Transcript Slide 1
SES ll and SESAR -Presentation to
BBGA Annual Conference
Brian Humphries CBE
President EBAA
12 Mar 2013
SES II
SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
An SES Mess
•
•
•
•
SES is a pan-European project to achieve a harmonised and efficient European airspace, benefitting
European mobility, competitiveness and the environment.
Initiative includes organising airspace into functional blocks, according to traffic flows rather than to national
borders.
It has been +10 years since the Commission first adopted proposals for SES
All initiatives have, so far, failed to deliver
November 2000
Establishment of SES regulation
June 2008
SES-II regulation adopted. It is more performance-oriented:
• Performance Scheme
• Functional Airspace Blocks
• The Network Manager
• The Charging Regulation
February 2013
SES II+
European Commission developing a new legal framework concerning the performance and charging
scheme for air navigation services for 2015-2019.
“SES is too important to be allowed to fail. We
have fallen seriously behind in our original
ambitions. After more than 10 years, the core
problems remain the same: too little
capacity generating the potential for a negative
impact on safety at too high a price. There are
some signs of change, but overall progress is
too slow and too limited. We need to
think of other solutions and apply them quickly.
There is too much national
fragmentation. Promised improvements
have not materialized.” – Vice-President Siim
Kallas, European Commissioner for transport,
11 October 2012
Where We Stand Today
• EU is taking a majority of states to EU court for failing to deliver on FABs
• Airspace users have filed lawsuit against Eurocontrol Member States for excessive route
charge payments
• EU Commission to have final vote on 2nd draft Regulations on performance scheme and
charging…and it’s not looking good
SESAR GOALS & OBJECTIVES
SESAR Objectives & Schedules
OBJECTIVES
To triple the traffic
To reduce route charges by 50%
To improve safety by a factor 10
To reduce emissions by 10%
SCHEDULE
Deployment in three steps
IP1
2010
NowGen (2010)
IP2
2018
Mid-term in NextGen (2012-2018)
IP3
2020
Far-term in NextGen (2019-2025)
THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE IS TO
(Peter Drucker)
CREATE IT
Business Aviation Vision
SAFETY FIRST
Elimination of non-precision approaches
Non-controlled airspace to become controllable
MINIMISE IMPACT ON AIRLINE TRAFFIC
Operate above airliners (above 41000 ft)
Develop “wake vortex free“ approaches to increase runway throughput
OPERATE IN HARMONY WITH LIGHT AVIATION
By promoting an ADS-B adapted to GA (UAT)
MITIGATE NOISE NUISANCE TO AIRPORT RESIDENTS
Special procedures (steep & curved approaches)
Benefits for Business Aviation
SAFETY
With ADS-B TMA of local airports are becoming "controllable"
ASAS self separation, virtual tower, dynamic airspace allocation
In low density airspace (above FL410, desert areas)
Developments of "cooperative self separation"
Elimination of non-precision approaches (LPV SBAS on any runway)
ENVIRONMENT
Cruise climb and Continuous Descent Approach “CDA" (in SBAS mode)
Development of special procedures to mitigate noise nuisance
OPERATIONS
Complete flight plan optimisation (business trajectory)
"Free flight" in "cruise climb" all over Europe
"3D pseudo ILS" down to 200 ft on any runway
Possibility to operate to CAT2/3 for EVS aircraft equipped
4D BUSINESS TRAJECTORY VERSUS
INITIAL 4D
4D Business Trajectory – BusAv Vision
PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE
User selects and negotiates flight profile (trajectory, flight levels, speed)
ATC facilitates Reference Business Trajectory (RBT)
User owns Reference Business Trajectory
4D RBT allows user to follow flight profile
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
ATC based on “A/C real time positions”
“4D RBT” & “last Wind/Temp forecast” predicts potential “conflicts” up to one hour in advance
ATC offers “strategic separation” by flight level or trajectory changes
ATC offers “tactical separation” by lateral deviations
Today under ATC control (minimum separation 5 nm)
Tomorrow by delegation of the separation to the pilot (ADS-B & ASAS) down to 3 nm (*)
* a 3nm lateral deviation, initiated 5 minutes before the conflict, induces a delay of only 2 seconds
Initial 4D & Required Time of Arrival (RTA)
Likely Impact
RTA FUNCTIONALITY
Need to transmit aircraft trajectory data to all enroute ANSPs – CPDLC and ADS-C?
Prediction based on aircraft speed, flight plan, and predicted wind/temperature conditions
RTA accuracies will depend on accuracy of wind data
Certification conditions not yet defined (no AMC currently available)
RTA will probably be only certified as “advisory”
BENEFITS & DRAWBACKS
Should improve prediction of arrivals and aircraft sequencing
Has to be provided only to aircraft which are on dedicated track (not affecting the others)
Will not be certified as “primary means of separation”
Will require specific pilot training
Expensive (especially if we have to change the FMS)
A prerequisite to RTA is to put in place a weather data broadcast facility (wind/temp)
Weather data used by aircraft and ATC must be accurate and the same
4D RBT vs Initial 4D
WHAT USERS NEED FOR 4D RBT
Tools to use 4D RBT (network, sectors)
Tools to predict aircraft conflicts and arrivals
Aircraft position (ADS-B), flight plan based on RBTs, unique real-time wind/temp model
To keep ATC stability, aircraft will have to follow RBTs
RISKS FOR USERS OF i4D
i4D used in cruise conditions likely to generate instability in conflict management
i4D will require additional pilot / ATC dialogue, Increasing rather than reducing ATC workload
i4D will not permit redefinition of ATC sectors around the traffic axes
i4D likely to prevent operators flying their requested 4D RBT
i4D will have a real cost impact on users (avionics and services e.g. need for VERY accurate weather data)
i4D onboard navigation needs three prerequisites : PBN, ADS-B, weather broadcast
COST?
Risks of the proposed solution
Too much focus on time constraints which
could destabilise the network & ATM
predictions
EBAA seeking single constraint ONLY
for arrival sequencing - NOT for
separation
I4D would be linked with extended arrival
managers at major hubs potentially affecting
all aircraft in the airspace even those not
flying to hubs
EBAA opposing the prioritisation of
‘regulated’ flights over aircraft not
flying to hubs
Technologies needed are expensive
OUTLOOK – DISAPPOINTING!!
THANK YOU