EU Regulation 805/2011 ATCO Licensing (part 1)
I have recently read and compared the new European Regulation number 805/2011 laying down detailed rules for ATC licenses and certain certificates pursuant to the EC regulation number 216/2008 with the previous EC directive 2006/23/EC on a community air traffic controller license. Here is what I found:
document was a directive, meaning that Member States were obliged to bring into force the laws, regulations and provisions to comply with the directive. The first is directly applicable as is, the second was applicable indirectly through transposition into local law. An EU regulation normally has a higher harmonising effect across the Union than a directive would.This article is divided into 2 post, the first part will focus on a comparison between this regulation and the EU directive, the second, which will be published in the 1st week of 2012 will focus more on the areas of improvements that I see needed to this new regulation.
Comparison:
First and foremost, in essence the regulation is an evolution of the principles laid down in the directive. The regulation in my opinion does not constitute a revolution. I feel that the writers of the regulation have attempted to improve the coherence and clarity of the rules described and to add information where it was missing.
The first addition worth noting is the initial consideration point 7 where the regulation mandates EASA to develop certification specifications, accepted means of compliance and guidance material to facilitate the necessary regulatory uniformity. EASA was not mentioned in the 2006 directive, mainly because it had not yet endorsed ATM regulation within its scope back then.
Also, in relation to EASA, in article 4c, it has been attributed the competence over the certification of any organisation that has its principle place of operation outside the territory of the EU. In this sense EASA is not anymore only a supervisor (or regulator) of regulators, but will also need to apply regulation itself.
Second novelty is that the scope of the regulation has been enlarged (article 2.2.c) to persons and organisations involved in the licensing, training, testing, checking and medical assessment of applicants. This article is new in itself but its contents are part clarification of the scope of what the directive was about (but which was not clear) and part novelty, as in the case of the medical assessment.
Third, a new scope of this regulation over the directive is that it obliges Member States to ensure that the services provided by military personnel to the public is of a safety level equivalent to that offered by civil service providers. This scope widening also opens the door to approach military ATC service provision to its civil counterpart, opening the door to civil ATC licences to military personnel.
Fourth, in article 6 (a) cases of misconduct have been added as being a valid reason for the suspension of a license or endorsement(s) or rating(s)
Fifth, to become an air traffic controller, one does not need anymore to hold a university entry level of education as the new regulation defines that `any other secondary education qualification which enables the candidate to complete ATC training` would be a valid entry level. This for me is a significant improvement in this area, as, from a given level of education, which does not necessarily need to correlate with university entry level, a new population could be allowed into the profession and who could make a very good career in it.
Sixth, the second part of article 10 of the directive which said that Member States, for safety reasons could limit the maximum age of working under a specific unit endorsement has been deleted.
Seventh, an article that requires English language proficiency as part of your student license before starting to exercise the privelages of such a licence has been added, even if in my opinion, the way that it has been written leaves a door open to interpretations as I will comment in the next post.
Eighth, there has been further elaboration about the validity of medical certification in article 16 and the introduction of a new article (17) about reduced medical fitness.
Ninth, the tasks of competent authorities (article 22) have been increased to take into account the new language proficiency and the reduction of medical fitness provisions.
Tenth and final comparison, the new regulation establishes mutual recognition for student licences, something that was not the case before, and which in my opinion, since the harmonisation achieved in initial training through the common core content training objectives, is something which is more evident than the mutual recognition and comparisons of two ATC licences where the licence does not describe prior experience, traffic levels and unit complexities, level and type of refresher training, etc…What should be more comparable than two school leavers who have studied against a harmonised set of objectives?
In the next post I will look at areas of improvement to the regulation.
