ATCO Regulation Takes Effect In EU
Sets Standards, Offers Mobility For Controllers In Europe
EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, is noting the entry into force Wednesday of new rules for the licensing and medical certification of Air Traffic Controllers, or ATCO for short. The comprehensive agreement, which includes criteria for determining everything from the competence of regulating authorities and training providers to medical and training standards for controllers, was adopted by member states August 10, but did not take effect until 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Building on a European Directive from 2006, the regulation replaces potentially differing national rules and offers greater professional mobility for air traffic controllers. Controllers holding a license issued in accordance with the regulation will be able to work in all member states.
EASA says the legislative process has ensured continuity with previous rules, as demanded by stakeholders. Changes are limited to the most necessary, and adaptation periods are granted to concerned parties. The grandfathering of privileges of already acquired licenses is ensured via transitional arrangements.
"With the entry into force of the ATCO regulation today, EASA has contributed the first implementing rule of the extension of the agency’s competence to air traffic management," said EASA Executive Director, Patrick Goudou. "The harmonization of air traffic controller licensing will make an important contribution to the achievement of a high and uniform level of safety across Europe."
EASA calls itself the centerpiece of the European Union's strategy for aviation safety. Its expressed mission is to promote and achieve the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. Based in Cologne, the agency currently employs more than 500 experts and administrators from all over Europe.
and the original document
ATCO Regulation Takes Effect In EU
Sets Standards, Offers Mobility For Controllers In Europe
EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, is noting the entry into force Wednesday of new rules for the licensing and medical certification of Air Traffic Controllers, or ATCO for short. The comprehensive agreement, which includes criteria for determining everything from the competence of regulating authorities and training providers to medical and training standards for controllers, was adopted by member states August 10, but did not take effect until 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Building on a European Directive from 2006, the regulation replaces potentially differing national rules and offers greater professional mobility for air traffic controllers. Controllers holding a license issued in accordance with the regulation will be able to work in all member states.
EASA says the legislative process has ensured continuity with previous rules, as demanded by stakeholders. Changes are limited to the most necessary, and adaptation periods are granted to concerned parties. The grandfathering of privileges of already acquired licenses is ensured via transitional arrangements.
"With the entry into force of the ATCO regulation today, EASA has contributed the first implementing rule of the extension of the agency’s competence to air traffic management," said EASA Executive Director, Patrick Goudou. "The harmonization of air traffic controller licensing will make an important contribution to the achievement of a high and uniform level of safety across Europe."
EASA calls itself the centerpiece of the European Union's strategy for aviation safety. Its expressed mission is to promote and achieve the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. Based in Cologne, the agency currently employs more than 500 experts and administrators from all over Europe.
and the original document
