Defining the sky

Europe has just set in motion the relentless machine that will decide how its common ATM system will develop between now and 2025. But will it deliver?

When Eurocontrol was set up in 1960, its objective was to create a single pan-European block of upper airspace. Last month the project definition phase for just such a programme began – nearly half a century after the idea was hatched.

The SESAR Consortium – the group tasked with defining the tools, processes, regulations and technical requirements to make it happen – began work in March. Its product – to be delivered in 2008 – will be a detailed roadmap for the entire Single European Sky (SES) programme to 2025, and the precise work schedule for the 2008-2013 development phase.

SESAR originally stood for the Single European Sky ATM [air traffic management] Research project, but now it has lost its acronym status and become shorthand for the entire SES implementation programme. Despite the optimism that once surrounded the pan-European political backing for the SES concept, the project is viewed with cynicism by many in the industry. It is one thing to get politicians to agree to a multinational concept, but when it has to be turned into reality, with decisions made, national laws changed and state-owned air navigation service providers (ANSP) forced to make compromises, the practice may be very different.

Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) general secretary Alexander ter Kuile says: “The ANSPs are ready to act as businesses. Whether they are allowed to is entirely dependent on government.”

Debacle feared

Speaking for the airline users of the future European ATM system, International Air Transport Association director general, Giovanni Bisignani says he fears a re-run of the Central European Air Traffic System (CEATS) debacle. For all the hopes vested in creating a single multinational block of upper airspace in central and eastern Europe, the plan collapsed totally after nine years of effort despite an investment of c40 million ($49 million) extracted, Bisignani observes bitterly, from the airlines’ user charges.

“Let’s avoid the mistakes made over CEATS,” he says. “This time, let’s get a system of governance that can make it happen.” Politicians have to stay out of this, says Bisignani in a tone that suggests he thinks this is a forlorn hope. “We need political backing for this, but we need politicians who have a vision, and who do not want to micro-manage the process.”

The SES changed from a vision to a project when it received active backing from former European Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. It was she who steered it through the complex steps towards political approval of the concept and the creation of the SES enabling legislation. But then Eurocontrol, which had already produced a roadmap of the conceptual system development phases, was left with a plan, but no executive authority to implement it. Only the European Commission has the authority, and even that organisation is powerless if – at any of the project milestones when decisions are needed – national governments withhold their approval for the next step.

In July 2002 a group of manufacturers – EADS, Thales and Airbus – approached the EC directly with a plan for getting the SES project airborne. They called it SESAME, after the magic password that opened Ali Baba’s cave, but the name later mutated to SESAR.

The Commission liked the ideas the group put forward and asked it to submit a bid to carry out the project-definition phase of the SES programme, which – being essentially research and project planning – would be funded 50/50 by the EC and Eurocontrol to a total of c60 million. EADS, Thales and Airbus created a group for the purpose, called the Air Traffic Alliance (ATA).

ATA vice-president marketing and operations Christian Dumas says the group’s rationale for trying to kick-start the SESAR process was simple: “There is no point in manufacturers making equipment if there is no market for it because lack of ATM capacity has stifled expansion. We saw a window of opportunity. It’s just about making things happen.” ATA president Jean-Francois Bou adds: “Manufacturing industry wants to make sure we are not constrained by systems that are bespoke and do not talk to each other. Last but not least, we want to see that Europe is not working in isolation.”

CANSO’s ter Kuile admits there was real concern that, with major manufacturers having won a position of such influence with the EC, the whole project would become technology-led instead of user-led. As a result, pressure on the EC led to ATA gathering a large stakeholder group together. This included companies and organisations from all the sectors with an interest in European ATM – airlines, ANSPs, airports, pilot and controller groups, and manufacturers. The whole group is now known as the SESAR Consortium (see box).

In November 2004, the EC awarded the consortium the contract for the SES project definition phase. They will, throughout the process, work with Eurocontrol and the EC, which between them wield 60% of the vote in governance terms. This worries ter Kuile. “That cannot be,” he says. “This is an industry project – defining methodology and technology for the future – and its structure is that of a public/private partnership. Since this is so, the EC and Eurocontrol should give the industry at least 50% of the governance vote. It is industry that is taking the business risk on the SES, airlines will be operating within it, the industry’s profits depend on it, and their future is dependent on it.”

ATA insists that the SESAR project definition phase “is not about reinventing wheels”. It is, the alliance says, “a bottom-up approach to designing an ATM system”. The expression “bottom-up approach” crops up frequently in conversations with ATA and Eurocontrol about SESAR. The implication is that previous – and existing – systems were developed “top-down” and imposed upon users by an alliance of states, aviation authorities and manufacturers.

Political support

The significance of the EC’s approval of the SESAR project as currently mapped out, says ATA, is that the industry has received political support for a completely new approach to ATM development. ATA admits the SES implementation process will inevitably see some top-down policy-making.

Decisions on the shape and extent of multinational functional airspace blocks – a crucial airspace redesign requirement if the SES is ever to reach its potential as the most efficient ATM system Europe could have – will inevitably be influenced by political considerations, says the alliance.

Nevertheless, CANSO’s ter Kuile has reservations about the unwieldy nature of the industry group brought together in the SESAR Consortium – and indeed for the ongoing SES project all the way forward to 2025, during which political approval will frequently have to be sought. “It has the potential to be a nightmare project,” says ter Kuile. “You have more than 25 states involved, plus a multitude of industry players. It will require very sound project management to get this done within the timeframe and the price.”

Conscious of the potential problems highlighted by ter Kuile, ATA’s Dumas says the project definition phase is about drawing together a mass of high-level expertise and “banging heads together”.

The first objective, says Dumas, is “to get buy-in from all parties”. But with a large group of such diverse interests, will useful decisions emerge? Yes, says Dumas, adding: “Will they be the best decisions? I hope so, but I don’t care. There is no such thing as a perfect decision. The 80/20 concept is a good one to apply because there will always be some dissent among 200-300 participants.”

At least the timeframe has been established, the governance system agreed, the milestone objectives set (see box) and the funding supplied, he says. ATA’s Bou says the governance system will ensure that the bottom-up approach will prevail, and politics will not intrude during the definition phase.

The process will be transparent, the ATA insists. At each milestone, decisions will be disclosed. For example, at the first of the six milestones punctuating the two-year definition phase, the objective is to have identified the size and nature of the air transport and aviation industry the new ATM system will have to serve and support. That entails calculating the probable growth and development of air transport, general aviation and the military from 2008 to 2025, and predicting how the role of ANSPs is likely to evolve during that period.

At the penultimate milestone, says ATA, the EC should have agreed the ATM “master plan”. That will contain “a certain level of detail that will provide a basis on which decisions can be taken”. The detail will include what technologies are required, by when, what the risks are, and what has to be done to enable implementation, says the ATA. Meanwhile, taking a straw poll of parties to the SESAR project, there seems to be near unanimity – at this stage – that the surveillance system of the future will be an advanced form of automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B) with integrity levels beyond what is available at present.

Interoperability – not just within Europe but globally – is the key for future ATM, ter Kuile insists, and the ANSP members of CANSO realise that. SESAR must base everything it decides on this, he says, adding: “Somebody will need to define interoperability, but that does not mean they should get involved in specifying the technology.”

Ter Kuile clearly has his fingers crossed when he says: “There is no going back. The [SESAR] train has left the station. Both industry and government are firmly on it. For industry, it is a matter of making the most of it, of avoiding wasting money, with eyes clearly fixed on getting results. The rail tracks will lead us up steep hills, past dangerous gorges and over wobbly bridges. Lets see how far we get without losing a wagon or two.”

DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

Source: Flight International