Managed Airspace or Free Flight

1
Managed Airspace or Free Flight

• by
• Steve Zerkowitz
• Assistant Director Infrastructure Europe IATA

1
2
Results of RD programmes like PHARE.

• PHARE pre-dates the free flight concept
• PHARE is firmly ground based
• Advanced airborne capabilities are taken into
  account
• Within its confines PHARE is as daring as the
  free flight concept itself
• Proves what can be achieved by novel thinking and
  trust in computer support

3
Will it will solve our problems

• No single program can solve all problems
• OCD recognises need for Managed Airspace
• Managed Airspace will require advanced tools
• PHARE should be right at home in Managed Airspace
• Core area problems need to be addressed early on
  - PHARE is well positioned to do that

4
Is it a threat to airlines autonomy?

• Recognise OCD as necessary step beyond PHARE
  territory
• Put PHARE in the context of Managed Airspace, do
  not claim that it is an overall solution
• Refine PHARE results - CDM, SWIM, early free
  flight implementations
• No threat to autonomy if done right!

5
The concept of user-preferred trajectories

• 3D versus 4D trajectories
• The logistics of trajectory selection
• User preferred trajectory resource with
  dynamic, influences the bottom line
• The appeal of users managing their own
  trajectories
• Keep constraints to a minimum - each removed
  constraint is a step towards free flight!

6
Separation assurance - ground based or air based?

• See and avoid - the good old days
• Growing speed and aircraft numbers, flight in all
  kinds of weather - ground surveillance and
  control becomes essential
• Introduces inevitable inefficiencies (e.g.
  separation, trajectories)
• ATC some strategic and a lot of tactical
• Inefficiencies can be reduced by modern ATC
  tools, but....

7
Separation assurance ground based or air based?

• Could we let the aircraft take care of most of
  the tactical aspects?
• The electronic see and be seen and avoid
  environment
• NASA and EUROCONTROL FREER shows it can be done
• Where can decisions best be made??
• Not either or, but when and where one or the
  other. More RD is needed.

8
Practicalities of implementation

• Implementation is only partly a technical
  challenge
• Non-technical obstacles must also be addressed
• change of ATC culture
• one airspace for ATM
• rule making (ENPRM)
• training
• etc.

9
Potential for cost saving.

• Reduce delays, provide better trajectories
• Savings must outweigh the costs of deployment and
  operation
• Deployment decisions must be supported by
  appropriate cost-benefit analyses (deterministic
  or probabilistic)
• The economic arguments against free flight -
  based on false premises and disregard time scales.

10
Conclusions

• Our view of the future the OCD
• No need to see PHARE as being in conflict with
  this, but
• put in context (Managed Airspace)
• continue RD to explore the potential of free
  flight
• PHARE has shown what can be achieved with an open
  minded approach

11
Questions please!