More than three years since the Single European Sky (SES) enabling legislation was approved by the EU member states, it has not delivered the intended effect. Now the European Commission has admitted that the legislation, as originally passed, was too easily sidestepped by member states, so it is drawing up a second tranche of legislation to force governments to act. The Commission makes it clear that it is the political dimension, rather than the air navigation service providers, that is the real problem.
In its paper describing the issues that the "second package" of SES legislation is designed to rectify, the Commission points out that, some years ago, "it became common for states to delegate non-governmental aviation functions to industry, but they left the regulatory structures of air traffic management [ATM] under inter-governmental arrangements". This is no longer acceptable, says the Commission, which explains: "An inter-governmental approach cannot produce a level playing field where the implementation of rules depends on the will of states and is not uniformly enforced. Allocation of responsibilities between states, authorities, airlines and air navigation service providers is blurred. Intergovernmental decision-making can be slow and inefficient and has difficulties addressing the fragmentation of the system along national borders."
That certainly says it all. But what about the solution? If the states do not implement the agreement they signed up to, the measures will be imposed or, in the Commission's words: "There is consequently a need for the Community to be the driving force in ATM."
Why? Because three years after the SES was approved, European ATM is still fragmented, based on national boundaries. This, the Commission spells out, "results in a significant additional cost for airspace users adds unnecessary flight length with a resulting environmental impact slows down the introduction of new technologies and procedures and reduces...efficiency improvements. It also prevents the ATM industry from developing economies of scale, leads to a sub-optimal size for en-route centres and unnecessary duplication of non-standardised systems with their associated maintenance costs."
That all sounds suspiciously like the original rationale for the SES - which all the states signed up to. Since they aren't delivering, they deserve an EC rocket in a painful place. Now let's see if the Commission can frame effective legislation and win approval for it.
Source: Flight International
