Introduction

At the end of September 1992 IFATCA responded to ICAO State Letter AN/12/1.1 – 92/32, in which comments were invited to a Proposal for amendment to Annex 1. The IFATCA-comment was based on the relevant policies, as recorded in the Manual. IFATCA’s response is annexed to this working paper. In November 1992 the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) discussed the Proposal and the comments received from States and international organisations.

The discussion was based on a working paper prepared by the ICAO Secretariat (AN-WP/6729) in which the comments were in turn commented upon by the Secretariat. The ANC accepted all proposals from that working paper without change. The purpose of the IFATCA working paper that you are now reading is to inform Member Associations of the comments made by the ICAO Secretariat to IFATCA’s input.

Discussion

ATCO licence – General (paragraph 4.3.1)

ICAO Secretariat comment: “The IFATCA proposal is likely to be opposed by States which are not issuing the licence. The option not to issue an Air Traffic Control licence to individuals who are government employees has been a feature of Annex 1 since its First Edition in 1948. It is important to note that the issue is one of certification and not of competency as non-licensed individuals have to meet the same requirements as their licensed counterparts. This nonmandatory nature of the Air Traffic Controller licence is a consequence of Article 32 a) of the Convention which requires a licence only for flight crew members. For this reason, the provision for all licences for personnel other than flight crew members found in Chapter 4 of Annex 1, offer the possibility to exercise the privileges without holding a licence in some conditions and provided that the licence requirements are met.

Action proposed: no change”.

ATCO licence – Age (paragraph 4.3.1.1)

ICAO Secretariat comment: “The issue raised by IFATCA deals with the upper age limit for Air Traffic Controller and is not directly related to the deletion of the note. This deletion is proposed because the note does not meet the criteria for a note in ICAO Annexes (factual information or cross-reference) and also because it may lead to believe that ICAO is studying an upper age limit for Air Traffic Controllers which is not the case. The question of upper age limit for controllers is a very controversial issue and the Secretariat does not believe that it would be possible to reach a consensus on this issue for the time being.

Action proposed: no change”.

ATCO licence – Knowledge (paragraph 4.3.1.2)

ICAO Secretariat comment: “Comment by IFATCA is noted”.

ATCO rating – Privileges (paragraph 4.4.9)

ICAO Secretariat comment: “Ireland and IFATCA welcome new paragraph 4.4.9.3. which requires that Air Traffic Controller giving instruction in an operational environment be authorised. They also indicate that they would have preferred a formal instructor rating. The secretariat, in view of the discussions in the Licensing of Air Traffic Controllers (LATCO) Study Group, does not feel that a formal rating would have been acceptable to several States. The comments from IFATCA on the privilege to act as Supervisor are valid, and it is therefore proposed to retain the supervisory privileges in Annex 1. The question on whether an air traffic flow management rating should be established as proposed by IFATCA was discussed in AN-WP/6630, paragraph 3.2.3 The Secretariat still believes that the establishment of such rating is premature.

Action proposed: Add ‘, or to supervise the provision of” after “To provide” in the first line of paragraphs 4.4.9.1.1, 4.4.9.1.2, 4.4.9.1.3, 4.4.9.1.4, 4.4.9.1.5 and 4.4.9.1.6.

Conclusions

By providing IFATCA’s comment to ICAO, the Executive Board have in principle complied with Recommendations C.5 and C.7 of the 1992 conference (Bournemouth). Yet, in view of the lack of direct result in this field it can be argued that those items should remain on the EB’s action-list and therefore that the two 1992 policies are still valid. In order to record the effort of the EB a note may be added to those policies in the Manual, for future reference. IFATCA’s comment has led to the retention in Annex 1 of the privilege to act as supervisor. The other points raised by IFATCA were not adopted by ICAO this time and will require continued attention from the Executive Board.

Recommendation

It is recommended to include on page 4.3.3.1 of the Manual the following note after paragraph 3.1.5:

NOTE: with the 1992 revision by ICAO Annex 1, IFATCA indicated preferring a formal instructor rating. However, it was felt by ICAO that such a formal rating would be unacceptable to several States at that time.

It is recommended to include on page 4.3.4.2 of the Manual the following note after paragraph 4.3.5:

NOTE: with the 1992 revision by ICAO of Annex 1, IFATCA proposed to introduce an ATFM-rating. At that time, the establishment of such rating was considered premature by ICAO.

References

ICAO working paper AN-WP/6729 (November 2nd, 1992).

Annex: IFATCA letter to ICAO as attached, as follows.

Attachment to WP122/93

Dr. Ph. Rochat
ICAO Secretary General
000 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2R2
Canada

September 29, 1992

Dear Sir,

In response to your State letter AN 12/1.1. – 92/32 I have the honour to present in this letter IFATCA’s comment concerning the Proposal for amendment to Annex 1.

Ref. Cover Letter, paragraph 8

a) Approach Precision Radar Rating: in view of the specialised knowledge and experience required to provide this service, which is quite different from the other radar-services, we are in favour of including this rating in Annex 1.

b) Aeronautical Station Operator: no indication of position.

c) Minimum Age Limit: no indication of position

Ref. Chapter 4

4.3.1 IFATCA feels strongly that all Air Traffic Controllers should be licensed. Therefore we are against including the provision for unlicensed State employees to operate as Air Traffic Controllers. If they “meet the same requirements”, they should be issued with a licence.

4.3.1.1 IFATCA notes with concern that the reference from the existing Annex 1 to the establishment of upper age limits for Air Traffic Controllers is left out in the proposed amendment. At the 1979 tripartite Meeting of Experts on problems concerning Air Traffic Controllers, conducted by the International Labour Office in Geneva, the following text concerning this subject was agreed upon: The principle of an early age of retirement should be recognised for ATCOs in view of the peculiarity of this profession and in the interest of air safety. This early age of retirement should be determined by negotiations at the national level between the employer and ATCO trade unions and/or such other representative organisations” (Conclusion nr 29).

In addition to the ILO text, current IFATCA-policy states that “at the age of 50 a Controller shall cease from active control”, and also that “a controller in active control may retire after 20 years of service”.

For those reasons, IFATCA urges you with all due respect to include the existing reference to upper age specifications for Air Traffic Controllers in the amended Annex 1. Having the reference included will further the implementation of the aforementioned ILO Conclusion and IFATCA policies.

(Note: The early retirement policies were amended in 1994 by WP138)

4.3.1.2 We want to record our agreement and indeed satisfaction with the proposed amendment of this paragraph. In particular the inclusion of item d) Human Performance and Limitations to us is a way of recognising that the Human Being is the core on any ATC-system.

4.4.9 Contrary to what is stated in paragraph 4.d) of the cover letter, there appears to be a second deletion or amendment of an existing privilege.

In the present Annex 1 all sub-paragraphs commencing with 4.4.5 specifically mention inter alia the privilege to act as Supervisor for the provision of the service concerned. This privilege is not reflected in the text of the proposed amendment (all sub-paragraphs commencing with 4.4.9).

It is IFATCA’s policy that persons acting as Supervisors must hold a valid rating for the facility/facilities they supervise. Therefore we are in favour of retaining the related privilege in the new Annex 1.

4.4.9.3 While recognising that the proposed inclusion of this paragraph is an improvement over the existing Annex 1, IFATCA ideally would like to see an even further improvement: the introduction of an ATC OJT-instructor rating (OJT = on-the-job training), broadly similar to the Flight Instructor rating for pilots.

Additionally, IFATCA is in favour of the introduction of an Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) rating. This is based on the following IFATCA policies:

“ATFM staff not performing clerical or administrative functions, so called ATFM controllers, must be qualified as ATCOs with recent experience in control duties on entry to ATFM services.”

“An ATFM controller must hold an ATFM rating. Such a rating will require the ATFM controller to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge, skill and experience of all relevant ATC procedures and ATFM duties”.

The first policy implies that a prospective ATFM controller already holds a valid ATC licence with one or more ratings. In our view it would therefore be logical to introduce an ATFM rating in Annex 1, with specified requirements concerning knowledge, skill and experience similar to the other ratings.

This concludes the comment of IFATCA. I once again apologise for having been unable to meet the deadline of September 25th for our reply, and like to express my sincere hope that the Air Navigation Commission will nevertheless take our comments into consideration when discussing the proposed amendment to Annex1.

Sincerely yours,

Bert Ruitenberg