SES ll and SESAR -Presentation to BBGA Annual Conference Brian Humphries CBE President EBAA 12 Mar 2013

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY SES II

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 2000Establishment of SES regulation June 2008SES-II regulation adopted. It is more performance-oriented: Performance Scheme Functional Airspace Blocks The Network Manager The Charging Regulation February 2013SES II+ European Commission developing a new legal framework concerning the performance and charging scheme for air navigation services for

“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 IP12010NowGen (2010) IP22018Mid-term in NextGen ( ) IP32020Far-term in NextGen ( ) THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE IS TO CREATE IT (Peter Drucker ) THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE IS TO CREATE IT (Peter Drucker )

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 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