Humans have to remain at the core of ATM, both at service provision and at customer level. It is not only about cost and targets. It is first and foremost about safety for passengers and airlines. This must be the ultimate goal of RP3 and must remain the focus of our attention.
It is widely accepted that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is neither wise nor efficient, to say the least.
To repeat an experiment with the same parameters and expect a different outcome is just a waste of time and effort. Yet, this is what the European Commission is trying to accomplish with RP3.
Could this be the explanation for repeating the mistakes of RP1 and RP2, should those schemes, as well as planned provisions of RP3, benefit the airlines by harming the ANSPs?
The PRB trusted the expertise of a handful of academics to assist the EC in drafting the principles that will define RP3.
However, the front line operators remain voiceless in these attempts to model and define traffic efficiency and complexity around Europe in mathematical terms. The results of these studies speak for themselves.
Old and new suggestions, such as single person operations, ATCO mobility, increased automation and cross-border operations are brought to the table by the EC. Unsuitable solutions such as incentive schemes, unfair parameters within the traffic and cost /risk sharing mechanisms, and unrealistic KPIs are still being proposed by the EC and the PRB.
Why are they still missing the point?
As discussed during the 54th ATCEUC General Assembly in Lviv on 17-19 October 2018, humans have to remain at the core of ATM, both at service provision and at customer level.
It is not only about cost and targets. It is first and foremost about safety for passengers and airlines. This must be the ultimate goal of RP3 and must remain the focus of our attention.
ATCEUC’s final communiqué in relation to its autumn 2018 Committee Meeting held last week in Lviv, Ukraine.