6.1.1.Prior to making the decision: assessing the impact

• ED Decision 2023/005/R found in: GM Remote Aerodrome Air Traffic Services (Jan 2026)

##### 6.1.1. Prior to making the decision: assessing the impact *ED Decision 2023/005/R* Within the process of deciding to implement a remote aerodrome ATS operation, usually an impact assessment of various options is performed considering four areas: safety (including human performance), environment, economic (including a cost-benefit analysis) and social impacts, and the interdependencies between those areas. This section acknowledges these interdependencies and considers all factors affecting safety both in the short term (at implementation) and in the long term (once in operation), as well as those related to the longer-term economic costs for operations. Economy is often a main driver for the introduction of remote aerodrome ATS, especially when it comes to the multiple mode operations (reference SESAR PJ05 documentation). This is usually achieved by an increase of ATCO/AFISO productivity, consolidation of systems, reduced operating costs, and savings or release of land for facilities, which brings the necessity to assess the social field as well. The social impact of the implementation can be positive or negative. ATCOs/AFISOs are usually the most affected, but other workers can also be affected, such as maintenance staff (including ATSEP) and support staff. The implementation of the technology may not always result in relocation, and so may not be factored in as a social impact; however, the below areas may still need to be considered when deciding the introduction of remote aerodrome ATS operations: — Relocation of a group of staff from their conventional tower to the place from which aerodrome ATS will be provided (potentially crossing borders to places with different labour standards) — Impact on the number and types of jobs — Change of employer — Change of employment terms and conditions — Impact on the hours of service with a strong link to safety level — Impact on relatives of relocated staff — Impact on the cost of living for relocated staff — Staff turnover related to the implementation — Increase requirement for off-site work (during transition & over time for maintenance service) — Issues around staff competence (additional training, cross-validation on multiple aerodromes, reduced scope for maintenance services) — Consequences of failure to achieve the new competence expectations — Definition of an achievable and realistic timeline for implementation, including milestones Social consequences of the introduction of remote aerodrome ATS operations usually also go beyond the remit of ATM/ANS. When performing the assessment, the impact beyond ATM should also be taken into consideration. Here is a list of examples of such impact: — Impact on local and often remote communities — Impact on aerodrome operations — Impact on integrated aerodrome security with, for example, the difficulty triggered by the accessibility issues of the various stakeholders Therefore, all aspects of the change should be considered, such as: — Assessing the expected social impact before deciding to implement — Involving affected staff and their representatives at all steps of the project (refer to [the change management declaration of the ATM Social Partners](https://www.etf-europe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Change-Management-in-ATM.pdf); see Sections [6.3](#_DxCrossRefBm1764263622) and [6.4](#_DxCrossRefBm1764263675)) — Considering the consequences outside the field of ATM — Defining mitigating measures as appropriate In the social dialogue, affected parties could identify additional mitigating measures of financial and logistic nature to facilitate a socially smooth transition.