SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research Program)

As a part of the SES initiative, SESAR repre­sents the technological dimension of the plan, which will incorporate state-of-the-art innovative technology.

SESAR might be compared to the Next – Gen program in the United States and, like the Joint Planning and Development Office (JDPO), the planning segment of NextGen in the United States, it is a forward-looking program that involves all of the entities that operate within the air transport system. These include civil and mili­tary agencies of government, legislators, indus­try, operators, and users. These entities will be central to the defining, committing to, and imple­menting of a pan-European ATM system.

The SESAR program is separated into three sequential phases:

Definition Phase (2005-2008), now completed Development Phase (2008-2013), like Next­Gen, under development.

Deployment Phase (2014-2020), like Next­Gen, under development.

During the first phase, a European Master Plan was presented, bringing European ATM stakeholders together to produce and validate a common view of the future of European ATM. The updated second phase takes into account the global financial crises that began in 2008 after the Master Plan was published. It pro­poses to seek an impact statement to confirm that the Master Plan is affordable and can be done and to update the Plan in light of devel­opments. This is a work in progress, as is the remainder of the SESAR program. Fast-mov­ing technological developments, as well as global financial developments, will affect the deployment effort. The implementation phase will depend on accomplishing the goals of the second phase.

SESAR will incorporate the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) known as Galileo, into the ATM system to be launched. Details of the manner and means by which the new system will operate have not been disclosed, but it might be presumed that it will evolve in a similar manner to the NextGen plan in the United States. Part of the U. S. plan, in fact, is to reach out to the global community so that the several systems now on the drawing boards might be developed with the requirements of the others in mind. It makes sense that these satellite – based air traffic control systems be compatible to the extent possible so that the globalization of the air transport system will extend, not only to marketing and governmental policy develop­ments, like deregulation and Open Skies, but to operational considerations, like air traffic control, to enhance the seamless transition of air transport operations over the globe.

Harmonic Convergence

The United States and the EU are working simul­taneously on the complete transition of their air traffic control systems from land-based naviga­tion to satellite navigation. The fact is that these programs are being carried out separately, under separate management and with distinct chal­lenges; yet the hundreds of flights that travel between the two continents daily demand that these separate systems be compatible and that the flights be operationally seamless and safe.

There are also distinctions between the two systems that reflect the political and cultural dif­ferences between the United States and the coun­tries of Europe. The U. S. system is a federal one, while the EU must still deal with the concerns of 27 sovereign states. The controlling governmental entity for the United States is the FAA, while that for the EU is the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU), which consists of Eurocontrol, the European Commission, and 15 more member organizations.

The tentative nature of some aspects of each of the programs, partially because of still unde­veloped technological systems, unknown pricing, and even undetermined commitment, have caused skepticism and doubts among stakeholders (pri­marily airlines, on both sides of the Atlantic, who must equip their aircraft). All of this has been exacerbated by the global financial crisis, which has manifested itself in a very divisive manner in the EU and its separate Member States.

The uncertainties inherent in each of the programs contribute to difficulties in harmo­nization. There can be no doubt that each side understands that the systems must, in fact, be compatible and consistent, but both programs at this point still involve a lot of theory, unproven development, and the possibility of a change in course that will affect the financial conditions of both the private and governmental sectors.

Final developments cannot be stated with certainty under these conditions. There appears to be a bona fide commitment to accomplish the stated goals of both the United States and the EU, and hard work is proceeding in many quarters in the United States and in Europe; indeed, includ­ing private enterprise all over the world. Air traf­fic management systems are obsolete and must be fixed. Exactly what will develop, and when it will develop, remains to be seen.

Endnotes

1. Minestere Public v. Lucas Asjes, 3 C. L.R. 173, Eur. Ct.

R. 1425.

2. Common Mkt. Rep. (CCH) p. 202.7 (1978).

3. Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the Commission of the European Communi­ties regarding application of their Competition Laws, 1995 0. J. (L95) 47.

4. See discussion in Chapter 37.

5. Most developed countries have their own regulatory author­ity that is equivalent to the FAA. Here are some world­wide certification agencies: Canada—Transport Canada; Brazil—СТА; EU—EASA (27 countries); Kenya—KCAA; Russia—Aviation Register; China—CAAC; Japan—JCAB; Australia—CASA.

6. Lipinski, William 0., An Evaluation of the U. S.-EU Trade Relationship <http://www. house. gov./lipinski/ aviation. htm>.

7. Competition in the U. S. Aircraft Manufacturing Industry. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U. S. House of Representatives, July 26, 2001, U. S. Govern­ment Printing Office.

8. Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom.