Brussels, 31/01/2001 (Agence Europe) - The coordination of civilian and military air control will be one of the main elements of the proposals that the European Commission will present between now and the summer to bring improvements to air traffic control and to reduce civil aviation delays in Europe (see EUROPE of 27 January, p.10). The aim will be to ensure compatibility within fifteen years between the ever-growing airspace needs of civil aviation and the space reserved for military exercises.
Cooperation between the civilian and military authorities, however, sometimes poses a number of institutional problems, General Rivet, French military representative at the "Single Sky High Level Group" said during an interview with EUROPE. The French general, who is also director for military air traffic control at the French Defence Ministry, denies the allegation that the military is responsible for a large number of the air traffic delays.
According to General Rivet, military activities do not take up 60% of the airspace, as alleged by the French air traffic control trade unions. Military activities, he states, are only responsible for 4-5% of the delays due to air traffic control problems, he states, basing his argument on Eurocontrol statistics. Of course, admits the general, certain air zones are reserved for military training exercises at certain times of the day for security reasons. "Military activity at certain times may cause difficulties in the most congested air traffic area", the "Core Area", which covers the southern part of Great Britain, northern France, Belgium, southern Netherlands, northern Germany, Switzerland, and northern Italy. "But there is no military activity at the weekend, and statistics show peak delays during the weekend", he remarked.
It is the opinion of General Rivet that the civil air traffic control system lacks flexibility. "Sometimes airspace reserved for military training is not used and is therefore free, but aircraft continue to circumvent the area, because civilian air traffic controllers need to know two or three days in advance whether the airspace is available or not", stresses General Rivet. In his view, air traffic control would be more flexible if it had predictability instruments adjusted to the situation and if it were proficient in "dynamic management of the airspace". Basically, what is needed is a structure for the coordination of civilian and military activities. There is already a structure in Europe for dialogue between civilian and military, based on the idea that "airspace belongs to no-one" and on the concept of "flexible use of airspace", (FUA) established in the context of Eurocontrol in 1996, notes General Rivet. In this context, airspace requirements are put on the table several days in advance, so that air traffic controllers can coordinate their tasks directly the same day. According to an Eurocontrol report on airspace management, this system could be a good solution if it were to become binding and universally applied. "For now it is a gentleman's agreement, which works despite the conflict of interest, but which is not legally binding", remarked General Rivet, considering that "one of the European Commission's priorities should be to fix a regulatory framework which allows general application of flexible use of airspace. This should be one of the easiest tasks in the short term".
Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, who presented the Single Sky High Level Group report, spoke of the "German model" of coordination within the DFS, a private law agency held by the State grouping civilian and posted military air traffic controllers. This is not, however, the cure-all solution. "It is above all an administrative solution. At operational level, the Germans do exactly what the British and other European States do", said François Rivet. In practice, "the advantage comes from allowing the development of a certain common culture and synergy. This structure allows the military to fully get to know the civilian needs and vice versa". On the other hand, "what happens if military controllers are needed on the theatre of operations for defence purposes?"
General Rivet considers the concept of "upper air space", whereby Commissioner de Palacio hopes to begin the creation of a "European Single Sky", is above all a "slogan". The upper air space is certainly very easy to regulate because it depends solely on air traffic controllers (while the lower airspace partly depends on airports and commercial issues. Furthermore, "traffic is linear in the upper airspace, while, in the lower airspace, it is criss-crossed by aircraft taking off or landing". In practice, however, "the upper and lower airspaces are separated for historical reasons". When airships were less performant than they are today it was easier to use the lower airspace. "The States that had air defence aircraft like France and the United Kingdom use more upper airspace", but the arrival of the Eurofighter in Germany or in Italy, for example, changes all that. Also, "the boundaries between lower and upper airspace are different for different States.
General Rivet does not rule out the fact that the military may use other training areas, outside the areas where there is intensive civilian traffic. "There are areas in Europe that are not used as much and that could be used for training purposes. This is a defence matter that cannot be resolved at European level". Account should also be taken of such operations, in terms of fuel consumption, for example.
The problem is that "there is not yet a structure that deals both with first pillar (Community) issues, under which air control comes, and second pillar issues (common foreign and security policy), under which military issues come", comments General Rivet. "Two avenues for reflection are being explored": - one gives preference to the first pillar, with participation of States that express both civilian and military needs; and the other gives preference to the second pillar, with close involvement of the military in the decision-making process according to a structure close to the Political and Security Committee of the EU (COPS). In either case, it is up to the Heads of State and Government to sign decisions that would then be implemented by the military and civilian bodies.
According to Community sources, the question is far from settled between Member States. The northern States press more for a first pillar structure, while the Latin countries press more for a military structure in the context of the second pillar. Neither have the States arbitrated between their Defence and Transport Ministers. "For the time being, no-one know what model will be chosen", notes General Rivet. At the end of the day, the question is less that of "knowing what is to be done, but of how and with whom to do it", he summarised. He went on to conclude: "It is not the military that do not wish to move forward. We do not have an autonomous policy. It is the States, that speak on behalf of both the Transport and the Defence Ministers, that will have to come to a decision".