INTERROGATING ATSEP’S FUTURE AND THE BREWING ARGENTINE AVIATION IMBROGLIO
The 52nd edition of the International Federation of Air Traffic Safety Electronics Associations (IFATSEA) General Assembly, scheduled to hold in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA from 20 to 24 October 2024, signifies a watershed in the chequered history of the air traffic safety electronics profession. Coming under the theme “Deal Us In! ATSEP, Key Contributors to a Global Seamless Airspace”, the Assembly presents an opportunity to interrogate the relevance of ATSEP in what I choose to call a highly ‘technologised world’, characterised by the growing incursion of innovative technologies into the aviation ecosystem.
To be sure, much is in the horizons when it comes to the growing opportunities in the CNS/ATM terrain. Rather than diminish the significance of ATSEPs, the increasing incursion of innovative technologies is expanding the frontiers of CNS/ATM practices. The deciding factor, therefore, becomes how to maximize the utilization of these opportunities. Which is more reason why I salute recent moves by the IFATSEA Executive Board and the IFATSEA President, Theodore Kiritsis.
With the aim of promoting ATSEP globally, Mr. Kiritsis, sometime in May of this year, had a meeting with the President of the ICAO Council, Mr. Salvatore Sciacchitano. This event actually prepared the ground for the Council President’s recent meeting with Mr. Kiritsis in company with IFATSEA Vice President, Patrick Delaney, on the sidelines of the recently concluded 14th Air Navigation Conference at the ICAO Headquarters in Montreal, Canada. Sometime in August, Mr. Kiritsis also engaged in an online meeting with ICAO Air Navigation Bureau Chief, Michele Merkle, and the ICAO CNSS Department. The icing on the cake – the first of its kind – was an official visit on 1st October by Mr. Kiritsis and the IFATSEA Europe Regional Director, Costas Christoforou, to the European regulator, EASA, to officially meet and dialogue with the EASA Executive Director, Florian Guillermet.
That said, ATSEPs are still grappling with lots of challenges and the General Assembly would do well to interrogate these challenges. One example is the imbroglio that Argentine ATSEPs and Argentina’s ANSP, EANA S.E., are currently contending with, no thanks to the ongoing Javier Milei administration’s reforms. Air Traffic Safety Electronics International recently got wind of the government of Argentina’s intent to modify State laws protecting the sovereignty of State-Owned Enterprises, thus coercing State-owned enterprises into re-registering as Limited Companies. This act, in itself, is not bad, save for its extension to State-owned enterprises that are supposed to be bearers of Argentine sovereignty.
Another twist in the Argentine story is the government’s attempt to tinker with labour laws, modifying labour rights in a manner that strips commercial aviation of its essential public service garb. A particularly vexing move, which IFATSEA and other international organisations will need to address, is the shrewd move to modify Argentina’s Aeronautical Code with the ultimate intention of privatising air navigation services, an essential State obligation that cannot be delegated to private business interests for whom profitability is much more important than safety, efficiency and global sustainability.
Perhaps, the Javier Milei administration needs to be reminded that Argentina is a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention, 1944), having ratified the Convention on 4th June 1946 and is, therefore, subject to its adherence in line with Article 92 thereto. As Austrian Airlines CEO, Annette Mann, put it in an interview with IATA’s Airlines magazine’s Graham Newton, 8 September 2024, “Aviation is a service industry…” And if I may expatiate on this, it is equally a sovereign service. Article 1 to the Chicago Convention gives a State complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. And in line with Article 28, the provision of air navigation services is the exclusive preserve of a State and not a service to be delegated in its entirety to non-State entities. A measure of government control remains sacrosanct. Articles 69 and 70 of the Chicago Convention also devolve responsibilities relating to improvement of air navigation facilities and the costs thereof on States. So, it looks more like running away from responsibility when a State attempts to completely jettison its obligation to the international civil aviation community or use civil aviation for purposes inconsistent with the aims of the Convention as reiterated in Article 4 to the Chicago Convention. ◙
All rights reserved. No part of this material or the content of this website may be reproduced or published in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Contact: atsei@dextermarie.com