If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user
7.2.2 Designation of MET providers
From SKYbrary Wiki
|This page displays officially adopted European Commission Guidance Material for the Establishment and Modification of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), edition 2.0 of 08 December 2011, following the positive opinion (about Version 1.0) of the Single Sky Committee in its 38th session on 3 December 2010 and additional review processes by the FFPG and SSC (of intermediate Version 1.2) in August and November 2011. See the disclaimer agreed by the Single Sky Committee regarding the non-binding and evolving nature of the Guidance Material and its initial use.|
7.2.2 Designation of MET service providers in a FAB
|Category:||FAB State Agreement|
|Content source:||European Commission|
Article 9 Regulation (EC) No 550/2004;
This option is also related to:
FAB option (Voluntary)
Explanatory material (e.g. scope, context, key or relevant issues to be considered etc)
There is no specific requirement with respect to designation of MET service providers that addresses FABs or cross-border provision of MET services beyond the optional provisions for designation at national level set in Article 9.1 SPR. The FAB States should nonetheless be aware of such designation, if any, done by one or several of the participating States. In such case, the FAB States may opt for a joint designation of MET provider(s) in specific blocks of airspace in the FAB in a similar manner with the joint designation of ATSPs.
Designation of MET providers, if opted for, must take into account safety considerations. The Member States concerned should review and accept the safety considerations in support of designation of the MET provider(s) before effectively making the designation.
Such safety considerations may developed by the concerned service provider(s) or, depending on relevant national law, by other authorities responsible for the organisation and provision of meteorological data and services, within consultation of the FAB stakeholders. The Member States concerned may opt to establish specific responsibilities and tasks in this regard. The joint designation act may define (optional) specific rights and obligations accompanying the designation, as deemed necessary by the States concerned.
Any joint designation of MET providers in a FAB must supersede previous designations of MET providers made individually by the FAB States - they need to ensure that previous designations are repelled and that there are no national acts contradictory with the joint designation of MET provider(s) in that FAB. If they decide to designate, the Member States concerned must immediately inform the Commission and other Member States of any decision taken within the framework of Article 9 SPR regarding the designation of a MET provider.
FAB Stakeholder(s) concerned
As a minimum, (joint) designation of MET providers should involve the national authorities responsible for provision of ANS, particularly of MET services to GAT. Wherever this responsibility, particularly for provision of MET services to GAT, is shared with the military, (joint) designation should also involve the military authorities having such responsibilities. Depending on relevant national law, the designation of MET providers may also need to involve other national authorities, such as those responsible for the organisation and provision of meteorological data and services.
Obviously, the designation should also involve ATS and MET service providers in the FAB, since it is important that the designation is made aiming not only to cater for safety considerations but also to optimise and efficientise ANS provision in the FAB. Similar consideration should be given to proper consultation of stakeholders in the frame of Article 10 FR as recommended in the previous section (7.2.1, same field).
Necessary and/or optional partnership arrangements, estimated feasibility and value-added
This requirement may be achieved through a different legal act than the agreement by which a FAB is established, in accordance with relevant national law of the States concerned.
Impacts or implications of arrangements, e.g. on FAB operations, stakeholders, performance, flexibility etc
The impact of designation of a MET service provider on FAB operations, stakeholders, performance etc may range from very low to significant and can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis by the States concerned. In particular, the impact of the safety considerations should be assessed.
Where there are little or no changes in the (joint) designation in the FAB from the possible previous national designations of MET provider(s), the impact may be low or negligible. A higher impact should be expected if/where (joint) designation of a MET service provider is made in the spirit required by the new FAB definition, i.e. by focusing specifically on performance-driven and optimised provision of ANS and related functions, with a view to enhanced cooperation among the ANSPs or, where appropriate and agreed by those States, an integrated provider. From this perspective, Member States may opt to consider the potential benefits and value-added by consolidation of the provision of MET service in the FAB.
Dependencies and relation to other requirements or conditions
Relation to Article 2.25 FR: The (joint) designation of MET provider(s) in a FAB should consider the shift of focus by SES II in the definition of a FAB (Article 2.25 FR) specifically on performance-driven and optimised provision of ANS and related functions, with a view to enhanced cooperation among the ANSPs or, where appropriate, an integrated provider.
Relation to Article 10.3 SPR: In case of designation of a MET provider, the approval of the Member States concerned is required for any written agreements or equivalent legal arrangements formalising working relationships among service providers in relation to the provision of meteorological services by that MET provider in the frame of Article 10 SPR.
Similar guidelines should be considered as in the case of the ATS providers (see section 7.2.1, same field). Article 10 SPR allows for more flexibility between the ANSPs complementary to the possible, optional (joint) designation made by the States concerned. LoAs between the ANSPs in such circumstances and which involve the provision of MET services should be seen as complementary legal instruments, not as circumventing ones.
Relation to Article 7 SPR: While there is no explicit requirement (such as in the case of ATS providers) that designation of a MET provider may be done only on condition that it is a certified provider in accordance with Article 7 SPR, this should be nonetheless considered as an implicit requirement. Designation of a MET service provider that does not meet the requirements of Article 7 SPR SPR would certainly be an infringement of the legal obligations established under SPR.
Recommended actions and supporting evidences
Reference material for implementation
Same as in section 7.2.1, same field.