It’s time for member states to put safety before sovereignty and fly the single sky

Date: 18/07/02

The single European sky initiative has been attacked as running contrary to standards of safety and efficiency. Not so, writes MEP Marieke Sanders-Ten Holte.

THE mid-air collision which took place over southern Germany earlier this month, killing 71 people, gives serious cause to stop and reflect on the way in which our crowded European skies are managed.

Whether the crash is ultimately found to be the result of pilot error, technical malfunction, or a problem of air traffic control, one thing is clear to me: the more fragmented our European airspace is, the more scope there is for such fatal errors to occur.

That is why I believe that it is high time we consolidated air navigation on a continental scale, so as to place safety and efficiency at the heart of the system, rather than dividing control of our skies along arbitrary lines which are, for the most part, dictated by national boundaries rather than actual air traffic flows.

As the European Parliament's rapporteur on the implementation of the single European sky, this is a viewpoint which I have had to defend in the face of fierce resistance by certain governments and air traffic control organisations, who believe that the single sky package amounts to an unacceptable loss of member states' sovereignty over the airspace above their territory.

Only a few weeks ago at the time of the EU summit in Seville, air traffic controllers from a number of European countries took industrial action in protest over the single sky proposal.

They argue that it will lead to a deterioration in safety, and a de facto privatisation of air traffic control, with service providers being set up in competition with one another to provide air traffic management services for the cross-border airspace blocks which the single sky proposals aim to establish.

However, it must be borne in mind that the definition of these cross-border airspace blocks has to be agreed by the member states involved, who still have it within their power to determine whether these services are provided by the public or the private sector - and these airspace blocks will not be above the law.

They will be subject to exactly the same safety requirements as existing airspace blocks. But they will be larger, and much more geared to operational needs than is the case at present.

For this reason, I think it is misleading to imply that the creation of these blocks will have a negative impact on safety standards. Indeed, by limiting the number of change-overs between air traffic controllers in different sectors, I would argue that the result will be quite

the opposite. Air traffic control is a service which airspace users have to pay for. The truth is that the service provider in each member state currently enjoys an unchallenged monopoly position and there is no legally enforceable pan-European set of standards to determine the proportionality of the prices which they charge airlines.

National supervisory authorities are currently expected to ensure the transparency and proportionality of such charges in each member state.

However, this situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that in certain member states the national supervisory authority and the service provider are one and the same.

To overcome this problem, the ultimate solution might be the creation of a truly independent pan-European regulator. However, I think that is still some way off. In the meantime, the single sky project does at least seek to ensure that supervision and service provision are separated from one another in each member state.

Opponents of the single sky also point to the work of Eurocontrol, an intergovernmental body comprising nearly all of the countries of the European continent, which has been working to develop closer cooperation between countries in the management of European airspace. It has had notable successes in the development of flow management and the creation of an airspace bloc transcending national boundaries, controlled at Maastricht.

It is argued that Eurocontrol is already doing the job of the single sky, so why duplicate the work?

The answer is that, whatever achievements it has made, Eurocontrol remains an intergovernmental organisation which lacks the power of legal enforcement, and which represents a constituency which is much larger than the EU.

As such, its interests will not always coincide with those of the member states, bearing in mind the legal obligations which those member states have towards one another in terms of the development of a single market in air transport services.

It is true that, over time, many of those countries in Eurocontrol, which are currently not members of the EU, will hopefully join the Union.

Consequently, once the EU has acceded to Eurocontrol, its influence over the organisation will progressively increase.

And much of the technical expertise which is needed to implement the single sky resides with Eurocontrol.

But in terms of ensuring that the highest possible standards of safety and efficiency are applied, would it not be preferable to set the management of European airspace in the clearer, legally binding framework of the European Union, with ultimate recourse to the Court of Justice against those participants who fail to comply with those standards?

Air traffic controllers' organisations are right to point to the current shortages in skilled personnel as a major obstacle to the smooth management of European airspace. I would advocate the launch of a major recruitment programme in every member state to address this.

If necessary, I would even argue that this might be supported by Community funding. But here again, I believe that, as management of our airspace is consolidated by the single sky process, more people will be encouraged to enter the profession as the degree of pressure placed on air traffic controllers is eased.

This will result from the streamlining of air-traffic management and the introduction of new and compatible technologies across the whole of the EU.

One final, crucial element of the single sky is the cooperation between civil and military airspace users.

One of the fundamental reasons for the level of congestion currently experienced in the central areas of the EU, and the corresponding increased risks to safety, is the fact that certain areas of airspace are completely closed off for military use, even when the military isn't actually using that airspace.

To combat this problem, Eurocontrol has developed a concept known as 'Flexible Use of Airspace', to allow these closed areas to be opened up for civil use at times when the military isn't using them.

The implementation of this principle in the development of the single sky will, over time, lead to a more even spread of traffic across our skies, and an easing of congestion in narrow corridors of civil airspace.

For this to be achieved, the military has to be fully integrated into the decision-making mechanisms of the single sky. I believe that the member states have a fundamental duty to ensure that this becomes a reality.

Volumes of air traffic are increasing year on year, and the skies over Europe are set to become ever more congested.

As long as the single sky is not implemented, this will mean increasingly tight safety margins and increasing pressure on air traffic controllers, who play such an important role in ensuring the safe management of European airspace.

I put it to those who are sceptical about the benefits of the single sky in terms of its impact on safety and efficiency, that, for all of the reasons I have given here, the single European sky is not a step too far, but rather a major part of the solution.

Major feature. The single European sky initiative has been attacked as running contrary to standards of safety and efficiency. The author, who is an MEP, disagrees. Article is part of a European Voice survey on Aviation.